Pope wades diplomatically into gay marriage debate

Jun 14, 2013 Full story: Seattle Times 132

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."

Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#63 Jun 18, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Interesting argument, but you can see the unstated assumptions and "a priori" throughout it ... if you really wish to take a look at it honestly.

Analyse your own argument. What are your unstated assumptions? What hidden arguments are you expecting your reader to accept as assumed or a matter of course?

You want to be "scientific"? BE scientific. Re-examine your assumptions.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#64 Jun 18, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Except what you say is UNTRUE.

"Biblical marriage" the marriages that took place among the Jews in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, were polygamous marriages. The Romans, i.e. the heathens, practiced monogamy. So perhaps it is "heathen marriage" which is your ideal.

Furthermore, at various time, both heathens AND Christians allowed came-sex marriages in the past.

And in early America, both n colonial times and after our independence, wives had no rights, could not own property, could not inherit property, and were the "property" of their husbands. Is this the idealized form of marriage you wish to return to ? Or some 20th century American version of marriage ?

And since equal marriage rights were granted to LGBT citizens in the various states, the sky hasn't fallen, cities haven't crumbled, fire hasn't rained from the sky, and families haven't been destroyed.

BOY ! I bet YOU'RE disappointed !

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#65 Jun 18, 2013
And the Pope, has NO RIGHT to try to impose, and influence, civil laws on people who FREELY CHOOSE NOT TO BE CATHOLICS !

Since: Jun 13

Scottsdale, AZ

#66 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.
The point is that one of the restrictions USED to be you can't marry someone of another race. And black people and white people both could marry but they had to follow this restriction and marry within their own race. Then the Supreme Court got involved and said this restriction is not constitutional. See the parallels to gay marriage? You should if you're smart and I also see there are differences because I'm smart too.

Why bring this up? Because the restrictions have been changed before without legalizing incest or multiple marriages. This makes the slippery slope argument weak and unsupported.

Now were asking the Supreme Court to find the gender restriction unfair as well, and if they do, then incest and multiple marriages will still be illegal.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#67 Jun 20, 2013
AdamAZ wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is that one of the restrictions USED to be you can't marry someone of another race. And black people and white people both could marry but they had to follow this restriction and marry within their own race. Then the Supreme Court got involved and said this restriction is not constitutional. See the parallels to gay marriage? You should if you're smart and I also see there are differences because I'm smart too.
Why bring this up? Because the restrictions have been changed before without legalizing incest or multiple marriages. This makes the slippery slope argument weak and unsupported.
Now were asking the Supreme Court to find the gender restriction unfair as well, and if they do, then incest and multiple marriages will still be illegal.
This is not a parallel to gay marriage because it was indeed wrong to prohibit a person from marrying because of race.

While it is true that in the past, polygamy has existed, today we know that polygamy is wrong because it dehumanizes the woman into an object of desire for men.

As for same sex marriage, research has shown that STDs are much higher among gay men than heterosexual men mainly because they engage in anal sex. Heterosexual men who engage in anal sex are also found to have a higher rate of STD than heterosexual men who do not engage in anal sex.

Same sex marriage is not about equal rights, but to get rid of a restriction to marriage. A restriction that has been there since the dawn of mankind. A marriage between men and women have always been recognized.....not a marriage between peoples of the same sex since the dawn of mankind.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#68 Jun 20, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Except what you say is UNTRUE.
"Biblical marriage" the marriages that took place among the Jews in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, were polygamous marriages. The Romans, i.e. the heathens, practiced monogamy. So perhaps it is "heathen marriage" which is your ideal.
Furthermore, at various time, both heathens AND Christians allowed came-sex marriages in the past.
And in early America, both n colonial times and after our independence, wives had no rights, could not own property, could not inherit property, and were the "property" of their husbands. Is this the idealized form of marriage you wish to return to ? Or some 20th century American version of marriage ?
And since equal marriage rights were granted to LGBT citizens in the various states, the sky hasn't fallen, cities haven't crumbled, fire hasn't rained from the sky, and families haven't been destroyed.
BOY ! I bet YOU'RE disappointed !
Same sex marriage has never been recognized among Christian societies or even among the Jews.

Look at the research. There are higher rates of STDs among gay men than among heterosexual men. An endorsement to same sex marriage is an endorsement to these diseases.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#69 Jun 20, 2013
Below is a weblink from the Center of Disease Control and Prevention. I provided the weblink below so anyone can read the rest of the article. Gay and bisexual men have a higher rate of STD than heterosexal men because of the kind of sexual activity they engage in. According to the weblink:

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men. Recent increases in syphilis cases have been documented across the country. In 2008, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other bacterial STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#70 Jun 20, 2013
I can't see what a disease has to do with Marriage Equality.

http://www.med-dept.com/vd.php

Does that mean that heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry?

What about ...

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/tubercu...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#71 Jun 20, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not a parallel to gay marriage because it was indeed wrong to prohibit a person from marrying because of race.
While it is true that in the past, polygamy has existed, today we know that polygamy is wrong because it dehumanizes the woman into an object of desire for men.
As for same sex marriage, research has shown that STDs are much higher among gay men than heterosexual men mainly because they engage in anal sex. Heterosexual men who engage in anal sex are also found to have a higher rate of STD than heterosexual men who do not engage in anal sex.
Same sex marriage is not about equal rights, but to get rid of a restriction to marriage. A restriction that has been there since the dawn of mankind. A marriage between men and women have always been recognized.....not a marriage between peoples of the same sex since the dawn of mankind.
Learn some REAL history, and what THESE people thought:

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/10/africa...



http://stateofthereunion.com/home/season-2/ba...

Since: Jun 13

Scottsdale, AZ

#72 Jun 20, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not a parallel to gay marriage because it was indeed wrong to prohibit a person from marrying because of race.
While it is true that in the past, polygamy has existed, today we know that polygamy is wrong because it dehumanizes the woman into an object of desire for men.
As for same sex marriage, research has shown that STDs are much higher among gay men than heterosexual men mainly because they engage in anal sex. Heterosexual men who engage in anal sex are also found to have a higher rate of STD than heterosexual men who do not engage in anal sex.
Same sex marriage is not about equal rights, but to get rid of a restriction to marriage. A restriction that has been there since the dawn of mankind. A marriage between men and women have always been recognized.....not a marriage between peoples of the same sex since the dawn of mankind.
It is indeed wrong to prohibit same sex marriage too. If your really concerned anout gay peoples health, you should encourage same sex marriage. Not that STDs have ANYTHING to do with the topic. Lesbians have the lowest rate. You're aware of this?

You have so much nonsense packed into your post, it's not even worth addressing. Your intent is obviously to change the subject. You have no valid points against same sex marriage or you would have made them by now.

Since: Jun 13

Scottsdale, AZ

#73 Jun 20, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Same sex marriage is not about equal rights, but to get rid of a restriction to marriage. A restriction that has been there since the dawn of mankind. A marriage between men and women have always been recognized.....not a marriage between peoples of the same sex since the dawn of mankind.
Gay people have existed since people evolved and in their predecessors before that. Marriage between them has also existed in small numbers. Just because religious sects rewrote history to suit their dogma doesn't make it true.

Since: Jun 13

Scottsdale, AZ

#74 Jun 20, 2013
AdamAZ wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people have existed since people evolved and in their predecessors before that. Marriage between them has also existed in small numbers. Just because religious sects rewrote history to suit their dogma doesn't make it true.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sam...

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#75 Jun 20, 2013
snyper wrote:
I can't see what a disease has to do with Marriage Equality.
http://www.med-dept.com/vd.php
Does that mean that heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry?
What about ...
http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/tubercu...
Same sex marriage is not about marriage equality. Polygamy dehumanizes women into sex objects. Does this mean we should allow polygamy? The sexual practice of gay men only spreads disease. That is what you're really endorsing - the spreading of disease. While it's true that heterosexual men who engage in anal sex also end up using STD, there are many many many heterosexual men who do not engage in that kind of sexual activity. Gay men, on the other hand, appears to have no other way around it.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#76 Jun 20, 2013
AdamAZ wrote:
You should do more research rather than rely on wikipedia. For example, in your weblink, it says that same sex marriage was legalized and condoned in Rome until Christians emperors outlawed it. If you had done your research of that time period in Rome, you would have known that what the Christian emperors outlawed was mainly pedophilia, which was very rampant in Rome at that time.

Along with pedophilia and homosexuality, concubinage was also accepted. As I said, if you take out one restriction, then others from the polygamists wooodworks will come out and also demand their right to marry more than one woman.

“ TRUTH : NOT EXPEDIENCE”

Since: Nov 07

town near Jax, Fl

#77 Jun 20, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is not about marriage equality. Polygamy dehumanizes women into sex objects. Does this mean we should allow polygamy? The sexual practice of gay men only spreads disease. That is what you're really endorsing - the spreading of disease. While it's true that heterosexual men who engage in anal sex also end up using STD, there are many many many heterosexual men who do not engage in that kind of sexual activity. Gay men, on the other hand, appears to have no other way around it.
Are you suggesting that str8 women do not spread STD's? That is a foolish assumption. Str8 men spread STD's, that's a fact.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#78 Jun 20, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is not about marriage equality. Polygamy dehumanizes women into sex objects. Does this mean we should allow polygamy? The sexual practice of gay men only spreads disease. That is what you're really endorsing - the spreading of disease. While it's true that heterosexual men who engage in anal sex also end up using STD, there are many many many heterosexual men who do not engage in that kind of sexual activity. Gay men, on the other hand, appears to have no other way around it.
You didn't look at the links, did ya!

If communicable disease were a criterion for Marriage, then heteros should have been banned from long since.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#79 Jun 20, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
You should do more research rather than rely on wikipedia. For example, in your weblink, it says that same sex marriage was legalized and condoned in Rome until Christians emperors outlawed it. If you had done your research of that time period in Rome, you would have known that what the Christian emperors outlawed was mainly pedophilia, which was very rampant in Rome at that time.
Along with pedophilia and homosexuality, concubinage was also accepted. As I said, if you take out one restriction, then others from the polygamists wooodworks will come out and also demand their right to marry more than one woman.
Would you object to polyandry?

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#81 Jun 25, 2013
Catholic created gay wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that str8 women do not spread STD's? That is a foolish assumption. Str8 men spread STD's, that's a fact.
Where in my post did I even suggest such a thing. I said that research shows that gay men have a higher rate of STD than heterosexual men.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#82 Jun 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you object to polyandry?
Yes.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#83 Jun 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't look at the links, did ya!
If communicable disease were a criterion for Marriage, then heteros should have been banned from long since.
The gay activists prefers to keep such research hidden just as they wanted to keep hidden how they intimidated the APA in changing removing homosexuality from the DSM. Homosexuality was once considered a disorder.

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.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 36 min guest 560,404
United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 1 hr Cultastic 8,719
Pope challenges Muslims to condemn violence 4 hr QUITTNER Dec 26 2014 4
What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) Dec 23 USA Born 83,901
Pope's role in Cuba deal fractures Cuban-Americ... Dec 23 woodtick57 4
Cuba Deal Is Major Victory for Pope's Diplomati... Dec 22 John 4
Vatican signals new tone on US nuns Dec 21 Raymond F Rice 2
More from around the web