Pope on warpath against gays!

[Shake]

Well, I found this on our newswire, but the link is to an article on the AA (American Atheists, not Alcoholics Anonymous) website.

Pope tries to bully legislators on gay marriages. (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat14.htm)

It's sickening that the Vatican is trying to do something so blatent and public like this. Next thing you know, the Vatican will be linking to Fred Phelps and his ilk. :eek:

What was refreshing to see in that article was the immense international outcry at how wrong this is."Attempting to interfere in this way in democratic processes is outrageous," said Michael Kelley of the Rainbow Sash organization. "It shows the Vatican has yet to come to terms with modern, pluralist societies and the rights of all citizens under the law."I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks this is offensive.

But wait, my fellow Americans, not such good news here:WHITE HOUSE, POLS BEND A KNEE,
OBEY VATICAN LINE
In Washington, President Bush announced that his administration would take action to guarantee that the term "marriage" applied only to unions between men and women. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill also declared that they would pass a constitutional amendment, if necessary, to pre-empt any gay marriage legislation or even a Supreme Court decision that might legitimize the practice.And W's not even Catholic! He's probably OK with not getting the gay vote anyway, but still, this is about more than just gay rights. It's about the Vatican sticking their noses where they don't belong! Gay or straight, you should be offended by the Vatican's attempt to influence the politics of any nation (especially so publicly).

The band Nuclear Assault said it best:
http://www.screamingferret.com/nuclearassault/shirtpics/nuclear_assault_htp_Shrt_bk.jpg

[cpickett]

I thought I was just going nuts, I was the only person I had run across that was upset about that. I understand the pope saying it's immoral, etc. but to pressure lawmakers into voting the way the pope wants, basically by threating hell, if they don't toe the line, is black mail.

Then the whole consitutional amendment thing, is just absurd, it'll never pass, so I'm personally amazed that Bush did anything of the sort.

[Buffman]

Emmett F. Fields, and his "Bank of Wisdom" rare books on CDs, presents an extremely informative book by Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.P.(Imprimatur) titled "Morals in Politics and Professions, A Guide for Catholics In Public Life" on CD #7. What gives significance to this book is the fact that it was originally published in 1946. The Pope is merely following the traditional path.

http://www.bank-of-wisdom.com/cddisplay.php?cd=cd7

How will Baby Bush's remarks impact on this group who supported him in the last election?

http://www.lcr.org/press/20030630.asp

(Extract)
Log Cabin Republicans is the nation's largest gay Republican organization, with state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time Washington office and a federal political action committee.
(End extract)

http://www.lcr.org/chapters.asp

[Nate]

It's sickening that the Vatican is trying to do something so blatent and public like this.

Why is it sickening and blatent that a religious leader reminds his flock that they should act in accordance with their stated beliefs.

The redefinition of marriage is certainly a moral and social issue, and that has always been the province of the Church.

If there was a movement to redefine the word "human" so as to exclude blacks, and black religious leaders urged the black caucus in congress to vote against it, would you be so irate about this public interference. If the pope urged Catholics to vote against such a thing (and I believe he would) would you still think that was blatent inapproriate action.

All laws are influenced by, if not determined by the moral values of a society, which are the direct subject of religion. Secularism is as much a religion as that of any theistic community, and its imposition, which goes unchallenged, does not seem to rouse the unwarrented ire expressed in this thread.

[never been there]

There are religious groups that are perfectly willing to marry same-sex couples. The RC Church isn't. Fine, they're free to follow their beliefs. They are totally entitled to try to convince the citizenry that legally recognizing same-sex marriage is a bad idea.

But I will respect their freedom ONLY as long as they respect that of others. If they oppose the religious freedom of others I no longer feel obliged to grant them the same. A politician can be a good Catholic while allowing someone else to be a good Unitarian.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Nate
Why is it sickening and blatent that a religious leader reminds his flock that they should act in accordance with their stated beliefs.

. . . .

One of the stated beliefs of many liberal and moderate Catholics is church state separation, in the tradition of John F Kennedy. The pope is trying to force religious warfare on this country, or force Catholics out of public service unless they kowtow to him. That's sickening.

[Vylo]

Why is it sickening and blatent that a religious leader reminds his flock that they should act in accordance with their stated beliefs.


Legal marriage and religious marriage are 2 different things. The catholic church has every right to decline gay marriages within their church, however it is a violation of church and state to use religious beliefs to justify declining them the right to legal marriage.

[beth]

The thing is, there are many RC's in seats of power in this country. I am almost certain that the Pope will be able to influence their vote. I see this as a great hypocrisy, though, considerring the Pope shot down measures that would better protect the children of the US from the sick and twisted pedophile priests that they are often intrusted to. W had no right to declare his religious belief in reguard to the secular state of legal marriage. Neither do any of the law makers. It is about time that gay couples are given the right to marry and to enjoy the legal benefits that marriage can offer.

[Shake]

Originally posted by Nate
Why is it sickening and blatent that a religious leader reminds his flock that they should act in accordance with their stated beliefs. He can tell his sheep what to do if he wants, but when his sheep are in places where they can push their beliefs on me (and others who don't follow the same belief system), that's sickening.

One of the points of the American Revolution was that we would not answer to any foreign tyrants. I don't see how the Pope is an exception. I could care less how he tells Catholics to behave in their own lives, but when he starts trying to (directly) affect the politics of this (and other) nation(s), he's crossing the line.

If there was a movement to redefine the word "human" so as to exclude blacks, and black religious leaders urged the black caucus in congress to vote against it, would you be so irate about this public interference. If the pope urged Catholics to vote against such a thing (and I believe he would) would you still think that was blatent inapproriate action. Yes, I would be irate about that too! The so-called "issue of race" has been biologically shown to be a sham. I think you'll find that many others would share my view on that. The US already went to war over this issue (at least in part). Again, if the Pope urged Catholics to vote on something so ludicrous as your example above, yes, I'd still call that blatently inappropriate. The Pope has no business meddling with foreign governments. The US is supposedly a democratic republic; we elect people to office that we feel will speak for us at the national level. Ideally, they should be objective when it comes to the issues. Sure, there's nothing stopping them from voting however they want, but they know they'll have to face the voters for their actions.

Nobody's telling the Catholic Church how they run their organization, so they can keep out of how foreign governments run their countries.

All laws are influenced by, if not determined by the moral values of a society, which are the direct subject of religion. Secularism is as much a religion as that of any theistic community, and its imposition, which goes unchallenged, does not seem to rouse the unwarrented ire expressed in this thread. :rolleyes: My "unwarranted" ire is, as you would see if you read the link in the o.p., shared by many people around the globe. I'd be interested to see how you figure secularism (whatever exactly that is) is a religion. I feel this last section of yours that I've quoted is wrong, but I know there are others here who are better able to back up my feeling about it, so I defer an answer to that part to them.

Anyone see any difference between this example and say, the German Chancellor calling on all people of German origin to vote against some particular issue? I mean, I'm half-German, but I don't feel any particular loyalty to Germany, having been born and raised in the good ol' US of A.

[Nate]

Originally posted by Shake
He can tell his sheep what to do if he wants, but when his sheep are in places where they can push their beliefs on me (and others who don't follow the same belief system), that's sickening.


Thats baloney. Every law is an imposition of someone's beliefs on someone else, including the traffic laws. (someone values safety over freedom of travel mode). The sheep that want to redefine marriage so I have to recognize it, and pay taxes to support benefits for a relationship I consider wrong and destructive, want to force their beliefs on me. Your failure to recognize that is skewing your whole attitude.

One of the points of the American Revolution was that we would not answer to any foreign tyrants. I don't see how the Pope is an exception.


The pope is not a foreign tryrant. He is not telling you or the U.S. government what to do. He is telling Catholics that if they are going to call themselves Catholic, they should not be hypocrites and say they subscribe to one set of values and support a contradictory one.


I could care less how he tells Catholics to behave in their own lives, but when he starts trying to (directly) affect the politics of this (and other) nation(s), he's crossing the line.

No, it's the state that is crossing the line. This is not just a political issue, but a moral one. Marriage was defined in the Church long before any existing nation came to be. Law has an educative effect, and some groups are trying to get the state to undertake a reeducation of its citizens into a morality that is contrary to many religions, not just Catholcism. No state should be doing that and the pope has not only a right but a duty to warn his congregation about it.


Nobody's telling the Catholic Church how they run their organization,

It seems to me you are! You are saying the pope must remain silent while some governments attempt to coerce the members of his church into accepting a reshaping of society in a way that is contrary to their religious beliefs.


I'd be interested to see how you figure secularism (whatever exactly that is) is a religion.
Any system of fundamental values that define public morality or seeks to regulate behavior that impacts mans relationship with a deity (including a null relationship), is a religion. Secularism is as much a religion as any theistic cult and it is more evangelical and intolerant than any of them. Its primary dogma is that all theistic mention, symbols and values are to be excluded from public life. That is because it is fundamentaly a subset of atheism and wishes to make itself the established religion of the nation.

Why has the non establishment of religion clause been transformed into separation of Church and state? The Constitution does not mention church or state. Church and religion are not the same thing. There are many non-church connected religions. Atheism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, and Deism are a few of them and Secularism is prominent among them. By excluding church connected religions from public life it gives itself a privileged position, as the established national religion, in direct defience of the non- establishment clause.

In one case I heard of a teacher was forbidden to even ask for a moment of silence from the class, because that was a violation of the constitution. That is not non-establishment of religion. That is religious fanaticism.

It is obvious that many people on this board have been converted to Secularism without understanding that they are in a cult. Just because a collection plate is not passed (except by the ACLU) that does not mean they are not in a flock. The angst expressed over the pope telling Catholics they should behave like Catholics is a sign of their religious bigotry. That does not infringe on anyone's politics. They see it as a denial of their of their religion.


Anyone see any difference between this example and say, the German Chancellor calling on all people of German origin to vote against some particular issue?

Yes a huge difference. The German Chancellor is not the spokesman for a church and has no duty to speak on moral issues. The pope is and does.
Religious communities and the State are separate but they cannot be unrelated or independent because some of the members of each are the same persons, and many of the issues that arise involve religion as well as politics.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Nate
. . .

The pope is not a foreign tryrant. He is not telling you or the U.S. government what to do. He is telling Catholics that if they are going to call themselves Catholic, they should not be hypocrites and say they subscribe to one set of values and support a contradictory one.

On the contrary the Pope is telling American Catholics who have been elected to public office that they have a duty to try to impose Catholic doctrine on all Americans. This is the problem.

The Pope can't even get American Catholics to voluntarily follow his outdated doctrines on sexuality and birth control, so he would like to use the power of the state to enforce his control. This is the violation of church state separation.


. . .
Any system of fundamental values that define public morality or seeks to regulate behavior that impacts mans relationship with a deity (including a null relationship), is a religion. Secularism is as much a religion as any theistic cult and it is more evangelical and intolerant than any of them. Its primary dogma is that all theistic mention, symbols and values are to be excluded from public life. That is because it is fundamentaly a subset of atheism and wishes to make itself the established religion of the nation.

This is a very idiosyncratic definition of religion. It is also wrong.

I challenge you to show any example of secularists trying to exclude truly voluntary religious expression that does not involve state endorsement. I also challenge you to find a secular evangelist.

Secularism, or the separation of church and state, allows people with different religious beliefs to live together in harmony, by guaranteeing that one group will not use the power of the state to impose religious doctrine on others. It has been good for people of various religious beliefs.

Why has the non establishment of religion clause been transformed into separation of Church and state? The Constitution does not mention church or state. Church and religion are not the same thing. There are many non-church connected religions. Atheism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, and Deism are a few of them and Secularism is prominent among them. By excluding church connected religions from public life it gives itself a privileged position, as the established national religion, in direct defience of the non- establishment clause.

This is so confused I don't know where to start. "Separation of church and state" is a catch phrase. The constitution forbids an establishment of religion, whether that religion has a church or a mosque or is called Deism, Pantheism, or whatever.

In one case I heard of a teacher was forbidden to even ask for a moment of silence from the class, because that was a violation of the constitution. That is not non-establishment of religion. That is religious fanaticism.

Rumors like this tend to circulate around the internet. When you check into them, they usually turn out to be false, or the facts make the case look completely different.

It is obvious that many people on this board have been converted to Secularism without understanding that they are in a cult. Just because a collection plate is not passed (except by the ACLU) that does not mean they are not in a flock. The angst expressed over the pope telling Catholics they should behave like Catholics is a sign of their religious bigotry. That does not infringe on anyone's politics. They see it as a denial of their of their religion.

It is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.

[conkermaniac]

Senile 80-year old men like the pope and William Rehnquist should retire. The pope can't speak louder than 5 decibels, and Rehnquist couldn't straighten up his back if his life depended on it. It's time that they go back to their homes with all their prostitutes and leave us alone.

[Buffman]

Nate

All laws are influenced by, if not determined by the moral values of a society, which are the direct subject of religion. Secularism is as much a religion as that of any theistic community, and its imposition, which goes unchallenged, does not seem to rouse the unwarrented ire expressed in this thread.

That is a very interesting and discussion promoting paragraph...though perhaps not in C-SS. However, on the assumption that the "Mods" are a flexible group of "secularists," I bet they won't object to a few 'outside' comments off the primary issue of this thread..

First, I agree that some of the laws of a society are influenced, and even determined, by the values favored within each of those "specific" societies. However, when you modify values with the word "moral" you do so at great personal risk. Whose moral values? Yours or mine, his or hers, they or theirs? What is a "moral" value? Does it arise from fact or fiction? Both? Neither? Perhaps it arises from merely historical experience... which may or may not have any religious connection. Is it not presumptuous, perhaps even arrogant, for you to allege that morality is the sole purview of religion? (I must assume that that was what you were attempting to allege.)

Second, to claim that "secularism is as much religion as that of any theistic community" is a fallacious belief simply by the definitions of the words you have chosen to express that opinion. Secularism is a "view," not a faith belief. That "view" is that we should consider the well-being of humankind in the present, not in a supernatural afterlife. That is why our Constitution makes no mention of supernatural entities or any religious faith belief afterlife and is a "secular," not sectarian, governing document. Secularism promotes real time unions of all people regardless of how they may chose to express their individual, religious belief, conscience. "Sectarianism" is a slave to its specific dogma and has historically proven to be one of the most divisive of all human philosophies.

Last, since most of those who post to these forums clearly understand that difference, it can easily account for why a truly secular government does not arouse ire, and why a sectarian government arouses the "warranted" ire you find expressed here...and may not find on many of the zealously sectarian discussion boards where the members are not encouraged, and in many cases not permitted, to hold any "view" that is at variance with their faith belief dogma.

[Buffman]

Nate

Marriage was defined in the Church long before any existing nation came to be.

And what verifiable evidence do you offer for that contention? Are you alleging that there were no nation states prior to Christianity, and that no marriages were sanctioned by those states?

[Buffman]

Nate

The pope is not a foreign tryrant. He is not telling you or the U.S. government what to do. He is telling Catholics that if they are going to call themselves Catholic, they should not be hypocrites and say they subscribe to one set of values and support a contradictory one.

Perhaps you haven't read, or have failed to understand, the following:

http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter14/source531.html

(Extract)
Wherefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that the communication between this supreme head and the pastors and their flocks can lawfully be impeded; or who make this communication subject to the will of the secular power, so as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic See, or by its authority, for the government of the Church, cannot have force or validity unless it be confirmed by the assent of the secular power.
(End extract)

[BigBlue2]

I find it a little strange that a man who has never had sex or been married, and who presides over an institution that is losing millions of dollars in legal suits because his underlings can't keep their dicks in their dresses is so dogmatic on a subject he should be running a million miles from. I also find it strange that this old man has any credibility on the subject of marriage, gay or otherwise.

[scombrid]

Marriage was defined in the Church long before any existing nation came to be

Provided you can support this assertion, what is stopping the church from continuing to obey it's definition of marriage? Civil marriage and religious marriage aren't the same thing.

Civil marriage is not of the church. The Catholics don't need to recognize a gay marriage anymore than they would a marriage between a Catholic and a Baptist where the Baptist refuses to raise the kids in the Catholic church. Maybe the Pope should ask Catholic politicians to oppose marriage between any non-Catholics since those marriages aren't recognized by the church either.

As for you "hearing that a moment of silence was disallowed...". Try varifying the source of those retarded forwarded spam emails that tend to fly about. A moment of silence is mandatory in my state. Hell, prayer isn't even banned as many of you anti-secularists and your "The US is going to hell because of..." chain emails would have us believe.

[Toto]

This Canadian editorial promotes the anti-religion point of view. Of course, no one could say this in the US.

Freedom From Religion (http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_08.07.03/op/oped.html)

People are allowed to believe whatever they like, and listen to whatever crackpot they choose. But when those crackpots issue veiled threats to try to sway government policy, we should lose whatever tolerance we had for the general foolishness of religions and those who follow their leaders.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by scombrid
Maybe the Pope should ask Catholic politicians to oppose marriage between any non-Catholics since those marriages aren't recognized by the church either.
Or atheists. If I got married, the church would frown upon that marriage as well.

Nate:
The sheep that want to redefine marriage
It's funny you use the word "sheep." I have always used that term to describe many religious people who follow blindly what their leaders say rather than think for themselves.

so I have to recognize it, and pay taxes to support benefits for a relationship I consider wrong and destructive,
First, can you please tell me what you are talking about? I didn't realize that taxes actually went towards marraiges. I realize that married couples get tax breaks, but this isn't exactly the same thing as actually getting money.

Second, do you oppose other marriages that are also wrong and destructive? What about all those marriages that involve a violent spouse? Marriages between atheists? Etc, etc? Why just stop at gay marriage?

want to force their beliefs on me.
Nope, I would never force you to marry a man, Nate.

scigirl

[yelyos]

I'd just like to point out, to supplement the "German Chancellor" analogy, that the Pope is the ruler of a foreign country, and he is actually calling upon all people associated with that country by making this decision.

[Buffman]

http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/news/att/deissart1.html

(Extract)
Switzerland is the only country, beside the Vatican, not to be a full member of the UN. In a previous vote in 1986 the Swiss electorate rejected membership at the ballot box.
(End extract)

[beejay]

Originally posted by Buffman
Switzerland is the only country, beside the Vatican, not to be a full member of the UN. In a previous vote in 1986 the Swiss electorate rejected membership at the ballot box.
(End extract)

Well, not quite.

The U.N. General Assembly is expected to formally admit Switzerland as its 190th member during a ceremony in New York Tuesday. To the accompaniment of the Swiss Army Band, the country's flag -- a white cross on red background -- will then be hoisted to flutter as a lone square among the sea of rectangles.



That was September 2002.

News story on Switzerland's admission to UN (http://idsnews.com/story.php?id=11306)

[Shake]

On the issue of C-SS in the US government, I'd like to post the following that I read somewhere this morning:In 1890 the Court again unanimously [9 to 0] defined the "free exercise" of religion and wrote: "The First Amendment to the Constitution . . . was intended to allow everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience [matters of the mind] . . . . It was never [NEVER] intended or supposed that the Amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical [hostile] to the peace, good order and morals of society [MORALS OF SOCIETY] . . . . However free the exercise of religion may be, it must [MUST] be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country [CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE COUNTRY]" (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. at 342).Oh yeah, I remember, it was from the positiveatheism site.

