That old guy from Vatican city says gay marraige is evil.

for once i actually agree with flyersfan... he can say whatever he wants... the freedom of speach...

im not saying that being gay is evil but its pretty messed up...

Originally posted by MadGrimbo


If, all the gays left to live on the moon, in 100 years max, there would be no more gays on the moon. If all the hetrosexual people went to the moon, soon it would be full of people, and in 100 years the next generation would be looking at moving out, because space would be getting tight.

The gays, well they die out, and the reproducing hetrosexuals live into the future and explore the stars...

Two flaws in your thinking there. You are assuming that gayness is genetic (which no-one knows exactly what makes people gay yet) and you are assuming that heterosexuals don't have gay children. If gays aren't procreating and straights don't have gay kids....then where are the gays coming from?

Originally posted by omega1
Maybe I am not up with my gay history, but when is the last time a "homosexual" did something important. I can't think of any, and I challange you to try the same.

How about Abe Lincoln. He did sleep with a man for four years and was very depressed when his "buddy" passed away. As far as any homosexual doing anything lately. How about me.....designing the roof replacement of the Superior Court. Couldn't make all those laws without a roof. I know it's not historical but come-on.....we add plenty of good things to society.

Can someone plese explain to me how we are discriminating against gays when gays have the exact same marriage rights as straights?

It is not discrimination to disallow same sex marriages. We are simply not expanding marriage rights to include same-sex marriages.

gays and straights already have the exact same rights when it comes to marriages.

The Catholic faith states that men and women can receive grace from God via the seven holy sacraments:

1. Baptism
2. Holy Communion
3. Pennance
4. Confirmation
5. Marriage
6. Holy Orders
7. Last Rights

Since marriage is a vehicle to receive grace from God (for Catholics married in a Catholic church), one cannot be in a state of sin to receive this sacrament. Openly gay people in gay relationships are, in the tradition of most christian religions, in a state of sin and therefore are ineligible to receive the sacrament of marriage.

The point isn't that "gays can't get married" because gays are evil, deviant, or mentally ill. God loves his gay creations just as much as He loves his straight ones. The point is that unrepentant sinners cannot partake in a blessed sacrament of the church. The Pope is simply interpreting and restating universally accepted church doctrine (universally for Catholics, that is). That is, after all, the primary purpose of the Pontiff.

If you are not Catholic, then what the Pope has to say about the subject should have very little meaning for you. If you are Catholic and you have major problems with what the Pope has to say on this subject, then you need to question youself on the topic of your faith and what it means to be Catholic.

gee, I don't know, they claim this outrageous number of perks that they are denied because we won't let them marry, I keep asking what they are, and well, I might get a list of a few....but those that are listed are in actuality, either our government and institutions giving preferential treatment to some members of our community, or denying people things that they should rightfully be able to do I beleive....
so, well, the gays want into that "elite" group so they can have the perks too.
so, we have some choices to make....
we could say tough luck, shut up, and forget it...
or we could just let them go ahead and be legally defined as being married...
or, we could go threw that list one by one, and refer to the constitution and ask ourselves that in a country that claims equality for all, is these laws really right and constitutional and try to address some of the greivenences...

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Plus marrige is a religious event,

Actually it is not.

In common use -
Marriage is religous. Civil Union is secular/legal.

Marriage was created by religions, however, the
secular/non-religious have absorbed the phrase
into their culture, but not the sacramental aspects.

In the dictionary -

Marriage - 1. The social institution under which a man and a woman
establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments,
religious ceremonies, etc. 2. The state, condition, or relationship of being
married. 3. The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of
a man and woman to live as husband and wife. 4. any close or intimate
association or union.

Syn - Matrimony. Marriage, Wedding, Nuptials are terms for the ceremony
uniting couples in wedlock. Marriage is the simple and usual term, without
implicaitons as to circumstances and without emotional connotations.
Wedding has strong emotional even sentimental connotations, and
suggests the accompanying festivities. Nuptuals is a formal and lofty word
aplied to the ceremony and attendant social events, it does not have
emotional connotations.

It would probably be much easier for gay couples to have civil unions
rather than 'marriages'. If the term civil union is used in the legal
mumbo jumbo ... it'll go easier.

Either way. The pope is entitled to say what he wants (as long as
he isn't advocating blowing up buildings or gunning down people
because they are gay.) He's entitled to say that gay marriage is
evil just as much as the gay/lesbian/transgendered community is
allowed to say that it is their right to get married or have civil
unions (as long as they don't advocate blowing up buildings or
gunning down people either).

People will listen to all the sides and issues and make up their
own minds what is right and what isn't. Don't forget ... one
billion people are Catholic, and one billion people are protestant,
but that doesn't mean that they blindly follow what the pope or
the Catholic church say. Just one example - Less than 10% of Catholics
follow the church law on natural family planning.


[edit on 2/24/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by firestarter666
for once i actually agree with flyersfan...

Ahhhhhhhhhh. See everyone! There is hope for
peace in this world! Common ground people ... common
ground! That's where it can start ....

A list of gay/lesbian/bisexual personages:

Alexander the Great
*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C.
Socrates
*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C.
Sappho
*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C.
Hadrian
*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c.
Richard the Lionhearted
*English King, 12th c.
Saladin
*Sultan of Egypt and Syria
Desiderius Erasmus
*Dutch Monk, Philosopher
Francis Bacon
*English statesman, author
Frederick the Great
*King of Prussia
Lord Byron
*English poet, 18th c.
Walt Whitman
*U.S. poet, author, 19th c.
Oscar Wilde
*Irish author, 19th c.
Marcel Proust
*French author, 20th c.
Colette
*French author, 20th c.
Cole Porter
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Virginia Woolf
*English author, 20th c.
Leonard Bernstein
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Pope Julius III
*1550-1555
T.E. Lawrence
*English soldier, author, 20th c.
Jean Cocteau
*French writer, director, 20th c.
Tennessee Williams
*U.S. Playwright, 20th c.
James Baldwin
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Andy Warhol
*U.S. artist, 20th c.
Michelangelo
*Italian artist, 15th c.
Leonardo Da Vinci
*Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c.
Christopher Marlowe
*Eng. Playwright, 16th c.
Herman Melville
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Tchaikovsky
*Russian composer, 19th c.
E.M. Forster
*English author, 20th c.
John M. Keynes
*English economist, 20th c.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
*Australian mathematician, 20th c.
Noel Coward
*English playwright, 20th c.
Pier Paolo Pasolini
*Italian film director, 20th c.
Yukio Mishima
*Japanese author, 20th c.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*U.S. stateswoman, 20th c.
Julius Caesar
*Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C.
Augustus Caesar
*Roman Emperor
Harvey Milk
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Bayard Rustin
*U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c.
James I
*English King, 16th-17th c.
Queen Anne
*English Queen, 18th c.
Marie Antoinette
*French Empress, 18th c.
Melissa Etheridge
*U.S. Rock Star, 20th c.
Pope Benedict IX
*1032-1044
Elton John
*English Rock Star, 20th c.
Montezuma II
*Aztec ruler, 16th c.
Peter the Great
*Russian Czar, 17th-18th c.
Pope John XII
*955-964
Martina Navratilova
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Greg Louganis
*U.S. Olympic swimmer, 20th c.
Billie Jean King
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Roberta Achtenburg
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Barney Frank
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Gerry Studds
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Hans Christian Andersen
*Danish author, 19th c.
Tom Dooley
*U.S. M.D. missionary, 20th c.
J. Edgar Hoover
*U.S. director of the FBI., 20th c.
Frida Kahlo
*Mexican artist, 20th c.
Suleiman the Magnificent
*Ottoman ruler, 15th c.
Rock Hudson
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Candace Gingrich
*Gay Rights activist, 20th c.
Margarethe Cammermeyer
*U.S. Army Colonel, 20th c.
Tom Waddel
*U.S. M.D., Olympic star, 20th c.
Janis Joplin
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Rudolf Nuryev
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Waslaw Nijinsky
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Ernst Röhm
*German Nazi leader, 20th c.
Dag Hammerskjold
*Swedish UN Secretary, 209th c.
Aristotle
*Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C.
James Dean
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Baron VonSteuben
*German General, Valley Forge
Edward II
*English King, 14th c.

deny ignorance.


[edit on 24-2-2005 by cruzion]

Originally posted by FlyersFanIn common use -
Marriage is religous. Civil Union is secular/legal.

Marriage was created by religions, however, the
secular/non-religious have absorbed the phrase
into their culture, but not the sacramental aspects.

Marriage was created by religions was it? Note the Bible which I presume is your reference for religions, makes no mention of it being created by religion, at best it can be interpreted as a union between the first man and first woman, and thereafter man and multiple women. But somehow that multiple women scenario was summarily removed to one man and one woman, and if that can be done then so too can the dynamic be changed. And if you want to press the issue from the Judeo-Christian standpoint, I suggest you study some Biblical characters such as Jonathan and his God favoured bed partner, for starters.

