Pope calls gay marriage evil

[OneThirty8]

I have no respect for anyone who misquotes someone and can't come up with any counter argument other then insults, and harsh ones at that.

Are you referring to me? If so, please show me where you were misquoted. All I did was fix the messed up quote tags, so that it accurately reflected who said what. And, I didn't think I was insulting in the last post. A bit coarse or surly perhaps, but your absolute 'right/wrong' take on issues such as this are a bit too much at times.

[OneThirty8]

Really? So, you're making the assertion that because in the Middle East 2500-3000 years ago or more, people were accepting of their inner feelings, and somebody else thought it was kinda icky so they wrote it down in a book that they were carrying around, that somehow has any relevance to modern society? I mean, in some of the great civilizations of Europe, homosexuality was widely accepted. Alexander the Great is believed to have been a homosexual, and he conquered a whole lot of places.

And look at those "great" countries now. And look at the Roman and Greek empires. Look at them now too. They accepted homosexual behavior. Look at them now. Look at them! I tried to tell people before that accepting homosexual behavior is not accepted by God, but if you don't believe in God, then you probably don't believe that. But... the proof is in the puddin.

Uh, how long did the Roman Empire last? A long damn time. Homosexuality had nothing to do with the collapse of that empire. It was simply too ginormous to be held together under one rule. When that empire crumbled, that's when the Dark Ages began in Europe. That is when Europe lost all of the enlightenment and culture of Rome. Not that Rome was necesarilly a benevolent entity - they basically raped, pillaged, stole, killed, converted the survivors to their religion, and then took all of your good art home with them and stuff. They did leave us great classical literature and things of that nature, though.

[greay]

I have no respect for anyone who misquotes someone and can't come up with any counter argument other then insults, and harsh ones at that.

Are you referring to me? If so, please show me where you were misquoted. All I did was fix the messed up quote tags, so that it accurately reflected who said what. And, I didn't think I was insulting in the last post. A bit coarse or surly perhaps, but your absolute 'right/wrong' take on issues such as this are a bit too much at times.

Just a bit coarse & surly.

Then again, the person you're arguing with has been going around saying I have a mental illness comparable to multiple personality disorder. I should probably be pretty insulted by that.

[FETUS]

I have no respect for anyone who misquotes someone and can't come up with any counter argument other then insults, and harsh ones at that.

Are you referring to me? If so, please show me where you were misquoted. All I did was fix the messed up quote tags, so that it accurately reflected who said what. And, I didn't think I was insulting in the last post. A bit coarse or surly perhaps, but your absolute 'right/wrong' take on issues such as this are a bit too much at times.

I was talking of ex-cybers little post. I actually respect the way you debate and the arguments you come up with, even if they are comepletely wrong

[OneThirty8]

I have no respect for anyone who misquotes someone and can't come up with any counter argument other then insults, and harsh ones at that.

Are you referring to me? If so, please show me where you were misquoted. All I did was fix the messed up quote tags, so that it accurately reflected who said what. And, I didn't think I was insulting in the last post. A bit coarse or surly perhaps, but your absolute 'right/wrong' take on issues such as this are a bit too much at times.

I was talking of ex-cybers little post. I actually respect the way you debate and the arguments you come up with, even if they are comepletely wrong

Oh, OK. It was the fact that you posted directly below me, and didn't quote. A natural mistake, I'm sure we can agree.

[FETUS]

I have no respect for anyone who misquotes someone and can't come up with any counter argument other then insults, and harsh ones at that.

Are you referring to me? If so, please show me where you were misquoted. All I did was fix the messed up quote tags, so that it accurately reflected who said what. And, I didn't think I was insulting in the last post. A bit coarse or surly perhaps, but your absolute 'right/wrong' take on issues such as this are a bit too much at times.

