(August 31, 2015 at 10:55 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(August 31, 2015 at 9:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ok, here's how I feel about the issue. 

I believe marriage is more than a piece of government paper that 2 people sign. I believe the actual state of being married is one that extends beyond the government and beyond this world.... it's a spiritual union. This spiritual union is something that does not and cannot happen unless it's between one man and one woman who love each other and make the vow to be together for life.  

So if you ask me if I believe in gay marriage, the answer is NO if I am going by my definition of marriage.  But if I was going by your definition of marriage (I'm assuming your definition of marriage is that it's a social construct where 2 people are legally bound), the answer would be YES. I do believe that gay couples should have the same rights and benefits under the law of the state. 

I read the article you sent me, and to be completely honest, I don't agree with the amount of money spent on this political issue. If it were up to me, I'd say to not put any money on that, much less 2 mil. I understand their beliefs in traditional marriage, and I feel the same way, but at some point we need to remember that we are answering to a Higher Law, and to not get so wrapped up in political issues that don't involve people getting hurt, like the death penalty, abortion, and wars.

Thank you

One more: how do you feel about your tithes going to fund the push for legislation against SSM?

No prob, bob! 

Isn't that what I already answered though? Lol. 

I don't agree with it. For the reasons I stated above. Money can be better spent elsewhere, and certain political issues are best left solely as political issues, not religious ones, imho.

(August 31, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 31, 2015 at 10:55 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Thank you

One more: how do you feel about your tithes going to fund the push for legislation against SSM?

No prob, bob! 

Isn't that what I already answered though? Lol. 

I don't agree with it. For the reasons I stated above. Money can be better spent elsewhere, and certain political issues are best left solely as political issues, not religious ones, imho.

I guess I should have asked differently: has it, or things like it (ex: covering for and relocating pedophile priests) made you second guess whether you should pay tithes to the RCC?

(August 31, 2015 at 11:51 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(August 31, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No prob, bob! 

Isn't that what I already answered though? Lol. 

I don't agree with it. For the reasons I stated above. Money can be better spent elsewhere, and certain political issues are best left solely as political issues, not religious ones, imho.

I guess I should have asked differently: has it, or things like it (ex: covering for and relocating pedophile priests) made you second guess whether you should pay tithes to the RCC?

This is embarrassing but I didn't know what tithes meant haha. Just had to google it. 

The answer is no. There are always going to be people within the Church and even in the hierarchy who are bad people or who do things I don't agree with, just like in any other group. I still believe in the sanctity of the Church, and I still think they do a lot for charity and help people in need, even though they don't always do things I agree with.

I'm sorry to harp, but how do you believe in the sanctity of the church if you don't think everything they do is sacred? Isn't that part of the point?

drfuzzy Wrote:CL, would it astound you to know that I agree with you? I have argued for gay civil unions, but I draw the line at forcing churches to hold marriages.  One is equality, another is about religion.  These two things have never been equal.  I believe that churches will hold gay marriages - some are already - but we should let them change in their own time and in their own way, as long as they aren't actively lobbying to take away the rights of homosexuals.

I agree too, and I don't believe many people have an agenda pushing for this to happen. If I'm wrong about that, I'd be interested to know! It would be against church/state separation as far as I'm aware to force churches to host gay marriages. Legally, their role is entirely ceremonial anyway.

Personally I find it disgusting that churches want not to marry gays, but as long as they aren't trying to force that rule on society at large I'm happy to leave them to it.

I also agree that churches will eventually start hosting gay marriages, simply out of necessity for survival. I think the new generations are going to buy the dogma less and less, and if the church doesn't accommodate, they're going to lose. I'm sure there will be some ridiculous caveat so they get out of actually changing their position, while acting contrary to their position.

The problem with calling same gender sex or marriage "immoral" is that it's a totally different usage of the word. Murder, rape, theft etc. are immoral because they hurt people. As such, they are easily defended, even if religious people want to include religious reasons as well. But the "harm" being causes by homosexuality is now some sort of mysterious "sin" which doesn't actually do anything. I would love for anyone to tell me why it matters that it is a sin. What are the consequences? Is it simply that God puts a black mark against you? Are god's feelings hurt? I'm being serious. What are the consequences? Why does it matter at all? I can understand Christians not wanting to break their own doctrine, but to apply the word "immoral" in a blanket style to non believers implies there is some sort of negative consequences for their actions. What is this consequences? And if there isn't any, what does it mean or matter that it's immoral?

I'm very glad to hear that CL does not support the church lobbying to oppose gay marriage. To me, on the whole "bigot" issue, I call someone a bigot if their actions discriminate against people, or they support other people/organisations taking such actions. If they just have a personal view which doesn't impact anyone's actions, then I would not call them a bigot. It seems in this case, CL in no way takes or supports bigoted actions. There is of course the matter of tithes and the implicit support there, which is a tricky issue. But I'm not going to call her bigoted for that as she is explicitly saying she doesn't want the money spent that way.

1.  *eyeroll*  this is archaic.  It is like saying that my primary duty as a woman is to bear children.  Nonsense.

I think co-operative gay/lesbian parenting could be the way of the future, actually:
Take a lesbian couple who want a child,
and gay male couple who want a child,
draw up a contract with a lawyer,
procreate by in-vitro,
and the two families could live side-by-side as neighbors,
and both kids essentially have four parents, instead of only two.
That's four sets of life experience to draw from, four shoulders to cry on, four rides to soccer practice, four brains to help with math homework, four incomes, four babysitters.

2. It is incorrect to say lesbians are more likely than a straight couple to sexually-communicate HIV.

Lesbians are LESS likely to sexually-communicate HIV that a straight couple.

And what makes gay men more likely to sexually-communicate HIV than a straight couple, is anal sex;
however, lots of gay men do not have anal sex,
and lots of straight couples, do.

3.  As to the point about the LGBT being more prone to substance abuse,
I am highly skeptical of that one;

it's like saying the LGBT are more likely to have failed relationships than straight people;
it seems statistically unlikely, given that there are FAR MORE straight people than gay,
so, especially in this day and age, it seems highly likely that straight people have just as much,
if not far more, substance abuse issues than the LGBT.

4.  Gays are not proper role models.  Right.  Gay parents would result in brainwashed gay kids, right?

Allow me to remind everyone that every single gay person out there,
was born to STRAIGHT PARENTS.

Ultimately, I think Mr. Wizard's reply was spot-on:

NONE of these things are justification for banning two consenting adults from getting married.

It's irrelevant.

(September 1, 2015 at 2:56 am)robvalue Wrote:

drfuzzy Wrote:CL, would it astound you to know that I agree with you? I have argued for gay civil unions, but I draw the line at forcing churches to hold marriages.  One is equality, another is about religion.  These two things have never been equal.  I believe that churches will hold gay marriages - some are already - but we should let them change in their own time and in their own way, as long as they aren't actively lobbying to take away the rights of homosexuals.

I agree too, and I don't believe many people have an agenda pushing for this to happen. If I'm wrong about that, I'd be interested to know! It would be against church/state separation as far as I'm aware to force churches to host gay marriages. Legally, their role is entirely ceremonial anyway.

Personally I find it disgusting that churches want not to marry gays, but as long as they aren't trying to force that rule on society at large I'm happy to leave them to it.

I also agree that churches will eventually start hosting gay marriages, simply out of necessity for survival. I think the new generations are going to buy the dogma less and less, and if the church doesn't accommodate, they're going to lose. I'm sure there will be some ridiculous caveat so they get out of actually changing their position, while acting contrary to their position.

The problem with calling same gender sex or marriage "immoral" is that it's a totally different usage of the word.  Murder, rape, theft etc. are immoral because they hurt people. As such, they are easily defended, even if religious people want to include religious reasons as well. But the "harm" being causes by homosexuality is now some sort of mysterious "sin" which doesn't actually do anything. I would love for anyone to tell me why it matters that it is a sin. What are the consequences? Is it simply that God puts a black mark against you? Are god's feelings hurt? I'm being serious. What are the consequences? Why does it matter at all? I can understand Christians not wanting to break their own doctrine, but to apply the word "immoral" in a blanket style to non believers implies there is some sort of negative consequences for their actions. What is this consequences? And if there isn't any, what does it mean or matter that it's immoral?

I'm very glad to hear that CL does not support the church lobbying to oppose gay marriage. To me, on the whole "bigot" issue, I call someone a bigot if their actions discriminate against people, or they support other people/organisations taking such actions. If they just have a personal view which doesn't impact anyone's actions, then I would not call them a bigot. It seems in this case, CL in no way takes or supports bigoted actions. There is of course the matter of tithes and the implicit support there, which is a tricky issue. But I'm not going to call her bigoted for that as she is explicitly saying she doesn't want the money spent that way.

While I 100% support LGBT rights, including the legal right to marry,

I agree that no clergy or organized church should TECHNICALLY be forced to marry a gay couple,
because that may well run against their religious beliefs

(having said that, I have to admit that it would look good on them...after so many years of forcing people to do THEIR  bidding, in their private lives).

but I think it's a non-issue:  every denomination of Christianity broke away from another because they disagreed on some point of order.  It's happening now in the Anglican church; half the congregation supports gay marriage, the other half is adamantly against it.

Eventually, and once again, a new denomination will emerge as a result;
one that has no problem with gay marriage.

In short, there will be plenty of churches willing to marry gay couples.

It is still unconscionable that religion is being used to try to make it ILLEGAL for a gay couple to get married,
if they are able to find someone willing to marry them.

(September 1, 2015 at 2:05 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: I'm sorry to harp, but how do you believe in the sanctity of the church if you don't think everything they do is sacred? Isn't that part of the point?

No, it's a good question. A Catholic is supposed to adhere to Church Doctrine (matters of faith and morals). We should believe in those and believe they come from God and are not in error. But this does not mean that Catholic people, even the pope, don't ever say or do things that I don't agree with or even that I think are heinous. 

The priests that molested kids did a horrible thing, so did those in the Vatican who were responsible for trying to cover it up. That's an extreme example, but I'm sure everyday someone in the Vatican does/says something that I don't agree with. Even the current Pope, who I like a lot, recently made a comment about being against life imprisonment that I did not agree with.

(September 1, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Even the current Pope, who I like a lot, recently made a comment about being against life imprisonment that I did not agree with.

But it's perfectly in line with the thoughts of early church fathers. Prior to Niccea, when politics became part of the church.

(August 31, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The stance hasn't changed, you are correct on that. We still believe that Holy Matrimony is the union between one man and one woman, and we still believe that sex is meant for husband/wife. I never claimed anything different. I guess I don't know what you mean about how I "phrased" it.

Well, okay: before it was intrinsically disordered to be gay, it was a sickness, a choice to live in darkness, yada yada. The church, then as now, decided to focus on it for special treatment among sins, only today's church is having to operate in a world where it's no longer socially acceptable to treat gay people as they once did, where they're actually in danger of losing members and power over it, and so they're now cloaking the exact same practices in this happy, smiley "ooh, it's a sin, but god will forgive you...." wheedling tone. That's what I mean by phrasing: taking the same behaviors and trying to make them sound more palatable. In practice, of course, there's little difference, and so the church should hardly be given a cookie for figuring out the right words to avoid negative consequences from their flock, but at the same time I find it troubling how many of the religious, yourself included, seem happy to pass off discrimination as a positive so long as they can find the right sequence of words.

Congratulations: your religion has found a way to make it seem as though they treat homosexuality as just another sin, while focusing on it more than any other anyway. The phrasing has changed, but the problematic elements remain, and so I wouldn't be surprised if eventually people start to see through that lie too.