This was part of an essay, and it further pointed out that the words of the Constitution (and subsequent amendments) were very carefully chosen for their precise meaning. It says that government may not prohibit (i.e. completely ban) the free practice of religion. What it does say, by omission, is that government may abridge religious expression that is deemed to be disruptive to good order in society. For example, the government will not allow human sacrifices just because that's part of someone's religion.

Thanks to Toto, Buffman, scigirl and others for your excellent points!

[Buffman]

beejay

Thanks for the update. I jumped on the first item that classified the Vatican as a "country." My bad.

[Nate]

On the contrary the Pope is telling American Catholics who have been elected to public office that they have a duty to try to impose Catholic doctrine on all Americans. This is the problem.

What Catholic doctrine do you think he is trying to impose? Do you think you are living under Catholic doctrine now, and has it been imposed on you by the pope? The fact that the virtually universal judgement of what is socailly beneficial is in accordance with the teachings of many religions, Catholicism included, does not imply any religious imposition.

Religion is not just concerned with an afterlife, but with mans relationship with each other and God, right here. The popes job is to articulate the Church's understanding of Jesus' teaching about both, and help people to live in accordance with it. Those who think they know better will do what they want, so there is no imposition of anything by the pope.

I agree with the comment that the politically astute thing for the pope to do is run from this issue, rather than have more of his guidance rejected. But all our actions have consequences, and if he foresees bad ones coming from the proposals being made, he is obliged under the law of love of neighbor to warn against them.

[Buffman]

Nate

You will hold my interest just as long as you make some effort to address the specific questions I have directed at you. If you are unwilling or unable to respond to them, then I see no meaningful or useful purpose in continuing to attempt a constructive dialogue with you.

Thanks for repeating your personal thoughts filtered through the superstitious and supernatural beliefs of the ancient past.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Nate
What Catholic doctrine do you think he is trying to impose? Do you think you are living under Catholic doctrine now, and has it been imposed on you by the pope? The fact that the virtually universal judgement of what is socailly beneficial is in accordance with the teachings of many religions, Catholicism included, does not imply any religious imposition. . . .

The Pope would like to impose Catholic doctrine involving abortion and birth control on the world. He knows that he's lost the argument on birth control, but he keeps trying to get Catholic institutions exempted from universal laws on health care coverage. The Catholic bishops are pushing for abortion to be made illegal again. This is not based on universal moral values - many other religions disagree on when life begins.

And if the Pope is only concerned about the moral practices of his flock, why is he trying to pressure elected Catholic officials to enact laws that reflect his view of morality? Why does he care about how the state defines marriage?

Fortunately, most Catholics just ignore the Pope in their daily lives. I hope it stays that way.

[never been there]

Originally posted by Nate
...The fact that the virtually universal judgement of what is socailly beneficial is in accordance with the teachings of many religions, Catholicism included, does not imply any religious imposition.

Nate, the United Church of Canada, the Unitarian Universalist Church, and the Metropolitan Community Church have all indicated that their doctrines allow same-sex marriages in their churches, all that remains is for the governments to recognize their paperwork [the United Church is a major denomination in this country].

The Pope is asking the world's governments to deny churches such as these their freedom of religion, conscience etc. How do you justify this?

Moreover, if the RC Church accepts the principle that the government has a right to tell the United Church of Canada for whom it can perform marriages, then it must believe that the same applies to them.

Would opponents of same-sex marriage care to raise the stakes? You win, no church can marry couples of the same sex (the status quo, actually); you lose, the RC Church MUST perform marriages for gay atheist polygamist first cousins.

[Nate]

And if the Pope is only concerned about the moral practices of his flock, why is he trying to pressure elected Catholic officials to enact laws that reflect his view of morality? Why does he care about how the state defines marriage?
Because the flock does not exist in isolation. The law has both an educative and coercive power. Although what is legal is not necessarly just or right, that equivalence tends to filter into peoples minds, and the courts must certainly equate them. In some places there are anti discrimination and hate crime laws that can then be used to coerce people into acting against their conscience. The Church has already experienced this in other areas.

The Church is not trying to impose anything that does not already exist with the free consent of the people. It is the State that is being used to impose a set of atheistic values on the Church, and you can see that the pope has a right and duty to speak out about that.

The governments rational interest in marriage stems from three considerations.

1. The procreation and healthy rearing of children in a stable environment.

Without this essential action, the state would soon disappear. Single sex marriages will do nothing to further this end, and will hamper it by devaluing the sacred bonds which support many real marriages.

2. The maintenance of order. The strong appetites and emotions that are associated with sex, can lead to many crimes of violence if those appetites are not disciplined and regulated toward achieving the ends of 1.

The government has almost abdicated its responsibilites in this area leading to an enormous increase in rapes, murders, illegitamacy, and disease, in the last 40 years. A statistical report of this up to 1993 was written by William Bennett, a former Secretary of Education.

Passing laws that further erode the only moral restraints on promiscuity can only be counterproductive.

3. The prevention of disease. Sexual promiscuity is an essential contributer to serious and lethal diseases that weaken society and strain the resources of the State.

Again weakening the moral restraints by nullifying the religious basis for those restraints can only make things worse.

Seeing that there is no rational basis for the move to get government to redifine marriage, the pope is correct in trying to head off a rush into destructive irrationality.

[RRoman]

1. The procreation and healthy rearing of children in a stable environment.

Without this essential action, the state would soon disappear. Single sex marriages will do nothing to further this end, and will hamper it by devaluing the sacred bonds which support many real marriages
So it should also be illegal for infertile couples and couples which wish to remain childless to wed? I am so sick of homobigots trying to use this as an argument. It seems marriages only purpose is to turn us all into breeders.:rolleyes:

2. The maintenance of order. The strong appetites and emotions that are associated with sex, can lead to many crimes of violence if those appetites are not disciplined and regulated toward achieving the ends of 1.

Translation: Sex leads to violence unless it is used for making more children.

3. The prevention of disease. Sexual promiscuity is an essential contributer to serious and lethal diseases that weaken society and strain the resources of the State.

Again weakening the moral restraints by nullifying the religious basis for those restraints can only make things worse.

To take this argument a bit further:
Since sexual promiscuity leads to an increse of STDs, we should therefore encourage gay monogamus relationships, while outlawing adultery.

[truelies]

It strikes me that the root of this dispute is an an intense desire by many, (Secularists even more than than those who adhere to one Religious Tradition or another) to gain a position of power in the State whereby it's monopoly on physical force can be used to compel competing viewpoints to submit. Perhaps the solution that ALL reasonable people can live with is to reduce the power and influence of the State to that absolute minimum required to execute its essential duties- suppressing physical violence and fraud within the Nation, repelling Foreign Enemies and enforcing Contracts among the Citizens. If Marriage were a purely private Contract which granted no State sanctioned financial benefit gay interest would wither overnight. With or without the sanction of a particular Religion Marriage would remain what it has always been at root a Contract between men and women to guard the economic wellbeing of any children produced by the relationship.

While this concept of a plural society where the voluntary associations (including Churches) define the rules of social intercourse (marriage/family/sexual relationships) for their adherents would more than likely be at least tolerable for most who call themselves Christian, westernised Muslims, Religious Jews, adherents of various Pagan (non-Abrahamic) Religions I am thinking that the hardcore Secularists would balk at any situation in which THEY are not ultimately defining the Rules for everyone.

What say you????

[simian]

Truelies:

Yes, secularists do define the governmental rules for US society. Those secularists include: atheists, agnostics, muslims, jews, christians, budhists, etc - those who feel the government should not be in the business of defining religion for all citizens. At one time (founding of this country) Catholics and Baptists were among the strongest secularists - they were the ones who would lose if the government favored one religion or denomination. The Sante Fe case (Texas "football prayer" case - although it was about far more than that) is a perfect example of why Catholics and Mormons demand secularism in a primarily Baptist community.

All that being a secularist means to me is that government should not promote or oppose religious viewpoints. I think people of all religions and denominations (and none) can and should support that.

Simian

ps - I (as a lowly II user) feel this would be more suitable as a separate thread, rather than hijacking one about the pope.

[Donnmathan]

I'm sorry, but while your original point is well thought, the conclusion you reach is, in my opinion, faulty. The 'religious right' has no less stake in the use of government to force others to live by their rules than 'secularists' do. Dubya seems to be trying very hard to push his beliefs into law, and I think that the removal of that opportunity would irritate him as much or more than any 'secularist'. No, I think you will find that both groups are too attached to power to ever want to consider giving it up, nor would the country ever want to see what would happen if one or the other ever got a totally free hand (look at the mess Dubya's making...)

[Toto]

Originally posted by truelies
It strikes me that the root of this dispute is an an intense desire by many, (Secularists even more than than those who adhere to one Religious Tradition or another) to gain a position of power in the State whereby it's monopoly on physical force can be used to compel competing viewpoints to submit. . . .

While this concept of a plural society where the voluntary associations (including Churches) define the rules of social intercourse (marriage/family/sexual relationships) for their adherents would more than likely be at least tolerable for most who call themselves Christian, westernised Muslims, Religious Jews, adherents of various Pagan (non-Abrahamic) Religions I am thinking that the hardcore Secularists would balk at any situation in which THEY are not ultimately defining the Rules for everyone.

What say you????

truelies:

I do not know of any hardcore secularists who try to define the rules of social intercourse for others, so I am not sure what you are talking about.

No one forces anyone to get married or divorced, or buy property together, or have kids. There are laws against child abuse which some religious minorities object to, but that is about as far as secularists go in defining the rules for others.

