Gay marriage is a threat to humanity, claims Pope

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


With all the hypocrisy in the Catholic Church particularly among TPTB in Rome and also among (some) of the closet priests and nuns who are homosexuals and lesbians....I really don't think the Catholic Church should be telling humanity what to do.

Meaning of (hypocrisy) - "hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, morals, or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have." (wikipedia)...en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Gay marriage is an issue that people feel strongly about whether a person is for it or against it
Their reasons why they feel this way are their own

but most of the the explanations for why people who are not homo and really not directly effected by this issue which is not even close to societies local national and global problems
Use cop out logic as the bases for their believe about why its good or bad that are not their own
They mostly derive from groups and orgizations whose major supporters and backers have no moral care as to why they find gay marriage to be whatever it's just an excuse to hide the truth
That they have economic reasons behind their explanation and anything that effects the bottle line must be fought

Taxes and tax returns would be different and is a minus to the IRS

Employers especially major corporation who provide health insurance coverage for employees and their family's will now have to cover people they didn't before and that effects profits for shareholder and that means they must fight against it because it will directly effect them if it becomes legal

But nobody wants to say that money is their motivation on an issue because less people would support it

by making it a moral issue it stirs the passion of people on both side by making it more emotional to people who unless they are gay or know someone gay should not be so passionate about something so trivial their are much more important social issues that humanity locally and globally should be focused on

Then again if politicians actually solved problems they would be out of a job.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I not even know why we have a pope, and I'm christian. This guy doesn't represents me at all, and he doesn't represents God neither.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

Dear kaylaluv, (And to everyone else, please accept my apologies for not addressing you with the proper respect.)

I agree with you in a lot of ways. I'll try to point out those areas as much as I point out any disagreements.

You're right, no particular structure of family guarantees the "best" family in any given case. I'm reasonably sure the Pope was talking in generalities (Although, I don't know that. I still haven't read the speech provided by EricD's link. Shame on me.)

I suppose I'm going to have to start looking at studies, whether I want to or not, dealing with "gay" v. "straight" couples. I don't have definitive answers, but I suspect the gay environment is less family friendly than the straight environment (whatever that means).

And I agree with a lot of what you say about divorce. In the Church, there isn't divorce (Sure they recognize divorces created by laws, but there's no room for divorce in the Church.) If you can't live with your spouse, you separate. You can't get married to anyone else, because in the eyes of the Church you're still married, you just happen to be separated. If you do marry someone else, then you're committing adultery, because you're still married to your first spouse.

The alternative is to get an annulment, which is an official Church decision that something was lacking at the time of the first wedding that prevented it from being a legitimate marriage. That allows you to remarry.

If a Catholic breaks these rules, he is not excommunicated, but his status is "irregular," and that happens automatically, without any specific Church action. It means, among other things, that he is not to receive Communion until his status is "regularized."

You know, I may very well be missing your point on civil rights, but I am not intentionally trying to twist meanings.

Without twisting meanings, then, I don't think there is a civil right to marry the person you love. Look at all the restrictions there are around this "right." Blood tests, residency requirements, statement of non-relationship, fees, age limits, polygamy laws, i don't know how many more. The state has said we can interfere with you "right" to marry in lots of ways, not allowing same sex marriages is just one more way.

I'm not sure, but I don't think I'm prejudiced. On the other hand, I may not see my prejudices. If someone asks "Are homosexual acts sins?" I turn to the Bible. That's my handbook for sins. God will hand out whatever punishment he wants to for sins, punishment and condemnation are not my department.

And I really agree with your annoyance when the Bible is ignored. I kick myself daily for "missing the mark."


But I think we can agree that consenting adults should be involved,
but you know that arranged marriages of children are an important part of many cultures.

and we know the sad science of incestual breeding.
If a science such as psychology tells us that, on the whole, it's not as good for children to be in same sex families, do we perevent it? I'm sure some gay couples are wonderful, and some 1st cousin marriages present no problems.

This argument does nothing to convince me that gays shouldn't be able to marry who they love (within reason) while straights are able to marry who they love (within reason).
That '(within reason)" part is interesting. Some people, including the voters of thirty something states have said that gay marriage is not within reason.

kaylaluv. I really appreciate your post. Let me know if we should talk some more.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
the popes an idiot .... married or not, there has been gay people thro the ages and there will be gay people in the future ... and these gay people will be gay with each other! and some how ... the population of the world has gone from zero to over seven billion ... maybe if there were more gay people there wouldnt be a population crisis haha ... the mans a ...."deleted" and if he says its anything to do with morals sort your own house out first before you go pointing fingers ... we all know what im getting at!! the sexual abuse of children! so aye ... thats my opinion ...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
the pope, along with every religion is a threat to humanity..

it doesnt take a scientist to figure that out.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I thought religion was the greatest threat to humanity. Who preaches more hate than an advocate of God?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I finally looked at the actual speech. It contained lengthy discussions on the economy, North Africa, a host of subjects. Less than one part in ten was given to the subject we're discussing. Here's that part in it's entirety:

In addition to a clear goal, that of leading young people to a full knowledge of reality and thus of truth, education needs settings. Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and States; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue. It is in the family that we become open to the world and to life and, as I pointed out during my visit to Croatia, "openness to life is a sign of openness to the future".
That's it. That's all the Pope said on the subject. I see that this has nothing to do with condemning same-sex marriage. He simply says that a heterosexual family, in general, is the best setting for education of the young. He's not talking about morals, or sinfulness or rights, or anything that we've gotten so worked up about.

The only objection I can imagine anyone making to this would be along the lines of "I have a study that indicates same-sex families are better." That can become a long and tedious discussion. I do know that schools in my district are asking for more men to come to teach in the early grades to provide balance to what is nearly entirely female.

Anyway, if you want to read the whole speech, EricD has a link somewhere in the middle of page 5. (I should have posted one, but I forgot.)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 

Dear Hellhound 604,


do I have it right? Being gay is worse than all those priests abusing kids???
Nope, sorry, you don't have it quite right. There is nothing wrong with being gay. Performing "gay" acts, that's a different question. And any "wrong" sexual act is wrong. (You do know, though, that American priests were no more likely to have sex abuse allegations against them than the average American.)

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 10-1-2012 by charles1952 because: add



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Strict
 


How does gay marriage effect your life. U should worry about ur own life not somebody elses.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 

Dear caladonea,

I agree with you, hypocrisy is a terrible thing. But the Church has been saying for decades that it has a problem with (primarily) priests going after boys in their teens. I don't see the hypocrisy. Priests are supposed to be celibate, whether they're gay or straight. That's sometimes considered a burden, sometimes a gift, but every priest should live up to his vows and seek help when needed.

Mostly, the Catholic Church reminds people of what Jesus told them to do. That and keep the words and thoughts of Christians through the centuries alive and available to us. I don't mind that.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I'm sure there is a subset of the gay population that is not interested in marriage or family - to each his own. But I personally have known more than one gay couple who have been together for a long time, and desperately want to have a family. These are stable, professional, kind and intelligent people, who help out their community and others less fortunate as often as possible. They are good people, and would provide a wonderful environment for children. I just don't see how their having a family would hurt anyone.

I'm not sure of all the requirements you list (I was never required to take a blood test) - maybe some of them are state-by-state. I'm sure gays would be happy to abide by all of them, just like straight people currently do. Other than polygamy, the requirements you list really don't have any basis in religion, except for allowing gays to be married. Polygamy is a whole other subject I won't delve into here, other than to say I think it should be allowed for the same reason I think gay marriage should be allowed.

If the Bible is your handbook for sins, then I'm assuming you have never cut your hair, eaten shellfish or pork, worn clothing with more than two fabrics, or committed any of the other "sins" listed in the Old Testament. But I'm sure you treat your slaves fairly.


Why bring up other cultures - it really doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.

There is no "reputable" science study that tells us children do so much worse in same-sex marriages. I say "reputable", because I discount conservative religious "research groups" who have a personal agenda against gays.

The reasons why people have voted against gay marriage have to do with ignorance, and prejudice against gays. People like me will keep fighting this ignorance and prejudice, and gays will eventually get the rights they deserve as human beings. I am confident of this, because I have seen the progress for women's and other minorities' rights just in my lifetime. And that's mostly due to people not giving up the long, hard fight for those rights. It will happen, my friend, just you wait.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Trueman
 

Dear Trueman,

Welcome, brother Trueman.

John 21:15-17 Matthew 16:15-19

John 21:15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

Matthew 16: 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Catholics figure they're just doing what they were told to do. For, what, 1500 years? The Pope represented every Christian, and every Christian knew it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
It just doesn't make sense. Gay people are never going to have babies, whether they marry or not doesn't change anything, It's not like for every gay couple married 3 babies aren't born.

Those babies were never going to be born.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrBlueSky
 


I'm not sure I understand you. The Pope is an intelligent, educated man. He's written several books and run departments in the Vatican with hundreds of people. He speaks multiple languages and is a formidable diplomat. I just can see why you think he's an idiot, or a "deleted."

Of course there have been gay people and there will continue to be, just as there will be people tempted by greed or violence or anything else. The Pope, and every other human, knows that.


and if he says its anything to do with morals sort your own house out first before you go pointing fingers ... we all know what im getting at!! the sexual abuse of children! so aye ... thats my opinion ...
Do you mean that no one can say anything is right or wrong until everything in their life is perfect? If so, how can you say the Pope is wrong, when there are some things in your life that aren't perfect?

I 'm a little too tired to do the whole sex scandal thing over again, but parts of it have been mentioned earlier in the thread.

Best wishes,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Drezden
 

Dear Drezden,

You're thinking the way a normal person would, two gays = no babies. But, there is a lot of interest in in vitro fertilization and adoption. Gay couples do have children.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Sorry, my machine locked up, and on restarting I got a double post.
edit on 10-1-2012 by charles1952 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
No government or religion should be able to tell you who you should love and who you should marry. When people point fingers at people and claim that they are different it bands them together. It brings them together in such a way it possibly could turn into violence. People are so scared of difference it's ludicrous. I often think that these people have too much time on their hands.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
im sure people will accept his view as his catholic interpretation and will respect his personal authority over his own opinions. to argue against is unscientific since this is a religious moral implication for mankind; and to argue for requires the use of religious reasoning. how is he wrong?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kenny71
 

As we discussed earlier, government tells us all the time who we can't marry, like close relatives, people under a certain age, aniimals, more than one person, probaly more restrictions than that.

As far as telling us who to love, love anybody you want. Some people love Newt Gingrich! But I don't mean have sex with anybody you want, there are government rules on that too. (Besides, sex with Gingrich? Ewwww.)

I don't think the Church or the Pope are pointing fingers at any group. The people who do, need to reexamine themselves to see what's in their hearts. I have all I can do just pointing fingers at me.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join