I am not going to go into everything that everyone has said, but this quote pretty well sums it all up in a nutshell.

First, yes the CHURCH has the legal right to choose where and how to use it's money, and no one else can dictate to them how or when to do so. However, in this instance we are not discussing just the churches money, we are also discussing money it receives in the form of contracts and grants, with said contracts and grants being given under the stipulation that they be used for Social Service programs.

As long as the Catholic church accepts government money it is legally required to follow government laws and guidelines in guidance of non-discrimination, equal rights, etc etc etc. This does not mean the church has to allow gay couple to worship in their halls. It does not mean they have to ordain Gay Priests, or have women in leadership positions in the church. BUT, in regards to say, catholic social services, which I believe is one of the groups being held over the fire here; in a lot of cases, the social service outreach programs are not operated out of the church, they are operated out of a seperate office building on public property, and the church has no legal authority over the building. This means whateveer is operating in that building does not qualify as a religious function, which means it can not pick and choose due to it's beliefs.

In the end, the Catholic diocese needs to simply step back, and close their mouths in regards to threatening lawmakers and congressman, and simply nullify their contracts, and grants from teh government, thus releasing them from having to provide to ALL citizens, because they no longer operate with public money. But so long as they accept 1 penny from outside the church itself towards their programs, they they are going to legally be required to abide by public law and not secular.

if eating the fruit was the orcinal sin then does that not make it the original evil

is not evil sin

this is why i no longer belong to an organized religion

most pick and chose the parts they want to abide by

just like the catholic church in this instance

it says hate the sin not the sinner

yet the catholic church (notorious for pedophile behavior) is going to no longer provide service to those that have no say in what is going on

hypocrisy at its best

killed it imagine that

musta been 'nough said

lol, nope, people just couldnt argue with ya ;-)

Seems one of the most rational, fair posts in the forum. Gays just don't like it when anyone tried to contradict them in any way. This is just proof that there isn't anything they won't try to bully, and in this case attempt to defame. Playing like the Catholic church hasn't had the same core beliefs for hundreds of years, and any of this is an attack on gays is laughable, as it is THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Gays just want to force themselves on us, same as the immigrants. It is on THEM to accept the fact that they are as accepted as prostitutes. Here and there you will find someone that isn't repulsed by them as individuals, but most are disgusted. They can't change that no matter how much they lie. It would be a heck of a lot more hypocritical for the church to just roll over and accept what has always been "wrong" in their eyes, than to cave into this defamatory extortion attempt. If gays want to be left alone to live their lives the way they want, they should let everyone else do the same. The fact that they don't, and even want to bring this stuff into the schools and force it on the kids, is what makes THEM the hypocrites and bullies.

Havent seen this post for a while. Actually, I dont think this situation is an example of HATING anyone. It is just an example of sticking to pre determined guidelines. If I run a program to assist people earning under 25grand a year, and then I find out that many of them are actually making 50 grand,,it wouldnt be HATEFUL of me to pull the program....I had a specific goal in mind with the program that I have a right to implement or discontinue,,,as does the church.

As far as organized religion being the root of all evil, u are entitled to your opinion but your logic had HUGE leaps in it. I could summarize ur logic like this,,,,Evil began with Adam and Eves disobedience, therefore ORGANIZED religion is the root of all evil....

A HUGE leap. Adam and Eve were not an organized religion.

The opinions expressed in this thread do NOT reflect the opinion of all mingle members....just needed to be said.

We all fall short, people will tire of me saying it im sure,, but it is true. I am not disgusted by people, I am dissapointed and disgusted by their actions and their words. It is very dangerous to promote such hatefulness of people based upon their 'sins'. I am one who has been fortunate enough to not act upon some of my sinful feelings or thoughts but what if , God forbid, I ever fell weak or became convinced that my action was ok if it was in the name of 'love'? I think that logic , which is prevalent, makes me feel sad for people but never disgusted.

It's not just the Catholics, it is all religions that are the problem. Or should I say it all the people who believe in the religions that are the problem or it is the makers of the religions that coerce the people into acting hypocrital that are the problem or.......lol

Yeah, religion is SUCH a problem,,,maybe if we disbanded it all those problems religious people cause would disappear? Lets take it further and admit how much of a problem organized government is, all the corrupt governments history has shown and all the corrupt politicans we currently know of,, perhaps we should disband government too. I am sure if we did all those issues we blame on politics would just cease to exist. IN a world without politics or religion, people would just naturally be orderly and kind to each other and most our problems would disappear......


One of the things that makes existence significant is that individuals have different beliefs and make different choices, as they should, thats what makes them individuals.

