Open letter to Bush on Church and State

[MichFan]

Exactly my point. While noone is asking for marriage to be more than a commitment between two people, we shouldn't impose limits on people of any one group, be they black, Hispanic, or gay.

So do you think family members should be able to marry? What are your grounds for limiting marriage to two people? There are plenty of people who believe in polygamy, why discriminate against them? Why would a man taking two wives be any more offensive or wrong than a man marrying another man?

[Arondale]

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:… “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:1-2, 9)

 

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:5, 34)

 

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

 

Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)

So, if I interpret Jesus’ words correctly: He is not here for peace but wants others to be peaceful, we are to buy swords but not draw them. Do you see any contradictions? If we were to follow His words then we are to be peaceful, but His words specifically state that he is not here for peace.

112653[/snapback]

 

So again, just pull whatever you want out of scripture, without any reference to the context of each verse and get all excited because you have proven that Jesus contradicted himself. According to your method, since we have a law stating it is illegal to murder, but we allow people to kill others in self defense or we allow police to kill when necessary, then we are contradicting ourselves. You can't just pull what you want from any source, put it out there without any reference to context and declare it to be factual and completely accurate. It just doesn't work, despite your efforts to do so.

 

Just so others get the clear picture, I'll give the entire context of the verses you mentioned.

 

Matthew 10: 32-38

You pull out only verse 34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword". If you read the entire context of this verse, from verse 32 through verse 38 you will see that the word sword is not even in reference to the physical nature of the sword. It is an analogy to conflict. Jesus states that he will bring "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies will be the members of his own household". Jesus is speaking of the conflict that will arise for those that trust in Him and have faith in Him. Those that follow Jesus will forsake worldly ways and this may cause conflict with friends and family. This is evident now throughout the country, even on this board - faith can divide people.

 

Luke 22: 35-37

You pull out only verse 36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”. In the full context, verse 35-37 you will see that this is just before Jesus was taken custody prior to his crucifixion. In verse 35 Jesus states that before this time, they did not need a purse, bag or sword to follow him and proclaim the gospel - Jesus provided for all of their needs. Now, with the crucifixion immanent, he is simply stating that things are changing. His disciples would not have his leadership, and they would be faced with danger much more often. He is simply telling them to be prepared.

 

Matthew 26: 51-54

You pull out only verse 52: "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”. Again, the context of this verse that you left out reaches from verse 51 to 54. This is again in reference to Jesus' arrest prior to the crucifixion. One of his disciples pulls out his sword and cuts off the ear of one of the high priests there to arrest Jesus; he does so in anger and against the will of Jesus. You have to understand a broader context of this verse. First, Jesus preached that we must obey government and authority. Second, Jesus had foretold of his crucifixion for a long time but his disciples did not understand that it was necessary and part of God's plan. So this disciple not only acted out of anger, but also against the authority of the government. He also acted without regard for the fact that it was necessary for Jesus to be arrested and Jesus was not resisting. For those that draw the sword in anger, against the law, then yes they will die by the sword.

[ASCI]

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:… “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:1-2, 9)

 

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:5, 34)

 

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

 

Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)

So, if I interpret Jesus’ words correctly: He is not here for peace but wants others to be peaceful, we are to buy swords but not draw them. Do you see any contradictions? If we were to follow His words then we are to be peaceful, but His words specifically state that he is not here for peace.

112653[/snapback]

 

 

If you put forth half the effort trying to live like JC as you do taking him out of context you would be a better person for it. Jesus was immediately to bring spiritual peace, to make accessible peace between God and man. Jesus, in His first coming, was not to bring world peace between men. The "sword" is analogous to "Gods word"

 

Indeed, it is sadly ironic, that the Gospel, which is Good News for absolutely everyone, does not bring peace, but brings a "sword". "When Christianity divides families and produces wars, this is not the fault of Christianity, but of human nature" [broadus, 234]. The "sword" is a result of people rejecting God’s Good News, and turning upon the bearers of His Good News. "Truth provokes opposition, purity excites enmity, and righteousness arouses all the forces of wrong" [spurgeon, 129]. The cause of the strife is not the Gospel itself, but the rejection of the Gospel. Men reject the truth of the Gospel because they desire to continue in their ways of sin. As Jesus summarized elsewhere: "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).

[VabeachBledsoefan]

If you put forth half the effort trying to live like JC as you do taking him out of context you would be a better person for it.  Jesus was immediately to bring spiritual peace, to make accessible peace between God and man. Jesus, in His first coming, was not to bring world peace between men.  The "sword" is analogous to "Gods word"

 

Indeed, it is sadly ironic, that the Gospel, which is Good News for absolutely everyone, does not bring peace, but brings a "sword". "When Christianity divides families and produces wars, this is not the fault of Christianity, but of human nature" [broadus, 234]. The "sword" is a result of people rejecting God’s Good News, and turning upon the bearers of His Good News. "Truth provokes opposition, purity excites enmity, and righteousness arouses all the forces of wrong" [spurgeon, 129]. The cause of the strife is not the Gospel itself, but the rejection of the Gospel. Men reject the truth of the Gospel because they desire to continue in their ways of sin. As Jesus summarized elsewhere: "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).

