And indeed if they truly cared about the threat of homosexuality to the church, perhaps they should begin in their own back yard with the much greater threat of homosexual rape of boys by priests.
Well my grandfather is 92 and a WWII veteran. . .I wished someone would put a news camera in front of him and ask him what he thinks of “gay” marriage! 
Their current and former popes helped covered that up.
That’s is a big negative.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
AIDS research and treatment spending by the Federal government of over 200 billion total since 1981 is something I have a big problem with. While they were lobbying for this spending starting in the 80s they would attack anyone who suggested that bathhouses and other places that were central to the AIDS epidemic be closed as trying to supress “queer culture and queer values” and as homophobes.
David Horowitz writes about this phenomenon in his book “Radical Son” where he also highlights the fact that the gay rights movement was started by the same kinds of radical leftists/communists/soviet sympathizers as started the black power movement and the radical environmentalist movement.
I’m so sick of the gay rights crap. “We” have let it really become a stumbling block for the Right/Conservatives/Good Guys when there are more pressing and more wide reaching issues that affect us all no matter what our personal beliefs. Gays and abortion are two issues that have caused the Religious Right to try and cut off their own nose to spite the overall Right’s face. Repeatedly. And I don’t see that stopping in the future.
And I say that as someone who many in this thread would consider an absolute backwards-ass Bible-thumpin’ Baptist nutjob, if we were to discuss religious doctrine. And I’m certainly no fan of the catholic church in general. But thankfully that’s not what this thread is about (even if it’s all over the map with tangents). Actually it’s quite ironic, I’d say that homosexuality and catholicism fall in the same boat for me in many aspects: not a fan of the general concept but that doesn’t keep a great number of the individual practitioners from being perfectly fine and productive people in their own regard. 
I’ve got some strong negative beliefs about homosexuality, but it is easy for me to recognize that those beliefs are very much tied to my religious beliefs (even if some spill over into having some secular merit) and as such, it’s not fair for me to try to apply them to others. I can’t very well argue that being gay is bad because God/Bible says so, if you are going to turn around and say “well I don’t believe in god or the bible, so screw off.” It’s a weak argument on my part. If only (we) Christians were as half as motivated to do good in the world and spread the Gospel peacefully as to mind others’ business…unfortunately, as always, it is much easier to bear down on others with criticism than to lift them up with solutions.
For me to try to push those beliefs off on others without them (voluntarily) sharing my faith, I know how I feel when I’m told what to do by others who are minding my business for me – such as that I shouldn’t own guns because they’re dangerous. Or that I have to wear a seatbelt on myself or be fined for endangering myself. Or that I have to welcomingly accept homosexuality as a perfectly wholesome lifestyle (and have it taught as such to my kids in school). It goes both ways (pun not intended, but found amusing nonetheless). If we’re in a free society, two individuals’ ability to force their beliefs on one another should be practically nill.
I don’t discount the conspiracy FMCDH mentions entirely, insomuch as I do think that there could be a further push to really stick it to churches later. I know there was a long drawn out thread about it a while back, but to those who consider marriage a religious institution that just so happens to recognized by gov’t, it’s not a long jump to see a challenge to the ability of churches to follow their own beliefs about marriage, if the gov’t view of marriage changes in a way that conflicts. Trying to protect my religious views and personal freedom to belief as I do, while trying to avoid stomping on freedom of others, it leads me towards civil unions. For everyone. Religious marriage would just happen to be one of the methods by which one can enter into such a union. That’s about the best compromise I can arrive at.
I do believe the efforts to frame gay rights in the same picture as the racial civil rights movement is stupid, for various reasons, but this post is already too long and discombobulated (I didn’t get to type it all in one setting, something about having a family life – see what you gays are getting into? It’ll interfere with your interweb posting schedule!).
Ultimately I just wish both sides would just remember that we’re all better off tending to the problems of too much liberty, rather than not enough, if you’ll permit a Jefferson reference. "Conservative"tyranny is only slightly less ominous than “liberal” tyranny because one restricts/imposes things I don’t do anyway, and one restricts/imposes things that really screw up my life. In the end, they’re both tyranny, and should be fought against in all forms.
The main problem with this discussion is the government should have zero say in ANYTHING about marriage.
Marriage is a covenant between your spouse and your “God”, whatever gender or sect both may be…
It shouldnt matter to the govt. The REAL discussion should be about the boundries the government has crossed…
…
This. All bank rolled by one in the same. If you cannot defeat a nation by conflict raze from within.
The problem is that AIDS isn’t exclusively a homosexual disease, that is why it was originally called 4H disease. Now granted, homosexually is hugely represented as one of those Hs. But the problem is not all homosexuals have AIDS so it is an AIDS issue and not a homosexuals one.
Personally I think anyone with AIDS should be quarantined, this is the only way we can hope to eliminate it. But that is probably another topic entirely.
In a civil union, what God would that be?
That would be a problem since every state in the Union issues marriage licenses.
…
Those men fought for the freedom of all of us not just certain groups. I think that if two gay people want to marry let them its none of anyone elses buisness. Goverment has no place in peoples bedrooms.
Pat
Gay marriage doesn’t effect you. Get out of their homes. I find this very simple, and one of the reasons I hate organised religion. (I am not an atheist.)
Also: the gays I’ve known tend to be much more peaceful, and better to children than many of the straight couples I’ve known.
Can somebody answer why the Catholic church is so hated by the homosexual community? The Mormon church is much worse in regards to homosexual treatment, than the Catholics, and I won’t mention Westboro Baptists.
Easy target I’d guess. Seeing as the catechism says (about gays): “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
There is also an article about most US catholics having no problem with gays… http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=509 Actually higher than the general population.
That statement is based on what? I have not found that to be the case at all.
Pat
The government should be supporting peoples right to freely associate and contract between themselves. It has no business in the “marriage” business beyond that. Virtually everything the government has legislated in terms of marriage and family law has done nothing but destroy the family and every other relationship people form.
Nicely put.
Yup. If the gov’t got out of the business of incentivizing marriage everyone would be better off.