[StrictSeparationist]

Nate: Please explain to me how allowing same-sex couples to participate in an institution that encourages stable, monogamous relationships (marraige) causes promiscuity. You stated that it does several times in your last post.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Nate
The Church is not trying to impose anything that does not already exist with the free consent of the people.
Riight. If you believe that, I have oceanfront property to sell you. In Colorado of course.
It is the State that is being used to impose a set of atheistic values on the Church, and you can see that the pope has a right and duty to speak out about that.
Giving homosexuals rights has nothing to do with atheism. By the State, do you mean our current government who is led by the most fundie of fundie christians? Since when have they tried to impose atheism? George Bush can't go a day without referring to his sky fairy.
The governments rational interest in marriage stems from three considerations.

1. The procreation and healthy rearing of children in a stable environment.

Without this essential action, the state would soon disappear. Single sex marriages will do nothing to further this end, and will hamper it by devaluing the sacred bonds which support many real marriages.
Your argument fails on several levels. First of all, gay people can and do breed.

Second of all, click here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11329644&dopt=Abstract), here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8868496&dopt=Abstract), or here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11826220&dopt=Abstract). Gays and lesbians can and do provide stable loving families. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are currently being lied to by religious fundamentalists who are for some reason terrified of gays. Gays are not pedophiles, they aren't ruining society.

Third, being heterosexual does not automatically mean that you will a) produce offspring or b) if you do, provide a stable loving family. There are plenty of heteros who have children then beat them, etc. This is not a reason to deny all heterorsexuals the right to marry, now is it?

Fourth, what do you mean by "real marriage?" That's exactly the point - gays and lesbians want to make their marriages real, just like their love for each other is real. You might think that gay and lesbian love is a joke, or just some episode of Will and Grace, but it's not. It's real, and it's human, and I find it disgusting and sad that people like you can't see that.
2. The maintenance of order. The strong appetites and emotions that are associated with sex, can lead to many crimes of violence if those appetites are not disciplined and regulated toward achieving the ends of 1.
Huh? If anything, I would think that oppressing our fundamental desire for intimacy is dangerous and self-destructive. For example, denying priests the right to have sex. Or denying consenting adults the right to be together - whether it's same- or opposite-sex partners.

The government has almost abdicated its responsibilites in this area leading to an enormous increase in rapes, murders, illegitamacy, and disease, in the last 40 years.
We aren't talking about legalizing rape or murder. We are talking about allowing consenting adults who are already having sex to get married, and obtain the rights/benefits/priveleges associated with that marriage. Nate, I urge you to stay on the topic, or prove that gay and lesbian love has anything to do with rape or murder.

A statistical report of this up to 1993 was written by William Bennett, a former Secretary of Education.
Why don't you quote the relevant statistics for us - you know, the ones that show that gay and lesbian relationships lead to the crumbling of the society?
Passing laws that further erode the only moral restraints on promiscuity can only be counterproductive.
Allowing gays and lesbians to get married would be a restraint against promiscuity. Your argument is backwards.

3. The prevention of disease. Sexual promiscuity is an essential contributer to serious and lethal diseases that weaken society and strain the resources of the State.
Lesbians have safer sex than heterosexuals. So by your reasoning we should outlaw hetero marriage, but allow lesbian marriage.

Don't you agree that if our society was more open-minded toward gays and lesbians, and permitted and encouraged them to be in monogamous relationships, this would help lessen promiscuity? If not, why not?

In addition, if you are so concerned about the public health, why aren't you trying to ban obese smokers from getting married? The top three causes of death in the USA are heart disease, cancer, and stroke. The top three risky behaviors are thus obesity, smoking, and obesity. Your insistence on using one type of disease to deny people's basic human rights is strange - sounds like bigotry to me.
Seeing that there is no rational basis for the move to get government to redifine marriage, the pope is correct in trying to head off a rush into destructive irrationality.
There are several rational arguments that I see for re-defining marriage

1) The current definition overlooks a certain percentage of people who, from a very young age, became attracted to people of their same gender. Gay and lesbian couples are currently denied all the rights/priveleges that marriage confers, despite being able to find and sustain healthy monogamous relationships just like you or I have. They often cannot take advantage of health insurance plans, they often can't make medical decisions for each other, it is difficult for them to adopt children, etc. Plus they are made to feel guilty for simply being humans in love. How sad is that?
2) Encouraging marriage would help cut down on promiscuity.
3) Status Quo is simply not a good reason for refusing to change society. What if we said 'oh well we've always had slaves, so let's just keep them," or "well, women have never had the right to vote, why give it to them now?"

scigirl

[truelies]

Originally posted by Toto
truelies:

I do not know of any hardcore secularists who try to define the rules of social intercourse for others, so I am not sure what you are talking about.

No one forces anyone to get married or divorced, or buy property together, or have kids. There are laws against child abuse which some religious minorities object to, but that is about as far as secularists go in defining the rules for others.

Certainly the current efforts to redefine 'marriage' as something other than a man and woman union with at least the potential of begetting and rearing children is such an instance. Another would be the unending attempts to ram Diversity and its legal arm Affirmative Action down the collective throats of un unwilling Society is another. Legally enforced Association is every bit as Vile as is legally enforced Separation.

[The Other Michael]

Originally posted by truelies
Certainly the current efforts to redefine 'marriage' as something other than a man and woman union with at least the potential of begetting and rearing children is such an instance.

Extending fair access to legal benefits to all citizens doesn't take those benefits away from those who already have them.

I have yet to see an understandable explanation on why the marriage of persons A and B has a negative impact on the marriage of persons C and D. There is no interdependence between the two marriages.

And the begetting thing gets back to entailing the dissolution of the marriages of sterile/infertile couples. And anyone, married or not, should have the potential for raising a child (theirs or someone else's).

cheers,
Michael

[truelies]

From the beginnings of human Civilisation Marriage has meant the union of male and female. That is what Marriage by definition is. There is no discrimination against anyone under USA State Marriage Laws because two men or two women can't get the State sanctioned bebefits accorded to a marriage because they are not engaging in a marriage. Each of thes four has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any of the rest of us and I have under the Law the same lack of a right to marry someone of the same sex as does any one else. No one is being deiscriminated against under the Law. It is being applied identically to ALL persons.

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by truelies
Legally enforced Association is every bit as Vile as is legally enforced Separation.

Wow, echoes of Plessy here. Strong echoes.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by truelies
From the beginnings of human Civilisation Marriage has meant the union of male and female.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem. (Edited to add: dangerously close to an Appeal to Nature, as well).

That is what Marriage by definition is.

So? Are we to order our lives and our laws by what the dictionary definitions of words are? Cannot (indeed, are not) the definitions of words be modified to accomodate new meaning?

There is no discrimination against anyone under USA State Marriage Laws because two men or two women can't get the State sanctioned bebefits accorded to a marriage because they are not engaging in a marriage. Each of thes four has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any of the rest of us and I have under the Law the same lack of a right to marry someone of the same sex as does any one else. No one is being deiscriminated against under the Law. It is being applied identically to ALL persons.

If two men or two women want to get legally married, but cannot because of the law, then they, by definition, are being discriminated against by the law. ;)

And compare your Argumentum ad antiquitatem stance against same-sex marriage against these dictionary definitions of discrimination (From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary):

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

[Toto]

Originally posted by truelies
From the beginnings of human Civilisation Marriage has meant the union of male and female. That is what Marriage by definition is. . . ..

When did human civilization begin? If you look at a variety of human civilizations, you find one man marrying many women, one woman marrying a group of men. You find that marriages are typically arranged by the parents of the bride and groom to cement political alliances, or for business purposes. Children were typically cared for by extended families, servants, slaves, etc.

The current idea that marriage is a freely chosen contract between one man and one woman, whether or not they are of child bearing ages, is an interesting innovation. You can argue for it, but not based on history.

[simian]

Originally posted by truelies
From the beginnings of human Civilisation Marriage has meant the union of male and female. That is what Marriage by definition is. There is no discrimination against anyone under USA State Marriage Laws because two men or two women can't get the State sanctioned bebefits accorded to a marriage because they are not engaging in a marriage. Each of thes four has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any of the rest of us and I have under the Law the same lack of a right to marry someone of the same sex as does any one else. No one is being deiscriminated against under the Law. It is being applied identically to ALL persons.

Hmm... sounds vaugely like the Love v. Virginia case (hope I got the name and date correct. You know the one: interracial couple, sues for the recognition of their marriage. By your reasoning, Virginia was perfectly constitutional - a white man can marry a white woman, and a black man can marry a black woman. Nobody's rights being trampled. Just one problem - the Supreme Court disagrees with reasoning similar to what you use.

Simian

[HRG]

Originally posted by truelies
From the beginnings of human Civilisation Marriage has meant the union of male and female. That is what Marriage by definition is. There is no discrimination against anyone under USA State Marriage Laws because two men or two women can't get the State sanctioned bebefits accorded to a marriage because they are not engaging in a marriage. Each of thes four has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any of the rest of us and I have under the Law the same lack of a right to marry someone of the same sex as does any one else. No one is being deiscriminated against under the Law. It is being applied identically to ALL persons.

Under segregation, every person had the same right to marry someone of his/her own race. No one was being discriminated under the law; it was being applied identically to all persons.

Silly argument ? Yes. As silly as your argument.

Hint: a definition - like your definition of marriage - can be discriminatory by itself.

Regards,
HRG.

