How is it supposed to be viewed? Is it okay to have a friend that is gay, but just disagree with their lifestyle? Is it something where you can say, I think you're a good person, but I think you are making a poor choice? Kind of like a person that smokes (I know this isn't the best example) but I think what they do is disgusting, but other than that they are a good person?

My question comes after reading something about a gay couple raising kids. While this really really bothers me, a small part of me feels that at least the kid will be loved for and care for. There are many heterosexual couples that have children and abuse them. Are they any better? I know it's apples and oranges, but if you had to choose between leaving your kids with a gay couple that would love them and care for them or a heterosexual couple that would neglect them, which would you choose? Neither not being an option.

Just trying to get some feedback.

-- Fredrick Lacey (fredrick74@aol.com), February 09, 2004

Answers

I woudl rear the child myself, rather than give them to a Gay couple or allow them to remain with abusive parents. But thats just mea.

Now, as to yout queastion, we ARE commande dot love them, and we can have them as friends. Dven Jesus took Publicans and Harlots as companions. We have all sinned, are we any better than they then? No, our sins are merely forgiven.

But this does not mean that we shojdl promote their lifestyle. By allowign them to raise a child, or simpley agreeing to disagree, we do them as well as God a disservice. Like smoking, we shoudl actively advocate that they leave this lifestyle, but in love anf compassion, ever remainign a faitthful friend.

How else then shall they learn of our true and fenuine love of them, and the love of the Lord?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 09, 2004.

Homosexual behavior is a moral issue not a health issue. Homosexual behavior is intrinsically grave (smoking is not). The issue here is with people who are partaking in immoral sexual behavior and refuse to stop. So a good analagy would be by replacing homosexual behavior with some other immoral sexual behavior. Would you want children raised in an atnosphere of immoral sexual behavior of any kind?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 09, 2004.

Being raised by a same-sex couple IS abusive. Not physical abuse but surely mental and psycho-sexual abuse. It is also spiritual abuse. And from a statistical point of view gay relationships are extremely prone to abusiveness including physical.

Yes, there is a difference between someone suffering from same-sex attration (SSA), and someone who is 'gay'. Gay implies that one has embraced a certain lifestyle and beliefs. If we have people with SSA in our lives we need to be very loving and supportive of them but we MUST help them see the difference between having SSA and comitting acts of grave immorality such as sodomy.

For more on SSA as a disease, I recommend going to the Catholic Medical Associations website. They have a link to a letter they sent the American Bishops about this from a medical point of view. It is very useful in tearing apart the claims of the 'gay community' that is likely influencing anyone with SSA that we know.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.

What brings you to us for an answer, Frederick? Catholics are only a small part of society, which all along has run down homosexuals. Would the truth about homosexuals be more convincing to you if the Catholic forum explained?

Catholics are no more able, really, to express unbiased thoughts about this subject. Some of us are very judgmental, and some are liberally inclined (''live and let live'').

What you should know is, the Church teaches the humane, charitable, yet strictly honest truth about the sin of unchaste homosexuality. It's a mortal sin, ordinarily. It can be forgiven upon repentence, however.

That is really all we need to keep in mind. None of us, because we love God, are supposed to stigmatize any other person or judge him. Nor do we reject him/her as if unfit for our company. But we CAN be honest with him/her about our Church's teachings The Church teaches for Jesus Christ that sin will damn our souls. We're taught that homosexual activity is offensive to God. Beacuse it's true.

Many homosexuals and lesbians try to say the Church teaches us to hate. That she teaches us to reject and pity and laugh at them; because of their ''orientation.'' That's completely false. We may not discriminate or persecute ANYBODY. We must love the sinner and hate the sin. We must pray for them. Ask God to FORGIVE them.

As far as discerning who is fit to raise children, or unfit; and as far as trusting a homosexual with the children--

That's something to be determined in an individual, positive way. There's more to people than their sexual identity. Many people are sinners in one aspect and respectable in every other aspect. Human beings are too complex and individual to group as good or bad. God doesn't group sinners. Each one of us will be judged solely by the works we've done here in this life. Not for how we appeared to society.

God definitely loves us all, every one. Jesus loved even the most disgusting of people in His own society, who were lepers. But not BECAUSE they were lepers, or in spite of their ugliness. He loved them because of their humanity, each individual soul. That's the example He set for all of us. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2004.

The Church's view on homosexuality is totally different than society at large and all the protestant denominations in one respect and that is fairness. Catholics believe that the acts that homosexuals do are sinful. The key is that they also view those same acts as sinful for ALL people including married couples. What could be more fair and thus DIVINELY inspired.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 09, 2004.

Well , a few days back in France , a couple of fun-making idiots , they have beaten the hell out of a gay couple , just because they were gay , they are still fighting for their lifes !! __ Is that an acceptable moral ??

Being raised by a same-sex couple IS abusive. Not physical abuse but surely mental and psycho-sexual abuse. It is also spiritual abuse.

wtf ?? You know what is abusive ??

Being raised by criminals/idiots/psycho's THAT is abusive in every way of the good morally common sense !!

People who said about others , they are not worth to raise kids , just because of ; who are you to judge about other people without knowing them and without any sensible reason ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 09, 2004.

Matthew 7 speaks well on your complaints Laurent.

Judge not lest ye be judged... We do not judge, God does. We care enough about our neighbor to tell them that God does not approve of their actions.

13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

More and more and more people are choosing the wide gate Laurent and it pains those of us in the Church.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 09, 2004.

Laurent,
And it was reported this week where a lesbian pretended to be a boy in the UK to molested a girl. You should know better than to point fingers... there are all kinds of sinners out there.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 09, 2004.

Laurent:
There's no way to justify cruelty against homosexuals. Like you described now. And, being raised by a gay couple CAN be an evil thing, if that couple teaches the child there's nothing wrong with their actions. So, in this aspect, there is definitely spiritual abuse. That child will be led to believe there IS NO GOD. (To you this is fine. But NOT TO US!)

If the couple lives sinfully, they are setting an evil example. I'm sure this is what Dano meant. He would be correct in calling it so. You are correct, if the same couple does NOT set bad example, if they live clean lives in the presence of children. I suspect that part would be very hard to find.

You say: ''--who are you to judge about other people without knowing them and without any sensible reason ??'' But we have a very sensible reasons to question the morality of parents who may lead children into sin. Who are YOU to judge a Catholic for wishing to raise children in a clean home? Why do YOU judge this unfair?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2004.

Thanks Eugene.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.

13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

I have chosen my way , open-minded , but without the use of violence !!

Laurent, And it was reported this week where a lesbian pretended to be a boy in the UK to molested a girl. You should know better than to point fingers... there are all kinds of sinners out there.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 09, 2004.

It doesn't matter if the person is gay or hetero , paedophiles are sick disgusting perverting brainless wacko's !!!!

And, being raised by a gay couple CAN be an evil thing, if that couple teaches the child there's nothing wrong with their actions.

Agree , they must told the kid there is nothing wrong with hetero- couples !!

(To you this is fine. But NOT TO US!)

Long live our demoCRAZY world (This is not sarcastic meant) !!

Who are YOU to judge a Catholic for wishing to raise children in a clean home? Why do YOU judge this unfair?

I'm not saying catholics are bad , but what you call clean ??

Going very extreme: A hetero couple terrorizes their kids , is that also clean , 'cause as you say hetero-couples are clean !!

If the couple lives sinfully, they are setting an evil example. I'm sure this is what Dano meant. He would be correct in calling it so. You are correct, if the same couple does NOT set bad example, if they live clean lives in the presence of children. I suspect that part would be very hard to find.

Hetero or gay , it counts for both !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 10, 2004.

When you discover the sentence in this thread saying it's OK for heterosexuals to do evil, show it to us. Show us how you found out it was nice to be a non believer, and hang around Catholic forums.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 10, 2004.

When you discover the sentence in this thread saying it's OK for heterosexuals to do evil, show it to us.

I & you never said that , but everything you or the church don't like , it means just get rid off it !!