I was talking of ex-cybers little post. I actually respect the way you debate and the arguments you come up with, even if they are comepletely wrong

Oh, OK. It was the fact that you posted directly below me, and didn't quote. A natural mistake, I'm sure we can agree.

stranger things have happened, but this is pretty close to the top of the list

[TreyDay]

Really? So, you're making the assertion that because in the Middle East 2500-3000 years ago or more, people were accepting of their inner feelings, and somebody else thought it was kinda icky so they wrote it down in a book that they were carrying around, that somehow has any relevance to modern society? I mean, in some of the great civilizations of Europe, homosexuality was widely accepted. Alexander the Great is believed to have been a homosexual, and he conquered a whole lot of places.

And look at those "great" countries now. And look at the Roman and Greek empires. Look at them now too. They accepted homosexual behavior. Look at them now. Look at them! I tried to tell people before that accepting homosexual behavior is not accepted by God, but if you don't believe in God, then you probably don't believe that. But... the proof is in the puddin.

Uh, how long did the Roman Empire last? A long damn time. Homosexuality had nothing to do with the collapse of that empire. It was simply too ginormous to be held together under one rule. When that empire crumbled, that's when the Dark Ages began in Europe. That is when Europe lost all of the enlightenment and culture of Rome. Not that Rome was necesarilly a benevolent entity - they basically raped, pillaged, stole, killed, converted the survivors to their religion, and then took all of your good art home with them and stuff. They did leave us great classical literature and things of that nature, though.

Roman empire lasted a long time, but they didn't start getting gay until the end.

[greay]

Roman empire lasted a long time, but they didn't start getting gay until the end.

...

wait, are you serious?

[Egotistical EvilN]

FETUS, show me something not written by Paul or part of the old testament, that says "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman". I believe OneThirty8 had a link, that showed paul was a fake author? And even if he wasn't, just show me.

[FETUS]

Remember everytime you read "sodomite" in the bible that means "someone who has un-natural sex" homsexual intercourse included.

[Ex-Cyber]

I have no respect for anyone who misquotes someone and can't come up with any counter argument other then insults, and harsh ones at that.

I didn't misquote you, I modified your quote (the modified quote was also attributed to a non-entity that is explicitly not you) to show that the argument is a sort of "because I say so" argument that doesn't have a whole lot to do with gay marriage in particular. As for using insults as counter-arguments, I don't see where I did that, and I think it's unfortunate that you would accuse me of doing these two things that I have, to my knowledge, not done. In addition, I think your complaint about using harsh insults is misplaced, as you have apparently suggested that I should be sterilized for trying to illustrate the fault in your argument, which I think would be considered much harsher by an impartial observer than the suggestion that your "equal rights" argument applies equally well to anti-miscegenation laws as to anti-same-sex-marriage laws.

[greay]

Remember everytime you read "sodomite" in the bible that means "someone who has un-natural sex" homsexual intercourse included.

No... if you read the word "Sodomite" anywhere in the bible, it means "Someone who lives in Sodom"

Where in the world did you find that, and what translation is it?

[farrell2k]

You keep going with the 'it's only a right if it was explicitly written in the Constitution.' That's a non-comprehensive list, and it has been pointed out that the framers of that document said that this wasn't an exhaustive list of all rights that will be protected.

I am not saying, and have never said that the only rights we have are in the constitution. Protected rights include those in the constituion, your state constitution, and everything else that is "written" or "on the books".

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to look at my side of the argument rather than stubbornly insisting that I don't have a valid opinion.

Just because one thing isn't explicitly stated as a right on some piece of paper somewhere doesn't change the fact that A Person's Rights Are Being Infringed Upon When They Are Part Of A Group That Is Denied A Privilege That Is Afforded Unconditionally To Every Other Group Of People.

Marriage licenses are NOT given to anyone unconditionally. Where do you get these silly ideas?

If you can't understand that, then it's because you're not trying to see this with any sort of open mind. Like I said, we don't have to agree, but you're not even debating effectively at this point. You've become a broken record.

