Vatican Declares Gay Marriage Holy War

[D1B]

My experience with the church was positive. However, on the whole, they are a cancer on humanity and need to be stopped before we all perish.

Hope you feel good about yourself, making fun of children being raped by priests.

Oh fuck off. You make fun of everyone here on worse issues.

Stay out of this thread, Shirley. This shit don't concern you.

[Ibanez]

Oh fuck off. You make fun of everyone here on worse issues.

Stay out of this thread, Shirley. This shit don't concern you.

Shirley you can't be serious!?

[JohnStOnge]

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal. They are different things. Heterosexual orientation is the normal state. Homosexuality is an abnormal state. It's as simple as that.

This thing of treating this as an "equality" issue is nonsense. There is no reason to treat things that are not equal as equal.

[kalm]

White skin color and non-white skin color are not equal. They are different things. White skin orientation is the normal state. Non-white is an abnormal state. It's as simple as that.

This thing of treating this as an "equality" issue is nonsense. There is no reason to treat things that are not equal as equal.

[JohnStOnge]

White skin color and non-white skin color are not equal. They are different things. White skin orientation is the normal state. Non-white is an abnormal state. It's as simple as that.

This thing of treating this as an "equality" issue is nonsense. There is no reason to treat things that are not equal as equal.

We've been down this road before with the eye color thing. Differences in skin melanin content is a little different because there is kind of a function involved. Melanin provides some protection against sun damage. But it's not like a biological function like reproduction is.

If you want to look for "abnormal" with respect to skin color you have to look at something like being albino. The absence of melanin is abnormal. Of course it still doesn't relate to a critical biological function like sex drive does. Homosexuality is more like someone having a preference for eating sand over eating what we call food so that the hunger drive is directed towards ingesting something that will not provide any nourishment. It's inconsistent with the underlying role of the drive in biology.

[AshevilleApp]

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal. They are different things. Heterosexual orientation is the normal state. Homosexuality is an abnormal state. It's as simple as that.

This thing of treating this as an "equality" issue is nonsense. There is no reason to treat things that are not equal as equal.

What does the above have to do with equal rights under the law?

[kalm]

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal. They are different things. Heterosexual orientation is the normal state. Homosexuality is an abnormal state. It's as simple as that.

This thing of treating this as an "equality" issue is nonsense. There is no reason to treat things that are not equal as equal.

What does the above have to do with equal rights under the law?

Because egalitarianism is an evil plot by gayliberalpinkocommies to restrict his freedom.

[Ibanez]

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal. They are different things. Heterosexual orientation is the normal state. Homosexuality is an abnormal state. It's as simple as that.

This thing of treating this as an "equality" issue is nonsense. There is no reason to treat things that are not equal as equal.

You are dense. THe equality is treating a Gay woman the same as a straight woman. THe government wants us to be free and wants to be in our bedrooms yet it wants to say who we can love and engage in relationships with. That's not thier place. It's not some hick in D.C. telling JOn that he can't be on a level playing field because he is attracted to men.

Should I treat you better because you aren't gay? I'd love to see your answer to that question.

[Ibanez]

White skin color and non-white skin color are not equal. They are different things. White skin orientation is the normal state. Non-white is an abnormal state. It's as simple as that.

This thing of treating this as an "equality" issue is nonsense. There is no reason to treat things that are not equal as equal.

We've been down this road before with the eye color thing. Differences in skin melanin content is a little different because there is kind of a function involved. Melanin provides some protection against sun damage. But it's not like a biological function like reproduction is.

If you want to look for "abnormal" with respect to skin color you have to look at something like being albino. The absence of melanin is abnormal. Of course it still doesn't relate to a critical biological function like sex drive does. Homosexuality is more like someone having a preference for eating sand over eating what we call food so that the hunger drive is directed towards ingesting something that will not provide any nourishment. It's inconsistent with the underlying role of the drive in biology.

I understand. Albino's are the problem. Gays and Albinos are ruining this country. Check.

Those damn dirty Albino's.

[89Hen]

I really don't care one way or the other on this one. If gay marriage is allowed, it doesn't affect me. That said, do you think siblings or first cousins should be allowed to be married? I'm not asking because I think it would lead to that, but I just wondered if you thought the gov could define marriage at all.

[AZGrizFan]

I just want to know when the shooting starts?

[Ibanez]

I just want to know when the shooting starts?

That was my next question. Will this be a conventional war? I wonder if JJ gets drafted.

[D1B]

I really don't care one way or the other on this one. If gay marriage is allowed, it doesn't affect me. That said, do you think siblings or first cousins should be allowed to be married? I'm not asking because I think it would lead to that, but I just wondered if you thought the gov could define marriage at all.

Hen, don't you think you should care what your spiritual leadership is doing to promote bigotry? I know you're a decent person and have no problem with gays, but......

[GannonFan]

I really don't care one way or the other on this one. If gay marriage is allowed, it doesn't affect me. That said, do you think siblings or first cousins should be allowed to be married? I'm not asking because I think it would lead to that, but I just wondered if you thought the gov could define marriage at all.

Hen, don't you think you should care what your spiritual leadership is doing to promote bigotry? I know you're a decent person and have no problem with gays, but......

Not speaking for Hen, but it wouldn't be the first nor the last thing that the church's hierarchy and the larger population of lay people within the church disagree on, especially with regards to the methods and actions going forward. The "spiritual leadership" is just one aspect of the church, and is not the entire church. Unanimity, even in religion, is difficult and impossible when so many individuals are involved.

[89Hen]

I really don't care one way or the other on this one. If gay marriage is allowed, it doesn't affect me. That said, do you think siblings or first cousins should be allowed to be married? I'm not asking because I think it would lead to that, but I just wondered if you thought the gov could define marriage at all.

Hen, don't you think you should care what your spiritual leadership is doing to promote bigotry? I know you're a decent person and have no problem with gays, but......

I will answer your question if you answer mine first. BTW, my question was really directed at Mark.

[D1B]

Hen, don't you think you should care what your spiritual leadership is doing to promote bigotry? I know you're a decent person and have no problem with gays, but......

I will answer your question if you answer mine first. BTW, my question was really directed at Mark.

I think the government has to set some limitations on marriage. Marrying siblings being one of them.

[89Hen]

I will answer your question if you answer mine first. BTW, my question was really directed at Mark.

I think the government has to set some limitations on marriage. Marrying siblings being one of them.

Fair enough. It seems a lot of people are in the camp of "the gov should stay COMPLETELY out of it" so I always just wonder if it's just staying out of things they don't agree with.

As for your question, I support the Church's right to speak out against gay marriage, but I don't agree with their stance. Again, I am a married Catholic, and a gay couple getting married by a UU minister has no impact on the validity or sanctity of my marriage. It's not a deal breaker for me.

[AZGrizFan]

I will answer your question if you answer mine first. BTW, my question was really directed at Mark.

I think the government has to set some limitations on marriage. Marrying siblings being one of them.

So being sexually attracted to members of the same sex is ok, but being sexually attracted to your sister somehow crosses that imaginary line?

[D1B]

I think the government has to set some limitations on marriage. Marrying siblings being one of them.

Fair enough. It seems a lot of people are in the camp of "the gov should stay COMPLETELY out of it" so I always just wonder if it's just staying out of things they don't agree with.

As for your question, I support the Church's right to speak out against gay marriage, but I don't agree with their stance. Again, I am a married Catholic, and a gay couple getting married by a UU minister has no impact on the validity or sanctity of my marriage. It's not a deal breaker for me.

Do you see the church's increasingly vocal and public crusade against gay marriage as a form of bigotry, or at least a catalyst for bigotry against gays?

Not intentionally being difficult, just that I would personally be livid. I have no problem with the church not marrying gays, it's their religion and they can do whatever they want. Seems they're hell bent on forcing that particular piece of dogma on everyone.

[CID1990]

I think the government has to set some limitations on marriage. Marrying siblings being one of them.

So being sexually attracted to members of the same sex is ok, but being sexually attracted to your sister somehow crosses that imaginary line?

I am sexually attracted to D's sister.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk while driving on the interstate and brushing my teeth.

[D1B]

I think the government has to set some limitations on marriage. Marrying siblings being one of them.

So being sexually attracted to members of the same sex is ok, but being sexually attracted to your sister somehow crosses that imaginary line?

Yes it does. Sanctifying sibling sex is recipe for disaster and further opens an already large floodgate for child sexual abuse. Siblings are often perps.

I know I dont have to tell you about health risks that result from inbreeding. Do want a world filled with Citadal cadets and ASU Mountaineers?

There's justification.

[Bronco]

-
We need to keep an eye on D1B
no matches when he visits

DUBLIN (CNS) – U.S. al-Qaida official concluded that Catholics were “fertile ground” for conversion, “particularly after the rage expanding against the mother church (Vatican) as a result of its scandals and policies refused by many of its public.”

[GannonFan]

Fair enough. It seems a lot of people are in the camp of "the gov should stay COMPLETELY out of it" so I always just wonder if it's just staying out of things they don't agree with.

As for your question, I support the Church's right to speak out against gay marriage, but I don't agree with their stance. Again, I am a married Catholic, and a gay couple getting married by a UU minister has no impact on the validity or sanctity of my marriage. It's not a deal breaker for me.

Do you see the church's increasingly vocal and public crusade against gay marriage as a form of bigotry, or at least a catalyst for bigotry against gays?

Not intentionally being difficult, just that I would personally be livid. I have no problem with the church not marrying gays, it's their religion and they can do whatever they want. Seems they're hell bent on forcing that particular piece of dogma on everyone.

I'd be disappointed if the Church didn't speak out on something they saw in the world as morally wrong. That's their mission and they should be true to it. Just as the Church was wrong to turn a blind eye and try to hide the moral wrong that was child sex abuse in it's own midst, I think the Church would be wrong to not speak out against something that they consider morally wrong. Doesn't mean that people need to agree with the Church, but the Church should be consistent with their moral compass.

As for the bigotry idea, it only really becomes "bigotry" when you start to inject hate into it. I don't think the Church has, at least in recent times, expressed hatred towards anyone who is gay. Intolerant of gays? Sure they are, but intolerant and bigotry are still separated by hate.

[D1B]

So being sexually attracted to members of the same sex is ok, but being sexually attracted to your sister somehow crosses that imaginary line?

I am sexually attracted to D's sister.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk while driving on the interstate and brushing my teeth.

Simple, direct, nasty and prompt. Love it.

[D1B]

Do you see the church's increasingly vocal and public crusade against gay marriage as a form of bigotry, or at least a catalyst for bigotry against gays?

Not intentionally being difficult, just that I would personally be livid. I have no problem with the church not marrying gays, it's their religion and they can do whatever they want. Seems they're hell bent on forcing that particular piece of dogma on everyone.

I'd be disappointed if the Church didn't speak out on something they saw in the world as morally wrong. That's their mission and they should be true to it. Just as the Church was wrong to turn a blind eye and try to hide the moral wrong that was child sex abuse in it's own midst, I think the Church would be wrong to not speak out against something that they consider morally wrong. Doesn't mean that people need to agree with the Church, but the Church should be consistent with their moral compass.

As for the bigotry idea, it only really becomes "bigotry" when you start to inject hate into it. I don't think the Church has, at least in recent times, expressed hatred towards anyone who is gay. Intolerant of gays? Sure they are, but intolerant and bigotry are still separated by hate.

I understand, but they're wrong and practically everyone, including many catholics, knows it.

In the past the church has spoken out against women, Jews and protestants, to name a few. They're wrong now like they were wrong then and I don't think they should get a pass.