Gay Marriage

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by xoTayGirl

Because, on the whole, the human race is a bunch of morons. Not to mention the people running America for example are still old timers for the most part, and they carry with them a set of old morals. If they were born in the 1940s, for example, it wouldn't be surprising if they were a bit racist, despite claiming that they're with the times. (Point-in-case, I'm a white chick and my father [born in the 40's] had a problem with me flirting with a Hispanic guy.)

Anyway, my point here is that if there's these sort of problems, gay marriage is gonna be a topic that gets roadblocked by the old school adults and super religious adults who have voting rights. I, like many others in my age group, am for gay marriage. But according to Washington, my opinion means nothing until I start paying taxes at age 18. Therefore the true majority opinion goes unheard.

Give it a while, wait for the politicians of today to die/resign/whatever and then let our generation get in there.

Not exactly a good thing. I've seen my generation. They're all fucking retarded. Every last one. The kind of people likely to make halo a national sport. Idiots.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Originally Posted by MrsSallyBakura

Hmm...

I came across a few articles on a website the other day actually putting into detail why Catholics are against gay marriage.

Like, it's really, really detailed. It'd take forever to read all of it.

But I highly encourage it, because I personally learned a lot from it.

The guy who wrote it was in the gay community for 7 years, being officially "out" during 2 of those years. Along with the article against gay marriage, he has another one against gay sex, his testimony about his experience in the gay community, and Bible verses backing up the reasons for being against all that.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/wh...y_marriage.htm

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/wh...st_gay_sex.htm

http://www.davidmacd.com/web_pages/gay_testimony.htm

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/bi...homosexual.htm

Like I said, it's a lot of reading and I didn't even get through all of it. But if you could only read one page, I'd pick the testimony.

Some of the most interesting points are the ones about "secular fundamentalism" and how just like any other form of fundamentalism, it can be very extremist and dangerous towards society.

He also said that most gay people don't actually want to be married; they just campaigned for it as a political tool of sorts.

I just thought I'd share this information in this thread, since it goes into greater detail with real experience than anyone on this site could probably share.

*waits for people to read and comment instead of saying the same stuff over and over again*

[Fat1Fared]

I read it sally, but because it didn't agree with my views I instantly dismissed it as WRONG ^_-

-Well, only got through first part as read it in exams and never got to make point on it as didn't have time:-

Well the overall feeling I got was that is was still trying to find meaning in meaningless:-

take part about marriage rates being low, well is that reason to say should be banned?

1=There are probably more reasons than merely not caring at heart here, such as fact still lot of stimagra to it...etc

2=Church going rates are low as well, should ban church?

3=He has taken that point out and warped it context, the fact is, he is saying fact trying to make gayness normal is wrong and so if poeple don't care enough about point shouldn't be allowed (that is bare bones of his point, once get past flowery words) (Is it? well that leads back to 50 page paradox we made here on this site lol)
-They probably don't care, I actually don't know and will not say I know more than him, as clearly don't however, I get feeling that even if it isn't marriage par-say they want, it is merely to be accepted and treated normally!!! Is that wrong?
-Also this is probably the old, I don't actually want to go to party, but still nice to get invited, I mean just because not many take up choice, isn't justifiable reason not to give it(as made with church point above) and it is the social not physical victory they want,

Laws currently under attack by gay lobbyists include those that forbid public nudity, public sex (i.e., public washrooms and parks), group sex (i.e., bathhouses), and importation of pornography. (Capital Xtra, Apr 11,2005) As well they are fighting to legitimize the "sex trade" (male and female prostitution), and lowering the age of consent for anal sex to include 14 year old boys and girls. They are lobbying the school boards for sex education programs aimed at 11 year old girls and boys that include graphic images of how to perform anal and oral sex.

I have trouble reconciling this simultaneous lobby for "sexual fidelity" in a "marriage" while they push for bathhouses, legalization of anal sex with 14 year olds, etc... I'm sorry but these issues are not "Human Rights," these are "Human Wrongs!"

Though this was bit that really put me off it, this is like saying all religious poeple want to blow poeple up, I mean come on, sure there will be some extremist gay groups, like some extremist feremine and religious groups, but to then make all want same thing is a disgrace, aspically when he probably spents half his time as Christian fighting same point:-

The genesis of the modern "human rights" movement is based on Christian theological principles

I can SAY NOW, THAT THIS IS F))KING LIE, I just spent last year studying these and it wasn't a religious thing at ALL, infact it went against many religious Beliefs, which changed to match IT, along with many countries,

I don't believe the answer to our problems is more freedom. I believe the solution lies in a personal relationship with Jesus. At Lourdes, France on Aug 15, 2004, Pope JP II said:

... Be men and women of freedom! But remember: human freedom is a freedom wounded by sin. It is a freedom which itself needs to be set free. Christ is its liberator.

All humans have sexuality. It's God's gift, but with any gift comes a great responsibility. Sex is powerful. People are born from sex, people die from sex (STD's). If I get a powerful gift for Christmas, say a car, there are rules that keep me safe. I think it is the same with sexuality.

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence ... (Gal 5:1, 13-18)

Simple, I'm not into Jesus, so I will take gay marriage and all others things, I like, he doesn't (know sounding childish now, but last one really got me)

There is currently an anti Christian bias in the Canadian Government. Christian lobby groups receive no Government funding whatsoever and Churches lose their charitable status if they lobby. On the other hand, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) which has fueled the gay marriage bill, has received generous donations from Canadian Government organizations like the Court Challenges Program, Ontario Trillium Foundation, Heritage Canada, and the National Film Board of Canada.

The Government is giving the gay community money to lobby the Government to change the laws.

This is an example of the current anti-Christian double standard in Canada. And the mere mention that there is discrimination against Christians unleashes a tirade of criticism from the gay friendly press. The Liberal Government of Canada got into power by saying they would restore democracy into the House of Commons. Three months later Prime Minister Martin forced his cabinet to vote with him on gay marriage or lose their positions. The vote (Bill C-38) passed and Gay Marriage is now legal in Canada. The Canadian gay paper said:

We LIVE in system of Dictictor Based Democracy, so if we vote a government (and wasn't even a government, which could do this, it would be a parliament (or cranda's version) however I will forgive his lack of legal knowledge on how legal systems work) we do it, because we believe they are ones who will make choices closest to our own and so if make an anti-Christian/Pro Gay movement, that is because that is what we Wanted, if no longer want that, we vote them out.

This isn't double standards, this is merely following will of Canadian Poeple (which is there job)

Many advocates of same sex marriage think of gender as a sort of "Mr. Potato Head" game where the core of all people is the same and only the body parts are different.

I believe this is wrong and that men and women are different to the core. I think any psychologist will confirm this as will the author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. I think kids need a mom and a dad. Bishop Henry said:

Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to same-sex couples is not discrimination. It is not something opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires such an opposition. The committed union of two people of the same sex is not the same human reality as the committed union of one man and one woman. A same-sex union is not a physical union that transmits human life, producing children. A same-sex union is not the joining of two complementary natures that complete each other. Simply stated, a same sex union is not marriage. The idea that homosexuals can create same sex "marriage" through their individual choice is false. All the packaging in the world doesn't alter substance. F. B. Henry, Bishop of Calgary

I agree, that man and woman are different, but how does that effect us here, there is more reasons to sex, than babies, even in straight sex

The effect on children and families

The gay marriage agenda is not only targeted at adults in society but children also. There is an agenda to teach our children that gay marriage is ok. In some areas children who bring their parent's Christian beliefs about marriage into school are being disciplined. And gay marriage is not even legal yet. It is no wonder that more and more Christian families are turning to home schooling.

France is the one of the most liberal countries in the world. Yet after an exhaustive secular study it determined that gay marriage would be bad for children and so they did not make it legal.

A friend of mine's daughter went to England to visit. While there she stayed with a lesbian couple who were friends with the mother. Although the daughter had always dated boys, she came back saying, maybe I'll fall in love with a woman, would that be OK mom? I can't say whether the 16 year old is latent lesbian or not, but I think it is clear that kids that age are very mixed up about their sexuality. Their bodies are changing at an amazing rate and they are confused about a lot of things.

WRONG, already been proven, that gay parents far from being debtremenal and making lots of gay kids, make generally really good parents and lots of straight kids, these are single limited examples

Hetero marriage is screwed up, so why not have homo marriage?

I have a full article on hetero marriage here. In recent years, the institution of marriage has gone through a metamorphosis. Divorces are at an all time high, and the percentage of extra-marital affairs is skyrocketing. Faithful marriages that practice fidelity are scarce these days. Against this backdrop we can see why most Canadians aren't too concerned about the definition of marriage.

But even with the recent breakdown of hetero marriages, hetero relationships last much longer than gay relationships. In the Netherlands, the most gay-friendly country in the world, gay men have a very difficult time honouring the ideal of marriage, even though it is legal there. A British medical journal reports that gay relationships last, on average, 1.5 years and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly "committed" relationships. Contrast that with 41% of first hetero marriages in Canada end before their 15th anniversary, and 1 in 10 Canadians have an extra marital affair. Now I'm going to say something that people say is extremely intolerant, but is a statistical fact. Today, the average life span of sexually active gay men is 38 years old. 4 I think abstinence is much safer, and healthier. And that is the life I have chosen.

