Pope wades diplomatically into gay ma...

Pope wades diplomatically into gay marriage debate

There are 132 comments on the Seattle Times story from Jun 14, 2013, titled Pope wades diplomatically into gay marriage debate. In it, Seattle Times reports that:

Pope Francis waded diplomatically into the gay marriage debate Friday, telling the Archbishop of Canterbury he wants to work together to promote family values "based on marriage."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Seattle Times.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#43 Jun 16, 2013
Many of the gay activists cry out that they are doing this for equal rights, and they compare themselves to the African Americans who were denied equal rights during the segregation. This is far from the truth.

Like everything else, marriage comes with restrictions. The restrictions are 1) you cannot marry a sibling, 2) you cannot marry more than one person, 3) you cannot marry someone of the same sex, and 4) you cannot marry a minor.

Gay marriage is not about equal rights because gays already have the right to marry. Gay marriage is really about taking away a restriction to marriage. And when that restriction is taken away, then the polygamists will come out of the woodworks and try to take away that restriction from marriage, using the same tactics as the gay activists - under the guise of equal rights. Homosexuals and heterorsexuals should follow the same restrictions to marriage, and both already have the right to marry.
He is Coming Soon

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#44 Jun 16, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I already have, and I don't need your "christian" church to try and teach me anything. I already have the answers, and they are not what you would want to hear.
I've heard it all before. Many, many churches do not teach this: www.scribd.com/doc/31322017 ...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#45 Jun 16, 2013
He is Coming Soon wrote:
<quoted text>You need to focus on your eternal identity: www.scribd.com/doc/31322017 ...
Address his point.

His personal experience demonstrates an exception to Francie's assumed paradigm.

It is ON-TOPIC.

Address that exception to the paradigm.

Alternatively, STFU.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46 Jun 16, 2013
anglicanusepapa wrote:
I haven't made on slurr or nasty comment on this forum and yet I have been attacked with name calling and unjust characterisations. I try to follow the example of Christ. Through study of history, philosophy, religion and Scripture I have come to know the Truth of Christ's Holy Catholic Church. I choose to follow that faith not because I think it teaches what I believe, but because it is the Truth. If I gave in to my own desires and pleasures I would be a most despicable person, perhaps worse than most of histories villains.
I will pray for all those that villify God and His Tuth as it is only themselves that they are hurting.
The "characterizations" of gay people is unjust.

We, too, have attacked NO ONE, yet we have been historically, philosophically, religiously and scripturally attacked at every turn.

You are morally legless AND "Tuth"less.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#47 Jun 16, 2013
anglicanusepapa wrote:
What isn't very pretty on this forum is the hatred and ignorance spewed by the pseudo-intellectuals who have chosen to follow the path of Pontius Pilate and look directly in the face of the God who died on the Cross to save them from their sins (perversions) and say to Him, "What is truth?" If you deny the Truth of God's infallible divine revelation - Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church (Magisterium) then you deny the God who gave them to man. You have chosen to make yourself the one who decides what is right and what is wrong. You are no better than say, Hitler or Charlie Manson. I do not choose what is right or wrong, I strive to follow what God has revealed to man. I am a s inner and often fail, but I don't "call good evil and evil good".
You're just a follower of the Sauline, Alexandrian, Cappadocian and Nicene heresies.

The problem is that you are also one who holds that we should be denied the Rights, Equal Access and Protections of sovereign Citizens of a secular, Civil and Free Nation.

You are essentially a Roman version of Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism.

Sexual orientation is NOT a choice.

Your sectarian religionist ideology ... IS.

So is our Freedom FROM it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#48 Jun 16, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
Many of the gay activists cry out that they are doing this for equal rights, and they compare themselves to the African Americans who were denied equal rights during the segregation. This is far from the truth.
Like everything else, marriage comes with restrictions. The restrictions are 1) you cannot marry a sibling, 2) you cannot marry more than one person, 3) you cannot marry someone of the same sex, and 4) you cannot marry a minor.
Gay marriage is not about equal rights because gays already have the right to marry. Gay marriage is really about taking away a restriction to marriage. And when that restriction is taken away, then the polygamists will come out of the woodworks and try to take away that restriction from marriage, using the same tactics as the gay activists - under the guise of equal rights. Homosexuals and heterorsexuals should follow the same restrictions to marriage, and both already have the right to marry.
Then according to you the struggle against anti-miscegenation was not a Civil Rights struggle.

(N.B. "Slippery Slope" is one of the Informal Fallacies)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#49 Jun 16, 2013
JohnInToronto wrote:
<quoted text>
My eternal identity is a bunch of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, calcium, phosphorus, sodium, chlorine, potassium, iron, magnesium and and a handful other other elements' atoms which will eventually wind up as quarks in a black hole somewhere when the galaxy burns out along with some leptons floating who knows where. That is all there there is to it. The rest is hocus-pocus nonsense that some people would like to thing is the truth.
Yeah. He's nuclear waste, too.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#50 Jun 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just a follower of the Sauline, Alexandrian, Cappadocian and Nicene heresies.
The problem is that you are also one who holds that we should be denied the Rights, Equal Access and Protections of sovereign Citizens of a secular, Civil and Free Nation.
You are essentially a Roman version of Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism.
Sexual orientation is NOT a choice.
Your sectarian religionist ideology ... IS.
So is our Freedom FROM it.
Homosexuality IS, by definition, FUN !:)

The United States Declaration Of Independence SPECIFICALLY says that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (EMPHASIS ADDED)-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"...

Since any reasonable person would say that a reasonable short synonym for "the pursuit of Happiness" is "FUN", ergo..... HOMOSEXUALITY, aka "FUN" is our "UNALIENABLE RIGHT" !

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#51 Jun 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Then according to you the struggle against anti-miscegenation was not a Civil Rights struggle.
(N.B. "Slippery Slope" is one of the Informal Fallacies)
The anti-segregation was a civil rights movement because blacks did not have equal rights such as voting. Many of them were kept from voting and other things. For example, all U.S. citizens who are registered and 18 years old and above are able to vote. That is the requirement for voting. The restrictions would be those that do not meet the voting requirements. But during the civil rights movement, blacks were kept from voting despite that they met those requirements.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with civil rights because gays already have the right to marry. They simply don't want to follow the restrictions to marriage. Like everything else, marriage, voting, etc. has certain restrictions that everyone (whether homosexual or heterorsexual) have to follow.
Brian

Attleboro, MA

#52 Jun 16, 2013
anglicanusepapa wrote:
This article was under the heading of the Roman Catholic Forum so why don't all you militant homosexual perverts just go back where yuo belong.
Maybe you should just deal with it. That is, if you're mature enough too.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#53 Jun 16, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
The anti-segregation was a civil rights movement because blacks did not have equal rights such as voting. Many of them were kept from voting and other things. For example, all U.S. citizens who are registered and 18 years old and above are able to vote. That is the requirement for voting. The restrictions would be those that do not meet the voting requirements. But during the civil rights movement, blacks were kept from voting despite that they met those requirements.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with civil rights because gays already have the right to marry. They simply don't want to follow the restrictions to marriage. Like everything else, marriage, voting, etc. has certain restrictions that everyone (whether homosexual or heterorsexual) have to follow.
There is NO U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO VOTE" !

A state may permit it, or not permit voting if they wish, and may set any requirements they wish provided those legal requirements do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-amendme...

"The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have an explicitly protected right to vote in the U.S. Constitution.

"While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no explicit right to vote exists. That hole in our Constitution creates gaps in our protection of what should be a fundamental right.

"The 2000 presidential election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote,

****** "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."" ******

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#54 Jun 16, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
There is NO U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO VOTE" !
A state may permit it, or not permit voting if they wish, and may set any requirements they wish provided those legal requirements do not violate the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-amendme...
"The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have an explicitly protected right to vote in the U.S. Constitution.
"While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no explicit right to vote exists. That hole in our Constitution creates gaps in our protection of what should be a fundamental right.
"The 2000 presidential election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote,
****** "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."" ******
At the end of the Civil War, Blacks were given citizenship through the 14th Amendment and the right to vote through the 15 Amendment. This took place at the end of the Civil. However, despite that many Blacks were kept from the voting booth despite the fact that the 14th and 15th Amendment were already passed.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#55 Jun 16, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality IS, by definition, FUN !:)
The United States Declaration Of Independence SPECIFICALLY says that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (EMPHASIS ADDED)-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"...
Since any reasonable person would say that a reasonable short synonym for "the pursuit of Happiness" is "FUN", ergo..... HOMOSEXUALITY, aka "FUN" is our "UNALIENABLE RIGHT" !
Unfortunately for you, it's only "created equal ... with ... rights" ... not "equally endowed".

PO THANG!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#56 Jun 16, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
There is NO U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO VOTE" !
A state may permit it, or not permit voting if they wish, and may set any requirements they wish provided those legal requirements do not violate the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-amendme...
"The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have an explicitly protected right to vote in the U.S. Constitution.
"While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no explicit right to vote exists. That hole in our Constitution creates gaps in our protection of what should be a fundamental right.
"The 2000 presidential election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote,
****** "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."" ******
Yeah, that's another one of those heinous Decisions like Citizens United that I was talking about.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#57 Jun 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's another one of those heinous Decisions like Citizens United that I was talking about.
I support both decisions. They are Constitutionally corect.

And please point out WHERE in the U.S. Constitution it gives people the "right to vote".(hint: It doesn't. That is left STRICTLY up to the states to decide).

Since: Jun 13

Phoenix, AZ

#58 Jun 16, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
The anti-segregation was a civil rights movement because blacks did not have equal rights such as voting. Many of them were kept from voting and other things. For example, all U.S. citizens who are registered and 18 years old and above are able to vote. That is the requirement for voting. The restrictions would be those that do not meet the voting requirements. But during the civil rights movement, blacks were kept from voting despite that they met those requirements.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with civil rights because gays already have the right to marry. They simply don't want to follow the restrictions to marriage. Like everything else, marriage, voting, etc. has certain restrictions that everyone (whether homosexual or heterorsexual) have to follow.
MISCEGENATION. look it up before you reply regarding it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#59 Jun 17, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
The anti-segregation was a civil rights movement because blacks did not have equal rights such as voting. Many of them were kept from voting and other things. For example, all U.S. citizens who are registered and 18 years old and above are able to vote. That is the requirement for voting. The restrictions would be those that do not meet the voting requirements. But during the civil rights movement, blacks were kept from voting despite that they met those requirements.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with civil rights because gays already have the right to marry. They simply don't want to follow the restrictions to marriage. Like everything else, marriage, voting, etc. has certain restrictions that everyone (whether homosexual or heterorsexual) have to follow.
I didn't write about anti-segregation, but about the strugle against anti-MISCEGENation.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#60 Jun 18, 2013
AdamAZ wrote:
<quoted text>
MISCEGENATION. look it up before you reply regarding it.
Why should I look it up? In the first place, I was referring to segregation. I never brought up miscegenation.

The marriage of two different races also does not go against the restrictions that I posted on marriage. I stated that the restrictions of marriage is 1) you cannot marry a very close relative such as a brother or sister, 2) you cannot marry more than one person, 3) you cannot marry someone of the same sex, and 4) you cannot marry a minor.

How does miscegenation go against any of these restrictions? Therefore, I suggest that you read what I post first about restrictions to marriage.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#61 Jun 18, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should I look it up? In the first place, I was referring to segregation. I never brought up miscegenation.
The marriage of two different races also does not go against the restrictions that I posted on marriage. I stated that the restrictions of marriage is 1) you cannot marry a very close relative such as a brother or sister, 2) you cannot marry more than one person, 3) you cannot marry someone of the same sex, and 4) you cannot marry a minor.
How does miscegenation go against any of these restrictions? Therefore, I suggest that you read what I post first about restrictions to marriage.
I DID. Then you answered as if I had written about segregation.

BY THE WAY ... The anti-miscegenation laws were one aspect of segregation.

Look, kid. You're posturing on a history that you don't seem to know very much about.

"Why should I look it up?"

ARE YOU F-ING SERIOUS ????!!!!??

Because you want to actually WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT !!!

It's OBVIOUS that you need to look it up, and WHY you NEED to look it up ... you DIDN'T KNOW how it fit into the stream of the conversation. You still don't.

LOOK IT UP !

Christ! These kids! What have we been spending all that money on? We send them to school so they can learn how to learn, and can continue learning after the teachers give them the very basic foundations, and what do they do? They act like they got the whole story in grade school and then give us yak like "Why should I look it up?"

Junior, I want the names and addresses of your teachers because I want to go and bitch slap them for the incompetents that they are!

"Why should I look it up?" "Why should I look it up?"

My great Aunt Fanny!

SHEESH! No WONDER retards like Sarah Palin gets elected Governor of a State!

I'm going to go do something else before I bust a vein.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#62 Jun 18, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I DID. Then you answered as if I had written about segregation.
BY THE WAY ... The anti-miscegenation laws were one aspect of segregation.
Look, kid. You're posturing on a history that you don't seem to know very much about.
"Why should I look it up?"
ARE YOU F-ING SERIOUS ????!!!!??
Because you want to actually WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT !!!
It's OBVIOUS that you need to look it up, and WHY you NEED to look it up ... you DIDN'T KNOW how it fit into the stream of the conversation. You still don't.
LOOK IT UP !
Christ! These kids! What have we been spending all that money on? We send them to school so they can learn how to learn, and can continue learning after the teachers give them the very basic foundations, and what do they do? They act like they got the whole story in grade school and then give us yak like "Why should I look it up?"
Junior, I want the names and addresses of your teachers because I want to go and bitch slap them for the incompetents that they are!
"Why should I look it up?" "Why should I look it up?"
My great Aunt Fanny!
SHEESH! No WONDER retards like Sarah Palin gets elected Governor of a State!
I'm going to go do something else before I bust a vein.
And what has this has to do with what I previously stated? I posted that the gay marriage had nothing to do with equal rights. It had to do with getting rid of a marriage restriction.

Segregation has to do with equal rights. A black man who cannot marry a white woman also has to do with equal rights because it has nothing to do with getting rid of a restriction. Since the dawn of mankind, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. History has also shown that people of different races have married. However, nowhere in history has marriage between people of the same sex ever taken place because that had ALWAYS been a restriction of marriage.

The gay activists is really trying to get rid of a restriction. It never had anything to do with equal rights because they already have the right to marry. They simply want to get rid of a restriction to marriage....a restriction that has been placed there since the dawn of mankind.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News MomentumGAY Marriage Body Count 1 hr Belles Echoes 5
News Transgender people in bathroom: Laugh or cry 2 hr Three Days 181
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 4 hr zakariya 95
News Bill: Florida churches don't have to do same-se... 5 hr barry 29
News Showdown in Houston over LGBT nondiscrimination... (Oct '15) 6 hr Three Days 415
News More 7 hr Tommy K 2
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 21 hr toabhah 35,864
More from around the web