it's somewhat reduandant to say that catholic dogma is completely archaic and with little care or relevence to today. please. they still refuse to acknowlage condoms, while millions of people are dying of AIDS. clever folk, those catholics. but it doesnt stop there. fundamentalists (not to be confused with conservatives here) are plain and simple morons. an the fact is, i really don't care about what your personal beliefs are. tons of peple are closet racists, you can be a closet homophobe too, godspeed to you. but you DON'T force your beliefs on everyone else. i'm aware we have a little thing in our country called seperation between church and state, which our "god fearin'" cowboy president would just love to trample all over. thankfully, we have rules to prevent that. i'm not all for the "conservative vs. liberal" debate, buh i can't appriciate or understand the viewpoint of anyone who can pointblankly refuse to allow a community of people their basic human rights, simply because THEY don't like how they live. end rant.
ahh! i love this post and i agree wholeheartedly. i think it's ridiculous that senor bush is trying to push his belief and religious forum onto the rest of country. and the vatican can go die and go to hell for idol worship cuz that's all catholicism is anyway. and there should definitely be more adopting and less birthing. in fact homosexuals should be heralded as heroes because they are doing their part to conserve what limited space we have. if everyone was gay maybe we wouldn't be blowing eachother up for natural resources. hmm there's an idea. <3 tina
First, your making it seem like the vatican and president bush are in cahoots, which is the furthest thing from the truth. The vatican on several occassions has made public statements disagreeing with Bush's decisions. Remember the whole war thing? It wasnt that long ago. Another thing, hes not even catholic. I think the idea everyone seems to be missing here is that the sole purpose of marriage, in any country is to build a family. Im sorry but a family does not consist of 2 "soul-mates". If someone is that concerned with having the marriage label, they're better off getting matching tattoos, because thats the extent of its worth nowadays. Yes the vatican government sometimes is viewed as the most rightous, but being that most people dont have a clue how its operated, its easy to call them wrong. Trying to keep morals and value in the world is not wrong, nor should it be condemned. Guidelines people, not rules, or commandments. Yes, religion is manmade, yes every religion has its faults, yes you do too. I would call your rants and
( ... )
Re: calm downfallenxskiesJuly 31 2003, 11:38:00 UTC
i give you the point that yes, obviously there's little connection between the vatican's recent rulings and bush's campaign. and while karen has her issues with catholicism (heehee), you can't blame the religion for having a dogma.
but legally speaking, homosexuals DO deserve the right to the benefits that a legal union has to offer. social security benefits, will rights, etc...it's a lot more than just "making a family", it's the ability to be able to be together. taking out the moral component (since america has seperation between church and state)...why NOT allow them to have civil unions to be able to enjoy mutual benefits of a long term, monogamous relationship? don't call it marriage, then, and churchs can do what they please - within the boundries of THEIR church. one dogmatic rule can't blanket the entire country.
Trying to keep morals and value in the world is not wrong, nor should it be condemned. Guidelines people, not rules, or commandments.
Absolutely agreed, if they're only dealing with their own people. The Vatican can dictate that Catholics can only wear purple from now on, and its their right, just as it's an individual Catholic's right to leave the religion if they don't like how it works. But the Vatican is not stopping with its own people, rather it is openly organizing to try to put THEIR beliefs into laws that people of all religions (and none) would be required to follow. That is absolutely wrong.
And re marriage, the government doesn't restrict marriage among heterosexuals based on their ability to have kids, so it's unfair to use procreative potential as a reason to deny marriage to gay people. The government has good reason to promote families, but that doesn't require children in my mind--a loving couple is a family, and there is good reason to encourage that union, regardless of whether it brings about children.
Comments 24
Reply
It makes me mad.
Reply
<3 tina
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(On the condition that the dildo isn't bigger than my dick. Fair is fair, after all)
Reply
Reply
but legally speaking, homosexuals DO deserve the right to the benefits that a legal union has to offer. social security benefits, will rights, etc...it's a lot more than just "making a family", it's the ability to be able to be together. taking out the moral component (since america has seperation between church and state)...why NOT allow them to have civil unions to be able to enjoy mutual benefits of a long term, monogamous relationship? don't call it marriage, then, and churchs can do what they please - within the boundries of THEIR church. one dogmatic rule can't blanket the entire country.
Reply
Absolutely agreed, if they're only dealing with their own people. The Vatican can dictate that Catholics can only wear purple from now on, and its their right, just as it's an individual Catholic's right to leave the religion if they don't like how it works. But the Vatican is not stopping with its own people, rather it is openly organizing to try to put THEIR beliefs into laws that people of all religions (and none) would be required to follow. That is absolutely wrong.
And re marriage, the government doesn't restrict marriage among heterosexuals based on their ability to have kids, so it's unfair to use procreative potential as a reason to deny marriage to gay people. The government has good reason to promote families, but that doesn't require children in my mind--a loving couple is a family, and there is good reason to encourage that union, regardless of whether it brings about children.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment