Kelly the Dog Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Would it be okay to have a straight woman marry a gay man if they had no intention of having children? I mean, really, I guess it would be okay because all marriage should be between one man and one woman. But then again it may not be okay because a marriage is just supposed to be about procreating, and furthering the race and raising a family and if there was no chance of that, this marriage would not be okay. Plus, since homosexually is not okay because of what the Bible says, this is definitely not okay because one of these two is a goddamn freak, and a human and a freak should not be able to be married, because, well, where does it stop, my own marriage would be lessoned by it. But, since homosexually is learned behavior, maybe living with the straight woman would change the gay man back into the rightful and right way to live, and then they could procreate so this marriage would be okay. I guess it would be okay. Or maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeFerguson Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 And we do know that....but i have been put down on this forum for being a liberal Catholic by born again Christian...i agree with your point 112797[/snapback] What exactly makes you a 'practicing Catholic'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 because a marriage is just supposed to be about procreating, and furthering the race and raising a family 114479[/snapback] where did you get that from?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 where did you get that from?? 114501[/snapback] I see and read and hear and have to endure that reasoning all the time. BTW, I 100% meant "the human race", not any race like white or black or green or purple whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 What exactly makes you a 'practicing Catholic'? 114485[/snapback] Attending mass, recieving communion, active in church activities, and having a personal relationship with God that I will not share with peopel on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeFerguson Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Attending mass, recieving communion, active in church activities, and having a personal relationship with God that I will not share with peopel on here 114637[/snapback] Does that also include going to confession, attending mass on holy days of obligation, abstaining from premarital sex, abstaining from the use of any forms of birth control, taking a pro-life stance on abortion, etc., etc., etc.? Does active in church activities mean you volunteer at bingo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Does that also include going to confession, attending mass on holy days of obligation, abstaining from premarital sex, abstaining from the use of any forms of birth control, taking a pro-life stance on abortion, etc., etc., etc.? Does active in church activities mean you volunteer at bingo? 114662[/snapback] If I say no...are you going to hold me personally accountable??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeFerguson Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 If I say no...are you going to hold me personally accountable??? 114671[/snapback] No, I'm just trying to say that the terms 'practicing Catholic', 'devout Christian', etc. have very broad and loose definitions. Prefacing a statement by giving yourself one of these labels automatically makes you prone to a huge amount of scrutiny. By your definition, I am also a practicing Catholic, but I would never label myself this when engaging in an argument such as this. You say you are a practicing Catholic, but you say that you don't force your views on anyone else. A few weeks ago at mass they encouraged us to recruit new members for the RCIA. Encouraging others to learn about your faith is not exclusive to born again Christians. When you say, "I'm a practicing Catholic...don't be so quick to judge...my relationship with God is mine....you get it... not yours", I think you contradict yourself a bit. Also, you become a stereotype of the KzooMike Catholic who only goes because that's what his parents told him to do since he was little. Then fundamental Christians use your example to make fun of all Catholics, giving the Mother Teresa's of this world a bad name. Don't claim to be a practicing Catholic unless you actually do everything the Church tells you to do. I think both presidential candidates made religious statements similar to this one in order to manipulate voters. John Kerry was constantly reminding people that he was Catholic, but he was divorced and pro-choice, which I thought were two ways to get you excommunicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Would it be okay to have a straight woman marry a gay man if they had no intention of having children? I mean, really, I guess it would be okay because all marriage should be between one man and one woman. But then again it may not be okay because a marriage is just supposed to be about procreating, and furthering the race and raising a family and if there was no chance of that, this marriage would not be okay. Plus, since homosexually is not okay because of what the Bible says, this is definitely not okay because one of these two is a goddamn freak, and a human and a freak should not be able to be married, because, well, where does it stop, my own marriage would be lessoned by it. But, since homosexually is learned behavior, maybe living with the straight woman would change the gay man back into the rightful and right way to live, and then they could procreate so this marriage would be okay. I guess it would be okay. Or maybe not. 114479[/snapback] Could you find me a quote in this thread where someone says marriage is for procreation only? If not, your post has no credibility. If you only heard people say it somewhere else, what would be the point of arguing about it here, if no one here actually said it? I wish someone would please tell me how you could allow homosexual marriage, but still not allow polygamy and incest. You can't claim that homosexuality is ok, but incest is disgusting, because you are still "discriminating" against the people who feel incest is ok behavior. Shouldn't they have that freedom??...is this not America?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Could you find me a quote in this thread where someone says marriage is for procreation only? If not, your post has no credibility. If you only heard people say it somewhere else, what would be the point of arguing about it here, if no one here actually said it? I wish someone would please tell me how you could allow homosexual marriage, but still not allow polygamy and incest. You can't claim that homosexuality is ok, but incest is disgusting, because you are still "discriminating" against the people who feel incest is ok behavior. Shouldn't they have that freedom??...is this not America?? 114868[/snapback] Because half of the country, 150 million people or so, think homosexuality is perfectly fine between consenting adults, or at the very least, what two men or two women do in their bedrooms is okay with them. Virtually no one except the tiny, tiny, tiny number of people that actually practice poligamy or incest think that poligamy or incest is okay. More like a few thousand people. Probably the same number of people that think cold blooded murder is perfectly fine. That particular slippery slope argument is just plain crap and an excuse. You obviously haven't been on this board for very long because there have been numerous posts on here from various members that have claimed in all sincerity that marriage is for procreation and to create a family and if the two participants cannot procreate, like, say, homosexuals, that they should not be allowed to marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 No, I'm just trying to say that the terms 'practicing Catholic', 'devout Christian', etc. have very broad and loose definitions. Prefacing a statement by giving yourself one of these labels automatically makes you prone to a huge amount of scrutiny. By your definition, I am also a practicing Catholic, but I would never label myself this when engaging in an argument such as this. You say you are a practicing Catholic, but you say that you don't force your views on anyone else. A few weeks ago at mass they encouraged us to recruit new members for the RCIA. Encouraging others to learn about your faith is not exclusive to born again Christians. When you say, "I'm a practicing Catholic...don't be so quick to judge...my relationship with God is mine....you get it... not yours", I think you contradict yourself a bit. Also, you become a stereotype of the KzooMike Catholic who only goes because that's what his parents told him to do since he was little. Then fundamental Christians use your example to make fun of all Catholics, giving the Mother Teresa's of this world a bad name. Don't claim to be a practicing Catholic unless you actually do everything the Church tells you to do. I think both presidential candidates made religious statements similar to this one in order to manipulate voters. John Kerry was constantly reminding people that he was Catholic, but he was divorced and pro-choice, which I thought were two ways to get you excommunicated. 114781[/snapback] [/quo I appreciate your concern for my soul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeFerguson Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 No, I'm just trying to say that the terms 'practicing Catholic', 'devout Christian', etc. have very broad and loose definitions. Prefacing a statement by giving yourself one of these labels automatically makes you prone to a huge amount of scrutiny. By your definition, I am also a practicing Catholic, but I would never label myself this when engaging in an argument such as this. You say you are a practicing Catholic, but you say that you don't force your views on anyone else. A few weeks ago at mass they encouraged us to recruit new members for the RCIA. Encouraging others to learn about your faith is not exclusive to born again Christians. When you say, "I'm a practicing Catholic...don't be so quick to judge...my relationship with God is mine....you get it... not yours", I think you contradict yourself a bit. Also, you become a stereotype of the KzooMike Catholic who only goes because that's what his parents told him to do since he was little. Then fundamental Christians use your example to make fun of all Catholics, giving the Mother Teresa's of this world a bad name. Don't claim to be a practicing Catholic unless you actually do everything the Church tells you to do. I think both presidential candidates made religious statements similar to this one in order to manipulate voters. John Kerry was constantly reminding people that he was Catholic, but he was divorced and pro-choice, which I thought were two ways to get you excommunicated. 114781[/snapback] [/quo I appreciate your concern for my soul 114934[/snapback] I wasn't referring to your soul. I was referring to your status as a Catholic. I was using the term 'excommunication' in reference to expulsion from the Church as an institution, not in a spiritual sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 I wasn't referring to your soul. I was referring to your status as a Catholic. I was using the term 'excommunication' in reference to expulsion from the Church as an institution, not in a spiritual sense. 114942[/snapback] those are Cathloic values of previous centuries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 those are Cathloic values of previous centuries 114985[/snapback] He is trying to say that by saying you are a "practicing Catholic", you are giving an impression of yourself that is not correct. If you truly were a practicing Catholic, you would not be doing the things Fergy mentioned in the previous thread. His point is, or at least I think is, many "Catholics" are simply catholics by birth or by name, and do not actually live by what they preach, so to call themsevles Catholics is not a correct description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Because half of the country, 150 million people or so, think homosexuality is perfectly fine between consenting adults, or at the very least, what two men or two women do in their bedrooms is okay with them. Virtually no one except the tiny, tiny, tiny number of people that actually practice poligamy or incest think that poligamy or incest is okay. More like a few thousand people. Probably the same number of people that think cold blooded murder is perfectly fine. That particular slippery slope argument is just plain crap and an excuse. You obviously haven't been on this board for very long because there have been numerous posts on here from various members that have claimed in all sincerity that marriage is for procreation and to create a family and if the two participants cannot procreate, like, say, homosexuals, that they should not be allowed to marry. 114897[/snapback] I would like to know where you got those numbers from. Also, just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't make it right. You could argue that half the country once thought slavery was perfectly fine. Many people in Germany thought that killing Jews was perfectly fine. There is no rule stating that the more people believe something, the more true it becomes. Also, maybe not many think incest is ok now, but who knows how they will feel in the future. I would bet that 200 years ago, many many less people found homosexuality unacceptable. Does that mean that homosexuality was any worse than it is now? No, it just means people changed their opinion. Could you please tell me what makes homosexuality better than incest? What makes it more wrong to do? Don't say because it would mess up their kids, cause they could get married and still not have kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 You could argue that half the country once thought slavery was perfectly fine. Many people in Germany thought that killing Jews was perfectly fine. There is no rule stating that the more people believe something, the more true it becomes. 114996[/snapback] You could argue that, I wouldn't. While the North was industrialized, the South's economy was agrarian in nature. In addition to tobacco, cotton was a cash crop, and picking it and removing the seeds is even more labor intensive than tobacco. The indentured servants that were used for such tasks had served their time by the late 18th century and were no longer obligated to so. Due to the back breaking nature of the work, they opted not to do it. As the nation began to extend west away from the coastal cities, they began to migrate west into Indian country. Google "Bacon's Rebellion" for an example. The Southern economy relied on slavery, it would have collapsed with out it. It was believed to be a very neccesary evil although it was abhorred by all but the cruelest of people. The majority of Germans in Germany were just as shocked to hear of the atrocities of the Holocaust as anyone else. As German press was embedded, er, controlled, by their government, the genocide against Jews (and others) went largely unknown to the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 You could argue that, I wouldn't. While the North was industrialized, the South's economy was agrarian in nature. In addition to tobacco, cotton was a cash crop, and picking it and removing the seeds is even more labor intensive than tobacco. The indentured servants that were used for such tasks had served their time by the late 18th century and were no longer obligated to so. Due to the back breaking nature of the work, they opted not to do it. As the nation began to extend west away from the coastal cities, they began to migrate west into Indian country. Google "Bacon's Rebellion" for an example. The Southern economy relied on slavery, it would have collapsed with out it. It was believed to be a very neccesary evil although it was abhorred by all but the cruelest of people. The majority of Germans in Germany were just as shocked to hear of the atrocities of the Holocaust as anyone else. As German press was embedded, er, controlled, by their government, the genocide against Jews (and others) went largely unknown to the population. 115035[/snapback] My point wasn't so much that sooo many people believed those things. It was more so that just because some people believed it to be ok, it didn't make it ok. All I am saying is, you are going to need to come up with a better argument than "half the country thinks it's ok" to tell me that homosexuality is less wrong than incest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 He is trying to say that by saying you are a "practicing Catholic", you are giving an impression of yourself that is not correct. If you truly were a practicing Catholic, you would not be doing the things Fergy mentioned in the previous thread. His point is, or at least I think is, many "Catholics" are simply catholics by birth or by name, and do not actually live by what they preach, so to call themsevles Catholics is not a correct description. 114995[/snapback] Sorry but please share your beliefs with us,...tell us what a wondeful christian you are on a daily basis. I was raised to believe that my beliefs are something that you do not speak out about in public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 My point wasn't so much that sooo many people believed those things. It was more so that just because some people believed it to be ok, it didn't make it ok. All I am saying is, you are going to need to come up with a better argument than "half the country thinks it's ok" to tell me that homosexuality is less wrong than incest. 115041[/snapback] IU'm sorry you opinion has to be right.........our opinions could not hold any water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Actually, campy - there was nothing in your article that provided what Michfan asked for. It was an impossible request to fulfill, gmac. Libs are always surprised when Bush isn't as extreme as their talking points tell them. Once they have to fend for themselves, it all falls apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts