Same-sex marriage: At Loyola Universi...

Same-sex marriage: At Loyola University, advocates of same-sex ...

There are 137 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Mar 26, 2009, titled Same-sex marriage: At Loyola University, advocates of same-sex .... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

When John Litchfield, who's 26, enrolled at Loyola University's Chicago School of Law three years ago, he went to the student activities fair looking for the gay and lesbian support group.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
DBtbe

Belvidere, IL

#140 Mar 27, 2009
I am convinced that OkieDarren is completely beyond any thoughtful logic or reasoning. I would suggest all to just ignore him and leave him be.

He obviously came here to spew hate, disgust, and poor logic.

And Okie...Im a biologist. Trained at a state school. We were never taught, at any level, that homosexuality is a 'natural' state.
Erica

Chicago, IL

#141 Mar 27, 2009
This is all well and good, but Loyola does have an LGBT student group for undergrads as a consistent part of their office of diversity. People are always trying to make something of the fact that some Catholic school isn't liberal enough for them, but Catholic schools like Loyola are leading the way in prioritizing the needs of as diverse a population as possible.
Tom

Chicago, IL

#142 Mar 27, 2009
OkieDarren wrote:
Tom--"It seems to be rather part of the religious aspect of the point and commented on by many, including your own comments. Regardless, you, me and the Catholic Church agree that homosexuality is not a sin if you are referring to the inclination rather than the sexual acts."
Well, no I don't think we do, I hear every DAY people saying it's a sin to be gay. Homosexuality is NOT a sexual act. A gay virgin is still gay. These places aren't discriminating against an act, but against PEOPLE. This guy wasn't looking for sex, he was looking for a support group, people to TALK to. And that was banned. This isn't about a sex act, it's about people and how they're created by God leading to hate and discrimination regardless of whether they're sexually active or not.
That said it remains cruel and inhumane and pointless to say gays must remain celebate for life. There's absolutely nothing whatsoever gained for anyone in that, no reason for it. IF gays were allowed to marry, I'd disagree with the notion but at least it could be justified.
"We also agree that many commentators, on all sides of the spectrum do not recognize the message of Christ, whether he be God or a socialist."
It'd sure be nice if they'd give gays a vacation and go after the greedy, who are condemned countless times in scripture. But I ain't holding my breath.
I'm glad that we found some common ground although we are not in full accord on many aspects of this issue. Does seem though that greed at AIG, Freddie, Fannie, Merrill, JP Morgan, etc. has been exposed and is being penalized.
WCCH

Elmhurst, IL

#143 Mar 27, 2009
Sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, heterosexuals will still be banned from marrying people of the same sex, we won't be able to say that everybody has equal rights.
Since heterosexuals don't wan't to marry people of the same race, I don't see a problem.
WCCH

Elmhurst, IL

#144 Mar 27, 2009
Liberal Crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when is being gay a right?
Do you have the right to fornicate with animals?
Ease up on he liberal koolaid.
Since being gay is not against the law, how is it not a right? And I promise not to tell anyone you fornicate with animals.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#145 Mar 27, 2009
Super Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
And Jesus spoke DIRECTLY about "sexual immorality". It's mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles too, which is the second half of Luke.
Sexual immorality was defined at that time, hence he didn't elaborate on it. It was considered more than adultery, as adultery is mentioned separately.
So what IS this "sexual immorality" or fornication, porneia, whatever you want to call it, he refers to?
P.S. I find it odd you have a quote from Romans on your moniker, since Romans was written by Paul, who condemns homosexuality multiple times in his letters.
It would be logical to think that Jesus would speak against any sexual immorality that would harm others. Rape. Incest. Pedophelia.

For something to be immoral, it would have to be harmful. Being born a gay person--created that way by God--is certainly not harmful.

Thus, it would not make sense for Jesus to be speaking against those who were born the way HE designed, and cause no harm.

Pau condemns cerrain same sex behaviors, not gay folks. Temple prostitution and pagan rituals were a problem at than time. It is certainly more logical that he would be speaking against those straight folks sho were partaking in such things,

Why would he be speaking about gay people in general, since they were born juist as they were?