Show us how you found out it was nice to be a non believer, and hang around Catholic forums.

Why I'm a non believer ??

I think you know the answer to that !!

Nice ??

It's me !! __ To me it's no joke to be like that , but you don't like persons with another view , especially the non believers , and I don't care , I am I , not I against I , just as you are you , but sometimes , I think it's you against you !!

Instead to give the catholic vision , what is your personal view ??

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I'm hanging around here ??

Call it , giving things here another perspective !!

or poetic: a stereosound

Salut & cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 12, 2004.

We don't need that "other perspective." It's time for the LUG to be banished from the forum. He does NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING but cause people to waste time uselessly replying to him.

-- (@@@.@), February 12, 2004.

Well mr Gecik , you are not & will not be open for another views !!

Oh yeah , get rid oFF the garbage , that's the only thing you can say to persons you don't like ?? __ Why ??

Are you catholic , are you really happy or what ??

I think there is some missing part in your life !!

Salut & cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 12, 2004.

Why I'm hanging around here ?? Call it , giving things here another perspective !! or poetic: a stereosound

Trying to remember my physics training here (not much of it actually).... but don't conflicting sound waves council each other out and produce, well, nothing?? In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.

A stereosound gives a kind relief or another dimension to music !!

But OK , Why I'm hanging around on this forum ??

Well , I like it here , every reply I give is my view of life !!

Maybe , opposites attrack ??

Salut & cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 12, 2004.

No Laureant. You're just a pest.

--------------------

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2004.

And why's that ??

Just because I have another opinion or what ??

Salut & cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 13, 2004.

Laurent, Since you are a "musician" let me explain things this way. Imagine that there was a forum about pianos. People would come to the forum talking about the history of the piano, the various manufacturers, the composers of piano music old and new.

Meanwhile Laurent you would keep telling everyone that you are a banjo man and that every piano player should take up the banjo. It is tiresome.

You have an audience of one (yourself).

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

On the other hand, in carpentry, Laurent likes going against the grain.

Laurent, what motivates you to argue the contradictory to posts on this website? (WHEN YOU ARE A NON-BELIVER)

When I post something here I assume that people are at least open minded enough to explain why they feel a certain way about Christianity. You, on the other hand, show your opinion as a matter of fact and argue when someone points out that, “no matter what you have to live with yourself and try to live as righteously as possible (which is the intent of the Bible).

Hey if it all was so easy, why are there so many posts on annulments and forgiveness… Go easy on the anti church stuff and just read posts and responses to many of the questions being brought on this site.

Note: from your previous post it seems to me that you are a believer, but confused (overloaded on worship), because your parents over did it on worshiping part. Hey, I understand and if it helps… Walk away, pray and find some thing in yourself to repent for, and then seek guidance from God in your own way.

Then when you’re ready, go back to organized Church services.

God Bless

-- JohnQ_Public (none@none.none), February 13, 2004.

I like Laurent here, keeps everyone on their toes :)

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), February 13, 2004.

As I stated last time, "He does NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING but cause people to waste time uselessly replying to him."

Everyone just proved my point. EVERYTHING posted since I wrote those words was useless -- a waste of time. Even the writing of accurate comments ("You're just a pest" and "You have an audience of one: yourself") was a waste of time, since they did not cause the offender to leave and did not move the moderators to ban him.

-- (@@@.@), February 13, 2004.

@,

Don't worry about the mote in your brother's eye if you have a beam in your own.

OR

If you think people are wasting time responding to him, then lead by example and quit posting.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 13, 2004.

Well , first of all to Mr @@@.@ (J.F.Gecik) ,

You are full of hatred against me , I don't care , I feel/have no hatred to you or whatever and anyone else !! __ You think you're a great holy man , I don't care !! __ And now you are trying to set up people against me , I don't care , but it means you are a very poor man !!!! __ I NEVER pushed my opinion to someone , I only told what was on my mind , and yes , with answers you don't like !! __ I think Mr Gecik , you are a danger to/for yourself , an enemy to/against yourself !! __ For example: Suppose , what would you do if America would forbidden every form of religion ??