Personally, I feel this is simply down to personal background/feeling, so should be choice
=if he had been raised in my family, he wouldn't be so PRO-stay together no matter what, (I was happy my parents split up, tells own story and though I don't have stats for it, I don't think that this feeling of marriage/love being forever is right, if is gone, let it go,
=Now this isn't to say that break up every 5minutes...etc, yes have to work at marriage, but sometimes, things are better left broken

[XxEnslavedNekoxX]

I still wonder why people are so distraught over this topic. Sure, I believe that God exists, but with so many murders and rapes and other horrible things going on, is the union of two people of the same sex really such a horrible thing?

Yes, the bible states that it is wrong, but the Bible was written by MEN not by God. It may be a holy book but who is to say that it itself is not tainted? Can we really say that men would just write down the word of God and not put in their own feelings on the matter? There is no where in the Ten Comandments that were Written by God that says that this union is an abomination. So if it is so horrible, why not put it in the Commandments instead of the Bible itself?

Secondly, I think the churches has every right to deny it. As much as I am for it, it is their right no matter how wrong I think they may be, I don't have a definate religion. However, in that same aspect, people aren't supposed to divorce either. Marriage itself is supposed to be forever but has become so much of a joke. Most people do not stay married for too long these days because they are able to get divorced. This seems to be more a blow and a mocking act than to people of the same sex getting married. If we can turn marriage into such a mockery, then what is left to protect?

Third, if it hasn't been done already, why not make a church where gays are allowed to marry? We have to remember that our God isn't the only god out there. There are alot of other different religions, though the punishment for being gay may be more severe. What is to stop them from developing their own religion and bringing it up. If the gay community made their own deities and religion, what would happen then? Would it still be banned by the government? And if it was, then they would be discriminating their religion. We have new religions popping up all the time.

Either way, I've always been told that the Governement and the Churches need to stay seperate. And in a place where Discrimination is looked down upon, how is this problem going to be solved? If we let gays marry, the church gets angry and says it's an act against God, if we don't let them marry, we are discriminationg against them for being who they are?

Though, since they already sleep together, what is the difference between gays living together, sleeping together, and eating together, and being married other than a few vows and a wedding band?

[darkarcher]

neko, paragraphs tend to work wonders in making your argument more understandable.

[XxEnslavedNekoxX]

Originally Posted by darkarcher

neko, paragraphs tend to work wonders in making your argument more understandable.

Thank you DA. Often times I forget to go back and make sure it looks right. @_@ I'll do better next time. Promise :D

[MrsSallyBakura]

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

-Well, only got through first part as read it in exams and never got to make point on it as didn't have time:-

I understand and I don't expect you to read the rest of it. But reading the rest of it will fill in gaps that you are missing in some of your arguments. lol

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

take part about marriage rates being low, well is that reason to say should be banned?

The issue isn't that the marriage rates are low. The issue, as he stated in the article, is that many people in the active gay community itself don't want to get married, including the people who are campaigning for it. I trust his opinion because as stated in his testimony, he was a huge member of the gay community in Broadway and in Canada.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

1=There are probably more reasons than merely not caring at heart here, such as fact still lot of stimagra to it...etc

There's also a big stigma against homosexual activity as a whole, but that's not stopping people from being a part of the culture.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

2=Church going rates are low as well, should ban church?

No, because the United States in particular has this thing called "separation of church and state," so if the government wanted to ban church, they'd be breaking constitution. And even so, it's not going to stop people from worshiping because they can just do it the way early Christians do it and celebrate in people's homes.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

3=He has taken that point out and warped it context, the fact is, he is saying fact trying to make gayness normal is wrong and so if poeple don't care enough about point shouldn't be allowed (that is bare bones of his point, once get past flowery words) (Is it? well that leads back to 50 page paradox we made here on this site lol)

Mmm, he believes that it shouldn't be allowed anyways, regardless of the popular or unpopular opinion. I think that he understands that people believe differently, but he also believes in an objective truth and God so he believes that God's truth is better than any human being's truth.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

-They probably don't care, I actually don't know and will not say I know more than him, as clearly don't however, I get feeling that even if it isn't marriage par-say they want, it is merely to be accepted and treated normally!!! Is that wrong?

He's not saying to treat gays differently from other people. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states (and I think he sites this somewhere in at least one of the 4 articles) that gay people should be treated with dignity and just like any other human being despite whatever sin they've committed. Loving people and condoning their actions is NOT the same thing, and I've already talked about this and wished that people truly understood the difference, even if they still don't believe in what people say about the matter.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

-Also this is probably the old, I don't actually want to go to party, but still nice to get invited, I mean just because not many take up choice, isn't justifiable reason not to give it(as made with church point above) and it is the social not physical victory they want,

No human can judge what anybody wants when they commit a sin. And even if we did know, it doesn't necessarily make it any less wrong. If they're ignorant of the fact that it's wrong then that may affect their salvation and God is merciful and understanding when it comes to that sort of thing depending on the circumstances, but that doesn't make it OK.

I know you don't really buy the whole Jesus thing so I'm not expecting you to believe all this, but I thought I'd bring this up anyways because people who are religious believe that there is a greater love available for them than one from someone who is an active member of the gay community.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Though this was bit that really put me off it, this is like saying all religious poeple want to blow poeple up, I mean come on, sure there will be some extremist gay groups, like some extremist feremine and religious groups, but to then make all want same thing is a disgrace, aspically when he probably spents half his time as Christian fighting same point:-

Did you completely skip over the part where he talks about fundamentalism?

I actually have something in common with many of the people who are advocating for the gay community. I have a big problem with the idea of fundamentalism in any form. Fundamentalist Christianity can be narrow, some fundamentalist Moslems blow up buildings, and communist fundamentalists killed millions to take over Russia. Paradoxically, many people in the gay community don't realize that they are practicing a new form of fundamentalism:

Secular Fundamentalism

This is also a very dangerous kind of fundamentalism. It turns human rights into a fundamentalist religion and makes human rights legislation its bible. And then it proceeds to misread human rights legislation to its own ends, the same way that some fundamentalist Moslems use the Koran to justify violence, the way some fundamentalist Christians justified slavery, and the way communist fundamentalists justified killing Christians because Christians were against the "common good." I think all forms of fundamentalism are dangerous.

The difference between secular fundamentalism and Christian or Muslim fundamentalism is that the government and our own society seems to be tolerating it much more. I believe that all forms of fundamentalism are dangerous as well, as it is typical Catholic behavior to have a moderate attitude even if our opinions are considered more "extreme" (the Bible even says to behave more moderately and having an extreme attitude in any situation is ungodly... unfortunately I can't remember where that's located at the moment).

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

I can SAY NOW, THAT THIS IS F))KING LIE, I just spent last year studying these and it wasn't a religious thing at ALL, infact it went against many religious Beliefs, which changed to match IT, along with many countries,

Then could you please give me some sources to prove against that instead of making a vague statement?

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Simple, I'm not into Jesus, so I will take gay marriage and all others things, I like, he doesn't (know sounding childish now, but last one really got me)

Never expected you to convert after reading the article. ;)

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

We LIVE in system of Dictictor Based Democracy, so if we vote a government (and wasn't even a government, which could do this, it would be a parliament (or cranda's version) however I will forgive his lack of legal knowledge on how legal systems work) we do it, because we believe they are ones who will make choices closest to our own and so if make an anti-Christian/Pro Gay movement, that is because that is what we Wanted, if no longer want that, we vote them out.

This isn't double standards, this is merely following will of Canadian Poeple (which is there job)

First of all, it's not really as simple as it sounds. For one, not everyone is of the same opinion. There probably ARE citizens in Canada who are severely anti-Christian and pro-gay, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE is.

In the previous election, the state of Michigan was given a proposal to legalize embryonic stem cell research, named Proposal 2. You have to understand that the vast majority of proposals end up being voted Yes by a vast majority because a lot of people's opinions aren't strong enough to go against the proposal and they'd rather vote the affirmative. This can be seen through the results of Proposal 1 (the legalization of medical marijuana) which won at least 70% of the vote no sweat. However, proposal 2 was different. It won at the skin of its teeth 52% to 47%. They were still counting the ballots long after President Obama was elected, and it was a neck-in-neck race the entire way through, the No side only trailing slightly behind the Yes side. However, despite the fact that nearly half the state of Michigan is against embryonic stem cell research, they didn't get much of a say in the issue.

So to use your logic and say, "Well that's what the people wanted" in my mind is bullshit.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

I agree, that man and woman are different, but how does that effect us here, there is more reasons to sex, than babies, even in straight sex

You're right in that there's more to sex than babies. But there's also more to sex than bonding. You need BOTH. They cannot be separated. This is why the Catholic Church is against birth control; they feel that the acceptance of birth control has undermined the importance of being fruitful in a marital relationship and takes away some responsibility in having sex in that you can just have it whenever you want without consequence (or at least, that's the mindset birth control gives you despite the fact that it's not 100% guaranteed).

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

WRONG, already been proven, that gay parents far from being debtremenal and making lots of gay kids, make generally really good parents and lots of straight kids, these are single limited examples

I think you're misunderstanding his point. He's not saying that every child who was raised by gay parents gets sexually confused, he's just saying that it happens. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that it NEVER happens, and that's not true either. Also if gays make such great parents according to studies, I'd like to see them.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Personally, I feel this is simply down to personal background/feeling, so should be choice
=if he had been raised in my family, he wouldn't be so PRO-stay together no matter what, (I was happy my parents split up, tells own story and though I don't have stats for it, I don't think that this feeling of marriage/love being forever is right, if is gone, let it go,
=Now this isn't to say that break up every 5minutes...etc, yes have to work at marriage, but sometimes, things are better left broken

I don't think he's saying that parents should never split up. Sometimes it really, really needs to happen. It's just that people rush into marriage without thinking of the responsibility behind being married to someone and they don't realize what kind of life-long commitment they've made until it's too late. The Catholic Church allows for divorce and even annulments for people who may have been married "invalidly" in the church, so I don't think anyone is condoning staying in an abusive or neglectful relationship, for example.

And I thank you for reading even one of the articles. That's more than what anyone else did it seems, lol.

Originally Posted by xEnslavedNekox

I still wonder why people are so distraught over this topic. Sure, I believe that God exists, but with so many murders and rapes and other horrible things going on, is the union of two people of the same sex really such a horrible thing?

Logically speaking and considering the consequences of other people, murder and rape would probably be considered graver sins. However, the Church believes that homosexual sex hurts yourself as well as your partner... not in the same way that rape would, but all sin separates us from God to a certain degree, and any sexual sin is very grave because of how beautiful and God-given of a gift sex is.

Originally Posted by xEnslavedNekox

Yes, the bible states that it is wrong, but the Bible was written by MEN not by God. It may be a holy book but who is to say that it itself is not tainted? Can we really say that men would just write down the word of God and not put in their own feelings on the matter? There is no where in the Ten Comandments that were Written by God that says that this union is an abomination. So if it is so horrible, why not put it in the Commandments instead of the Bible itself?

The Bible is said to be written by men but inspired by God. While it is entirely possible for the men not to have been all that great at discerning the inspiration to be either God or some other faulty spirit, I'm not really under that opinion. The Church took about 300 years to finally gather the right books to be used for the Bible so there was a lot of thinking and praying and reading going on during that time.

Originally Posted by xEnslavedNekox

Secondly, I think the churches has every right to deny it. As much as I am for it, it is their right no matter how wrong I think they may be, I don't have a definate religion. However, in that same aspect, people aren't supposed to divorce either. Marriage itself is supposed to be forever but has become so much of a joke. Most people do not stay married for too long these days because they are able to get divorced. This seems to be more a blow and a mocking act than to people of the same sex getting married. If we can turn marriage into such a mockery, then what is left to protect?

Thank you for your respect towards churches' decisions on the matter. I believe that you're completely right that marriage has turned into a mockery and it's a shame that people can get in and out of them so easily. But bear in mind that the Catholic Church in particular is very strenuous about marriage preparation and the aftermath of a marriage should the couple get divorced. If you want to get married in the Catholic Church, then you have to have at least 6 months of marriage preparation (some churches say that you need a year) and take courses on what kind of life they should probably live while married. If you want to get remarried in the Church, then you have to get an annulment and have the Church verify that your marriage was invalid in the eyes of God. I'm not sure what other denominations do with the whole marriage thing, but chance are that they don't take the whole thing very lightly either. The people who are married faithfully and exemplify fidelity can be examples of what marriage is supposed to be like.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Originally Posted by xEnslavedNekox

Third, if it hasn't been done already, why not make a church where gays are allowed to marry? We have to remember that our God isn't the only god out there. There are alot of other different religions, though the punishment for being gay may be more severe. What is to stop them from developing their own religion and bringing it up. If the gay community made their own deities and religion, what would happen then? Would it still be banned by the government? And if it was, then they would be discriminating their religion. We have new religions popping up all the time.

There are churches that allow gays to marry. And I've never been a fan of making new religions just because people don't like something about another church. That's their choice and I don't plan on going out of my way to stop any of this anytime soon, but that's my opinion. The institution of multiple religions is encouraging people to believe that there are multiple truths, and that I don't think is true.

Originally Posted by xEnslavedNekox

Either way, I've always been told that the Governement and the Churches need to stay seperate. And in a place where Discrimination is looked down upon, how is this problem going to be solved? If we let gays marry, the church gets angry and says it's an act against God, if we don't let them marry, we are discriminationg against them for being who they are?

Discrimination is a touchy thing. Anything can be considered discrimination if you twist the word around enough. I don't think most churches will be "angry" about the whole gay marriage thing, so to speak, they'll just voice their opinions on the matter and make sure that they're heard (and hopefully in a more peaceful way rather than one of hate, since Christ doesn't hate anyone).

Speaking of hate, when we say that gay people can't marry, we're not saying that we're preventing them from being who they are. As people, we shouldn't define our whole person by our sexual orientation. I am under the opinion that while we're sexual beings, we're not sexual to the point where we can't control what we do with our sexuality. There is more to our psychological and personal makeup than what sex/gender we're attracted to.

Originally Posted by xEnslavedNekox

Though, since they already sleep together, what is the difference between gays living together, sleeping together, and eating together, and being married other than a few vows and a wedding band?

The difference is mostly the title of being married. Plus there's probably more paperwork involved as well. When I hear that another state has legalized gay marriage, I ignore the hype, sigh, and move on with life.

WOOOOOW that was long. XDD

TOO LONG EVEN FOR ONE POST.

Over 16,000 characters. That's gotta win some award or something.

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by MrsSallyBakura

I understand and I don't expect you to read the rest of it. But reading the rest of it will fill in gaps that you are missing in some of your arguments. lol

yer exams are over, so when next get chance, will read next part, as I will abmit it was interesting read, and who knows, maybe next part will feel less of finding justification in something, for sake of justifing it:-

The issue isn't that the marriage rates are low. The issue, as he stated in the article, is that many people in the active gay community itself don't want to get married, including the people who are campaigning for it. I trust his opinion because as stated in his testimony, he was a huge member of the gay community in Broadway and in Canada.

I know, but point I was making is, that even if lot don't actually care, isn't a reason to top those who do, and that was my point with church below, as well, but will go back to that later:-

There's also a big stigma against homosexual activity as a whole, but that's not stopping people from being a part of the culture.

This is good thing (not stimga, but fact poeple willing to fight against uneeded stimga, and again, I will the religious example, you are religios but don't hurt others with it, (as far as know) so should do you deverse stimga for it:-NO and do you think/agree with those who fight stimga:-YES

No, because the United States in particular has this thing called "separation of church and state," so if the government wanted to ban church, they'd be breaking constitution. And even so, it's not going to stop people from worshiping because they can just do it the way early Christians do it and celebrate in people's homes.

That is pedantic point, which isn't to do with what meant, what I meant here was that just because it is 73% (I think) of your county, which doesn't goes to church, does that work as justifcation to stop that the 27% who do go?

-however, in order to move on, we will take it to Britain, where Parliament has more than enough power to remove it and even less go to church:-

Mmm, he believes that it shouldn't be allowed anyways, regardless of the popular or unpopular opinion. I think that he understands that people believe differently, but he also believes in an objective truth and God so he believes that God's truth is better than any human being's truth.

I don't think that big bother should be allowed, doesn't stop it happening:- and Sally, I'm sorry there is no such thing as objective truth when dealing with god, that is most subjective "turth" there is:-

Now if you meant objective truth other than god, as that could be what meant, what objective truth are you on about here, as there isn't any objective problems here:-

He's not saying to treat gays differently from other people. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states (and I think he sites this somewhere in at least one of the 4 articles) that gay people should be treated with dignity and just like any other human being despite whatever sin they've committed. Loving people and condoning their actions is NOT the same thing, and I've already talked about this and wished that people truly understood the difference, even if they still don't believe in what people say about the matter.

1=Love is not a single thing and wish Catholic's wouldn't go about how love everyone when clearly don't and love is too board a term to use here:- ( it is against human nature to love everyone, infact it is a negative/impossible thing to love everyone, that is going off topic!)

2=I never said anything about love, I couldn't care less whether you loved them or not, what I care about is acceptance!!!! And that is a every different thing to condoning something, my sister doesn't condon eating meat, but never even thinks about telling others not too, as she accepts their choice:-(Christians, still need to learn this in my opinion)

No human can judge what anybody wants when they commit a sin. And even if we did know, it doesn't necessarily make it any less wrong. If they're ignorant of the fact that it's wrong then that may affect their salvation and God is merciful and understanding when it comes to that sort of thing depending on the circumstances, but that doesn't make it OK.

No human can judge what sin is, sally as we don't know, we know what think sin is, but don't actually know, which is one of reasons, I say that using God as justifcation for anything is kind of reduntant point:-(You don't even kow he is forgiving, only believe he is)

I know you don't really buy the whole Jesus thing so I'm not expecting you to believe all this, but I thought I'd bring this up anyways because people who are religious believe that there is a greater love available for them than one from someone who is an active member of the gay community.

Fair enough, but I disagree with this, as too be condistional acceptence into something like this, is wrong and the bolded bit is far from fact, it is your feeling and personally, I found a lot of hate (as well as love) in the christian community (which is fact ether, just what I felt and cannot say for gay commity, as not been in it)

Did you completely skip over the part where he talks about fundamentalism?

The difference between secular fundamentalism and Christian or Muslim fundamentalism is that the government and our own society seems to be tolerating it much more. I believe that all forms of fundamentalism are dangerous as well, as it is typical Catholic behavior to have a moderate attitude even if our opinions are considered more "extreme" (the Bible even says to behave more moderately and having an extreme attitude in any situation is ungodly... unfortunately I can't remember where that's located at the moment).