Marriage despite your view is not limited to a reference of peoples named within that book. Jungle tribes of Africa, Australia, South America, the North American Indian and Barbarians of all sorts before they ever heard of your God, all had marriage disciplines, none of them had anything to do with being sanctified by any God. The tribal rituals required only a dowry for the female and the production of stained clothing to show marriage by consummation. These were processes whereby men took wives and wives were given or sold to them.

And as you can see from your dictionary definition: “The social institution” This Civil Union legalease is just modern day drivel coined to satisfy the religious moralists that there actually is something different about a union that has been going on for decades. How many Civil Union certificates have you come across or ever heard of being issued over the decades to those married in City Hall or by ship captains? How many census forms, job or credit applications prior to the popularization of this term have had as a category alongside married; single; divorced or widowed, the term civil union?

It is more like religion absorbed the phrase.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
none of them had anything to do with being sanctified by any God. The tribal rituals required only a dowry for the female and the production of stained clothing to show marriage by consummation. These were processes whereby men took wives and wives were given or sold to them.

You seem to think that I'm argueing against gay marriage or something.
I'm not. To be honest - I don't care at all. But just to discuss this some
more - the point you made here about men taking 'wives' and 'wives'
being given to them or sold ... that's just a business agreement switching
property. MARRIAGE is known as a bond blessed by God. What I'm saying
is that it would be easier for gay people to get laws passed saying
'civil union'. That way there is no religion issues to have to deal with
for now. They can have their civil unions blessed in any church that
accepts gay unions but to get the law passed so that they would have
'spousal rights' ... put the word civil union on it and it will be much
easier for them.

I favor states rights. Let states decide if gay civil unions are acceptable
in each state. Those that don't want it ... don't get it. Those that do
want it .. do get it.

Originally posted by MacMerdin
How about Abe Lincoln. He did sleep with a man for four
years and was very depressed when his "buddy" passed
away.

I'm a HUGE Lincoln fan so that raised my eyebrows a bit too.
One of the magazines has a big front cover story about that.
Newsweek or US News ... can't remember. I read it. It said
that Lincoln most likely wasn't gay. Men in those days thought
nothing of sleeping in the same bed (no gay-phobias then)
and Lincoln had at least 2 or 3 serious girlfriends before marrying
that poor woman Mary Todd (major mental health issues!). He
had been engaged previously at least once. Read the issue.
It's really interesting. (you might be able to squeek bi-sexual
in ... (which I still doubt) ... but Lincoln couldn't have been
strictly gay.

Originally posted by cruzion

Alexander the Great - 300 B.C.

Why do you think he was gay? Because of the movie?
Seriously ... why do you think he was gay?
He lived almost 2,500 years ago. What evidence
is there that has survived (unadulterated) to now?

Desiderius Erasmus, Pope Julius III 1550-1555,
Pope Benedict IX 1032-1044, Pope John XII 955-964

Interesting. Where did you get this information and do you
have a link or a book about this? I have never heard this
before. AND to be honest, I have a hard time believing it.

Barney Frank *U.S. Congressman, 20th c.6

Um .. he's just a nut with very bad hair. Isn't he in jail???



[edit on 2/24/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by cruzion
A list of gay/lesbian/bisexual personages:

Alexander the Great
*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C.
Socrates
*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C.
Sappho
*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C.
Hadrian
*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c.
Richard the Lionhearted
*English King, 12th c.

*edited huge quote- Amuk*

prove it.
I doubt it Edward II was, i doubt the popes are aswell.

Richard the lionheart was not gay



[edit on 24-2-2005 by Amuk]

Evil? Gay (having sex with the same sex) is a sexual sin in the eyes of the living God. If man wants to put a label "MARRIED" on gay couples so be it. It’s not in the slightest bit validated through the eyes of our lord. Don’t forget that God strongly disapproves divorcement of heterosexual married couples too, what He binds can’t be undone. If people who are married in the name of God and they split up and have sex with another person they are adulterers and not much better or worse than paedophiles, gays or public women.

Gays can’t marry in a true Christian church (receive Gods blessing) unless that church is so far separated from God that it makes that specific church a tool from the anti-Christ himself because they are leading people away from Christ by prophesising a popular earthly message. Gay marriage is completely manmade and from this earth (you can just as well marry your horse, house, cat, rosebush, car or 20 year dead grandfather). The meaning of a Christian marriage is that two people will become ONE person. man and wife, bound till dead do them apart.

Nothing more and nothing less.


[edit on 24-2-2005 by voorwaarts]

[edit on 24-2-2005 by voorwaarts]

Originally posted by infinite
prove it.
I doubt it Edward II was, i doubt the popes are aswell.

Richard the lionheart was not gay

how about these?

How do we know Richard was gay?

