Quote:

Catholics to lobby against gay marriage VICTORIA'S six Catholic bishops will circulate 80,000 letters this weekend asking their parishioners to show the federal government their opposition to same-sex marriage. :) There are currently three gay marriage private members' bills before federal parliament, aimed at changing the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. :( The bishops want all Catholics to contact their MPs and respond to an online survey being conducted by the federal parliament ;) standing committee of social policy and legal affairs. The Bishop of Sale, Christopher Prowse, said it would be a grave mistake with implications for the future of society should the legal definition of marriage be changed. :) “We have asked Catholics to seriously reflect and pray about the ramifications for current and future generations of legislation which completely redefines marriage,” Bishop Prowse said. Marriage equality supporters have described the church's campaign as “alarmist” and rejected claims gay marriage would undermine family life or damage society. “Families and societies are only strengthened when couples are allowed to commit to each other through marriage,” national convenor of Australian Marriage Equality Alex Greenwich said. “So to hear Archbishop Hart discouraging any recognition of this commitment is extraordinary and heartless.” A private bill, amending the Marriage Act to include same-sex couples, has been introduced to federal parliament by Labor MP Stephen Jones. Another bill is being jointly proposed by Australian Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent Andrew Wilkie. Both bills have been referred to parliamentary committees for detailed examination. A third bill, proposed by the Greens, will be considered in the Senate. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/catholics-to-lobby-against-gay-marriage/story-fn59niix-1226314269969

8-)

Fair enough for religious organisations to lobby politicians on issues they feel strongly about.....Perhaps it is time to revue their tax free status as well.....The Church has lost its relevance to a vast majority of Australians who should not have to support their existence with their taxes.....If they want to discriminate they do not deserve Government assistance to do so???

:) :) :)

i think you will find that most Australians did state a religious belief of the last census.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 10:46am:

i think you will find that most Australians did state a religious belief of the last census.

I stated I was a pastafarian and Jedi

The Catholic Church should worry about their own sexual problems.

The catholic church needs to stop its vain attempts to pander to the new religion - the enemy - who will never be satisfied no matter how low they may scrape and bow.  This is a good start along that road.

and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling .....

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:14am:

and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling .....

All to do with education

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:21am:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education

It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ...

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:25am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:21am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ...

Which mistake is that?

... wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:26am:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:25am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:21am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ... Which mistake is that?

Well for one claiming that fairy tales are real,
doesnt sit well with people who have a brain

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:25am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:21am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ...

Well the problem is they have backed themselves into a niche market.
Which is hard to come out of.
Cant exactly change what they say because what they say is ment to be the word of god right?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:27am:

... wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:26am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:25am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:21am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ... Which mistake is that? Well for one claiming that fairy tales are real, doesnt sit well with people who have a brain

We've just swapped one set of fairy tales for another.

... wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:30am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:27am: ... wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:26am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:25am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:21am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ... Which mistake is that? Well for one claiming that fairy tales are real, doesnt sit well with people who have a brain We've just swapped one set of fairy tales for another.

How so?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:32am:

... wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:30am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:27am: ... wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:26am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:25am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:21am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ... Which mistake is that? Well for one claiming that fairy tales are real, doesnt sit well with people who have a brain We've just swapped one set of fairy tales for another. How so?

Liberalism (the new religion) weaves its own web of fanciful fairy tales.  The base of it all being that there is no difference between races/sex/nation/orientation/etc - That we are all just "fellow humans" with no group loyalties - other than to the holy altar of liberalism.  Patently, demostyrablty false, but that doesn't matter becasue the FAITH is strong - peopel WANT to believe.
The stories are different, but the goal is the same - control.  By breaking down old loyalties (race/family/etc) liberalism reduces people to fungible units, freely interchangeable.  And when a man stands alone, how can he stand against the might of the state, that has grown exponentially to enforce this unnatural orthodoxy?

