Here we go.  The Church encourages everyone to pray and to have faith and to trust in God as their savior.  But the Church does not condone every action, just because it might be a wanted action.  This is going to be very difficult for many North Americans to comprehend.

Whelp. Peter was chosen, ergo the hate of the Enemy begins.

God has created marriage between one man and one woman! if the Pope and the church want to be faithful to God and the Bible, they must stand firm on God’s creation (marriage according to the bible). Do you remember the sodom and Gommorh history? the result of the marriage between same-sex is destruction; fire came down from heaven have burnt up the entire city!!!the same jugement shall come to LGBT if they don’t repent and give up their action! Even God is Love, he loves sinners He hates Sin; because sin caused the death of His SON!! friends LGBT think about it! Repent or perish!

God loves sinners but hates sin! LGBT must repent because “gayism” caused the destruction of SODOM and Gommorha centuries ago!God made fire come down from heaven to that city because they were stiff neck LGBT. The Pope and the Chuch must not accept this practice in the Church if they want to be faithful to the God and His Holy word: the BIBLE

Bashing the Church for its stance on the morality of the openly LGBT lifestyle is akin to an alcoholic looking into a mirror and hating the wall it hangs on for holding it up.

The Church has been delegated a moral authority that has Jesus’ own seal of approval. It’s only job is to hold up a mirror to the world so that we may see our own sinfulness and, in turn, repent. It is not coercive, but faithful. It is gentle but unwavering. It exercises its authority but will never pass final judgment.

It is clear that those who wrestle with the thorn of same sex attraction wish only to smash the mirror rather than take a good, long look at the reality that stares back. While it is not exclusive to these, it seems that the vitriol rises to new levels every day in this particular community.

For its part, the Church will continue in its teaching, will continue to endure dissent from its own, and will plead to her groom for mercy to ALL faithful members. May her patience, honesty, and ministry facilitate grace to all Catholics who struggle with her teachings and may Pope Francis be her shining example.

People who define themselves by their sexuality are missing the point.  We are all called to something higher, whether we be straight, gay, or whatever.  It’s not about “me” and who/what “I” am, it’s supposed to be about love for the Lord and who He is. It’s time to keep our eyes and minds focused on Christ, not ourselves.

Folks are missing the point.Whatever disorder we have, sexual or otherwise, it only becomes a matter of sin if acted upon.We’re all flawed & each face daily challenges.
And the Church can’t tell us what we can do, only what we should do.Those who choose to, listen. Those who choose not to, don’t.

Um, can they point to one single instance where the pope condemmed a person, not an action?

all human beings are called by both natural and divine law to live chaste lives.  what it is that arouses a human being sexually has nothing to do with whether or not they should or should not live chaste lives.  it is the teaching of Jesus Christ (almighty God) that ALL sexual activity that occurs outside of a permanent and exclusive relationship between one man and one woman is seriously disordered and mortally sinful.  that teaching and that reality is not and cannot be changed by anyone.

proclaiming the truth in love is NEVER hateful.

shows that we have the right Pope for this time

What an assumption, these gays should really take a hard look in the mirror and see who hates who.  I have not heard Pope Francis say anything about hating any group.

I think the point is he used incredibly offensive language to describe people seeking peaceful, democratic change in civil marriage laws. Wanting to be married can’t really be “a machination of the Father of Lies,” can it? There’s no love in such demonization. There’s not even humanity. Seems to me the gay groups are just calling it like they see it, and they are not the ones casting the first stone in this case.

But maybe, just maybe, everyone (including the Church) can rachet down the rhetoric? We can disagree without calling people devils when they are advocating within the system for changes they want, can’t we?

jfosnyc,

I think if we’re honest about it, lots of things that appeal to us &  appear to be good, can fall into the category of “machination’s of the Father of Lies.” It’s old school talk, but not demonization.

God bless our Holy Father.  The more the LGBT or whatever they call themselves hates him, the more I love him.  I also like it that he has stood up to his government leaders on abortion and so called same sex marriage.

“Wanting to be married can’t really be ‘a machination of the Father of Lies,’ can it?”
.
.
Wanting to become not only involved in a sexual relationship* that God has expressly forbidden, but also to go one step further and to demand that the state and the society officially sanction such an arrangement by describing it as a “marriage”, yes, that not only “can be”, but truly *is* a machination of the Father of Lies.
.
.
*From the Book of Leviticus in the Bible: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; this is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with any animal, nor shall a woman present herself to an animal to mate with it; all this is forbidden.”

Exactly right . . . here we go AGAIN.  The GL community of all faiths need to realize that GOD created man(male)and woman(female)to multiply bearing fruit/offspring.  Obviously, two men nor two women cannot multiple bearing fruit/offspring is pretty elementary to understand.  I pray for any/all children who are adopted by same sex partners.  It’s a disgrace to the child, period!!!!

The Jesuits have the description of “God’s Marines.”  If Pope Francis’ austere background requires him to hold tight to Catholic teaching and keep the principles steadfast against the world’s clamoring then he fulfills the role of Cephas, the Rock.  The New Evangelization is the ideal vehicle for whipping us into military shape, so to speak.  We Catholics need to relearn and ingrain these core truths, akin to physical drills and training, in order to overcome the enemies which are disordered earthly values of greed, pride, and pleasure-seeking.  Like Therese of Lisieux we must subsume our self-interests into the greater and holier Body which is Christ’s Church.
Saints Francis Assisi, Xavier, and de Sales, pray for the new Pontiff and for us!

All I know is that minutes after the announcement, the Wikipedia page for the Cardinal was updated to include his papacy and at the same time there was a hateful addition regarding his orthodoxy and the Church’s teaching regarding homosexual activity that was removed shortly thereafter.
It appeared to be on the page about 5-10 min.

The Pope’s stance on same- sex marriage, gay people, is to be expected.  Sad, but not surprising.  So those of us who do not agree the RCC’s stance on these issues move on.  We know that even in Argentina, the now Pope Frances could not stop marriage equality.  He will not stop marriage equality in the US either.  the world will not end with the full relaization of marriage equality, Western civilization will not come to a screeching halt, the institution of marriage will not be damaged (straight people have done all the damage that can be done to marriage).

By putting out its illogical, irrational, immoral, unscientific message same-sex marrage and gay people, the RCC continues to inspire people to become former RCs and to make itself increasingly irrelevant.

However, given this pope’s background, hopefully he will focus on ending poverty, war, hunger and reforming the Curia, rather than focusing on “pelvic issues”.

The author writes: “And not to pick apart their statement too much but isn’t it hateful to call someone hateful?” Equally Blessed’s (EB) statement reads: “he wrote things that, frankly, could be considered hateful.” EB’s statement suggests that the words Cardinal Bergoglio wrote are hateful. EB’s statement does not call Cardinal Bergoglio himself hateful.

The author writes: Yeah, Dignity USA just told the pope he should learn about the faith.” On the contrary, Dignity USA’s statement reads: “We invite him to take the time to learn about our lives, our faith, and our families ...”. The statement uses the words ‘our faith’ not ‘the faith’. I believe the point that Dignity USA is making by inviting the Pope to learn about them is that LGBT persons are not the ‘other’, but, rather are our brothers and sisters whose faith in God and Jesus is no different from that of non-LGBT Catholics.

@Lisa K. on descriptions of the Church’s message, your statements beggar belief:
Illogical that men and women seek each other as lifemates as is done since Adam and Eve?
Irrational that this practice in all cultures for millenia, father & mother formed families, is the worldwide norm?
Immoral that masculinity and femininity strive for, in spite of the worries and despair the world throws at us, loving and faithful relationships with the other?
Unscientific that the male reproductive cell fertilizes the ovum from the female?
What a Bizarro World is that existence!  May the same-sex “fad” go the way of bellbottoms, the Pet Rock, 8-track tapes, and MySpace!

RE,

The RCC just makes blank assertions re same-sex marriage—aseertions that have no basis in fact.  yes, men and women have sought out each other as lifemates since “Adam and Eve”.  but men and men and woemn and women have sought out each other as lifemates since “Adam and Eve” as well.  So what?  the world did not end.

As for families—well not all stright married people can or do have biological children.  As for the “norm”—there have always been families that have not conformed to the “norm”  So what?  Being outside the norm is NOT the same thing as being a bad family or parent.

Again, children are not the only reason to marry and guess what, gay people can and do have children.  Either they have had children from traditional marriages or have biological children through in artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, or have adopted children (like Chief Justice John Robert—an RC).

Gay people are no different than straight people. Some do well in marriages/committed relationships some do not.  Some are great parents and some are not.  I am an old attorney who did a lot of work representing the interests of children in dependency, neglect and/or abuse cases.  Guess what?  ALL the parents involved in cases of abusing their children, neglecting their children and/or putting their children in situations of dependency were straight.  One’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with being a good parent or not.  If you don’t believe that, go to your local courthouse any day of the week and see the parade of straight people who are in court for being lousy parents.

The RCC wants to try to convince the world that same-sex marriage is somehow awful, etc.  But that dog won’t hunt.  Its just NOT true People are people.  Like I said, sexual orientation does not matter.  Some people are good at marriage/committment, some are not. Gay, straight, etc, it just does not matter.

@Lisa K., we will agree to disagree with a spirit of respect and forgiveness. If my attempts at Spiritual Works of Mercy fall on unwilling ears, I do wholeheartedly support your point that Francis can spur us to pay more attention and energy to Corporal Works of Mercy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Acts_of_Mercy
God bless!

Lisa,

There are gays with adopted children trying to convince the world that gay marriage is a bad idea and they are not RC.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

Just because heterosexuals are not always great parents, this does not mean that we go out of our way to deny children a mother and a father, whether biological or adopted. There is no such thing as a genderless family or marriage.

“However, given this pope’s background, hopefully he will focus on ending poverty, war, hunger and reforming the Curia, rather than focusing on “pelvic issues”.”

Actually, it’s the critics of the church and the pop culture media that are focused and obsessed with “pelvic issues”.  The church repeatedly and forcibly speaks out against war, hunger, poverty, etc. yet those pronouncements are often buried or not even mentioned in the media and by church critics.  A mere peep about abortion or contraception, then it becomes a headline item, which is evident of the church critics being the ones obsessed with the pelvic region.

In the past year, heard an official from Catholics for Choice criticize the Vatican and state the church is obsessed with the pelvic region. Funny, Catholics for Choice’ reason for existence—and their fundraising PR—is due to the pelvic region.

Since Benedict’s resignation, the media has been harping that the church needs to change its teaching on abortion, birth control, married clergy, etc.

Heck, the mainstream Protestant denominations have all that now yet they too face declining attendance.  In fact, they are missing in the public square…inert social clubs?

Statement:

The gays want the church to change God’s word, so they can feel better about themselves, and stop feeling guilty for their own actions.
Gays don’t want to be accepted, they want to accept themselves.
They want God’s word changed in an attempt to change their and feel like they are not doing anything wrong.

“the now Pope Frances”
“the world will not end with the full relaization of marriage equality”
“By putting out its illogical, irrational, immoral, unscientific message same-sex marrage and gay people,”
“I am an old attorney”
——
I hope for the sake of your clients you did a better job of proofreading your work and presenting cogent arguments in your briefs than you have done here.

“Its just NOT true People are people.”
——-
Are you saying it’s not true that people are people, because otherwise you might need a comma.

Oh my gosh….if you think the LGBT crowd is hacked off wait ‘till you get a load of the feminists when he upholds the Church’s teaching on abortion….contraception etc.

The more I hear that he is standing for what the Bible teaches and what God commands, the more I love him!  The Bible can not be changed or modernized just because a small percentage of the population demands it. Viva El Papa’.

So-called marriage equality in Argentina are around the world, is being imposed by Western secular elites despite most people being opposed to it. They think they are superior and need to educate the savages.

They seem to think he isn’t just hateful, but really stupid as well.  I mean, how condescending can it get?  The man is missing a lung, not eyes or a brain. We know you exist!  We still don’t agree with you!

“Um, can they point to one single instance where the pope condemmed a person, not an action?”
Kara, I think as far as they’re concerned it’s all the same.
-
Lisa - I’m sorry but marriage and not-marriage cannot logically be equal.  It’s a feature not a bug.

Just a thought that came to me this morning.
You have a number of folk who claim to be atheists, rationalists, whatever.They hold Science as a quasi-religion.Everything must be proven through science.Religion is a human construct, an illusion,unprovable, & goes against reason & science.
OK. But a number of these folk also support “same sex marriage.” How does that work into biology? Even if you take the most extreme biological,evolutionary approach, it makes no sense.If you deconstruct romance down to pheromones & survival of the species, homosexuality appears even more clearly as a psychological disorder.
We’re more than just the instinct-driven beasts hardcore Darwinists would have us to believe. Even if you accept that theory,  but still claim everyone has a right to “love” whom they choose, why deny polygamists, folks who have crushes on close relatives or inanimate objects? There really is no limit when you detach marriage from natural law or even basic biology.It all unravels into anarchy-or the extreme realms of libertarianism.Honest libertarians would agree & I give them credit for their honesty, but who would really want to pass that type of society on to the next generation? And what would be the chances of it surviving for very long, anyway?
OK , back to my coffee…..

To Kathleen:

You’re generally ignorant (and not alone judging by the posting activity here) on the subject of homosexuality.  Every species of mammal has homosexuals.  It is not psychological.  It has to do with an influx of hormones during high chronic stress situations during pregnancy. There have been homosexual humans since we have been on this rock. The largest influx of homosexual persons in the U.S. was during and after WWII. Check out some longitudinal studies on the subject. It is a not a choice either. If you think it is a choice do the Christian thing and talk to people who are gay so they can fill you in.

The LGBT community should wait before mud slinging.  Pope Francis has been very supportive of the Latin gay community as a Cardinal and has worked to end persecution within the congregation. 

-Straight Married Catholic Guy

The pope is not hateful and harsh towards LGBT people.  As a matter of fact he’s gone out of his way to express his love and concern for everyone including married, single and religious straight people.  What he doesn’t endorse and of course cannot, is fornication.  As far as I can determine from scripture, neither does the Lord.  Serious Catholic’s know this.  Therefore, no pornography for anyone, no unnatural sexual jollies for anyone.  No violation of vows for anyone.  Married Catholics can commit mortal sins by having extramarital affairs if they choose to just like all fornicators can.  However the Church can’t endorse any of these behaviors it was created by Our Lord on his chosen rock in order to facilitate forgiveness and recommitment to saintliness.

Rick,

Marriage is a beneficial institution to society.  So it will be beneficial to society to recognize the legal right of gay people to marry.  It will provide gay people and their children (and society) with all the spiritual, societal, and material benefits of marriage.  It is dterimental to society to not recognize that gay peole have the legal right to marry.

That being said, no one expects the Pope or the RCC to change its teachings, its misinterpretation of scripture re gay people, same-sex marriage, etc.  What would be nice is if the RCC and the pope left gay people alone and focused on the world’s truly pressing problems: war, hunger, poverty, disease, economic inequality, political corruption, tyranny.  Those problems are rampant in the developing world, wher most of the world’s RCs live—as Pope Francis well knows and has experienced.  The RCC has the potential to do much good with those issues. It should focus its energies on the world’s pressing problems.  Same-sex marriage is not one of them

Jeff,
I think you’re probably correct that it’s not a subject I’m well versed in.I’m aware of the effects of stress during pregnancy & think it can a predisposing factor but not primary, nor causative.
Animals exhibit behaviors during estrus that folk who do not raise livestock tend to anthropomorphise. I think if you’ve ever observed a field of cattle & the reactions to a cow in heat by other cows, bulls, & steers alike, you’ll know what I mean.It’s a reaction to the estrus,not a gender identity issue.
So, I do believe homosexuality’s a disorder but agree that it’s not generally chosen.We don’t often choose our psychological disorders, nor should we be judged by them, only our actions.

To Jeff:

Sorry to butt into your post to Kathleen but your representation of homosexual animals and science is completely false.

First, animals are not homosexuals.  This is a canard put forth by homosexuals and their supporters.  Animals are instinctual by nature and they always return to the opposite gender in order to propagate the species in accordance with their mating behavior.

Second, recent science has concluded that there is no ‘homosexual gene’ which predispositions a person to be homosexual.  In addition the idea that stress causes homosexuality is simply not-to-be-believed!  If you have some science to back that up I’d like to see it.

Finally, you urging the LGBT community to ‘wait and see’ because His Holiness has been supportive of the gay community is wishful thinking. His Holiness is already on record condemning both homosexual relationships and marriage.  I would suppose that is because both are condemned by Scripture and the Church.  Because Scripture is clear regarding its condemnation of homosexual relationships the Church cannot change its teaching even if it was inclined to do so.

To Lisa Kaiser:

I would agree that marriage between one man and one woman is beneficial to society.  But the clear evidence is that homosexual marriage is not.  The redefinition of marriage (sought by 5% of the population eliminate all barriers to people doing bazaar things.  Already gays in the Netherlands are talking about how in the not too too distant future group marriage will be introduced.  This would allow several people to marry e.g. 3 men and women etc.  In Canada there is already an effort underway to legalize polygamy. A woman in the states wants to marry her pet and another woman wants to marry and vase. 