112744[/snapback]

My, my, my....us bad Catholics cannot qoute scripture like that....well i guess we have our balls burn for ever in hell. No way we get into the Kingdom of God

[KRC]

If you put forth half the effort trying to live like JC as you do taking him out of context you would be a better person for it.

112744[/snapback]

 

I brought forth questions with what I thought were contradictions. It is nice to see the complete and utter arrogance in Newbie and Arondale in trying to help someone understand these words.

 

Next time, I will remember: I need to live like Arondale and Newbie, or my life is a waste. If I have questions on scritpure, Newbie and Arondale are the LAST people I want to ask. Got it.

[ASCI]

My, my, my....us bad Catholics cannot qoute scripture like that....well i guess we have our balls burn for ever in hell.  No way we get into the Kingdom of God

112756[/snapback]

 

You don't have to know any religious scripture to be a Christian. All you have to do is believe that JC died for your sins.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

You don't have to know any religious scripture to be a Christian.  All you have to do is believe that JC died for your sins.

112791[/snapback]

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

[ASCI]

I brought forth questions with what I thought were contradictions. It is nice to see the complete and utter arrogance in Newbie and Arondale in trying to help someone understand these words.

 

Next time, I will remember: I need to live like Arondale and Newbie, or my life is a waste. If I have questions on scritpure, Newbie and Arondale are the LAST people I want to ask. Got it.

112771[/snapback]

 

I'll sorry if I came across condescending and arrogant. Your right it does not help your understanding.

[OnTheRocks]

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]

 

 

wrong...

you havn't been put down for being a liberal Catholic.

you have been put down for being a liberal.

[OnTheRocks]

wrong...

you havn't been put down for being a liberal Catholic.

you have been put down for being a liberal.

112803[/snapback]

 

 

and i would actually say,....you havn't been put down....but you have been "confronted" or "debated".

[VabeachBledsoefan]

wrong...

you havn't been put down for being a liberal Catholic.

you have been put down for being a liberal.

112803[/snapback]

well you have not read every post addressed to me.....i can handle my liberal politics being questioned..i cannot stand a born again Christian telling me where i'm going after death and making the decision on what type of Christian i am

[Adam]

Could one of you libs please provide just one link to an article in which Bush is cited opposing gay marriage on the basis of scripture?  Heck, I'll even take a link where Bush uses the words bible and gay marriage in the same paragraph.  Thanks.

112245[/snapback]

 

do word scrambles count?

[Arondale]

I brought forth questions with what I thought were contradictions. It is nice to see the complete and utter arrogance in Newbie and Arondale in trying to help someone understand these words.

 

Next time, I will remember: I need to live like Arondale and Newbie, or my life is a waste. If I have questions on scritpure, Newbie and Arondale are the LAST people I want to ask. Got it.

112771[/snapback]

 

 

I mistook you as the person who posted the initial scripture, that is why I was annoyed that you did not look at the context. The initial post did the same thing and I simply made the mistake of thinking you were the same person. I apologize for offending you and not correctly identifying you.

 

Regardless, I made no comments as to how you should live your life nor did I indicate in any way that my life is of more value than yours. I simply want people to look at the context as they do with any other source. Please accept my apologies, I do not want to discourage you from questioning and examining scripture.

[buckeyemike]

OK. Time to interject my two cents in here.

 

I am a devout Christian. I don't have a darn thing against homosexuals. I know gay people who are decent human beings. And there are some that are, simply, loudmouth arrogant jerks. Now, I believe the act is a sin, but it's not a bigger sin than, say, adultery is. Or lying. Sin is sin. No degrees are present.

 

Personally, I believe that marriage should be reserved between a man and a woman. That is my conviction, and you can argue with me all you want. I will respect your views as long as you respect mine.

 

The Bible is pretty clear on the issue of homosexual acts in both the Old and the New Testaments. The Bible is also clear on the issues of adultery, sexual immorality, lying, murder, theft, and jealousy, among others. We have all sinned and come short of God's glory, according to Romans 3:23.

 

I agree with what Dennis Miller said years ago about refusing to treat gay people like they are society's special little Faberge egg. No one has all the rights they desire. We all have the "basic" rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, along with the Bill of Rights, guaranteed to all of us, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

 

Those who clamor for "special rights" because of who or what they are, are the ones looking to be treated differently than the rest of us, perhaps as a way of "getting back" at the rest of society after years of discrimination.

 

I think a bigger issue might be the potential of gay divorce. Some are already occurring, especially in Canada. Will ultimately 50% of gay couples get divorced (if they can marry), just like hetero couples? Gay couples, I don't believe, are any more loving than hetero couples. I know only one long-term gay couple, and they keep their relationship pretty well under wraps.

 

It's an interesting question. No one has all the right answers, because we're human. I turn to the Bible for guidance and comfort.

 

Mike

[aussiew]

It may or may not be a sin, but it is not man's place to stand in judgment of another in such matters. Live and let live. When it's all said and done God will make His final judgment, whatever that may be.

 

Thanks Campy. Similar words came from my parents. It's our responsibility to love others, accept them and set an example. It's not our place to judge any one, any time. That's God's job.

[ofiba]

No one is answering the question of where we draw the line. If we extend the definition of marriage to be between two men as well, do we not have to extend it to EVERYONE? This includes, polygamy and incest. You can't say being homosexual is a choice that we must accept and allow them to wed, without also excepting every other choice as well. If you allow JUST homosexuals to get married and no other minority groups, then you are still "discriminating" so you haven't solved anything. There are plenty of sicko's out there that think a lot of things are ok do to, but we can't allow every single on of them to get married, so what makes homosexuality so different?

[OnTheRocks]

Thanks Campy.  Similar words came from my parents. It's our responsibility to love others, accept them and set an example. It's not our place to judge any one, any time.  That's God's job.

113027[/snapback]

 

 

please don't take this as an attack or a judgement...and this is not directed at Aussie either...i am just using her post in general.

 

But there is a lot of people posting stating their beliefs about whether one person should judge another. And a lot of people are using scripture to make their point....

 

what is your interpretation of this verse:

 

Jesus said:

 

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

[SJ Bills backer]

1)  So I guess we should consider the Constitution and the foundation of this country dangerous since they were tied closely "to moral values of particular religion of choice".  I'm not going to debate whether this country was founded with 100% all Christian values, but you can't deny that the foundation of this country was based on or tied to morals of Christianity.

 

2)  It is the most ridiculous argument when people try to pull things from the Bible, or any book for that matter, without any understanding of their context, their place in the entirety of the book, etc.  You did not pull anything from the New Testament, which clearly indicates you have no understanding of the Bible.  If you are going to quote scripture at least try to have an understanding of scripture in its entirety, not little passages here and there that you think prove your point.  That would be like watching one half of a football game, or reading one half of a book and stating that you know everything else that happens in the rest of the game or book.  To give a Bills' example, under that scenario, after the first half of the Houston playoff game you would have determined the Bills got demolished by Houston.  Even the next day, with the newspaper reports and tv highlights right there for you to see, you would have stated that you watched them get killed in the first half so you know they actually lost.  You wouldn't have watched the Super Bowl since you knew the Bills got killed after the first half of the Houston game.  Even now, you would deny the Bills played in the Super Bowl that year and point to the first half of the Houston game as proof.  I know it sounds like a stupid analogy, but that is exactly what you are doing with this post.

112546[/snapback]

 

Arondale - I'm not sure where to start on this. I grant you the 2 pts you stated above but can most certainly point out the problem with interpreting the Bible literally. In this same thread, more than one poster has stated that they DO take the Bible literally, and this sort of behavior scares me. The Bible is NOT necessarily the Word of God, when its been recorded by humans, and translated from its oroginal language, it certainly loses lots in the translation. Plus, its about 2000 years old, and while it does provide good teachings, it is more than a little dated.

[Arondale]

Arondale - I'm not sure where to start on this.  I grant you the 2 pts you stated above but can most certainly point out the problem with interpreting the Bible literally.  In this same thread, more than one poster has stated that they DO take the Bible literally, and this sort of behavior scares me. The Bible is NOT necessarily the Word of God, when its been recorded by humans, and translated from its oroginal language, it certainly loses lots in the translation.  Plus, its about 2000 years old, and while it does provide good teachings, it is more than a little dated.

113658[/snapback]

I don't know what background you are coming from and how familiar you are with the Bible, so it is difficult to answer this. I'm not going to get in depth, but I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God, without exception.

 

Let me just make one point here. I do not consider it to be dangerous to interpret the Bible literally. The problem is how you define "literally". If you think the original post is a literal translation of the Bible, then yes that is dangerous. But in fact, that is not a literal translation. A literal translation is not just taking scripture verses and following the exact words. Again, you have to take the Bible in its entire context. A literal translation of the Bible would not result in the conclusions your initial post made. Show me a true literal interpretation of the Bible that you consider to be dangerous, which means finding a verse and correctly understanding its context, then we can better discuss your problems with the Bible.

[gmac17]

QUOTE(MichFan @ Nov 10 2004, 08:35 PM)

Could one of you libs please provide just one link to an article in which Bush is cited opposing gay marriage on the basis of scripture?  Heck, I'll even take a link where Bush uses the words bible and gay marriage in the same paragraph.  Thanks. 

 

 

Actually, campy - there was nothing in your article that provided what Michfan asked for.

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

[JoeFerguson]

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'?

[OnTheRocks]

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??

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

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

[JoeFerguson]

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?

[VabeachBledsoefan]

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???

[JoeFerguson]

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.

[ofiba]

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??

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

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

[JoeFerguson]

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.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

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

[ofiba]

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.

[ofiba]

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.

[Campy]

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.

[ofiba]

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.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

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

[VabeachBledsoefan]

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

[MichFan]

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.