It's so wrong...

[WarriorAngel]

That church had a monopoly on the bible for 1500 years. It created the NT, we have to question it.

Just like the OT which was controlled by the priests, who Jesus fought against.

What does that have to do with this

Why shouldn't two people who love each other get married, even in a church?

It's force.
It's dictating to churches what they MUST do - who do not believe in this.
You remove one right of any entity just to have their own rights met - means all must suffer.
That's not freedom. And it will certainly back fire on the whole country.

 

[WarriorAngel]

OK it had authority over the bible, so it was the power that created what people believed,v and to a large extent still do. Research the discarded gospels, especially those written by people close to Jesus.


Compare income to votes. A Conservative would never win in the poorest areas.

For one thing - democrats are loaded..just because they have a jingle to help sell their lies - does not mean conservatives who vote are necessarily rich - they are just ppl who want the freedom and opportunity to become rich.

Secondly - not sure why we are talking about the Bible now - but your 'statement' shows a serious lack of knowledge on the subject.
Discarded gospels [as you call them] were written around 200 AD by the Gnostics.
These were not ppl close to Jesus. These were ppl who were creating their own religion and adding things to the story to be seen as 'knowing' the mysteries - that frankly didnt exist.

Its not about power - the Bible isnt about power. Its the written word preserved to assist in Tradition of the teachings and written to remember what transpired for all times.
It so happens the Church wrote it, passed it on [hand written by monks through out the ages] and then carefully discerned for the good of the churches in the different regions and countries to have one complete Bible to read from.

This alone - this discussion could take several pages.

 

[IHOM]

Forcing the church to do something jusy like forcing those who dont want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated. Its tyranny.

Re the church and the bible...You have to remember the church has sacred tradition as well as sacred scripture... just because something isnt in the bible doesnt mean its not in our deposit of faith. The church does not determine what people believe...people are free to believe or reject church teaching

 

[paulm50]

What does that have to do with this

The people with the power write the rules.

It's force.
It's dictating to churches what they MUST do - who do not believe in this.
You remove one right of any entity just to have their own rights met - means all must suffer.
That's not freedom. And it will certainly backfire on the whole country.

Rather than them having the force to deny a service. In my opinion the whole Gay thing is outdated and what churches should be concentrating is love, not hate towards a section of the community.

Virtually everyone agrees that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution offers some protections for religious groups. For example, most (even among gay rights advocates) believe the Constitution protects clergy from being required to officiate at marriages for same-sex couples and churches from being forced to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in their sanctuaries.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The 150 million Americans who support same-sex marriage today, do so because they don't see it having any effect on them.

Wait until they learn that the religion or religious school they attend is no longer treated as a tax exempt non-profit institution, and their charitable donations to those institutions can no longer be deducted.

Wait until a couple in a traditional marriage who are trying to adopt a baby, discover that they're at the end of a very long line of gay couples.

Yeah, American society supports anything, as long as it doesn't effect me. That's going to change rapidly, and there is no turning back.

Jim

 

[ebia]

Forcing the church to do something ..l

Forcing the church to do what?

 

[ebia]

Wait until a couple in a traditional marriage who are trying to adopt a baby, discover that they're at the end of a very long line of gay couples.

Hang on, I thought it was supposed to be all about the best interests of the child. Suddenly it's about hetrosexual parents wanting to be at the front of the queue.

 

[paulm50]

For one thing - democrats are loaded..just because they have a jingle to help sell their lies - does not mean conservatives who vote are necessarily rich - they are just ppl who want the freedom and opportunity to become rich.

I'm talking about very poor States with little chance to get on the ladder, with a system designed to keep them down. Voting for a party who represents big business more than the Democrats do.

Secondly - not sure why we are talking about the Bible now - but your 'statement' shows a serious lack of knowledge on the subject.
Discarded gospels [as you call them] were written around 200 AD by the Gnostics.
These were not ppl close to Jesus. These were ppl who were creating their own religion and adding things to the story to be seen as 'knowing' the mysteries - that frankly didnt exist.

Read up on the subject.

Its not about power - the Bible isnt about power. Its the written word preserved to assist in Tradition of the teachings and written to remember what transpired for all times.
It so happens the Church wrote it, passed it on [hand written by monks through out the ages] and then carefully discerned for the good of the churches in the different regions and countries to have one complete Bible to read from.

This alone - this discussion could take several pages.

Now you're being silly, all bibles are about power. The Catholic version being the supreme example. RCC has one man at the head of the church, and often an evil one.

Research how they tried to keep the bible in a language only priests could understand. 30 years War, the Popes power over Kings, Barons and down to the serfs via the priests.

Look at how church leaders try to affect who people vote for, especially in the Bible Belt. Their power in Roman Catholic countries, in Ireland they were caught selling children.

Clergy being celibate was all about hanging on to wealth, they went a 1,000 years with clergy able to marry. Visit St. Peter's Basilica to see the wealth, proclaiming to follow a man who only owned the clothes on his back and despised the money makers in the temple.

