Ah, this must be why there are so many Catholic charities... so that intolerance can be spread?

And that must be why the story of the Prodigal Son is so popular...

Thats about it miss cash...

No matter how much or rather how little good the roman catholic church does or claims to do, as long as they continue to oppose equality and work to deny civil rights to any minority that doesnt harm society by its existance or by who they love...Then what ever good works that church claims is tarnished at best and made worthless at worst.

I would say that fundemental churches are not only their own prodigal son but their own anti-christ as well.

As far as I am aware, at least in California, domestic partnerships have all the civil rights as legally married couples. The Catholic Church, either in the Vatican or California, is not out to take those civil rights away. What it seeks is to keep marriage defined as it is currently and classically defined. Since, at least in California, the current definition does not result in limited civil rights, they are not seeking to deny civil rights.

Besides, since in America at least, there is a great deal of separation between Church and State, the Church cannot and will not deny civil rights to homosexual individuals.

If we speak of ecclesiastical rights, that is something which is the private business of the Church itself.

No one would dream that, because gentiles are not allowed to be rabbis that the good charity of Jewish synagogues is worthless. If a Mormon temple won't let a non-Mormon enter, no one would say that their charities are worthless. Yet if the Catholic Church gently points out a simple doctrine of faith which may require inconvenience, then their charitable work and historical advance of science and technology is swept off the board as worthless. That is a tragedy.

I am glad you think that fundamental churches are Prodigal sons!!! Because the Prodigal Son was taken back by his father and given a ring, a new robe, and a feast!!! I don't see how they can be their own anti-christ, but perhaps you'll enlighten me.

Miss cash...

Seperate but equal isnt equal and thats the main problem with domestic partnerships.

Also...You should know better than to claim that the roman catholic church isnt out to deny equality when theres ample evidence to the contrary and as for marriage...Even within the church, marriage has undergone many re-definitions over the centuries and saying that the current definition, in the eyes of SOME of the church, doesnt deny equal rights makes you sound very ignorant of reality. 

The anti-christ comment refers to your own biblical legend of the anti-christ's desire to destroy your church which is exactly what will eventually happen because of the actions of the fundemental christians who fail to understand that we dont live in a theocracy and that their religious beliefs have no place in secular law. 

I consider that irony.

You are so right! We do not live in a theocracy. We barely live in a democracy. Our government, since the seventies, if not before, has been becoming ever so subtley socialist, yet not blatantly so.

As for an anti-christ, the verses which refer to anti-christ actually refer to several people, whoever is anti-Christ. If the Church therefore becomes Anti-Christ, you are quite right that it will self-destruct. I have the audacity to believe that this self-destruction will not occur and you would be very right in finding that ironic. Cheers!

I am sad that you feel I am ignorant of reality. I am more than aware that there are people within the Church who have an incorrect view of marriage. These unfortunates also tend to have a lot of other incorrect views on life, sexuality, religion, ethics, etc.

I used the other religions as an example to show that the Catholic Church is hardly the first and certainly not the last to "deny equality" in your definition. Some of these denials have negative results, though some have positive. I read once that certain Aztec tribes would not allow a man to be sacrificed who had a family. This was an inequality that spared married men and fathers from dying, even though the tribes believed that the blood was required by the gods.

It is also prudent to understand that the Church's definition of marriage is not about to change simply because a secular law may change. If homosexual marriage becomes legal, the Church may recognize the legality of the union, but will not define it as legitimate in the Church's definition.

I fully understand that you and I are coming from opposing points of view. My purpose is not to convince you that I am right, but to let you know what my position (and the position of many others) is. Ignorance of opposing viewpoints leads to intolerance and bloodshed and that will not do. This is why I came on these threads in the first place: to let a different point of view be heard and hopefully respected. I may not agree with you, but I will defend and honor your free will to disagree with me.

@ Dana Cash

"domestic partnerships have all the civil rights as legally married couples."

WRONG. The rights vary from place to place and the union does not have to be recognized everywhere. Same sex couples also do not have access to federal rights and benefits. Adoption is also a lot harder.

There are over one-thousand rights and responsibilities granted when a person marries. These include things like taxes, health insurance, veterans' or military benefits, immigration, and Social Security survivor benefits. NONE of these are open to devoted same-sex partners.

Also, we should wonder why we are denying marriage to gays. Whether one believes it is immoral or whatever is beside the point. We don't live in a theocracy. Remember the miscegenation laws that prevented mixed-race marriage? Some people used religion to defend that!

My point is, GLBTQs can and do have relationships as healthy, stable, and loving as any straight person. 

Oh, I meant to add this link at the bottom of my previous comment. It is where I checked my info.

(I can't stand it when people spew off data and then don't say where they read it.) 

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

I stand corrected on the domestic partnership issue. Thank you for checking the facts!

I'm afraid this thread has meandered very far from the original issue and I will take most of the blame for the current meandering.

I will also agree that homosexual couples can and often are loving.

It has not been an easy lesson, but I am learning that I can disagree with people, even those who are loving and those whom I love. It isn't always convenient. I'm sure that the people who disagree with me find the disagreement most inconvenient... a bur in the saddle. I will apologize for being a bur and hope that some sort of respectful understanding can be reached.

Well mr. berg...

Considering that the roman catholic church aint even the real catholic church and that their HETEROSEXUAL priests are guilty of child molestation AND lying about it to cover it up...

I could care less what they do or dont endorse...Just as long as they stay out of the secular legal arena. 

Those of us fighting for equality will win...Eventually...But we will win.

So Berg, let me get this straight, if a gay couple is married then its perfectly ok for the church to endorse their sexual intercourse in their matrimony that you seem so interested in for someone who is heterosexual. Did you know that tradition of marriage that is always brought up against us (one man one Women) was only introduced in 1996 when gay people were able to marry for the first time in Hawaii. Before then the tradition of marriage was... well it was what even the hell people wanted it to be including the insane divorce rate the heterosexuals created.

Indeed.

Beyond agreement with you Thom. The sad thing the fryer is forgetting that people had the same views against black people. Back then it wasn't racism it was "belief," "Tradition," "Heritage," "What the bible said," "what god said," and my personal favorite: "we should have respect for the values, views and beliefs of others." B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.

I will never respect, honor, or condone the opinions (beliefs) of others so long as they hurt innocent people such as myself who do no harm to anyone being who we are. That means being whole humans with hearts full of love, compassion and conviction and not being afraid to love who we love, to fight for our freedom when oppressed, and to reshape the world with real, open armed tolerance, not luke warm acceptance.

Indeed...

Well said mr. marshall.

Mr. Marshall,

I shall go one step better than tolerate you.

I shall love you as a dear brother. Laugh, scoff, make fun, I don't care. Love isn't some wishy-washy emotional "I just feel so good". It is caring for a person even when that person may be undeserving of your love.

You also speak of freedom. What sort? Physical freedom? If so, then so long as no one ties you up, you may do what you are physically capable of doing. Psychological freedom? Then you may be free to do what will not damage your psyche. Or moral freedom? The right to do what is right?

Each freedom progresses to the next and as you progress, more responsibility is upon you.

So while you go about reshaping the world, keep these silly little thoughts in your head and remember your responsibility to practice what you preach. =)

Miss cash...

It would behoove all of us to practice what we preach...Even and perhaps especially the fundemental christians that so often speak of love but practise hate.

A person who claims to be a Christian who practices hate, by which I assume you mean kills or abuses someone opposed to them, is a Christian in name only. If I speak with the tongues of angels and don't have love, I am, after all, a resouding gong.

To disagree with a person's position does not constitute hate in my definition. To hate is to have so much of a negative emotion towards someone that the emotion turns itself into the desire to harm, oppose, or even destroy that person. If hatred is allowed to grow, it can lead to violent action.

God forbid that I or any other Christian allow hate to lead our actions. Hate is not only evil, but a waste of time and health.

Miss cash...

Hate can also be applied to denying equal rights to someone...

And as for disagreeing...No, that aint hate in and of itself...Were all gonna disagree about something BUT going beyond simply disagreeing and legislating your beliefs into law at the expense of the rights of others does constitute hate because only a hate filled person could possibly think its right and acceptable to do such a thing.

Question:

If a mother or father deny equal rights to their children and do not allow them to eat a bunch of junk (which is what they love, after all), are they showing hatred? If a fourteen-year-old boy gets pulled over by a cop for driving illegally, is the cop showing hatred? We are not all equal under the law, even little laws that govern households. If we are to take absolute equality to its ulitmate conclusion, we arrive at anarchy. Does this mean that certain inequalities are not wrong? No! But the point of studying law, ethics, etc. is to determine which rights are absolutely equal and how much equality is to be sacrificed for order.

Miss cash...

Your arguments fail simply on the face of it...

To wit...

1 : The parents of the children who want to eat junk food have every right to say "no" to them simply because theyre responsable for making sure their children eat healthy for the most part.