Richard was irresponsible and hot-tempered, possessed tremendous energy, and was capable of great cruelty. He was more accomplished than most of his royal family, a soldier of consummate ability, a skillful politician, and capable of inspiring loyal service. In striking contrast with his father and King John his brother, he was, there seems no doubt, a homosexual. He had no children by Queen Berengaria, with whom his relations seem to have been merely formal.

-- Encyclopedia Britannica--

I would say the Encyclopedia Britannica was fairly accurate most of the time wouldn't you?

How about this?

A contemporary account of Richard and King Philip of France:

"They ate every day at the same table and from the same dish, and at night their beds did not separate them. And the king of France loved him as his own soul; and they loved each other so much that the king of England [Richard's father] was absolutely astonished at the passionate love between them and marveled at it."

or this

British novelist and journalist Colin Spencer notes:
"There was nothing remotely effeminate about Richard, of course, a crusader and warrior devoted to hand-to-hand combat. Another of his lovers was a young knight, a crusader, one Raife de Clermon, whom he freed from Saracen captivity. Richard was undoubtedly pious and constantly in the company of prelates; there was no shame attached to his predilections and nothing hidden. Though he did repent on several occasions of 'that sin,' public confessions being a tradition of the church, there is no sign that it was regarded as a more serious sin than many others.

Most of the stories wrote about him mentioned this and it seems to have been open knowledge during his life.

As for some of the others

Elton John, James Dean, Rock Hudson and MANY of the others he mentioned are Gay as a matter of public record

Amuk,
i didnt know that thank you for correcting me.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by infinite]

So much important Gay people, it must be right to have intercourse with the same sex.
So much paedophile priest, it will give you ‘carte blanche’ to molest a kid.
So many abortions, it must be allowed to ‘blender’ an unwanted human being.

Is their filth your soap???? Because they committed a sin it will make your sin OK in the eyes of God? Look first at yourself. These people will receive their judgment, so will you. It’s far better that you worry about how God will look at you.

Are you giving Him the joy He deserves?


[edit on 24-2-2005 by voorwaarts]

Well Mr. GodWillJudgeYou, I'm a Pantheist, so your rules of what god is, was, or will do have absolutely no impact on me or my beliefs. Just for the record, and i will state this as clear as i can so you can comprehend:
Christianity, although the largest single religion, only comprises 37% of the population of the world. You know what that means, right? 63% of the world don't believe in Christianity.
Yes thats right!
More people of this planet don't believe, than do believe. And of that 37%, they are factionised: they have variables in what the fundamentals of christianity is.
How does that grab you?
I know that in your mind there is only 1 religion, and 1 belief, and that belief is your belief, and it's right, and everyone else is wrong. But there's people just like you that are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc..... You can't all be right. In fact, I'd say that I'm pretty sure that you are all wrong.
I don't think there is anything wrong with gay sex. If gay sex is wrong, then so is hetrosexual sex. We have sex for pleasure, and as long as you aren't hurting anyone, i can't see what difference the sex of the partner matters. I've had imbeciles argue with me that sex is for procreation: for producing children. These same idiots use birth control. They just didn.t realise they were having sex for pleasure, because they don't think. They just spew out what they are told without ever taking the time to consider it. Worst of it is, these people, on the most part, will still keep that point of view, even though they have just been shown clearly, how idiotic a stance it is to have, simply because they have been told that that is the right view to have. They get stuck! they get scared! "What I'm told has to be right!". Morons are so dependant on what ever belief system they've had drummed into them, that its just not possible to question it, even when they have glaring faults, because questioning it would bring into focus huge inconsistencies and discrepencies within that belief framework.
Paedophillia is something very different. Thats a moral question, as is abortion, and of course, paedophillia is an abuse of a child. A child does not have the ability to protect itself, or make decisions, which is a huge difference from consenting adults having sex.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by cruzion]

My theory. Gay is an alteration of creation. Like mentioned before, a gay population would die out, so it is against survival. Two men or two women cannot create children with the body parts they have. That's just the way it is. I don't know what else to say.

Also, just because a person feels a certain way, or has a thought of doing something, doesn't necessarily make it ok to do what you were thinking or feeling. Example, a person who wants to murder people does not have to kill people. He may be convinced, in his mind, that murdering is the right thing to do, but truthfully murder isn't right. The would be murderer can decide, "that's not a good idea, I would rather do something else with my life." You do have a choice. You can change your destiny.

This does not mean go out and gay bash, or deny gay people rights as humans. It doesn't mean deny gay people your friendship. Have gay people had an impact on the world? Yes they have. Music for sure is one area of impact, music is powerfull stuff. And there are gay musicians who have entertained the masses for years.

Troy