You should understand that the Pope has a responsibility to teach his flock in accordance with Catholic beliefs.  That is why he teaches against homosexual relationships etc.  You, on the other hand, are free to ignore them.  So please don’t tell the Church to mind it’s own business…saving souls is its business.  And that does not, as you suggest, detract from the Church’s social justice efforts.  In fact if you check it out the Catholic Church is listed as one of the worlds top 10 charities.

Lisa,

This is a wild assertion “Marriage is a beneficial institution to society.  So it will be beneficial to society to recognize the legal right of gay people to marry.”  The reason that marriage is a beneficial institution is because it has ALWAYS been in every cultural between men and women for the creation and protection of children. It has always been an investment in a society’s future because it’s survival depends on the health of its next generation.

Therefore your assertion that “it will be beneficial…” makes no sense.  Gay couples cannot produce children.  When they do use technology to reproduce they force their child to be separated from one of their biological parents. This happens due to life’s problems, but is certainly not something to be deemed “beneficial” for the child and therefore sought. We live in a broken world so children lose one or both of their parents, but that does not mean we should try to cause that to happen to them. That alone will harm their psychological and emotional health.

Hi Lisa - I remember you from the other blog on Catholic education, and I presented your intentions before the Blessed Sacrament today. My guess is the FreeMasons have influenced your thinking, and I will encourage all on this feed and other NCReg blogs to pray for you. Thank you for helping us keep our arguments strong and fresh. Be well.

Jennifer,

The Freemasons???  Where did you get such a strange idea??? I know almost nothing of the Freemasons or their ideas or their activities or what they stand for.  Are you buying into some strange conspiracy theory???  That the Freemason are some kind of secret sinster group hatching nefarious plots against the RCC? Or Oh the horror, the horror!

I think you presented YOUR intentions before the “blessed scarament”.  you certainly did offer MY intentions.  I have no intentions to offer in that direction as I think the idea of the “blessed sacrament” is a myth.

Jennifer,

I menat to say that you did NOT offer my intentions before the “blessed sacrament”.  the idea of the “blessed sacrament’ is a myth as is the idea that the man Jesus was God or messiah.

The arrogance and illogical arguments that groups like Diginity, New Ways Ministry and Fortunate Families never ceases to amaze and disgust me.  I truly shake my head when they accuse the Church of hatred and bigotry as they spew their venom.  The lengths they go through to normalize SS behavior is truly astonishing.  I pray for their souls in the hopes they will see the error of their ways.

There’s no difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex….except for the fact that homosexual sex is inherently sterile and therefore inherently disordered.  Except for the fact that common sexual practices among homosexuals (in particular, men) are dangerous and spread disease.  Except for the fact that what homosexuals in general (in particular, male homosexuals) call “monogamy” is not what heterosexuals mean by that word.

Guess who made this horribly repressive and puritanical statement about sex:

“The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it.”

Psychiatrist Sigmund Freud

Even sexually obsessed Sigmund got this one right…..

(Source:  Christopher West, Good News About Sex & Marriage, Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Charis Servant Publications, 2000), p.119)
Also in “Sexual Dissidence” by Jonathan Dollimore, p. 175 and also by Jerome Neu in “A Tear is an Intellectual Thing”, p. 155]

How strange that we’ve gotten to the point that so many of cannot see what is plainly stamped on our bodies.  Man was made for woman and woman for man.

For heaven’s sake, just look at the plumbing!

Hi Lisa - I guessed about the FreeMasons, I don’t think I asserted that. You mentioned your beliefs in a previous blog that seemed to coincide with them, but I don’t take you to task for that.

When I prayed for your intentions before the Blessed Sacrament today, I meant I mentioned you by name and anything that might be of distress to you, such as a sick family member, a job worry. Respectfully, Jennifer

Franciscan,

Not all stright sex results in or has the potential to result in reproduction.  There are many married straight people who for any number of resaosn cannot/do not have children.  So their sexual activity is “disordered”?? It would be “disordered” for people past childbearing age to have sex, for people whose health conditions or physical disabilities make them infertile to have sex, for people who may have some natural biolgicial problems with their reproductive systems to have sex???

Marriage is about more than reproduction. The RCC and right-wing RCs just seem obsessed with reproduction.  Weird.

Jennifer, 

My beliefs are my beliefs.  They have nothing to with the Freemasons. So there is nothing to “take me task for”  i don’t even really know who or what the Freemason oare or why you seem focused them.  But I am in no way influended by whatever the Freemason are about. And if you want to pray to a myth that’s fine. It does no good, but it does no harm either.

Lisa - Please explain your statement “its misinterpretation of scripture re gay people, same-sex marriage, etc”.  Can you give me some examples of specific scripture passages that have been misinterpreted by the 2000 year old Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East.  Many scholars from these ancient entities have been studying and interpreting scripture for a long long time.  I’m sure we could all benefit from your wisdom regarding their misinterpretations and the myth they all believe with regard to The Holy Eucharist.

Rick, I think Lisa’s answer will fall along the lines that the story of Sodom was not about homosexual activity but about the Sodomites not being hospitable people.  This is the common interpretation from those trying to push the SSA agenda.

Sadly, the talking pieces for groups like Dignity or Fortunate Families like to think they are true experts in scripture interpretation.  It truly amazes me some of the outlandish interpretations they espouse.  Sadly, I have had these people work on me—non-blood related family members—with many of the arguments posted here.

Lisa, truly can you explain to me how violating an orifice used for excretion is a natural act of expressing love?  I shutter to think how unsanitary this act is due to the exposure to fecal matter.  Clearly our bodies were not made to be violated in such a way.

SFF,

When will you and others with similar thinking understand that the ultimate gift of love and charity is NOT to affirm a person in their sinfulness?  The RCC teaches that sexual acts undertaken by SSA people are gravely immoral.  The Church will never change her position on this. 

And the RCC has never condemned the person but rather the acts.  However, SSA people often define themselves by their sexuality first and foremost.  Everything else takes a distant second.

To: Lisa,

Please don’t distort the teachings of the Church.  The Church requires that conjugal act be open to life.  That is why the Church condemns contraception for example.  So your remark that not all sex between heterosexual couples has the potential to produce life is correct but misunderstands/misstates Catholic teaching.  Sex between older people, people naturally sterile or infertile is perfectly legitimate and acceptable because the act itself is ‘open’ to life;  no artificial means has been employed to prevent the transmission of life. On the other hands…homosexual sex is incapable of producing life…period.

With respect to marriage….what do you think the main purpose of marriage is if not to produce children in a family environment?  No need to get married at all if the underlying reason is simply sexual gratification and being pals. 

What is weird is why LGBT people seek the stamp of religious approval via marriage.  Why not civil unions?  Why bother to get married at all?

Jeff,

I have a mild form of Aspergers syndrome, and I agree it is not chosen, but nobody knows for sure what causes it. It’s the same with homosexuality. There are some things that have changed about me, with therapy, there are some that have not. The difference is I do not use Aspergers to define my whole existence, like the LGBT community does. I do not think that my actions should not have any ethical implications, because I was born a certain way. That would be an excuse, that others would not allow me to get away with. Aspergers is something, I have. It’s not who I am. This is how the church views gay people.

Lisa,

The church does not see these issues separate from social justice issues. They are part of the vision of the human person. This is what you do not understand.

There is also no such thing under international law that says, gay marriage MUST be legalized or that it MUST be a human right. This is what was brought up at the US supreme court by legal experts.

If your argument is that it is good for society, then children having a mother and a father is also good for society and for them.

“The RCC and right-wing RCs just seem obsessed with reproduction.  Weird.”

Right wing? I am Canadian and have always voted Liberal, except in the last two elections.

Sassy,

I think you have a very limited view of how men have sex with each other and how women have sex with each other.  And please know, that its not only gay men who engage in anal sex.  Lots of straight people do as well—with their spouses and/or with partners outside marriage.  there are numerous ways that straight people and gay and gay women have sex.

The US Supreme Court struck down all laws that legislated that people have sex in only one manner and that outlawed everything else.  You want to go back to government being able to tell people which sex acts they may or may not engage in within their marriages and/or within the privacy of their relationships or homes?

“I think you have a very limited view of how men have sex with each other and how women have sex with each other.  And please know, that its not only gay men who engage in anal sex.  Lots of straight people do as well—with their spouses and/or with partners outside marriage.  there are numerous ways that straight people and gay and gay women have sex.”
—-
Yes, and all are considered immoral. Thanks.

“The US Supreme Court struck down all laws that legislated that people have sex in only one manner and that outlawed everything else.  You want to go back to government being able to tell people which sex acts they may or may not engage in within their marriages and/or within the privacy of their relationships or homes?”
—-
Oh look, strawmen arguments. Lisa can’t actually defend anything she writes, so she changes the topic completely by insinuating that we want to ban certain sexual acts. No one actually is arguing that, but hey, why actually stay on point. To her credit, at least she didn’t misspell anything for a change.

Posted by Lisa Kaiser said on Saturday, Mar 16, 2013 3:55 PM (EDT):

“The US Supreme Court struck down all laws that legislated that people have sex in only one manner and that outlawed everything else.  You want to go back to government being able to tell people which sex acts they may or may not engage in within their marriages and/or within the privacy of their relationships or homes?”

My response (Mike Malone) March 19.

I don’t even understand why civil law is being brought up in this thread.  Since the beginning of time societies have introduced very immoral civil laws (in accordance with Catholic beliefs).  In many cases these laws were/are both immoral and unjust e.g. slavery, women’s suffrage etc.  The government is no arbitrator of right and wrong.  As a woman how would you like the government to dictate you wear a burka, not go to school and walk behind your husband?

As far as I’m concerned (as a Catholic) I don’t care what the government thinks on moral matters after all it was the Supreme Court that put Roe v Wade into law…nice huh.

So if I have to choose between what the government wants like abortion, contraception, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, IVF, cloning, homosexual marriage and the HHS’s unconstitutional mandate….I’ll oppose the government in everyway possible including disobedience.

Mike,

It sounds like you would be happeir in Iran or Saudia Arabia or Pakistan.

The RCC is of course free to teach whatever it believes.  And those of us who stand for equality, justice, the US Constitution, etc are free to oppose teh RCC in every way possible.

When the US Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage by June, if not sooner, the RCC will still remain free to teach its dogma and doctrines and to not marry same-sex couples.

And of course, there will be a group of Americans whose legal rights have been recognized and who will truly have equal protection under the law via the 14th Amendment of the US Constiution. And the world will not end, Western civilization will not crumble, straight people will continue to marry and divorce at the same rapid rate.  In other word,s nothing will change.  In 5 yrs, people will wonder what all the fuss about same-sex marriage was about.

Thankfully that is the American way and thankfully the USA is not an RC theocracy

Posted by Lisa Kaiser on Tuesday, Mar 19, 2013 4:51 PM (EDT):

It sounds like you would be happeir in Iran or Saudia Arabia or Pakistan.

The RCC is of course free to teach whatever it believes.  And those of us who stand for equality, justice, the US Constitution, etc are free to oppose teh RCC in every way possible.

When the US Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage by June, if not sooner, the RCC will still remain free to teach its dogma and doctrines and to not marry same-sex couples.

And of course, there will be a group of Americans whose legal rights have been recognized and who will truly have equal protection under the law via the 14th Amendment of the US Constiution. And the world will not end, Western civilization will not crumble, straight people will continue to marry and divorce at the same rapid rate.  In other word,s nothing will change.  In 5 yrs, people will wonder what all the fuss about same-sex marriage was about.

Thankfully that is the American way and thankfully the USA is not an RC theocracy

————————————————————————————————————

Mike Malone response:

So let me get this straight….

You think murdering babies in the Womb through abortion is OK, right?

You think homosexual relationships are just dandy, right?

You think that civil law trumps God’s Law, right?

You think the civil laws in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan are just because their governments passed these laws, right?  You apparently think Hitler’s laws that justified the Holocaust were OK, right?  Sharia Law is OK right (it is imposed by both secular and religious Mid-East states).  I guess China’s one child policy and forced abortions are just, right?

See you can toss out platitudes, you can invoke the Constitution, You can wave the flag, you can scream that you are for equality, justice and the American way….but you can’t seize the high ground because it is occupied by moral law not some government entity given to change with pop culture.

So let’s recap…..

When the abortionist does a late term abortion on a baby by preventing the head from clearing the birth canal and then lifting its feet in the air so he can and jam a suction tube into the back of the babies head to collapse its skull….that is your idea of justice right?

When people of faith are being forced by their government to dispense directly or through their insurance carrier contraceptives and abortifacients that violate their religious conscience that’s equality, right?

If marriage is redefined you must be perfectly OK with people marrying their pets, polygamy, group marriage or even marrying an inanimate object….you think that is the ‘ol American way huh?  (Don’t say it isn’t possible because their are people/groups working to get this things approve should marriage be redefined.

You don’t understand evolution, science or common sense if you are a proponent for homosexual relations because:

a. Evolution did not develop homosexuals or it would have provided them with a way to reproduce…..
b. Science and Biology is unequivocal…..biology is clear that the female and male bodies are made for each other…..homosexual bodies are not and never will be. 
c. Common sense….the number of homosexuals as a percent of the human population runs a static 5% or 6%, they can’t reproduce, evolution is didn’t provide for them, biology didn’t provide for them either.

I can only conclude that homosexuality not normal human behavior.

Fortunately does not matter what happens….homosexuals will never achieve the acceptance they seek through the redefinition of marriage and by trying to impose acceptance on the American public through the force of law etc.

Before you get carried away citing the Constitution please realize that our laws and country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles…principles people like you are trying to undermine.

Mike Malone,

Word of Advice. You are debating a woman, who lacks basic comprehension skills to figure what you are trying to say. She’ll only turn it around on you and resort to her usual conspiracy theories, about the motives of others.

Savvy,

You are wise…..I’m not so much interested in a radical progressive that has rubber band morals as I am the others that might read her junk and believe it.  But them I’m Irish…what more need I say?

Savvy,

You have no clue what you are talking about.  Of course I understand what Mike is trying tos ay.  I do not agree with his opnion.  Which is my right.  You apparently lack the basic comprehension skills to understand that. 

And I have not “resorted to conspiracy theories”.  Again you are just way off-base.

Mike Malone,

It is you who is the radical reactionary.  My opinions are very mainstream.  And my morals are fine.  Not that you have nay right to judge. 

the idea that you think Savvy is ‘wise” plainly shows how off-base the radical right-wing of the RCC really is.  Its sad really.

Lisa,

Savvy’s got it right…..it is not surprising that a radical progressive would see their views as mainstream.  But anyone who thinks their morals are OK while supporting all manner of moral ills is simply deluding themselves which is consistent with your posts.

Mike,

58% of american support same-sex marriage, and about aht same percentage of RC also support same-sex marriage. the majority of RCs who voted this past Nov voted for President Obama, who supports same-sex marriage. You must not watch the news or follw the news.

Also, by June the US Supreme court will legalize same-sex marriage.  Their past decisions re the rights of gay peole have clearly stated that laws based on “anti-homosexual animus” are unconstitutional.

so yes, my views are in line with the mjaority of Americans, with the majority of RCS,a dn witht he US Supreme Court. In other words, my opinions are mainstream.

That being said, its OK that your opinions are not mainstream.  America is a nation that values diversity in all its forms, including diversity of opinion.

Mike,

I did not even mention the topic of abortion. This comment thread is about same-sex marriage.  You are the one screaming and ranting. 

Your opinion is your opinion.  The upshot is that by June you will have to deal with the fact that same-sex marriage will be legal in the USA, as it is in a number of other nations.  So feel free to rant on, it won’t change the facts.

Lisa,

Mike is simply challenging your assertion that something must be right or wrong because it’s in the mainstream. It’s a fallacious appeal to popularity. It’s you who would fit into Iran or Saudi Arabia, because they too subscribe to my country, right or wrong. I have to laugh at the claims that self-professed “progressives” make.

What if the Supreme court rules against same-sex marriage Lisa?

Savvy,

I am not saying that something is right because its a majority opinion or mainstream.  mike called me “delusional’ because I correctly stated that my opinion on same -sex marriage IS the same as that of the majority of Americans and the majority of RCs.

And I have to laugh at right-wing reactionary RCs, who subscribe to my church right or wrong.

If the US Supreme Court rules against same-sex marriage on 14th Amendment grounds, that’s fine.  Such a ruling will not negate the laws in the states that currently allow it, nor will it make it illegal for other states to pass laws making same-sex marriage legal. A “no” from the US Supreme Court will just toss the issue back the states—where it is now.

However, based on the Court’s recent opinions, the Court is highly unlikely to rule against same-sex marriage on 14th Amendment grounds or on any other grounds.

Lisa, let me explain it again….I am a person of faith.  I know and understand Catholic teachings based upon Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, Papal infallible declarations and the constant teaching of the Magesterium.  Civil law does not mandate morality.  Nor does it make the morally reprehensible legitimate. The fact you cannot differentiate between civil and moral law speaks volumes. 

Homosexuality is a moral issue so morality is part of this thread.  From day one homosexual acts have been condemned and from day one up until today the Church’s teachings have not changed. To help you understand let me explain that…scripture does not change because it is truth and the inspired Word of God…truth is immutable, it does not change over time, it does not change with pop-culture.