Not debating effectively? You're trying to argue something that doesn't exist - the right to marry. It is not possible to look at your side of the argument with an open mind, as you have no argument, because marriage is not a right.

BUT IT IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF MARRIAGE!!! That's the entire problem in a nutshell. Jesus H. Christ, why do you keep bringing up the fact that they can get something that isn't the same thing?

Civil unions are the same in SOME states, minus the term married. Shoud all states be the same? NO. Marraige is viewed slightly differently in each state. all states should view civil unions te same way they do marriages. You'll get no argument from me here. There is no need to redefine what marriage is, however.

Yes, it is a valid argument. There are times when the hospital will allow family, but not friends, to see a patient. If you've got the legal status to show that you're family, they are going to have a much harder time keeping you away.

VA hospitals and anything else connected to the state and I agree with you, but private companies can let in anyone they want.

There is no need to redefine marriage to satisfy the silly desires of the gay minority.

These are not 'silly' desires. They're real, genuine, and reasonable requests - they simply want all of the legal entitlements that married couples have. They don't have it yet.

Changing a tradition to meet the desires of less than %6 of the population is silly. They don't need marriage to be rewritten as a union between two people, as opposes to a union between a man and a woman. If you did this for them, then you'd have to do it for the polygamists as well.

Let them focus their time and resources on something constructive, such as civil unions. I think we can both agree that trying to make civil unions more "universal" would be a better use of their time.

If by 'universal' you mean relegating the whole deal of 'marriage' to religious institutions and allowing everybody a 'civil union,' I think that's actually the way to go.

Throw religion out the window, as it's moronic. I mean that every state should view civil unions the same way they do marriages, without redefining the definition of marriage. If all they want are the same benefits as married couples, then this shouol be good enough.

[Pyrosurfer]

Why don't we just merge all these gay marriage debates into one big topic?

[Ex-Cyber]

Why don't we just merge all these gay marriage debates into one big topic?

Because that would be too sensible and prudent for such a reckless debate.

[TreyDay]

Remember everytime you read "sodomite" in the bible that means "someone who has un-natural sex" homsexual intercourse included.

No... if you read the word "Sodomite" anywhere in the bible, it means "Someone who lives in Sodom"

Where in the world did you find that, and what translation is it?

Yeah, but less than ten people were not gay in Sodom, so God destroyed it.

[greay]

Remember everytime you read "sodomite" in the bible that means "someone who has un-natural sex" homsexual intercourse included.

No... if you read the word "Sodomite" anywhere in the bible, it means "Someone who lives in Sodom"

Where in the world did you find that, and what translation is it?

Yeah, but less than ten people were not gay in Sodom, so God destroyed it.

1: the cities were filled with wicked people, it doesn't say the everyone was gay. 2: the only reference to "homosexuality" is that the mob wanted to have sex with the angels who were Lot's guests. Traditionally, angels are neither male nor female. I should also add, the mob itself wasn't even necessarily male.

3: Elsewhere in the Bible, the sins that caused God to wish to destroy Sodom & Gomorra are discussed. Being inhospitable to strangers, ...

rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.

4: This is the story where the paragon of virtue says to the mob of rapists, "no, you can't have my guest, but here, take my two daughters"

[OneThirty8]

You keep going with the 'it's only a right if it was explicitly written in the Constitution.' That's a non-comprehensive list, and it has been pointed out that the framers of that document said that this wasn't an exhaustive list of all rights that will be protected.

I am not saying, and have never said that the only rights we have are in the constitution. Protected rights include those in the constituion, your state constitution, and everything else that is "written" or "on the books".

I know what protected rights are. I also know what rights are in general. For one thing, 'protected rights' is a subset of 'rights.' They're the rights which are written down in our laws. The thing is, you keep up with the 'it's only a right if somebody wrote it down and identified it as such.' That's not true. In the Constitution, which is the document which applies to all of us in America and therefore is a good example, it says that there are rights which will be protected under the Constitution but are not explicitly engraved in this document.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to look at my side of the argument rather than stubbornly insisting that I don't have a valid opinion.

Just because one thing isn't explicitly stated as a right on some piece of paper somewhere doesn't change the fact that A Person's Rights Are Being Infringed Upon When They Are Part Of A Group That Is Denied A Privilege That Is Afforded Unconditionally To Every Other Group Of People.

Marriage licenses are NOT given to anyone unconditionally. Where do you get these silly ideas?

I am asking you again to tell me at least one condition which would be placed upon a couple, comprised of one unmarried man and one unmarried woman, which they would have to meet in order to get a marriage license.

If you can't understand that, then it's because you're not trying to see this with any sort of open mind. Like I said, we don't have to agree, but you're not even debating effectively at this point. You've become a broken record.

Not debating effectively? You're trying to argue something that doesn't exist - the right to marry. It is not possible to look at your side of the argument with an open mind, as you have no argument, because marriage is not a right.

Did I not say that we could remove the argument as to whether marriage is a right or not from this equation entirely? I'm arguing that all people have the right to equal treatment under the law. That is a much more general and easilly understandable right, which I did not expect anyone to argue against. I then showed how, by denying gays the right to marriage or a legal union which is the equivalent of marriage, but granting it to heterosexual couples, we are infringing on the rights of gays by not treating them equally. When approached this way, it doesn't matter if [marriage/civil union/whatever name for a legal union between two people] is a right or a privilege. What matters is that one group can have it, and the other can't. It would be equal treatment to allow a man and a woman to marry, and a man and a man to have a 'civil union,' and a woman and a woman to have a 'bond of legally recognized togetherness.' OK, so the 'bond of...' sounds silly, but the point is, it doesn't matter what you call it, and if it makes people more comfortable to have seperate names for things that's fine provided that the legal entitlements in all of the types of unions are the same.

BUT IT IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF MARRIAGE!!! That's the entire problem in a nutshell. Jesus H. Christ, why do you keep bringing up the fact that they can get something that isn't the same thing?

Civil unions are the same in SOME states, minus the term married. Shoud all states be the same? NO. Marraige is viewed slightly differently in each state. all states should view civil unions te same way they do marriages. You'll get no argument from me here. There is no need to redefine what marriage is, however.

I think we're getting awfully close here. If you take the sentence I highlighted, and we can get it so that the word SOME is replaced with ALL, then we will have accomplished what I think is needed. From what you said above, I think we agree on this - as long as there is some *union* that same-sex couple can get that's the 'same thing' but a different name, then that's all that needs to be done. That's all I've been getting at for this whole time. Why is it so hard for us to find the part where we agree?

Yes, it is a valid argument. There are times when the hospital will allow family, but not friends, to see a patient. If you've got the legal status to show that you're family, they are going to have a much harder time keeping you away.

VA hospitals and anything else connected to the state and I agree with you, but private companies can let in anyone they want.

Don't you think it's a bit unfeeling to say, 'Oh... well if you were a woman and had lived with this guy for the last 25 years, cooked meals together, taken care of each other when you were sick, helped each other through the hard times and were there to share the good times together, then you could go visit him at this time when he really needs the support and understanding of a loved one. But, because you meet all of these criteria but gender, you can't go in." Frankly, I don't think they should be able to get away with that even in a private hospital.

There is no need to redefine marriage to satisfy the silly desires of the gay minority.

These are not 'silly' desires. They're real, genuine, and reasonable requests - they simply want all of the legal entitlements that married couples have. They don't have it yet.

Changing a tradition to meet the desires of less than %6 of the population is silly. They don't need marriage to be rewritten as a union between two people, as opposes to a union between a man and a woman. If you did this for them, then you'd have to do it for the polygamists as well.