I know you will not reply to me , unless I became back catholic , as you told , but suppose I became protestant , you will not reply to me , 'cause , it is not catholic !!

Well , Mr Gecik , don't spread hate , this makes you're a sinner !!

PS: Why you're using the nick , @@@.@ ??

-------------------------------------------------------------------

To David F:

mmmm , I see what mean:

Like , tell the KKK , you like black people , this will result in a big fight !!

But only , I never told anyone to follow me , plz , don't do it , only be yourself !! __ I only try to give my vision to things !!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

To JohnQ_Public (Do I see ghosts ??)

Humanity , christianity , what was first ?? Life or bible , what was first ??

Laurent, what motivates you to argue the contradictory to posts on this website?

Well , a bit of adventure makes it a more interesting to read it !!

why are there so many posts on annulments and forgiveness

People don't listen to eachother (anymore) !!

confused ??

Yes , about music , I still like metal , but I also like to / wanna play other stuff like flamenco , folk , .... !!

But I really don't believe in religion and all its'aspects !! __ Yes , my parents have trying to push religion in me , I did react , and I also have thinking about all that , I don't runaway , but I will NOT return , it's not my way of life !!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill , Cheers

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Salut & cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 14, 2004.

How can anyone not like this guy?

For what it's worth Laurent, you've got the most unique style on the forum.

Watch out for the devil music though. Maybe you could draft up a 2- year incremental withdrawal plan, starting by switching to lyricless metal such as Satriani and slowly moving your way to something like Acoustic Alchemy. lol! Don't ever get rid of your love for music though; there is something Godly about the good kind.

"but I will NOT return , it's not my way of life !!"

You'll change your mind I'm pretty sure.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

For what it's worth Laurent, you've got the most unique style on the forum.

Just for the record: "How ??"

Salut & cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 17, 2004.

>> Note: From your previous posts it seems to me that you are a believer, but confused (overloaded on worship), because your parents over did it on worshiping part.

>> Hey, I understand and if it helps… Walk away, pray and find some thing in yourself to repent for, and then seek guidance from God in your own way.

>> Then when you’re ready, go back to organized Church services

The offer is still here... If gays can marry what would be the harm?

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Children accused more than 4,000 priests of sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002, according to a draft survey for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The survey, to be released February 27, found that children made more than 11,000 allegations of sexual abuse by priests. The 4,450 accused priests represent about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests who served during the 52 years covered by the study.

The report is based on a nationwide survey of church records, and was compiled by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice for the conference. The bishops' conference commissioned the survey to get a better understanding of the scope of the crisis.

CNN reviewed a draft copy of the survey. Officials said it may be slightly changed before its release.

More than half of the accused priests had only one allegation against them. Nearly 25 percent, or 1,112 priests, had two or three allegations, and almost 13 percent, or 578 priests, had four to nine allegations, according to the draft report. Nearly 3 percent, or 133 of the priests, had 10 or more allegations.

The report said that 6,700 of the 11,000 allegations were investigated and substantiated, and another 1,000 were unsubstantiated. The remaining 3,300 were not investigated because the priests involved had died by the time the allegation was made.

The director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests said Monday that the survey's numbers are low.

"Bishops have tried to hide this for years, so there is no reason to believe all of a sudden they would change their ways," David Clohessy said. "The only prudent thing to do is to assume this is not the entire truth. This is a survey, not a report or investigation."

SNAP, founded in 1989, describes itself on its Web site as the nation's largest, oldest and most active support group for people victimized by religious authority figures.

The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a written statement calling the reports "a very sobering and important milestone."

"I have not seen the reports, and so I cannot comment on their substance," the statement from Bishop Wilton D. Gregory said. "But I want to reaffirm that the bishops requested these studies so that we could understand as fully as possible what caused this terrible occurrence in the life of our community to make sure that it never happens again.

"My heart goes out to all who have suffered, and I assure them especially that the bishops are committed to fully implementing the Dallas Charter and will continue to work with the Office of Child and Youth Protection and the National Review Board to reach out to victims and prevent such abuse from occurring in the future," Gregory said in a statement.

The Dallas Charter is a plan developed by the conference in 2002 to protect children from sex abuse by priests. The conference created the review board in 2002 and charged it with commissioning the abuse study.

The head of Voice of the Faithful, a Catholic group formed in response to the priest sex abuse scandal, says some important information is missing from the draft report.

"Although it counts the number of children who have been abused, the number of priests who have abused children, the total financial cost to the church, it does not chronicle the number of bishops who knowingly re-assigned priests who had abused children," said Steve Krueger.

"Without that kind of investigation, there can be no accountability," Krueger said.

The editor of the National Catholic Reporter agreed the church scandal is not just about sex.

"This has long ceased to be just a scandal about sex abuse. It's a scandal about abuse of power and trust, and a breech of faith with people," said Tom Roberts.

Bill Burleigh, a member of the conference's National Review Board, said he would not comment until the survey is released. No clergy serve on the review board.

According to the survey, 78 percent of those abused were between 11 and 17, 16 percent were 8 to 10, and nearly 6 percent were 7 or younger.

The survey also said that several factors contributed to the problem, including failure to grasp its gravity, overemphasis on the avoidance of scandal, use of unqualified treatment centers, misguided willingness to forgive and insufficient accountability.

More than 44,000 priests serve in the United States, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

-- blip blip (none@none.none), February 17, 2004.

Blip,

I am not sure why you enclosed this latest article. This is certainly a scandal but the secular media needs to understand that priests molesting children does not:

1. Show that God doesnt exist 2. Prove that all celebate priests are deviants 3. The Catholic Church teachings are somehow false 4. Men cannot go without sex without exploding, molesting children, etc.

If anything these priests who molest mainly boys and thus are homosexual acts makes the point that homosexuality IS a deviant practice.

You write "The offer is still here... If gays can marry what would be the harm?"

This question can be answered easily as a catholic. If you want an answer to placate an atheist it obviously becomes more difficult.

Lets say we let homosexuals marry one another. Doing so would put society's stamp of approval on this activity. Unmarried homosexual activity (nonmonogamous) would then also be approved by association. Would niave teens and students "decide" that the gay lifestyle was for them in greater numbers? I would have to say yes. It would also likely lead to an increase in partners/lifetime. STDs would increase and children born would decrease (gays cant procreate last I checked). Contraception amongst heterosexual couples also is lowering the birthrate.

Ok so we have more people with STDs some of which are incurable and some of which are deadly (Hep B, Hep C, and HIV). Health care costs go up and with less children the tax base goes down and down. That a good enough Utilitarian arguement?

People with STDs can cost $100,000s of dollars to society in lost wages as well as healthcare. This even affects the atheists in society. It is wonderful that medications now can prolong the lives of patients with HIV, Hep C, and Hep B. None can be cured. I fear the day when 50% of all Americans have one of these diseases and require huge amounts of taxpayer funds.

The sad thing is it doesnt need to happen. Just obey the 10 Commandments and watch these diseases disappear.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 17, 2004.

>> *Lets say we let homosexuals marry one another. Doing so would put society's stamp of approval on this activity. Unmarried homosexual activity (nonmonogamous) would then also be approved by association.

This is the same argument white Americans gave to interracial couples… and when these changes come about, think about it, it didn’t break the fabric of society. It just broke someone’s perception of how things are supposed to be.

>> **Would naive teens and students "decide" that the gay lifestyle was for them in greater numbers?

Catholics will still be Catholics, Jews will still be Jews and Gays will still be Gays, only now they can shut up about their status in society. If people are stupid enough to have homosexual relations in their lifetime then let them, they can repent later. As it is now, young people are just as confused now as they were 2000 years ago and if we could lean them towards God and produce more Catholics, so much the better.

>> It would also likely lead to an increase in partners/lifetime. STDs would increase and children born would decrease (gays cant procreate last I checked). Contraception amongst heterosexual couples also is lowering the birthrate.