You, on the other hand, are not a person of faith which is your choice. You are a liberal progressive that holds a relativistic view of morality (a fluid moral code). I have suggested and you have not denied that you would support other moral evils e.g. abortion.  I imagine, based upon your posts, that you would post-birth abortion if it becomes civil law. If you think that post-birth abortion is far-fetched…think again:

“In the Journal of Medical Ethics, two ethicists argue plainly for the killing of babies post birth. They’re not hedging their bets. Their web-site says: “Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”(cf. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/ethicists-argue-for-post-birth-abortions#ixzz2O66RRsQx)”.

Just as I said about homosexual marriage.  It will lead to group marriage and many other distortions…not a good thing for the common good.

Finally, you statistics are meaningless because they are merely a snapshot in time.  Think about Hitler Germany…..the vast majority of Germans were aware of what Hitler was doing….I guess his views about Jews was ‘mainstream’ (cf. Hitler’s Willing Executioners, by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen)  Hitler was supported eugenics (the Arian Race) and abortion but he killed homosexuals, Catholics, gypsies and all of his political opponents.

So my message is….instead of going with the crowd, do a little study and understand these issues more deeply; form you opinion with the facts and impact on the common good of the things you support.

Lisa,

Most RC’s worldwide do not support gay marriage. I do not subscribe to my church right or wrong. There is not such thing as a right-wing or left wing RC. It’s more like I cannot convince those who do not want to be convinced. It’s safe to say both of us do not want to be convinced. God Bless.

Savvy,

Most American RCs support same-sex marriage and the majority of American RCs voted for President Obama as well (who is also pro-same sex marriage).

I don’t think either of us can say one way or the other how RCs around the world feel about this issue.  Obviously Argentina and Spain, both at least nominally RC nations, have legalized same-sex marriage. And while the bishops in those nations did not like it, it seems the RCs in the pews had no issue with it.

Lisa,

Spain is different from Argentina, where gay marriage was imposed. I am quite aware of how the majority of practising RC’s worldwide as well as the majority of Christians worldwide view gay marriage.

These polls do not distinguish between active and lapsed Catholics.

The CNN exit polls showed a clear preference for Romney (59- 39%) among voters who attended church services weekly, and an even more pronounced tilt toward Obama (62-34%) among those who never attended services.

Savvy,

You may know how the RCs around feel about same-sex marriage.  You may know what you read some some right-wing RC publications.  But none of us know how the majorty “practicing RCs, as well as the majority of Christians” around the world feel aboutthis issue. 

since the legalization of same-sex marriage in Spain and Argentina, please note how those nations (and others that have also legalized it) have not collapssed, Western civilization has not ground to a halt, straight people are still free to marry and divorce at the rate of 50%, the RCC reamins free to teach what it teaches.  In other words, gay people marrying each other has not been a disaster or a horroble event.

Instead of demonizing gay people, the RCC and other Chrisatins should be woryying about ending war, poverty, hunger, disease; and working toward creating better marriages among straight people—who really seem to be struggling with the whole marriage thing.

Savvy,

It does not matter the level of one’s practice of RCism.  The polls asked people who identified as RCs what they thought of same-sex marriage.  The majority of people who identified themselves as American RCs, support gay marriage.  The majority of people who identified themselves as American RCS, voted for Obama.  That is the fact and the reality.  you may not like, but it does not change the fact that the majoirty of American RCs support marriage equality.

Lisa,

I get it, but it’s still a fact that the majority of Rc’s worldwide do not support gay marriage, neither do the majority of Christians.

Savvy,

You have no way of knowing what the majority of RCs “worldwide” support or do not support. In many places in the world the majority of RCs are more likely to be thingking about and supporting not starving to death, having a decent place to live, not getting caught up in civil wars or guerilla movements, hoping their children survive infancy, hoping they and their children get needed medical care, hoping their children have the opportunity for an education—those kinds of essentials.

“You have no way of knowing what the majority of RCs “worldwide” support or do not support.”

Lisa, theologians and historians and sociologists hold that Christianity in the global south is socially conservative, but politically liberal. You might want to do some reading.

Try, John Allen’s “Future Church” or Philip Jenkins, ” The Next Christendom”.

Mike,

I am a person faith—there are many faiths aside from the RCC.  I do understand the difference between moral law and civil law.  Its just that the RCC is NOT the arbiter of moral law for the world. The RCC through its is mere two centuries (other ongoing faith traditions are much older)has often been wrong on things it called “moral law” You know the RCC-that has fostered and shielded child rapists and their protectors and which continues to do so.  The RCC is has no credibility to speak about issues of morality.

I do not have “fluid moral code”.  Where do you come with this stuff that no basis in fact???? 

I have studied the issues very deeply and understand them thoroughly.  Which is why I reject the RCC’s message of hate, inequality, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination.

Lisa,

You are either joking or ignorant. Philip Jenkins, is not an RC.

” Instead of demonizing gay people, the RCC and other Chrisatins should be woryying about ending war, poverty, hunger, disease; and working toward creating better marriages among straight people—who really seem to be struggling with the whole marriage thing.”

One can still do these things, without the morbid obsession to legalize gay marriage worldwide. There is nothing in international law that says Gay marriage MUST be legalized much less imposed.

Yes, I agree that gays are not responsible for the collapse of marriage, but gay marriage will radically re-structure marriage and family.

Savvy,

I did NOT mention Phil Jenkins in any of my posts.  YOU mentioned that I should read his book.  I do not know who Phil Jenkins is.  Get your facts straight and don’t blame for stuff you say (and then disapprove of your own comments!).

Nobody has a"morbid obsession” to legalize marriage equality. And the whole, It should not be imposed thing” is the same arguement that people made about racial integration.  Its the arguments of the bigot, its the argument of people who are bound by ignorance and baseless fear.  marriage equality is the right thing and matter of justice.

And No, marriage equality will NOT “radically re-structure marriage and family.”  That’s the baseless lie that the RCC wants the gullible to believe.  its just a blank assertion the extreme right-wing makes without any kind of fact or evidence or objective science to back it up. Marriage equality will change anything about marriage.  If any group has radically restructured marriage and family life, its the legions of straight people who leave marriages at the rate of 50%, who leave children behind, who marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry, etc etc. 

Lisa,

There is no scientific consensus on whether gay marriage is immutable like race.

You have no objective science to back up your claims. What you have is scientism and the idea that gay marriage must be imposed even if there is nothing under international law that says it MUST be human right.

There is however, the right of a child to a mother and a father, that should not be denied if possible.

Savvy,

We have been talking about the 14 Amendment of the US Constitution, not international law.  I never mentioned international law.  You are the one that started down that tangent. 

The US Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right of American law and since the 14th Amendment guarantees ALL Americans equal protection under the law, then yes, same-sex marriage is a legal right in the US that should not be denied. 

I don’t know if being gay is immutable like race. What we are talking about legally is the right of two people of the same-sex to marry. We are not talking about “gay” marriage, we are talking about same-sex marriage. Legally,it does not matter how people identify their sexual orientation.

Entering into the legal contract of marriage, does not now require anyone to declare their sexual orientation. Nor should it.  Lots of gay people have married people of the opposit sex. Nobody gets asked their sexual orientation when they get a marriage license.  Same-sex marriage would allow anyone, no matter what their orientation is to marry a person of the same-sex.  There was avery interesting episdoe of the old TV show Boston Legal that talked about why two straight men would want to amrry each other & why they should be allowed to marry.  Anyway, the issue here is same-sex marriage NOT gay marriage. Although admittedly the people who will beenfit most from the legalization of same-sex marriage will be gay people.

Lisa,

If nobody knows if gay marriage is like race, then it cannot be compared to interacial marriage, since men and women of whatever race, were still men and women.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. Men and women are complimentary and children are only born from a man and a woman. This is leaving the door open to call marriage anything one wants it to me. It also denies that sex difference has any significance.

Lisa,

This article is referring to gay marriage in general, not American law. You brought up American law and bring it into every conversation on gay marriage.

Savvy,

I said I did not if being gay was immutable.  I did NOT say that nobdoy knows.  The science is pointing toward the direction that being is gay is immutabley biological. 

In the US, marriage is a fundamental right—and so it should not matter if you want to marry a person of the same sex or of the opposite sex.  And again, marriage is a legal contract that does not have the requirement of reproduction.  When people get a marriage license the only requirement is that they are consenting adults.  No clerk makes people promise to have children.  Its just not a legal requirement of marriage.  And again, gay men father children.  Gay women give birth to children.  So sorry, your arguement is just plainly false and does not stand up.

Sex difference is nice,  just not a requirement for marriage.

Savvy,

I bring up American law in relation to same sex marriage because next week, the last week of March, the US Supreme Court will be hearing two-same sex marriage cases. Those cases have the potential to advance the recognition of the legal rights of gay Americans.  And those cases will also be watched by people in other nations.  Those cases have the potential to influuence the issue of same-sex marriage in other nations that are considering this issue as well. 

Also, all children do have a mother and father—its a fact of human biology.  But biology is one thing and parenting is another. Being a good parent is not about whehter one is gay or straight.  its about who are as a person.  As a an fornmer attorney who did a lot of Guardian ad Litem work (representing the interests of a child(ren) in abuse, neglect, dependency cases) I can tell you that ALL the losuy parents I saw in court were straight people—couples and single parents.  What kids need is a stable loving home with two parents.  It does not matter if those parents are two women, two men, a man & woman.  What matters is that children are loved, taken care of, have a stable home. Straight people can do that, gay people can do that.

Lisa,

“The science is pointing toward the direction that being is gay is immutabley biological.”

This is an unproven assertion.

Lisa, marriage may not “require” reproduction, but children are still born from a man and a woman. Gay men and women still men and women.

“Sex difference is nice,  just not a requirement for marriage.”

Marriage affects children and family one way or the other. It’s not just about adults.

Marriage would not exist otherwise. You can deny it all you want, but it’s a fact.

Savvy,

There is NO evidence that being gay is NOT biological.

What truly the unproven assertion is that somehow being gay is a choice.  there is more science that being gay is biological (do some reading of reputable scientifc sources) than that its a choice.

Marriage is not just about children either.  Marriage became/ is a legal contract for purposes of economics and property.  And in case you did not knw, minor children in American law are cosnidered property.  When people look to dissolve the marriage, there is alegal proceeding called a divorce—becaue amrriage is a legal contract—to divide property.

the history of marriage as a human institution is about property, economics, money, rights of inheritance.  So yes, marriage exists for reasons other than children.  You can deny that all you want, but its a fact. 

also, tow gay people living together in a stable long-term relationship are families, just like straight couples. Being a family IS about choice, not biology.

“What truly the unproven assertion is that somehow being gay is a choice.  there is more science that being gay is biological (do some reading of reputable scientifc sources) than that its a choice.”

Lisa, I am not one of those people who claims that being gay is a choice. Behaviour is a choice. I am simply saying there is NO evidence to prove that it is immutable like race.

“And in case you did not know, minor children in American law are cosnidered property.”

This is sad.

“So yes, marriage exists for reasons other than children.”

Marriage predates any established laws. If the human young raised themselves, there would be NO marriage.

“Being a family IS about choice, not biology.”

In that case, gay marriage cannot be compared to interracial marriage, because being black is not a choice. Behaviour is a choice.

You keep contradicting yourself.

Mike Malone,

You have a point. If the government does not legislate morality, then why legislate marriage?

States that have long financed unmarried co-habitation, are suddenly pushing for the right to marry, because marriage is supposed to be good for everybody?

Lisa,

You said:

Lisa, you said:

“You know the RCC-that has fostered and shielded child rapists and their protectors and which continues to do so.”
———————————————————————————————————-
Mikes response:

Lisa, do you ever do any research? Your gratuitous and salacious comment about the child sex abuse within the Catholic Church proves conclusively that you do not understand what is going on within the Church or within society at large with respect to sexual child abuse. So I’d like to take this opportunity to help you out by providing some information to you.

First of all the child sexual abuse problem in the U.S. Catholic Church ended in the mid-eighties.  From that time until now the rate of child abuse within the Catholic Church has reached nearly zero. The report referenced in the following link concluded that Ephebophilia was the primary cause of abuse problem in the Church since 95% of the victims were post-pubescent. I personally don’t see much difference between a Ephibophilia and Homosexuality. 

From 1950-2010 ~4,500 priests (~4.5%) of 109,000 priests in ministry during the period abused about 11,000 children. Since the scandal broke the Church has paid over $2 billion in settlements and reparations. These facts and more can be found at the following website:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=.pdf+John+Jay+College+of+Criminal+Justice+Report+on+the+Causes+and+context+of+sexual+child+abuse+by+catholic+priests+1950-1990&form=IE10TR&src=IE10TR&pc=MDDCJS

I believe all child abusers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law regardless of their vocation in life. Having said that and contrary to what the uninformed think, Catholic Priests don’t have a monopoly on doing so. Do you have any idea what the rate of sexual child is within society at large?  Do you have any idea what the child abuse rate is within the U.S. Public School System?  Perhaps you should consider that the lawsuits and negative press focus on the Catholic Church is, in my opinion, driven by greed. If you check you will find it is nearly impossible to sue the public school system and other religious denominations simply don’t have the wealth to pay large settlements.

You will find the report at the following site, when you get there click on ‘Child Abuse Research and Statistics:

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm

Finally, You said that the Church continues to shield child rapists and continues to do so.  This is totally false.  You said it but you don’t provide any supporting facts. Don’t bother providing an isolated 25 or 35 year old case. Instead provide credible reports/sources, as I have done for you, that show the who, what, where, when and how this ‘cover up is being done today and some evidence of rate. So unless you can prove up this salacious accusation you should apologize (I won’t hold my breath).

I once watched a debate between William F. Buckley and Patricia Schroder, Senator from Colorado.  Mr. Buckley made the point that when a person is engaged in debate it is quite important to understand the questions so as to stay on topic, something I think your should take to heart.

Lisa,  you said:

“Anyway, the issue here is same-sex marriage NOT gay marriage. Although admittedly the people who will beenfit most from the legalization of same-sex marriage will be gay people.”

————————————————————————————————————-

Mikes response:

Is same ‘sex marriage’ now the LGBT euphemism for ‘gay marriage’ like ‘choice’ is the euphemism for abortion?  How about Mercy Killing as a euphemism for killing sick people?  Or ‘same sex attraction’ as a euphemism for homosexuality.  Or ‘post-birth abortion’ as a euphemism for killing a baby after birth.  I mean these terms do not sanitize what is happening unless those reading or hearing them is fast asleep.

Lisa,

In France, there are many children raised by homosexuals are now testifying that they do not want gay marriage legalized, because they want a mother and father. Parenting is not the same. Children have things to learn from both a mother and father, that they cannot learn or get from people of the same sex.

Savvy,

On the other hand, today the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement of 5 reasons why gay parents are terrific parents.  You can go to the AAP website for that.  Also, Germany just expanded the rights of gay people to adopt—saw that this AM on the Yahoo website.

I doubt that are “many” children in France of gay parents who oppose gay marriage.  They are problby just shills for the extreme-right wing.

The gay parents I know make certaint that their children have lots of people of both sexes in their lives so that have good male and female role models.  Parents are not the only family members who model behavior for chidlre—aunts, uncles, counsins, grandparents play that vital role as well.  And that is true not just for gay parents, but for widowed parents, or otherwise single parents as well

Mike,

you are the one who has failed to do research.  Ever hear of Bishop Finn of Kansas City.  just alst yr he was convicted of the crime of failing to report child abuse that occurred in 2010.  the priest name’s is Sean Raitgan—he is now facing federal charges for the possession of child pornography.  A KC catholic school principal reported to the bishop that Ratigan was acting strangely with children.  Soemone else reported Ratigan for having child pornogragpy on his computer.  Finn deliberately did not go tot he police.  now Finn is a convicted criminal.

And let get this straight—its OK that priests raped children and bishops covered up because gosh that stuff happened int he 198s????

Sorry but its still wrong, its still going on, BXVI has been heavily criticized for doing nothing to hold anyone accountable during the time he was pope.  Dolan is still being deposed for his role in hiding sex abuse cases in NY.  Cardinal Mahoney was just recently stripped of his public duties in the archdiocese of LA for his role in hiding sex abuse cases, the archdiocese there is still dealing with these cases.  And of course this issue has beena global issue for the RCC and still is.  and yes, the RCC has destroyed its moral credibility becasue of priests raping children and bishops and cardinals covering it up.

Lisa,

Anybody who disagrees with is the extreme right. In France, the opposition to gay marriage is on the rise among the left and homosexual groups.

I can make the same claims about the American Academy of Pediatrics. It caters to lobby groups. Nobody is really objective anymore.

The point is not that gays might be good parents or that children benefit from extended family etc, but the point is this. Men and women are not interchangeable. There are things children can only learn from a mother and there are things they can only learn from a father.

Savvy,

I don’t know what right-wing propaganda you are reading, but in France the opposition to same-sex marriage is NOT on the rise among gay people or the left.  That is just a bizarre and obvioulsy false claim.

Godd roles models are good role models for children.  What children need is love and a stable home—and gay parents can and do give their children those things.

you can object all you like but same-sex marriage will be a reality in the USA by June

Lisa,

“but in France the opposition to same-sex marriage is NOT on the rise among gay people or the left.  That is just a bizarre and obvioulsy false claim.”

