Legal marriage for homosexuals?????
Evan @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:40 am
That you wont and cant get. I heard from someone that read an article that said more heterosexual couples engaged in anal sex than homosexuals. why is it different for them?
karra @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:35 pm
$1:
So what you are saying Karra is that you blame the unraveling of western society and culture on the gay community.
Perhaps blubs, if you're not too busy with the ferris wheel, you would be kind enough to explain how you arrived at your interpretation of my words. Thank you in advance.
$1:
Only in western society is homosexuality such a concern.
mmmm, I suppose that includes the male middle-east quest for ol' brown eye, yeah?
Who says 'whipping and all' is weird? Who defines 'the norm'? I put it to you that society does. And our society has said for centuries that homosexuality is wrong. If that pansy gLiberal Trudeau ever did anything right, his comment, "The state has no business in the bedroom." was right on the money.
The issue here is not about whether homosexuality offends you or not. It is about homosexuals marrying in a church celebrated wedding. Should churches be forced by government to marry gay couples? Or should they marry in a civil ceremony which still affords all the benefits of a heterosexual marriage, only without the sanctity of a church.
I suggest churches not be forced by government to perform gay marriages if that is their wont. If it is their wont, then so be it.
In the meantime, 'let them eat cake.'
Allah Ackbar too.
Evan @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:56 pm
oh well in that case... I dont think that churches should be forced to marry gay couples at all. Why? Because it goes against their religion. You cant force them to marry gay couples anymore then you can force gay people not to have sex with people of the same gender. Its all a very fine line. do you infringe on the gays rights by saying no we wont force a church to marry them. But you would be infringing on the Churches right to practice their religion. Hard call.
Where it cant be santioned by god I say justice of the peace and all that.
othello @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:58 pm
karra karra:
The issue here is not about whether homosexuality offends you or not. It is about homosexuals marrying in a church celebrated wedding. Should churches be forced by government to marry gay couples? Or should they marry in a civil ceremony which still affords all the benefits of a heterosexual marriage, only without the sanctity of a church.
I suggest churches not be forced by government to perform gay marriages if that is their wont. If it is their wont, then so be it.
I suggest churches not be forced by government to perform gay marriages if that is their wont. If it is their wont, then so be it.
Ummm...that's exactly NOT the issue. In this entire debate about legalising same sex marriages, noone has suggested forcing religious groups to marry same sex couples. The Catholic Church will continue to not allow women to be priests and to not marry same sex couples. That much is perfectly clear.
You're advocating for a position that was never in any doubt.
AdamNF @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:36 pm
Well seeing the bible tells me i can sell my daughter into slavery i dont put a lot of merit in what the bible says is right and wrong.
karra @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:39 pm
Geez, everyone wants in on this contentious issue:
$1:
Blacks angered by gays' metaphors
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
In the battle for same-sex "marriage," homosexual rights activists have been using civil rights metaphors to advance their cause.
"I am tired of sitting at the back of the bus," said one 37-year-old California man who recently went to San Francisco to "marry" his male partner.
"Rosa Parks didn't wait for the courts to tell her it was all right to ride in the front of the bus," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, when asked by Newsweek why he authorized the city's same-sex "marriage" spree that started Feb. 12.
The imagery might resonate with homosexual rights activists and their allies, but it is angering many black Americans, who are offended that their struggle for equal rights is being associated with the dismantling of what they consider a divinely inspired and socially essential institution.
"We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent," Bishop Andrew Merritt of Straight Gate Ministries and several other Detroit pastors said recently in a statement supporting traditional marriage. "Being black is not a lifestyle choice."
The Rev. Jesse Jackson also has said homosexual rights are not the same as civil rights.
"Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution," he recently told Boston-area students.
But equating homosexual rights with civil rights is an analogy that has been used for years and is supported by icons such as Coretta Scott King, Julian Bond and Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat.
"Of course there's a reason the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force links the issues of African-American civil rights and homosexual civil rights: Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, told them to," said an article at www.hatecrime.org, which lists statements by Mrs. King.
Black Americans have been liberal on many social issues, "but not this one," according to Star Parker, a California-based conservative leader.
The homosexual "marriage" issue "is where we get off the bus," she said.
Several black pastors are gathering today in San Francisco for the first of several rallies to denounce same-sex "marriage." Others are planning rallies in Boston on March 11, when Massachusetts lawmakers reconvene to consider an amendment upholding traditional marriage.
Tomorrow on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, is set to join black and Hispanic leaders in supporting a federal marriage amendment.
"Black pastors understand what's at stake here, and they're not going to put their color before Christ," said Mrs. Parker, whose group, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education, is helping organize the San Francisco rallies. "You want to wage war with the black evangelical church? You got it."
Black opposition to homosexual "marriage" could have major political consequences. Already, the portion of black Americans identifying with the Democratic Party has fallen from 74 percent in 2000 to 63 percent in 2002, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
Few, if any, polls specifically have identified opposition to homosexual "marriage" as a reason to leave the Democratic Party.
But "communities of color" are the strongest supporters of traditional marriage and amendments to protect it, said Matt Daniels, executive director of the Alliance for Marriage, which supports a federal marriage amendment and has the Rev. Walter Fauntroy, former D.C. delegate, on its board.
People in black churches are watching this marriage debate, "and they are saying to themselves, 'There is something to this that is not right. It's not right at all,'" said the Rev. Jeffrey L. Brown, a Cambridge, Mass., pastor who has joined others in the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston.
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
In the battle for same-sex "marriage," homosexual rights activists have been using civil rights metaphors to advance their cause.
"I am tired of sitting at the back of the bus," said one 37-year-old California man who recently went to San Francisco to "marry" his male partner.
"Rosa Parks didn't wait for the courts to tell her it was all right to ride in the front of the bus," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, when asked by Newsweek why he authorized the city's same-sex "marriage" spree that started Feb. 12.
The imagery might resonate with homosexual rights activists and their allies, but it is angering many black Americans, who are offended that their struggle for equal rights is being associated with the dismantling of what they consider a divinely inspired and socially essential institution.
"We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent," Bishop Andrew Merritt of Straight Gate Ministries and several other Detroit pastors said recently in a statement supporting traditional marriage. "Being black is not a lifestyle choice."
The Rev. Jesse Jackson also has said homosexual rights are not the same as civil rights.
"Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution," he recently told Boston-area students.
But equating homosexual rights with civil rights is an analogy that has been used for years and is supported by icons such as Coretta Scott King, Julian Bond and Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat.
"Of course there's a reason the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force links the issues of African-American civil rights and homosexual civil rights: Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, told them to," said an article at www.hatecrime.org, which lists statements by Mrs. King.
Black Americans have been liberal on many social issues, "but not this one," according to Star Parker, a California-based conservative leader.
The homosexual "marriage" issue "is where we get off the bus," she said.
Several black pastors are gathering today in San Francisco for the first of several rallies to denounce same-sex "marriage." Others are planning rallies in Boston on March 11, when Massachusetts lawmakers reconvene to consider an amendment upholding traditional marriage.
Tomorrow on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, is set to join black and Hispanic leaders in supporting a federal marriage amendment.
"Black pastors understand what's at stake here, and they're not going to put their color before Christ," said Mrs. Parker, whose group, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education, is helping organize the San Francisco rallies. "You want to wage war with the black evangelical church? You got it."
Black opposition to homosexual "marriage" could have major political consequences. Already, the portion of black Americans identifying with the Democratic Party has fallen from 74 percent in 2000 to 63 percent in 2002, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
Few, if any, polls specifically have identified opposition to homosexual "marriage" as a reason to leave the Democratic Party.
But "communities of color" are the strongest supporters of traditional marriage and amendments to protect it, said Matt Daniels, executive director of the Alliance for Marriage, which supports a federal marriage amendment and has the Rev. Walter Fauntroy, former D.C. delegate, on its board.
People in black churches are watching this marriage debate, "and they are saying to themselves, 'There is something to this that is not right. It's not right at all,'" said the Rev. Jeffrey L. Brown, a Cambridge, Mass., pastor who has joined others in the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston.
Who's next I wonder? Nannies for neuticles?
Evan @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:44 pm
well sure you can.
Women dont have much rights at all in the old testament.
look how society has degrated!!! lol.
see. say it for one thing but not another. very funny.
Twila @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:09 pm
$1:
I suggest churches not be forced by government to perform gay marriages if that is their wont. If it is their wont, then so be it.
And this IS the case. Gov't's acceptance and legalization of gay marriage has NO affect on Church policy. Not all gays want to be married in a church. There is still the good ol' J P.
$1:
The Catholic Church will continue to not allow women to be priests and to not marry same sex couples.
Sinead O'Connor IS a Catholic priest. She was able to be ordained. So the above is no longer true.
Evan @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:29 pm
They will also now allow men who are married to become priests.
They have to change with the times or they wont survive.
The numbers for priests are way down. If they dont let them get married soon then there will even less.
Evan @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:37 pm
Well yeah. they eat for free. If I was poor and not eating every day I'd become a priest too.
mike2277 @ Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:40 pm
Evan Evan:
They will also now allow men who are married to become priests.
They have to change with the times or they wont survive.
The numbers for priests are way down. If they dont let them get married soon then there will even less.
They have to change with the times or they wont survive.
The numbers for priests are way down. If they dont let them get married soon then there will even less.
An institution that that changes with the times is destined to die with the times. Some Russian author said that but I forget which one. I'd be willing to bet his name is unpronouncable though.
The numbers for priests are way down in North America and Europe, but way up in "third world" countries.
othello @ Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:36 pm
mike2277 mike2277:
An institution that that changes with the times is destined to die with the times. Some Russian author said that but I forget which one. I'd be willing to bet his name is unpronouncable though.
The numbers for priests are way down in North America and Europe, but way up in "third world" countries.
The numbers for priests are way down in North America and Europe, but way up in "third world" countries.
I don't see a "cause and effect" relationship. There are many factors that influence the number of priests in the Western world and they are different than the factors for the developing world.
That quote is far too broad, and I would never agree with it. It sounds witty, but contains little true substance.
AdamNF @ Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:25 pm
$1:
An institution that that changes with the times is destined to die with the times
Every instituntion changes with the times. Goverments, law, even rock and roll. Thats an empty saying.
AdamNF @ Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:08 pm
$1:
Freedom of choice isn’t just a minority value, just because the majority doesn’t agree with the minority’s choice. – Aaron Sorkin -