This is MY point sally, <facepalm> as a religion, on whole you are against extremism/fundamentalism, and hate being boxed into this group, yet here he is, doing same thing to gay commiuty, which to me shows, that ether he doesn't know as much about gays as makes out or he is again trying to find justifcation, which isn't there:-

Then could you please give me some sources to prove against that instead of making a vague statement?

What find a source, which says, the Human Rights Conventation, which was made after WW2 was made without Religious views, sadly sally, I cannot as no one bothered to say it, what I can show you is where Humans Rights have used to go against convental religious views, such as shown in Case of Madinson V Mongoers (spelt wrong, I will get it for you, when get my notes, so can spell it)

Never expected you to convert after reading the article. ;)

Well, its not to convert, me, I just want a good agrument, to show why there is such a feeling towards Gay actions such as Gay Marriage

[/QUOTE]
First of all, it's not really as simple as it sounds. For one, not everyone is of the same opinion. There probably ARE citizens in Canada who are severely anti-Christian and pro-gay, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE is.
[QUOTE]

Sally, I actually taking mick with this last comment lol, but you are looking at it from fundermental view of doctine of Decocracy, when I'm looking at it from real view. We live in a world when Decocracy, follows idea of First past post! where rulers have realised not everyones view can be taken into account, so take most popular and so changes are that more poeple in Canadra are Pro Gay, than anti Gay and he is one looking at it in wrong way, saying that it merely an anti religious feeling which is pushing this through, when truth is, there merely more pro-gay, than pro-religious (there is difference here)

In the previous election, the state of Michigan was given a proposal to legalize embryonic stem cell research, named Proposal 2. You have to understand that the vast majority of proposals end up being voted Yes by a vast majority because a lot of people's opinions aren't strong enough to go against the proposal and they'd rather vote the affirmative. This can be seen through the results of Proposal 1 (the legalization of medical marijuana) which won at least 70% of the vote no sweat. However, proposal 2 was different. It won at the skin of its teeth 52% to 47%. They were still counting the ballots long after President Obama was elected, and it was a neck-in-neck race the entire way through, the No side only trailing slightly behind the Yes side. However, despite the fact that nearly half the state of Michigan is against embryonic stem cell research, they didn't get much of a say in the issue.

So to use your logic and say, "Well that's what the people wanted" in my mind is bullshit.

And this shows, the idea of First past post, I know you use state law, rather than common law, however here, it is clear that this something, which has to follow common law idea and so on thefirst past post idea, more poeple where for it, than against (even in the areas, where only just won) They cannot give boths sides what want, so give the majourthy what it wants (and before start saying this is wrong way to do it, remember we are not here to justife way politic's work, merely stating fact)

You're right in that there's more to sex than babies. But there's also more to sex than bonding. You need BOTH. They cannot be separated. This is why the Catholic Church is against birth control; they feel that the acceptance of birth control has undermined the importance of being fruitful in a marital relationship and takes away some responsibility in having sex in that you can just have it whenever you want without consequence (or at least, that's the mindset birth control gives you despite the fact that it's not 100% guaranteed).

We are not on about birth control, though personally think that taking it awayis foolish and to blame the birth control for bad control of sex is massively mixing cause and effect (look at birth/sex rates in victorian times, when didn't even have real birth control) and been shown that many poeple will have sex whether have assess to birth control or not,

I think you're misunderstanding his point. He's not saying that every child who was raised by gay parents gets sexually confused, he's just saying that it happens. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that it NEVER happens, and that's not true either. Also if gays make such great parents according to studies, I'd like to see them.

Well, get more gay kids from striaght family's than gay families, should get rid of striaght. Sally the fact A LOT shows, wasn't removing the chance, just saying on a high % of cases, doesn't work this way and this agurment, again seems reduntant, as the fact is, there is no corrulation between gay parsents and gay kids, yes gay parsents can have gay kids, but stats show, far from common, and so chances are that when happens, to say one is cause of other, is massive mix up of cause and effect

I don't think he's saying that parents should never split up. Sometimes it really, really needs to happen. It's just that people rush into marriage without thinking of the responsibility behind being married to someone and they don't realize what kind of life-long commitment they've made until it's too late. The Catholic Church allows for divorce and even annulments for people who may have been married "invalidly" in the church, so I don't think anyone is condoning staying in an abusive or neglectful relationship, for example.

