Thread: Protest over Catholics

Interesting...most interesting indeed.

The church has every right to deny service to whomever they want as it is a private institution. I may not agree with it, but its their right. The law has no baring on this case.

My only question though, is why keep homosexuals from marrying/adopting children/filing taxes together as any heterosexual couple can do? What do you as a person have to loose by allowing others to have happiness that in no way shape or form affects you?

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Interesting...most interesting indeed.

The church has every right to deny service to whomever they want as it is a private institution. I may not agree with it, but its their right. The law has no baring on this case.

My only question though, is why keep homosexuals from marrying/adopting children/filing taxes together as any heterosexual couple can do? What do you as a person have to loose by allowing others to have happiness that in no way shape or form affects you?

Back to an old discussion about homosexuals and marriage and the fact that I think they should change it in the states to say government union for everyone including heterosexuals. Many of the problems that stem from homosexuals and marriage rights comes from the very fact it is called marriage. Let marriage be the ceremony and lose the context in reference to the binding agreements the states recognize.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by Consultant

If sexual preference is genetic, why not racial preference? Position preference? I'm not racist...It's genetic, etc?

How can it NOT be at least somewhat environmental?

Apples and oranges..... Accepting someone's color is not akin to being sexually attracted to, needless to mention yearning to spend the rest of one's life with, another of the same sex.

So genetics can impact "like attracts like" as it relates to genitalia but not culture? Really?

Hell, why do so many people call it "sexual preference" if it isnt a choice, something they "prefer".

I know, I know..... "Sexual Orientation" is the better term if you are in the "its genetic" camp. But I digress - it's an academic exercise, irrelevant in the long run.

Like I said, it is irrelevant.

The political and marriage question wasn't originally in this thread but anybody who thinks that letting gay folks get married or pay their taxes together or share health benefits is a bad thing is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Jesus loves everyone, everybody is welcome in god's house except for the gays. Because they lead a sinful life,............ Isn't that why they have confession?

rofl

I was raised Roman Catholic, but left the church in my teens. I think that religions should be free to do what they want to a (non-criminal of course) extent. However, it makes me very nervous when they receive public funds that would otherwise go to secular charities/schools/etc and then attach strings of their religious dogma to the use of those funds. I also wish they would stop things like "abstinence as the only solution for African AIDS" and other decisions that wind up causing more harm than if they took the strategy of "Hey guys we'd like you to stop having sex but we won't actively block someone else giving you condoms, but hey here's a brochure." I love churches that are pragmatic and mix education with realism. I think that most churches accomplish that, but Catholicism does a bad job with it. Although its adherents don't necessarily agree with all of its policies, their money and head count is being used to push an agenda that is doing a lot of harm. Besides, some of those masses with the knights of columbus and all that were downright creepy. I hope I didn't offend anyone with this, just my $.02.

Also, I think that if we could just get Pope Benedict to play this http://games.adultswim.com/robot-uni...line-game.html then he'd see things a different way.