Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"

quote:

---

The point about gay marriage is that the very idea destroys the meaning of marriage.

---

Well, which "meaning of marriage" do you have in mind?The one in which marriages were meant to solidify clan or political alliances?Or the one in which the ownership of the females passed from father to husband and the sole purpose of the female was to produce a male heir, and if she failed, she could be discarded?Tell me, Faith, just what do you think marriage has been all about for the vast, vast majority of the history of the institution?

quote:

---

There is not one single reason for gays to be married, it's all cosmetic, all psychological.

---

Uh, of course it's "all psychological". That's what love is, even herterosexual love. It's a state of mind, and it's a way of life.

quote:

---

It accomplishes nothing for the society except the final destruction of the meaning of marriage in the public mind,

---

There are many different "meanings of marriage" in the public mind, Faith.Many people believe that marriage is a partnership between equals and has nothing at all to do with religion. Others believe that marriage is sacred, and/or the the wife should be subservient and obedient to the husband.The point is, nobody can make your church perform religious marriage ceremonies for same sex couples if they don't want to, just like nobody can force your church to perform interracial marriages or mixed faith marriages if they don't want to. You can discriminate as much as you want to in your chuurch, more power to you.But our secular government can't do that.And besides, wouldn't it be great if all of these single gay parents could get married to their partners so their children could get social security benefits and other right enjoyed by the children of straight parents? Why do you want to punish those children? Just because you think you have the right to impose your religious morality upon everyone else in the country?

quote:

---

and what it would accomplish for gays legally can be done in other ways quite easily and leave marriage alone for what it has always been intended for.

---

"Always been intended for?" The solitification of political alliances and the exchange and consolidation of property?

I agree. Not that she's openly lying just that she's swallowed the party line. A quick google (using the search string: pastor prison homosexuality canada) does turn up a story of a Swedish pastor jailed for inciting hatred against homosexuals. There was nothing concerning Canada but christian paranoia.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 07-04-2005 08:37 PM

---

*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

Over half the nation voted for Bush.

---

No, 51% of voters voted for Bush.Only about 42% of the US population voted in the last election.So that means that only about 21% of the country voted for Bush.

Actually, I think it demonstrates how outmoded a concept marriage is. Perhaps it's time to just retire the concept completely.

Apparently I have to concede as I too can't find the story about the arrest of a Canadian pastor. It was all over the internet at one point or so I recall but I can't find it even in all the most likely locations. So, sorry about that. I have a request in to some sources who will be able to give me the facts, however, but they are probably gone for the holiday so I won't hear from them until tomorrow. Yes the Swedish pastor story is out there, and the arrest of Australian pastors but not about homosexuality. That was about Islam.

Yes, that is exactly where all this is headed, and gay marriage is just the last nail in the coffin.

quote:

---

Children who have a variety of temporary "parents" for instance instead of their natural father and mother, or an artificial parentage of gays, often in that case impermanent too. What's good about this? This is the result of legally indulging the whims of individuals instead of enforcing sane rules on all of us.

---

Faith, I live in a small city where gay people are welcomed. In addition, the local adoption laws are such that it is relatively easy for gay couples to adopt each other's children.Several of these couples live in my neighborhood and many come into the shop where I work.Can you tell me how it is that you know that these people are simply adopting and raising children on a whim? They seem to say and do all of the same things with their kids that hetero parents do (and sometimes they are much better parents), but it sure seems like you know better, even though they are my neighbors and all.Can you also instruct me in the ways I can tell that they are "artificial parents"? Exactly what does this mean?

Although, to be honest, the Swedish example is disturbing enough. I don't want to tell our Swedish comrades how to run their country, but unless Ake Green was explicitly advocating violence, I feel that it goes a little too far to bring charges against someone for expressing an opinion, however reprehensible that opinion is.

It's not about how actual people behave. Homosexuals can be good parents. It's the principle involved. It's a matter of meanings, definitions, principles. A couple of aunts can raise children just fine too, but that doesn't change the fact that natural parenting is ideal and should be encouraged. Why do children have to be burdened with definitions of parents that are simply there to indulge somebody's need to be called a parent when they're just a guardian?This message has been edited by Faith, 07-04-2005 09:01 PM

In what way are homosexual people unequal to straight people?Is it kind of like Blacks, or Jews?

No it's not like Blacks or Jews. Homosexuality is a condition, not a race or an ethnic group, it's an aberration. How are they unequal? By having a sexual aberration.

How do you know that "natural" parenting is ideal?And what, exactly, is natural and what is not natural?Is it natural if a mother raises her kids but the husband is away on business 10 months out of the year? What about if a father is a stay at home dad? What if they have a nanny and an au pair? What if grandma lives with them? What if the kids live with Grandma in the summer time?Are any of these situations "natural"?

quote:

---

Homosexuality is a condition, not a race or an ethnic group, it's an aberration.

---

So, if it's an "abberation" does that mean it's a variation in the species, perhaps?So, do you believe that people with genetic "abberations" should be considered unequal to those without said "abberation"?Do you consider blind or deaf people unequal to sighted or hearing people because of their "abberation", their "condition"?

It's a matter of definitions and principles as I said, not actualities, which are always messy.

Hey Scraf, you forgot the historical practise of sending your young children off to be raised by wet nurses in other households to secure alliances.The "nuclear family" of today is very much an abberation in the history of families.