And that's not about power?

 

[paulm50]

Hang on, I thought it was supposed to be all about the best interests of the child. Suddenly it's about hetrosexual parents wanting to be at the front of the queue.

In the UK we've had people banned from adopting because of the political party they support, not a radical far left or far right, the colour of their skin, being overweight, too old, and yet a gay couple are fine.

While I'm in full support of gay marriage, giving a child the extra burden of having two gay parents. Might not be the best decision. Seeing how children are bullied at school for less.

 

[ebia]

In the UK we've had people banned from adopting because of the political party they support, not a radical far left or far right, the colour of their skin, being overweight, too old, and yet a gay couple are fine.

While I'm in full support of gay marriage, giving a child the extra burden of having two gay parents. Might not be the best decision. Seeing how children are bullied at school for less.

Each child should be placed with the best match for that child.

I don't think you deal with bullying very effectively by trying to avoid giving bullies reasons - they find them.

But either way "don't allow homosexual adoption because it pushes heterosexuals out of the front of the queue" is the polar opposite of "put the child first".

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hang on, I thought it was supposed to be all about the best interests of the child. Suddenly it's about hetrosexual parents wanting to be at the front of the queue.

Best interest of the child ? HAHAHAHA, not in today's world.

Here in MA, Catholic Charities was quickly shut down by a law suit brought by the state AG, because they wouldn't place children up for adoption, with same sex couples.

The child doesn't matter.

Jim

 

[ebia]

Best interest of the child ? HAHAHAHA, not in today's world.

I'm not sure if your honesty is more refreshing or scary.

 

[ebia]

Best interest of the child ? HAHAHAHA, not in today's world.

Here in MA, Catholic Charities was quickly shut down by a law suit brought by the state AG, because they wouldn't place children up for adoption, with same sex couples.

The child doesn't matter.

Jim

Your evidence is ambiguous. Refusing to place a child with same sex couples before you've examined the couple and the match is not putting the child first. So the adoption agency definitely doesn't have the high ground. Since I don't have the motivation of the state, I can't tell whether they do or not.

The child should be first (as plenty of others have also said), and that means you have to look for the best available match for each child.

"Don't allow homosexuals to marry/adopt because we want the front of the queue" is parental selfishness and then diametric opposite of putting the child first.

Neither homosexual nor hetrosexual nor single parents should have an automatic right to gaining an adopted child - the child has the right to best matching parents to his or her need.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Because gay couples can not conceive naturally, there will be far more gay couples seeking to adopt than straight couples.
The result will be a long line of gay couples when a straight couple applies for adoption.

 

[RDKirk]

...to claim to stand for freedom and equality, and then when you finally get the rights you fought so hard for, you turn right around and persecute others for their opinions and beliefs. The same political activists who were being spit at are now spitting on others (literally).

This is what partisan politics has done to our country, there is no middle ground, there is no room for moderate or rational views. America is a war zone between two dangerous ideologies, both claim to represent freedom, but neither really does.

Shame.

Why do you as a Christian--and especially as a Catholic--equate the United States with "our country?" If you had audience with the Pope and said "our country" what would that mean?

 

[Armoured]

Because gay couples can not conceive naturally, there will be far more gay couples seeking to adopt than straight couples.
The result will be a long line of gay couples when a straight couple applies for adoption.

...and?
If adoption is given to the "best available applicant", rather than "next in line", what's the problem?

 

[ebia]

Because gay couples can not conceive naturally, there will be far more gay couples seeking to adopt than straight couples.
The result will be a long line of gay couples when a straight couple applies for adoption.

Still "proof from selfishness".

The more potential parents the agency can match from the better the outcomes for each child. Assuming you care about the child, which you don't seem to.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Catholic Charities in Boston Archdiocese to end adoption services
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese announced March 10 that it will stop providing adoption services rather than continue to comply with a state law requiring no discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who seek to adopt.

The same day Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney called it "a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children" and said he would seek legislation allowing religious agencies to perform adoptions without violating their religious tenets.

Prompted by a similar issue arising at Catholic Charities of San Francisco, a top Vatican official has said Catholic agencies should not be involved in adoptions by same-sex couples.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm

 

[ebia]

Catholic Charities in Boston Archdiocese to end adoption services
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese announced March 10 that it will stop providing adoption services rather than continue to comply with a state law requiring no discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who seek to adopt.

The same day Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney called it "a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children" and said he would seek legislation allowing religious agencies to perform adoptions without violating their religious tenets.

Prompted by a similar issue arising at Catholic Charities of San Francisco, a top Vatican official has said Catholic agencies should not be involved in adoptions by same-sex couples.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm

And? The article makes it clear that it's principle is not "find the best parents for each individual child", but "turn away parents before they start".

 

[ebia]

From the above:

The same day Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney called it "a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children" and said he would seek legislation allowing religious agencies to [do exactly that].