Should gay marriages be allowed in our country?

[niky]

a lot of people are disgusted with the movie Alexander inspite his conquests.

although we cant deny the fact that most powerful men in our history are homo***uals or are rumored to be homo***uals, but that's only bec. they have nothing to lose. they dont have families, women and children. or at times, they pretend to have one for show.


so the next time you ask yourselves why women and children are being massacred, you might wanna think of what's the personality of the superior officer/criminal & his immediate aid who ordered and who executed it. most real men with families won't agree to it bec. of karma. same goes with politicians who are indifferent to kids and mothers and suffering families.

that's why the Catholic church is against homo***uality. evil can definitely use men with that profile (nothing to lose, nothing to care for, no family).

That needs to be proven. I know a lot of mass murderers who were so hetero***ual they'd rape and kill young women. An unstable personality is an unstable personality, period. We've had our share of them in my company, both homo***ual and hetero***ual.

You see a lot of newspaper items about homicidal gays, right? Look again... there are tons of murders, careless killings, rapes, etcetera, by non-gays. The gay ones stand out just because they are labelled as such. Same with muslim killings... newspapers never print articles stating HETERO***UAL (STRAIGHT) CHRISTIAN KILLS WIFE, now do they?

And Alexander wasn't homo***ual, he was bi-***ual. Here's your conundrum... in his relations with other men, was he the giver or the receiver? If he was the giver, then he still retained his masculinity, and used *** as a tool of dominance.

nope.
the bible says so.
however, if their reason
is to protect their partner, i.e.,
inheritance/custody issues,
a legal contract might be more
appropriate.

That's what marriage is in the law... a legal contract. That's why we have two marriages, the church marriage, and the civil marriage. People can do the civil without the Church, but cannot legally do the Church without the civil (it'll be binding in the eyes of God, but not in the eyes of the law...) magiging "common-law" spouses lang, less rights than a legal partner.

didnt make it up bro *m54, I just read it from ancient church stands/opinions, people's/men of the faith opinions and the like ... back in the creationism vs. evolution thread, I mentioned something about if we like to seek answers to our questions go ancient - read history in a different point of view. and I also ran into this particular topic unintentionally. I could go on, particularly on its significance on modern times but it's off-topic already.

I brought this up to give light to *city's queries.

History may lend us insight into the human condition, but is not always relevant to the present day.

you might wanna read Sodom and Gomorrah.

And God killed a lot of heteros there, too.

A BIG "NO"-tanngap nga natin sa lipunan ang pagiging ganoon nila pati ba namn kasal eh tatangagpin pa,para atang kalabisan na at magiging immoral na nang husto,kung mga parehong lesbian nga eh ang hirap tanngapin,mga kapwa lalaki pa!

Here's the legalistic problem... "immoral" according to who? Legality is not supposed to be determined by religious preference, although, sadly, it is.

yes... good point.



in that case, you might want to read the New Testament. did Jesus say... love everyone except gays and lesbians?

AGREE WITH YA, BRO! GO JESUS!

ah ok. the way i read it i thought these were your own opinions. sorry for misunderstanding. let me revise my statement.

those ancient church people and 'men of the faith' you just quoted are full of ****. as a member of the Catholic faith, i'm happy that the leaders of my Church don't think that way anymore (at least publicly, hehe)

Thank goodness. While Pope John Paul didn't go so far as to bend over and let gays in the clergy, at least he modernized a lot of the church's dogma. (Including its revised stance on Evolution) Sadly, there may never be another Pope as contemporary and world-wise as him.

i'm glad you mentioned this sir *mazdamazda. for a minute their I got confused with this loving everyone ideal of Jesus Christ.

but we are talking about gay marriages -> a union. The New Testament is all about union, God being re-united with his people thru Christ, The union of the Holy Trinity, the resurrection of Christ, the body and blood of christ, the re-affirming of God's ideal -> union of man and woman . The Vatican also views *** as a sacred union to pro-create or to give life (although we hetero***uals do abuse it hehehe).

homo***uals argue that there is no mention of homo***uality in the bible or particularly the NT. hence, they claim that they are safe. or Yaweh in the New Testament is a forgiving and a loving God, he compromises even to the homo***ual ideal.

well, they can twist the truth all they want (like P.R. officers/spin doctors/media mongerers of modern times), they can even pit O.T. and N.T against each other. they can even take priesthood as a career and infiltrate Vatican. they may even fast forward darwin's evolution theory to one ending - man & woman will evolve into homo***uals (hence no more need for man or woman) and will become a***uals beings.


but still this homo***uality idea contradicts God's plan & creation: man & woman - procreate.

Your God's plan. But not everyone is a Christian, thus you can't impose your will on society. Just like Islamists trying to impose Shia law on entire countries is ethically unjust.

The moral strictures in law date from a time when laws were created by heavily religious political leaders. That's why sodomy is still a crime in some parts of the US (ridiculous... it's their butts, they can do whatever they like with them). These moral strictures still have some merit in areas like prostitution (wherein many ***-workers are abused) and adultery (because infidelity on the part of the husband could lead to an abandonment of wife and children), but the artificial dismissal of homo***uality isn't fair to those who choose it.

For me, the only sin is in causing others harm or hurt. Homo***uality does neither. And if allowing legalistic union helps to provide financial and social security for the partners and any dependents, then I'm all for it.

Coming from a broken home, I can tell you that this is the part that matters most. Like I've said, gay couples I've known all have straight children, and the gay people I know are the children of straight couples. There's no transmission of any gay virus, so as long as they are compassionate and caring for them, they should have chance, under the law to become a supportive family unit.

[GasJunkie]

[b]


Your God's plan. But not everyone is a Christian, thus you can't impose your will on society. Just like Islamists trying to impose Shia law on entire countries is ethically unjust.

The moral strictures in law date from a time when laws were created by heavily religious political leaders. That's why sodomy is still a crime in some parts of the US (ridiculous... it's their butts, they can do whatever they like with them). These moral strictures still have some merit in areas like prostitution (wherein many ***-workers are abused) and adultery (because infidelity on the part of the husband could lead to an abandonment of wife and children), but the artificial dismissal of homo***uality isn't fair to those who choose it.

For me, the only sin is in causing others harm or hurt. Homo***uality does neither. And if allowing legalistic union helps to provide financial and social security for the partners and any dependents, then I'm all for it.

Coming from a broken home, I can tell you that this is the part that matters most. Like I've said, gay couples I've known all have straight children, and the gay people I know are the children of straight couples. There's no transmission of any gay virus, so as long as they are compassionate and caring for them, they should have chance, under the law to become a supportive family unit.

At least somebody have their head on right.

[laracroft]

nope.
the bible says so.
however, if their reason
is to protect their partner, i.e.,
inheritance/custody issues,
a legal contract might be more
appropriate.

[oldblue]

didnt make it up bro *m54, I just read it from ancient church stands/opinions, people's/men of the faith opinions and the like ... back in the creationism vs. evolution thread, I mentioned something about if we like to seek answers to our questions go ancient - read history in a different point of view. and I also ran into this particular topic unintentionally. I could go on, particularly on its significance on modern times but it's off-topic already.

I brought this up to give light to *city's queries.

[empy]

didnt make it up bro *m54, I just read it from ancient church stands/opinions, people's/men of the faith opinions and the like ... back in the creationism vs. evolution thread, I mentioned something about if we like to seek answers to our questions go ancient - read history in a different point of view. and I also ran into this particular topic unintentionally. I could go on, particularly on its significance on modern times but it's off-topic already.

I brought this up to give light to *city's queries.

ah ok. the way i read it i thought these were your own opinions. sorry for misunderstanding. let me revise my statement.

those ancient church people and 'men of the faith' you just quoted are full of ****. as a member of the Catholic faith, i'm happy that the leaders of my Church don't think that way anymore (at least publicly, hehe)

[GasJunkie]

Re homo***uality leads to murderers.

I would hope it's not one of those self serving studies.



The truth takes no sides.

[IIE]

hindi ako boto regarding that matter, mahirap yun pag natuloy, e kanino gagamitin surname?

[CoDer]

More. more.. more...


Sige away pa! este discussion pala.

[wren]

i wouldn't do it myself, but it's not for me to question people's choices and certainly would not take away their rights.

[FrankDrebin]

[BlueBimmer]

excellent point FD

[qman]

OT na about alexander the great badingerz

kung bubusisiin ang history noong panahon nila pinalaki po silang bading.. sa discovery channel pinalabas yan eh. edad na 7 o 8 na lalaki hinihiwalay na sa magulang nila at pinalalaki ng isang mandirigma na tinalaga ng gobyerno nila mentor and mentees program baga, tinuturan ang bata hanggang dumating na sa 21 bilang isang mandirigma rin ayon sa history ang mga batang ito ay nagiging lover din ng kanilang mentor.... then ang dating mentees nagiging mentor din yan ang cycle nila kaya ang mga mandirigma na yan ay badingerz

[GasJunkie]

OT na about alexander the great badingerz

kung bubusisiin ang history noong panahon nila pinalaki po silang bading.. sa discovery channel pinalabas yan eh. edad na 7 o 8 na lalaki hinihiwalay na sa magulang nila at pinalalaki ng isang mandirigma na tinalaga ng gobyerno nila mentor and mentees program baga, tinuturan ang bata hanggang dumating na sa 21 bilang isang mandirigma rin ayon sa history ang mga batang ito ay nagiging lover din ng kanilang mentor.... then ang dating mentees nagiging mentor din yan ang cycle nila kaya ang mga mandirigma na yan ay badingerz

Funny stuff

[laracroft]

this is the difficulty with this discussions.
can become personal especially if the
topic is close to your heart.

mga kapatid, walang personalan.
discussion only.
and what's with the "troll"?
who is the "troll"?
please clarify.

thanks!

[BlueBimmer]

this is the difficulty with this discussions.
can become personal especially if the
topic is close to your heart.

mga kapatid, walang personalan.
discussion only.
and what's with the "troll"?
who is the "troll"?
please clarify.

thanks!

lookup troll in google. this thread just made me think of Trolls. as far as im concerned im not pointing fingers. its some posters who points fingers at themselves :D

[GasJunkie]

Laracroft

I'm joining in just for the fun of it.

Trolls are fairy tale beast don't lose sleep over it.

[laracroft]

its getting hot in herre!

troll?
eto ba yung binabayaran
pag dumadaan sa "troll gate"?
hehehe.

corny...

[GasJunkie]

its getting hot in herre!

troll?
eto ba yung binabayaran
pag dumadaan sa "troll gate"?
hehehe.

corny...

It only works on wooden bridge though.

[norman0410]

Wala akong pakialam sa kanila basta ba wag mag kalat ng AIDS eh.

And regarding the question if gay marriages should be allowed. Put yourself in a catholic priests shoes.. Will they allow it? Coz if they won't then wala tayong pinaguusapan dito,

Now if the church won't allow it, then would the government condone it? yeah right .. as if babanggain yun simbahan. Any politician who would do that would be committing political suicide.

[empy]

Wala akong pakialam sa kanila basta ba wag mag kalat ng AIDS eh.

pare ko, the only way you are at risk of contracting AIDS from a gay person is if you get an unscreened blood transfusion, share needles with them....or HAVE *** WITH THEM. are you concerned that any of these scenarios might happen?

And regarding the question if gay marriages should be allowed. Put yourself in a catholic priests shoes.. Will they allow it? Coz if they won't then wala tayong pinaguusapan dito,

slightly off topic, but this is why it was such an embarrassment to the Church when some Catholic priests were revealed to not only be gay but also pedophiles...nagmukhang hypocrito ang simbahan.

Now if the church won't allow it, then would the government condone it? yeah right .. as if babanggain yun simbahan. Any politician who would do that would be committing political suicide.

totally agree. that's why i think it's not only the people who aren't ready, but it's also the government.