To allow people with similar beliefs to study and network together is not what does harm. Harmful people do harm and you will find them amongst the religious and non religious alike.

Just because the church has the belief, doesn't make it right for everyone. Just because it has been what they believe for hundreds of years really doesn't make it right, I would hope we have evolved into smarter humans that what was believed to be right hundreds of years ago.

Gays have as much right to live their lives with all full benefits of everyone else and if we have to go agaisnt the church to get it done so be it. I will fight for the right of gays to live with everything I as a heterosexual will have in life, it is only fair.

And as a bisexual, I will not fight for marriage to be redefined.

BUT, I will fight for homosexuals to have access to all the civil privileges of anyone else based upon their being people, not homosexuals. Bring on the fight to ensure adults in any relationship can choose their insurance beneficiary or have their loved ones visit them in hospitals, or carry health insurance....these are absolutely causes I feel need to be addressed. If my mother moved in with her sister to save money and wanted to put her sister on her health insurance, she should be able to. Regardless of sexual preference, a dependent co dependent relationship should be all that is required in insurance matters and noones loved ones should be denied access to them in the hospital, whether it be a mother, a cousin, a homosexual lover, or just a best friend. These are not issues based in sexual preference though these are issues based on treating people fairly and allowing them the right to do what they wish with their earnings and to not be barred from being at the bedside of an ill loved one because they are not a specific TYPE of loved one.

It's about a behavior that the church doesn't condone...last time I looked...same sex marriage...when put to a vote by the people...is 0-31...it's pretty obvious that a majority of Americans don't condone it either...

Not true.

Maine voters reject gay marriage -- and the vote wasn't all that close, either. From the NYT:

In a stinging setback for the national gay-rights movement, Maine voters narrowly decided to repeal the state's new law allowing same-sex marriage.
With 87 percent of precincts reporting early this morning, 53 percent of voters had approved the repeal, ending an expensive and emotional fight that was closely watched around the country as a referendum on the national gay-marriage movement. Polls had suggested a much closer race.

With the repeal, Maine became the 31st state to reject same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Five other states - Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont - have legalized same-sex marriage, but only through court rulings and legislative action.

Here is more

Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday say marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, with 44 percent suggesting they should be considered legal.

But among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll.



It is still a marginal majority opposing.Im sure it will eventually pass(modern Babylon) but hopefully not before my daughter is grown and had a chance to establish her own moral foundation. It is interesting to note though the difference in perceptin based upon age. Seesms like those most likely to have had SUCCESSFUL long term relationships,,our elders, oppose changing the foundation of marriage. Those who have more modern lives and are more likely to see sex as an activity of 'dating' seem less concerned with how marriage is defined. Please pay special attention to my use of the word SEEM, it implies that this is my personal observation and not fact.

I agree...well said...in time I believe it will be legal in all 50 states...just not at this time...

Exactly. I think the next big movement will be the 'childrens rights' movement which will spill over into the marital definitions as well probably allowing adults to marry partners of any age so long as puberty has been reached(to argue the right for family).

First you say just because the church has a belief, doesn't make it right for everyone. Same could be said about those who believe people are born gay (not all do).
Then you say that gays have as much right to live as they want, but in the same sentence imply that you would go to war with the church, just because it disagrees, and do your best to DENY THEM THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE AS THEY WANT. Anyone NOT see the hypocritical, bullying double standard there?
You even go so far as to say you will fight for the right of gays to live with everything you have, when there isn't any right that you have that they don't. NO ONE, not even straight people can legally marry a person of the same sex, so it is the SAME standard for everyone. What gays have a problem with is that they are still considered defective by many, and they take issue to THAT. This whole attack on the church is about MONEY not rights of any kind. The hate law legislation is only going to be a way for gays to extort, intimidate and harass straight people, same as minorities have done playing the race card where it had no place.
"Not true"
I see this a lot. Simple denial, whether you have a leg to stand on or not. Still waiting to see when you are coming by to meet my neighbor as I can prove what I am saying. You can't. You post your opinion as though it were fact, when it has already been disproven.

msharmony "Bring on the fight to ensure adults in any relationship can choose their insurance beneficiary or have their loved ones visit them in hospitals, or carry health insurance....these are absolutely causes I feel need to be addressed."
Gays already have ALL OF THESE THINGS if they bothered to check.
"If my mother moved in with her sister to save money and wanted to put her sister on her health insurance, she should be able to."
Why, and what does that have to do with gay legislation? Are you giving an example of how these laws would be manipulated/used for the wrong means by people only claiming to be gay?