My parsents where both 26 when got married and has been in relationship for almost 2 years, so far from irresponable, just simply that relationship went from good, to average to very BAD and he is very justemental in his view, without thinking over reality of things, fact is, this view, that love is forever is stupid, and poeple change and there wants change as well as fact, things can go wrong, that are never forseeable:- (as annulments, well as far as I knew from when I was christian, this only counted if prove that marriage from ether never made offical with sex or invalid from start because of real reason under eyes of church, basically meaniung, an annulment is very rare (and infact, there are more than one case, where a marriage with voilience has been forced to stay (in eyes of church) as still marriage counts)

-And I think he is very judgemental sayying gay are going to be more irresponable than straight poeple in marrage

And I thank you for reading even one of the articles. That's more than what anyone else did it seems, lol.

Thats ok and even if I disagree with what he put, at lest he was putting forward a new agurment, rather same, well this part of bible said this agrument

[DarthWario]

Woah. When you guys debate, you guys debate.

I'm gonna throw my thought in among the obvious intellectuals here.

Homosexual marriage is good. They obviously love each other so I see no real issues. I treat the idea the same as normal marriage, personally.

You can go about your long answers again now.

[HolyShadow]

Fared, having 5 exclamation points for something is very annoying. :/

There. I said it. Hmph.

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by ShiningRadiance

Fared, having 5 exclamation points for something is very annoying. :/

There. I said it. Hmph.

and I care because!!!!!!!! there I said it ^_^

[Ishikawa Oshro]

It burns when I pee!!!!!! ^_~

[Xanadu]

no person has the right to deny any other person the right to marry because they feel its bad.

I have had a lot of people tell me why its wrong to want to marry my own gender, (mostly relating to Jesus in some way).
there is no sacredness in marriage, its a government thing, here its legal, which I am happy for (and I hope by time I end up meeting someone I can still get married) unless its a girl, then no problems
(super awesome bisexuality powers go!)

[musicfreak9000]

im bi and all i want is someone to cuddle up with, thats it..no sex, no orgy, no porn. just someone i can to talk regaurdless of gender. so i real dont carry if to guys or girls want to marry, as long as the happy who cares?, its THERE life not yours

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by musicfreak9000

im bi and all i want is someone to cuddle up with, thats it..no sex, no orgy, no porn. just someone i can to talk regaurdless of gender. so i real dont carry if to guys or girls want to marry, as long as the happy who cares?, its THERE life not yours

Yes, but I'm the main character of my own story. You're in my story, and...

[musicfreak9000]

thats just a story, in irl its different

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by musicfreak9000

thats just a story, in irl its different

Not to me.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Originally Posted by Xanadu

no person has the right to deny any other person the right to marry because they feel its bad.

I have had a lot of people tell me why its wrong to want to marry my own gender, (mostly relating to Jesus in some way).
there is no sacredness in marriage, its a government thing, here its legal, which I am happy for (and I hope by time I end up meeting someone I can still get married) unless its a girl, then no problems
(super awesome bisexuality powers go!)

yea try opening your bible to understand the concept of marriage.
The government just added benefits to it too encourage people to marry. Which sounds too me like the people were having sex without mnarriage which is besaides the point.

But yea. Marriage was originally a religion thing.
Try looking up your facts instead of spouting your ideas.
This isent an anime ya know.
this is the
SERIOUS DEBATE THREAD *que in dramatic music*

I have an odd turn of events to ask though.
Can you marry without having some kind of religious leader there to lead the ceremony O.O

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Ishikawa Oshro

yea try opening your bible to understand the concept of marriage.
The government just added benefits to it too encourage people to marry. Which sounds too me like the people were having sex without mnarriage which is besaides the point.

But yea. Marriage was originally a religion thing.
Try looking up your facts instead of spouting your ideas.
This isent an anime ya know.
this is the
SERIOUS DEBATE THREAD *que in dramatic music*

I have an odd turn of events to ask though.
Can you marry without having some kind of religious leader there to lead the ceremony O.O

With a contract by the state.

[Xanadu]

Originally Posted by ShiningRadiance

Yes, but I'm the main character of my own story. You're in my story, and...

then get out of his story

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Xanadu

then get out of his story

That's mean, telling me to kill myself. Maybe I'll just take your advice.

My blood shall be on your hands.

[Xanadu]

ohh thats what you meant by story

you could like mind your own business and not care about other peoples' love lives?

or go to titan-there is possible life there, or Mars, humans are going there eventually-you'll have a whole planet to yourself and this "story"

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Xanadu

ohh thats what you meant by story

you could like mind your own business and not care about other peoples' love lives?

or go to titan-there is possible life there, or Mars, humans are going there eventually-you'll have a whole planet to yourself and this "story"

Yes.

No.

No.

[Xanadu]

well I am just glad gay marriage is legal here

enjoy your story

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Xanadu

well I am just glad gay marriage is legal here

enjoy your story

Who are you and what are you doing in my story?

Get! Get! I'm busy leading a gay marriage ceremony thing. They're just about to say their vows.