Heterosexuals are screwing up their lives as it is now, with the above statement…young people will not be over come by homosexuality simply because it is tolerated and accepted in society. Homosexuality is and always will be a form of rebellion, and this kind of fear contributes to this type of lifestyle. Give them their due and let them live their own lives (even if it is a short one).

>> The sad thing is it doesn’t need to happen. Just obey the 10 Commandments and watch these diseases disappear.

You can’t save everyone… Even God ended the sinful lives of people on a number of occasions (i.e. flood, fire- Sodom and Gomorrah), let God do his thing.

* I sometimes wonder… If Gays left the old world instead of Pilgrims, what would the new world be like (assuming of course, they were able to revolt and win the revolution)? The French would have still helped and slavery would have happen (needed cotton for clothes and trade). Would this be an issue?

** That’s why for the most part men are teaching their male children to be men first and to suppress their feelings (i.e. Men don’t cry). Is this a reason why men can’t express themselves to their spouses? Their daughters?

-- blip (blip@blip.blip), February 17, 2004.

I think the secularists using race to equal homosexuality is the most insulting thing I have seen in my lifetime. Interracial marriage is not the moral equivalent to homosexual relations. That analogy is the most vile example of bigotry. The irony is that gay men don't want to be monogomous what they want is acceptance. Acceptance can never be legislated.

Sitting by in silence when others sin is a sin unto itself. We are obligated to speak up. If we are ignored so be it.

Your right that heterosexuals are also living in a sexual cesspool. They won't get a pass from a good Catholic either. A homosexual "encounter" is equal to a heterosexual (out of marriage) encounter. Catholics don't pick favorites. The Papacy has spoken out about premarital sex, contraception, extramarital sex etc and guess what they were right yet again. Contraception has not been a Godsend at all. Homosexual marriage wont be either.

The one good thing about gay marriage (if it becomes legal soon) is that I will be here for the second coming.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 17, 2004.

This is the same argument white Americans gave to interracial couples… and when these changes come about, think about it, it didn’t break the fabric of society. It just broke someone’s perception of how things are supposed to be.

Homosexual behavior is not the same thing as race. What is going on here is that people what to behave sinfully and they demand that we all sanction that sinful behavior.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), February 18, 2004.

The race/homosexual comparison is not a valid parallel. In interracial marriage you had two people wantint to enter into an identical union but prevented doing so by something that is irrelevant to the nature of the union. In the same sex case you have two people wanting to enter a different union, but being prevented by something that deeply affects the nature of that union.

In the words of my (Canadian) national bishops "it is not discrimination to treat different things differently".

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 18, 2004.

Race is NOT behavior...

bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 18, 2004.

You see, I have a problem with forbidding someone the right to happiness. America (to my knowledge) was founded on the fact that ALL MEN & WOMEN are created equal. It is beyond me why other religions bow down to Catholic Ideology in this country, just because majority rules. Aren’t we all free to practice our beliefs?*

If Gays are denied the freedom to marry and build communities, then Gays will not contribute to American society as a people. Being married is the most stable thing two people can do. Married people have jobs, savings, buy property. Married people have access to and contribute to health care, social projects and charity. As it stands right now, we are giving them the right to be and feel disenfranchised. To be careless and self destructive with their lives and to not care if they get infected or infect other people with the AIDS Virus.

How many of you know or have known people who came out the closet and has been abandoned by the community they know and loved?

*What if this was an issue of arranged marriages? If the Catholic Church in fear of chaos and anarchy directed their flock to arrange marriages today to only other Catholics to keep the faith alive… Would anybody have a problem with that? Or your children? What about my freedom to be with who ever I wanted to be with (legally).

New Spin on Fredrick Lacey post: >> Question about interracial couples. >> How is it supposed to be viewed? Is it okay to have a friend that is Black, but just disagree with their white partner? Is it something where you can say, I think you're a good person, but I think you are making a poor choice? Kind of like a person that smokes (I know this isn't the best example) but I think what they do is disgusting, but other than that they are a good person? >> My question comes after reading something about an interracial couples raising kids. While this really really bothers me, a small part of me feels that at least the kid will be loved for and care for. There are many White or Black couples that have children and abuse them. Are they any better? I know it's apples and oranges, but if you had to choose between leaving your kids with an interracial couples couple that would love them and care for them or a White or Black couple that would neglect them, which would you choose? Neither not being an option. >> Just trying to get some feedback.

NEXT: >> The race/homosexual comparison is not a valid parallel. In interracial marriage you had two people wanted to enter into an identical union but prevented doing so by something that is irrelevant to the nature of the union. In the same sex case you have two people wanting to enter a different union, but being prevented by something that deeply affects the nature of that union. >> In the words of my (Canadian) national bishops "it is not discrimination to treat different things differently". Dano

-- Dan Garon, February 18, 2004.

-- blipper master (blip@blip.blip), February 19, 2004.

SHORT VERISON:

How many of you know or have known people who came out the closet and has been abandoned by the community they know and loved?

As it stands right now, we are giving them the right to be and feel disenfranchised. To be careless and self destructive with their lives and to not care if they are infected or infect other people with the AIDS Virus.

-- BLIPSTER (BLIP@BLIP.BLIP), February 19, 2004.

You see, I have a problem with forbidding someone the right to happiness. America (to my knowledge) was founded on the fact that ALL MEN & WOMEN are created equal. It is beyond me why other religions bow down to Catholic Ideology in this country, just because majority rules. Aren’t we all free to practice our beliefs?*

{Their are two flaws with the above line of reasoning. Th first being that the majority in America are not Catholic. The second being the asumpion of equel rights, which we have covered before. While disallowing Gay Marriage, w are NOT discriminating. Ig Fay Marriage is made legal, then MEN woul be able to marry MEN, meanign all men, rather Gay or straight.Likewise true for two women, rather or not lesbians. This may sound rather silly, but its an important point. Consider for a moment that Gay Men currently can marry women, and Lebian women may likewise marry men.

Now, consider this, Homosexuals ALREADY have equel rights withthe rest of us, they simpley cannot marry others of their same sex. This is neither discrimination nor denying someon th right to marry. It is, in fact, preservign the definiiton of marriage, and protecting it form a saociel trend.

Marriage rights alreyd exist for all people, they dotn want equel rights in this issue, thy want a new right invented for hteir benefit that currently no one has.}-Zarove

If Gays are denied the freedom to marry and build communities, then Gays will not contribute to American society as a people.

{The two comments are not identicle. One can be gay, and stkl allowinged into the commuity.

Also, Gays can marry, they just cannot mary soemone of their own sex. Indd, the whole definition of marriage since the dawn of time has been a unionbetween a man and a woman, withthe intent of provifing a stable home for children.

Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry, and what they want is not merley equel rights, what they want is a new right invented for them. Please plas eplase realise this, and see how ridiculous th claim if discrimination is!}-Zarove

Being married is the most stable thing two people can do.

{So this means we shoudl re-write the whole idea of marriage to satiate the desires an whoms of a small fringe splinter group iwhtin a larger fringe group? Sorry, we do not forbid Hays form marriage, we forbid same sex marriages, which is not the sme thing. Further still, beign married will not assure stability, and even in nation where same sex unions are allowed, gthey do not prove as stable as Heterosexual unions, and in fact they so cheaped the idwa of marriage further, marriaged sdisolve, I refer you to earlier posts on this mater for evidence.T^heir is no vidence htat Gay marriages, which usually only last 2 or 3 years, are even remotely stable on the whole.}-Zarove

Married people have jobs, savings, buy property.

{So do sinles. I am tryign to save to buy property now...and heyh, my brither and I may join our money and invest in a single plot of land and have two houses on it, to spare expences. Gay men cna likewise jointly own a single plot of men... and nothign stips gay men, either in a relationship or single, form optainign employment, or gettign savigns acocunts.Even join savings acocunts.}-Zarove

Married people have access to and contribute to health care, social projects and charity.

{As opposed ro singles who cannot do any of this? Please tell me you arent being seriosu here... I do all of the above except for health care, and only because I am still reciving disabiliy for an accedent.}-Zarove

As it stands right now, we are giving them the right to be and feel disenfranchised.

{No, we arent, we ar preservign the instutute of marriage, as soemthing that shoudl not be tampered with. Again, we arent denying anyone th righ to marry, we are preventign marriage form beign redefined as it stands.}-Zarove

To be careless and self destructive with their lives and to not care if they get infected or infect other people with the AIDS Virus.

{This woudlnt change if we allowed Gay Marriage, as stiudies in Holand and Sweden have clearly shown.}-Zarove

How many of you know or have known people who came out the closet and has been abandoned by the community they know and loved?

{Loaded queasiton, as if I say "None" you will asusm that I am speakign in igorance. But sadly, in this day and age, if you "Come out fo the closet" you are accpted as an instant victim, even if no one has before harrassed you, and have not endeurd any current hardship. Form personal observation, Homosexuals arent treated that badly anuy more, and their are plenty of hays who do not suffer at all. I mean not to trivialise those who do suffer, but the truth is fewer of them do now.

Also, what does their personal dsufferage in coming out have to do with Gay marriage? Other than beign an argument of emotionalism that is designed to grant us greater sympathy for gays, this really doesnt speak of any reason to alter the institution of marriage nor does it make any point about discrimination in that spacific area which we where debating.}-Zarove

*What if this was an issue of arranged marriages? If the Catholic Church in fear of chaos and anarchy directed their flock to arrange marriages today to only other Catholics to keep the faith alive… Would anybody have a problem with that? Or your children? What about my freedom to be with who ever I wanted to be with (legally).

{Wholly unrelated. One can ask "What if Gay peopels families started to arrange marriages for them to prevent them form beign so wild and promiscuous." It has absolutely NOTHING to do withthe topic of Gay marruiage and is only an attemot to distract form the origional issue.}-Zarove

New Spin on Fredrick Lacey post: >> Question about interracial couples. >> How is it supposed to be viewed? Is it okay to have a friend that is Black, but just disagree with their white partner? Is it something where you can say, I think you're a good person, but I think you are making a poor choice? Kind of like a person that smokes (I know this isn't the best example) but I think what they do is disgusting, but other than that they are a good person? >> My question comes after reading something about an interracial couples raising kids. While this really really bothers me, a small part of me feels that at least the kid will be loved for and care for. There are many White or Black couples that have children and abuse them. Are they any better? I know it's apples and oranges, but if you had to choose between leaving your kids with an interracial couples couple that would love them and care for them or a White or Black couple that would neglect them, which would you choose? Neither not being an option. >> Just trying to get some feedback.

{Again, we answered this above, and not only is the atemptd analogy between racism and homophobia now tired and worn out, it remains offensive an dinsulting. It is also so overused that its emotional impact is now at 0%. Let me restate what we have said numerous times in the past.

Homosexuality is not th same as race. Its a behaviour, not a race. Their is a difference between beign a theif and being black/white/hispanic/other.

Their is a difference between beign Hay and being Black/white/hispanic/other.

Please do not try to portray the Homosexuial comunity as a minority group on the same lvel as an ethnic minority. Their are white gay,m blackgays, indian gays, ect. Homosexuality is NOT a race, and never will b a race. Please stop wastign out time tryign to force this allegory on us.}-Zarove

SHORT VERISON: How many of you know or have known people who came out the closet and has been abandoned by the community they know and loved?

{See above. Also note this queatsion is one of emotionalism designed to gneratr sympathy for gay peopel in general and then to ride those feeligns to acceptance, it si not based on reason, logic, or morals and as such is deception, and htus immoral in and of itsself. let us debate the merits of gay marriage as they stand, not attempt to use soppish emotionality to cully favour whn we dont have rational reaossn to support our opinions.}-Zarove

As it stands right now, we are giving them the right to be and feel disenfranchised. To be careless and self destructive with their lives and to not care if they are infected or infect other people with the AIDS Virus.

{Answered above, this is not what we are doing. we are preventign them from perverting the instetution of marriage, we ar enot denying them their rights.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 19, 2004.