Catholics Will Do Everything Possible To Prevent Homosexual Civil Unions
Sound of Trumpet
Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
Homosexual Civil Unions
LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/12/07 | Gudrun Schultz
Posted on 03/12/2007 5:22:07 PM PDT by wagglebee
VATICAN CITY, March 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Legislation
permitting de facto and same-sex unions would be so damaging to family
life and society that Catholics will do "everything possible" to
ensure the laws do not pass, the head of the Pontifical Academy for
Life said last week.
"Catholics will do everything to shed light on the debate, and will do
everything possible so that these proposals will not pass," said
Bishop Elio Sgreccia, during a press conference at Vatican Radio.
"Everything based on untruths is destined to damage someone, if not
many people."
Zenit News Agency reported March 7 on Bishop Sgreccia comments at the
Rome launch of a book on the issue by Carlo Casini, a European
Parliamentary member representing Italy. Casini's book was titled
"Unioni di fatto, matrimonio, figli: tra ideologia e realtà" (De Facto
Unions, Marriage, Children: Between Ideology and Facts), published in
Italian by Società Editrice Fiorentina.
Bishop Sgreccia said the Church's objections to de facto unions simply
upheld laws established by international and national legislation,
recognizing the family as the foundation of human society. The bishop
referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
"If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said.
Homosexual unions would go "against a law of nature," he said, since
"in the corporality of man and woman there is written natural and
structural complementarity pertaining to emotional life, sexual life
and the procreation of children."
"Natural law expresses the good sense" of that union between a man and
a woman, Bishop Sgreccia said.
Further, the family is essential for economic health and social
progress.
"If we wish to see an economy that has as its main unit family health,
then we must take into account that the de facto families,
constitutionally precarious, are the source, as well as divorce and
separations, of social and economic instability."
Far from encouraging the establishment of de facto unions, "the state
would do well in helping youth by teaching them the formation of a
true family, with a civic or religious marriage, but stable, and with
an eased access to house and work."
"This is where the money should be spent," said the bishop, "and not
creating marital precariousness."
Permitting legal unions apart from marriage injures young people by
"placing them in a situation that does not give security, that does
not give stability or serenity."
At the same time, legalizing homosexual unions does not address the
real needs of people dealing with same-sex attraction, the bishop
said.
"[G]ay pride certainly does not help them in overcoming their
suffering, which instead must be faced with human understanding, with
medical and psychological sciences, and with promotional attitudes of
all the good qualities that exist in these persons."
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Vatican Bishop: Humanity Heading for "Self-Genocide"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07012607.html
Bishop Sgreccia Named President of Pontifical Academy For Life
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05010308.html
raven1
<sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
>Homosexual Civil Unions
I agree. The idea of gay "civil unions" is ridiculous: gay *marriage*
is the answer.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
lora...@cs.com
wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
"The bishop
referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
"If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
Sounds correct and obvious to me.
RamRod Sword of Baal
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote in message
news:1174263570.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>Permitting legal unions apart from marriage injures young people by
>"placing them in a situation that does not give security, that does
>not give stability or serenity."
Here in Australia de facto relationships are protected by law.
There is no reason why this cannot be done in other countries, if it has not
already been done. There is no reason that Gay Marriage could not work the
same, or be recognized as full marriage.
Now just what is the problems with that, except it upsets your church?
How does Gay or de facto relationships, if legalized weaken the current
marriage set up?
Here is a part of details about this in NSW
http://www.lawsociety.com.au/page.asp?partid=6651
lora...@cs.com
wrote:
> "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote in messagenews:1174263570.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> >Permitting legal unions apart from marriage injures young people by
> >"placing them in a situation that does not give security, that does
> >not give stability or serenity."
>
> Here in Australia de facto relationships are protected by law.
>
> There is no reason why this cannot be done in other countries, if it has not
> already been done.
For the simple reason that the people do not want it.
> There is no reason that Gay Marriage could not work the
> same, or be recognized as full marriage.
Of course there is... Normal marriage produces children and a family.
Gay unions do not.
> Now just what is the problems with that, except it upsets your church?
The problem is that you are attempting to equate non-productive life-
styles with normal marriages.
They are basically different.
> How does Gay or de facto relationships, if legalized weaken the current
> marriage set up?
Such a comparison attempts to equate two entirely different societal
units.
They do not equate.
bob&carole
wrote:
Thank God the Church is willing to take a stand for decency.
Anlatt the Builder
Possibly true. But gay marriage does not weaken the stability of
marriage in any way.
lora...@cs.com
Yes it does. See Message-ID:
<1174278927.7...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
Richo
And of course homosexuals have families and are part of families.
Mark.
lora...@cs.com
Yes, they may be part of families.
But they cannot ever create families - other than by artificial means.
Thus they cannot ever have normal families - nor have normal
marriages.
Ray Fischer
> "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>> > "The bishop
>> > referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
>> > that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
>> > and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>>
>> > "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
>> > society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>>
>> > Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>>
>> And of course homosexuals have families and are part of families.
>> Mark.
>
>Yes, they may be part of families.
>But they cannot ever create families - other than by artificial means.
Of course they can.
Unlike all those celibate priests who don't even live by the bullshit
they preach.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> >Permitting legal unions apart from marriage injures young people by
>> >"placing them in a situation that does not give security, that does
>> >not give stability or serenity."
>>
>> Here in Australia de facto relationships are protected by law.
>>
>> There is no reason why this cannot be done in other countries, if it has not
>> already been done.
>
>For the simple reason that the people do not want it.
According to you.
>> There is no reason that Gay Marriage could not work the
>> same, or be recognized as full marriage.
>
>Of course there is... Normal marriage produces children and a family.
No it doesn't.
>Gay unions do not.
They often do.
>> Now just what is the problems with that, except it upsets your church?
>
>The problem is that you are attempting to equate non-productive life-
>styles with normal marriages.
The problem is that you are trying to justify your bigotry with
propaganda and falsehoods.
>> How does Gay or de facto relationships, if legalized weaken the current
>> marriage set up?
>
>Such a comparison attempts to equate two entirely different societal
>units.
That isn't an answer to the question.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Jeff North
Trumpet" <sound_of...@warpmail.net>
<1174263570.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>| http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>|
>|
>| Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
>| Homosexual Civil Unions
Maybe a more apt headline would be:
Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
you from finding out how many of your children has been abused by this
organisation.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnor...@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin
> On Mar 18, 8:19�pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
>
> Thank God the Church is willing to take a stand for decency.
>
Bob, is it true you advertised for a man to come and shag your wife for
you? If so, did you suck his dick?
Jeff North
lora...@cs.com
<1174275536....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
EOTFLMAO. This from a bunch of never married men (who live, work and
play together) and run around in dresses.
Jeff North
the Builder" <tir...@aol.com>
<1174280307.5...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Should we let them in on the little secret that the Catholic Church
performed same-sex marriages between the 9th and 14th centuries?
Hmmmm maybe not, their tiny heads might explode.
Jeff North
lora...@cs.com
<1174278927.7...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>| On Mar 18, 8:25 pm, "RamRod Sword of Baal" <RamRo...@truthonly.com>
>| wrote:
>| > "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote in messagenews:1174263570.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>| >
>| > >Permitting legal unions apart from marriage injures young people by
>| > >"placing them in a situation that does not give security, that does
>| > >not give stability or serenity."
>| >
>| > Here in Australia de facto relationships are protected by law.
>| >
>| > There is no reason why this cannot be done in other countries, if it has not
>| > already been done.
>|
>| For the simple reason that the people do not want it.
>|
>| > There is no reason that Gay Marriage could not work the
>| > same, or be recognized as full marriage.
>|
>| Of course there is... Normal marriage produces children and a family.
>| Gay unions do not.
Marriage license != breeding license.
FYI, you don't need a marriage license to produce off-spring.
>| > Now just what is the problems with that, except it upsets your church?
>|
>| The problem is that you are attempting to equate non-productive life-
>| styles with normal marriages.
So post-menipausal women should automatically have their marriages
annulled?
>| They are basically different.
>|
>| > How does Gay or de facto relationships, if legalized weaken the current
>| > marriage set up?
>|
>| Such a comparison attempts to equate two entirely different societal
>| units.
>| They do not equate.
Please cite the law, from any land, where procreating is mandatory or
the marriage is annulled.
Radical Hippo
Gays can have straight sex in the same way straights can have gay
sex. And why are you so concerned about the ability to bear
children? This world is burgeoning with underfed, underloved
children. You aren't helping the cause by standing in the way gay
marriage, an institutional change that would benefit hundreds of
thousands of people.
Nosterill
<sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> Homosexual Civil Unions
But why? What harm are they doing?
lora...@cs.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You concern regarding celebate priests does not intrude upon any
discussion of marriages.
Try to stick to the subject.
Dionisio
> "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
> society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>
> Sounds correct and obvious to me.
Also correct and obvious is the little observation that the self-appointed "guardians of
the family" are in their own de facto marriage with not one, but three men each. Now, of
course, the men in their lives are purely spiritual; Which no doubt excuses the incest thing.
They also have a concubine: The Church.
It's all there in their vows. (Yep. Didn't know they made vows did ya?)
So, we've got a bunch of men, pledged to serve men, who claim they know about -- ahem --
family.
Must be Friday, 'cause something smells fishy.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?"
-- Jules Pfeiffer
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
lora...@cs.com
> <lorad...@cs.com> wrote:
> > "RamRod Sword of Baal" <RamRo...@truthonly.com>
> >> "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote in
> >> >Permitting legal unions apart from marriage injures young people by
> >> >"placing them in a situation that does not give security, that does
> >> >not give stability or serenity."
>
> >> Here in Australia de facto relationships are protected by law.
>
> >> There is no reason why this cannot be done in other countries, if it has not
> >> already been done.
>
> >For the simple reason that the people do not want it.
>
> According to you.
No... not "according to me".. But according to the many countries that
do not permit it.
Pay attention.
> >> There is no reason that Gay Marriage could not work the
> >> same, or be recognized as full marriage.
>
> >Of course there is... Normal marriage produces children and a family.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> >Gay unions do not.
>
> They often do.
>
> >> Now just what is the problems with that, except it upsets your church?
>
> >The problem is that you are attempting to equate non-productive life-
> >styles with normal marriages.
>
> The problem is that you are trying to justify your bigotry with
> propaganda and falsehoods.
>
> >> How does Gay or de facto relationships, if legalized weaken the current
> >> marriage set up?
>
> >Such a comparison attempts to equate two entirely different societal
> >units.
>
> That isn't an answer to the question.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
Dionisio
> The problem is that you are attempting to equate non-productive life-
> styles with normal marriages.
> They are basically different.
Tell us more about the priesthood.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"The only people that I want laws to protect us from, are the people who want laws to
protect us from people."
-- Lars Allen <lra...@mcdata.com> Sept. of '94
Andres64
wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> Homosexual Civil Unions
And they'll still happen. It's inevitable. Get over it.
lora...@cs.com
> On 18 Mar 2007 20:38:56 -0700, in alt.politics.homosexuality
>
> <1174275536.412660.44...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >| On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
> >| wrote:
> >| >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
> >|
> >| "The bishop
> >| referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
> >| that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
> >| and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
> >|
> >| "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
> >| society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
> >|
> >| Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>
> EOTFLMAO. This from a bunch of never married men (who live, work and
> play together) and run around in dresses.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
Again, your concern regarding unmarried men has no bearing upon normal
and accepted marriages.
Try to focus.
lora...@cs.com
> On 18 Mar 2007 21:58:27 -0700, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Anlatt
>
>
>
>
>
> <1174280307.549219.241...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >| On Mar 18, 8:38 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
> >| > On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
> >| > wrote:
> >| >
> >| > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
> >| >
> >| > "The bishop
> >| > referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
> >| > that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
> >| > and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
> >| >
> >| > "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
> >| > society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
> >| >
> >| > Sounds correct and obvious to me.
> >|
> >| Possibly true. But gay marriage does not weaken the stability of
> >| marriage in any way.
>
> Should we let them in on the little secret that the Catholic Church
> performed same-sex marriages between the 9th and 14th centuries?
So little known that maybe it never existed, eh?
lora...@cs.com
> On 18 Mar 2007 21:35:27 -0700, in alt.politics.homosexuality
> Marriage license != breeding license.
Well then.. by your own definition you have excluded same sex
marriages.
> FYI, you don't need a marriage license to produce off-spring.
No one ever said you did.
> So post-menipausal women should automatically have their marriages
> annulled?
What does the age of a married couple have to do with the normalcy and
western civilization's accepted tradition of marriage?
Nothing.
lora...@cs.com
> On Mar 19, 1:59 am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 9:46 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 2:38 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> > > > "The bishop
> > > > referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
> > > > that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
> > > > and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>
> > > > "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
> > > > society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>
> > > > Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>
> > > And of course homosexuals have families and are part of families.
> > > Mark.
>
> > Yes, they may be part of families.
> > But they cannot ever create families - other than by artificial means.
> > Thus they cannot ever have normal families - nor have normal
> > marriages.
>
> Gays can have straight sex in the same way straights can have gay
> sex.
If you say so.
> And why are you so concerned about the ability to bear
> children?
I am not overly concerned about procreative abilities. I am more
concerned about maintaining proper terminology and order in society -
as exists in the traditional family unit.
> This world is burgeoning with underfed, underloved
> children.
Due, in large part to a breakdown of that same heterogenous marriage
unit - the family.
The same family unit that you, apparently, wish to even further
disempower - by equating it with less responsible abstract lifestyle
pairings.
> You aren't helping the cause by standing in the way gay
> marriage, an institutional change that would benefit hundreds of
> thousands of people.- Hide quoted text -
That's BS.
'Gay marrige' produces no children.. so 'gay marriage' supporters have
absolutely no 'kids' in the debate anyway.
Societies have usually allowed for odd pairings throughout history;
old bachelors or spinsters living togather.
Today those could be equated to 'civil unions', I suppose.
That should be enough.
lora...@cs.com
> On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> <1174263570.489478.168...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> >Homosexual Civil Unions
>
> their dresses and go home.
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Of course the Church no longer has secular power.
Just their religious faithful do.
lora...@cs.com
> On 18 Mar 2007 21:36:32 -0700, "bob&carole"
> <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> <1174278992.219846.26...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >Thank God the Church is willing to take a stand for decency.
>
You seem to.
> And prove any god exists.
You are here, aren't you?
Andrealphus
lora...@cs.com at lora...@cs.com, typed this:
There's nothing to worry about there since a large chuck of the "religious
faithful" seem to vote in contradiction to their religion's edicts.
lora...@cs.com
> On 19 Mar 2007 02:30:12 -0700, "Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> drive cultists up the wall.
Just like you prove.
Nosterill
You are saying Atilla is a god?? I'm sure that he's a perfectly nice
guy but even so, that's a huge leap of logic.
lora...@cs.com
That would probably be stretching my intended meaning a bit..
I meant to imply that the extemely complicated organization of an
Atilla requires the pre-existence of an ordered universe functioning
in an ordered way...
One could term that mulriplexed order itself to be 'God'.
Or one could term that order to be evidence of God.
It's up to those created by that order to appreciate their existence
and relationship to that prerequisite ordered system - or not.
H Dickmann
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:uitrv29ob3gkte8cf...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>
>>Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
>>Homosexual Civil Unions
>
> is the answer.
I did some plumbing on the weekend,
Can you tell me why i could not join two male fittings?
> --
>
> "O Sybilli, si ergo
> Fortibus es in ero
> O Nobili! Themis trux
> Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Nosterill
> On Mar 19, 4:09 am, "Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 11:59 am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 3:06 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
> > > > On 18 Mar 2007 21:36:32 -0700, "bob&carole"
> > > > <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> > > > <1174278992.219846.26...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >Thank God the Church is willing to take a stand for decency.
>
> > > > As if anyone outside the cult cares.
>
> > > You seem to.
>
> > > > And prove any god exists.
>
> > > You are here, aren't you?
>
> > You are saying Atilla is a god?? I'm sure that he's a perfectly nice
> > guy but even so, that's a huge leap of logic.
>
> That would probably be stretching my intended meaning a bit..
> I meant to imply that the extemely complicated organization of an
> Atilla requires the pre-existence of an ordered universe functioning
> in an ordered way...
>
> One could term that mulriplexed order itself to be 'God'.
> Or one could term that order to be evidence of God.
Your options do rather seem to presuppose the big G. Just suppose for
a moment that there was no such chappy - wouldn't it all work just the
same anyway?
> It's up to those created by that order to appreciate their existence
> and relationship to that prerequisite ordered system - or not.- Hide quoted text -
thomas p.
Since the Catholic Church's claims about the dangers of homosexuality
or homosexual marriage are pure, unsupprted fantasy, they have no
bearing on what is normal or what should be accepted. Since the
Catholic Church has its own problems with activities harmful to
society, it has incredible nerve acting like an authority on
morality. It has become a very bad joke.
ScottyFLL
wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> Homosexual Civil Unions
>
Civil unions are not the business of any church.
ScottyFLL
>
>
> Thank God the Church is willing to take a stand for decency.-
Your definition of "decency" leaves much to be desired, Blob.
"we are a white cpl, 40s, looking for bi female, or cpl w/bi female
for hot times. she is 5/7 fullfigured, 44dd tits, and a juicy shaved
pussy that squirts when she cums. he is 6/1 225, hairy chest, short
beard, and 7 inches. we seek people in the louisville, southern
indiana area. we can exchange pics. if interested, email
us...bobandcarole...@webtv.net"
From: bobandcarole...@webtv.net
Subject: SOUTHERN INDIANA COUPLE SEEKS.......
Date: 2000/03/15
Message-ID:
<16150-38CFF923...@storefull-155.iap.bryant.webtv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 597971835
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
X-WebTV-Signature: 1
ETAtAhR2SkL1wrRFHUycTObIdbiDles6xAIVALFK3FZBTgD7zo+rTuS69JTfKwbp
Content-Disposition: Inline
Newsgroups: alt.personals.big-folks
Blob's adulterous group-sex ad looking for bi female or couple:
http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bcfullpersonaladscreenslz4.jpg
Detail from the above ad:
http://img300.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bcdetailpersonaladfe2.jpg
A post from the year 2000 referencing the vile ad:
http://groups.google.com/group/triangle.personals.bi/msg/0bdc58ebcd7fce6f
Dennis Kemmerer
news:1174275536....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
> wrote:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> "The bishop
> referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
> that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
> and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>
> "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
> society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>
> Sounds correct and obvious to me.
It begs the question.
Dennis Kemmerer
news:1174283963.6...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 9:46 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2:38 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>>
>> > "The bishop
>> > referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
>> > that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
>> > and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>>
>> > "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
>> > society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>>
>> > Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>>
>> Mark.
>
> Yes, they may be part of families.
> But they cannot ever create families - other than by artificial means.
> Thus they cannot ever have normal families - nor have normal
> marriages.
So when are we outlawing fertitily treatments, artificial insemination, and
all those things that people in 'normal' marriages do?
Do you actually think before you open your mouth?
Dennis Kemmerer
news:1174305449.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 11:05 pm, "Radical Hippo" <radical_hi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 1:59 am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
[snip]
>> You aren't helping the cause by standing in the way gay
>> marriage, an institutional change that would benefit hundreds of
>> thousands of people.- Hide quoted text -
>
> That's BS.
> 'Gay marrige' produces no children.. so 'gay marriage' supporters have
> absolutely no 'kids' in the debate anyway.
There's lots of same-sex couples who have and are rasing normal,
well-adjusted, successful kids. The fact that homophobic assholes like you
don't like it is, well, too fucking bad for you.
[snip]
Dennis Kemmerer
news:1174304664.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 10:53 pm, Jeff North <jnort...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2007 21:35:27 -0700, in alt.politics.homosexuality
>
>> Marriage license != breeding license.
>
> Well then.. by your own definition you have excluded same sex
> marriages.
Woooooosh....
>> FYI, you don't need a marriage license to produce off-spring.
>
> No one ever said you did.
>
>> So post-menipausal women should automatically have their marriages
>> annulled?
>
> What does the age of a married couple have to do with the normalcy and
> western civilization's accepted tradition of marriage?
> Nothing.
Double woooosh....
Dennis Kemmerer
news:1174278927.7...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 8:25 pm, "RamRod Sword of Baal" <RamRo...@truthonly.com>
> wrote:
>> "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:1174263570.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>>
>> >Permitting legal unions apart from marriage injures young people by
>> >"placing them in a situation that does not give security, that does
>> >not give stability or serenity."
>>
>> Here in Australia de facto relationships are protected by law.
>>
>> There is no reason why this cannot be done in other countries, if it has
>> not
>> already been done.
>
> For the simple reason that the people do not want it.
I suspected you were a dimwitted wanker when I responded to your last post,
and you've confirmed it.
In the 1960s, 'people' didn't want inter-racial marriages either. And in the
early 1900s, they didn't want inter-faith marriages.
>> There is no reason that Gay Marriage could not work the
>> same, or be recognized as full marriage.
>
> Of course there is... Normal marriage produces children and a family.
> Gay unions do not.
Once again, I checked to see whether the ability to procreate had become one
of the requirements for obtaining a marriage license. It hasn't. That's
good, too, because if it were, we'd have to nullify the marriages of all
those 'normal' couples who haven't reproduced.
>> Now just what is the problems with that, except it upsets your church?
>
> The problem is that you are attempting to equate non-productive life-
> styles with normal marriages.
> They are basically different.
>
>> How does Gay or de facto relationships, if legalized weaken the current
>> marriage set up?
>
> Such a comparison attempts to equate two entirely different societal
> units.
> They do not equate.
That wasn't the question, sparky.
John
> On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> "The bishop
> referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
> that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
> and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>
> "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
> society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>
> Sounds correct and obvious to me.
How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
John
John D.Wentzky
in Boston?
John
> On Mar 18, 8:25 pm, "RamRod Sword of Baal" <RamRo...@truthonly.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote in messagenews:1174263570.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> > >Permitting legal unions apart from marriage injures young people by
> > >"placing them in a situation that does not give security, that does
> > >not give stability or serenity."
>
> > Here in Australia de facto relationships are protected by law.
>
> > There is no reason why this cannot be done in other countries, if it has not
> > already been done.
>
> For the simple reason that the people do not want it.
Barely a majority, soon to be a minority.
>
> > There is no reason that Gay Marriage could not work the
> > same, or be recognized as full marriage.
>
> Of course there is... Normal marriage produces children and a family.
> Gay unions do not.
So an infertile man and woman shouldn't get married? Or those that do
not want children?
>
> > Now just what is the problems with that, except it upsets your church?
>
> The problem is that you are attempting to equate non-productive life-
> styles with normal marriages.
> They are basically different.
How is a gay marriage a non-productive lifestyle? You have yet to
define normal marriage (of which 50% end in divorce).
>
> > How does Gay or de facto relationships, if legalized weaken the current
> > marriage set up?
>
> Such a comparison attempts to equate two entirely different societal
> units.
> They do not equate.
Simply saying that does not answer the question. How does gay
marriage weaken traditional marriage?
John
John D.Wentzky
John <dahlgr...@gmail.com> typed:
Are you saying you are for brothers/cousins, etc entering into marriage
agreements?
> John
John D.Wentzky
Dennis Kemmerer <d...@suespammers.org> typed:
LOL!
Another idiot gets mad.
John D.Wentzky
Dennis Kemmerer <d...@suespammers.org> typed:
> <lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1174278927.7...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 18, 8:25 pm, "RamRod Sword of Baal" <RamRo...@truthonly.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote in
>>> messagenews:1174263570.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>>>
>>>> Permitting legal unions apart from marriage injures young people by
>>>> "placing them in a situation that does not give security, that does
>>>> not give stability or serenity."
>>>
>>> Here in Australia de facto relationships are protected by law.
>>>
>>> There is no reason why this cannot be done in other countries, if
>>> it has not
>>> already been done.
>>
>> For the simple reason that the people do not want it.
>
> I suspected you were a dimwitted wanker when I responded to your last
> post, and you've confirmed it.
>
> In the 1960s, 'people' didn't want inter-racial marriages either.
It had to be pro-choice bigots such as you that didn't want them.
Why aren't people married now, pro-choice idiot bigot?
> And in the early 1900s, they didn't want inter-faith marriages.
Why are you complaining about that?
Are you against people having the way they like it?
No One
> "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
> news:uitrv29ob3gkte8cf...@4ax.com...
> > On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> > <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> >>Homosexual Civil Unions
> >
> > I agree. The idea of gay "civil unions" is ridiculous: gay *marriage*
> > is the answer.
>
> I did some plumbing on the weekend,
> Can you tell me why i could not join two male fittings?
Because you weren't hot enough. :-)
(Enough heat, and you could have just welded them together.)
John D.Wentzky
No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
So, are you faggots going to light your dicks on fire to put them together?
Jeff North
Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com>
<v_vLh.13383$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>| "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>| news:uitrv29ob3gkte8cf...@4ax.com...
>| > On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>| > <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>| >
>| >>Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
>| >>Homosexual Civil Unions
>| >
>| > I agree. The idea of gay "civil unions" is ridiculous: gay *marriage*
>| > is the answer.
>|
>| I did some plumbing on the weekend,
>| Can you tell me why i could not join two male fittings?
Another simple-minded fool.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnor...@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff North
lora...@cs.com
<1174304286....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>| On Mar 18, 10:50 pm, Jeff North <jnort...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>| > On 18 Mar 2007 21:58:27 -0700, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Anlatt
>| > the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com>
>| >
>| > <1174280307.549219.241...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>| > >| On Mar 18, 8:38 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>| > >| > On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
>| > >| > wrote:
>| > >| >
>| > >| > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>| > >| >
>| > >| > "The bishop
>| > >| > referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
>| > >| > that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
>| > >| > and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>| > >| >
>| > >| > "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
>| > >| > society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>| > >| >
>| > >| > Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>| > >|
>| > >| Possibly true. But gay marriage does not weaken the stability of
>| > >| marriage in any way.
>| >
>| > Should we let them in on the little secret that the Catholic Church
>| > performed same-sex marriages between the 9th and 14th centuries?
>|
>| So little known that maybe it never existed, eh?
There has been a lot written about marriage and the church. Just
because you want to keep your head in the sand doesn't mean that such
information doesn't exist.
Patriot Games
news:uitrv29ob3gkte8cf...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>>Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
>>Homosexual Civil Unions
> I agree. The idea of gay "civil unions" is ridiculous: gay *marriage*
> is the answer.
Fag "marriage" is impossible. Marriage is only for a man and a woman.
Jeff North
lora...@cs.com
<1174283963.6...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>| On Mar 18, 9:46 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>| > On Mar 19, 2:38 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>| >
>| > > On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
>| > > wrote:
>| >
>| > > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>| >
>| > > "The bishop
>| > > referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
>| > > that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
>| > > and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>| >
>| > > "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
>| > > society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>| >
>| > > Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>| >
>| > And of course homosexuals have families and are part of families.
>| > Mark.
>|
>| Yes, they may be part of families.
>| But they cannot ever create families - other than by artificial means.
>| Thus they cannot ever have normal families - nor have normal
>| marriages.
It's good to see that you despise heterosexual marriages that need to
use IVF.
Patriot Games
news:1174322257.0...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
Who cares? Its irrelevant.
Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Jeff North
lora...@cs.com
<1174305449.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>| On Mar 18, 11:05 pm, "Radical Hippo" <radical_hi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>| > On Mar 19, 1:59 am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>| >
>| > > On Mar 18, 9:46 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>| >
>| > > > On Mar 19, 2:38 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>| >
>| > > > > On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
>| > > > > wrote:
>| >
>| > > > > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>| >
>| > > > > "The bishop
>| > > > > referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
>| > > > > that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
>| > > > > and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>| >
>| > > > > "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
>| > > > > society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>| >
>| > > > > Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>| >
>| > > > And of course homosexuals have families and are part of families.
>| > > > Mark.
>| >
>| > > Yes, they may be part of families.
>| > > But they cannot ever create families - other than by artificial means.
>| > > Thus they cannot ever have normal families - nor have normal
>| > > marriages.
>| >
>| > Gays can have straight sex in the same way straights can have gay
>| > sex.
>|
>| If you say so.
>|
>| > And why are you so concerned about the ability to bear
>| > children?
>|
>| I am not overly concerned about procreative abilities. I am more
>| concerned about maintaining proper terminology and order in society -
>| as exists in the traditional family unit.
Are you sure you don't mean contemporary family unit?
Todays family unit (mum, dad 2.3 kids, house and white picket fence)
only came about since the 1950's. Prior to that it was the extended
family.
>| > This world is burgeoning with underfed, underloved
>| > children.
>|
>| Due, in large part to a breakdown of that same heterogenous marriage
>| unit - the family.
>| The same family unit that you, apparently, wish to even further
>| disempower - by equating it with less responsible abstract lifestyle
>| pairings.
>|
>| > You aren't helping the cause by standing in the way gay
>| > marriage, an institutional change that would benefit hundreds of
>| > thousands of people.- Hide quoted text -
>|
>| That's BS.
>| 'Gay marrige' produces no children.. so 'gay marriage' supporters have
>| absolutely no 'kids' in the debate anyway.
>|
>| Societies have usually allowed for odd pairings throughout history;
>| old bachelors or spinsters living togather.
>| Today those could be equated to 'civil unions', I suppose.
>| That should be enough.
Jeff North
lora...@cs.com
<1174304228.1...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>| On Mar 18, 10:49 pm, Jeff North <jnort...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>| > On 18 Mar 2007 20:38:56 -0700, in alt.politics.homosexuality
>| > lorad...@cs.com
>| >
>| > <1174275536.412660.44...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>| > >| On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
>| > >| wrote:
>| > >| >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>| > >|
>| > >| "The bishop
>| > >| referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
>| > >| that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
>| > >| and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>| > >|
>| > >| "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
>| > >| society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>| > >|
>| > >| Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>| >
>| > EOTFLMAO. This from a bunch of never married men (who live, work and
>| > play together) and run around in dresses.
>|
>| Again, your concern regarding unmarried men has no bearing upon normal
>| and accepted marriages.
>| Try to focus.
JUst because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean the I wasn't
focused with my reply, fool.
Free Lunch
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_...@Yahoo.com> wrote in
<ZaBLh.6481$8B1.4669@trnddc04>:
It's a social convention. There's no reason to refuse to give the
benefits and responsibilities of marriage to gays.
thomas p.
> On Mar 19, 3:03 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
> > On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>
> > <1174263570.489478.168...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > >Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> > >Homosexual Civil Unions
>
> > their dresses and go home.
> > --
> > Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
> Of course the Church no longer has secular power.
> Just their religious faithful do.
And the number gets smaller and smaller.
Jeff North
<dahlgr...@gmail.com>
<1174322257.0...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
All those red blooded heterosexual men will turn gay. Just ask Paul
Cameron :-)
http://www.ralliance.org/Cameron.html
Cameron told Rolling Stone magazine in a March 1999 interview that he
feared gay sex would supplant heterosexual sex unless a vigilant
society repressed it. "Marital sex tends toward the boring," he said.
"Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that
homosexual sex does." If all one seeks is an orgasm, he said, "the
evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women.
Homosexuality," he said, "seems too powerful to resist."
thomas p.
> On Mar 19, 3:06 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
> > On 18 Mar 2007 21:36:32 -0700, "bob&carole"
> > <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> > <1174278992.219846.26...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > >Thank God the Church is willing to take a stand for decency.
>
>
> You seem to.
>
> > And prove any god exists.
>
> You are here, aren't you?
That certainly establishes his existence. How about a god?
thomas p.
> On Mar 19, 3:07 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
> > On 19 Mar 2007 02:30:12 -0700, "Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> in
> > alt.abortion with message-id
>
> > <1174296612.151954.237...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > >On Mar 19, 12:19 am, "Sound of Trumpet"
> > ><sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> > >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> > >> Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> > >> Homosexual Civil Unions
>
>
> > The idea of anyone doing something without their approval is enough to
> > drive cultists up the wall.
>
> Just like you prove.
How so?
Jeff North
lora...@cs.com
<1174304664.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>| On Mar 18, 10:53 pm, Jeff North <jnort...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>| > On 18 Mar 2007 21:35:27 -0700, in alt.politics.homosexuality
>|
>| > Marriage license != breeding license.
>|
>| Well then.. by your own definition you have excluded same sex
>| marriages.
>|
>| > FYI, you don't need a marriage license to produce off-spring.
>|
>| No one ever said you did.
>|
>| > So post-menipausal women should automatically have their marriages
>| > annulled?
>|
>| What does the age of a married couple have to do with the normalcy and
>| western civilization's accepted tradition of marriage?
>| Nothing.
Isn't it amazing that you snipped out all of your previous comments so
people couldn't see my responses in context. A mark of someone loosing
the debate.
thomas p.
> On Mar 19, 4:09 am, "Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 11:59 am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 3:06 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
> > > > On 18 Mar 2007 21:36:32 -0700, "bob&carole"
> > > > <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> > > > <1174278992.219846.26...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >Thank God the Church is willing to take a stand for decency.
>
> > > > As if anyone outside the cult cares.
>
> > > You seem to.
>
> > > > And prove any god exists.
>
> > > You are here, aren't you?
>
> > guy but even so, that's a huge leap of logic.
>
> That would probably be stretching my intended meaning a bit..
> I meant to imply that the extemely complicated organization of an
> Atilla requires the pre-existence of an ordered universe functioning
> in an ordered way...
>
> One could term that mulriplexed order itself to be 'God'.
> Or one could term that order to be evidence of God.
Or one could call it nature.
>
> It's up to those created by that order to appreciate their existence
> and relationship to that prerequisite ordered system - or not.
In other words you have no evidence.
thomas p.
> "raven1" <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>
> news:uitrv29ob3gkte8cf...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> > <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>
> >>Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> >>Homosexual Civil Unions
>
> > is the answer.
>
> Can you tell me why i could not join two male fittings?
>
This may come as a surprise for you, but plumbing fixtures are not
living beings. They have no gender. Your analogy has no validity.
thomas p.
wrote:
> Innews:1174322257.0...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
> John <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> typed:
Did he even mention brothers/cousins?
thomas p.
wrote:
> Innews:EVyLh.7490$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net,
> Dennis Kemmerer <d...@suespammers.org> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <lorad...@cs.com> wrote in message
> >news:1174305449.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Mar 18, 11:05 pm, "Radical Hippo" <radical_hi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 19, 1:59 am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>> You aren't helping the cause by standing in the way gay
> >>> marriage, an institutional change that would benefit hundreds of
> >>> thousands of people.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> That's BS.
> >> 'Gay marrige' produces no children.. so 'gay marriage' supporters
> >> have absolutely no 'kids' in the debate anyway.
>
> > There's lots of same-sex couples who have and are rasing normal,
> > well-adjusted, successful kids. The fact that homophobic assholes
> > like you don't like it is, well, too fucking bad for you.
>
> LOL!
No, another fact is mentioned that you cannot refute.
thomas p.
wrote:
> Innews:CVyLh.7487$JZ3...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net,
> Dennis Kemmerer <d...@suespammers.org> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <lorad...@cs.com> wrote in message
No, you are. You are against same-sex marriage, right?
thomas p.
> "raven1" <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>
> news:uitrv29ob3gkte8cf...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> >>Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> >>Homosexual Civil Unions
> > I agree. The idea of gay "civil unions" is ridiculous: gay *marriage*
> > is the answer.
>
> Fag "marriage" is impossible. Marriage is only for a man and a woman.
Marriage is for whomever the law says it is for.
thomas p.
> "John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Not if the law is changed, and, in some places, it has changed.
raven1
wrote:
>
>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>news:uitrv29ob3gkte8cf...@4ax.com...
>> On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>> <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
>>>Homosexual Civil Unions
>>
>> I agree. The idea of gay "civil unions" is ridiculous: gay *marriage*
>> is the answer.
>
>I did some plumbing on the weekend,
>Can you tell me why i could not join two male fittings?
You can, with the proper ring...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
raven1
Nope, all it requires is a simple change in civil laws.
> Marriage is only for a man and a woman.
Forty years ago, interracial marriage was also prohibited in much of
the US. Your point is?
raven1
>On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
>wrote:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
>"The bishop
>referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
>that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
>and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>
>"If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
>society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>
>Sounds correct and obvious to me.
It's far from clear to me how allowing same-sex couples to marry
weakens, rather than strengthens, the idea of family stability.
Martin
> Why shouldn't they after the scandal that stole so much money from the RCC
> in Boston?
Why shouldn't who do what?
>
>
John D.Wentzky
thomas p. <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> typed:
I'm not complaining about it.
> You are against same-sex marriage, right?
Yes.
Is it a sin to be against same-sex marriages?
LOL!
John D.Wentzky
thomas p. <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> typed:
Settled you down pretty quick, huh?
John D.Wentzky
thomas p. <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> typed:
He didn't need to.
Same-sex marriage is same-sex marriage.
Unequal privileges are unequal privileges.
Homosexual is not equivalent to heterosexual so it can not be awarded equal
treatment to heterosexual marriage.
John D.Wentzky
thomas p. <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> typed:
By the constitutionally required process?
NO!
No One
> In news:87wt1di...@nospam.pacbell.net,
> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
> > "H Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com> writes:
> >
> >>>> Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> >>>> Homosexual Civil Unions
> >>>
> >>> I agree. The idea of gay "civil unions" is ridiculous: gay
> >>> *marriage* is the answer.
> >>
> >> I did some plumbing on the weekend,
> >> Can you tell me why i could not join two male fittings?
> >
> > Because you weren't hot enough. :-)
> > (Enough heat, and you could have just welded them together.)
>
> So, are you faggots going to light your dicks on fire to put them together?
Oh, so you are one of those mindless "Christians" who call anyone who
disagrees with you a "faggot".
John D.Wentzky
No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
Me, mindless?
Does that mean your apparent resistance to "Say No to Same-Sex Marriage" via
a reference to welding two male members together wouldn't make anyone think
you are gay?
Mark Sebree
wrote:
> Innews:1174332579....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> thomas p. <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> typed:
>
>
>
> > On 19 Mar., 17:40, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> Innews:1174322257.0...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
> >> John <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> typed:
>
> >>> On Mar 18, 11:38 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet"
> >>>> <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> >>>> "The bishop
> >>>> referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it
> >>>> states that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit
> >>>> of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>
> >>>> "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
> >>>> society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>
> >>>> Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>
> >>> How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
>
> >> Are you saying you are for brothers/cousins, etc entering into
> >> marriage agreements?
>
> > Did he even mention brothers/cousins?
>
> He didn't need to.
Nor did you. Nobody ever made the claim that you said was made.
> Same-sex marriage is same-sex marriage.
And it is the same things as opposite sex marriages.
> Unequal privileges are unequal privileges.
And that is what you want, for homosexuals to have less privileges
than heterosexuals. You do not want homosexuals to have equal rights.
> Homosexual is not equivalent to heterosexual so it can not be awarded equal
> treatment to heterosexual marriage.
This very statements shows clearly that you are proposing that
homosexuals have fewer rights than heterosexuals for no valid reason.
Homosexuals ARE equivalent to heterosexuals because both groups are
groups of human beings. Marriage is the legal joining of two
consenting adults. There is no valid reason why two men or two women
cannot get married if they so wish in the same manner and for the same
reasons as a man and a woman. Homosexuals should have the same rights
as heterosexuals, and that includes the right to marry the consenting
single person of his or her choice.
In your post, you demonstrated that you are indeed a homophobe, and
you support discrimination and denial of equal rights to a segment of
the citizens of the USA for no valid reason.
Mark Sebree
John
> "John" <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174322257.0...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Sez who? One credible source, please and not the Bible since we can
prove that the Bible is so full of contradictions as to be ignored.
lora...@cs.com
No it isn't. Same sex marriages are abnormal by definition.
> > Unequal privileges are unequal privileges.
>
> And that is what you want, for homosexuals to have less privileges
> than heterosexuals. You do not want homosexuals to have equal rights.
it's not necessarily individuals or even religions that mandate that
same-sex marriages are a contradiction in terms. It is Nature itself
who makes the definitive statement.
> > Homosexual is not equivalent to heterosexual so it can not be awarded equal
> > treatment to heterosexual marriage.
>
> This very statements shows clearly that you are proposing that
> homosexuals have fewer rights than heterosexuals for no valid reason.
For valid reason.. For the valid reason of their being unable to
create children.
> Homosexuals ARE equivalent to heterosexuals because both groups are
> groups of human beings.
But humanity is not hermaphroditic... a small oversight on your part.
> Marriage is the legal joining of two
> consenting adults.
Two consenting 'marriageable' adults. In most states 'marriageable' is
defined as man and woman.
> There is no valid reason why two men or two women
> cannot get married if they so wish in the same manner and for the same
> reasons as a man and a woman.
Go argue with Nature not us. Nature says such 'marriages' are
biological abnormalities.
> Homosexuals should have the same rights
> as heterosexuals, and that includes the right to marry the consenting
> single person of his or her choice.
Your best bet is to find a socialist society that welcomes the
destruction of the traditional and normal family unit. Such places are
much more likely to endure biological impossibilities - as they also
seek the destruction of the family unit - by attempting to assume
familial authority and control to their governments.
> In your post, you demonstrated that you are indeed a homophobe, and
> you support discrimination and denial of equal rights to a segment of
> the citizens of the USA for no valid reason.
>
> Mark Sebree
Equal rights is a false flag to attempt to march under.
There is no law that will ever compel Nature to allow same sex
marriages to produce children.
'Civil unions' where allowed, should be sufficient for any same-sex
couples anywhere.
For people to try to pretend that they are something - that they are
not - is insanity.
Andrew F. Heil
Anlatt the Builder
> "raven1" <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>
> news:uitrv29ob3gkte8cf...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 18 Mar 2007 17:19:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> > <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>
> >>Vatican Prelate: Catholics will "do everything possible" to prevent
> >>Homosexual Civil Unions
>
> > I agree. The idea of gay "civil unions" is ridiculous: gay *marriage*
> > is the answer.
>
> I did some plumbing on the weekend,
> Can you tell me why i could not join two male fittings?
>
The use of the words "male" and "female" for plumbing fixtures is very
different from the use of those same words for human beings.
One refers to rigid, inanimate objects that have no thoughts or
feelings.
The other refers to human beings who can think, feel, and fall in
love.
So perhaps the comparison isn't particuarly useful.
I'll ask a question that is, perhaps, more to the point:
I did some socializing this weekend (instead of plumbing). I met a gay
male couple who have been together for years, have a happy life, and
presumably enjoy their sex life together. ("Presumably," because it
wasn't really a subject of conversation.)
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE, given that a plumber cannot fit two male
fittings together!!??!?
Anlatt the Builder
>
> > > > And of course homosexuals have families and are part of families.
> > > > Mark.
>
> > > Yes, they may be part of families.
> > > But they cannot ever create families - other than by artificial means.
> > > Thus they cannot ever have normal families - nor have normal
> > > marriages.
>
> > Gays can have straight sex in the same way straights can have gay
> > sex.
>
> If you say so.
>
> > And why are you so concerned about the ability to bear
> > children?
>
> I am not overly concerned about procreative abilities. I am more
> concerned about maintaining proper terminology and order in society -
> as exists in the traditional family unit.
>
> > This world is burgeoning with underfed, underloved
> > children.
>
> Due, in large part to a breakdown of that same heterogenous marriage
> unit - the family.
> The same family unit that you, apparently, wish to even further
> disempower - by equating it with less responsible abstract lifestyle
> pairings.
>
Oh, that's brilliant! Blame the multitude of unwanted and uncared-for
children on gays!
Supporters of gay marriage are not attempting to "disempower" any
family unit. Nor is there any evidence that, if gay marriage is
permitted, any family unti would be disempowered.
As for "less responsible": some gay couples are less responsible than
some straight couples. Some gay couples are more responsbile than some
straight couples. It depends on the couples. No general statement can
be made.
Gay marriage is not an "abstract lifestyle pairing," an absurd phrase
whose only purpose is to drain the humanity out of a human activity. A
gay marriage is a union of two people who love each other - at least,
as much as a straight marriage is.
Anlatt the Builder
> On Mar 18, 9:46 pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 2:38 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 18, 4:19 pm, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799776/posts
>
> > > "The bishop
> > > referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where it states
> > > that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
> > > and is entitled to protection by society and the state."
>
> > > "If family stability is weakened, the fundamental group unit of
> > > society is also weakened," Bishop Sgreccia said. "
>
> > > Sounds correct and obvious to me.
>
> > Mark.
>
> Yes, they may be part of families.
> But they cannot ever create families - other than by artificial means.
> Thus they cannot ever have normal families - nor have normal
> marriages
This depends entirely on your shifting, unclear definition of
"normal."
There are many heterosexual couples who cannot "create families" (to
use your expression) except through artifical means. Are they also
unable to have normal families or normal marriages?
Anlatt the Builder
>
> Of course there is... Normal marriage produces children and a family.
> Gay unions do not.
>
There are many heterosexual marriages that do not produce chilren. Are
these marriages not normal? Should they be illegal?
> > Now just what is the problems with that, except it upsets your church?
>
> The problem is that you are attempting to equate non-productive life-
> styles with normal marriages.
> They are basically different.
>
You know, anybody who actually spends time with gay couples know how
silly this is. Gay couples and straight couples are NOT "basically
different." They argue about money. They fall asleep in front of the
TV. They plan for the future. Sometimes they have children - through
whatever means (and that applies to both straight and gays) - and they
raise them the best they can.
Even very conservative and/or "religious" people (I use the quotes,
because there's all sorts of wyas to be religious), when they actually
spend time with gay couples, cannot help but see how utterly similar
they are to straight couples. If you can't see this, it's because
you're not using the eyes God gave you.
The differences are only important if you think that the most
important thing about marriage is the precise way in which the married
couple has sex. (Oh, gosh! Straight couples have kids through sex,
adoption, or surrogacy, while gays have kids through adoption or
surrogacy. The shock! The horror!) Or, more to the point, your
stereotypes about how they have sex - because you'd be surprised about
what some straight couples do behind closed doors.
This focus on the mechanics of sex completely ignored what a real
relationship is all about, and is quite unhealthy. But typical of anti-
gay bigots, most of whom seem to be unable to stop thinking about gay
sex.
Dennis Kemmerer
news:1174339357....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 19, 12:51 pm, "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> > Homosexual is not equivalent to heterosexual so it can not be awarded
>> > equal
>> > treatment to heterosexual marriage.
>>
>> This very statements shows clearly that you are proposing that
>> homosexuals have fewer rights than heterosexuals for no valid reason.
>
> For valid reason.. For the valid reason of their being unable to
> create children.
I just checked again. 'Being able to create children' still isn't on the
marriage license application.
[snip]
> Your best bet is to find a socialist society that welcomes the
> destruction of the traditional and normal family unit.
Still begging the question, I see.
[snip]
> 'Civil unions' where allowed, should be sufficient for any same-sex
> couples anywhere.
Can we say 'back of the bus?'
[snip]