vatican attacks gay marriages....

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/confused.gifvatican calls on all good people to work to defeat gay marriages:;both catholics and the heathen....

of course , the pontiff already has a plan for proper role for gays....become priests....pope really trying to limit competition for rare resources...

jmho..gl /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[andyfox]

I can understand the Vatican spending time on this, after all, they must be getting tired of molestation discussions, but doesn't the administration have another war or something to work on?

What business is it of mine or anyone else's if two men or two women want to get married? 50% of man/woman marriages fail, why not try something else?

[Lucifer]

My favorite parts from the article I read:

"The Vatican said its guidelines were not only intended for Catholic lawmakers but for non-Christians and everyone 'committed to promoting the common good of society' since the issue concerned NATURAL MORAL LAW, not just Church doctrine." (Emphasis added)

"[The Vatican] said homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against, but said denying gay couples the rights afforded traditional marriages isn't discrimination."

"[T]he Vatican document noted that there was a danger that laws legalizing same-sex unions could actually encourage someone with a homosexual orientation to seek out a partner to 'exploit the provisions of the law.'"

As others have pointed out, this whole thing seems absurd. What possible harm could result from allowing two men or two women to marry? I mean, aside from the imminent destruction of civilized society as we know it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[J.R.]

And the catholic churches numbers are dwindling in developed, educated, and progressive societies. Dare we speculate why?

[HDPM]

I usta know this guy who was a part time small time bookie. He also gambled on other stuff. He was the born loser type. Money in the bank was to find who he liked in a game then go the other way. The Vatican's position on any given issue is kind of like that for me. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Rick Nebiolo]

Andy,

I have no problem with extending the legal protection of a social/legal institution similar to marriage to gay couples in the case of matters that don't involve children. But most legal rights regarding marriage were set in place to protect children and their primary caretakers (e.g., child support and alimony). These rights should not be applicable to gay couples for reasons I can't eloborate on given that we just left this neat blues bar, have consumed two martinis apiece, and are simultaneously in the final five of a two table no limit tournament on Pokerstars. If I had any sense, I wouldn't post this given I don't have Net access at work and I won't have time to respond to your and your "posse's" inevitable challenges.

That being said, I would be a lot more comfortable as a born but not practicing Catholic if the Catholic church allowed married priests. Now that I've lived outside Rhode Island, a pastor, priest, rabbi, minister with a family seems much more natural.

Regards,

Rick

[J_V]

I need to start reading all of your posts...you've really brought out the A game.

[rigoletto]

Hmmm.. let me see if I understand this correct: children with gay parents shouldn't be protected?

Or maybe you're saying: gay marriages encourages gay people to have children! which is a bad thing because...??? It's like the argument that condoms should not be promoted because it'll encureage youngster to have sex (by the way, go ahead, you have my blessing (remember the condom)).

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gifrick...get with the program...many gay couples i know have children...i do not think of it as an oddity....i can't believe there ain'y gay parents in calif....

gl /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[HDPM]

The gender or sexual preference of the parent has little to do with the ability to order child support/alimony, etc.... The legal system can easily deal with it. In fact, the legal system can deal with the reality a lot better than the Church, that's for sure.

[Ray Zee]

forget about the moral issues as thats another thing.
but once you make them legal you open the real can of worms. then they get social security , can leave money without paying taxes on it. they can get medical insurance from employers. so the rest of the people are in fact paying for it.
marriage is only partly a sexual thing. or should be. gay marriage is mostly one.
once you make it legal you are in effect paying for it.

[Lucifer]

"then they get social security , can leave money without paying taxes on it. they can get medical insurance from employers."

So it's okay, then, for straight people to get these benefits, but not gay people?

"marriage is only partly a sexual thing. or should be. gay marriage is mostly one."

You don't need to be married to have sex. Homosexuals (and heterosexuals for that matter) will continue to have sex, married or no. I hardly think that's why they want to have legal marriages. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I'd say marriage is (or should be) about love. (Certainly there are reasons people get married other than love.) Now, considering all of the intolerance and scorn directed at homosexuals, the fact that two men (or two women) still want to get married openly like this, well, sounds like love to me.

[andyfox]

Well I see my "posse" has already responded, so when you get the time, please tell me:

1) The name of the blues bar;

2) How you did in the tournament;

and 3) Why the legal rights of marriag should not be extended to gay couples with children?

Regards,
Andy

[Rick Nebiolo]

Andy,

1) Went to the Continental Room in Fullerton. It's not always a blues bar, but they had a "Duke Robillard" sounding band last night. It's a very nice place that we just started going to.

2) Finished second out of eighteen for a net of $108 minus $22 buy-in. We like the speed of the online "sit and go" tournaments and it gives us a chance to practice no limit.

3) If gay couples have already adopted children then it makes sense. But IMO gay couples (and single parent wannabe's) should not have equal footing with heterosexual couples when it comes to adoption.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

HDPM,

Perhaps I was looking at it backwards because I agree with the above regarding this type of legal protection. See my response to Andy above.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

scalf,

The fact that gays can adopt otherwise unadoptable children is fine with me. But few infants are unadoptable and heterosexual couples are waiting in line. They should get first preference.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

rigoletto,

Would this be an example of creating a staw man arguement?

~ Rick

PS Got to go to work where I have no net access. May have time to elaborate tonight.

[Mark Heide]

scalf,

I'm with Bush on this one, but could care less about the religious aspects. My concern is mostly economic and the possiblility that two gays could adapt a baby girl or boy.

First, the government supports marrage economically. The benefits to being married are to have children. Two gays can't do this. I am against the idea of two gays adopting children, because it would be psychologically damaging to the child. Let's say you had two kids, and you and your wife died in an auto accident, would you want two gays to be able to adopt them?

Basically, if we give two gays the right to be married, we will end up having alot of freeloaders using government money that was designed to benefit couples that can raise and have children.

Mark

[John Ho]

Yeah but would you rather a kid grow up in an orphanage or under government foster care rather than being raised by a gay couple?

Using your rationale, we should deny normal marriage benefits to couples who can not have children. What if the husband is impotent? Should the government refuse acknowledgement of he and his wife's marriage?

What this comes down to is more discrimination against homosexuals. If it was purely economic opposition it would be much simpler to simply repeal all marriage benefits and make all tax breaks dependant on the number of children supported. Of course I would argue it is not the government's place to encourage more children with tax breaks...people will do that on their own. Why should a childless person pay because others choose to have kids?

But what the Vatican and Bush are doing is simple discrimination. It was wrong 50 years ago and it is wrong today.

[John Ho]

[Mark Heide]

John,

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but would you rather a kid grow up in an orphanage or under government foster care rather than being raised by a gay couple?

[/ QUOTE ]

A Child growing up in an orphange or under government foster care is unfortunate. But, by sanctioning gay marrage, the only way most gay couples can have a child is by being part of this system. Consider that the majority of the population is hetrosexual by nature, you would be subjecting a child to live the lifestyle that will be against their nature. This would be psycologically damaging to the majority of children since you can't really tell at an early are if that child is a homosexual.


[ QUOTE ]
Using your rationale, we should deny normal marriage benefits to couples who can not have children. What if the husband is impotent? Should the government refuse acknowledgement of he and his wife's marriage?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the intention of the law was for couples to receive benefits for raising children, so whether a hetrosexual couple can create them is irrelevant, but they can raise them. Since, the majority of childern will be hetrosexual, these children would be ridiculed by society and suffer extreme psycological pain.

[ QUOTE ]
What this comes down to is more discrimination against homosexuals. If it was purely economic opposition it would be much simpler to simply repeal all marriage benefits and make all tax breaks dependant on the number of children supported. Of course I would argue it is not the government's place to encourage more children with tax breaks...people will do that on their own. Why should a childless person pay because others choose to have kids?


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that two consenting adults can do with each other as they please. Using your agrument for discrimination would be the equivalent of discriminating against 40 year old men that like to have sex with six year olds. Should this 40 year old claim that he is being subject to discrimination because a minority of people are born with this sexual orientation and participate in this behavior?

By the way, I am a childless single person and pay the taxes to support these programs we are discussing.

Since, I am a single guy, do you think the government foster care program would allow me to adapt a little girl and collect benefits to support her. No, matter how caring and supportive I could be to this child it would never happen.

Good Luck

Mark

[John Ho]

You said a child adopted by a homosexual couple would be ridiculed by society. I don't agree. Times change. Years ago somebody who was half black was ridiculed...now it is commonplace.

Sorry, but you need to accept the fact that it's time for society to take the next step forward and accept people for who they are. Comparing homosexuals to someone molesting a 6 year old is just plain wrong. A 6 year old does not have the requisite ability to give informed consent.

You make adopting a child sound like a profitable endeavor. It's not. Most couples adopt children for the same reason others have them through pregnancy.

If we followed your rationale we would restrict adoption of children to hetero couples of the same race. Since two white people can't make a Chinese baby we would restrict their ability to adopt in that case. We can go on and on.

The simple fact is that restricting gay marriage is discrimination and based on religious dogma. Once people start thinking openly about sexuality all these ridiculous ideas will disappear.

[HDPM]

First, I think the idea of the government as being an incubator by fostering marriage is an outdated and unnessary notion.

Second, hetero couples have been psychologically damaging kids since forever. Lets give homosexuals an equal opportunity to screw their kids up too. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Seriously tho, sexuality is not the determinative factor over ewhether someone will raise a kid in a reasonable fashion.

[HDPM]

Thank you for the compliment, but I think Post of the Year can only go to a post with good sexual content and pornographic links. Previously I have tried to bestow Post Of The Year honors on Clarkmeister's Miko Lee posts. Bill Murphy also got props for his link to the porn site of the woman who streaked at the US Open. I don't know how to come up with a set of standards for POY nominations, perhaps like the Academy Awards we need different categories. But it is hard to be considered for POY without beating out Clarkmeister's links. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[John Cole]

Mark,

Yes, you certainly could adopt children--although it may be difficult. Single people have adopted and do adopt children, and you may be better equiped, in many ways, to raise a child than some hetero couples and many single parents.

For the past few years, whenever I teach Intro to Literature, I use Heather Has Two Mommies, a children's book that was once part of the New York City school curriculum. The book points out that children are raised in many differnet circumstances. I use the book along with a few other works to show how literature attemps to teach lessons, and question whether literature can even teach lessons any longer.

I have used this with many classes with students of every background imaginable, and overwhelmingly the students think the book a good one. Most students support gays and lesbians raising children (I am surprised that so many do), and those that voice opposition to the book usually base their objections on religious ideas, but the ratio of those in favor to those oppposed has run about 100-1.

Finally, I like HDPM's idea: if hetero couples have screwed up, let's give somebody else a chance.

John

[Mark Heide]

John,

After reading your response am I to understand that you are equating race with homosexuality? Does that mean that since gay people represent a small percentage of society they should be considered a race?

I don't think I am far off base by comparing homosexuality to an adult man that has sexual desires for children. This reason why I say this is because there are people that instinctively desire to do this. But, is this normal behavior? Well, I don't believe homosexuality is "normal" behavior, since such a small percentage of society engages in it. Furthermore, I do not descriminate against consenting adults that want to live this lifestyle.

By the way, the adopted child has no choice in either situation if gay marrages were legal or adult men decide to have sex with young children.

Lastly, I would not accuse the pope or any other religious figure of discrimination on this subject since the teachings they have followed consider these types of sexual behaviour immoral. So, these religious figures are supporting their teachings. But, since I think religion is garbage, I have nothing against gay people engaging in whatever sexual pleasures please them.

Good Luck

Mark

[Mark Heide]

John,

Here's an essay subject for your students:

What impressions do you think, you as a six year old, would have of your parents if they were both the same sex? Plus, how do you think kids would react to a situation if one kid had two guys as parents and the other kids had one of each sex?

I'm concerned about the psychological implications. I don't know how much research has been done.

I'm sure the book you mention is a good book to read.

Good Luck

Mark

[John Cole]

Mark,

Consider for a moment that there are more homosexuals than people who own two copies of Ancient Voices of Children. Many more. What's "normal"?

Quite some time ago, Harper's Index reported that one of nine rams is homosexual. I can't imagine who did the study, and certainly I can't vouch for the veracity of the claim, but this fact--if indeed it is a "fact"--does seem to support that homosexuality, although perhaps uncommon, occurs in nature--and a a rate often cited for human beings. While ten percent is a small percentage compared to ninety, it still represents a huge number of people.

All of which, of course, supports Cole Porter's claim: "Birds do it. / Bees do it. / Even educated fleas do it."

John

[Ray Zee]

what i dont get is why do gays feel a right to marriage. is marriage just a sexual preference. because that is what gay is all about. then why cant just two friends of whatever get married. why would you have to be gay. anyone can live together nowadays so that is your choice. if its about adopting children then lets have the laws changed so anyone can adopt children. if its about money or tax breaks then thats another thing to address.
it has nothing to do with being immoral as that word means nothing except to the church and their distorted views of life.

[Mark Heide]

Ray,

I agree.

Good Luck

Mark