Jump to content

One of THOSE topics

Recommended Posts

2- They believe that the wafer during communion miraculously turns into the body of Christ. Then they eat it. CANNIBALS!


Lol. Yah, I've used that line, too. That's OK, they come back with some good ones about me. My favorite is "do yeh know why Protestants like you put weathvanes on top of your churches instead of crosses? It's because yeh blow around with the prevailing wind on everything." :)


I think yeh got 'em wrong on communion though. I think that sinners are encouraged to take communion. Only da folks in mortal sin, who have deliberately and consciously reject da law of God in a grave matter and who are unrepentant are in theory not supposed to participate. Frankly, I don't think an unrepentant mass murderer should partake either. ;)



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was honest with my not being sure of it and asked. Sorry for asking. After all anyone charging $10 per aspirin does not seem very non-profit to me.


I see it things differently Beavah, if religion wants to do away with the state getting involved in marriage then they should. But a church only has a right to say that God Blesses the union.. Period.. They do not have a right to say the state and Federal governments will give you benifits for this marriage. So to end the partnership of church & state in marriage. The marriage is only about Gods blessing.


Now anyone who wishes for a contract to state they are in a union that ties them to each other for employee benefits, Tax exemptions, and all the other goodies the state & Fed government give over a union of two people.. Will have to go down to the state house and file for it.


So everyone can from now on choose to have a church wedding (religions who accept same-sex marraiges afficiating over those marriages. (A catholic Church has no rights to tell a Unitarian Church what to do.) But no one gets state, federal benifits from a religious marriage.


So everyone can go to the State for a seprate contract joining them for the the union benefits. (Let them figure out if it is just between two people, or can be a group thing, or an animal human thing.)


You can choose to do one or both of these types of unions. Some people may choose to just do the State binding thing. Some maybe only the God Blessing thing.


Everyone is treated the same, heter-sexual and homo-sexual marriages and unions.. (Just for the marriages the homosexuals will have limited religions where they can have their ceremony.)(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, hmmm...


I don't understand why a gay couple would want to participate in marriage, which is a ritual union embedded in the bible and a religious tradition that considers homosexuality a sin against the natural law. Doesn't that strike yeh as odd?


Rather than try to change the 4000 year old definition of marriage and use the state to undermine or suppress all the religions and tens of millions of people that hold to that traditional definition, why not come up with your own ceremonies and traditions? Ones that are based on the values and symbols and traditions of the gay and lesbian community, not expropriated from the Christian community?


That to me would be Gay Pride. Do your own thing, don't mimic Christian religious ritual which has a fundamentally different meaning.


Then, if yeh want, go to the state and make an argument for state recognition and subsidy, based on evidence that such a recognition and subsidy serves a legitimate secular purpose which merits that level of support.


Be Kwanzaa, eh? Instead of tryin' to turn Christmas into somethin' that it isn't.


It's a bit like atheism and scouting. If yeh can't deal with "Duty to God", then just go off and start "Outdoor Adventures for All" and establish your own uniform and traditions. Don't try to use the state to suppress the BSA. Don't try to convince donors to defund it. Don't try to trade off the reputation they built over a century. Instead, invite people to recognize, join in and contribute to the good work you're doing.


If yeh are doin' good work, people will see it and join in, and recognition will come. Folks should build for themselves, not try to expropriate from others.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah - the problem with your recommendation is that our law is full of various legal definitions wrapped around the word marriage. This includes inheritance, forced testimony, hospital visitation rights, taxation, etc. The simplest path would be massive "cut and replace" function where "Marriage" in the civil code is replaced by "Civil Union" or some other such term.


If this was just a religious definition, we would not have the same problem. Instead, the State has taken a religious term and enshrined it into law in so many places that untangling it is near impossible. This is a large part of why gay marriage has been pushed. To bring this back to the hospital issue, there was a problem with visitation rights for gay patients. In a few cases, end-of-life decisions could not be made by someone's partner - instead the hospital was calling estranged parents instead of the people who actually lived with an loved them.




Now, could patient visits be handled by a contract? Sometimes. It depends on the hospital and the quality of your attorneys.


So, as long as the State is going to use Marriage as a legal construct with significant legal benefits, we will see the movement towards gay marriage, no-fault divorce, etc. The best path for the religious among us (and I am one of them) is take them term marriage into our church and get the State to change THEIR terminology and get off of our turf.



Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Beavah - the problem with your recommendation is that our law is full of various legal definitions wrapped around the word marriage. This includes inheritance, forced testimony, hospital visitation rights, taxation, etc. The simplest path would be massive "cut and replace" function where "Marriage" in the civil code is replaced by "Civil Union" or some other such term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eagledad - you miss the fact that Federal taxation does not recognize gay marriage, so the tax benefits of a spouse are not there. Social Security benefits do not apply either. Even if a state creates a recognition of a gay union, it will not translate to other states nor will it translate into the legal benefits that come from legal marriage.


Now, I do not know what sources you have in regards to what the proponents of gay marriage want, but they do not match up my experience with various gay couples. None of them are out to destroy the moral foundations - they just want to raise their children and get the same legal benefits that other parenting couples have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, one gay man does not speak for every gay man.


I know people who are animal activists. They love animals and put them on equal ground as humans. To an extent.


Then you have those who would watch twenty people die in order that one animal be freed ( say if a building was on fire).


Some animal activists would blow up buildinga and murder innocent peole to promote their cause...but that does not mean every animal activists fels that way.


Shoot, just look in this formun. Kudu specifically and his feelings about Wood Badge.


If you take his viewpoint, BSA is in the middle of illegally and maliciously trying to destroy Boy Scouts of America .


So does that mean we are all trying to destroy BSA and are all participating in an illegal activity if we do not side with kudu's veiwpoint?


That gay guy may very well been trying to further his cause and BSA probably was his stepping stone. I have no reason to not believe you in what you say.


But I also know a handfull of gays and lesbians...Other than a few obvious differences, they are just like us: A place to call home, a place to spend quality time with loved one, a decent paying job, able to eat decent meals, have fun, retire, etc...


They are not all members of a "lets ruin America and slander God , and insult others." club.


And truth be told, All I ever see the gays ask for is to be treated equally,and just like everybody else.


It's the other side who demads that all of society should bend to their own interests.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I am borrowing Joe's quotes, I am not directing this post at any one person.


"I thought 'pro-choice' meant people having a choice. Now it seems that the tolerant left has defined 'pro-choice' to mean 'doing it our way', or else! "We choose that your Cathollic doctors will perform abortions!"


Funny, isn't the Catholic hospital doing the exact same thing? They are taking the choice away by refusing to do it. They are demanding others to follow their own beliefs.


The choice belongs to the individual, not to the Doctor unless based on medical reasons. The doctor is supposed to respect the choice of the patient.



Of course like Moose said, dentists and podiatrists and proctologists are not ssked or made to do these procedures.


You mentioned: " Whatever happened to the cherished separation of church and state?"


Well, those lines were blurred when religion asked the state for monetary support.


It's a two way street. One goes with the other. You can't have seperation when you ask for non religious funding to suppport and promote a religious program.

If you want it seperate, you have to keep it completely seperate.




And just to let everybody know...my stance on abortion is this: As of right now, I do not believe in it , nor do I ever expect to support it.


But who knows, maybe if my wife got pregnant and the baby was so severely deformed that the chance of life would be nil AND continuing with the pregnacy would also endanger or kill my wife...I would think I'd be for it then.


But I can honestly say I do not know how I'd feel until it happens since I never have been in that position.


But even though those are my beliefs, I do not expect others with other beliefs to have to follow mine.


I believe in the right to make our own choices for ourselves and not to force our choices on others or have others choices forced on me.


Another example is birth control. If you have a problem with using it, dont! But do not get a job as a pharmacist, then prevent others from having based on your own beliefs ( which is denying them the rigfht to their beliefs) then cry about your own beliefs being violated when you have to fill the prescription. I mean, WOW! YOu just traded places with the other person ruight?


You have no issues denying them their beliefs, but then cry about your own when having to respect theirs.


Then their ios another side to it. My wife is on the pill. We do not use it for birth control. She uses it to maintain what is a hormonal imbalance. She will not have her monthly visitor if she isn't on the pill. Atr least not on a regular basis. She might have a visit 4 times a month or once every 6 months or any strange combination of...except when she is on the pill.


Pain, cramping, headaches, stomach aches, nausea ware all common for her until she got on the pill.


So for that reason, I do not need anybody to look down their judgmental nose at my wife and try to deny her something based on beliefs that have nothing to do with why my wife had the prescription in the first place. On top of that, my wife does not owe any pharmacist any explanation or justification as to why her prescription should be filled.


If this is a problem with the pharmacist, they should quit and get a job at McDonalds serving up instant heart attacks and artery clogging fast food. Maybe a side of diabeaties.


What? Sloth and gluttony aren't as important sins to take a stand on?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, he still didn't speak for every gay man. He did speak for those that were a part of his group though.


Just like the KKK doesn't speak for every white person, nor does Kudu speak for every scouter...this man does not speak for every gay person.


I have enough gay friends to know so. But even if it was only one gay frind, it still says that they are not all anti religious.


Matter of fact, they do not care what you do in your houise or what you want to do with your lives, They are not concerned with nor cussumed by what you do. But they only wish the same indifference towards them. They do not want or need you or me to criticisem, judge or examine everything or anything they do. The want the same privacy, the same rights and the same ability to live their lives they way the want, just like we want to live ours our way.


Now I do agree completely with you about not respcting that man. His mission is more about vengance on others instead of bliss for himself.


I do not respect that in anybody.


And even though I do support equal rights, I also do not support the in your face "you have to accept and promote my life" tactics by gays either.


If you do not accept that lifestyle...I support that . I do not accept Islam or Bhuddism as my lifestyle.. hut I do not deny it for oters either.


To each his own. If we all just gave each other the same respect and coutesy we want ourselves...this wouldn'ty be an issue.




Point is, I can respect your felings and your right to have them even though I do not agree with them.,I only ask the ame in return: You do not have to agree to them or like them for yourself...just

recognize amd respect my right to have them.


It doesn't have to be any more complicated to me liking Pepsi versus you liking Coke. :)


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eagledad - I agree with Scoutfish, but take it one step further. He is probably not speaking for everyone in his group either, just everyone in his inner circle.. This is what they used to push a unified mission in order to gather and control the group with.


Beavah - I do think you are in a rut of trying to angle to keep things your way.. The kicking the state out of the marriage thing and just making it set by the churches didn't work out well when you have to admit they state regulations are the only thing keeping some churches from preforming the marriages, and that the legal benefits are awarded by the state/fed, and you would have to give up those being tied to a marriage ceremony all together if the state isn't involved with marriage. Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too so you can't kick out the state and expect to keep the right of passing out state regulated benefits.


So since that didn't work you are back to telling the gays they have to do whatever else they want to make up, but just not marriage.. Then it will be back to suggesting they create something united them to a man or a goat or a doorknob.. Then suggest that there union should have no legal benefits because it isn't worth the paper it is written on.


Thing is, they want a marriage, with all the benefits and as far as they are concerned they really could care less if the thought of it ties you knickers up in tiny little tight knots..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...