Quote:

Well for one claiming that fairy tales are real, doesnt sit well with people who have a brain

You appear to repeat that comment at every opportunty

And sure, I appreciate that people do accept payment for pushing athiesm online.  What's the going rate -- still .14 cents per post ?

As to 'having a brain' --- I'm not real impressed with yours, have to say

You believe sentient beings sprang from nothing ?  You believe rocks from 'out there' fell into the primordal soup, generated life, including the primitive brain, then slowly crawled up onto land, up trees, down from trees on their rear legs and evolved into Hawkings and Einsteins ?

And you don't care about the source of the 'rocks from out there' which created the seed of what we now term 'humankind' ?

For you, there is NO source ?  Instead, you believe the 'rocks from out there' (carrying the seeds/triggers for what is now humankind, etc.) themselves had no source OR, if they did, then the origin of the 'rocks from out there' involved no higher intelligence ?  As far as you're concerned, there exists NO source/origin of anything which exists or ever existed ?

And you have the hide to talk about 'fairy tales' ?  lol

Quote:

Liberalism (the new religion) weaves its own web of fanciful fairy tales.  The base of it all being that there is no difference between races/sex/nation/orientation/etc - That we are all just "fellow humans" with no group loyalties - other than to the holy altar of liberalism.  Patently, demostyrablty false, but that doesn't matter becasue the FAITH is strong - peopel WANT to believe.

Are you talking about physical or psychological differences?
I think the point they are raising is that on a genetic and physical level we are all the same,
and our differences are strictly social.

Quote:

The stories are different, but the goal is the same - control.  By breaking down old loyalties (race/family/etc) liberalism reduces people to fungible units, freely interchangeable.  And when a man stands alone, how can he stand against the might of the state, that has grown exponentially to enforce this unnatural orthodoxy?

Perhaps, but breaking down of old loyalties is enevitable. We wouldnt have the old loyalties you speak of if we didnt break others down before hand.

I dont see what the oppression of our state has to do with it tho?

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:14am:

and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling .....

That would be due to the behaviour of some teachers and priests in the Catholic religion - nothing at all to do with gay rights.

Most heterosexuals don't even want to be bothered with the subject nor want an invitation to such nuptials.

I socialise with homosexuals and find some very charming but it's a bit of a turnoff when they demonstrate their fondness for each other in public.

That goes for heteros as well. It shouldn't be for general exhibition.

... wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:40am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:32am: ... wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:30am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:27am: ... wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:26am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:25am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:21am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ... Which mistake is that? Well for one claiming that fairy tales are real, doesnt sit well with people who have a brain We've just swapped one set of fairy tales for another. How so? Liberalism (the new religion) weaves its own web of fanciful fairy tales.  The base of it all being that there is no difference between races/sex/nation/orientation/etc - That we are all just "fellow humans" with no group loyalties - other than to the holy altar of liberalism.  Patently, demostyrablty false, but that doesn't matter becasue the FAITH is strong - peopel WANT to believe. The stories are different, but the goal is the same - control.  By breaking down old loyalties (race/family/etc) liberalism reduces people to fungible units, freely interchangeable.  And when a man stands alone, how can he stand against the might of the state, that has grown exponentially to enforce this unnatural orthodoxy?

What a load of trolls dung. The church has been selling out it's core beliefs for years now, lowering it's standards. This sort of attack on liberalism particularly as the faithful to liberalism are generally christians anyway is a cynical and sad defence. Becoming educated and realising you were told a fairy tale does not mean you go find another faith, that is reserved for the rebells of ignorance.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 10:46am:

i think you will find that most Australians did state a religious belief of the last census.

Albeit - mostly "non-practicing

The REALITY is, the VAST BULK of Australians SUPPORT same sex marriage - proclaimed "Christians", included

A majority of Christians support marriage equality

http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/marriagereligion.pdf



Holding up legislation, with BOTH parties, is marginal western suburbs electorates


http://images.borders.com.au/images/bau/97809807/9780980790443/0/0/plain/the-bogan-delusion.jpg

It appears not all Churches are homophobic and stuck in the 19th century like the Roman Catholics who defend child molesters!!!

Clergy call for marriage equality

A letter from 20 multi-faith clergy from around the country is calling on Australians to show their support for marriage equality by making submissions to the Senate inquiry and the House Representatives inquiry into same-sex marriage.

Today is the last day to make a submission to the Senate inquiry. You can do so here.

It comes as six Victorian Catholic Bishops wrote to parishioners at the weekend asking them to oppose equality for same-sex couples.

The supportive clergy come from Uniting, Baptist, Anglican, Jewish, and other faith groups and their letter was sent to 60,000 supporters.

“As clergy from various different faiths and denominations in Australia, we believe marriage is a fundamental institution in our society,” the letter read.

“It fosters greater commitment between partners, provides children with a sense of security and stability, and strengthens ties with families and communities.

“Marriage is a blessing to be shared, so we encourage people of faith who support marriage equality to voice their support for the reform by sending a submission to the Senate and Lower House inquiries on same-sex marriage today.”

Australian Marriage Equality national convenor Alex Greenwich said the clergy were sending a clear message to decision-makers in Canberra.

“These clergy value the security and recognition that comes with marriage, and are calling for this important right to be extended to loving and committed same-sex couples,” he said.

Greenwich said the letter was a sign of the growing momentum towards marriage equality.

“Some of the clergy were once opposed to marriage equality, but have gone on the same journey of acceptance that a majority of Australians have,” he said.

“Despite the moves of the Victorian Catholic Church, same-sex couples and our families can be confident we now have strong support from religious leaders across the country.”

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/australia-news/new-south-wales-news/2012/04/02/clergy-call-for-marriage-equality/75055

[smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=beer.gif]

nairbe wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 1:17pm:

Becoming educated and realising you were told a fairy tale does not mean you go find another faith, that is reserved for the rebells of ignorance.

So why have formerly christian countries (to the exclusion of all others) embraced liberalism?  The tenets of liberalism are easily disproved - but if you've ever tried arguing with a religious person, facts mean nothing to them - their faith is stronger.  Even if you don't call it a religion, it still ticks all the boxes of one.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 12:51pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... That would be due to the behaviour of some teachers and priests in the Catholic religion - nothing at all to do with gay rights. Most heterosexuals don't even want to be bothered with the subject nor want an invitation to such nuptials. I socialise with homosexuals and find some very charming but it's a bit of a turnoff when they demonstrate their fondness for each other in public. That goes for heteros as well. It shouldn't be for general exhibition.

many people find it a turn off when the elderly demonstrate their fondness in public ... does that mean we should treat them differently or take away their rights? what a load of rubbish

... wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:26am:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:25am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:21am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ... Which mistake is that?

to try and claim that those that don't what they want are going to hell ... the church has always been and always be a means to control the masses ... any dissention from that and the church can be just as bad as any other radical fundamentalist

A letter from 20 multi-faith clergy from around the country


WOW, a whole twenty!!!!

There are 3,000 Catholic Priests. My conservative  guess is there would be 6,000 Priest/ministers in total when you combine C of E  and the fringe groups.

So buzz gets himself all whipped up because .3% write a letter.

blackadder wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2012 at 12:17pm:

A letter from 20 multi-faith clergy from around the country WOW, a whole twenty!!!! There are 3,000 Catholic Priests. My conservative  guess is there would be 6,000 Priest/ministers in total when you combine C of E  and the fringe groups. So buzz gets himself all whipped up because .3% write a letter.

I would say that there are a lot out there who would not admit it for fear of upsetting their careers ... would you risk being sent to some parish in out zimbabwe when your current parrish is in Sydney?

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2012 at 12:16pm:

... wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:26am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:25am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:21am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ... Which mistake is that? to try and claim that those that don't what they want are going to hell ... the church has always been and always be a means to control the masses ... any dissention from that and the church can be just as bad as any other radical fundamentalist

If you don't believe what they believe, it shouldn't matter to you what they say.  They can say I'm going to hell all they like - it doesn't matter because I don't believe in hell.

... wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2012 at 12:22pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 12:16pm: ... wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:26am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:25am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:21am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: and the church wonders why the numbers of church goers in developed countries is falling ..... All to do with education It seems that no matter how well educated, the church never learns ... it keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again ... Which mistake is that? to try and claim that those that don't what they want are going to hell ... the church has always been and always be a means to control the masses ... any dissention from that and the church can be just as bad as any other radical fundamentalist If you don't believe what they believe, it shouldn't matter to you what they say. They can say I'm going to hell all they like - it doesn't matter because I don't believe in hell.

It doesn't matter .... unless it has some sort of real impact on people ... if a church run school expells a student because of his beliefs, it matters, if the church is responsible for burning people for differing beliefs it matters. ...

I have no problem with religion in itself. Religious people tend to be very nice, very law-abiding people by and large. What I have a problem with is church interfering with state and trying to pretend that it isn't - it's protecting its own institution - and prejudiced people trying to back up their argument with religion. Well, the bible also tells people to not suffer a woman to teach etc, I'm not sure why the situation is different here. That's of course not a good argument, because it's a comparison, not a direct link, so how about…

Marriage existed before Christianity. Same-sex marriages have also existed in past history. Modern Australia isn't a Christian nation, just the same way that it isn't an Islamic nation, or a Buddhist nation etc. I do hope no one brings up the fact that the 'founders' of Australia were Christian, because then we'd have to go into the fact that its citizens are not all Christian, nor are we 'one nation under god', nor are we 'a god fearing nation'. Marriage is not a Christian invention, and the word certainly doesn't mean 'Christian marriage'. Priests should be allowed to refuse marrying gay couples, they are the head of a religion against gay marriage, it'd be almost perverse to see them forced to do so. However, priests should not be allowed to refuse other people the right to marry gay couples, or to prevent gay couples from 'marriage'.

Barring someone a human right to love and form a lasting partnership that is recognised as such is simple discrimination. Yes, you're a bigot, yes you're allowed to be, but don't hide behind 'but my church says…' If you're homophobic, you're homophobic, if you're threatened by two men or two girls getting married (as if it somehow makes your marriage invalid or something), that's your problem, not theirs, or your religion's. Admit to it and get off that high horse of 'my religion said so, therefore it must be pure'. It just gives Christianity a bad name.

On a lighter note:


Quote:

Well for one claiming that fairy tales are real, doesnt sit well with people who have a brain

While I agree the above is not a sound argument, below is more hilarious.


PZ547 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:44am:

You appear to repeat that comment at every opportunty And sure, I appreciate that people do accept payment for pushing athiesm online.  What's the going rate -- still .14 cents per post ?

Actually, atheists aren't paid to preach to atheists about atheism, priests are paid by the church which is in turn paid by the faithful as well as rent from property they buy/own, as well as investments made (and not taxed). Given that we're arguing about 'paid for pushing', I'd say if the church can use money to  lobby for political action, then it should be paying taxes as any resulting 'action' would have cost taxpayer money (including reviews and changes).


Quote:

As to 'having a brain' --- I'm not real impressed with yours, have to say

"I know what you are, but what am I", after an reacting to an obviously unsound/over-simplified argument you respond with more of the same?


Quote:

You believe sentient beings sprang from nothing ?  You believe rocks from 'out there' fell into the primordal soup, generated life, including the primitive brain, then slowly crawled up onto land, up trees, down from trees on their rear legs and evolved into Hawkings and Einsteins ?

You're attacking a straw man, the poster never said they believed in what you describe - something of a mix between Lemarkian evolution and UFO conspiracy theory mixed with a good dose of Scientology. My guess is that the poster believes in evolution. The idea that some animal came into existence than swam, then slowly crawled out of the mud and into a tree is a primary school cartoon representation of evolution. Time to move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

Evolution is an ongoing science, while the bible's version is unproven, untested, accepted at face value because there is no other finished explanation (except that the Norse had one earlier, and primitive tribes had their own before that, with equal evidence as the bible's version). Of course there is still debate about it, but it offers a better explanation with better proof than the bible would give us.


Quote:

And you don't care about the source of the 'rocks from out there' which created the seed of what we now term 'humankind' ?

Cherry picking the most outlandish of the ideas proposed is like someone asking you "so you believe some human-shaped spirit created the world in 6 days, then took a nap on the 7th?" The page I linked to has a fairly easy to read explanation of most of the current theories and research, including the one you picked (which has little research basis expressed while the rest has many).


Quote:

For you, there is NO source ?  Instead, you believe the 'rocks from out there' (carrying the seeds/triggers for what is now humankind, etc.) themselves had no source OR, if they did, then the origin of the 'rocks from out there' involved no higher intelligence ?  As far as you're concerned, there exists NO source/origin of anything which exists or ever existed ? And you have the hide to talk about 'fairy tales' ?  lol

Straw man, poster never said there was no source, poster is probably a believer in evolution (see above). As far as I'm concerned (not sure about the original poster), you need to read up some more about physics and biology before making these wild accusations. It's not even a matter of 'believing', it's a matter of thinking about it and making a judgement. It's somewhat different from blind faith.

I also loved the quote about how on the Census a majority of Australians said they were religious. So are we talking Wiccan, Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, etc etc), Asatru, Buddhism, Islamic, Spiritualist, or what? Saying Australians are mostly religious is waiting for the reader to think "therefore we should respect the wishes of the loudest Christians on gay marriage" without any reason to do so.

Hollywood Celebrity Kirk Cameron on homosexuality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcaNqecbtyk ;)

Quote:

Kirk Cameron on homosexuality: "It's detrimental, and ultimately destructive" Coming up this evening on "Piers Morgan Tonight," actor and evangelist Kirk Cameron sits down for a candid and engaging discussion on politics, faith, values, and morals. Best known for his role as the lovable Mike Seaver on television's "Growing Pains," Cameron is now a 41-year-old father of 6, ;) and a Born Again Christian. Against a backdrop of the upcoming election, host Piers Morgan asks Cameron where he stands on various hot button social issues, including gay marriage: "Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. ;)And I don't think anyone else should either," explains Cameron. "So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don't." Joining Morgan in person, Cameron goes on to explain his views on homosexuality: "I think that it's - it's - it's unnatural. I think that it's - it's detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." :) Tune in to "Piers Morgan Tonight" at 9 p.m. ET/PT as the host of the upcoming documentary "Monumental" reveals his views on abortion, and details what he'd do if one of his children came to him and said "I'm gay." http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/02/kirk-cameron-on-homosexuality-its-detrimental-and-ultimately-destructive/

::) 8-)

Hollywood Celebrity Kirk Cameron on homosexuality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcaNqecbtyk 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2012 at 6:08pm:

[quote]Kirk Cameron on homosexuality: "It's detrimental, and ultimately destructive" Coming up this evening on "Piers Morgan Tonight," actor and evangelist Kirk Cameron sits down for a candid and engaging discussion on politics, faith, values, and morals. Best known for his role as the lovable Mike Seaver on television's "Growing Pains," Cameron is now a 41-year-old father of 6, ;) and a Born Again Christian. Against a backdrop of the upcoming election, host Piers Morgan asks Cameron where he stands on various hot button social issues, including gay marriage: "Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. ;)And I don't think anyone else should either," explains Cameron. "So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don't." Joining Morgan in person, Cameron goes on to explain his views on homosexuality: "I think that it's - it's - it's unnatural. I think that it's - it's detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." :) Tune in to "Piers Morgan Tonight" at 9 p.m. ET/PT as the host of the upcoming documentary "Monumental" reveals his views on abortion, and details what he'd do if one of his children came to him and said "I'm gay." http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/02/kirk-cameron-on-homosexuality-its-detrimental-and-ultimately-destructive/

::) 8-)

You're appealing to a Hollywood actor as your authority on gay marriage? Yeah, marriage is older than dirt, and it existed before Christianity got over its warring with rival tribes in the desert. It is not a Christian only word, it exists in other cultures in exactly the same context without the Adam and Eve, the Snake and Apple, and the Garden of Eden.

Adam and Eve also weren't 'married' if you really want to nitpick. No one married them, there were no priests, churches or anything. They got cast out, they had sex, they had children.

You can't argue the bible has a 'reserve' on marriage because it talks about creation, Christianity as a religion didn't exist when people first started getting married. Get over the 'we own marriage' fence already, it's old, it's tired, and it's plain untrue. Are you saying Chinese people weren't able to 'get married' before Westerners arrived with a bible? What about the Japanese, or the Hindu, or the Inuits? All of them have their own 'marriage' that they've had long before Adam and Eve arrived on their shores.

It's lame that the appeal to authority went to a Hollywood figure, it's even lamer that his appeal to authority is to 'history' as recorded by a religious text. I'd like to appeal to Norse religious texts, or Roman, or Greek. Equally valid, awesome sex for all.

Quote:

You're appealing to a Hollywood actor as your authority on gay marriage?

Meh, why not?  Lady gaga and a slew of other vapid celebraities are always going on about it - no surprise that no current "celebrity" would dare risk their career going against the iron-fisted rule of liebral run hollywood.

... wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:40am:

Liberalism (the new religion) weaves its own web of fanciful fairy tales.  The base of it all being that there is no difference between races/sex/nation/orientation/etc - That we are all just "fellow humans" with no group loyalties - other than to the holy altar of liberalism.  Patently, demostyrablty false, but that doesn't matter becasue the FAITH is strong - peopel WANT to believe. The stories are different, but the goal is the same - control.  By breaking down old loyalties (race/family/etc) liberalism reduces people to fungible units, freely interchangeable.  And when a man stands alone, how can he stand against the might of the state, that has grown exponentially to enforce this unnatural orthodoxy?

All very well up to a point. But how does 'liberalism' come into the equation? Is totalitarian Conservatism okay?

Grey wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

... wrote on Apr 1st, 2012 at 11:40am: Liberalism (the new religion) weaves its own web of fanciful fairy tales.  The base of it all being that there is no difference between races/sex/nation/orientation/etc - That we are all just "fellow humans" with no group loyalties - other than to the holy altar of liberalism.  Patently, demostyrablty false, but that doesn't matter becasue the FAITH is strong - peopel WANT to believe. The stories are different, but the goal is the same - control.  By breaking down old loyalties (race/family/etc) liberalism reduces people to fungible units, freely interchangeable.  And when a man stands alone, how can he stand against the might of the state, that has grown exponentially to enforce this unnatural orthodoxy? All very well up to a point. But how does 'liberalism' come into the equation? Is totalitarian Conservatism okay?

Totalitarian anything is not okay.

... wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 10:20am:

Quote: You're appealing to a Hollywood actor as your authority on gay marriage? Meh, why not?  Lady gaga and a slew of other vapid celebraities are always going on about it - no surprise that no current "celebrity" would dare risk their career going against the iron-fisted rule of liebral run hollywood.

I was not commenting on Kirk Cameron's comment, but the poster's appeal to a Hollywood figure as an authority. I for one have never argued the case for gay marriage with: "Oh but Lady Gaga said it was okay and Kylie went to the Mardi Gras."

Just because celebrities also endorse gay marriage doesn't make it sound argument to appeal to their authority (in fact, it just makes the whole idea laughable, since the same 'authority' has two views).

I take this opportunity to repeat something that's consistently ignored in favour of straw man attacks or picking up on something else I said: "Marriage existed before and without Christianity."

Loki wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 10:46am:

... wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 10:20am: Quote: You're appealing to a Hollywood actor as your authority on gay marriage? Meh, why not?  Lady gaga and a slew of other vapid celebraities are always going on about it - no surprise that no current "celebrity" would dare risk their career going against the iron-fisted rule of liebral run hollywood. I was not commenting on Kirk Cameron's comment, but the poster's appeal to a Hollywood figure as an authority. I for one have never argued the case for gay marriage with: "Oh but Lady Gaga said it was okay and Kylie went to the Mardi Gras." Just because celebrities also endorse gay marriage doesn't make it sound argument to appeal to their authority (in fact, it just makes the whole idea laughable, since the same 'authority' has two views). I take this opportunity to repeat something that's consistently ignored in favour of straw man attacks or picking up on something else I said: "Marriage existed before and without Christianity."

Trudat, and I for one wish people (on both sides of the argument) would stop relying on the "biblical" argument, as it's so easily refuted.
What isn't so easily refuted is the underlying principle to the religious one - the Biological, or natural law argument - that male/female pairings are the joining of 2 complementary parts to create a whole.  Homosexuality may occur "naturally" but nobody with any credibility could even suggest that it is the "ideal" state - it's a defect, and to put a defective thing on par with a non-defective one is dishonest and incorrect. 

Loki wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

corporate_whitey wrote on Apr 3rd, 2012 at 6:08pm: [quote]Kirk Cameron on homosexuality: "It's detrimental, and ultimately destructive" Coming up this evening on "Piers Morgan Tonight," actor and evangelist Kirk Cameron sits down for a candid and engaging discussion on politics, faith, values, and morals. Best known for his role as the lovable Mike Seaver on television's "Growing Pains," Cameron is now a 41-year-old father of 6, ;) and a Born Again Christian. Against a backdrop of the upcoming election, host Piers Morgan asks Cameron where he stands on various hot button social issues, including gay marriage: "Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. ;)And I don't think anyone else should either," explains Cameron. "So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don't." Joining Morgan in person, Cameron goes on to explain his views on homosexuality: "I think that it's - it's - it's unnatural. I think that it's - it's detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." :) Tune in to "Piers Morgan Tonight" at 9 p.m. ET/PT as the host of the upcoming documentary "Monumental" reveals his views on abortion, and details what he'd do if one of his children came to him and said "I'm gay." http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/02/kirk-cameron-on-homosexuality-its-detrimental-and-ultimately-destructive/ ::) 8-) You're appealing to a Hollywood actor as your authority on gay marriage? Yeah, marriage is older than dirt, and it existed before Christianity got over its warring with rival tribes in the desert. It is not a Christian only word, it exists in other cultures in exactly the same context without the Adam and Eve, the Snake and Apple, and the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve also weren't 'married' if you really want to nitpick. No one married them, there were no priests, churches or anything. They got cast out, they had sex, they had children. You can't argue the bible has a 'reserve' on marriage because it talks about creation, Christianity as a religion didn't exist when people first started getting married. Get over the 'we own marriage' fence already, it's old, it's tired, and it's plain untrue. Are you saying Chinese people weren't able to 'get married' before Westerners arrived with a bible? What about the Japanese, or the Hindu, or the Inuits? All of them have their own 'marriage' that they've had long before Adam and Eve arrived on their shores. It's lame that the appeal to authority went to a Hollywood figure, it's even lamer that his appeal to authority is to 'history' as recorded by a religious text. I'd like to appeal to Norse religious texts, or Roman, or Greek. Equally valid, awesome sex for all.

The Biblical story incorporates the entirety of creation including the origin and the purpose of marriage so your reasoning is incorrect - Kirk Camerons explanation was succinctly put.  You cannot use the law of the state to redefine a relationship that predates the State.  Marriage is older than the state, its as old as dirt itself. :)

If the Cathoilic Church doesn't want to perform gay marriages that is fine by me.

But when they try to prevent anyone from performing such a marriage it simply shows religion in its very worst guise.

Kirk Cameron is not a celebrity actor. The only celebrity he's ever likely to have is 15 minutes of fame as another born again bigot. ;D