Homosexuals and indeed even heterosexuals who are legal adults are clearly not children nor is the church their parents.

2 : Its already established that the legal driving age is 16 so that argument fails as well.

As to you saying that were not all equal under the law...Your right and thats what I and many others here in america are trying to change.

Homosexuality and bisexuality are natural and normal variations on sexual orientation just as heterosexuality is...None of those orientations harm anyone nor does allowing folks to love who they do.

My apologies for my whimsy. Sometimes I let it run away with me. The examples were not meant to be taken as hard evidence, but as proof that not all laws are seen as perfectly "fair" by all parties. A fourteen year old boy who goes out joy-riding may find it unfair that he has a ticket. A child who wants to eat junk food may find it unfair to be denied. The denial of certain rights in both of these cases is seen by those who make the laws as the best thing for the teen and the child.

The inequality I was trying to display was the discrepancy of age. Children under eighteen have different rights than those older. We accept this difference without question. Whether considered right or wrong, there is a difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Obviously you and I disagree on the normalcy of homosexuality and bisexuality etc. You believe it is normal and I do not. I am unlikely to convince you in this thread and you are unlikely to convince me of a different position. While I disagree with your stance, I have a great deal of respect for your persistance. I hope you will forgive my lapses into whimsy and accord me the same courtesy.

Well mr. wais...

Neither of us were referring to you specificly however by your comment, I will assume that you also oppose equality so in that case...

No, your not worthy of respect.

Your very welcome.

Mr. McHugh,

Please help an ignorant person (me) out:

How do you define equality?

Equality is where every american has the exact same rights and priveledges as every other american irregardless of their sexual orientation, skin color, religious beliefs or lack thereof and all the other differences that Im unable to list at this time. 

Good! Now, may I also ask:

How, in your view, are homosexual individuals given unequal rights? In which areas? Are there busses in which they must ride in the back? Are there signs on restaurants that say: "No queers allowed"?

Miss cash...

At this point, I begin to wonder if you aint just funning me with the above question...

How are homosexuals being treated unfairly ?

1 : By not being able to marry the one they love nationwide.

2 : In the all few states where they can marry, those marriages are not considered valid in the states where they cant.

3 : If a homosexuals partner is in the hospital, then said homosexual has no say whatsoever in the treatment plan or even any legal visitation rights.

4 : If a gay couple wants to adopt children then in  effect, they have to adopt twice per partner just to insure that if one partner passes away that the other can retain custodial rights.

There are a thousand or better other ways in which discrimination harms the homosexual community and in some cases, the heterosexual community as well. (Think referendum 71)

Therefor I'll let my friends on here who are much more experianced than I am answer any further questions you may have.

Thank you for asking.

One other thing I forgot to mention miss cash is the fact that because of intollerance and discrimination, homosexuals are beaten, raped and even killed for no other reason than because theyre gay...

As if that isnt enough to matter to you...

Homosexual kids commit suicide every day because of church fostered intollerance.

I am not making fun of you, Mr. McHugh. I have a light-hearted style and perhaps I have been too flippant. I hope you will accept my apology.

As to the fact that homosexual young folk kill themselves, this is a tragedy. The fact that any of them kill themselves because of their grievances against the Church only makes it that much more of a tragedy. It is not enough, however, to make me abandon my Church.

There have been suicides caused by children whose expensive shoes were stolen or because they believed a comet was going to beam them up to the mother ship. This wouldn't stop me buying shoes or looking up at comets and other astronomical wonders.

I abhor anyone who would beat up, rape, or kill anyone because of their sexual orientation or for any other reason at all. This isn't enough to make me agree with their lifestyle. Just because someone is attacked does not mean I must agree with their behavior or their beliefs.

I happen to know quite a few homosexual people, even in my family. If anyone were to harm them because of their sexuality, I would be outraged and denounce the action. My love for them goes deeper than agreeing or disagreeing with their lifestyle.

Miss cash...

As Ive tried to point out before...

Homosexuality is no more a lifestyle than heterosexuality is.

Yes...People have killed themselves for what we may consider foolish reasons however when you have kids being told that theyre worthless and deviant and bound for hell for no other reason than a sexual orientation that they were born with and those false beliefs about them being deviants and/or worthless originate from church teachings...Thats a bit more serious than shoes or cult related beliefs...Wouldnt you say ?

As far as I understand, a lifestyle includes sexuality. If you are unmarried and celibate, then your lifestyle is a celibate one. If you are unmarried or married and promiscuous, your lifestyle includes promiscuity. If you are a single or commited or married person who engages in either heterosexual or homosexual activity, then your lifestyle would be somewhat defined by this.

I agree that suicide for strong reasons is a tragedy, however I must disagree that the Church teaches that sexual deviancy makes a person worthless. As a matter of fact, the parable of the lost sheep claims that those who wander from the path make heaven more grateful for their return than those who never stray.

The Church is meant to be a hospital for sinners, a fount of mercy. Some deluded souls enter this hospital and immediately go out to make sinners' lives miserable, forgetting that they too have ever sinned. A person who engages in homosexual activity is as worthy of forgiveness as any other contrite soul... perhaps more so.

Miss cash...

A lifestyle may include sexuality BUT it isnt the same thing as sexual orientation.

Using myself as an example...

I was born heterosexual...

I discovered my sexual orientation when I first entered puberty and started noticing the more sexual attributes of women...

Now...Though I didnt get laid untill I was about 25...I was still heterosexual although my lifestyle was celibate (Not by choice I assure you). 

My lifestyle has been many other things as well throughout those years such as I was a high school dropout...A fantasy game role player (Dungeons and Dragons)...Music lover...Artist...Abused (Mentaly and emotionaly)...Suicidal...Etc BUT I was and still am a heterosexual...

So you see miss cash...

Though my lifestyle has changed to one degree or another...My sexual orientation hasnt...And it never will.

Now...My sense of logic tells me that those who are born gay still in all other respects operate the same way I do...That is, if theyre human beings just as I am...So I attribute the same kind of assumption about them which is that though theyre lifestyles may change...Their sexual orientation doesnt...Even if its different from mine.

Now...How could I possibly want to deny them the same rights that I have or allow others to do so and possibly think its alright or even divine ?

I cant and I wont.

So be it.

If you are incapable of seeing that there are some fundemental churches that actually do teach that homosexuals are deviant and worthless then you havent been paying attention to the likes of pat robertson, james dobson, oral roberts and many others including jerry fallwell.

Not only do they teach such lies but they are indirectly responsable for many evils that were done in the name of their god as well as being indirectly responsable for the death of every gay child that either killed themselves or were killed by others who listened to those hate filled preachers.

Its time for you to take your head out of the sand and see the reality of whats being taught in some churches miss cash.

Why the hell should any homosexual who engages in consensual sex with another homosexual have to ask for forgiveness ?

That would be like me having to repent everytime me and my girlfriend get it on...

Mr. McHugh,

Upon this point, I believe I shall agree to remain in respectful disagreement.

I am familiar with James Dobson's name and some of his work and am not aware of any work he has done to promote violence towards homosexuals or anyone for that matter. Perhaps I have been out of the loop; the other names are unknown to me, but I will see if I can find any information.

I have never denied anyone what I believed was fair and just. I am not in any sort of position of power to do so.

It is likely that some churches do teach intolerance. I have never entered one... and I have been in many many churches, both Protestant and Catholic. I never said that intolerance or hatred is not ever preached. It is. What I said was that the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church does not advocate intolerance OR hatred. If some individuals take pronouncements to be carte blanche for violence, that is their responsibility.

Forgiveness is asked for sins committed. According to the Roman Catholic Church, extra-marital and deviant sexual activity is sinful. Obviously you disagree with that definition or you would not be so upset. Just because I agree does not mean it is my business to judge the souls of others. Souls are free to accept that definition of sin or not. If I am wrong, I'm wrong. If I am right, I am right. Neither outcome makes me a better or worse person.

Indeed...

Neither am I although being heterosexual, I wasnt sure if it would count.

Your a lady miss lightoller ?

My apologies then for having stuck my foot in my mouth in some of my previous posts...

Not a problem, Thomas. I should have clarified it sooner.

I agree with most of Flannery's points. Unfortunately a few commenters have been throwing mud at each other and that isn't going to help anything. Perhaps it would be prudent to repeat here the prayer recited fifty times in a five-decade rosary: "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen."

Notice that Mary's intercession is begged "for us sinners". We all need mercy, particularly those in mortal sin, and especially those who do not realize that they are in mortal sin. Having been one of those people, I can attest to the rosary's healing power, to draw me back to greater fidelity to the Church, to the sacraments, to the fire which is the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

While I disagree with interpreting Scripture contrary to Church teaching, especially in regard to a devotion which ought to bring one into a deeper love and appreciation for the Church, if praying that beautiful prayer will draw homosexuals toward the right path, I will rejoice. Using that rosary as a tool to promote an anti-Church agenda, however, is wrong and shall always be.