http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/the_vaticans_grotesque_approach_to_homosexuality
This is just interesting and there really isn't much to argue about. It is bad, it's wrong and yeah, Gays shouldn't be punished for being gay.
Side comment though, a man decided to try to go around and not acknowledge marriage at all. Seems to have been mildly amusing for him what with the responses he got when he said "girlfriend" or "lifelong partner" instead of wife.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/sexandgender/755/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
It sickens me to think that people are just so discriminating against gays. Really they are just as human as everyone else and their sexual life does not concern anyone. A gay marriage does not affect the next person you still live your daily life. I just dont understand why people continue to make such a hype over it. The only good hype is that people are continuing to fight for gay rights.
I think that the second article is why gays don't want civil unions. Yes, they might get the same rights as married couple, but do they get the same amount of respect? Umm...No. The people in his experiment felt insulted, and they acknowledged that there was a difference between a girlfriend, special friend, or companion and a wife. They obviously don't mean the same thing, and gays were denied the right to call their companions husbands or wives. Their relationships are given less respect and meaning.
It doesn't really surprise me that the Vatican is against gay marriage...It's the Vatican. They are pretty much against everything. Contraception, abortion, gay marriage....
Is it me or does no one ever look at it from the church's and the greater good point of view? Now, I do support gay marriage, but is it truly right for us to look down upon those who frown upon gay marriage? What if the cohorts of the cloth are right and on judgement day, brimstone and fire will rain on the us who supported such crimes against "God".
Now, lets take it from a more everyday Joe point of view. In studies, it is shown that gays are much more exposed to HIV (http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm), so is letting them legally be together going to help AIDS spread? Is letting them run rampant going to create a AIDS sanctuary?
So think about it, ARE YOU RIGHT????????
George Chang does not endorse anti gay groups or is anti gay, his comments are just provided as extra food for thought. So please don't say that I am being a "bigot".
OMG people could be getting HIV!!!!!!
We need a government ban on sex to prevent the spread of this terrible disease.
Wow, i never knew that George but what about places like Africa? I mean the US is not neccessarily a great representation of the world as a whole and in Africa, there is still the belief in some places that having sex with a virgin will cure the disease. Combined with all the (straight) raping, the numbers could be much different. By the way, letting them be together probably would be better since you are pairing them up under law so they probably would be less likely to spread their terminal illness to others. Just something i forget in my last post. The real problem with the spreading of HIV is that it passes down to the next generation either through pregnancy or sexual contact.
Therefore, regardless of all the normal gays there are, they ultimately will die out and not pass the disease on. Really, the only long-term danger for homosexuals is if they are rapists or pedophiles (funny given the churches recent reputation)
Although I am Catholic, I am seriously disturbed by the Pope's decision to go against the measure. I understand that gay marriage is frowned upon in the church, and the Pope shouldn't have to change the church's views on homosexuality, but he shouldn't be disagreeing with a treaty that prevents jail time and death to homosexuals. Homosexuality is not a reason for punishment, and the Pope is sending out a horrible message. He is giving religion a bad name. It is one thing to feel against gay marriage, but it is another to make efforts to punish gays for their beliefs and feelings. The measure is there to protect gays, and by going against it, the Pope is taking his distaste for homosexuality to an uncalled for level.
It's just ridiculous that in some parts of the world, gays are being imprisoned or even executed. If homosexuality is supposedly considered a sin, then what is killing? Especially in today's society, these punishments are a little extreme. It doesn't make sense that gays should be viewed as criminals right along side murderers and sexual offenders.
I think in order to make accusations about these "disturbing" leaders, we must first understand their arguments. The problem here is the denial of the fact that homosexuals even exist. These countries are really frustrated because they think that these "gay" people are simply possessed by something and are able to rid themselves of this "affliction." I don't think the reasons for these laws are because they hate all gay people, it is because they are frustrated at the fact that these people won't be able to go to heaven because they claim to be something unholy. These countries want to put these gay people to fix them and make them what they would consider to be productive members of society, similar to a criminal put in jail so that he/she will become productive.
Now, that said, I definitely don't support this law or am any less disgusted with it that anyone else, I just think that some are thinking about these sad proposals the wrong way. The countries aren't led by bad people, they just have different views on what gay people are.
Well, what are you going to do, its the Vatican, ITS THE MOST CATHOLIC FILLED COUNTRY (yes the vatican is a sperate country from Italy) IN THE WORLD. It is disgusting to think that they have to deal with homosexuality in that way but when you think about it, hardcore catholics belive that all homosexuals are going straight to hell. So yes its sad and ridiculous but what do you expect?
i dont think that gay people should have the right to marry if the catholic community wont endorse it. marraige is a religious institution and stems from the bible.
that being said, i dont think any non-religous poeple have the right to get married either. the gov't should issue civil unions to everybody. there should be no such thing as a "government endorsed marraige" just civil unions. if you want to get married, go talk to your priest. oh wait, a majority of the country isnt religious enough to want to go to their church (if they have one) and ask for a "marriage" endorsed by the pope. if you care that much about the religious idea of marraige be my guest, but people should all get civil unionized.
that way most heterosexual people arnt married either and get treated the same as homosexuals and it still appeases the right winged christians.
anyway, i think the vatican is disturbing, but i think most hard-core religious people are too. its their country and i disagree with what they are doing, but thats why i dont live there. let them handle their own stuff
Rachel no matter what you say its never going to happen. Aaron is right .
"i dont think that gay people should have the right to marry if the catholic community wont endorse it. marraige is a religious institution and stems from the bible."
Well, bagels were invented by the Jews, so I don't think that Christians should be able to eat them.
Just because some other person or institution came up with the idea of marriage doesn't mean that other people can't take away from its benefits. Just being "married," rather than being joined in a civil union, has emotional and mental benefits. Marriage isn't a Catholic institution, but rather has evolved from that and become to mean something secular. It is simply an emotionally bonding experience, contrary to the stone-cold "civil union."
Let them eat bagels.
Wooooooow, thanks Nick.
Aaron, stop being afraid of my amazing insight and respond!
a rose would be a rose by any other name rachel. bagels were made by the jews and now everyone makes their own version of the bagel. so if gay people or non-religious people were to make their own idea of marriage, then christians couldnt complain. marriage is a Religious institution, and a bagel isnt. you cant compare apples and oranges
plus the government should have no say in how strongly marriage is associated with comfort, it is not here to make the people feel better. the government is here to issue laws
Well, as the Jew, I'm an expert on the bagel. Bagels are a piece of dough with a hole in it that are boiled then baked. So there is really only one kind of bagel, even with different flavors. Anything other that that isn't a bagel, but just a piece of bread with a hole.
But the real arguement is that marriage has evolved from a religious institution to simply an emotionally-bonding one. When i hear the word "marriage," I think of two happy people promising to the spending the rest of their lives with one another, not a priest or minister or any other Christian religious leader. And ithink that most people agree with me. Just like Webster's dictionary now includes the words "muggle" and "funner" because they has become well-used and have accepted meanings even if they weren't a part of the original english language. Marriage is now 2 people getting together, not some overly religious deal. Gay people have the right to be married, not just get a civil union.
I agree with Aaron to an extent, I think that if marraige is delegated to the church, and not to the state, that all people will be able to get Civil unions. and if they so choose seek marraige at a religous institutuion.
To Aaron
"marraige is a religious institution and stems from the bible"
Christians did not invent marriage, people married before because of other religions or because of their overall culture.
"Systemization of apparently pre-existing elements of traditional Chinese wedding ceremony is generally credited to scholars of the Warring States period , 402-221 B.C.Three venerable texts, The Book of Rites, The Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial, and the Baihu Tong outline the Three Covenants and the Six Rites, that were considered necessary elements of a marriage. However, the full ritual was so complicated that even within the span of the Warring States period, the etiquette underwent changes and simplification"
http://www.chcp.org/wedding.html
The Egyptians, the Chinese, Hebrews and a whole bunch of people were marrying way before Jesus came along and will continue to do so without the church having to smile down on them and calling it a christian instituition is completly false and thus, the christians have no right to say who can marry if they are not christian.
Personally I love to read articles that have disgusting religious tripe about how the church hates gay marrige and makes it seem liek the ultimate sin. however, if we go back into the bible (you know that book all the christians quote from) we are able to find that Jesus (that guy everyone is always praising) was actually more against divorce than gay marrige. however it is curious that many more couples get divorced than married to someone of the same sex. so, jsut a little challenge to the gospel fiends out there, what exactly should we be monitoring more closely? What would jesus do?
jesse:
it doesnt matter that there were "marriage" like ceremonies in the other traditions. the fact is, the right wing christians dont care and think marriage is straight out of the bible, which it is. literally, the word marriage is spelled out as an institution between a man and a women in black and white in the bible. marriage is a religious institution and have been unfairly absorbed into our government. all i am calling for is separation of church and state as it should be so that everyone can be happy. it is a good compromise to let the government issue civil unions and let the various religions issue their own "marriage" certificates.
and if the word "marriage" has gained any emotional value over the years, im sure that civil unions can too. a word is only as strong as the speaker makes it out to be. soon enough civil unions would have the same connotation as marriage and heterosexuals and homosexuals will be treated equally, as it should be.
it is impossible for either side to get their way and all i was doing was presenting a possible compromise to make everyone happy and equal
Well, i personally think it is not relevant. The Vatican will not recognize gay marriage. It just a fact. As a catholic, i don't mind to see gay people getting married. I think they should be allowed to do what they please.
Post a Comment