[abe smith]

Let's stop calling that affectional squad of similar fantasists/that SECT, "the Church", okay?
They, human individuals JUST LIKE ALL THE REST OF US , are NOT "*THE*(Platonic) ANYthing"; and our encouraging those people to assert that they're a very special "Gawd-appointed" unique holy agency is damned foolishness. We who reject that bullshit should stop participating in their GAME.
All the religions are SECTS; they are ALL MAN-MADE; and there isn't a single one of them that has any authority from anybody or anything, to RUN humankind; nor to assert bullshit as "Truth".
The pope has no authority from ANYONE to assert power over other humanbeings; and anyone who asserts what John Paul 2 asserts, that he has been put in place by "GOD" and that he is gawd's vicar on Earth, is either a con-man, or a megalomaniac who shd be locked-up where he can't do harm to other human beings.
If he wants to tell US politicians how to vote, let him come over here, become a US citizen, and vote for the candidate(s) of his choice like all the rest of us.
What REALLY pisses me off is that arrogant madmen can spew their vomit onto the media who gleefully shovel it onto the public, on the grounds that whatever those fools say is "news", no matter how ignorant and perverse their opinions are.

Yes; I absolutely do hold as primary rights for EVERYBODY the right to believe whatever we like, and the right to SAY whatever we like.
YES! YES! I do! I truly DO! But I deny and will deny with my last breath, that any human being can presume to rule the rest of us WITHOUT OUR CONSENT.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
Certainly the current efforts to redefine 'marriage' as something other than a man and woman union with at least the potential of begetting and rearing children is such an instance.
Arrrrrgh. Do you even read anything we type here?

Let me repeat myself.

Gays and lesbians DO IN FACT PRODUCE AND RAISE OFFPSRING. I know a lesbian who is "married" to another woman, has been so for several years, and has 3 children. Unfortunately, the state doesn't think her marriage is "real," thus they each have to buy health insurance, and there are a lot of real and unfortunate barriers to their lives simply because they are gay. That is discrimination, pure and simple.

Studies have proven that gays and lesbians can raise children just fine. Here are the links again. They aren't porn sites with pop-up ads, they are legitimate scientific abstracts. Don't be afraid, truelies, they won't bite you. Click on them. Even read them if you want.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11329644&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8868496&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11826220&dopt=Abstract

Another would be the unending attempts to ram Diversity and its legal arm Affirmative Action down the collective throats of un unwilling Society is another. Legally enforced Association is every bit as Vile as is legally enforced Separation.
What are you talking about? We aren't forcing you to go to the weddings and buy all the gay brides a rice cooker, truelies. We are simply asking that gay and lesbians, who can clearly participate in legitimate and real relationships just like you or I can have the same benefits/rights just like you or I have. We are talking about a pretty substantial list - click here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm) for a list. Here's a few of them:

From religioustolerance.org:

joint parenting
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home

That isn't all. What about just the benefits of being recognized by society as a legitimate marriage?

scigirl

[truelies]

Originally posted by simian
Hmm... sounds vaugely like the Love v. Virginia case (hope I got the name and date correct. You know the one: interracial couple, sues for the recognition of their marriage. By your reasoning, Virginia was perfectly constitutional - a white man can marry a white woman, and a black man can marry a black woman. Nobody's rights being trampled. Just one problem - the Supreme Court disagrees with reasoning similar to what you use.

Simian

Again by definition Marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman, not a Man and a Man or a Woman and a Woman. Any Man or Woman can Marry any member of the opposite sex who is available and willing. There is no discrimination in US State Marriage Law. Similar Duties and Obligations are applied to all people in similar circumstances. The fact that the Law does not recognise a 'marriage' between two men does not constitute discrimination but merely the recognition that such a union is not and has never constituted a Marriage. If Gays can persuade the Legislatures of the Several States to grant legal recognition similar to Marriage to Domestic Partnerships or some such more power to them. If y'all are able to persuade the State to repeal all Laws regulating Marriage and leave it up to private civil contracts thats fine also. Just lets not have the silliness of pretenting that Marriage has ever been defined as anything but a man & woman union in this Society.

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by truelies
Again by definition Marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman, not a Man and a Man or a Woman and a Woman. Any Man or Woman can Marry any member of the opposite sex who is available and willing. There is no discrimination in US State Marriage Law. Similar Duties and Obligations are applied to all people in similar circumstances. The fact that the Law does not recognise a 'marriage' between two men does not constitute discrimination but merely the recognition that such a union is not and has never constituted a Marriage. If Gays can persuade the Legislatures of the Several States to grant legal recognition similar to Marriage to Domestic Partnerships or some such more power to them. If y'all are able to persuade the State to repeal all Laws regulating Marriage and leave it up to private civil contracts thats fine also. Just lets not have the silliness of pretenting that Marriage has ever been defined as anything but a man & woman union in this Society.

And the point that has been made here, about five times I believe, is that until recently, marraige was not defined as a union between two people of the opposite race. It never had been, and yet that changed after the civil rights movement was so successful with getting society to change certain of its public ways of thinking. So the question is, why the double standard? Either you should oppose interracial marraiges as well, or you should support both. Your asinine justifications demand the former, but of course even the Christian Right will disown you if you preach against racial tolerance.

[Nate]

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist
Nate: Please explain to me how allowing same-sex couples to participate in an institution that encourages stable, monogamous relationships (marraige) causes promiscuity. You stated that it does several times in your last post.

The institution of marriage, as we know it, is for many, undergirded by religious values and doctrine. To extend it to relations that are directly contrary to those values and doctrines is to make a sham of the institution and weaken it. To weaken marriage in the much larger heterosexual community is to facilitate promiscuity.

The idea that the writers of the Constitution ever intended to exclude the influence of theistic religious principles from the making of law is an outright lie. They did not want one religious denomination to have the power of government to persecute other denominations, but religious principles that were common to the majority were expected to determine the law. The passage of the Northwest Ordinance setting aside public lands for education, all of which was religious education, done mostly by churches, makes that clear. The transmission of knowledge was integrated with the imparting of moral values. In 1787 the First Congress of the United States (some of whom wrote the constitution) passed the Northwest Ordinance, which states,

"Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged".

Radical secularists have completely twisted the meaning of the non establishment clause to permit a minority religious view to establish itself as the law, and are attempting to banish all rival religious values from influencing public life. The attempt to redefine marriage in a way that is hostile to all the theistic principles that support it, is just another example of that process.

[simian]

Originally posted by Nate
The institution of marriage, as we know it, is for many, undergirded by religious values and doctrine. To extend it to relations that are directly contrary to those values and doctrines is to make a sham of the institution and weaken it. To weaken marriage in the much larger heterosexual community is to facilitate promiscuity.


You don't want homosexual unions to be recognized in your church. Fine. Marriage is, however, also a secular institution. Use of religious reasons to exclude homosexuals from marriage is not valid in a secular nation. You oppose the secular joining, come up with secular reasons.

Or perhaps you think homosexuals should do what has been done for centuries: marry to keep a social front, then have your love on the side. I don't know about you, but I think that is more of a disgrace to the institution of marriage than 2 men or 2 women marrying.

You seem to be very deliberately avoiding the fact that it has been less than 40 years since marriage between a white and a "colored" was illegal in this country. Was it OK to redefine marriage to include multi-racial couples or not?

Simian

[Nate]

Originally posted by simian
You seem to be very deliberately avoiding the fact that it has been less than 40 years since marriage between a white and a "colored" was illegal in this country. Was it OK to redefine marriage to include multi-racial couples or not? Simian

Sure it was okay, because no doctrine of a major religion forbid interracial marriage. You can scour the bibles of Jews, Christians or Moslems, and you will find no such prohibition. Homosexual ACTS (not orientations) however are forbidden by all three. I have given three secular reasons why the government has an interest in marriage, and why it is against the governments interests to weaken its religious supports.

[The Other Michael]

The institution of marriage, as we know it, is for many, undergirded by religious values and doctrine.

Yes, those fine religious values and doctrines like:

inheritance

medical power of attorney

division of community property in a divorce

etc etc

A secular marriage does SQUAT in the eyes of any diety (just ask your local Catholic hierarchy about the status (in the eyes of the Church) of Catholics who have only a civil ceremony). What it does is convey to the new couple certain SECULAR LEGAL rights and responsibilities.

What a secular marriage mostly is, is a shortcut to those rights and responsibilities that avoids having said couple trot down to their local attorney and coughing up money for a couple of hours of contract writing. Currently, it is also a discriminatory act against certain citizens who are unfairly denied the full benefits of their citizenship.

cheers,
Michael

[Nate]

it is also a discriminatory act against certain citizens who are unfairly denied the full benefits of their citizenship.

That's more baloney. Do you think that people who are homely, or have unattractive personalities or are disabled in a way that makes it hard to find a mate are all being discriminated against by the government? I have shown that marriage between a man and woman serves, and has always served, a useful and essential function in all societies, and therefore all societies have recognized it. Same sex unions, are not, and have never been essential to any society. To equate the two is preposterous.

We all have problems to deal with. And I certainly would like to ease the many burdens that people carry, but to propose solutions that will generate more evils than it eliminates will increase suffering rather than decrease it.

[simian]

Originally posted by Nate
Sure it was okay, because no doctrine of a major religion forbid interracial marriage. You can scour the bibles of Jews, Christians or Moslems, and you will find no such prohibition. Homosexual ACTS (not orientations) however are forbidden by all three. I have given three secular reasons why the government has an interest in marriage, and why it is against the governments interests to weaken its religious supports.

It appears you know little or nothing about Christian history. Justifications for prohibition on interracial marriages included the same justifications as for slavery (you do know Christianity supported this institution (eventually some opposed it), and there is very strong support for slavery in the bible - it is even among the 10 Commandments). Additionally, there is the tower of babel story. Don't believe me? Look at what Bob Jones University used as a reason to ban interracial dating. So why was it OK to redefine the religious institution of marriage once before (to the point most people don't find it immoral), but no OK to consider it now?

All three religions (as though I believe you give a damn about the other 2) also have prohibitions against pork. When can we expect you to actively oppose people who raise pork?

Simian

[Mageth]

The main argument I've seen on this thread against same-sex unions is "We've always done it this way, by god! If we stop doing it this way, and start doing it that OTHER way, the sky will fall!" :rolleyes:

At its heart, it's a homophobic Chicken Little Argument (TM).

That's more baloney. Do you think that people who are homely, or have unattractive personalities or are disabled in a way that makes it hard to find a mate are all being discriminated against by the government?

Bad (and irrelevant) illustration. If the government did not recognize marriage between homely, unattractive personalitied, and/or disabled people, then this might be relevant.

I have shown that marriage between a man and woman serves, and has always served, a useful and essential function in all societies, and therefore all societies have recognized it.

A continuation of the Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Other examples have been pointed out, but note that some societies have also recognized the marriage between two children, the marriage between an adult man and a prepubescent girl, and the marriage between one man and multiple women. I suppose these marriages served useful functions in those societies. Marriage has simply not always been recognized by all societies as simply being between "a man and a woman".

Same sex unions, are not, and have never been essential to any society.

Read up on Sparta sometimes.

To equate the two is preposterous.

What's preposterous is the argument "We've always done it this way, by god!"

[RRoman]

Originally posted by Nate
To extend it to relations that are directly contrary to those values and doctrines is to make a sham of the institution and weaken it.
How does it weaken marriage? I have heard that so many times, but no one has ever proposed a mechanism. Besides, the same argument could be used for interracial marriages.

no doctrine of a major religion forbid interracial marriage

Tell the KKK. There is more than enough racism in the bible.
Nehemiah 13:23-27 (NIV): Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab ... I rebuked them and called curses down on them ... I made them take an oath in God's name and said: "You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?"


That's more baloney. Do you think that people who are homely, or have unattractive personalities or are disabled in a way that makes it hard to find a mate are all being discriminated against by the government?
No, because in that case, the government has nothing to do with it. If, however, the government refused to marry unattractive people, then it would be discriminating.


Same sex unions, are not, and have never been essential to any society.
Neither are music, movies, caring for the disabled, protecting the environment, comfortable chairs etc. Do you want to outlaw these things too?


And I certainly would like to ease the many burdens that people carry, but to propose solutions that will generate more evils than it eliminates will increase suffering rather than decrease it.
Your arguments as to why same-sex marriages are a problem to society have been thoroughly refuted not only by the others on this board but also by science itself. That you relentlessly cling to such beliefs despite contrary evidence shows that you are nothing but yet another homobigot.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by truelies
Again by definition Marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman, not a Man and a Man or a Woman and a Woman.

Read my previous post? Argumentum ad antiquitatem and argument by definition - both fallacies.

Any Man or Woman can Marry any member of the opposite sex who is available and willing. There is no discrimination in US State Marriage Law. Similar Duties and Obligations are applied to all people in similar circumstances. The fact that the Law does not recognise a 'marriage' between two men does not constitute discrimination but merely the recognition that such a union is not and has never constituted a Marriage.

Sorry, but you are wrong. As I previously pointed out, such a law is by definition discriminatory. And a continuation of the Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

If Gays can persuade the Legislatures of the Several States to grant legal recognition similar to Marriage to Domestic Partnerships or some such more power to them. If y'all are able to persuade the State to repeal all Laws regulating Marriage and leave it up to private civil contracts thats fine also. Just lets not have the silliness of pretenting that Marriage has ever been defined as anything but a man & woman union in this Society.

The silliness is in claiming that because marriage is "defined" as being between a man and a woman, it must always remain so. A continuation of the Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Nate
I have given three secular reasons why the government has an interest in marriage, and why it is against the governments interests to weaken its religious supports.
And I showed you scientific studies which debunked your reasons.

Try again.

scigirl

[Shake]

Originally posted by Nate
What Catholic doctrine do you think he is trying to impose? Do you think you are living under Catholic doctrine now, and has it been imposed on you by the pope? The fact that the virtually universal judgement of what is socailly beneficial is in accordance with the teachings of many religions, Catholicism included, does not imply any religious imposition.

Religion is not just concerned with an afterlife, but with mans relationship with each other and God, right here. The popes job is to articulate the Church's understanding of Jesus' teaching about both, and help people to live in accordance with it. Those who think they know better will do what they want, so there is no imposition of anything by the pope.Nate, did you read the article I posted? Even just the first paragraph... let me remind you:The Vatican Thursday stepped up its campaign against the growing legal recognition of same sex unions and increasing tolerance of homosexuality by ordering Roman Catholics -- and especially Catholic politicians -- to oppose gay marriages and adoptions.See that word I bolded? Ordered. He wasn't merely articulating "the Church's understanding of Jesus' teaching about both, and help people to live in accordance with it", he's telling law-making Catholics around the world to push the Church's views on their respective countries!

I agree with the comment that the politically astute thing for the pope to do is run from this issue, rather than have more of his guidance rejected. But all our actions have consequences, and if he foresees bad ones coming from the proposals being made, he is obliged under the law of love of neighbor to warn against them. Bad according to him and his beliefs, not those of many, many others around the globe.

Gotta go, I'll continue later.

[Nate]

Originally posted by simian
It appears you know little or nothing about Christian history. Justifications for prohibition on interracial marriages included the same justifications as for slavery (you do know Christianity supported this institution (eventually some opposed it), and there is very strong support for slavery in the bible - it is even among the 10 Commandments).
I am not a historian, but I know that slavery in the bible had nothing to do with race. Conquered people were often made slaves regardless of race. Some people can justify anything from the bible, but that is not an indicator of its teaching. The bible neither requires nor prohibits slavery, but acknowledges it as a fact of ancient civilizations. The Catholic Church has always been the largest Christian community, and while I know of several papal documents condemning ill treatment of slaves, I know of nothing prohibiting interracial marriage. The Quote from Nehemiah that was given by RRoman had nothing to do with race but inter religious marriage. The Israelites were not supposed to marry foreign women because they worshiped other gods and could dilute the faith of their husbands and divide the faith of their children. Inter religious marriage is still discouraged by Jews, Catholics and Moslems for the same reason.

Additionally, there is the tower of babel story.
What has that got to do with anything? Marriage is not part of it.

Don't believe me? Look at what Bob Jones University used as a reason to ban interracial dating.

I don't know what their reason was. But Bob Jones U. is also anti Catholic, so I wouldn't take them as spokesman for Christianity.

So why was it OK to redefine the religious institution of marriage once before (to the point most people don't find it immoral), but no OK to consider it now?
I don't agree that it was redefined concerning race, by the Catholic Church. Besides, changing the eligibility requirement for doing something, is not the same as changing what the something is.

All three religions (as though I believe you give a damn about the other 2) also have prohibitions against pork. When can we expect you to actively oppose people who raise pork?
Simian [/B]
Which Christians have prohibitions against pork? Catholics don"t. And I will oppose people who raise pork as soon as they try to sell it as chicken.

[Nate]

Originally posted by Shake
Nate, did you read the article I posted? Even just the first paragraph... let me remind you:See that word I bolded? Ordered. He wasn't merely articulating "the Church's understanding of Jesus' teaching about both, and help people to live in accordance with it", he's telling law-making Catholics around the world to push the Church's views on their respective countries!
Shake, what someone's inflammatory interpretation of a church document says is not what matters. I have read the document and the only thing the pope orders is the publication of the document. It does state that it is the moral duty of politicians to oppose such legislation, because that is the Church's understanding of correct morality. Moral duty in Catholic understanding is always subject to conscience. There are no anathemas issued or punishments specified. The actual document issued by the CDF can be read at:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Bad according to him and his beliefs, not those of many, many others around the globe.

Okay. If the beliefs of the others around the globe are permited free expression and allowed to influence legislation, why is there such wrath at the pope making the official Church position known to Catholics?

{edit ed to fix tag - Toto}

[simian]

Originally posted by Nate
I am not a historian, but I know that slavery in the bible had nothing to do with race. Conquered people were often made slaves regardless of race. Some people can justify anything from the bible, but that is not an indicator of its teaching. The bible neither requires nor prohibits slavery, but acknowledges it as a fact of ancient civilizations. The Catholic Church has always been the largest Christian community, and while I know of several papal documents condemning ill treatment of slaves, I know of nothing prohibiting interracial marriage. The Quote from Nehemiah that was given by RRoman had nothing to do with race but inter religious marriage. The Israelites were not supposed to marry foreign women because they worshiped other gods and could dilute the faith of their husbands and divide the faith of their children. Inter religious marriage is still discouraged by Jews, Catholics and Moslems for the same reason.

Look at US history just about the time of the US civil war. You will find strong Christian arguements for slavery as a Christian institution in the US. "Children of Ham" and all. Or do you think the slavery defended by good US Christians in the mid-1800s was racially blind?

But it just goes to show that in perhaps 50 to 150 years Christian teaching will be sanitized enough to say that it never opposed same-sex marriages.


What has that got to do with anything? Marriage is not part of it.

The tower of babel is one of the justifications for prohibiting interracial marriage. That is when god split the races (well, except for "the children of Ham," that is). Best not to try to bring back together what God split asunder...

I don't know what their reason was. But Bob Jones U. is also anti Catholic, so I wouldn't take them as spokesman for Christianity.

Yes, but it is a VERY visible item on the political front. And unlike it's straying brothern, I am sure it feels it has tried to stay true to the bible.

I don't agree that it was redefined concerning race, by the Catholic Church. Besides, changing the eligibility requirement for doing something, is not the same as changing what the something is.

First, is the RCC all there is to Christianity - if so get to work on outlawing remarriage after divorce for all Americans.

Second, allowing same-sex couples to marry would change "the eligibility requirement for doing something," not change what that something is.

Oh, and you may be interested in this (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm)
Especially this part:

"Roman Catholic Church: A recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. The churches used ceremonies which were very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies."

The research is actually quite interesting (I have not read the book, but have heard interviews of the authors and summaries of some of the findings).


Which Christians have prohibitions against pork? Catholics don"t. And I will oppose people who raise pork as soon as they try to sell it as chicken.

Why, the "true" Christians, of course. ;)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, don't your read Leviticus? It states that pork is an abomination to the lord. You may be familiar with that book - it is one of the books that condemns male homosexuality. The fact that Christians pick and choose which abominations are "real" abominations is not my problem.

Which brings up an interesting point: can you find anything in the bible that prohibits female homosexuality? No? So would same-sex marriage between women be OK?

Note: I am looking for the reasons many (most?) Christians opposed interracial marriage in the past, but finding little on-line literature so far - most of it is from rather vile racist sites (which, I suppose, is to be expected). Can anybody help with appropriate links to the history of banning interracial marriages in the US?

Simian

[truelies]

When or where in the history of mankind has Marriage ever been an institution involving unions of man and man or woman and woman? Marriage has always been a relationship between the sexes not among them. That a few people in the USA or Europe would like to distort and blur that long understood meaning of the word Marriage should not be allowed to prevail.Calling a horse a cow does not make it one nor does calling a homosexual relationship a Marriage make it one either.

Again if the Electorates of the Several States deem it sound social policy to extend certain State benefits and obligations similar to those of Marriage to homosexual relationships that is of course within their rights. However to call such unions 'marriages' is an abuse and distortion of the language.

[Nate]

Originally posted by scigirl
And I showed you scientific studies which debunked your reasons.
Try again.
scigirl

Scigirl, I looked at your "scientific" data.
One admitted: " Data for this study were collected from child welfare workers and gay and lesbian adoptive and foster parents, " which is hardly an unbiased source. Social sciences are not hard science, and the results are almost completely determined by the assumptions and biases of the analysts. But even if the results were correct they have nothing to do with my arguments.

Those concerned the fact that the procreational family was the mainstay of replenishing population and therefore worthy of recognition and protection. Part of that protection consists of not undermining the spiritual glue that helps stabilize the family.

Most theistic religion teaches that the faithful sexual union of men and women in marriage was designed by God and is holy and pleasing to Him. Catholics call matrimony a sacrament. This supports stable marriage.

They also teach that homosexual acts are sinful and not in accordance with God's will.

For the government to impose a defined equality of sacred and sinful, is to enter into the field of moral theology and create an internal contradition in the doctrine that supports stable marriage.
Although legal, and moral are distinct things, in practice they tend to coalesce.
This can result in the destuction of the the spiritual values that people hold, which is the real goal of the Secularists.

If you want science, here is some for you that shows what that means. William Bennett's report, "The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators," was done over a thirty year period when church attendence declined and the sexual revolution took hold. It pointed out that violent crime increased 560 percent, out-of-wedlock births went up 400 percent, divorce rates quadrupled, teen suicides rose 200 percent, juvenile crime quadrupled, and the number of children living in single parent homes tripled.

So don't tell me my arguments are refuted because a few psychologists say that homosexuals should raise kids. Relying on their weasel worded theories instead of hard evidence and common sense can lead to bad results, as some people recently found out.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by truelies
When or where in the history of mankind has Marriage ever been an institution involving unions of man and man or woman and woman? Marriage has always been a relationship between the sexes not among them.

You're pretty much a one-trick pony with this Argumentum ad antiquitatem. "Because it's always been that way" is no argument at all against allowing same-sex unions.

That a few people in the USA or Europe would like to distort and blur that long understood meaning of the word Marriage should not be allowed to prevail.Calling a horse a cow does not make it one nor does calling a homosexual relationship a Marriage make it one either.

Oops, sorry; I forgot about your other trick - argument by definition. Obviously, redefining marriage to include same-sex unions would easily overcome this problem. It could be taken care of in the next editions of the various dictionaries.

Again if the Electorates of the Several States deem it sound social policy to extend certain State benefits and obligations similar to those of Marriage to homosexual relationships that is of course within their rights. However to call such unions 'marriages' is an abuse and distortion of the language.

So, you're saying same-sex couples could be legally granted all the rights of married heterosexual couples, only we should be prevented from calling them "married" because that would distort the language.

Weak. Just plain weak.

[Mageth]

If you want science, here is some for you that shows what that means. William Bennett's report, "The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators," was done over a thirty year period when church attendence declined and the sexual revolution took hold. It pointed out that violent crime increased 560 percent, out-of-wedlock births went up 400 percent, divorce rates quadrupled, teen suicides rose 200 percent, juvenile crime quadrupled, and the number of children living in single parent homes tripled.

Does the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" mean anything to you? And just what does this report have to do with same-sex marriages anyway?

[RRoman]

Originally posted by Nate
slavery in the bible had nothing to do with race. Conquered people were often made slaves regardless of race.
The second sentence is correct. The first one isn't.

Leviticus 25:42,25:44-46 (NIV): "Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves ... Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

[abe smith]

No use beating the "gawd" drum here at EyeEye to prove your arguments w/, Nate. Until you PROVE "gawd", that stuff's not going to go-down here.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Nate
One admitted: " Data for this study were collected from child welfare workers and gay and lesbian adoptive and foster parents, "
I admit - that particular study did not have the best methodology.

However, I encourage you to read up on what the mainstream pediatricians think (Note - pediatricians are MDs. That's hard science baby - and if you don't think it's hard, you never went to medical school! ;) )

Basically, they reviewed all the literature and summed it up. Here's what the review article said:
Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11826220&dopt=Abstract)
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.
A couple MDs criticized the review, saying that it was against their religion (that was pretty much the gist of their criticism - and yes, I read it). Here's what the original author had to say in reply, in the Journal Pediatrics (I bolded my favorite parts):
The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health’s (COPACFH) statement on coparent adoption has generated unexpected controversy. This statement, which is about children, is intended to support all children’s rights to parenting and legal protections. It has been criticized as too accepting of homosexual parenting and nontraditional lifestyles. A conscious decision was made by the Committee to not attempt to undertake evaluation of adult lifestyles. Rather, we aim to acknowledge that a considerable number of children currently live in families headed by gay and lesbian parents, and that those children have been legally shortchanged.

Regardless of differing views about sexual orientation issues, can we not agree that the children of gay and lesbian parents deserve our care and also deserve the same legal rights that all other American children enjoy?

The feature of the COPACFH’s statement that seems to have elicited the most criticism has been our review of research data related to gay and lesbian parenting in the accompanying technical report. The COPACFH review did not reveal poor outcomes related to gay and lesbian parenting. Those who oppose this statement based on religious and moral positions take exception with the reported studies, which we consulted. In fact, our review was scrupulous and strictly confined to only peer review studies. Since publication of the COPACFH statement and technical report additional literature, notably that of Gartrell and associates, are consistent with our conclusions. If there are reasons to decry gay and lesbian parenting, these were not found in our review of the medical literature.
...
I am sure that the children of gay and lesbian parents deserve our care and that they deserve the same legal rights as all American children. I believe that homosexuality is determined in utero, while others insist that it is a choice, but I am sure that in our nation these people are allowed to have children. Although the families headed by 2 lesbian mothers or 2 gay fathers are nontraditional in my view and sinful in the belief system of others, I am sure, nonetheless, that they are families. To not recognize these children, to deny any person the right of a child, or to say that these are not families, even if we do not agree with them, smacks of intolerance, bigotry, and is inconsistent with our nation’s discrimination laws.

The COPACFH welcomes and even solicits feedback and comments from our Fellows. After all, we are all pediatricians and our focus is on children. Can not this controversy be used as an opportunity to increase the dialogue regarding the needs of these children? Can we not help one another better understand these nontraditional families? Because when COPACFH wrote the statement on coparent adoption and the accompanying technical report, we did not write about gay or lesbian persons. We wrote about their children.
I printed out the full text review (yay for full text access - it rules!) so if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them for you.

Ok does anyone else see the irony of Nate's posts? He posted the following criticism of my studies:
Nate:
Social sciences are not hard science, and the results are almost completely determined by the assumptions and biases of the analysts.
...
So don't tell me my arguments are refuted because a few psychologists say that homosexuals should raise kids. Relying on their weasel worded theories instead of hard evidence and common sense can lead to bad results, as some people recently found out
And then, later,
Nate:
If you want science, here is some for you that shows what that means. William Bennett's report, "The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators," was done over a thirty year period when church attendence declined and the sexual revolution took hold. It pointed out that violent crime increased 560 percent, out-of-wedlock births went up 400 percent, divorce rates quadrupled, teen suicides rose 200 percent, juvenile crime quadrupled, and the number of children living in single parent homes tripled.
Um yeah. Since we all know that correlation PROVES causation. . . . and obviously, those evil secularist gayist scientists can't do a study without being biased, but a religious person is totally objective. Riiiiiiight.
This can result in the destuction of the the spiritual values that people hold, which is the real goal of the Secularists.
You really believe that? I can't speak for all Secularists, but I can assure you that my goals in life involve nothing of the sort.

scigirl

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Nate
Do you think that people who are homely, or have unattractive personalities or are disabled in a way that makes it hard to find a mate are all being discriminated against by the government?
That's actually the first thing you said that made me re-think my ideas.

Interesting idea - if marriage is special, than what about those people who never marry, for reasons besides governmental bans?

I'll have to think about this one. My gut reaction, though, is to say - just because some people never choose to marry, or never find a partner to marry, isn't really a good reason to deny two people who are in love, and want to get married, the right to marry.

scigirl

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
When or where in the history of mankind has Marriage ever been an institution involving unions of man and man or woman and woman?
Apparently you aren't reading this thread very carefully. simian provided this link. . .

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm

. . . and made the following statement:

"Roman Catholic Church: A recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. The churches used ceremonies which were very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies."
Ahh, cold hard facts and data. They are so annoying, aren't they?

scigirl

[Nate]

Simian asked:
First, is the RCC all there is to Christianity - if so get to work on outlawing remarriage after divorce for all Americans.
As far as I know Jesus only established one church and if I didn't think it was the Catholic one, I wouldn't be in it. The title of this thread is "Pope on warpath against gays," so don't you think Catholic doctrine is more relevent to the discussion than some spurious teachings of Bob Jones U. or some non sequiturs about the tower of babel which have nothing to do with that Church?

Second, allowing same-sex couples to marry would change "the eligibility requirement for doing something," not change what that something is.
On the contrary, in our society what marriage IS, is the legally and morally acknowleged covenant between a man or woman in which exclusive sexual intercourse may take place that results in the procreation of children. Therefore the change in eligibility that is being suggested, also changes its nature.

Oh, and you may be interested in this Especially this part:

"Roman Catholic Church: A recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell ...
Well I might be interested in it if it was anything but hogwash, but people who are more qualified than me to evaluate his work have pointed out numerous flaws that show that is what it is. I refer you to:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9411/darling.html
and http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage7.html


The fact that Christians pick and choose which abominations are "real" abominations is not my problem.
It is not a problem for most Christians either, because Jesus left some good guidlines for distinguishing them, when He told us that what we eat is not what defiles us, and established a new covenant.

Which brings up an interesting point: can you find anything in the bible that prohibits female homosexuality? No? So would same-sex marriage between women be OK?
Since you ask, Rom 1:26 prohibits it, but even if it did not, Catholics go by more than what is in the bible, since the bible itself tells us that not everything that Jesus taught is contained in it. As you have noticed the bible requires an interpreter to determine its meaning, and that is why Church Tradition is also consulted.

{edited to fix quote tag- Toto}

[Nate]

Scigirl said:
Um yeah. Since we all know that correlation PROVES causation. . . . and obviously, those evil secularist gayist scientists can't do a study without being biased, but a religious person is totally objective. Riiiiiiight.
Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but that is what is used extensively in social and other sciences and that is why I said they are not hard sciences. Going to medical school does not make your social and political views, which is mainly what I saw expressed in the conclusions of those "studies," any more scientific than anyone elses.

You really believe that? I can't speak for all Secularists, but I can assure you that my goals in life involve nothing of the sort.
I certainly don't believe that every secularist (or necessarily any) consiously have that motivation. But the positions that they take are consistent with that goal, so I should have said the "spirit of secularism" instead of "secularists." Sorry!

[scigirl]

On the contrary, in our society what marriage IS, is the legally and morally acknowleged covenant between a man or woman in which exclusive sexual intercourse may take place that results in the procreation of children. Therefore the change in eligibility that is being suggested, also changes its nature.
You continue to ignore two key facts:

1) The state will allow any man, and any woman, to get married (unless they are already married I guess), and recognize their marriage with full benefits, even if the couple cannot produce offspring. Case in point - my 80-year-old aunt recently got married. She is biologically unable to produce offspring.

2) Gay people can and do produce offspring via sexual intercourse.

scigirl

[simian]

Originally posted by Nate
Simian asked:

As far as I know Jesus only established one church and if I didn't think it was the Catholic one, I wouldn't be in it. The title of this thread is "Pope on warpath against gays," so don't you think Catholic doctrine is more relevent to the discussion than some spurious teachings of Bob Jones U. or some non sequiturs about the tower of babel which have nothing to do with that Church?

As far as I can see, Jesus established one church, and every one of the 2000 or so denominations (or so) think they are it.

But fair enough, yes, lets keep focused on the Catholic Church.

Is a Church that is appears to be guilty up to at least the archbishop level of hiding priests who sexually abused children under their authority, then shuffled these priests around to new, unsuspecting victoms is a good source of morality on sex?

Let's, was it about 1998 when the Catholic Register (I believe that is the Catholic paper out of the KC area) broke the story about nuns in Africa being used by the priests & bishops as an AIDS-free stable of sexual victoms? Including a story about a priest got a nun pregnant, arranged for her to get an abortion at a Catholic hospital, which was botched and killed her, then this wonderful priest presided at the funeral mass.
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/031601/031601a.htm

Great example of morality. How dare those dirty homosexuals think they can measure up to Catholic clergy level or sexual morality.

I served as an alter boy from the late 70s to early 80s. Even then I was aware that there were "bad eggs" in the clergy. What I could not imagine was that the church heirarchy was allowing it to happen. Pretending that the church was surprised when the events came to light is wrong. Then trying to blame it on the "homosexual culture" that came about "as a result of Vatican II" is disgusting (hint: most pedophiles are not homosexual).

Can you understand to some degree why I feel the Catholic Church is unsuited to guide what is moral and what is immoral?


On the contrary, in our society what marriage IS, is the legally and morally acknowleged covenant between a man or woman in which exclusive sexual intercourse may take place that results in the procreation of children. Therefore the change in eligibility that is being suggested, also changes its nature.


Well I might be interested in it if it was anything but hogwash, but people who are more qualified than me to evaluate his work have pointed out numerous flaws that show that is what it is. I refer you to:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9411/darling.html
and http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage7.html


From the Leaderu link:

He seems to imply that if sexual decadence has ever prevailed historically, we should not be surprised to discover that Premodern European Churches "also" found it necessary to make allowances for same-gender sexual unions.

Seems to acknowledge Church-sanctioned homosexual partnerships....

Oh, and as I know at least one of the people writing for Leaderu, I can tell you I am not impressed with the site. He is one of those wonderful people who believes only true christians can be moral (and I suspect he feels Catholics are not "true christians").


It is not a problem for most Christians either, because Jesus left some good guidlines for distinguishing them, when He told us that what we eat is not what defiles us, and established a new covenant.


How convenient, you have devine permission to pick and choose.


Since you ask, Rom 1:26 prohibits it, but even if it did not, Catholics go by more than what is in the bible, since the bible itself tells us that not everything that Jesus taught is contained in it. As you have noticed the bible requires an interpreter to determine its meaning, and that is why Church Tradition is also consulted.

{edited to fix quote tag- Toto}

My bible (New American Bible for Catholics) says:

"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural"
Follwed by verse 27:
""and the males, likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one anothe. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due for their perversity."

Why assume the "unnatural" on the women refers to lesbian relationships? Unnatural includes (for the Catholic) anything that does not leave open the opportunity for procreation.

By what right does the pope claim to have authority over a secular institution (nobody is asking the pope to marry 2 men or 2 women)?

[truelies]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Encyclopædia Britannica -


a legally and socially sanctioned union between one or more husbands and one or more wives that accords status to their offspring and is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners. The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures is attributed to the many basic social and personal…


http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=52333

Once again folks the common well understood usage of the word Marriage simply does not include same sex 'marriages'. Try to create a word of your own which catches the essence of your desired new social institution rather than attempting to hijack the usage of an existing term whose meaning is utterly settled for 99% of America.

[tribalbeeyatch]

Originally posted by truelies
Once again folks the common well understood usage of the word Marriage simply does not include same sex 'marriages'. Try to create a word of your own which catches the essence of your desired new social institution rather than attempting to hijack the usage of an existing term whose meaning is utterly settled for 99% of America. So your only objection to same sex "marriage" is that the definition of the word would need to be expanded? What if we still used the word "marriage", but promised that we only meant it in the sense of its more general definitions -- e.g. 3 : an intimate or close union. Would that satisfy you? Oh, and I really doubt that 99% of Americans ascribe to definitions 1b and 1c but repudiate definitions 1a, 2 and 3 as you seem to be doing.

[scigirl]

Wow truelies.

Amazing rebuttal. What is in the dictionary.

Hmm. I should start doing my medical research the same way.

I pose a question - does drug x cause symptom y? Well let's see. Is it listed in Hippocrates as a symtom? Nope. WOW I'M DONE with my research.

:banghead:

We are not claiming that the current definition, or practice of marriage currently describes gays. We want it to start including gays. Do you understand that?

Also, do you personally know any gay couples?

scigirl

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by truelies
Try to create a word of your own which catches the essence of your desired new social institution rather than attempting to hijack the usage of an existing term whose meaning is utterly settled for 99% of America.

Although two other posters have already ripped your worthless dictionary argument to shreds, I'd just like to note that homophobic bigots like yourself do not constitute anything near 99% of the American population. I'd love it if you could show me one reasonably reliable, recent poll that shows over 90% of respondents rejecting the idea of gay marraige.

[Hedwig]

truelies, I have to ask...Did you have a problem with the internet community referring to conversations such as this one on message boards and newsgroups "threads" since it expanded the definition of the term?

My apologies if this has already been asked of you.

[never been there]

Originally posted by simian
By what right does the pope claim to have authority over a secular institution (nobody is asking the pope to marry 2 men or 2 women)?

...yet. The RCs are just nuts to be fighting the same-sex marriage bill in Canada. The proposed law explicity protects the various churches' right to marry or not marry whoever they choose. If they defeat the law, the government has still decided not to appeal the court decisions in three provinces, and same-sex marriage becomes legal without any protection for the churches. As we say in Canada, they're putting the puck in their own net!

It would serve them right, asserting the supremacy of their beliefs over other churches like the MCC, United Church of Canada, Anglicans and Reform Judaism. If the government has the power to decide who the latter faith groups can marry, it has equally the power to decide who can marry in the RCC.

They managed the same thing over abortion. There was a quite restrictive bill which could have passed if they had supported it. But since it wasn't a 100% ban they were against it, just like their most bitter opponents. In a free vote, almost no MP from outside the cabinet voted for it (since their constituents can't assume they were pro-choice, it's a freebie for the politician). So there's no law, and we have abortion on demand (if you live in a big city and have a few hundred in the rainy day fund).

[Nate]

Simian asked:
Can you understand to some degree why I feel th