I don't think we need to change the definition either, but some people do. If we do for some reason go to change the definition of marriage, then I personally think that we should change it to 'a religious ceremony that has nothing to do with the state.' (and, by 'state,' I mean any government entity.) Then, if people still need seperate definitions, we can get creative with language to keep people from getting wierded out about a 'civil union' if they think that's a gay thing. We can have the 'macho totally-not-gay-union' for the extremely homophobic, although I'm sure that somebody could come up with a better name for it. Then, all we'd have to do is pass a law stating that anyone who had a marriage before the change still has all the entitlements they had before.

Let them focus their time and resources on something constructive, such as civil unions. I think we can both agree that trying to make civil unions more "universal" would be a better use of their time.

If by 'universal' you mean relegating the whole deal of 'marriage' to religious institutions and allowing everybody a 'civil union,' I think that's actually the way to go.

Throw religion out the window, as it's moronic. I mean that every state should view civil unions the same way they do marriages, without redefining the definition of marriage. If all they want are the same benefits as married couples, then this shouol be good enough.

I think we're both mature enough to realize that religion will never be thrown out the window in this country, although I'd like anything dealing with religion completely seperated from governmnent. If you think this should be handled without redefining marriage at all, then I think you've got the same idea I do - call it something so you can put it on the books, and just make sure that it's the equivalent of marriage, but for people of the same sex. I personally think that this is good enough. I just don't like 'marriage' being a legal thing because when people talk about 'the sanctity of marriage,' that implies that it's a religious thing and I think the government has no place in religion, and religion has no place in government.

[farrell2k]

Marriage licenses are NOT given to anyone unconditionally. Where do you get these silly ideas?

I am asking you again to tell me at least one condition which would be placed upon a couple, comprised of one unmarried man and one unmarried woman, which they would have to meet in order to get a marriage license.

Age, proof of identity, blood test, license fee (you dont pay for rights).

Did I not say that we could remove the argument as to whether marriage is a right or not from this equation entirely? I'm arguing that all people have the right to equal treatment under the law.

Equal protction only applys to our rights, not privileges we are given, such as marriage. You cannot marry without the permission of the state. Sorry, but it's a privilege.

I think we're getting awfully close here. If you take the sentence I highlighted, and we can get it so that the word SOME is replaced with ALL, then we will have accomplished what I think is needed. From what you said above, I think we agree on this - as long as there is some *union* that same-sex couple can get that's the 'same thing' but a different name, then that's all that needs to be done.

Probably because you kept insisting that gays have the right to marry whomever they want, when they don't. I agree on the above.

Don't you think it's a bit unfeeling to say, 'Oh... well if you were a woman and had lived with this guy for the last 25 years, cooked meals together, taken care of each other when you were sick, helped each other through the hard times and were there to share the good times together, then you could go visit him at this time when he really needs the support and understanding of a loved one. But, because you meet all of these criteria but gender, you can't go in."

Yes it is a bit cold, but it's still a private company that can do what it wants. The gov't has no right to tell any private company who can and cannot be present on its property, moreso than it already does.

[TreyDay]

Remember everytime you read "sodomite" in the bible that means "someone who has un-natural sex" homsexual intercourse included.

No... if you read the word "Sodomite" anywhere in the bible, it means "Someone who lives in Sodom"

Where in the world did you find that, and what translation is it?

Yeah, but less than ten people were not gay in Sodom, so God destroyed it.

1: the cities were filled with wicked people, it doesn't say the everyone was gay. 2: the only reference to "homosexuality" is that the mob wanted to have sex with the angels who were Lot's guests. Traditionally, angels are neither male nor female. I should also add, the mob itself wasn't even necessarily male.

3: Elsewhere in the Bible, the sins that caused God to wish to destroy Sodom & Gomorra are discussed. Being inhospitable to strangers, ...

rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.

4: This is the story where the paragon of virtue says to the mob of rapists, "no, you can't have my guest, but here, take my two daughters"

1: Sodom was well-known for all kinds of wickedness, especially gayness. Read up on it.

2: You should read more carefully. Genesis 19:5 "All the MEN from from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house" The mob was all male.

3. Where is that quote from?

4. So what?