Wouldn't that be blasphemy, to teach that God makes mistakes with his creations?
Ironman Carmichael

Sun Valley, CA

#146 Mar 27, 2009
Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
Alum, Jesus did not demonize homosexuality as other have. At the same time, he did not embrace it or free it from the definition of sin. Jesus loved all sinners. When saving the prostitute from death by stoning, Jesus did not say "Continue your victimless enterprise", he said go and sin no more. The modern Church's stance on homosexuality as "disordered" but those with that cross are deserving of our love and attention.
First of all, it was an adulteress whose stoning Jesus stopped, not a prostitute. Secondly, what has that got to do with homosexuality or even Jesus recognizing it as a sin? Thirdly, Jesus certainly didn't lead by example in marriage. It was unheard of for a Jewish man in those days to live 33 years and never marry, but by all accounts, Jesus never did (one of the reasons Catholic priests are forbidden to marry). Instead, he lived with 12 other men, one of whom, the Apostle John, is singled out as "the one Jesus loved." (Make of that statement what you will; I merely quote.) At any rate, if homosexuality is the big honking taboo it's so often made out to be, it seems a little irresponsible of Jesus not to take an official stand on the subject.
Pius V

Chicago, IL

#148 Mar 28, 2009
Loyola Law is a joke. The law school has been run by secular Jews for over 20 years. The current dean is a secular Jew and so was his predecessor, Dean Nina. There is no religious identity at the school. I would much prefer an air of orthodox Judaism rather than the anything-goes cult of diversity so prevalent at the school.
John J Coughlin

Chicago, IL

#149 Mar 29, 2009
John wrote:
The Catholic Church, creator of the modern university, needs to take ours back from the secularists that run them -- Jesuit or not.
It does seem that the Catholic Church no longer influences these so-called Catholic universities. I wonder who does?
RU4real

Mount Dora, FL

#150 Mar 29, 2009
Loyola, wow, cannot believe the way Catholics have deviated from the true beliefs.

Gays, Lesbians, abortion, what next? Assisted suicides ?
Mercy killings ?

STOP THE DONATIONS TOO.
just me

Valparaiso, IN

#151 Mar 30, 2009
I have no problem with adult people loving & living with whatever adult they choose. However let us be honest: anal sex is perverted. It is not natural, it serves no purpose, it is unhealthy. It is a very immoral way of showing 'love'.
By the way, in nature, one would never find two dogs/lions/horses/etc
engaging willingly in anal sex. Never.
Barb In Olympia

Lakewood, WA

#152 Mar 30, 2009
Three Cheers for Loyola and the Jesuits.
just me

Valparaiso, IN

#153 Mar 30, 2009
To the various posters who wrote: "For something to be immoral, it would have to be harmful." and also "That said it remains cruel and inhumane and pointless to say gays must remain celebate for life. There's absolutely nothing whatsoever gained for anyone in that, no reason for it."

I do believe that having a foreign object inserted into one's rectum is harmful & unhealthy. That is not the reason one has a anus.

As to 'nothing to be gained'...well, yes, there are many various diseases (not just HIV) that accompany the gay sexual act.
Ironman Carmichael

Sun Valley, CA

#154 Mar 30, 2009
just me wrote:
I have no problem with adult people loving & living with whatever adult they choose. However let us be honest: anal sex is perverted. It is not natural, it serves no purpose, it is unhealthy. It is a very immoral way of showing 'love'.
By the way, in nature, one would never find two dogs/lions/horses/etc
engaging willingly in anal sex. Never.
Yes, let's be honest, just me. Plenty of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, and there are any number of homosexual couples who are just as turned off by the idea as you are. In any event, it's none of your damn business. Is that all marriage is to you?

As far as animals go, you've obviously never had a dog attempt to violate your leg.
Nick

Batavia, IL

#155 Mar 30, 2009
Cadillac wrote:
If 2 men can get married to eachother
Why cant I marry multiple females?
What is the definition of marrige?
Go ahead. Polygamy is so much. sicker than homosexuality
Hold on there

United States

#156 Mar 31, 2009
Do you have prostate exams? If you do then you are engaging in the same behavior. are you in a heterosexual relationship? Chances are you've had anal sex as well. And these diseases you speak of don't' just impact the gay community.
just me wrote:
To the various posters who wrote: "For something to be immoral, it would have to be harmful." and also "That said it remains cruel and inhumane and pointless to say gays must remain celebate for life. There's absolutely nothing whatsoever gained for anyone in that, no reason for it."
I do believe that having a foreign object inserted into one's rectum is harmful & unhealthy. That is not the reason one has a anus.
As to 'nothing to be gained'...well, yes, there are many various diseases (not just HIV) that accompany the gay sexual act.
rezasantorini

Skokie, IL

#158 Apr 1, 2009
It's a private school and they can do what they want. They can limit their population to only one religion or not, they can only admit girls.

I don't care if I am not paying for it to stay open.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Flossmoor Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Stevo at the City Council meeting 51 min clown control 36
Don't Be Fooled ...Are You Rain Ready Survey 1 hr Election 2017 8
Hillary 2016 ...Lock Her Up 1 hr Where the taxes 16
Josh Deabel going down (Mar '15) 2 hr Zorro 23
Did you attend tonight's Flooding meeting at Pa... 2 hr Will of the People 1
Carmine and Fred Bilotto Accosted Resident afte... 2 hr Defend BIPD 89
Homeless Beggars on SW Hwy & Harlem (Dec '14) 2 hr live free 8

Flossmoor Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Flossmoor Mortgages