Um.. Lisa, the March for All in France that is opposed to gay marriage, is organized by a Liberal Socialist, who is also an actress, and this is an English translation of the interviews with homosexuals opposed to gay marriage.

http://englishmanif.blogspot.ca/

It’s more like the media is deleting these facts, in their reports, because they do not want people to know what is going on.

But, the French are scheduled to come out in even more larger numbers later on this month. The previous march for all had 100,000 people.

“What children need is love and a stable home—and gay parents can and do give their children those things.”

This is your opinion.  Children have something to learn from a mother and a father that cannot be interchangeable. There is no sexless humanity.

Savvy,

you are mistaking a vocal minority for a majority.  It is not.  And anybody can call themselves whatever they want—but when they support a right-wing cause, they are right-wing shills.

And NO, the idea that what children need is a stable and loving home is NOT just my opinion.  It is a fact supported by every pediatrician, pshychologist, psychiatrist, social workers, etc who works with children.

Sorry if you think the AAP is not objective.  That is just a denial of the facts. Please go read their statement on their websit about hwy gay parents are great parents and why their children do well in school and in life.

I did not say there is “sexless humanity”.  I am saying that role models are role models.  Kids learn from all their role models—not just parents. 

The real issue re marriage that the RCC and RCs should be concerned with is the high divorce rate. Clean up that mess.  Leave gay people alone.

Lisa,

Homosexual activists are also a vocal minority.  Yes, children need stability. They also need a stable mother and a father. Divorce is always seen as less than ideal. There are no divorce pride parades. Divorce does not replace a mother with another man or vice versa. It’s always seen as a bad thing.

The AAP would have to make comparisons with the other side, too, not just with a select group and then make a comparison on how children benefit from a mother and father.

Children learn from others, but Others do not replace parents.

Savvy,

Yes, gay people are a minority.  In the US however, the majority of Americans support marriage equality—58%.  this isa reult of a recent Washington Post/ABC poll.  In the US, the majority of RCs support marriage equality. 

The issue here in America is about equality for ALL Americans, fairness, justice.  You know—life, liberty and the purusit of happinesss per the Declaration of Independence, being endowed by our Creator with inalianable rights (yes gay people are human beings with inalianable rights), “with liberty & justice for ALL—you know those American ideals we want to make into reality.

Being a minority does not mean that the majority get to bully you and trample your rights.  Marriage equality IS a civil right.  Example, just becasue Buddhists are a religious minority in the US does not mean the majority of non-Buddhist Americans get to trample the fundamental right of Buddhists to religious freedom. Same with Jews, Mulsims, etc.

The US Supreme Court in a number of decisions dating from the 1970s has held that marriage is a fundamental right.  In more recent decisions the Court has held that “anti-homosexual animus” is an unconstitutional basis on which to deny gay Americans their rights

Also, please read the AAP statement—it cites scientific research about the fact that children raised by same-sex aprents do just fine. 

I guess the bottom line here, Savvy, is that if you oppose gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person! 

I am optimistic that our great American ideals of freedom, liberty, justice, equality will be upheld by the US Supreme Court re same-sex marriage.

You and the RCC will of course remain free to oppose liberty, justice equality, freedom, to march back tot he Middle Ages, and hold on to irrational, illogical, inaacurate, immoral and unscientific ideas about gay people.

Lisa,

I do agree that the church needs to clean up its mess and will.  However, millions of people will disagree that it’s lost moral credibility. Millions of people would not have showed up for the Papal Mass, if this was the case.

Savvy,

Millions more stayed away from the papal Mass.  The pews in the RC churches of Europe are empty, the pews of American RC shurches are emptying.

Read about how the Irish RC now feel about the RCC—there it is starkly clear that the RCC ahs lost its moral crsdibility.  And the same is true in Germany and Austria.  In Central and South American, the evangelical churches are taking people away from the RCC.

People are hopeful about a new pope.  People showed up to cheer for change, to dare to hope that the RCC will regain the moral credibility it has lost

Lisa, In my post to you I specifically stated, “Don’t bother providing an isolated 25 or 35 year old case. Instead provide credible reports/sources, as I have done for you, that show the who, what, where, when and how this ‘cover up is being done today and some evidence of rate.”  And because you could not find any data to support your specious liberal claims you respond with two isolated incidents! You posit a false truism…“If one or two priest(s)/bishop(s) commits child abuse all priests/bishops are child abusers”. Please consider the absurdity of your position.

On the other hand your post reveals/confirms a number of things about you:

1. It confirms that you do no research and that you don’t read any research information provided to you(it is quite obvious that you didn’t read the sources I provided to you).

2. Your reporting of the Finn/Ratigan affair is factually incorrect.  “A judge convicted the diocese’s bishop and spiritual pastor, Robert W. Finn, of failing to report child abuse ‘SUSPICIONS’; this was reported by the Kansas City Star.  You can get the facts if you read the article…which I urge you to do(cf. http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/06/3800269/bishop-finn-verdict-guilty.htm).

With respect to Ratigan, he was convicted of child pornography not child sexual abuse. Since we were talking about cover up of sexual child abuse neither Finn or Ratigan support your arguments not do they prove any pattern of cover up in today’s Church. In addition this incident was so trivial that the bishops ‘criminal’ record will be expunged in two years and he remains in office. So, with respect to the bishop, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Ratigan on the other hand went to prison just like any other child pornographer.

You also said, “And let get this straight—its OK that priests raped children and bishops covered up because gosh that stuff happened int he 198s????” Tsk…Tsk I never said or implied that child abuse was OK.  Your suggestion here is a sure sign of debate desperation.  What I gave you was a citation (accepted in all major circles as valid) that the child abuse crisis in the U.S. Catholic Church ended in the 1980’s, but you did not read it did you? It’s only about 120 pages or so and is full of additional sources I urge you to read it.

Now for Cardinal Mahony.  Did you know that his diocese paid out 600 million in abuse settlements. I hope the guy goes to jail because he is clueless but not dangerous.  His view of Catholicism is twisted and he has supported all manner of heterodox Catholic beliefs including extreme feminism, homosexuality, contraception, abortion etc. 

The Catholic Church is composed of 1.2 billion members with hundreds of thousands of clergy.  Any organization of this size will have ‘bad actors’.  So I am confident that in the future there will be additional scandals but I’m equally confident the Church will continue to take firm corrective action as they did with child abuse.

Finally with respect to Pope Emeritus Benedict: got any proof other than liberal and anti-Catholic Church haters?  What are your sources?  What is their credibility?  Please fill me in I am genuinely interested. Since these claims are baseless you might not want to waste your time. 

I realize that progressive liberal people like yourself have difficulty with facts. Unfortunately debate is the exchange of opinion backed by reliable sources.  You are only have way there because you provide no sources.

I also realize that you steadfastly avoid any mention of your own beliefs outside of your defense of homosexuality which begs the question, are you gay?  I think it would advance the discussion I we knew exactly what your motivations are - you certainly know mine.

Lisa,

Churches in the West are declining across denominations. Yes, I know Ireland needs a new evangelization. In Central and South America, the issue is that the church is not as active in evangelizing as the Evangelicals are.

We have a Frances who will rebuild the church. God is full of surprises.

In fact the only reason why we have high divorce rates, single mothers etc, is because sex and childbearing have been freed from the constraints of marriage. This is what happens when marriage is divorced from sex and children.

Savvy,

I think the reasons for the high divorce rate are much more complex than “sex and childbearing have been freed from the constraints of marriage”.  Over the course of human history sex and childbearing have alwasy and routinely occurred otuside the “constraints” of marriage.  The Bible itself is replete with such occurrences.

In fact did not a young, umarried woman named Mary get pregnant out of wedlock????

Lisa,

Yes, Lisa, but only we are crazy enough to insist that children do not need a mother and father.

“In fact did not a young, umarried woman named Mary get pregnant out of wedlock????”

Yes, but not in the typical way.

Savvy,

Yes, all faith traditions in the West are growing smaller. 

Irealnd’s struggle witht he RCC is about more than a “new evangelization”.  The government commissioned reports in Ireland have made clear jsut how long-standing and rampant child sexual abuse at the hands of priests and nuns in Ireland truly was.  RCs in Ireland are dealing with the massive betrayal the RCC inflicted upon genrations of Irish children.

In Central and South America, yes the Evangelicas are very active, but would not be attracting so many RCs, if the RC hierarchy had not so often stood with oppresive dictators, had not sided with the wealthy against the poor and powerless. Actions speak louder than words.  And in Central and Sotu America. teh RCC’s actions told the vast majority of RCS, that their church did not care about them.

As for Frances, yes, I hope he shakes up the RCC—inside and out.

Savvy,

to the people around mary, it looked like she got pregnant the “typical way”.  But of course all that is a rehash of myths by the writers of the gospels.  The god always comes into the world by an unusual route.

Children need love and stability.  Two aprents are ideal—two women, two men, man and woman—it does not matter.

Lisa,

The point is this, they need an evangelization to take everybody back to basics starting with clergy.

Pentecostals in that part of the world are a lot more into the prosperity gospel, hence the issues are more complex.

It’s Marxist liberation theology that took things to the extreme in their support of the poor.

” Two aprents are ideal—two women, two men, man and woman—it does not matter.”

I disagree.  Children will have to deal with the the third party being brought in, so they do not just have two parents, just more confusion.

Savvy,

At least here in the US, our lives during the past 60 yrs or so have made a big change.  It used to be very common for several generations to live under one roof.  Kids were surrounded by a number of adults and maybe cousins of similar age as well.  It was good thing.  It does take a village to raise children, not just two parents.

Many gay parents are making a conscious effort to surround their children with a similar model. Its still a good thing.

Lisa,

It’s not a similar model, since these adults did not sleep with each other.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Savvy,

Of course its a similar model.  Several genrations used to live under one roof—parents, grand aprents, maybe aunts and uncles.  People who slept with each other. 

Didn’t you ever watch the Waltons? Olivia and her husband slept together.  Gandma and Grandpa slept together

My parents lived for awhile early in their marriage with my maternal grandparents. My parents slept together.  my grand parents slept together.

A friend of mine and her husband share their hosue with one of their sons, his wife and their children.  The married couples sleep togehter.

Lisa,

I am not talking about two people sleeping together here. But, a three parent tango, this is not stability for a child.

You are naive if you think that same-sex marriage is only about two people, and not about the LGBT community, that just wants legal rights, and will continue to do what they want.

A bisexual mom can have both a woman and a man. This is not stability for a child.

Savvy,

You seem to be imagining something bizarre and totally outside the reality of how gay people live.  Gay people and gay couples are not “other”.  Apparently you do not know any gay people or gay couples.  Gay people and gay couples live the same usual kind of lives as straight people—go to work, come home, make dinner, pay the bills, go grocery shopping, run other usual errands, take the car in of oil change, yada, yada, yada. I think you must be reading weird right-wing propaganda based in fantasy, not reality. 

Don’t know what you are thinking—but is not based on any reality on this planet.

And please remember straight married people are not saints.  Lots and lots and lots of straight people commit adultery, do not honor their marriage vows. I think if really wnat marriage to work in our society it is stright people who should be banned from marrying!  its stright people who constantly mess up marriage, commit adultery, abuse their children, etc, etc. 

Lisa,

Phenomenology is truth derived from one’s own experience. The NYT article link that I gave you openly admits that most gay marriages are open marriages. This is not some right-wing fantasy. I also never claimed that heterosexuals were saints.

Libs call anybody who disagrees with them right-wing, neo-con, ultra-con, blah, blah. When you cannot refute arguments insult your opponent.

“Also, please read the AAP statement—it cites scientific research about the fact that children raised by same-sex aprents do just fine. “

Lisa, Political scientists have called this ideology and not science.

“Political scientists Leon R. Kass and Harvey C. Mansfield in a brief filed with the Supreme Court by Nelson Lund.

The scholars urge the Court not to redefine marriage based on the new and inconclusive research. The academic studies on same-sex parenting purporting to show “no differences” are, Kass and Mansfield argue, “subject to severe constraints arising from limited data” and a lack of “replicable experiments.” They argue:

Even if same-sex marriage and child rearing by same-sex couples were far more common than they now are, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the effects.

Current research in favor of same-sex parenting is based on limited data. One study sample relied on data gathered at “entirely lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and in lesbian newspapers.” Most relied on reports by parents regarding their children’s well-being “while the children were still under their own care.”

As Kass and Mansfield write:

There could conceivably come a time when supporters of traditional marriage are compelled by scientific evidence to acknowledge that same-sex marriage is not harmful to children or to society at large. That day is not here, and there is not the slightest reason to think it is imminent. It is no less possible that scientific evidence will eventually show that redefining marriage…does have harmful effects on our society and its children. That day is also not yet here, but there is no basis for this or any other court to conclude that it will never arrive.

Time and the lack of large samples prohibit academic research from making reliable conclusions on same-sex parenting. Claims of no difference between family structures are based on inadequate evidence, and, at least in some cases, ideology.

Kass and Mansfield highlight late Senator Daniel Moynihan’s (D–NY) statement that “social science is rarely dispassionate, and social scientists are frequently caught up in the politics” surrounding their work. The current political climate has influenced much of the existing research on issues regarding same-sex parenting.

As Norval Glenn wrote:

“Given the widespread support for same-sex marriage among social and behavioral scientists, it is becoming politically incorrect in academic circles even to suggest that arguments being used in support of same-sex marriage might be wrong.

Social science motivated by politics and ideology should not be used by the Court to decide the legal question of the constitutionality of marriage. As Kass and Mansfield argue:

[C]laims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must necessarily rest on ideology. Ideology may be pervasive in the social sciences, especially when controversial policy issues are at stake, but ideology is not science.”

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/HollingsworthAmicusIMAPP.pdf

Lisa,

You might want to read the NYT article link, I posted.  Libs call whoever disagrees with them right-wing, neo-con, ultra con blah, blah. When you cannot refute an argument insult your opponents. This is not reality or objective thinking.

Political scientists also argue that studies on same-sex parenting are very selective, and driven by politics and ideology rather than science.

You might want to see this.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/HollingsworthAmicusIMAPP.pdf

I never claimed heterosexuals were saints,  Just that we do not know enough to make a decision that homosexuals are saints either. Phenomenology is truth as derived from one’s own experience.

Savvy,

What I am saying is that human beings are human beings.  Straight people are no better or no worse than gay people.  Gay people are no better or no worse than stright people.  Human nature is human nature.  Gay peole are not “other”. .  What we know is that soem stright people make great spouses. great parents.  Some straight people are horrible spouse and/or horrible parents.  Some gay people are great spouse and/or great parents.  Soem gay people are horrible spouses and/or horrible parents.  Its NOT about a person’s sexual orientation.  its about the whole person.

The right-wing haters try to get the gullible and those who do not know any better to beleive that gay people are not human beings, are “other”, are horrible awful evil less than human and so can be bullied, lied about, demonized, discriminated against, denied their rights etc.

I read the Holisworh amicus brief—more lies from the extreme,righ-wing haters.  The US Supreme Court will see that brief for the hateful lie it is and discard it.

Lisa,

You are unable to engage in a rational debate, without insulting other people and accusing them of saying things they have not said.  Nobody is that gay people are not human beings.  Just that we do not have enough evidence to support the claims being made.

Seriously, we are through. Why don’t you refute arguments instead of insulting people?

Savvy,

You are the one talking abou gay people getting involved in three-ways, etc. You are theone spinning bizarre ideas that have no basis in inreality And have you read some of the comments above about gay people?

When one group is trying to deny another group their constituional rights , trying to paint one group of peopleas unworthy of marriage, of parenthood—then those people are haters, are trying to demonize, discriminate, etc.

You need to realize what such people are saying and what it means to agree with them.

Lisa,

Why can’t you get this into your thick skull. Disagreement is not hate.  And the three-some thing was brought up in the NYT article by the gay writer himself. Now go ahead and insult him too, since that’s what you are good at.

I do not disagree, that there are those who name stupid statements on this blog. You aren’t any better.

Savvy,

Sorry you are incorrect about hate.  One group is trying to demonize gay people, trying to say gay people are unworthy of marriage and/or parenthood.  That goes beyond ‘disagreement” and move directly into the realm of hate.  You want to try to minimize the reality of nwhat you are agreeing with.  You are agreeing with hate and dscriminatio, and bigotry.

One gay person does not speak for all gay people. One article does not reflect reality. 

Again, its seem very apparent that you do not know any gay people (or think you do not know any gay people) and have no clue about the day to day reality of the live so gay couples and/or gay parents.  Otherwise you would not be buying into the nonsense of those who are promoting hate, bigotry, discrimination.  Not knowing anything about the day to day lives of gay people, gay couples means your opinion aboaut gay people, gay couples is not grounded in fact and has no credibility.

This is America,—ALL Americans have the same constitutional and fundamental rights.  Not jsut stright people, not just right-wing RCs.

Lisa,

Do you seriously think the left-wing is always objective? You do not understand media very well. Everybody is funded by xyz group.

“One group is trying to demonize gay people, trying to say gay people are unworthy of marriage and/or parenthood.”

It’s more like the argument is that there is no such thing as gay marriage. Attacking an idea is not the same as attacking people.

Savvy,

Stadning up for the equal rights of ALL Americans is the right and moral thing to do. 

You state,
It’s more like the argument is that there is no such thing as gay marriage. Attacking an idea is not the same as attacking people” 

Once gain you are trying to minimize or dodge the reality of what you are saying, what you are agreeing with.  the statement above is a whitewash, is a sanitized version of the reality of the right-wing’s position: that gay americans do not have/do not deserve the same rights as straight Americans.  That the constitution is only for some Americans, for straight Americans.  It does not apply to gay Americans.  That is the real position of the right-wing who oppose same-sex marriage and it is a psotion of and a message of hate, bigotry, discrimiantion, irrationality.

That is what you are agreeing with.  Please at least be honest enough to admit it.

Lisa,

I am not playing your game. I will not be accused of saying and agreeing with things I do not agree with. Do not bear false witness.

Savvy,

So you support the idea that gay Americans have the fundamental/ consitutional right to marry and to be parents?

Savvy, you want to embrace a stance apparently without knowing anything of gay people, gay couples and their lives.  You want to deny the reality of what you are stand for.  Apparently you are afraid to acknowledge that you are agreeing with bigotry, hate, intolearnce, discrimination, inequality. You are afraid to face the arguments you are making are the same arguments that the bigots made against racial integration—that only some Ameircans have Constituional and fundamental human rights. You are being dishonest with yourself and on this comment thread.  You are bearing false witness against yourself.

Lisa,

My views are somewhere in the middle.  I just do not think we have enough evidence to prove that it’s immutable like race.  It’s up to those making the arguments, to come up with the evidence not the other way around. So, until we do, Yes, I oppose gay marriage and adoptions.

I do not disagree however that two gay people cannot love each other etc. I think it’s possible to love someone without redefining marriage and family.

Savvy,

the legal arguement is about same-sex marriage—it does not matter what the sexual orientation of the two people is.  As I mentioned, there was an interesting Boston Legal episode about how and why same-sex marriage can benefit straight people of the same sex.  The legal issue is not about being gay or sexual orientation. Its about the constitutional and fundamental rights of ALL Americans—no matter how they define their sexual orientation.  The US Supreme has ruled in several cases from the 1970s that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the US Consitution.  Those case dealt yes, witht hright of mixed race couples to marry (but the case Virginia v. Loving was about the fundamental right of marriage rather than race), but also about the rights of prisoners to marry. So your comparison to race is a false one.  Its NOT about “immutable” characteristics.  Its about the fundamental right of ALL Americans to marry per the 14th Amendment.

Lisa,

In that case, the statement about three-somes is true. This is all about forcing people to accept different sexual practices as equal, and not subject to criticism,  than about love.

What’s next group marriage?

Savvy,

No,the statement about three-somes is NOT true.  And the discussion here is NOT about “sexual practices” or even love. Perhaps you misunderstood my sentence above about the right of prisoners to marry.  It used to be that some state prohbited people in prison from being able to marry opposite sex partners.  The case was NOT about same-sex prisoners marrying each other!

what we are talking about here is the legal right to marry. Specifically, we are talking about the right of two people of the same-sex to marry. And in the legal context, what we are talking about is the right of consenting adults to enter into the specific legal contract that is called marriage.  Love is not a requirement to enter into that legal contract.  that being said, we 21st cnetury Americans generally equate love and marriage.  All I am saying is that the US Supreme Court will be deciding the whether or not two people of the same-sex have the fundamental right, per the 14th Amendment of the US Constitituion, to enter into the legal contrract called marriage.  The Court is not deciding any issue realted to love or ‘sexual practicies”.  Its about the Constitution, equal protectionunder the law, and the 14th Amendment.

Lisa,

I am not an expert in American law, but laws are not the same everywhere.  It seems like you want other countries to also operate by American law.  This is the point that there is nothing under international law that says, gay marriage MUST be legalized or that IS a human right.

I brought up France, as an example, about marriage linked to child rearing, that’s affirms the right of a child to a mother and father.

You respond by arguments from American law. This is not an article that talks about gay marriage in general.

Savvy,

You seemed to have cahnged the tpic, because you

As I mentioned before, I disucss American law,becasue next the US Supreme Court will be two cases re same-sex marriage.  Its a big deal.

A number of nations have already legalized same-sex.  Other nations are considering.  France is apparently considering legalizing same-sex marriage and a vocal group of haters is opposing it.  It is bigots who are “linking” marriage to being straight.  And as I mentioned, all children who come into the world, do have a mother and a father—its matter of biology.  And I mentioned that biology and parenting are vastly different things.  Do I think that marriage is a fundamental human right—for gay and straight people?  Yes I do.

I think that if the US Supreme Court affirms that the 14th Amendment means people of the same-sex have the right to marry, other nations will see that as a postive example and may move forward on legalizing same-sex marriage.  iIts only a matter of time before same-sex will be legal in many more nations around the world.

The nations that will oppose it are the usual suspects of haters and bigots—Saudai Arabia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran(if the Islamists remain in power), etc—backwards nations that have become mired in the Middle Ages.  Nations that also oppose freedom of religion and the equal rights and personhood of women.  Are these the kinds of nations you want to stand arm and arm with???

Savvy,

Also you are arguing for different standards for straight people and gay people re marriage and parenthood.  You want some kind of definite proof or evidence that gay people can be good parents.  But neither you nor anyone else asks for that kind proof re straight people.  Just becasue someone is straight is no guarantee that he or she will be a good parent.  There is definite proof and evidence that straight people are very very capable of being horrible parents.  So let’s ban stright people from getting married.  That would make sense by your logic.

Let’s face it, for all of us, life is a crapshoot. No child has any control over the circumstances of his/her birth.  Some are born to wealth in First World countries.  Some are born to devastating poverty in third World countries.  Lots of children, no matter where they are born, do not survive infancy , for a myriad of reasons.  Some black children were born to slavery in the US before the Civil War or to arpthied in South Africa, Some children are born without limbs or with other physical problems.  There are no guarantees for any child.  Why should one group of people, gay people, have to prove to the “satisfaction” of any other group of people (who have no right to judge anyway) that they can be good parents???

Lisa,

Everything is black and white with you.  Just because I disagree with xyz does not mean I agree with xyz.

“And I mentioned that biology and parenting are vastly different things.”

Yet, neuroscience shows that differences between men and women as per brain science are not just biological. They are real. Hence parenting and biology are not always different things.

Lisa,

I never said ALL heterosexuals are good parents. You are missing the point. There are no certanities for anything in life. This is not an excuse to deny that men and women are different, and the difference is not just biological.

Savvy,,

I hate to tell you this—but neurology IS biological, and hence is real. Yes, men and are different. Viva la difference!, as the French would say.  God likes variety.

And yes, biology and parenting are different things.  One can contribute one-half of the biology that creates a child and yet fail to parent that child.  Lots of lots of men and women bring children into the world and walk away or fail to do anything positive for a child.  A “parent” is someone who takes a child into his or their home and loves the child, cares of the child, feeds, clothes, educates and has a relationship with the child. Gay people, like stright people can do this very very well or very very poorly.  Its not about sexual orientation.  Its about the whole person.

Lisa,

Brain science is not just biological. I am talking about parenting in general, not just biological parenting. I am saying that only men can be fathers and only women can be mothers. They have things to give that cannot be replaced.

And if God likes variety, why is everybody supposed to be the same to be equal under law?

Savvy,

I am NOt denying that men and women are different.  Of course they are different. And yes, the differences ARE ALL biological.  As I mentioned above—neurology IS biology.  Differences is brain size, structure, chemistry (neurology) between men and women IS biology.

The most important thing for children is a loving and stable home. It does not matter who provides that loving and stable home—two women, two men, a man and woman.

“the differences ARE ALL biological.”

My friend who is a Nueroscientist would disagree with you. There are emerging discoveries about male and female brains, not just what is between the legs.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/differences-382702-women-male.html

Savvy,

Yes, “brain science” IS just biological!!!  The brain is not separate from the body, it is part of the body, part of the human biology.

Roles models are role models are role models. 

Yes, God does like variety. God created many kinds of human beings.  We have different skin colors, eye colors, hair colors.  Some of us are short, some tall.  Some have genius IQs, some have Down’s syndrome.  Some of us are born with hearts that work perfectly, some of us are born with hearts that do not work well. Some of us are born with genes that let us live to be very old.  Some us are born with genes that mean we have Tay-Sachs disease and will die before the age of three.

But why should we all, with all our differences, be treated equally under the law????  Because we are ALL human beings, we are ALL made in the image of God. Because we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.

You call yourself a a Catholic, a Christian and you had to ask why we should all be treated equally under the law????? Oy vey!!!!

Savvy,

You apparently have NO idea what biology means.  Biology means the study of life, the study of the whole organism—NOT just the reproductive system!!!

Good grief!!!  So yes,, neurology IS biology.  The brain is part of the human body!!! It is NOT separate from the human body.

Savvy,

Even though you have no idea what biology means and even though you had to ask why all human beings should be treated equally under the law,  I support the idea that you should be treated equally under the law!

I do not support treating people who have no idea what biology is any differently under the uS Constitution from people who do know what biology means!

Lisa,

I never said the brain was separate from the human body or out of sync with it.  It’s the LGBTIQ community that makes this claim.

Gender theory is a an academic discipline that replaces sex with gender, gender being what one identifies with.

Lisa,

You need to read this article. The nueroscientist mentions how people get really upset when you bring up brain sex differences, between men and women.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/differences-382702-women-male.html

Savvy,

From your comemnts above you CLEARLY ahd NO idea that neurology is a part of biology.  You CLEARLY think the “biology” just refers to reproduction.  You said so above, several times.

And NO, the LGBTIQ community does NOT make the claim that brain is separete from the body.  Where do you get these silly, inaccurate ideas????  now you are reduced to making clearly false and bizarre claims.

Please read some history of Christianity.  The idea that mind and body are separate comes from Greek philosohy and was and is a a definite component of traditional Christian thought.

Savvy,

Some people may get upset at the mention of the differences between the female brain and the male brain.  I am not one of them.  Yes, men and women have different neurolgy. And yes, neurology IS biology.  Men and women have different muscle size. Men tend to be taller than women. There are lots of difference between men and women So what?????

All of us humans are….well, human.  We are all made in the image of God.

Lisa,

“And NO, the LGBTIQ community does NOT make the claim that brain is separete from the body.  Where do you get these silly, inaccurate ideas????

From the academic discipline know as gender theory.

If you do not hold that the brain is separate from the body, then why do you claim that biology has nothing to do with parenting styles, which in my view are based on brain sex differences. Men and women do not parent the same way.

I am aware of the history of Christian views on this issue.

“There are lots of difference between men and women So what?????

You are the one arguing that men and women do not have different parenting styles, not me.

Savvy,

Parenting style is about much much more than being male or female.  How we parent children is based on how we were parented, the culture in which we live, the times in which we live, the faith traditions in which we were raised and/or now profess,  etc etc.  The fact that you want to reduce this complex activity to male /female is very typical of these days of right-wing RCs who are obsessed with sex and “pelvic” politics” and who cannot see beyond those things.

And sorry, your claim that gender studies programs assert that brain and body are separate is just patently false, bizarre and must come from some right-wing propaganda that you clearly do not understand is making baseless assertions to the gullible.

Again, it is clear that you have absolutely no personal first-hand knowledge of gay people, gay couples or of gener studies program, but are just parrotting propaganda from the extreme right-wing of the RCC and that you do not have the capacity to disrn what is true and what is patent nonsense.

Lisa,

I am aware of nurture and nature.  But, this does not mean that men and women do not parent differently.

There is a DIFFERENCE between gender studies and gender theory, they are NOT the same thing Lisa.

I suppose the Chief Rabbi of France is also part of the extreme right wing of the RCC, for understanding what gender theory is all about, and so are nueroscientsts as is Canada’s leading atheist bio-ethicist.

Children are the only reason the state has a vested interest in marriage. So just stop marrying people, and regulate civil unions for all. This way we will ALL be equal.

Lisa,

Look up ‘Nuclear Family’....this has been the standard since time immemorial.  Now LGBT like yourself want to legitimize the abnormal by forcing the majority to accept marriage, pathetic.

Lisa,

You said, “All of us humans are….well, human.  We are all made in the image of God”.

You citation is correct but God also made them male and female.

Mike,

There is no point in beating the dead horse. Here in Canada, Orthodox Jewish schools and Sikh schools along with other religious schools are fighting to prevent the govt from imposing gay clubs on them. But, to Lisa all these people are the extreme right-wing of the RCC.

“Rabbi Avrohom Altein, director of Winnipeg’s Jewish Learning Centre, wrote to Selinger that the bill’s requirement that gay-straight alliances be accommodated in every school “is based on a mistaken premise that will only serve to undermine the very principles of equality that it seeks to uphold.”

The Rabbi wrote that the bill fails to make the “important distinction” between the “respect that must be given to every human being” and the “notion that we must somehow embrace every opinion and every behavior.”

The Rabbi pointed out that Orthodox Judaism, like most of the world’s great religions, rejects homosexuality, not because of “intolerance of people that have a natural inclination towards such lifestyles,” but because of “impositions that religion places on us, including limitations on the ability to marry.” He wrote that it would be “wrong, hurtful and the height of disrespect, for students to form an official group that advocates for gay rights within the framework of a religious school.”

http://media.winnipegfreepress.com/documents/Letter+from+Rabbi+Avrohom+Altein.pdf

Savvy,

Your absolutely correct.  Lisa is unable to support her arguments with anything more than LGBT propaganda.  She has a fluid moral code and refuses to acknowledge that civil law is not the final arbiter of justice.  Civil law varies by country and societies but religious beliefs do not…they are held universally. 

She has made numerous salacious comments about the RCC.  When confronted with the facts…she just ignores them altogether.  She does no research so her comments are filled with factual errors…when confronted with the facts…she just ignores them. 

The word bigot carries with it a very negative and undeserved connotation.  It means, “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”.  I think Lisa is a LGBT bigot.

The RCC accepts homosexuals, I have homosexual friends, I know many homosexuals.  But when discussing this issue with them they don’t get all puffed up and insulting. But Lisa responds with a litany of insults.

No sense talking to a person not open to argument no matter how well founded.

Mike

Yes, God made male and female.  And everyone is made in the image of God, including gay people.  And straight people have no right to demand that gay people be celibate, etc.  God does not demand that, either

Savvy,

Parenting is just NOT as simple as male and female.  sorry but there is NO such things a a male way to parent or a female way to parent.  You are buying into myths/propaganda.

The Chief Rabbi of France is an Orthodox Jew who speaks only for the Orthodox Jews of France.  He does NOT speak for all Jews, or all Orthodox Jews.  He is a fallible human being.  Not certain why you think the Chief Rabbi of France speaks with any authority on the subject of gender studies/theory.  Weird. 

You do know that Orthodox Judaism is NOT the only way to being Jewish, right???  There are many movements within Judaism and Orthodox Judaism is just one of them Again, not certain why you are quoting Orthodox Jews on any matter.

Mike,

If you think the nuclear family has “been the standard since time immemorial” then you know nothing of human history, the Bible or life.  You also said, ow LGBT like yourself want to legitimize the abnormal by forcing the majority to accept marriage, pathetic.”

First, the majority of Americans and RCs support same-sex marriage.  Secondly you know nothing about me.  Thirdly, if you think calling me LGBT is insulting, then you are just showing your bigotry, hatred, intolerance.  You are merely parroting the message of hate that the RCC has been trying to peddle without success.  So it is you who is sad, pathetic, and a bigot.

When the US Supreme Court determines that same-sex marriage is a right per the US Constitution, you will just have deal with it.

Lisa,

I brought up Orthodox Jews, because everybody who disagrees with you is dismissed as a right-wing R.C.

“And straight people have no right to demand that gay people be celibate, etc.  God does not demand that, either”

The God of Orthodox Judaism would disagree with you. To an outsider you are All Jews, so arguing that your form of Judaism has it right, is not relevant to me.

“Parenting is just NOT as simple as male and female.  sorry but there is NO such things a a male way to parent or a female way to parent.”

“Partnership Parenting: How Men and Women Parent Differently”

http://tinyurl.com/c9btunl

Kyle Pruett, MD , a child psychiatrist at the Yale Child Study Center, is an award-winning author. Marsha Kline Pruett, PhD, MSL , a professor at Smith College, has done landmark research on co-parenting.They live in Northampton, Massachusetts, with their children.

You might want to read science outside of the LGBT community.

Savvy,

Your comments about Judaism display your ignorance and bigotry.  Sorry, but Orthodox Judaism does NOT speak for all Jews.  Even Pope Francis know that that there is more than one way to be a Jew.  He taught at a rabbinical seminary of Judaism’s Conservative movement in Argentina and his upcoming book abut heaven and earth was co-written with a rabbi of the Conservative movement.

Conservative Judaism is sort of the middle way between Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism.  But like Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism has female rabbis and is more supportive of gay people.  So your Pope get it.  Too bad you are not able to.

Also, there is NO “God of Orthodox Judaism”.  There is only God.  And the various sects of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all interpret God in various ways.

Lisa,

I personally am aware of the differences in Judaism. You have repeatedly called those who disagree with you bigots, on this issue, pretending that only your version of Judaism has it right on this issue. Making you the bigot.

Savvy,

Perhaps you have not been reading my comments.  I certainly have NOT said anything my faith tradition or its views.  I am expressing my opinion and my opinions only.  Don’t why you are dragging Judaism into this discussion.  Seems to be another one of your bizarre tangents.

And in case you do not realize it, Judaism is not a centralized tradition.  There is no dogma or doctrine.  It seem you are NOT aware of the differences in Judaism.  You keep trying to cite rabbis as religious authorities like RC bishops.  There is no clerical hierarchy in Judaism and the opinion of a rabbi is the opinion of that rabbi.

So again you are incorrect.  I am not a bigot.

Lisa,

The purpose of my post, if you closely read it was that govt lied.  We were fed the same lines, before gay marriage was legalized, that my marriage will not affect you, you will be free to teach your religion, ethics, blah, blah.

Now, we have to deal with the active forcing of the LGBT views on religious schools, groups by the govt.

Savvy,

No the government has not lied.  Where do you get this bizarre stuff??  First of all, currently same-sex marriage is legal in a few states, not across the nation (yet).

Secondly, gay people being able to marry does NOT affect any straight person’s marriage. Again, you are parroting right-wing lies and propaganda.  Thirdly, churches in the US ARE free to teach whatever they want to teach. Fourthly, there is NO “active forcing of the LGBT views on religious schools by the gov’t.  Again, your statements are wrong, wrong, wrong.  Just plain inaccurate.  And it does seem you read crazy propaganda and cannot understand that it is nonsense and then you just parrot it as if it were the truth.  Sorry, you are just plain wrong on every count.  The US is NOT Canada.

The real issue is that right-wing RCs are realizing that nobody likes their nonsense—so the right-wingers are just lying about everything and you are gullible enough to believe the lies.  Sad, very sad.

Lisa,

When you cannot refute arguments you insult your opponents and accuse them of lying.  I am talking about what is taking place in Canada and what is going to take place in the US, when gay marriage becomes the law of the land.

BTW LIsa, did you take a look at the parenting book link.

Savvy, there you go again.  You are totally right but Lisa doesn’t read research materials because what she would learn would kill her arguments.  Having said that Canada has all kinds of activity to legalize polygamy…it is absolutely raging there.  Of course that has no effect on the common good.  Next will be group marriage, then marriage to animals then marriage to inanimate objects…and on society will slide.

Her comments are straight from the LGBT talking points.

Lisa,

You said, “Yes, God made male and female.  And everyone is made in the image of God, including gay people.  And straight people have no right to demand that gay people be celibate, etc.  God does not demand that, either.”

My response:

Sure he does in Scripture, Science, common sense etc. just as I previously posted to you and you previously ignored.  If God wanted gay relationships would he have not made us all hermaphrodites?  But he didn’t did he and hermaphrodites are not considered normal are they?

Lisa

Your said, You apparently have NO idea what biology means.  Biology means the study of life, the study of the whole organism—NOT just the reproductive system!!!”

My response:

I don’t want to steal your thunder but the definition of biology is:
“the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior” and it includes reproduction.  Please explain how the union of to men or two woman comport with biology.

Mike,

It is Savvy who does not know the definition of biology.

Human relationships do not have to comport with biology.  We are made in the image of God, have free will, intelligence.  So relationships between two men or two women are fine.

Savvy,

The USA is NOT Canada.  Our laws, culture, history are very different from Canada’s.  So when same-sex marriage becomes legal in the US, the RCC will remain free to preach its message of hatred of gay people. and The RCC will be free to refuse marriage to anyone it does not want to marry.  When same-sex marriage becomes legal in the USA as a whole gay Americans will have won equality as Americans.  The country will continue on in the same way—except perhaps the number of marriages will go up. 

Your “crystal ball” is cloudy and cannot predict the future. So events in Canada are irrelevant to the USA.  But I think what you are complaining about is that bigots in Canada no longer have the right to bully gay people. Bullies don’t like it when others resist the bullying.  So bravo to the Canadians!

Wouldn’t it be a more civil conversation to drop the anti-Catholic references? It’s already established that Catholics are only one faith tradition among the many that adhere to the traditional definition of marriage.One can disagree on issues without the anti-papist flavor.And it seems very disrespectful to use a Catholic-funded site to do that.

Kathleen,

Its interesting that some RCs think the RCC is above criticism.  And that its OK for the RCC to issue and continue to issue a message of hate across the world.

The RCC is somewhat different than other faith traditions becauase of its size and global reach.  And because it continually proclaims that it is the “one true faith”.  So for thos reasons, any teachings of and/or statments by the RCC are fair game for examination, analysis, critique. 

It is sad that you think standing up against a message of hate is anti-Catholic, that standing up for human dignity, for equality is anti-Catholic, that standing up for liberty and justice for all is anti-Catholic.  That you think all these things are anti-Catholci is a commentary on the state of the RCC and on the fact that some RCs feel they must defend the RCC’s teaching of hatred.

lisa,
I think we can all try harder to act more charitably in these conversations.God bless.

Lisa,

Did you actually say, “It is sad that you think standing up against a message of hate is anti-Catholic, that standing up for human dignity, for equality is anti-Catholic, that standing up for liberty and justice for all is anti-Catholic.”

It you are the intolerant hater.  The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is loving.  The Church invites all homosexuals to participate in the faith.  Now along comes a gay activist like yourself to characterize that teaching as hate.  Here is what Scripture says about homosexual sex…“Rom 1:27 “[27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.” 

I guess your going to say that Scripture is hateful too, right.  Well I really don’t care….if you don’t like the Catholic religion and what it teaches go to a LGBT site where your views will be accepted.  You have lost hands down in this debate.

Mike Malone,

No, the RCC’s teaching on being gay, gay people, etc is NOT loving. It is irrational, unscientific, not based on reality, intolerant, bigoted, discriminatory.

I did NOT lose this debate.  The RCC and right-wing RCs have lost this debate.  Same-sex marriage is already legal in several nations, it will become legal in the US as a whole, and in the future other nations will make it legal as well.

Lisa,

I took you to school

Savvy took you to school

You have resorted to name calling, invective and now you mischaracterize Catholic teaching!  You know from nothing what the Church teaches yet in your screed your said, “It is irrational, unscientific, not based on reality, intolerant, bigoted, discriminatory.”

Let me speak to these false allegations:

First - It is not irrational since the vast majority of human beings are not gay.  You are just trying to claim rationality on irrational behavior and I’ve given you a ton of science that refutes your claims that homosexuality is normal behavior.

Second - It is not unscientific because evolution, biology, science and common sense show homosexuality is an exception to human behavior; it showed clearly that the reality of homosexuality is that it is disordered human behavior based upon#1 above.

Third - The reality is that the world is primarily heterosexual.  In the United States roughly 4% of the population identify as gay.  That is the reality, LGBT people are the proverbial tail trying to wag the dog.
Even if homosexual (gay) marriage is made the law of the land it will never become mainstream but people will begin marrying in groups, marry their dogs, etc.

Forth, It is you that is showing intolerance…go back and review your own quotes against those of savvy and myself….your the only one that as resorted to ‘hate’ speech directed towards those that disagree with you,

Fifth, if there is a bigot in this discussion it is you.  You are simply a dogmatic gay beating the drum for your cause and you will not accept any other input what-so-ever that conflicts with your views.  That is the classic definition of bigot.

Sixth, Since the Church is welcoming of homosexuals it is not intolerant in the least.  The Church’s prohibition against homosexual sex is Scripture based as is its teachings against contraception, IVF, abortion etc. The Church will not deny Scripture to make LBGT’s feel normal.

The facts are that you will not accept and information, sources or teachings that conflict with yours views, instead you intolerantly berate anyone who disagrees with you….you have become what you accuse the CC of being…..irrational, unscientific, unreal, intolerant, bigoted and discriminatory.  Let me add, mean-spirited.

You have also lost this discussion….very badly.

Lisa, you said:

If you think the nuclear family has “been the standard since time immemorial” then you know nothing of human history, the Bible or life.  You also said, ow LGBT like yourself want to legitimize the abnormal by forcing the majority to accept marriage, pathetic.”
————————————————————————————————————-

My response:

Here we go again.  You have made another false, unsupportable statement about the nuclear family….any proofs, of course not.

Open your eyes Lisa, it is the gay community that is pressing issue of gay marriage.  They want it redefined….they don’t want civil unions, they don’t want DOMA; a 4% minority is trying to dictate culture to the 96% majority.  Now that is pathetic.

Mike,

Neither you nor anyone else has “taken me to school”. None of the items you list above are reasons to deny gay people their fundamental right to marry.  your “arguments” are merely that the majority must have the right to deny rights to a minority population and to bully that minority population.

And No, the RCC does “accept homeoxexuals”.  The RCC will aceept only those self-hating gay people who let their human dignity be demeaned by the RCC.  And the RCC’s “rule” for gay people are demeaninging, those rules want gay people to live lesser lives than straight people.

Mike,

No one is trying to “dictate culture”  That was the arguement used by those who opposed racial integration in this country.

Gay people just want their fundamental legal rights recognized.  That is not ‘dictating culture”.  That is the american ideal of freedom, equality, liberty and justice for all.

Lisa,

No dictating culture was not the argument made to retain slavery in the South of the United States.  That is absolute rubbish.  Go back and read the Dred - Scott Decision approved by the Supreme Court.  It was this logic that the debate on slavery hinged and had nothing what-so-ever with dictating cuture.  Another unsupported claim you havre made.  This horribly unjust and rediculous law as subsequently overturned.

Lisa,

You have been weight, measured and found wanting.  You again repeat gay hate speech claiming that the members of the CC are gay haters etc.  You’ve not clue what the Church teaches instead choosing to try and pass off absurd claims as reality.

I’m quite certain that any restrictions on your moral choices not matter how egregious would meet with the same kind of dialogue and ridiculous accusations.  Anybody who opposes your views is a hater etc. 

Oh and once again you have provided zero evidence to back up your claims.  But the Catholic Catechism refutes your hate claims…..CCC paragraphg 2358 “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” 

Yup that’s a declaration of hatred all right.  Please show me something, anything that proves Catholics or the Catholic Church is trying to demean homosexuals….anything at all other than LGBT propaganda.

See, again you have tried to misrepresent the CC, misrepresented their teachings etc.  Nice.

Mike,

I was talking about racial integration, not slavery. People who opposed racial integration during the Civil Rights Movements (1950s-1970s) used the arguement that the minority black populations was trying to dictate the culture of the South and of the US.

You are using the same arguement—gay people are trying to dictate culture. 

The RCC beleive that gay people msut be celibate and that celibacy is the only way gay people should live.  That is NOT accpetance of gay people, that kindof thinking by the RCC demeans gay people and want to condmen them to life without ssexual intimacy.  Again that IS demeaning and a total NON-accpetance of gay people. 

so sorry you are incorrect on very point you are trying to make.

Lisa,

Where do you get this stuff…..just give me one reliable source that the reason segregations was resisted was because blacks were trying to dictate culture.  I lived through that time and never ever, ever heard one single source say that….not even the Ku Klux Clan!  Go read Brown v Brown.  There were 4 reasons cited against desegregations:

“The Segregationists’ Arguments

The case for the defenders of segregation rested on four arguments:
• The Constitution did not require white and African American children to attend the same schools.
• Social separation of blacks and whites was a regional custom; the states should be left free to regulate their own social affairs.
• Segregation was not harmful to black people.
• Whites were making a good faith effort to equalize the two educational systems. But because black children were still living with the effects of slavery, it would take some time before they were able to compete with white children in the same classroom.”

Don’t come back and say custom means culture…it definitely does not.  Look up culture.

You didn’t even read the citation I sent you on what the CC teaches regarding homosexuals did you?  Instead you just repeat your LGBT mantra over and over.  You are the queen of propaganda for sure.

Lisa,

Gay people can achieve equality through civil unions and obtain all the rights and privileges of a married couple….but noooo, gay people want to change marriage… Why is that exactly?

Mike,

Gay americans ARE Americans and have the smae fundamental constitutional right to marriage as straight Americans.

sorry you do not beleive in equality and liberty and justice for all.

And no, a civil union is NOT legally the same as marriage.

Lisa, now your changing your argument.  Earlier you said you wanted all the rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual couples to be granted to gay couples.  That can be achieved through civil unions.  Now you push your hate speech by unjustifiably stating that I don’t believe in equality and liberty and justice for all. 

The real reason you want gay marriage is because you believe marriage will lead to acceptance.  Gay marriage may get approved but it will never become mainstream. 

OK, now you can repeat your LGBT mantra…of being oppressed etc.  Oh my!

Mike,

Of course racial integration was resisted by those who opposed it on the basis that a the black minority was trying to dictate culture:  black people wanted to go to same schools as whites, sit a the same lunch counters, sit in the front of the bus, go to the same colleges as whites, wanted to do the same works as white and be paid the sames as whites, date white people, marry white people, live in the same neighborhoods as whites.

And the case I think you wanted to cite was Brown v. Board of Education—decided in 1954. The Civil Rights Movement was not over by 1954.  You citing something that was definitive of the opposition to racil integration. Read Taylpr Branch’s Parting the Waters.

In other words, black Americans wnated the same fundamental rights as white people.  And the bigots opposed that because it would change American culture.  The same warped basis as those who are against same-sex marriage oppose it.

If racial integration cahnged American culture, it was only for the better.  If same-sex marriage changes American (and it won’t), then it will only for the better.

Lisa,

It’s you that have failed to provide ANY evidence that homosexuality is immutable like race.  A church can put whatever restrictions it wants on its members.  By the same logic, only self-hating gays, can find a home in Orthodox Judaism too.

Why does everybody have to toe the LGBT party line?

Stop pushing both LGBT theology and politics on everybody else.

Look. I know you get paid to do this, but we are fed up, since you never answer direct questions, only deflect and insult.

Savvy,

Well said.

Lisa, you are right…it was Brown vs the Board of Education but the arguments do not change.

What gays are doing is trying to change American culture by changing one of its oldest and most treasured practices.  To compare this to slavery or discrimination based upon race is simply specious.  I reminds me of the animal rights extremists who compare animal abuse to the holocaust….amazingly insensitive and offensive.

Mike,

Yes, the gay marriage, slavery analogy is very offensive to the majority of black churches. Among ethnic groups, its blacks who have the majority opposition to gay marriage.

Yea…I hate abortion because it kills a person who should be in the safest place on the planet.  Not only that but it is directed against the poor and specifically black people.  Take NYC…over 60% of all abortions are by black women. 

Mike,

Stick to the topic being discussed.

The URL is here: [http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=211497]

Excerpt:

“We often protest when homophobes insist that same sex marriage will change marriage for straight people too. But in some ways, they’re right. Here’s how gay relationships will change the institution—but for the better.

[...]Anti-equality right-wingers have long insisted that allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of “traditional marriage,” and, of course, the logical, liberal party-line response has long been “No, it won’t.” But what if—for once—the sanctimonious crazies are right?

[...]Even many gay male couples, who [Dan] Savage describes as having “perfected non monogamy,” fear disclosing that their relationship is anything but one-on-one. Gary (not his real name) is out in every area of his life, and his family is completely supportive. “But I don’t tell my family, even my brother—who I’m incredibly close with—that I have sex outside of the relationship with Ben,” his partner of 14 years, he says. “I have never said that to him.”

Blake Spears and Lanz Lowen recently completed The Couples Study (TheCouplesStudy.com), an examination of nonmonogamy among 86 gay couples. A long-term gay couple themselves (36 years), they had found that little research had been conducted on how gay men navigate this terrain, so they embarked on an admittedly limited and self-selective study (they found many long-term couples who fit the bill, but relatively few who were willing to participate), but one that gives a view of the diversity of experiences. In fact, the thing they found most striking is that while nonmonogamy seems to be fairly pervasive among gay couples (though they did not hear from the many monogamous pairs), there is surprisingly little support within the gay population for such relationships.

<b>Spears and Lowen were also surprised to discover such a wide range of kinds of non monogamy. 

“We thought we might find some models that we could slot some couples into,” says Spears, “but people had such a wide variety of approaches to non monogamy. And I think it spoke to the amount of creativity in the gay community.” They did identify some key characteristics and outlined the various ways in which couples live out their agreements, including having sex beyond the couple (12% do so together; 56% do it both together and separately; 32% play only independently — stats that seem to shift as relationships evolve), degrees of talking about their experiences together (40% had full disclosure; 40% had varying degrees of it; 20% took a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach…), and kinds of outside sexual contact (34% will only have no-strings, anonymous encounters; 40% have friends with benefits; and some couples in both the aforementioned categories have differing preferences, meaning one likes it anonymous and the partner likes to have sex with friends). Seventy-five percent of the study’s participants put some rules on what constitutes their commitment and what will violate it.

Forty-two percent of the study’s participants agreed to open up within the first three months of their relationship, while 20% agreed on nonmonogamy only after a period of turmoil in which one partner was caught having cheated.”

It’s turns out we crazies were right after all.  Straight from the horse’s mouth.

The URL is here: [http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=211497]

I saw this comming.  I’m beting Laura is doing the chicken dance over this..  But here is the deal….did you see where His Holiness made a point to reinforce Pope Emeritis Benedict’s condemnation of moral relativism…..

The LGBT nuns are in for a big surprise!

Mike,

I would rather you stick to the topic being discussed. That being said, I am done here.

I was only making the point that Pope Francis isn’t as liberal as he is being painted by LGBT and liberal Catholic groups.  No offense meant.

Mike,

I think, the journalist in the Weekly Standard got it right.

Jody Bottum in the Weekly Standard on the difficulties of trying to fit Francis into prevailing political categories:

“A leftist who denounces the state power and cultural changes demanded by the left. A reactionary who despises the accumulation of wealth and the libertarian freedoms praised by the right. No attempt to impose liberal and conservative definitions on him will succeed.”

Savvy,

Who care if being gay is immutalbe or not (it is of course immutable)?  Being gay is not the legal issue in same-sex marriage.  The legal issue is the right of ALL Americans to access the fundamental right of marriage.

And you think I get paid to comment on this site????  That is a really, really bizarre idea.  And one that has no basis in fact.  Where do you come up with this stuff???  is it any wonder that nothing you believe can be correct when such offer bizarre ideas????  You seem a bit whacky.

Lisa,

You are the one who keeps bringing up race over and over again. As a lawyer you do get paid to push LGBT politics.

And if there is no evidence to prove that being gay is immutable, then there also cannot be a right to marriage, that does not exist.

And it turns out this is not even about being gay, but about re-defining marriage, to make it mean whatever one wants it to mean.

This is called social engineering.

Savvy,

Again you off on some bizarre rant about my being paid.  Sorry it just is NOT true.  don’t know where you come up with crzy ideas.  I have retired from practice and do not represent clients—not that any client would ever pay a lawyer to comment on this site!  Its just av ery weird idea you have conjured up.

Again, the legal issue is same-sex marriage—it does not matter if being gay is immutable (which of course it is).

the issue is same-sex marriage , not “social engineering”.

Lisa, u r truly delusional, immutable my foot!

I stand by my statements that there is NO evidence to prove it’s immutable. And gay marriage is a social engineering experiment.

Lisa, paid or not your are a plant, a schill, a stooge.  Your LGBT dogmatic support for gay marriage is sufficient to earn these labels.

Gay marriage is not a fundamental right human or legal right.  That is just more LGBT propaganda.  If gays want civil unions to get all the rights and privileges of marriage….great.  But marriage since time immemorial has been between one man and one women. 

What gays like you want to do is force a societal change that will be damaging to the common good. Just like Roe V Wade has split the country a SCOTUS decision to legalize marriage will do the same.  In addition it opens the door to significant abuse. I think SCOTUS will learn from Roe V Wade and provide a path to constitutional equality via civil unions.  Once equality under the law is achieved the need to redefine marriage becomes totally unnecessary.

Mike,

You and Savvy are delusional.  Like the two fo you I am expressing my thoughts, experiences, etc.  So you two are tto funny—so I am not taking anything either of you say seriously.

As for same-sex marriage beinga fundamental right—we will say what the SCOTUS decides by June.  If the Court decides that people of the same sex have the fundamental constitutional right to marry each other, you do not have to like it or believe, but you will have to live with it.  And again, the majority of Americans adn RC support marriage equality. 

And Mike you are wrong qbout marriage.  Since time immemorial, marriage has often been between one man and several women.  And of course, polygamy is still permitted and practiced within Isalm and other societies as well.  The Bible indicates that the kings of Israel were permitted 16 wives.

No I’m not wrong Lisa, as usual you grasp at straws.  Apparently you approve of polygamy, polyandry, group marriage….sorry I don’t and most rational people don’t either.

Then we come to you dogmatic position.  Gay legal equality can be achieved through civil unions….that would include all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples.  But that’s not enough for gays is it….they want to redefine the culture, want to force their 4% view on society.  Yet gays have not defined marriage have they?

This is a religious freedom issue as much as anything else.  Because it will force religious groups to marry gays under penalty of law.  That means religions will be forced, against their will, to do something.  Apparently you are OK with that.

Then there is the matter of polygamy.  If gays have the right to marry why not six women to one man?  Apparently that is just dandy to you isn’t it?

Then there’s the matter of polyandry.  If a group of women and men can marry….how do you tell who is the father of the children….oh, you don’t care because gays can’t have children can they?  And you don’t care about the impact that might have on the children in the group, do you?

Then there are people like Cassandra White who has petitioned to be allowed to marry her pet dog.  She is seeking support form local gay groups.

All you care about is destroyed the institution of marriage for what-ever-nefarious reasons you have but it ain’t equality.  Equality is not equivalency. It does not mean treating every person or every group in exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and women have equal rights, but because they significantly differ they require separate restrooms. Equality means treating similar things similarly, but not things that are fundamentally different. But you don’t care about the deleterious effects of all this do you?

You are the epitome of intolerance, selfishness, hatred, dictatorship, and bigoty on this this thread not savvy or me.

Well said Mike. If this were about equality, then civil unions would be enough. This is not about the right to marry or equality, but the right to redefine marriage and get the stamp of approval on gay sex.

Mike,

Great post!  SSM is certainly not a civil right issue.  Last I recall, I never saw “Gay Only” drinking fountains.  And it is painfully apparent that the SSM crusade is not about marriage equality (which itself is an oxymoron).  Rather, it is the desperate attempt to normalize their perverted (I am using the dictionary definition with no connotation implied) sexual proclivities.  I don’t want to hear the distraction that heterosexual couples also engage in this perverted sex occasionally.  Fax is, homosexuals, especially, male, make this sex their sex of choice, flaunt it and want to normalize it.  They want it part of school curriculum starting in kindergarten.  They want to punish any and all organizations who oppose their perversions.  And for a group of people and their supporters who seek tolerance, I find they are the most vengeful, vile-spewing group of individuals I have ever met.  Your true colors really shine through.

Today, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN legal analyst and senior legal writer for the New Yorker says that the fight re marriage equality is over.  Equality has won hands down.

It seems clear that the SCOTUS will scuttle DOMA—a pernicious law.

So, bravo for equality!  Once again the bigots lose.  One of things I really loved about the arguements in the Court on Monday was the question Justice Sotamayor asked the attorney representing the supporter of Prop 8 (anti-equality measure).  She asked him what harm could from same-sex marriage.  His response was that he could name no harm.  So even the opponents of same-sex had to openly admit that their bigotry has no rational basis.  Bravo, Justice Sotamayor!  She cut to the chase!

“She asked him what harm could from same-sex marriage.”

After same-sex marriage was legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same happened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning and purpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously.

After same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing “heterosexism.” They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No Gender,” which depicted both homosexual and polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage. Despite parents’ objections, the board decreed that they had no right to remove their children from such instruction. This and many similar cases confirm that when marriage is redefined, the new definition is forced on children, regardless of their parents’ desires.

In Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities can no longer provide charitable adoption services based on new definitions of marriage. Elsewhere, Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in a newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefining marriage threatens religious freedom.

Lisa,

It’s nice how you had to resort to name-calling in your post (bigots) as is so common with the supporters of SSM.  Given that the actual Supreme Court arguments didn’t start until Tuesday, I am not worried about what anyone said in favor of SSM on Monday.

Sassy,

You are incorrect about arguments in the Supreme Court.  the Prop 8 case was heard on Monday—that is why Justice Sotaamyor was asing questions of the attorney representing the Prop 8 advocates.  Arguemsts on DOMA were heard on Tuesday.  There two same0sex marriage-related cases & two days of arguments before the Justices.

as for “name calling”—let’s call this stuff what it really is.  Oppostion to same-sex marriage, opposition to equality under the law for ALL Americans IS bigotry.  candy coating it with another name does not change the facts.

Savvy,

Obviously the attorney arguing for Prop 8 could not put forth any rational resson for laws against same sex marriage.  The things youlisted as the harms of same sex marriage are not seen that way by the legal community advocating sainst same sex marriage.  So even your side admits there is no rational reason for its bigotry.  Itd just irrational bigotry.

Lisa, if you insist on name-calling and rendering attacks, at least check your spelling.  You really come across as lacking intelligence with your mis-spelled rants.  I, on the other hand, think through my arguments, which present as sound logic to most people and which do not resort to name calling nor tramples the diginity of the individual.  Sadly, you would not appreciate the finer points my Notre Dame education taught me.

Lisa, if you are the face of SSM, with your name calling and flying off the handle immaturity every time you don’t get your way, right there is an intelligent argument against SSM.  The narcissism I see revolving around this issue is mind numbing.  There is no civil rights issue.  Every may is allowed to marry exactly one woman and vice versa.  Oh, but I don’t like that option.  It’s not FAIR.  Well, who whoever said life was fair?  Go ask any person paralyzed from the neck or waist down if life is fair.  I don’t see them banding together to redefine marriage based on the type of sex they can have.  Goodness gracious, the SSA apologist need to grow up already.  Nothing but a big bunch of oversized babies.

I do hope those arguing against SSM, present the arguments I brought up. I agree with you, Sassy, Lisa, is a foul mouth Liberal, who gets into a crazy rant every time, she cannot refute an argument.

Savvy,

I hope they do too.  Have you ever written to NOM with your thoughts? 

Sadly, I am used to these fouled-mouthed Catholic-in-name-only ideologues in my own family (in-laws, thankfully…don’t know what I would do if I was related to them) who have tried tried to ram their Dignity-inspired positions down my and husband’s throat.  These arguments have gotten so old.  It’s to the point where, when they attempt to normalize the behavior (on of the family members is SSA), we just politely excuse ourselves.  I’m not going to sit and listen to how “gays do things differently than straight people.”  Personally, I rather watch grass germinate.  At least that involves the presence of new life.  (Sorry, being sassy there…but just sooooo frustrated.)

The issue dome of you seem to be having is that you know you are losing the fight re same sex marrisge. The majority of Americans & the majority of RCs suppotr it.  Even lots o the GOP are supporting eqality.  Your side could not even come up with any rational arguments Monday & Tuesday in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Like it or not msrriage equality will become the lsw of the land.  Your message of hate is failing.

Sassy,

I agree with the politics pushing, by the dignity crowd. It is not a crime to hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of what any court decides. The oppressed are becoming the oppressors.

Savvy,

No one is saying that heterosexusl marrisge is s crime. Where do you come up with this bizarre stuff???????  And equality under the law for ALL Ameriicans does NOT equate to oppression of straight people.  And I see from your comment above that you do realize straight people have been oppressing gay people.

“And I see from your comment above that you do realize straight people have been oppressing gay people.”

My point is that seeing marriage as ONLY between a man and woman will is now a crime.

People with disabilities were also oppressed. This has nothing do with being straight or gay. Victorian Protestants also called homosexuality, Romanism.

I do not see everything, as a power struggle between men and women, gay and straight, rich and poor etc etc. This is the Marxist line of thinking.

Savvy,

You are totally off-base about the crime thing. Marriage equality does NOT make straight marriage or any opinion about straight marriage a crime.

And you are not psying attention if you think we do not havr to contend with issues of power and oppression in life. Your thinking is that of aprivileged white American. Open your eyes to reality

Lisa,

I am not white or American. Yes, there are many forms of oppression. This is not among them. You do not understand the concept of equality. There can be no legal equality where natural equality does not exist. Men and women are sexually complementary. This is the reason why marriage exists.

And in case you are going to bring up race again, I will again say that there race is not same as behaviour.

Lisa,

First, can you explain what you mean by “the dome of you”?  Is that supposed to be some knock on Notre Dame?  Because if it is, I take exception to it and find it terribly offensive. 

In all Christian charity, is astonishes me how you can say that I am sending a message of hate.  Not affirming someone in a sinful behavior is the most charitable thing one person can do for another.  If a person was, say, supporting himself or herself with another sinful behavior (let’s say drug abuse), I would not go around providing them drugs or declaring that I think it is wonderful that they are doing such things.  If you want to call it hate, so be it.  As I told others, I have one shot on this earth to live a life that will get me to Heaven.  Logically, I have not seen anybody who has come close to disputing over 2000 years of divine wisdom.

Now, as far as your saying that the majority of Catholics believe in SSM, I assure you that if they believe in SSM not only are they not Catholic (they are Catholic in name only), and they are out out communion with the RCC. 

Finally, to speak to the fact that the majority of Americans support it, I use this adage: If everyone was in line to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do so too?  Just because a majority support something does not make it moral or correct.  Heck, look at the Rev. Jim Jones.  How may people there drank the Kool-Ade?  I think it was most.  Was it right?  Certainly not.  So your arguments are not logical. 

I will pose this to you.  How does SSM promote the advancement of society?  What good will they bring to society that we have not seen so far in countries that have passed SSM?

Lisa,

This neuroethics blog touches upon what we have been discussing. Politics is not science. Civil marriage is already a sham.  Further re-defining marriage into a genderless institution, will not help.

http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/03/dare-to-be-different-defense-of.html

Savvy,

Marriagee equality will continue to advance.  Supportets of equality have won this war, thamkfully. More & moree nstions are making same sex marriage legsl & thr US will as well. Same sex marriage is not genderless.

You are on tthe wrong side of science, morality, history.  Your side has already lost. Hate & bigotry are lost causes. Love conquers all!

Lisa,

Thanks for proving us right. You insult, but do not refute arguments.  Same-sex marriage is genderless. It implies that gender is a social construct, since differences between men and women are just imaginary or not valid.

You also have not answered Sassy’s question.

“You are on the wrong side of science, morality, history.  Your side has already lost. Hate & bigotry are lost causes. Love conquers all!”

We’ll see in 50 years. Pride comes before a fall.

Savvy,

You and others have not posted any arguments to refute.  Instead what you and others have posted are unscientific, illogical, irrational statements based on irrational fear of gay people.

Those supporting hatred and bigotry have lost out to love. You are onthe wrong side of of history, morality, science.

Nobody is saying that the differences bwtween men and women do not exist.  They do exist.  But that is irrelevant to the fundamental, constituional right to marry, to equal protection under the law.  What you are saying really is that you do not like that two women or two men can love each other and live in relationship.  What you are syaing is that society should hate gay people, discriminate against them.  Again, it is clear that such ideas have lost.  Intelligent and compassionate people have evolved beyond such backward and irrational ideas.

Lisa, you are a liar. Stop accusing me of saying things I have not said.  Do not bear false witness. The right to marry is not the same as the right to re-define marriage. The constitution does not bring this up.

The issue is you are not interested in dialogue because your mind is already made up. It’s like fundamentalist Christians who you cannot get anywhere with because they shut you up with “the bible says so”.  With you it’s because “popular culture” says so.

Marriage laws in the constitution were based on the Anglo-American Legal Tradition. 

Examine the book What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George;

Savvy,

Its not about “popular culture”.  Its about the constitutional right of ALL Americans to have equal rights and protections under the law pursuant 14th Amendment.

Savvy in your April 4th comment above you DID say, “Same-sex marriage is genderless. It implies that gender is a social construct, since differences between men and women are just imaginary or not valid.”

So I m not bearing false witness.  It seem you either do not remember what you post or that you post things you do not mean.

And again, the world’ intelligent and compassionate people understand that being gay is not a choice, that gay people have the same right to love and sex and marriage as straight people. The ideas of hate and bigotry toward gay people have lost.  Love has won.  Love conquers all.

Lisa,

You are being far too dogmatic.  The gays, I know,  do not even associate sex with civil marriage. They associate this with religious marriage.  Since one does not need a piece of paper to have sex.

Love is not the only reason for a marriage. There is a reason why marriage already does not accept certain things, such as a man in love with another woman, cannot marry her. Polygamy is currently illegal as is polyamory. So marriage is NOT just about love.  Marriage laws ALREADY discriminate.

It’s more like you have NO reasons to why gay marriage should be legalized.

What are your reasons for wanting the state to regulate gay marriage?

I have also repeatedly pointed out in my posts that I do not think being gay is a choice. The issue is why should the state regulate gay marriage or any other marriage?

You are reading more than what is being written.

Laws re civil marriage are important for the rights off everyone involved—the spouses and the children.  Laws re marriage govern property rights, and the issues re the identity of children (for purposes of inheritance, etc).  Laws re marriage are important re healthcare decisions, rights of survivorship re real estate, pensions, Social Security, taxes etc.  When a marriage is legally recognized, there are laws that apply in the event of divorce—laws that protect children as well as the rights of each spouse.  None of this is romantic, but important for children and important for fair division of property accumulated during the marriage and important for the financial well-being of the adults involved.

Lisa,

Civil unions would give them the same rights. There is no need to re-define marriage into a genderless institution and call it love. Time to admit facts, that this about legal benefits, nothing else.

You and others have not posted any arguments to refute.  Instead what you and others have posted are unscientific, illogical, irrational statements based on irrational fear of gay people.
Those supporting hatred and bigotry have lost out to love. You are onthe wrong side of of history, morality, science.

Lisa, you wrote the above.  Please tell me how you reconcile this with say, people who have true disabilities and have lost out on “love”: people with severe autism, Downs, cerebral palsy, mental retardation to name a few?  How do you reconcile that?  Where is the equality for them?  Or are they lesser citizens because of their disabilities?  Please explain.

Personally, when compared in this light, I think the SSM apologist, sadly, look like a big bunch of weiners (cue SNL memories).  Savvy, I don’t expect to get an answer.

Sassy,

I have no clue what you are talking about re the disabled.  No human being is “lesser” and people with disabilities (as long as they have the capacity to consent) may marry.

Savvy,

the US Supreme Court has issued many decisions holding that marriage is a fundamental right of American citizens via the US Constituion.  So gay Americans have the right to marry.  Civil unions are not enough.

someone above asked why I thought government should regulte marriage. I answered that with laws that currently apply to stright marriage.  Straight people receive many legal benefits from marriage.  So why should not gay people, when they are allowed to marry not receive those same legal benefits.  And that being said, same-sex marriage is NOT “all about the legal benefits”  It is about love, commitment, relationship.  Gay people want the same things from marriage that stright people want from marriage.  Its a human thing.  Gay people are not"other” or somehow different from straight people.  You and others are determined to demonize gay people.

Lisa,

You totally missed my point.  You are so busy advocating for a class of people that you think are wronged (those afflicted with SSA) that you probably have not even stopped to consider the plight of those who face real physical and or neuro challenges.  I am not saying that SSA people do not deserve compassion, but the amount of attention they generate versus, say, people with autism (April is Autism Awareness Month), is rather sickening.

Lisa,

You keep forgetting that gay people are allowed the married.  Each person is allowed to marry exactly one person of the opposite sex, provided age and close relation does not act as a hinderance.

Just because they don’t like the rules of the game doesn’t mean the rules should be changed.  This is not a civil rights issues.  It’s a play on emotions, period.

Sassy,

The issue of same-sex IS a civil rights issues—its an issue of equal protection under th law (the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution). Its on this basis that the US Supreme Court heard two same sex marriage cases in late March.  If you have determined that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, you better call the US Supreme Court right now and tell those nine justices that they have made a horrible horrible mistake in hearing these cases as civil rights cases. I am sure they will take your advice!  LOL!

Sassy,

Gay people are NOT “afflicted” with SSA.  Being gay is not an affliction.  Its a sexual orientation. If being gay is an affliction, then so is being stright.  And now you are trying to blame gay people because you think they are taking attention away from disabled people????  That is really bizarre, false and just plain nonsense.  Where do you come up with such nonsense?????  The issue of this comment thread is same-sex marriage, not physicial or developmental disabilities. It is so clear that you are trying to find any way you can to demonize gay people.  Its those bad bad gay people who are somehow taking attention (whose attention?) away from disabled people????

Lisa,

The issue is not whether or not we should love homosexuals, but rather what marriage is, and whether or not same-sex marriage is beneficial for society.

Have you thought about the meaning of marriage and realised it is unjust not to allow same-sex couples to marry?

How have you realized same-sex marriage will benefit society?

Do you think mother and fathers contribute different things to a child’s upbringing?

Do you think ideally a child should be raised by its biological mother and father?

“Gay people want the same things from marriage that stright people want from marriage.  Its a human thing.  Gay people are not"other” or somehow different from straight people.”

Lisa, if we are talking about two different definitions of marriage, then we are talking about two different kinds of marriages and therefore they differ in kind from each other.

Is Marriage.

a) Marriage is either a conjugal union of a man and a woman designed to unite husband and wife to each other and to any children who may come from their union

or

b) it is a relationship for the mutual benefit of adults which the state recognizes and to which it grants certain benefits.

Can these two definitions co-exist, since being for one, would be being against the other, or according to you it is not equality?

Savvy and Sassy,

Marriage is a good thing for society.  So it is beneficial to society to allow gay people to amrry.  Marriage is not just about children.  That is why older people, infertile people, people who do not wnat children marry and/or are allowed to marry.

Gay people make great parents.  There is absolutely NO evidence that gay people are not good parents and that children raised by gay couples are in any way different from children raised by straight parents.

Uruguay just legalized same sex marriage.  Looks like France will do the same.  And by June, same-sex marriage will most likely be the law in the US.

Lisa,

This STILL does not answer the questions posed to you. Thank You for demonstrating your lack of critical thinking and parroting someone else non-stop.

I am going to repost my questions here.

1.Have you thought about the meaning of marriage and realised it is unjust not to allow same-sex couples to marry?

2.How have you realized same-sex marriage will benefit society?

3.Do you think mother and fathers contribute different things to a child’s upbringing?

4.Do you think ideally a child should be raised by its biological mother and father?

Is Marriage.

a) Marriage is either a conjugal union of a man and a woman designed to unite husband and wife to each other and to any children who may come from their union

or

b) it is a relationship for the mutual benefit of adults which the state recognizes and to which it grants certain benefits.

Can these two definitions co-exist, since being for one, would be being against the other, or according to you it is not equality?

Savvy,

I have definitely answered your questions (although I certainly have no oblligation to answer your questions just because you ask them). 

I agree, it IS unjust to not allow same sex couple to marry.  Many gay people, like stright people, live in long-term, committed relationships.  they. like stright people should have the option to marry.

Again, I think gay people make great parents.  I think marriage is whatever the two involved want it to be. And that is is proper for government to set out rules re the rights of and identity of children of the marriage, re property acquired during marriage, and re custody and division of property in the case of divorce.

Also, my opinions are my own, based on my experience, education, and observation.  i do NOT “parrot” anyone else’s opinion.

“Many gay people, like stright people, live in long-term, committed relationships.  they. like stright people should have the option to marry.”

Two cousins can live in a long-term committed relationship too. This does not mean they are married.

How is marriage good for society?

“Again, I think gay people make great parents”

This is not the issue.  The issue is do mothers and fathers contribute different things to a child’s upbringing?

Is it deal for a child should be raised by its biological mother and father?

” I think marriage is whatever the two involved want it to be.”

I brought this up, because SSM advocates argue that difference now implies discrimination and inequality. This means different definitions of marriage cannot co-exist.

Savvy,

It seems you do not know or have not realized that gay people can be and are biological parents and that they are often raising their biological children.  I knw a number of gay men and gay women who are biological parents and who are raising their biological children within a gay relationship.

Denying gay Americans their legal/Constitutional right to marry is discrimination and inequality—just as denying an African-american his/her legal right to vote would be discrimination and inequality.  And that is explicit, not implicit. And the civil law defines marriage re legal rights of spouses and children and issues of property.  People in a marriage create and define for themselves what their marriage is about.

As for cousins, depending on their degree of consanguinity and the state in which they live, they may have the option to marry.  there are several states that permit first counsins to marry.  What I am saying is that gay people who live in long-term committed relationships should have the option to marry, just as stright people do.

“I know a number of gay men and gay women who are biological parents and who are raising their biological children within a gay relationship.”

So you think it’s okay to intentionally deny a child a mother and a father? We are not talking about unfortunate circumstances here, but intentionally denying a child a right to a mother and a father, under law.

“Denying gay Americans their legal/Constitutional right to marry is discrimination and inequality—just as denying an African-american his/her legal right to vote would be discrimination and inequality.”

We are talking about marriage, not race.

You mentioned that marriage is beneficial to society. How so?

Savvy,

It is clear that your life experience is very narrow,that you do not know any gay people, & that you have no clue how gay people (they live their lives in the ways straight people do).  For many many gay people raising children, both biological parents are involved in raising the child.  No one is intentionally denying children access to biological parents when access is possible.

Marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.  And so cannot be legally denied to gay Americans—and by June that is what the US Supreme Court will hold.  And being gay is an immutable characteristic—just as is race.  Being gay is NT a choice.

Marriage is beneficial because marriage laws protect spouses and children.  Marriage is good for straight people and for gay people.  Stable relationships—straight or gay, in which spouses and children have legally recognized rights makes for a more stable society.

Lisa,

Lisa, what about gays that adopt, and do not have biological kids?  A three-parent family or more is not stability.  Even the AAP only supports two stable parents, not three or more.  It’s a fact that this is a social engineering experiment, foisted upon children by selfish adults.

Heterosexual marriage provides a child with a mother and a father, either biological or adopted and it’s also based on the biological complementarity of men and women. Biology is not a joke, that can be defied.

And if you bring up divorce, gay marriage is not going to fix this issue.

“And being gay is an immutable characteristic—just as is race. Being
gay is NT a choice.”

No. Lisa, there is zero evidence to prove this. Even the supreme court rejected this claim. Orientation not being chosen, is not the same as behaviour which is always chosen. There is a difference.

You are also ignoring evidence about how men and women parent differently.

Once again biology is not a joke. There is a difference in kind with these two marriages.

savvy,

When gay parents adopt, it is no different then when straight people adopt.  So nobody should be allowed to adopt children????  And what makes you think when gay people adopt that 3 parents are involved???  Where do you come up with the nonsense???  When gay couples adopt children it is no different then when straight people adopt—the same rules and laws apply.  Again you are grasping at straws to demonize gay people, to try to convince your self that gay people are “other”.  You are wrong gay people deserve the same rights as straight people.  And your side has already lost this battle.  your message of hate, bigotry and intolerance and discrimination has lost out to love and equality.

Lisa,

I understand that hope is more important to you than facts, about how men and women parent differently, and it’s wrong to deny children a mother and a father if possible.

Legalization will not end debate. it’s only going to intensify it.

Savvy,  It is you who is ignoring the facts.  More states in the US, more nations int he world are legalizing same-sex marriage.  Ina ddition, the US Supreme Court will make it legal throughout the US by June.

Again, you seem not to realize that in many situations gay couples are able to involve opposite sex parents in raising children.  Please go out and meet some gay people.  It is obvious yo0u have no experience with gay people rasing children.

Intensifying the debate may or may not occur when same sex marriage becomes legal throughout the US.  If it does intensify, it still will not change the law.  Same sex marriage will remain legal. And as older people whose irrational fears and ignorance dies out, so will the debate.  The younger generation is very accepting.  So the fact is, Savvy, your sie of the debate, your message of hate, bigotry, intolerance and irrational fear, has lost.  The message of love, inclusion, justice, equality have already won.  You are supporting a lost cause.  Give up—your side has already lost.

“Again, you seem not to realize that in many situations gay couples are able
to involve opposite sex parents in raising children. “

You also keep trying to fit gay marriage into the same model as opposite sex marriage, thinking it’s the same thing. You need to compare like things, not opposite things.

This means you compare homosexual marriage with other homosexual marriages, not with heterosexual marriages.

The marriage Debate is only going to intensify with legalization. Many are already making a case for marriage involving more than two people.

Pansexuality is not progress. It’s simply the old paganism.

You might want to read:

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.php

Lisa,

You have a case, if you can compare homosexual marriages with other homosexual marriages, to show that they are not different, rather than comparing two different concepts.

Savvy,

mariage is marriage is marriage.  Laws re marriage will apply in the same way to gay couple ans stright couples. There will NOT be one law for gay couple and another law for straight couples.  That is the point of the lrgal recogniation of same-sex marriage.  Same-sex marriage and straight marriages do not differ.  That you think they are different just highlights that you apprantly do not know any gay people or gay couples and have no idea what you are talking about.

Savvy,

judaism is NOT monolithic.  While the orthoxo may reject gay people, that is is not true of Judaism as a whole.  The RConserivative, the REform, the Renewal, the Reconsturctions movements of Judaism ordain gay clergy, welcome gay people in their congregations, support and work for marriage equality.  It is clear that you do niot know much about Judaism, so its probably best aht you do not make any comments about Judaism.

Also, no one is talking about ‘pansexuality”.  What we are talking about is marriage equality under the law for same-sex couples.  the idea that you bring up ‘pansexuality’ which ahs nothing to do with same-sex marriage, make it clear that you are grasping at straws to try to justify your bigotry.  Again, the side that supports hate and bigotry has already lost this fight.  Love and acceptance have won the day.

Lisa,

Gay couples may have the same desires for marriage and family as heterosexuals do, but this does not mean that they are the same.  Biology like life, is not fair.

You can continue to insist that a square is a triangle and vice versa, but that does not make it so. Your side has lost on common sense.

“It is clear that you do niot know much about Judaism, so its probably best aht you do not make any comments about Judaism.”

This is funny coming from you, since you can’t accept difference, and insist everybody should be the same or they are not equal.

“There will NOT be one law for gay couple and another law for straight couples. That is the point of the lrgal
recogniation of same-sex marriage.”

So it’s okay to deny a child a mother and a father. I know that gay couples can have their own children, but they can ONLY do this with the opposite sex. This makes children just extra-accessories for the happiness of adults.

Gay marriage also affects everybody. Countries are trying to impose a particular definition of marriage based on just emotional bonding and nothing else.

Sassy,

The mass marriage confusion points to the coming collapse of civil marriage.  The argument is that marriage is good for society, and good for children, spouses etc.

And then the same people turn around and argue that marriage is not just about children, or property etc. It’s also about love and commitment.

If marriage is just a legal recognition of an emotional relationship, then if should not have any special protections over any other relationship. This would be the case against marriage itself.

Real equality would be just regulating civil unions for all, and let marriage be a religious issue.

Children’s tooth development begins while the baby is in the womb. Teething usually occurs between the ages of six and nine months. Children usually have their full set of 20 primary teeth (milk teeth, baby teeth or deciduous teeth) by the age of three years. At about the age of six years, the first permanent teeth erupt (push through the gum).

Savvy,

The US Constitution sets out that every American citizen shall have equal protection under the law.  That is the American system of law, values, ideal.  Its not just my opinion.  So when one group of of American is illogically denied equal protection under the law, then yes, it unjust and unequal.  That is not the American way of life. 

If you want to live in a place where injustice and inequality are the values of society, might I suggest, Pakistan, Iran, Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Egypt???  Because it sounds like you do not like the American way of life and would prefer something more barbaric and bigoted.

By the way, New Zealand just legalized same-sex marriage. Justice and equality are gaining more footholds around the world!

Savvy,

Again you seek to demonize gay people by saying they only want children as accessories.  Again, that is your bigotry speaking and has no basis in fact.  Again, it is clear that you do not know any gay people or gay couples.  It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, so your ideas and bizarre perceptions have no credibility.

Lisa,

I am attacking arguments not people.  If marriage is the legal recognition of a committed relationship between two people,  and not about children, or biology, then why should marriage receive any special protection, over any other committed relationship.

This would an argument against the uniqueness of marriage itself.

I am not just opposed go gay marriage. I am opposed to civil marriage in general. In a society, where people cannot decide what marriage is, the state should not be giving out marriage licenses.

Just regulate civil unions for all. We would all be equal.

Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen, on a radio show actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506

Thank You Marsha for confirming, what more than a few people knew, all along but are only now admitting it once they are comfortable gay marriage is safe.

savvy,

Just so you know, Masha Green is expressing her own opinion.  She is NOT any sort of offical spokesperson for all the gay people in the world.  There is not some sort to gay world headquarters that appoints Masha Green as the spokesperson for the entire gay peopulation of the world.  So no, the march toward sex marriage is NOT some sort of nefarious plot by gay of the world to eliminate marriage.  And the idea that you believe Masha green speaks for all gay people (she probably speaks for about 3 gay people) and that she is revealing some sort of secret plot by the gay people of the worl to destroy marriage, does not speak well for your critical analysis skills or even for your common sense.

Lisa,

All someone needs to do is simply follow the logic.  If marriage is the legal recognition of a committed relationship between two people,  and not about children, or biology, then why should marriage receive any special protection, over any other committed relationship?

This would an argument against the uniqueness of marriage itself.

Savvy,

Psst, psst—come over here.  Just for you and just between us and the fencepost, I have the address of the super, ultra secret gay world HQ, that is teeming with nefariious evil genius homosexual activists who are hatching an evil plot to destroy the world!!!!!  And I willl throw in a copy of the ultra secret, ultra radical homoosexual political agenda—it has lots of fascinating bulllet points about flowers, interior decorating, hair styles, and destroying marriage for straight peopl!! But wait there’s more.  If you act now, you will also receive aset of ginzu knives, a pocket fisherman and the Brooklyn Bridge. Act now, this is a limited offer!

Lisa,

Very funny. All someone has to do is follow the logic of arguments being made, including yours.

Working a 2-4 hour hours at undivided need a week in our Children’s’ Erudition Garden, you will-power set right delve mud, weed, aerate tarnish, Persuade unqualified the garden is flourishing and expressively maintained, and more. We’ve recently built a garden to egg on fit living and strong eating aggregate the kids in our programs, and at this very moment we condition people with gardening bump into to nick the kids hold the garden . Our own stave doesn’t be struck by gardening judgement, so we as adults are also looking to learn from our volunteers.


http://www.cloudseo.net.pl/firmy/www,pompyogrodoweal,ko,pl,s,5312/
http://www.katalogowo.net.pl/firmy/www,pompyogrodoweal,ko,pl,s,2871/
http://wpisek.pl/firmy/al,ko,pompy,do,brudnej,wody,s,6445/
http://www.zerknijmy.pl/firmy/hydrofor,s,8859/
http://www.zantilla.edu.pl/firmy/al,ko,pompa,glebinowa,s,3812/


http://podlinkuj.com.pl/biznes-i-ekonomia/al-ko-pompy-do-brudnej-wody,rinka,3542.php4
http://www.wwwkatalogwww.net.pl/biznes;i;ekonomia/al;ko;pompy;glebinowe,gu,1101.htm
http://top-link.pl/biznes,i,ekonomia/www,s,5500/
http://poszukasy.pl/firmy/pompy,do,brudnej,wody,s,6046/
http://akys.pl/firmy/strona,internetowa,s,5079/


http://www.erhall.edu.pl/firmy/pompa,glebinowa,s,3797/
http://nalinku.be/firmy/wiecej,s,5541/
http://www.mocuj.net.pl/firmy/al,ko,pompa,glebinowa,s,7338/
http://hinol.pl/firmy/strona,firmowa,s,5475/
http://www.khommarius.edu.pl/firmy/al,ko,pompy,do,brudnej,wody,s,3763/