Pope wants inter-faith alliance against gay marriage.

[busydude]

Catholics have done a lot of good for the world. Its interesting how the OP attacks Christianity but not other religions, he is a hypocrite.

Check my post history.

 

[werepossum]

I think it's become border-line political (which would almost certainly void their tax-exempt status) and not to mention, they're actively fighting against it.

Personally, I have no issue with Catholics nor the Pope, but who are they to say they're the lone voice on traditional marriage, and has the audacity to try to rally other religions to fight for it?

Unfortunately, this will spell doom for every other religious organization as well unless they change.

I'm sure many people are appreciative of what they do... in fact, they are the largest non-government supplier of healthcare and services in the world -- this contributes to their arrogance. I don't think all Catholics are pro this stance they're taking an if not, leave them, seriously, becasue they're really pushing the wrong buttons.

I agree completely.

So is sodomy....right?

It was in Tennessee. When we passed stiffer (no pun intended) penalties against sodomy, the governor promised it would be used only against homosexuals. No matter how one feels about the morality of homosexuality, the concept of government legally establishing different laws for different groups (through selective enforcement or otherwise) should strike one as a monstrously bad idea.

BS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage

You want to point out when that was true?



BS. Marriage used to be allowed between those of different races. Then for a relatively short period it was outlawed in most states as wrong (not against the definition of marriage, if you have any evidence of anyone believing this please provide evidence), and then legalized again.

EDIT: To better explain the difference between something being wrong, and something being against the fundamental definition of marriage I will illustrate with an example.

A man marrying a 12 year girl is not against the definition of marriage, but is however wrong and rightfully prohibited in modern society.

Excellent post. The concept of race is an artificial construct imposed by humans to satisfy our need to classify; the concept of sex is a scientific differentiation as rigid as any such definition can be.

That said, a solid scientific differentiation and tradition are not sufficient reasons for government to discriminate against individuals.

 

[ichy]

So is sodomy....right?

If it's taking place in private between consenting adults then yes, it is right.

 

[SheHateMe]

I just got Gay Married to Incorruptible.

 

[BoberFett]

:awe:

 

[nehalem256]

Excellent post. The concept of race is an artificial construct imposed by humans to satisfy our need to classify; the concept of sex is a scientific differentiation as rigid as any such definition can be.

This probably explains the real reason that liberals see no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage as they see gender as social construct as well.

That said, a solid scientific differentiation and tradition are not sufficient reasons for government to discriminate against individuals.

If opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are different than it is not discrimination to treat them differently.

Also, marriage is intended to discriminate against individuals. Not allowing same-sex marriage is merely differentiating between straight and homosexual couples.

 

[shadow9d9]

This probably explains the real reason that liberals see no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage as they see gender as social construct as well.



If opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are different than it is not discrimination to treat them differently.

Also, marriage is intended to discriminate against individuals. Not allowing same-sex marriage is merely differentiating between straight and homosexual couples.

If same race marriages are different than inter-racial marriage, then it is not discrimination.. it is merely differentiating!

Same arguments all over again.

Someone get the straightjacket LIBS LIBS picture...

 

[werepossum]

This probably explains the real reason that liberals see no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage as they see gender as social construct as well.



If opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are different than it is not discrimination to treat them differently.

Also, marriage is intended to discriminate against individuals. Not allowing same-sex marriage is merely differentiating between straight and homosexual couples.

It can be discrimination if there is not a compelling reason to treat them differently. For instance, two eighty year-olds marrying is clearly vastly different from a societal standpoint than two twenty year-olds marrying, as the former are unable to produce children, but we treat them legally as equivalent because we have no compelling societal reason to separate them. A man marrying a woman who has had a hysterectomy is also different from a man marrying a woman with functional reproductive parts and the intent to breed, but again, we treat them legally as equivalent because we have no compelling societal reason to separate them. When societies lived or died according to the number of citizens it made sense to ban homosexual relationships, or at the least stigmatize them. But modern couples feel little societal pressure to breed. We've been fruitful as hell and we've multiplied like crazy, to the point that whether or a not a couple wishes to have children or can have children without extraordinary means has very little effect on society. Indeed, with adoption, surrogates and artificial insemination, homosexual couples aren't even at much of a competitive disadvantage in producing children today, as long as their pockets are sufficiently deep.

I would argue that discrimination is putting someone at a disadvantage based on factors that do not require such action. It would not be discrimination to screen only blacks for sickle cell anemia; it would be discrimination to screen only blacks for AIDS. It would not be discrimination to hire only tall athletic people to play in the NBA; it would be discrimination to hire only tall athletic people to play in the Philadelphia Philharmonic. As we have no compelling societal reason that we must treat homo couples differently from hetero couples, to do so is discrimination. That we have always done so is not a compelling societal reason. That the majority wants to is not a compelling societal reason. A compelling societal reason would be some significant detriment to society that can only be avoided through that discrimination, and though I generally respect the Pope, avoiding a Papal snit does not for me rise to the level of a significant detriment to society.

On the other hand, if we accept both that marriage has value to society and that homosexuals are a significant percentage of our population, then denying homosexuals the right to form the same sanctified and state-recognized marriage as the rest of us DOES have a significant detrimental effect on society, by denying those benefits to 1% or 10% or whatever percent of our adult population self-describes as homosexual. Societal prohibitions against homosexuality are no longer strong enough to force even a sizable minority of gays into straight marriages; they simply engage in homosexual relationships without the benefits of marriage. To the extent that we are the integral of all our society's members, we all marginally lose with them.

 

[Kadarin]

My opinion is that the Catholic Church has lost their right to be a moral authority on anything.

 

[nehalem256]

If same race marriages are different than inter-racial marriage, then it is not discrimination.. it is merely differentiating!

Same arguments all over again.

Someone get the straightjacket LIBS LIBS picture...

Its only differentiating if you believe that black people and white people are fundamentally different.

Which would be an... interesting... argument to be making.

 

[StrangerGuy]

My opinion is that the Catholic Church has lost their right to be a moral authority on anything.

Outside of their church there is already at least a billion strong of the staunchest anti-gay army from just ONE religion and they still need allies? Piss off.

 

[purplebeeper123]

NO SPADES,,, NO FAGS,, NO JEWS. thx gl.

I like this better: No purplebeepers. -Admin DrPizza

 

[Kadarin]

NO SPADES,,, NO FAGS,, NO JEWS. thx gl.

I like this better: No purplebeepers. -Admin DrPizza

And nothing of value was lost...

 

[Ausm]

 

[Pr0d1gy]

How about an inter-logical alliance against organized religions? I think that is a much better idea. Practice what you want in the privacy of your own home and leave the rest of the world alone for once.