Woody, outbreak may be ignorant in this area, but there isn't a need to insult him. Read my post a few posts back. It's all about using your brain to out do your opponent.
Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behaviorâ"that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.
even though i dont belive in god i know the bible, and i also know it was never supposed to be to hate "homosexual people", so we have to appriciate that and the fact that homosexuality is a normal human felling for the same gender, to beat people down for being "homosexual" does not show that we want to help god by keeping everything so.
i believe that those kind of people r just normal people like u and i except their life partner is a person of their same gender. they didn't wish for everyone to make a big deal out of it and get singled out like a lot of people did to them. they do not deserve the treatment that they receive and i agree with necromancer, that video shocked me.
That is from the Westboro Baptist Church. They have been like that since their founding. But like usual, I support their freedom of speech in every way. As horrible and disgusting as their views are, they have the right to believe it.
Who's happy that it is Legal for Homosexuals to get married in California? I think It is a good thing. Although, most religions are against homosexuality, I believe that since our country has a separation of church and state, we have no right to prevent people in their pursuit of happiness. All people, no matter what their orientation, should be able to partake in legal marriages.
I feel that even though some people have different views than I do, I believe that they share the earth and the country with me, and that they should equally be able to live in a way that makes them happy, who am I to say that they cannot do something that makes them happy. As long as people aren't harming others I think they should be able to do whatever floats their boat.
The problem is that America actually does not have a legal separation of church and state. The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. It is not enshrined in the Constitution, Bill or Rights, Declaration of Independence, Law Code, or any other legal document. This is something that fuels Republican followers. So be careful when you say there is a separation.
Still, I am glad that one state in our closed-minded union in allowing gays to marry.
I know that realistically we are nowhere close to the complete separation of church and state, but it is somewhat of an ideal for our country. Compared to most of the world, we are fairly progressive in this aspect. Not a leader, but definitely not at the bottom.
The semantical issue of what constitutes "marriage" is really what lies at the heart of legislation here, and also tends to cover up a lot of overgeneralisations. The separation of church and state is particularly relevant to this phenomenon.
For example, some people may be prone to claiming that "gays don't want the marriage, they just want equal rights". However, it's difficult to tell whether by marriage one means the legislative rights that come with it, or whether this is necessarily tied to the legislative definition that has religious roots...or what.
So I'm going to drag Australia into this as an example: as promised, the new government has completed a commission and is now instituting an amendment of legislation that has been identified to be discriminatory against homosexuals (that latter term being a broader, practical application...i.e. not exclusive of bisexuals etc. etc.) However, PM Rudd has been very specific that the party's official line is that they will, at this point, not make a move to legalise gay marriage.
In terms of rights, this means nothing. Taxation, visitation, inheritance etc. etc. rights will all be made equal regardless of sexual orientation regardless of whether 'the act of marriage' is allowed. And Rudd has had to spell it out clearly: it is currently writ as Australian law (thank you, Christian Church), that marriage is specifically "between a man and a woman". That is to say no homosexual "marriages", but instead what are currently termed "civil unions" that grant equal rights, are allowed. I know some don't care, and I know others are quite disappointed and think he hasn't gone far enough.
What I also know is that while I for one do not care for what is but in name, that the significance of the word itself is certainly contentious because of the variable extent of its associations. I believe that Rudd, in specifically saying that his personal religious beliefs should not affect his role in a secular government in service of the people of Australia, also happens to appreciate this (and in doing so attracts the criticism of the anti-religious types!)
heh thats funny. A little off topic: Did you guys hear anything about someone in congress talking about changing the marriage laws so that they would expire after 7 years or something? Because no one stays married for long nowadays and people might want to change up partners every couple of years. What do you guys think of that?
