i assume you didn't read the arguments #6 - #9, or have some
disagreement with them?
regardless, millions of people find the religious arguments definitive & compelling, too.
Lets summarize those arguments:
#6
"..Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason..."
>> WTF? So homosexual unions should not be allowed because someone in the Catholic Church thinks its wrong. Okay. Well, I don't abide by Catholic church's rules so invalid argument.
#7
"..Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race.."
>> So, because two homo's can't reproduce they shouldn't be allowed to get married? What's next? Following that reasoning, we shouldn't allow women who can't bare children to be married either, nor men with low sperm count. Or someone who's had prostate cancer or handicapped from the waist down. etc.
>> Stupid argument!
"..As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.."
>>So, following that logic, divorced parents or widowed parents should have their children taken away from them and placed in the care of married couples who are still together so as to not deny the children of both a father and a mother. And what experience are they referring to here???
"..Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case..."
>>LOL, this from the catholic priests. If gay people did as much violence as claimed here to children, they'd all make priesthood already.
#8
"..The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it..."
>>Justice requires that we discriminate against gay couples? WTF?
"there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase."
>> And what are some of those good reasons again? BULL!
#9
"married couples ensure the succession of generations "
>> uh huh. Again, what about those who are married but unable to have children or those who choses careers over children?
There you go. I have read them, but the arguments suk.
Just don't call it marriage...the word 'marriage' means something very special (holy, pristine) to a great number of heterosexual couples and having gay wedlock also be called 'marriage' legally is a real affront to some of those people. I personally don't care but I understand those peoples opinion and I think there feeling should hold precident...homosexual wedlock should not be called 'marriage'.
I do agree that gay couples should have all the same rights under the law as married couples except, perhaps, the right to adopt children or use a sperm donor / surogate mother...
I don't know how to treat that topic, but not having a proper mommy and daddy seriously screws some kids up big time.
I do agree that gay couples should have all the same rights under the law as married couples except, perhaps, the right to adopt children or use a sperm donor / surogate mother...
I don't know how to treat that topic, but not having a proper mommy and daddy seriously screws some kids up big time.
Many, if not the vast majority, of other religions also forbid homosexuality - not just Catholisism.
The Vatican can post 16,827 reasons for all I care.
The Vatican has as much to do with our country's laws as my left nut.
Actually, my left nut has a lot more to do with our country's laws because it's at least physically attached to an American citizen.
Betcha the Pope has a lot more pull with the US Government then you do, unfortunately.
Agree with it or not, doesn't matter.
We live in interesting times.
DOOD! I know what you're talking about! YOu are SOOOOO RIGHT! Make a new institution for homosexuals, call it: SEPARATE BUT EQUAL NON-MARRIAGES FOR HOMOSEXUALS. I mean, we have THE WORK EQUAL in the title, right! am i rite?!@!
(yes, that was extreme sarcasm) Instituting "separate but equal" is ignorant. Please refer to the last 60+ years of history.
As for adoption by homosexual couples, a loving family is a loving family. My sexuality is not defined by my parents. What really screws children up is abuse, neglect, and general mistreatment. The adoption process is very thorough, and takes many precautions to prevent children from ending up in abusive homes. This is an aside to the marriage issue and diserves its own discussion. Please do some research, though, as your viewpoint seems to be very uninformed.
Crypticburn
I believe "marriage" is only possible between a goat and a monkey. Hrmmm, saying that didn't make it any more true
Crypticburn
Well, if you're Clinton, Gore or Kerry, I can see where letting foreign persons or governments affect our country (Chinese campaign contributions) would seem justified.
The Vatican has no effect on our country's laws. Possibly it may affect foreign policy but not the laws of our land.
Well, the American Association of Pediatricians supports same-sex marriage and supports adoption of children by same.
As stated many time before, the institution of marriage we're talking about is governed by the state. And thus a religious objection does not belong. There are more examples supporting slavery than opposing homosexuality in the bible, does that mean we should re-impliment slavery, because "Many, if not the vast majority, of other religions" support slavery? Or can we get past this ignorant mindset that homosexuals can not marry in the EYES OF THE STATE (not your religion)?
Crypticburn
I think you underestimate the power of the Catholic Church. It is still very powerful in the US.
Well, in case you didn't notice, we don't live in a theocracy. There is no religion in our laws.
It's one reason Bush is a fvcking idiot for pushing this amendment.
Which means the Constitution wins again. One of the main reasons that our government is set up the way that it is is so that the rights of the minority are protected from being trampled by majority opinion and public passions.
Remember the last time we tried to legislate morality? It's called prohibition...that was a great idea.
You don't get it. It doesn't matter if he is an idiot or not, religion will still effect laws.
As long as there are lawmakers and people in power that cannot seperate their personal beliefs from their duties, it will happen. Laws will or will not be passed because of religious beliefs.
It shouldn't be, but it is.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Hmm last I checked the Vatican has major influence on a lot of what happens here. Religious lobbies in general are some of the strongest in this country, getting followers to vote based on faith and without regard for the real issues.
Also your next point on there is no religion in our laws....that is wrong too. There are plenty of laws based on religion. The main thing is via voting all religions get a chance to make laws and are not excluded providing they have sufficient backing.
The word God comes up a lot in politics and law.
Å
JetsFanatic
Platinum Member
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter