My church is close to splitting, and it makes me sad!

[Dreadsox]

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/02/bc522003-faa5-48ce-bedc-2d4d3d8adbd6.html

http://iccheshireonline.icnetwork.c...sade-as-church-heads-for-split-name_page.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Anglicans-postpone-their-schism/2005/02/28/1109546794462.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1425917,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Church-divides-over-gays/2005/02/25/1109180081593.html

There are apparently three issues.....

1) Ordination of Female Bishops
2) Gay Bishop in New Hampshire
3) Approving the marriage of same-sex unions in the church in Canada and America

The United States and Canada have been asked to withdraw from the Anglican community until 2008 and rethink our postion on these issues.

 

[Scarletwine]

I've read about this Dread, sorry. Mine is also rethinking the recent alliances they've made, especially with the Newly ordained Episc. Priest that is gay.

 

[BVS]

I think this is the story of our country and churches throughout.

 

[melon]

If the conservatives want to split off and form their own church, so be it. You don't need their dead weight anyway.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

There are some churches in Africa that are refusing AIDS money from the American Church because of the stances above.

 

[deep]

A church a few from blocks from my house split off for the same reasons and went under a bishop in Africa.

they are in a dispute over the property now. it is worth several millon dollars

 

[Teta040]

I find that statement about "the liberals ruining the church for the past 40 years" to be offensive. One may as well argue that declining membership and lack of new ordinations of priests in the American Roman Catholic Church to be because of "40 yrs of liberal mismanagement." As well may argue that present generations had a problem with Vatican II. Before the past 2 yrs (when this whole gay marriage thing blew up), people were leaving the churches, ironically, because of the stranglehold of conseratives. For example, I wonder if your average western Roman Catholic knows that in Africa, Catholic priests have always been allowed to marry? For some reason, the Church has kept this fact hush-hush, even as they seek to crack down ever more harshly on "liberal" demands that priest be allowed to marry. The Boston sex scandal has only accelerated this alientation. In Africa, I suppose, you couldn't expect to even HAVE a Catholic church there, so I guess this is the one areaof the world where the Vatican has given in.

People are leaving the mainstream traditional churches, quite simply, becuase they are boring. They feel alienated, as they are unresponsive to demands for change, ossified in antuquated ritual, the sermons are for the most part not addressing contemporary issues, and those they do attempt to address are out of touch. IN a way, they are open to attack from both sides of the political spectrum.

Of course, our "Christian in Chief" (if one could call a man who gleefully advocates torture and imprisonment without trail of men who have not been proven guilty of any crime, and any other number of lies, cheating, etc etc, a Christian--as I have said else where, I find it the supreme irony that while we are supposedly trying to make Iraq a secular democracy, the mullahs are taking over at home, and we are being led by the Mullah in Chief) foments a great deal of this, and for purely political reasons. I don't find him addressing other aspects of Christian life, humaniarian concerns; ONLY issues that were politically devisive before he took power (abortion for example.) that could be turned to his advantage.

I am SO saddened and confused by this, as I myself, while hating these churches who meddle in politics with every fiber of my being (having been in a couple and seen the ugly way they work), also agree with them in this one aspect about gay marriage. If it was just to cement the unnatural relationship, why can't they be satified with going to a justic of the peace? And if that wasn't bad enough, if you S'anctify" a gay marriage, they now want to adopt children, and have the same financa rights as natural unions? The attempt to incorporate children into some sort of "family" is indeed a perversion of nature. I'm sorry, but I have to say it, and I wonder how all these couples who have taught their little kids that they have 2 mommes or 2 daddies are going to teach "their" kids about sex ed. Can you see it now..."Mommy" (a little girl, to a man) where did I come from? Where do babies come from? " And of course they'd have to confront this issue and explain. One can imagine which way the conversation is going to go....children being honest beings. 10 yrs fromnow, let's see how successful these children broughtup under such circumsyances are....

I am sorry and saddened that this has to come about. But the gay community has brought this upon themsleves, by pushing this issue too far.This is the ONLY time that I'd draw the line at civil liberties, and normally I am the most civil libertarian out there. This is THE one issue where I draw the line. I'd rather legalize prostitution first. That, to me, would be less of a moral crime, and would even have its uses. You can argue "civil liberties" allyou want, but when you tamper with the most basic fabric of society--the composition of the family, and teaching children that you can have 2 parents of the same sex--THAT is where I draw the line. That os the ONLY true perversion of nature, and of human scoiety, and leftist that I may be, the way some people are using this issue as a sort of "litmus test" (the same way conservatives make abortion rights) is utterly disgusting.

Whay can't there be a place for moderates, for voices of reasona and common sense? I feel that that we are reverting back to the ages of the 16th and 17th centuries, the religious wars we today scoff at--"how many angles can dance o the head of a pin? as we say. Are we any better, when there are REALLY important things going on in the world?

And if I were Episcoplian, (which I'm not), I'd leave the chruch altogether, and not go to ANY church, either side.

My church, the Armenian Aposptolic, hasn't publicly made a statement but we are a pretty conservative church. More importantly, like most Eastern chruches, our priests can marry. It's only the Bishops who can't. I find that high levels of sexual frustration leads to problems.

The worst part is, this Catholic thing about priests not being able to mary isn't even from the Boble, nor from the time of the Apostles. It only dates back to the Middle Ages. I wonder how many Catholics are taught that either?

 

[melon]

I am SO saddened and confused by this, as I myself, while hating these churches who meddle in politics with every fiber of my being (having been in a couple and seen the ugly way they work), also agree with them in this one aspect about gay marriage. If it was just to cement the unnatural relationship, why can't they be satified with going to a justic of the peace? And if that wasn't bad enough, if you S'anctify" a gay marriage, they now want to adopt children, and have the same financa rights as natural unions? The attempt to incorporate children into some sort of "family" is indeed a perversion of nature. I'm sorry, but I have to say it, and I wonder how all these couples who have taught their little kids that they have 2 mommes or 2 daddies are going to teach "their" kids about sex ed. Can you see it now..."Mommy" (a little girl, to a man) where did I come from? Where do babies come from? " And of course they'd have to confront this issue and explain. One can imagine which way the conversation is going to go....children being honest beings. 10 yrs fromnow, let's see how successful these children broughtup under such circumsyances are....

I don't even want to dignify this shit with a response. It's amusing how I agreed with you, until you started spouting antiquated prejudices that made me reject the "ossified" ritual that is religion.

If a penis and a vagina is all that's necessary to be "good parents," then why are all the penises and vaginas getting DNA tests on "Maury Povich"?

Melon

 

[melon]

The worst part is, this Catholic thing about priests not being able to mary isn't even from the Boble, nor from the time of the Apostles. It only dates back to the Middle Ages. I wonder how many Catholics are taught that either?

"This Catholic" learned that in "Church History" in his Catholic HS.

How "enlightened" you are, only to spout homophobic stereotypes in a previous paragraph. While you were reading all the anti-Catholic literature, you probably missed reading a social science book that completely dismissed every homophobic thing you said.

Melon

 

[Teta040]

I'm sorry if you think I am speaking in "homophobic sterotypes." And I want you to know that I have done a great deal of agonizing thought about this issue. A GREAT deal. And I've already told you that I couldn't bear to set foot in a church that had anti-gay policies, simply becuase they are intolerant of everything. You'll notice that i didn't spout any Sodom and Gomorrah fiddle-fadle because I can't stand people retreating blindly behind walls of Scripture. My opposition comes ultimately from much agonized thought of very practical everyday questions, questions that you don't need Scripture to answer.

But I wish some of these people who have no problem with "raising" children in a same-sex union just stop and think about the long-term consequences of how that child will develop. Little kids won't know any better, but what happens when they grow up, and set out on their own? Do you seriously think that they will be just as comfortable in the world as you are? Do you think that if they want to marry "traditionally", that they 'll just be able to hop, skip and jump into "regular" life? That they can say,
If you guys want to marry like my 'parents' did, that's fine, but me, I'll marry the opposite sex and have kids biologically?" You assme that children brought up in these circumsyances will be able to adjust to the world around them with little thought. It's the same logic that older parents made in assuming that divorce has no long-term effect on kids, and they get over it. Well, coming from this 36 yr old veteran of my mom's 3 marriages, that's a load of crap. Why are so many Gen Xer's going into teaching" To not live thier lives the way their parents did....to be able to give thier children the time and care their parents never gave them. To not be like their parents.

Let me tell you something: If my don or daughter said they were gay, I would not "cast them out" as so many right-wingers would. They are my child, and I support them whatever they do. I can't change it, after all. If they walked up to me with another of the same sex and said, "this is my wife," or whatever, I'd smile. They'd be welcome in my house, just the same as always. But if they told me they were going to be bringing a child into their house and raising it as if they were naturla parents, I'd draw the line. I would weep, I'd rage, I'd tear out my hair, I'd abase myself before God for having to commit an act of seperation, but I would have to tell them that that I could not accept. I would not turn them away, I'd merely tell them that they couldn't enter my house with that child. I could not be a "grandma" in that circumstance. There'd be no Scripture, not finger-pointing, no moral claptrap. I'd slump on the couch and weep and wail, but I would have to stand firm. Simply beucase I believe, deep down in my heart, that it is the wrong way for a child to be brought up, and would cause that child too many problems. As I said before: this whole "gay family" thing is in its infancy. 20 yrs from now, let's see how these kids turn out.

I am sorry if this offends you. And it is not an easy thing to say. But CAN'T you understand that some of us, just because we express concerns of any sort, are NOT homophobes? You rush to make assumptions based on that. If the scenario I described above occurred, I'd not cast them out. I find the idea of cutting off contact with anybody a terrible thing. I;d carry on as if things were normal, but for that thing. I'd call them, talk with them, love them, we'd go on as if nothing happened, and they were my child and my friend. They just could not enter my roof as a triumvirate. They should take the hint and not press the issue, any more than they wouldn't get drunk under my roof.

 

[Teta040]

Oh: and regarding the thread below, I have to give my opinion on 2 things.

1) I am against a constituional amendment. This should be a "states rights" issue, like the legalization of pot. I'd protest if one was passed, as I can't stand "mullah in Chief" Bush in action.

2) Forbidding gays to marry does NOT make them "second class citizens." They can marry like so many traditional couples do: by a Justice of the Peace. My mom married 3 times and never had a chruch wedding. I don't consider myself a bastard (in the old sense of the term.) If someone passed a law forbidding this, I'd protest that too. Are people who marry in non-religious weddings S'econd class"? You decide.

Now do you see how complicated this is, for some people?? Some of us don't fall clearly into one slot or the other.

 

[melon]

I'm sorry if you think I am speaking in "homophobic sterotypes." And I want you to know that I have done a great deal of agonizing thought about this issue. A GREAT deal. And I've already told you that I couldn't bear to set foot in a church that had anti-gay policies, simply becuase they are intolerant of everything. You'll notice that i didn't spout any Sodom and Gomorrah fiddle-fadle because I can't stand people retreating blindly behind walls of Scripture. My opposition comes ultimately from much agonized thought of very practical everyday questions, questions that you don't need Scripture to answer.

At bare minimum, I appreciate you putting thought into the issue. That's more I can say from most people.

But I wish some of these people who have no problem with "raising" children in a same-sex union just stop and think about the long-term consequences of how that child will develop. Little kids won't know any better, but what happens when they grow up, and set out on their own? Do you seriously think that they will be just as comfortable in the world as you are? Do you think that if they want to marry "traditionally", that they 'll just be able to hop, skip and jump into "regular" life? That they can say,
If you guys want to marry like my 'parents' did, that's fine, but me, I'll marry the opposite sex and have kids biologically?" You assme that children brought up in these circumsyances will be able to adjust to the world around them with little thought. It's the same logic that older parents made in assuming that divorce has no long-term effect on kids, and they get over it. Well, coming from this 36 yr old veteran of my mom's 3 marriages, that's a load of crap. Why are so many Gen Xer's going into teaching" To not live thier lives the way their parents did....

I just really have no idea where you get this argument from. Do you think that heterosexuals are all angels? Over half of all children now are born as bastards, and probably most of these children are raised by single parents. And let's not forget all the divorces and overall infidelity.

Let's face it: heteros are the *last* people who should be pointing their fingers at homosexuals and wondering if they're going to be bad parents. No, you've all done a good job of fucking up your children without all the big bad homos to blame.

If you're imagining a "Big Gay Al" South Park stereotype raising children, then don't. The slutty stereotypes probably do want nothing to do with marriage or children. Those who do want to get married and adopt children someday are more conservative, and make perfectly fine parents, no better or worse than heteros. And you know why? Despite all this "gay marriage" hoopla, gay individuals have *already* been allowed to adopt for decades. And the studies are out: the children grow up equally normal and well-adjusted.

But if they told me they were going to be bringing a child into their house and raising it as if they were naturla parents, I'd draw the line. I would weep, I'd rage, I'd tear out my hair, I'd abase myself before God for having to commit an act of seperation, but I would have to tell them that that I could not accept. I would not turn them away, I'd merely tell them that they couldn't enter my house with that child. I could not be a "grandma" in that circumstance. There'd be no Scripture, not finger-pointing, no moral claptrap. I'd slump on the couch and weep and wail, but I would have to stand firm.

You're being completely irrational here. Again, credible long-term research sources say that homosexuals make perfectly normal parents, and their children grow up to be perfectly normal. That's not to say that all are going to be good or normal, but heteros have developed some pretty bad and homicidal children too.

I'll be blunt: you seem like an otherwise reasoned and rational person, but this seems to be nothing more than an unabated prejudice that you refuse to let go. And you are entitled to your opinion, but think about what I've said here.

Melon

 

[Teta040]

I am thinking. I;ve thought, and thought, and I didn't develop these opinions overnight.

I just read a couple of other threads on here. Every time the Pope (great insirational leader that he is, Communism etc, but still, celibate) or any other leader opens up their trap about "morality" and society", I have to laugh. beucase today the biggest public Christians commit the greatest evil.

But then, I think about my opinions..and personal observations..and my life experience..and I feel the way i do.


Now I know why I never used to enter this part of the Forum...it messes me up too much. I am sick of the stench of politics poisoning everything.

I'll think, yes. But it'll be a while before I am back here.

 

[melon]

Oh: and regarding the thread below, I have to give my opinion on 2 things.

1) I am against a constituional amendment. This should be a "states rights" issue, like the legalization of pot. I'd protest if one was passed, as I can't stand "mullah in Chief" Bush in action.

I don't think 50 state amendments against gay marriage make homosexuals feel any better. Their rights are still being denied at the prejudiced whim of the "majority."

2) Forbidding gays to marry does NOT make them "second class citizens." They can marry like so many traditional couples do: by a Justice of the Peace. My mom married 3 times and never had a chruch wedding. I don't consider myself a bastard (in the old sense of the term.) If someone passed a law forbidding this, I'd protest that too. Are people who marry in non-religious weddings S'econd class"? You decide.

First off, your first statement is a contradiction. No one said that legalizing gay marriage would force religions to perform them. On the contrary, if a same-sex couple wants to go to a Unitarian church, they can get married right there. It just won't be legal. But you can't go to a "Justice of the Peace," because gay marriage is illegal (everywhere but MA).

I really have no problem with religions being opposed to gay marriage, because there are plenty of religions that are in favor of it. I do have a problem with homophobic religions speaking for all of religion and then demanding to legislate their prejudices into law. Even in MA, where gay marriage is legal, religions that are opposed to gay marriage are not even remotely forced to perform ceremonies. This is really a moot argument.

Melon

 

[melon]

I am thinking. I;ve thought, and thought, and I didn't develop these opinions overnight.

...

But then, I think about my opinions..and personal observations..and my life experience..and I feel the way i do.

Don't let stubbornness get ahead of reason. Take that for what you will.

Now I know why I never used to enter this part of the Forum...it messes me up too much. I am sick of the stench of politics poisoning everything.

But, alas, "politics" is everywhere and anything. It's only a matter of admitting it.

Melon

 

[indra]

But I wish some of these people who have no problem with "raising" children in a same-sex union just stop and think about the long-term consequences of how that child will develop. Little kids won't know any better, but what happens when they grow up, and set out on their own? Do you seriously think that they will be just as comfortable in the world as you are? Do you think that if they want to marry "traditionally", that they 'll just be able to hop, skip and jump into "regular" life? That they can say,
If you guys want to marry like my 'parents' did, that's fine, but me, I'll marry the opposite sex and have kids biologically?" You assme that children brought up in these circumsyances will be able to adjust to the world around them with little thought. It's the same logic that older parents made in assuming that divorce has no long-term effect on kids, and they get over it. Well, coming from this 36 yr old veteran of my mom's 3 marriages, that's a load of crap. Why are so many Gen Xer's going into teaching" To not live thier lives the way their parents did....to be able to give thier children the time and care their parents never gave them. To not be like their parents.

Let me tell you something: If my don or daughter said they were gay, I would not "cast them out" as so many right-wingers would. They are my child, and I support them whatever they do. I can't change it, after all. If they walked up to me with another of the same sex and said, "this is my wife," or whatever, I'd smile. They'd be welcome in my house, just the same as always. But if they told me they were going to be bringing a child into their house and raising it as if they were naturla parents, I'd draw the line. I would weep, I'd rage, I'd tear out my hair, I'd abase myself before God for having to commit an act of seperation, but I would have to tell them that that I could not accept. I would not turn them away, I'd merely tell them that they couldn't enter my house with that child. I could not be a "grandma" in that circumstance. There'd be no Scripture, not finger-pointing, no moral claptrap. I'd slump on the couch and weep and wail, but I would have to stand firm. Simply beucase I believe, deep down in my heart, that it is the wrong way for a child to be brought up, and would cause that child too many problems. As I said before: this whole "gay family" thing is in its infancy. 20 yrs from now, let's see how these kids turn out.

I am sorry if this offends you. And it is not an easy thing to say. But CAN'T you understand that some of us, just because we express concerns of any sort, are NOT homophobes? You rush to make assumptions based on that. If the scenario I described above occurred, I'd not cast them out. I find the idea of cutting off contact with anybody a terrible thing. I;d carry on as if things were normal, but for that thing. I'd call them, talk with them, love them, we'd go on as if nothing happened, and they were my child and my friend. They just could not enter my roof as a triumvirate. They should take the hint and not press the issue, any more than they wouldn't get drunk under my roof.

You say you care about the child of a homosexual couple so much, but then you go and proudly state that you "would tell them that they couldn't enter my house with that child." That's really showing "that child" how much you care about him or her. You disagree with homosexuals raising a child, because you say it's bad for the child, but then you go and call it "that child" and would forbid your son/daughter, his/her partner, and "that child" in your house? So let be get this...you disagree with the parents but you take out your anger on "that child"? Pardon me, but what the hell good does that do?

 

[indra]

2) Forbidding gays to marry does NOT make them "second class citizens." They can marry like so many traditional couples do: by a Justice of the Peace. My mom married 3 times and never had a chruch wedding. I don't consider myself a bastard (in the old sense of the term.) If someone passed a law forbidding this, I'd protest that too. Are people who marry in non-religious weddings S'econd class"? You decide.

No. Homosexual couples are NOT permitted to be married by a Justice of the Peace (except in MA, I guess). And if you paid any attention to the US elections in Nov. (I'm assuming from some of your comments that you are in the US), you would know that many states are passing laws expressly prohibiting civil marriages as well as any type of civil unions for homosexuals.

I don't care what churches do in regard to any marriages, their sanction means nothing to me, but I think homosexual couples should be able to marry in civil ceremonies (ie., by a JP).

 

[indra]

One other thought Teta040....

It appears to me from your comments that your heterosexual mom had a worse impact on you than my homosexual dad did on me. Just something for you to think about....

 

[Dreadsox]

But I wish some of these people who have no problem with "raising" children in a same-sex union just stop and think about the long-term consequences of how that child will develop. Little kids won't know any better, but what happens when they grow up, and set out on their own?

Well, my two Aunts have been together for almost 30 years. My parents combined have been through 10 marriages. My cousin, raised by my two aunts, is married. He has a beautiful wife. He apparently did not turn out gay. He apparently, since being raised by gay people, did not change his genetic code, contrary to popular belief.

[Q] Do you seriously think that they will be just as comfortable in the world as you are?[/Q]

My cousin played football, basebal soccer. Had friends and firlfriends. Apparently, graduated High School and College and has a pretty damn successful career.

[Q]Do you think that if they want to marry "traditionally", that they 'll just be able to hop, skip and jump into "regular" life?[/Q]

Yes, he apparently was able to without the devastation of my so called regular life filled with divorce.

[Q]That they can say, If you guys want to marry like my 'parents' did, that's fine, but me, I'll marry the opposite sex and have kids biologically?" [/Q]

Apparently, my aunts were able to say theis without getting upset that their straight son married, oh the horror, a woman.

[Q]You assme that children brought up in these circumsyances will be able to adjust to the world around them with little thought. It's the same logic that older parents made in assuming that divorce has no long-term effect on kids, and they get over it. Well, coming from this 36 yr old veteran of my mom's 3 marriages, that's a load of crap. Why are so many Gen Xer's going into teaching" To not live thier lives the way their parents did....to be able to give thier children the time and care their parents never gave them. To not be like their parents. [/Q]

Just curious, how many children do you know raised by Gay people? I am not making assumptions, since my Aunts have provided for me a role model for relationships. A healthy one as opposed to my parents 10 marriages. My cousin turned out pretty darn well and his marriage is approaching 10 years.

 

[MadelynIris]

If a penis and a vagina is all that's necessary to be "good parents,"

Right, not required to be 'good parents' but definitely required to be parents.

The only thing that bothers me about this thread, is that this Teta040 dares to express is opinion, and is immediately labeled as a homophobe and his responses are classified as sh*t.

 

[BVS]

The only thing that bothers me about this thread, is that this Teta040 dares to express is opinion, and is immediately labeled as a homophobe and his responses are classified as sh*t.

What if the person fought the same exact argument for interratial couples?

Would you be so quick to defend it as just expressing an opinion and be upset if anyone called them a racist?

 

[melon]

Right, not required to be 'good parents' but definitely required to be parents.

Correction: definitely required to be biological parents. But since heteros can't seem to control their urges (you know, "hormones" and all), there seem to be plenty of excess children available for adoption.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

The only thing that bothers me about this thread, is that this Teta040 dares to express is opinion, and is immediately labeled as a homophobe and his responses are classified as sh*t.

oh please.

Teta040 couldn't defend his position when challenged by Melon and Dread. there was no labeling going on, simply a refutation of a poorly reasoned argument. you can have whatever belief you want, but when you argue for your beliefs, the argument is then going to be challenged. in each and every post, Melon and Dread resopnded to specific assertions posted by Teta, and each and every time, Teta was defeated. simple as that.

it strikes me as amazing when people cry victim when they are simply outgunned by more logically sound arguments.

very simply: there is no evidence, whatsoever, that children are harmed by having gay parents. none. Teta's positon is one of naivete, if not ignorance.

and besides, wouldn't you want a child with gay parents than bouncing from foster home to foster home?

the anti-gay-adoption thing drives me absolutely insane with rage, sometimes. as Melon pointed out, heteros have absolutely NO moral authority when it comes to being even remotely passable parents, and most gay people who want to adopt have to jump through so many hoops and circumvent so many obstacles that you know they care, deeply.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

There are some churches in Africa that are refusing AIDS money from the American Church because of the stances above.

That's mature.

I don't understand some people.

Originally posted by melon
Correction: definitely required to be biological parents.

Thank you.

I've heard stories from kids that I went to school with, and stories from kids on the other boards I go to and stuff, in which they grew up in homes with heterosexuals for parents. And you know what? Those "parents" are quite sorry excuses for being such. They may have a penis/vagina combo, but they're still downright pathetic parents...they say the cruelest things to their kids (seriously, if my parents ever dared say some of the things to me that these kids' parents have said to them, I'd never want to speak to my parents again), they leave them alone for hours, even days, on end, some kids have even told stories of getting out of abusive homes and stuff.

And I've heard stories of kids who live in homosexual parent households and who have turned out just fine...they haven't "turned gay", they're well-adjusted, they still had talks with their parents about sex and stuff (just because a parent is in love with someone of the same gender doesn't mean that they can't still teach their child about sex the way that a heterosexual would...that's a rather strange assumption to be making, to think they'd have to explain things differently or something).

And on the flip side, there's heterosexuals who are great parents, and there's homosexuals out there who are lousy excuses for parents. The bottom line is this: your sexual orientation holds NO relevance to how good a parent you'll be. Not one iota of relevance. As long as the parents love their child/children, are willing to raise them and clothe them and feed them and take care of them and protect them and all that good stuff, I don't see why anybody should give a damn about whether or not those parents are straight or gay.

People talk about a problem in which the kids can be teased for having gay parents...well, ya know what? Kids can be teased for anything-wearing glasses, being bookworms, not being from a rich family (that was what I got teased about most often in school...and I have heterosexual parents), the list goes on and on. And besides that, that's still not the fault of the gay parents-no, that's the fault of the kids doing the teasing, and the parents of those kids, who obviously haven't taught their children manners. And it's been proven that being around people of one orientation will not make you more likely to be that orientation yourself, so that's not an issue (and even so, who really cares if they do?). And so on and so forth. So I really don't understand why people care so much. Especially when you consider there are so many kids out there who need a good home and everything.

Meh. Just my views and whatnot.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

Most major denominations have been battling these issues for years. I see it happening as well in the Presbyterian Church. The issues dividing the denominations go well beyond the homosexual issue; centering on core issues, such as the divinity of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture. These issues have divided liberal and conservative Christianity for decades.

 

[verte76]

deleted post

 

[Judah]

I don't know why, but i was kind of encouraged that at least Teta040's opposition to same-sex marriage/kid-adoptions isn't based on religious grounds. Mind you, it's not really based on sound logic either...more of a socio-psychological viewpoint. To many, this "debate" is a no-brainer based in equality of rights, and to many others it seems to be a very major psychological hurdle...no matter how many sound, logical arguments are presented (thank god for Dread and Melon), some people can't seem to escape either their politics or, it seems, how they've always thought.

But i'm encouraged, at least being here in Canada, that 10 or 15 years from now, a high majority of people who don't currently support same-sex rights will look back and say "Geez, what the fuck was the big deal?"

[I'm still blown away by all that Catholic Church same-sex marriage blessing rites Dread posted in another thread. I work for a Catholic health care provider and nobody i worked with knew all that stuff. Thanks again, Dread.]

 

[melon]

[I'm still blown away by all that Catholic Church same-sex marriage blessing rites Dread posted in another thread. I work for a Catholic health care provider and nobody i worked with knew all that stuff. Thanks again, Dread.]

What thread was that, BTW? I don't remember reading those in here.

Melon

 

[deep]

[No message]

 

[Judah]

Melon, it's the "new ideology of evil" thread...you posted in it, man. Dread cut and pasted all that good stuff starting page 9 (and 10).