Do you mean if it was legal, everyone would do it? That doesn't even make sense.

Same sex marriage won't alter reproduction at all. Those who are gay will not reproduce naturally, or will adopt. Those who aren't, will, or may choose not to.

That's almost as ignorant a comment as saying that "If Mary were pro-choice, we wouldn't have Christmas". Being pro-choice is not the same thing as being pro-abortion. And permitting the small percentage of people who are LGBT to marry will not wipe out Earth's human population.
If you are supporting the Catholic and Mormon positions, then you are supporting people who don't even know their own scriptures - scriptures which legitimize slavery, genocide, rape and forced marriage. These people have taken a tiny portion of their scripture, and ignored other portions thereof, to legitimize hatred of and discrimination against a significant portion of our society. Your support of that position implies a continuation of the hatred and discrimination of many people who have made significant advances in all our lives. That, I find, is very sad. But here's a challenge - show me what Jesus said about homosexuality - if he said it was bad, I'll agree with you.

Your comment makes no sense, like a bunch of straight people would want a same sex marriage. Your kind of flawed arguments are nothing but ridiculous. For gay people same sex attraction is their nature, their only normal so to go against that would be to go against their nature. Just like it would be for a straight person to be with the same sex.

Allowing two members of the same sex is not going to wipe out humans..Heterosexuals will ALWAYS be around just as homosexuals will always be around. Look at it this way, a homosexual is not gonna marry a member of the opposite sex to procreate just because marrying the same sex is illegal. There will always be hetero couples having hetero and homosexual children..There is no shortage on human beings anytime soon. Love is against the common good? I think not.

Oh Please, do you actually believe what you typed? Extremist will always go overboard to make a point. I was raised Catholic and am a gay man. I struggled with this for years based on my religion and finally realized I was a good person and if God wanted me to be straight he would have created me that way. Interpretation of scripture is what most religions are based on, not facts. Please tell me why God would play such an cruel game on us if he truly wanted us to believe, to test us?, I don't think so.. Sorry but most religions preach do as I say, not as I do and have more of there own internal problems they are trying to cover up than most of us trying to live our own lives. The God I believe in today does not test me to see if I believe by forcing me to obey a certain standard that has been interpreted on us from generations passed down. Even the Catholic religion has evolved over decades to conform with society. If a person loves another person they should have the same rights in equality as anyone. Talk about one sided, we supposedly live in a free country, yet judgement is made as to who can marry who and who benefits from it as a reward in our body of government. I don't think God would approve of this method.

STM: You do realize, don't you, that there is a human overpopulation situation today? You do realize, don't you, that humans are created no matter what the marriage laws are?

Should only couples who plan on having children be allowed to marry then? Should be not allow an infertile man or woman to marry?

Obviously, the world is almost devoid of humans since we legally allow sterile people, women past menopause and old people to marry! We must put a stop to such horrible laws that are destroying the human race! ;) Don't you see how RIDICULOUS your premise is that allowing Gays and Lesbians to marry will result in extinction?! Last i checked the world is overpopulated and straight people are humping each other with no end in sight. There will always be straight people and gay people. Have a reality check.

that is very dumb remark STM.. are you saying if same sex marriage was legal that all heterosexuals would turn homosexual and there would be no reproduction?

you are truly evil

S.R., I hope that you can come to accept your relatives' spouses as part of your family. For many people it is not an easy journey, because they have been taught that the scriptures say it's wrong. But I would encourage you to check out a talk by Matthew Vines (at matthewvines.com) in which he discusses those passages. Pray for wisdom and insight before you watch. Maybe you will agree, and maybe you won't, but I hope you can honestly listen and consider his research.

They say "gay marriage will ruin straight marriage.". All I can say is that my husband and I have several friends who are gay and lesbian married couples. It hasn't hurt our marriage one iota. Oh, yes, we are a mixed marriage, male and female. Wouldn't you rather see couples stay together rather than hopping from person to person. Let them legalize their marriages. I've known couples who've been together more than 20 years. What makes their same gender couple marriage less honorable than someone who has been married five times due to infidelity i.e. Newt Gingrich?

Absolutely CJM! Spot on!

Agreed! It's so sad that the ignorant and intolerant holy rollers wave their bibles around as moral (mortal?) weapons to bludgeon people whose only "sin" is to want to love another human being. And then the almighty church goes to great lengths to hide its pedophiles, who clearly aren't married, consummating any marriage or reproducing, either! Go figure!

Precisely. Barbara, you've exposed this procreation argument for the nonsense it is. Bravo.

The Catholic church has as much business telling us who can marry as I have telling it who it can baptize.

Scary thing...Ginger may be serious! Nah...she can't be!

Laws SHOULD not be based on any religion.

As you say "No man will tell me what I can or cannot practice."
If I want to marry my partner NO MAN will tell me I cannot.

And your "holy books" also assert against sex before marriage, divorce and even eating shrimp..yet none of that is illegal? Because laws should not be based on any religious book. Your homophobia is not my problem, or americas problems. It will remain yours & so be it.

Ginger, You're wrong. It's not Christianity, Islam and Judaism - it's *some branches* of these three faiths. I don't know as much about Islam and Judaism, but I can certainly find a number of Christian denominations who do not exhibit the same bigotry as the rest. To make the claim that Christianity is against homosexuality is to ignore a large portion of Christendom. FYI, here is a list of *some* Christian denominations that aren't practitioners of bigotry:
Affirming Pentacostal Church International
Association of Welcoming and affirming Baptists
Ecumenical Catholic Church
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Evangelical Anglican Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Episcopal Church (United States)
Friends General Conference
Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
International Christian Community Churches
Metropolitan Community Church
Old Catholic Church
Presbyterian Church USA
Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
Restoration Church of Jesus Christ
United Church of Christ
United Church of Canada
Unity Church
So the idea that "the 3 main faiths ... stands against it" is patently false and absurd. It is only those who embrace bigotry who stand against it.

So you consider everything to be a sin if the Bible says so? If you look at Leviticus, it says not to eat pork, and not to wear fabrics made of more than one kind of fiber.
Now suppose the Jews were a majority and had the main political power. And then they say, "We believe eating pork is a sin, and we don't think anyone should be allowed to do it, under the law; so we're going to outlaw it."
You and the Catholic Church are on the losing side of history. Are you aware that nine states plus the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage? And I defy you or anyone to show me any bad consequences that have occurred. It simply allows recognition of a love that might be a little different from yours but is no less real or less valid.

Oh, Ginger. Is that the BEST you can come up with--the old "Adam and Steve" adage. Those books you mentioned are good books for people who want to believe in them; However--NONE of them have any business in the formulation of our nation's laws.

Marriage is the LEGAL union of a couple to become spouses. In the case of regulation, it should have nothing to do with religion. Allowing it legally harms no one. If a particular church or an entire religion does not want to allow it in their church that is their prerogative, but the state should allow it.

Ginger, think whatever you might, even in this informal poll, nearly 75% (the MAJORITY!) agree that gay marriage should be legal. And in a Democracy, the majority ultimately prevails, thank Gawd! LOL.... And, BTW, let me know when your exclusive, private phone line to Gawd's ear hangs up, will ya! I always thought it was a party line, myself! So, please, crawl back into your dark-ages bubble, zip it shut and let the rest of us continue progressing and evolving without the religious psycho-babble.

Ginger - your holy book also says it's against your religion to eat shell fish, so why are you not protesting at Red Lobster to close it's doors since it's impacting your religious freedom? Your holy book also states that women should not wear pants. I assume you wear skirts and dresses only. (making sure not to expose your knees as your holy book states that's sinful). Your holy book states that slavery, rape and incest are OK. I assume you believe this as well?
You claim God made Adam and Eve. Who according to your holy book had 7 children who in turn populated the Earth? So where the children procreating with each other, or did Mommy jump in here as well? Adam and Eve were never married. Being the only two people on Earth, there was no one to perform the ceremony.
The 10 Commandments say nothing about same sex marriage.

So it's kind of like "separate but equal"? It doesn't work. Calling it something else means it IS something else. And that is what every state that has tried "civil unions" has discovered. It doesn't work because it's not the same thing.

I agree Deirdre, however what if they just abolished the word marriage from law entirely and made every text read "civil union" regardless of the sex of the two individuals. That way "marriage" remains faith based while civil unions are the legal term. If you belong to a religion that want's to call it something else, like marriage, then so be it.

@Grunty - no problem there, but then there would be people who got married in a church, who get upset because the government doesn't recognize their "marriage". I say let's just let the churches who wish to define "marriage" more narrowly do so. And let the government recognize a marriage as a union of two people - as the more enlightened churches already do.

Memory...
while I fully support gay marriage as well, and find the continued meddling of religion in politics to be tiresome, your attacking comment against believers (all of whom are not closed-minded 'morons') and unnecessary name calling really doesn't help your position as much as make you seem just as hateful.

Steve's post is the most relevant on this board. Right on!!!

Yeah...we wouldn't want to anger "HIM". He may then allow children to be shot in schools, horrible natural disasters, rising suicide rates and families torn apart by substance abuse. I don't think "HE" will get mad if we allow two people in love to live together under the same rights as anyone else. I find comments like yours borderline medieval.

The Bible says in Romans Chapter 1 verses 24-27 "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
PLAIN AND SIMPLE...IT IS WRONG.

@Kay Ray
The verses you present are not relevant to the conversation - these refer to people who have fallen away, and speak to the result of such falling. Nor do they speak to Lesbians and gay men, whose NATURAL attraction was, from the beginning, for people of the same sex. If you are straight, and have sex with someone of the same sex, then you have abandoned your natural inclination. If someone is gay, and has sex with a person of the opposite sex, then they have abandoned their natural inclination.
The world is not so convenient as to have a one-size-fits-all when it comes to relationships.
I think it's kind of funny when people try to use the Bible to support bigotry - the Bible is far less bigoted than those who cling so dearly to it.
And please note that I use bigotry not as a pejorative, but merely a descriptive term. It means a prejudice against a person or group that is founded in one's religious or political leanings. Thus, if you say "homosexuality is bad", and you resort to the Bible as proof, that is the very definition of bigotry. So again, it's not a pejorative - it's simply the accurate term to describe an observed behavior.

Tony, A Westboro hate monger amongst us in the Chicago suburbs? "Uh oh, Toto, it doesn't look like were in Kansas anymor".

Anger God? What a joke. Should we throw a virgin into a volcano to appease him?

Yeah Tony C. And ministers in the South during the Civil War told their Bible-toting flocks that they were doing God's work in battling the Union and protecting slavery because as the Bible says "Slaves--obey your masters!!" Oh, and by the way--women were treated as property for thousands of years. How did that work out? If you do something wrong for thousands of years--it still is WRONG!!!!!

It's my "peg" and my "hole" so what I do with them really isn't any of your concern so long as I'm not doing anything with your "peg" or "hole".

In otherwords, mind your own "peg" and "hole" and leave mine alone.

Wrong, perhaps, in your little sheltered, small-minded and intolerant corner of the world. BTW, who made you the arbiter of morals and the judge of humankind? I thought that job was reserved for a higher power... my bad! Pullleeze. If you can't evolve with humankind, then your ilk will become extinct like the social dinosaurs you are.

And when did Rome fall? After they adopted Christianity as the state religion. The Roman gods foretold that when the people abandoned their Gods, that Rome would fall - and so it did.

What Roman "gods' Deirdre? There were no Roman "gods" for crying out loud! Oh, the barbarians from the north also helped Rome.

George, you may want to brush up a little on Roman history and humanities with regard to Roman Gods (and Goddesses!) These might help you get started if you care to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_deities http://www.roman-empire.net/children/gods.html http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romangods/a/101910-Roman-Gods-And-Goddesses.htm

George, there were many gods that the Romans and others followed for thousands of years. Look it up. Everyone around the world had different gods and religions long before christianity. How do you think christianity formed all of it's practices and traditions, they stole them from older religions.

George,
Try looking at the names of the planets - which were named for the Roman Gods - like Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus, Neputune, Saturn.
In many languages, the names of the days of the week are still named after these Gods.
And if you look a little closer, you'll find that the Greek Gods and Goddesses are simply analogues to those of the Romans - with merely different names. We still honor these deities today. Monday honors the Moon, the Goddess Diana. Tuesday, in French is Mardi in honor of the Roman God Mars. Wednesday is named in honor of the Anglo-Saxon God Wooden, who was similar to Mercury, hence the French name Mercredi. I could go on, but every single day of the week is named for a Roman God - we still remember them today. In fact, we celebrate Christmas on December 25, to honor a ROMAN God - Sol Invictus. This day was only celebrated as the birth of Christ because Pope Julius, in about 350AD decided, in an attempt to Christianize Rome, to celebrate the birth of Christ on a day on which Rome celebrated the birth of a God. To say that Rome had no Gods is like saying Catholicism had no Popes. They had MANY gods - what do you think the Pantheon in Rome was all about?

I stand corrected to all of you "gods" fearing people! Where are the so-called "gods" now?

George, knowing history and believing in (or 'fearing') a particular god, gods, or goddesses is not exactly the same thing. As Deirdre already explained, they're all around us - in the names of the planets, the days of the week, the months of the year, and in the celebration of Christmas, to name just a few places. They are an integral part of culture, whether we recognize them or not.

Too many people believe everything they see on the TV show CLASH OF THE GODS!

What about the MYTHOLOGIAL Norse "gods" like Thor and Odin?

Well George, I happen to be Pagan, and the Old religions aren't gone. There are still people worshiping the old gods today - many who are older than Jesus and even JHVH. So you're snarky dismissal of these beings is actually irrelevant.

And have any of these pagan "gods" spoken to the individuals who have "prayed" to them?

George,
Are you trying to be humerous? Really? "mythological gods"? All Gods are mythological - there is Christian mythology with Jesus, JHVH, the Holy Spirit - there is Celtic Mythology, with Brighid, Cernunnos, etc. There is Norse mythology with Odin and others. There is Hindu mythology, Greek mythology - our religion is our myths.
Are you falling into the trap that suggests that "myth" is somehow an antonym to "real"? "Myth" and "false" are not synonymous. A myth is a thing, the veracity of which is inessential to its underlying truth. It is a fallacious Western "rationalism" which requires its religion to be factually correct in all aspects in order to be considered "true". This is why so many people defend such nonsensical contradictions as exist in the Bible. They believe it must be 100% true because "god wrote it". And thus we have Thomas dying twice, in two different ways, and countless people trying to defend the "inerrancy of scripture" through inane and circuitous arguments.
Religion is based on myth. All of it. You can believe it as historically and scientifically accurate - you can be a literalist if you wish. But the funny thing about that is that Christ was the first to call the literalists out. He healed on the Sabbath. He despised the "lawyers and hypocrites" - those who paid attention to the letter of, rather than the spirit of the law.
So you can say "mythological", if you wish. But you can't do so without including your own myths.

Brad,
Your argument might sound good at first , but then consider what states would still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, have racial or sexual equality, sounds like your method of determining human rights would be a major step backwards.

Russ,

I don't think slavery and the debate over homosexual rights have much in common at all. Slavery was using human beings as property. Homosexuals in this state have never been property of others. As a matter of fact, homosexuals have enjoyed the exact same rights as all others except to be licensed for marriage.

There is no federal license for marriage. Therefore the marriage license is granted by the individual state, a right the state has under the union of the United States. So unless there is a federal marriage license law enacted, this is a state issue and should be treated as such. If states having individual powers and rights is a major step backwards, then we should all fear for our future. States have a right to choose for themselves what they think is best for their own state and marriage is definitely one of those issues.

Brad,
my point is that human rights should not be legislated by individual states. Human rights should be upheld by the country as a whole. It is too easy for individual states to vote on bills to take away personal freedoms

So Russ, you think that marriage should be a federal licensed and federally recognized institution then? It should be regulated by a federal office and enforced by federal officials? (For example, all divorce courts would then have to go through federal courts, all marriage licenses would have to be issued by the U. S. Government, etc.)

As far as marriage, of any type, being a human rights issue is a debatable issue on many fronts. Human rights, according to the standard dictionary, is described as the following: "fundamental rights, especially those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc." In this context, the human rights of homosexuals have been met. They have been free to speak, associate, work, practice their sexual orientation, and have had the right to freely assemble without government intervention. The federal government has also not interfered in several states' "civil union" laws, leaving the issue of marriage again to the states.

If marriage should become an amendment to the Constitution, a federal institution of law, what should it withhold? What and to whom should this amendent not grant the right to marry to? Should first cousins be allowed to marry based on their human rights? Should humans be able to marry animals (such as in The Netherlands) so that their human rights are not infringed upon? Who shouldn't be allowed the rights of marriage?

Should children be allowed to marry since they love each other and their human rights should be met? Should the Muslim and Mormon practice of taking on more than one wife be honored since that is that their human right to practice religion? Should the age limitations and age range of statuatory rape, which varies in individual states, be eliminated under this new federal provision? Should a 14 year old be able to marry a 60 year old as to uphold their human rights?

There is much to be considered if the federal government is to regulate marriage. What some might feel to be a perversion, others may find socially acceptable. Bringing human rights into a marriage discussion opens up a can of worms and years of arguments and raises massive concerns of limitations on this suggested new federal power.

Brad, you wrote, "you think that marriage should be a federal licensed and federally recognized institution then? It should be regulated by a federal office and enforced by federal officials?"

I can't speak for Russ, but I don't think that is the end result of states being required to follow the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled several times on portions of states' marriage laws which violated the Constitution. For example, Wisconsin had a law which stated that a person who was behind on child support payments could not get a marriage license, and in 1978, the Supreme Court struck that law down as unconstitutional (Zablocki v. Redhail). Virginia had a law which stated that a while person could not marry a non-white person, and in 1967, the Supreme Court struck that law down as unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia). Missouri had a law which stated that a prisoner could not marry unless the warden granted permission, and in 1987, the Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional (Turner v. Safley).

But the Court also wrote, "By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed." (Zablocki).

Brad, there is a reason kids can not get married..the human brain does not develop until adulthood. That is the reason kids do not have the same human rights as adults do, marriage being one. There are countries where kids can get married, but its mostly in countries where marriage has nothing to do with choice or love it is planned by parents.

Nope. Issues of civil rights should never be left to a vote of the people. Imagine what would have happened to Muslims were there to be a vote to expel all Muslims from the United States after Sept. 11; or if there would have been a state-by-state vote on eliminating slavery in 1861 instead of the Emancipation Proclaimation; or a state-by-state vote to permit interracial marriage.

By the way Brad, the Supreme Court ruled that Marriage is among the fundamental Human Rights in their ruling on Loving v. Virginia, so while your list of "rights" is entertaining, it misses the mark completely.

Where in the bible does it say homosexuality will run rampant over the earth? I know it says wickedness and evil will run rampant, but homosexuality?

It doesnt effect you, God knows when the rapture is coming and denying same sex marriage isnt going to slow it down..it comes when it comes. Homosexuality is always going to be around, not allowing same sex marriage isnt going to stop it. Nor is it going to stop the rapture ; should it be true.

Tony C. Please don't quote the Bible to people like it is the ONLY truth in the world. And as far as Revelations and the so-called "Rapture" do you know that the whole Rapture thing was made up out of whole cloth only about 140 years ago? It's made up--like much of the Bible. Please STOP using the Bible while trying to make a logical point in an argument. It just doesn't work!

Replied to the wrong post ^

Where in the bible does it say homosexuality will run rampant over the earth? I know it says wickedness and evil will run rampant, but homosexuality?

It doesnt effect you, God knows when the rapture is coming and denying same sex marriage isnt going to slow it down..it comes when it comes. Homosexuality is always going to be around, not allowing same sex marriage isnt going to stop it. Nor is it going to stop the rapture ; should it be true.

No, it does not, Tony. Your gods law only applies to the delusional that believe in it. That is exactly what being an atheist excludes us from, we don't believe in gods, heaven or hell so we don't have to worry about any of them. All we are concerned about is the life we live and the rest of humanity, because that is what we have and it's a beautiful life. I thought your god didn't hate anything, he is all loving, ha. Homosexuality is not evil, perverted or sick it is the way they love and they do not have a choice. The only thing evil, sick and perverted are the catholic preists/pedophiles. No, animals cannot enter into a consentual relationship, so that would not be next.

Tony C., You are officially an idiot. Animal love? What the hell is wrong with you?

Tony C. You made me laugh out loud with your comment. Animal love? Really? This may be the most ridiculus comment made on this topic. Although I must say that a few dog and cat lovers I've seen take it a little too far.

Hmmmm, then I guess God "hates" his own homosexual, pedophile priests, right? Your so-called argument is fundamentally flawed and lacks any logic. Give it up.

You, Peggy, are a breath of fresh air. I hope folks on both sides read your post. I bet your congregation adores you!

Unfortunately, too many people use religion as a shield for their small-mindedness.

That's the best comment yet. I agree 100%.

Tony, I would suggest you watch the video at matthewvines.com which discusses the passages you refer to.

Tony, it is only a perversion to you and those that believe as you do. You cannot force your beliefs on others. You have pointed out the biggest problem, people are reading the garbage in the bible and cherry picking what works for them. I ask every christian/catholic to read the entire bible and accept every line of it with the thought that the men that wrote it believed all of it to be the true gospel. That way we will have more atheists.

Tony C. I strongly agree with you on all your comments. You are 100% right. Finally someone defended my comment. God bless you.
A little joke: I am a male and I am a lesbian. I love women. LOL

Tony C./STM...nobody gave you the right to define 'perversion' for the whole world or country. Maybe we think your oveer the top love of...whatever, snowglobes, is perverted, unnatural, even. It doesn't harm us, though, and it makes you happy without causing society at large actual, not perceived, problems...so we leave you alone...try that...you might like it.
If you do not, that is fine, but do not pretend that you are in some majority or that even if you are you speak for millions upon millions upon probably multi-hundreds of millions world-wide.
You are inflicting a RELIGIOUS view upon a vast array of people living in a NON-religious public world. I'm not offended by a Nativity scene because it doesn't really harm me, or anyone...and what THAT represents has done a LOT more damage, and killed billions over time.
How many gay people have persecuted straight people just for being straight in the ENTIRE history of the civilized world? You don't even need to take off your shoes to count them, I assure you.

Tony, you must be a riot at parties!

Tony...I stand corrected about your animal love comment earlier. THIS is the MOST ridiculus comment made on this topic!! WOW...dial it down a notch "Carrie's Mom"

So God hates the ACT of homosexuality, yet he approves of the ACT of child molestation in His church? Just wondering where your line of perversion is here?

Yay for you Tony C...you are an unaffiliated bigot...way to be independent in your narrow-minded views...

Dave - awesome.

I don't think there is a side that would be 'wrong' to guess that...though when I think "Snarky", I give it more...intellectual heft than is usually associated with people who think they know how God or Jesus want everybody to live or who they 'love' most.
Of course, to complete that circle of thought, MY thinking that quite probably means you are talking about the 'pro-human rights crowd', not the 'religion knows best for all crowd', although...that is who I would have voted you would vote for in the first place. So now I'm not sure.

Not that simple FC. Sure there's intolerance on both sides. There's also acceptance, compassion and tolerance on both sides. There's black and white, and shades of gray all through these comments. Here's my personal take on this: anytime a group of people are treated as less than, it's important. Wanting equal treatment under the law doesn't make someone a victim, or mean they see themselves themselves as victims. There will always be 'more important issues.' That's just one reason this particular one should be easy to settle. No one's forcing their personal beliefs on you.

FC...nobody cares if anybody is a bigot if they do not as you say, "...push their views on society as a whole...". That is the whole crux of this issue. The Church telling other people if they 'can' be married, when really, it is the right of all humans to be married or not. Since I don't think gay people are lining up at your door to impose you living a gay lifestyle, you are probably safe from any 'pushing' on their part.
As for intolerance...why should people tolerate bigotry? SERIOUSLY? You are defending bigotry? So if people don't like blacks, are vocal about their racism, and somebody speaks out against them, you have a problem with THAT?
That attitude is a big reason WHY this country still has bigger problems...because people like you think that bigotry ISN'T a big problem. That isn't intolerance, that is called being a decent human being.

How is wanting people to be treated as human beings as all Americans should being an 'extremist?"

If you're against it? Don't get married to someone of the same gender. I don't like seafood, but I don't try to make people eating it illegal. Why? Not.My.Business.

What views? Basic human rights? So I assume since you're anti-ethnic you only eat "american" food? Cause Italian, Mexican, Chinese, etc. etc. are all ethnic foods.

Poor Copernicus.

YES, FC, REALLY.
YOU portrayed people that are unhappy with OTHER people who dismiss those with a different lifestyle as intolerant. People who don't like bigots I SUPPOSE are intolerant, but only in the same way that abolitionist were intolerant of slaveholders. So noI don't care about the rights of people who want to deny civil rights to ANYONE when they speak up about DENYING THE RIGHTS of human beings. Do you really think siding with the slaveholders was the 'right' way of thinking? This isn't some theoretical, philosophical exercise. These are ACTUAL people that are being denied a basic human right, and you sit and act like people who don't agree with that are somehow morally equal to those that deny them that right. People are who they are, and it is no more my right or your right than their right to be married, divorced, happy or not. How do you feel about women voting? Blacks? Atheists? Anyone that isn't you? They ALL have rights, and those right should always have been the same, for all of them, from the moment they were born. It is a great shame of this nation that old white Christian males have done so much harm to so many to hold onto power.
Equal rights for all Americans should never be considered a sideshow...the fact that you don't see that shows exactly WHY this country has the problems it does...the fact that your type is slowly but surely becoming extinct is the best hope we have for those problems being resolved.
Thank God for evolution.

So Vera, where is your firm stance on separation of church and state now?

Vera, the votes are there because it means MORE people are now in favor of such things. You weren't complaining when YOUR side of this had the votes to suppress the rights of Americans.
Weird how that works, huh?

If I am correct, this is Obama's last term so him "jumping on the bandwagon" has nothing to do with the mighty vote. It has to do with basic human rights and treating all people as equal. And your name tells alot about who you are.

Your "name" does say it all. WOW...I'm embarrassed for you. And that never happens. Shame on you for your hatred toward people different than you, and your cloaked, (but obvious) racial attack on the leader of our country. Show some respect for the office.

Breeze I respect the title of President. Always have, always will , but I don't care for the idiot Obama.

I'm not sure when 'separate but equal ever worked'...except for those who were benefitting or profitting from the 'separate' part, because 'but equal' is usually a very good indicator that it is anything BUT equal.

Gay people don't wear signs that say "I'm gay".

It's okay if the Catholic Church excommunicates people. There are other Christian denominations who will welcome them with open arms.

FC, no problem...your views are narrow-minded and intolerant and your tolerance OF other people's intolerance toward gays only allows it to spread. So, you got me, I am INTOLERANT of INTOLERANCE. Busted! I'm also against racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, age-ism, poor grammar and people who change lanes without a directional.
YOU do not think this is a big issue because YOU aren't really affected by it. Well, good for you. For millions of people who cannot visit a loved one in the hospital, have an uncontested estate, make life-decisions, have equal access to adoption, and a score of other everyday, life altering issues, this is as important if not more important. More people might be worried about the other things on your list, but that doesn't diminish the importance of 'my' list to those who basic human rights are being denied because of ignorance or the words in a book written by men thousands of years ago. Go live in a theocracy if you want their words to be your law. In America, the concept is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not "As happy as the bigots willl let you be." All of are created equal...this isn't Animal Farm, where all the animals are special, but some are MORE special.
Here is a crazy thought...since this is SO trivial...why not just say right now that all consenting adults can marry any other consenting adult, no matter what?
THEN we can all get back to your list, which IS important, no mistake about it.

One more thing, FC, as you have proven to be intransigent and argumentative, nobody except for STM and Vera agree with you. Congratulations...you have the trolls on your side! Your stance against civil rights for all Americans is what is unreasonable. If you would only realize the error of your ways, this would indeed be a non-event because all people would be equally treated with dignity and respect. Since you and your ilk refuse...well, let us just remember that as you said, Darwin was right and your kind will, indeed, perish from this planet, like the allegorical dinosaurs that you are.
Now imagine if you hadn't fought so long to be so wrong about making gay people second-class citizens. Imagine if the situation was reversed...if gay people were the majority us straight folks had to fight like crazy for equal treatment and all they said was "You are not important, we need to fix the debt that we ran up fighting senseless wars!" One suspects that you might have a different opinion then, but you cannot think outside of who you are, take into consideration how others feel. You have your list and those are all that matter. Now think about this: How much energy could be spent on fixing all those problems that affect your pocketbook, which, unsurprisingly, is clearly your greater focus...if only you treated gays as you would have them treat you?

VERY WELL SAID AMY GOGGIN.

Amy,
That is precisely why I have no problem with the Catholic Church deciding not to sanction same-sex marriage for members of their congregation. The church you go to is your choice - there are many religions on this planet - many "ways to God" as it were. But please tell me - what gives the Catholic Church the right to make the rules for every individual on the planet? When did Christ tell his apostles that everyone on Earth must adhere to their rules?
That is the fundamental problem when religion mixes with politics. It's not the role of a bishop to dictate the laws of the state. It's not the role of the church to affect government. The role of the church is to guide its own followers - not to affect the outcome of legislation.

the Church is a SHE?

Deirdre, I think the whole purpose of the Cardinal's statement is expressing his church's beliefs on this given subject. He is expressing the belief of his church and exercising his rights to free speech as an American. I didn't read once in his statement where he is damning homosexuals or encouraging others to damn them. He's pretty much saying: "We think, based on our beliefs, that what the government is attempting to do is wrong." This is no different than what gay and lesbian organizations are doing around the country, he's just saying the opposite of what they are. It's actually a very healthy thing, the press is giving coverage to BOTH sides!

It's okay for us to have different opinions, it's what makes this country great!

Deirdre,

The Cardinal is representing not just the Catholic faithful, but citizens of Illinois. He is a right to speak on the matter.

While the California actor from a television show does not have the right to express his opinion on an Illinois matter.

Let me clarify...he is spaeking for thos Illinois citizens who practice the Catholic faith; not all Illinois citizens. He certainly has a right to provide his input as a moral compass for a large segment of the Illinois population.

Ronnie yes the Catholic Church is called a she. See what happens when one doesn't go to Church. A real Church!

The Catholic Church is referred to as "she" because "she" is the spouse and bride of Christ, who we obviously know, is a man.

She, members who profess the faith of the Church, is in communion with her Spouse, Jesus.
We re-affirm this every time we receive Holy Communion.

Here is what the Catechism states on the issue. Note especially CCC 796.

That's fine, Amy. You can choose to only have sex to create children. And remember, if you are infertile or post-menopausal, you must never have sex, as that that would be sin because you can not pro-create, right? Again, YOUR choice. But why then would we have been created as sexual beings with sex drives that last for our entire lives? So, the rest of us choose to NOT CARE what you believe or practice. You keep your nose out of our bedrooms and we'll gladly not peek into yours. That's OUR choice.

Just give it time before a same sex couple that claims they are Catholic and will file a law suit demanding the Church marries them. The government already forced and ordered Catholic Charties to allow gays to adopt. They refused and they lost their adoption license and stopped adoptions for anyone. Give it time with Obamas Socilaist regime and he will or the government will try forcing Catholic Churches in doing same sex marriage as it will violate their right. Never say never.

Despiser, you write, "Just give it time before a same sex couple that claims they are Catholic and will file a law suit demanding the Church marries them."

Nobody can demand that they be married by a church. What happens if two Presbyterians demand that a Catholic priest marries them? The Catholic priest will tell them to talk to their Presbyterian minister about that, and there's nothing legally that can be done to require the priest to officiate their marriage. That's what the First Amendment requires.

Then you said, "The government already forced and ordered Catholic Charties to allow gays to adopt." But that's not what actually happened. Catholic Charities received taxpayer money to fund their program. They had two choices: Either they could give up taxpayer money and fund their program exclusively through offerings, in which case they could continue to adopt exclusively to heterosexual couples, or they could keep getting taxpayer money and not discriminate. They didn't like either of the options which would have kept them in business, so they decided to close their doors. It would have been better for them to stop taking taxpayer money and keep discriminating but they didn't want to do that.
could have continued to adopt to only heterosexual couples if they wanted to, but they would have had to pay for it from offerings. Catholic Charities refused to give up their government

David your comment is partly right. Catholic Charties was also told even if they turned down federal funds and paid their own way they still would lose their State license if they refused to let gays adopt. So they threw in the towel and said let the State now deal with all the cost and adoptions.

OK enough. I think we can all now see that Mr. Despiser is kidding and just pulling our leg. Good one. A lot of us fell for it and thought you were serious. But I remembered that there isn't a time machine invented, so you couldn't have come from the 12th century. At least you can now come clean and tell everyone that you're kidding. NO ONE can be THAT hateful, backward, and blind.

What I AM saying Despiser is...who cares? No communion? Oooooh...how will we survive? Excummincated? Ouch! What does all that mean in the grand scheme of things? Nothing. God is in your heart...not in your buildings and judgemental beliefs. Is your god pleased with you naming yourself a title that shows hate and contempt for fellow American and human being? If so...glad he/she/it is not MY god. Funny you should tell ME to "get a life". Since your life is filled with hate...bigotry...and racism...I'll keep MY life over yours just fine thank you.

Where is the bigotry, hate and racism? Yes I have contempt for Obama. I don't hate him as a human , but have contempt how he is running our Country into the ground and his political views. I guess I'm not entitled to that. Also according to you if anyone is against same sex marriage is a bigot and hatred. So a Priest that is against is a bigot too? Far from the truth. Don't tell me there wasn't one President that you never liked in your life?

Vera...IF you want to deny SOME humans a basic human right, marriage between consenting adults, then yes, that is bigotry and is hateful. You read that right. Every priest who tells you or anyone else that they will not marry a gay couple and is purposely denying those rights is fulfilling the wishes of a a hateful and bigoted institution and YES, they too are hateful and bigoted.
Gay people are equal humans in every way as people, they have done nothing illegal, and you not liking it doesn't make them immoral or not worthy of marriage and all it means to anyone else.
You were voted Queen of Nobody, so get over it and watch as the world passes you and your ilk right on by.

The church is attempting to influence public policy by encouraging its members to take a certain political stance. A stance which WOULD result in "telling people what to do" - that is, not be able to enter into a same sex marriage. The church ran the world once...it was called the DARK AGES.

Melissa that's just the couples you know of. But in reality same sex couples will break up or get divorced the same or just as much as married straight couples. Wait until the same sex marriage domestics start!

He is articulating his spiritual beliefs via the letter, which is of course his right. The problem here is that he IS trying to force people to do something - his is encouraging members of the faith to vote to make civil law align with the view of the church, resulting in robbing other citizens of the right to marry. Mind my own business? When your church fights to curtail the rights of other human beings, it IS my business. Those in our right mind will do everything in our power to oppose the cardinal and his ilk.

Yes, Geoff (thanks, by the way), and instead of trying to understand how to stop the losses, they double down on the things that caused them...
I fiind these things odd...the GOP is essentially run by businessmen, and the Catholic Church is essentially a business...yet neither of them do what a successful business would or should do when their business model becomes outdated...they both refuse to adapt the slightest, instead thinking that if only they could 'get back to their core', they would really bring back the crowds...even as it doesn't happen, they refuse to look at what happens right in front of them.
The Catholic Church is not going to collapse anytime soon, they will slowly lose over time. The GOP...wow...I honestly don't want them to go away, because we need opposition. Illinois is a good example of what happens when one party has too much power. In the churches and in politics, what we really need are more centrists and moderates...sadly, they are all too smart to not be scared off.

Dave are you crazy. Catholic Churches aren't a business ! You must be be confussing us with the think tank mega Churches! Catholic religion go under? Now you must be smoking the whacky weed! Catholicism is now over 2,000 years old and isn't going anywhere.

Almost as old as the earth.... you're still a tool..

Vera...if you don't think that the Catholic Church isn't a business, I suggest you travel to Europe and look for yourself. There is every type of doodad and key chain and snowglobe available, and they aren't cheap. Sold by the Church, yes, before you spout off...they own property all over the world, and they have many other investments. The real difference is that they don't pay taxes...Many religions fade from existence, or lose prominence...if you don't realize THAT you can just look it up...under historical fact. You might have a hard time with that because it is the opposite of the Bible, but give it a whirl anwyay.

Despiser -
So you're saying Christ founded the church when he was what - around 10? Seems you don't know the history of your own church that well. It's NOT over 2000 years old.

Deirdre I said Christianity started over 2,000 years ago and Jesus started the Catholic church!
Catholic tradition holds that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ . The New Testament records Jesus' activities and teaching, his appointment of the twelve Apostles, and his instructions to them to continue his work

Dave it's called free enterprise. Don't blame the Catholics for not paying taxes. Start with the constitution and the politicians. They approved it. Can't blame the Church. It's not just the Catholic Churches that get the tax brakes, it's the match book Reverends and store front Church's too! So stop complaining or bicker about the other tax exempt phony Church's. How about all the phony mega Church's popping up in the suburbs and they are tax free and racking in millions and millions and do half what the Catholics do for charity!!!

Vera...if you had ANY clue how many churches in the city, in the area USED to be Catholic but are now other denomintation or are just community centers...I see them, I show THEM to clients looking to buy them for their own churches...the rectories, the convents, everything must go...
Yes, some congregations are then 'packed' because of consolidation, but NOT expansion. Big difference.

Wow Dave I drive thru many suburbs and see many new Catholic Church's being built. What's with that.

So if there is an injustice happening in another state, you should only be able to speak out about it if you are from that particular state? Seems silly.

There is a difference sir. Cardinal George is a representative of the Catholic Church - of the Vatican, and, therefore has an allegiance greater than his allegiance to America. He is not simply an individual expressing his beliefs. He is a person in authority, telling people how to vote - to deny people who aren't part of his church, basic human rights. He thinks homosexuality is wrong, therefore, it must be wrong for everyone. And the Catholic Church has spent MILLIONS to deny human rights here in America. They are playing the same game they've been playing since the middle-ages - trying to control the world. It started when they burned heretics, witches and gays. Then they came to America, where they would let dogs loose to tear apart "savages". And the idea of closing down adoption agencies is no different than when they would feed the hungry - so long as they "converted".
The Catholic Church has taken Christs message, but those in power have often twisted and contorted that message. Christ never told his disciples to "rule the world", to "kill those who don't follow you", or to "rule the nations". That was the sick, power-hungry politicians who do these things in "his name".

Leave the Shriners alone!

(Kidding...)

The shrinners!! Snicker! The real mens group is the Knights of Columbus. Amen!

Vera, just stop...While the Knights of Columbus are often a great charity run by fine people, they are founded in the name of a genocidal maniac that would be convicted of crimes against humanity if he were alive today.
You sure can pick'em...

See Dave that's how stupid and misinformed you are about the Knights ,which I'm
a member of for 39 years! Here's the history and the founder of the Knights. Learn before you spew diarrhea from your mouth!

HideFounding of the Knights of Columbus

On March 29, 1882, while an assistant pastor at Saint Mary's Church in New Haven, Connecticut, McGivney founded the Knights of Columbus with a small group of parishioners. McGivney died from pneumonia on the eve of the Assumption in 1890, when he was only thirty-eight years old. The order now has over 1.8 million member families and fifteen thousand councils. During the 2008-2009 fraternal year, $150 million and 70 million man-hours were donated to charity by the order.

Vera...READ what I wrote...I only said they were named after Christopher Columbus (which is alo why we HAVE Colmbus Day, by the way).
Christopher Columbus was a HORRIBLE person, who wiped out all he could not enslave, even though the natives greeted him with gifts...now...go read a modern accounting of the real history of Columbus and you will understand what meant...or not, because you are you.

typical...I don't agree, so I'm EVIL

Calling the kettle black. I don't believe in same sex marriage or the President and I'm a bigot and racist!!! Go figure!!!

FINALLY, Vera, you got it right...you ARE a bigot and a racist...at least that is settled.

I can't be a racist! Obama is white too!

I don't think being a 'half-racist' is really the angle to go with...and you don't like black people in general, we have seen your other posts in other threads, Vera...nice try though.

It is EXACTLY about bigotry. Bigotry is the intolerance of another position (in this case, homosexuality), especially when it is based on religious or political viewpoint. The struggle against same-sex marriage, on your part, and on the part of the Catholic church is the VERY DEFINITION of bigotry. It's not a matter of an insulting term - it is nothing but a definition. There is no other word for it. If you think it's an insult, that's not our fault - argue with the definition - with Websters or the Oxford English Dictionary if you like - for all the good it will do!

Than Deirdre you are a bigger bigot too, for your intolerance on the position of Catholic religion!! Go figure!

Despiser -
You are very funny. Not too bright, but very funny. I'm not intolerant of the Catholic church. It's just wrong of them to try to rule the world. That's not intolerance. They can exist. They can believe what they want. That is tolerance. But they don't get to rule the entire planet. You may not be smart enough to see the difference, but I'm giving it a shot with the hope that your brain will figure it out without too much pain.

"Other people are bad too, so it makes the behavior of the cardinal LESS bad somehow by comparison"?

"It's old news, so I should just forget it"?

So much flawed thinking.

I'd think that people who are in religious leadership roles, particularly if they are going to preach to us about 'correct' behavior, should themselves be held to a higher standard.

He has no credibility.

Jon he committed no crime. Move on my lost Shepard of the flick!

My answer is that nothing I am talking about has anything to do with the courts and courts and government. That is not even the topic. You are shifting focus away from the issue. Look up "red herring". This justification sounds like a third grader who gets in trouble saying, "I broke the window, but but but Billy over there did it too!"

So because the courts and government do objectionable things too, it makes the Cardinal's acts less bad?

Not the kind of reasoning I'd expect from an adult.

Jon if you aren't Catholic or don't go to Church, don't worry about the Cardinal and move on and let us Catholics worry about what he did wrong. I hate nothing more than a non Catholic dictating to us about good, evil and the Bible and what the Church teaches.

I was a forced catholic as a child and forced to go to church by my parents on Sundays and other events during the week. Myself and a friend were fondled by a priest and we were too terrified to tell anyone or else we would go to hell. You see D of O, Children are not of your religion, all children are forced into their parents religion. This is brainwashing and child abuse. Children should be allowed to get an education and become an age when they can make mature decisions for themselves, so they can choose their own religion (or choose none) for themselves. Someone outside of your religion (and all others) HAS to worry about what goes on in your religion because you have no control over it. You gave all of your logic, reasoning and freedom of thought away to your leaders and they are not doing right by children and anyone that doesn't want to follow their rules. The cardinal is worried about people that are not catholic (the majority of gays in this country are not), so we have the right to worry about him.

Nolan are you stupid! Religion brainwashed and child abuse! Call the Police then. My parents raised seven children as Catholic and all remain Catholic including nieces, nephews , grandchildren . Myself and my siblings weren't brainwashed or abused . Plus we all have and had successful careers in the public sector. Amen to being Catholic!

Like I said Despiser, all of your young family were brainwashed as children. You just proved my point. They all probably went to catholic schools and involved in catholic athletics and were never shown any other way. Say something to an impressionable mind repeatedly and you achieve brainwashing. Let them be open and educated to new and different points of view and think for themselves, that is true freedom. Please give it up Despiser, your views are sickening. I so sorry to hear you have raised children and now you are infecting grandchildren, what a shame. Remember, when it comes to the government and the cardinal, two wrongs don't make a right.

Brainwashed? Not. You say child abuse? Not! We were taken too Church and still were given free rein to do as we please. It's what one makes out of it. The nieces, nephews and grandchildren aren't forced to do anything and are told you can do as you please with their lives and choices since its free will. You say Child abuse? Call the Police and report it then if you think it's a crime! Which it's not!

Nolan it shows how little you know. The majority of us went to Catholic grammer school, then to public High Schools, while a couple went on to Catholic High School. We all excelled in sports and two of them were noted high talanted basketball players that would smoke your ( ! ) on the court. Then several of us went to work in the public and private sector with successful careers. An the rest are now carrying on in their religion, education and careers. What about you?

Correct on all counts, Wendy...

Remember when I said the Catholic Church is losing members? Guess what, Vera, excommunicating them isn't exactly roping them in, now is it? How many do you think will also leave on their own when their gay loved ones are kicked out?
Real thought-through plan you have here, Vera.

Dave losing members is in your pipe dreams. I don't see the religion going anywhere soon. Now the mega Church's are another thing !

Despiser, you are hysterical! Funniest thing I read yet. Sounds like some written by scared children 2000 years ago.

Right on all counts, BMH...including about Vera. (DoO)

BMH you probably believe the world is still we flat, we never landed a man on the moon and President Bush planned the 9/11 attacks. The Catholic Church is hear to stay. Do you complain about the phony mega Church's like Benny Hinn or do you attend. How about the well dressed blacks at their Church's and other Church's that dress up for respect. If you don't like the Catolic Church, then keep your mouth shut. We sure don't need you!

Vera, this is the part where you are called a racist again, because you are a racist...probably an ojutright xenophobe.
People have a difference of opinion with Catholic Doctrine. Catholics believe they have the only version of human rights that counts, and everybody else pretty much disagrees.
Since Cathloics are not the only people in the world, this is more a Catholic Church and members problem, and less and less a Rest of the World problem.

See Dave you can't prove I'm a racist other than you saying so! And the rest of the world problem is that everyone thinks they can do what they want and don't think there will be repercussions! Like I said what and see! I pray for all the doubters! May God have mercy on them! Sizzle!

I sure hope you are wrong, for the sake of all mankind. Since mankind has been on this planet for close to a million years and the sect of christianity, catholics, have only been around for about 1500 years, I'm willing to bet that it will be gone in the next few hundred years. I left the catholic church and all of my atheist friends left the catholic church, and more are leaving every day because of this kind of idocracy.

Funny - but Catholicism is actually a Johny-come-lately as far as religions go. There are quite a few older religions that Catholicism around. Now you might say that the Catholic Church is the loving heart of God - so long as they aren't burning heretics, witches and gays, sicking dogs on Native Americans, waging wars - all part of the history of this loving church. And as for helping the poor - don't for a minute think that there is a hint of altruism in it! When they feed the hungry (who convert), and let those who won't go unfed, something is wrong. And that's the very same game they played with their adoption agencies - they'd rather leave children in need of families unplaced than adhere to the law of the land. If you don't think there is something wrong there, some element of other than purely charitable purposes in holding children and families hostage, there is a problem in your thinking.

You talk so stupid Deirdre. Your facts are so untrue. The Catholic Church feeds the hungry and poor by leaps and bounds more than any other Organization, regardless of their race, religion or religious views. You have no clue what you are saying! The Catholic Charties is still housing the unwanted children/babies and some saved from abortion(murder) and using their own monies. Once the attack on religious freedom and Obamas demands on the Catholics is defeated, Catholic Charities will start adoption again.

Sorry despiser. There are no attacks on religion. I know that it's nice to feel as if you are being persecuted, but you're not. It is not persecution to require a publicly funded organization to follow the rules of the land. It's not persecution to require a business to follow the rules of business. You can try to make a special case because you think that being Catholic gives you special privileges, but our constitution never said that a person or business was exempt from the law because they followed the curious precepts of an inherently bigoted faith.
It's also interesting that you just resort to ad-hominem attacks - the truth is that you can't respond, so you just attack the person who makes the post. You have no good arguments, no response, so you just stomp your feet. You have not answered a single point except to say, basically, "You're lying".
I'm willing to bet that I know a hell of a lot more about the Catholic Church than you ever will, so if you ever want a real debate, by all means, bring up some facts. Until you do, you are nothing but a clanging cymbal - a ton of noise that means nothing.

Deirdre like I'm going to listen to a non Cathloic like you. And you know more about the Church than I? What a joke. What facts do you need to know? Like I said the Church didn't force the government to let them be tax exempt. And the people who give money to the Church aren't forced to do so, it's called free will donations and a Church it's self and a Catholic Hospitals are not listed as businesses, but as spiritual and medical services to the public needing it. Let's see you comlaining about the phony mega Churches that rake in millions and millions and millions and are also tax exempt. Do you praise the phony mega Churches on T.V. like Benny Hinn and the other fake acts that call themselves Reverends or Pastor's from match book covers and they too are tax exempt.

And there you go again - you are so funny. If you want to be totally accurate, I'm not "exactly" a "non-Catholic". I haven't officially left the church, and haven't been excommunicated - though I wouldn't really mind at this point. If being Catholic ever meant that I'd have to be in communion with people like you, I think I'd rather draw and quarter myself.
But, yeah, I do know more about the Catholic Church than you. Hearing your idiotic comments, I feel quite safe in saying so. I was raised in Catholicism, among a good many people who had taken vows. I was in music ministry for more than 25 years, taught CCD, attended Catholic Schools for most of my education, and still have a deep appreciation for a good amount of what Catholicism means. Heck - I have a family member who founded a world-wide religious order - but then again, according to you, I wouldn't know anything. Keep on clashing your cymbals, because not only don't you know what you're saying, you don't know who you're talking to.
I have to wonder though, what blow-hards, who brag about how much money they give, who try to have conversations by only tearing people down, who identify themselves in relation to their own hatred and bigotry can in any way call themselves Christian. Certainly you have a very different idea of your religion than did your founder. Then again, Christ didn't define himself by hatred and being a jerk. Such is life. Keep on being stupid - you out-do yourself with every message.

Sorry Ed, you were so close, but you are a bit mistaken.
REPRINTED WITH MY OWN PERMISSSION:
One other thing...To those who are all up in arms over the very word 'marriage', who want to use 'civil unions' instead...NO idea who made you the Defender of Terms and Phrases, but marriage is the joining of two previously unjoined entities. Concepts are married, companies are said to be married, politicians are said to be 'wedded' over ideology...people were being married LONG before the Cathlolic Church came along, or any other organized religion, for that matter. No one group or entity has a 'right' or copyright or domain over the word. Want something different, YOU use a new word. 'Marriage' belongs to me as much as you, and if I want my gay friends to get 'married' and 'unioned', I can want that to happen, and since they are humans themselves, THEY can want that and deserve that too.
If the situation was somehow reversed, and gay couples had first used the term 'marriage' but now YOU wanted it...would you be complacent, be silent and demure? Just accept your silly little 'civil union' because you as a 'straight person' are a second class citizen in a world where gay people are the majority...the 'norm'? Would you not fight for the equality that you are, in fact, entitled to as a human? I suspect you would...and that would FINE.
What is good for the goose and the gander is also good for the goose and the goose and the gander and the gander.

So tell me - who did Christ praise? The wealthy man who made a show of giving - kind of like your bragging right now - or the poor widow who only had a few coins? Hope those thousands of dollars still feel good. But don't worry - I'm sure you can rationalize My wife and I alone give thousands of dollars a year and it feels great." as something other than bragging - and something Christ would approve of - despite the fact that he said quite the opposite.

You cannot compare the Knights of Columbus to the greed and corruption that is the Catholic Church. Good for you for giving thousands of dollars a year to your church. I am sure Jesus appreciates it. Although, he would say the money would be better spent in the community actually helping people.

Unless "despiser" is a lesbian - he's a he. He said above that he has a "wife". I kind of feel sorry for him though. It seems he didn't have much of an education - horrible spelling and little sense for proper sentence construction - it's little wonder that he is so bamboozled by some bishop's conniving.

Despiser reminds me of a part in The Book of Eli when Gary Oldman's character is scrounging to find the Holy Bible cause 'he needs the right words to control the desperate'

Sara is that your opinion as an atheist!!

It's my opinion and a reasonable thinking person.

There is another thing you know nothing about. The Boy Scouts do not allow gays or atheists and I'm feeling that the majority of the people writing against your bigoted views are on the gay and/or atheists side. So we know about the Scouts and to avoid them like the catholic church. I talk to hundreds of people every day on atheists blogs sites that, thankfully, have just escaped the catholic church and became atheists. The stories are very sad, but now the people are happy, like a weight has been taken off of their shoulders. I see many catholic churches and related organizations closed in my area and definitely no new ones opening up. They are just consolidating. You are on the way out, and there is no denying it.

Nolan amen to the Boy Scouts for keeping gays and atheist out. Are you Jesus that you talk to hundreds of people a day. What a bunch of B.S. I don't see any Catholic Churchs closing in Naperville, Bolingbrook( new one built) Joliet,Aurora, Woodridge( new one built) Darien,Romeoville, Cresthill, Berwyn , Cicero, Orland Park, and many many more communities. I belong to the Knights and we work closely with lmany many Catholic Churches and they are doing just fine. Go back to your whacked and group of morons at your atheist site.

Here's a few tips for you:

1. Before you start rage posting, take a moment, collect your thoughts and try to compose a coherent argument.

2. After you've composed your post, take a moment and proofread before you click "Submit". You'll catch spelling/grammatical errors and be able to edit for clarity. I'd say content too, but you don't seem to care if your views offend anyone else.

Mike I can care less what you think. So what about the spelling and grammer here. I give a rats ( ! ) who is offended.

Didn't Michael Jackson pay off one of his "victims?"

Butch, thank you for using actual history to prove your point...it is lost on DoO, but appreciated nonetheless.
George, yes, and considering O.J Simpson essentially bought his acquittal from MURDER for half to a third of what Jackson spent to NOT EVEN GO TO TRIAL, it is a good chance that he knew it was still money well spent.

He sure did a couple of times and I bet idiots here that bash the Catholics bought his records and idolized him and let their children listen to him too.

See BUTCH learning something about the Knights so you don't sound so stupid!

The Knights of Columbus was founded by an Irish-American Catholic priest, the Venerable Father Michael J. McGivney in New Haven, Connecticut. He gathered a group of men from St. Mary's parish for an organizational meeting on October 2, 1881 and the Order was incorporated under the laws of the U.S. state of Connecticut on March 29, 1882.[2] Though the first councils were all in that state, the Order spread throughout New England and the United States in subsequent years.

The primary motivation for the Order was to be a mutual benefit society. As a parish priest in an immigrant community, McGivney saw what could happen to a family when the breadwinner died, and wanted to provide insurance to care for the widows and orphans left behind. He had to temporarily leave his seminary studies to care for his family when his father died.

The best birth control for the promiscuous and sluty type is an aspirin between the knees. God put homosexuals on earth as a free will and to see if they act out in sin, just like the rest of us if we sin.

And they created the golden calf which the chosen people still worship, the golden calf Temple is on K street called AIPAC-it should be MIPAC -American Political Action Cmte substitute Murkan.

I wonder how many left because they lost their job in the Bush bubbles and their pastors insisted they continue the peters pence extortion or their kids would not be allowed to be confirmed or graduate or?

I can care less if the lazy ones don't come to Church as long as my family and I are there. Amen.

As long as they send the check, the church is OK with it. My family received a letter from our church when I was young threatening to excommunicate us from the church because the church felt we were not giving them enough money.

Really Sara? Still have the letter? In a court room that would be 'hearsay!' And Butch...take a chill pill. Kick back and watch REVENGE later this evening, OK?

When you point your finger at someone, there are three more fingers pointing back at you!!! Do not judge, do not preach. Worry about your own soul.

And I gave I one finger back!!!!

And that one finger is pointing straight up to your heaven. Good for you!!...haha!!

Dave you and your atheist don't have the power!

>>20 years ago people thinking same sex marriage should be legal would be laughed out of the United States.

Twenty years from now, people will be laughing at people like you, and wondering what made people like you tic!!
And for the record, the United States is still a great country, and God is still with us.
You're so dramatic!!

That same type of situation could just as easily happen with opposite-sex couples. A man and a woman who aren't in love might just get married for the benefits. But it doesn't happen all that often because marriage brings a lot of legal responsibilities along with the benefits (such as being on the hook for the debts of the other spouse). And if someone thinks they might want to get married "for real" later, that means they'd have to go through a divorce first, which means court costs and the potential that the other person might try to take advantage of the situation to get alimony.

Even then, is it really fraud? When you apply for a marriage license, there's no question on there, "Do you love the other applicant?" There's no fraud when no lie has been told.

So yes, there is a possibility that this type of situation *could* occur, but I don't think it generally *would* except in rare circumstances. And even if it does, it's not fraud.

Considering how gay people in our culture are treated, it's hard to imagine anyone who isn't gay would put themselves in the position of pretending to be for tax, health, etc., benefits. It would hardly seem worth the stress and grief. Exhibit A: many of the comments here. If someone 'straight' really wanted to marry for benefits, why would they pretend to be homosexual when there are plenty of hetero people out there who would, and do marry for financial gain? How do we get around the 'fraud' of two hetero people who marry for reasons other than love? It happens ALL THE TIME - It's called a marriage of convenience, and it's not actually a crime. People marry for all sorts of reasons besides love. Marrying for love is pretty recent in human history, and mostly a phenomenon of the Western world.

I don't doubt it! It certainly sounds like something you would do. I'm willing to bet that you've tried to consumate some such marriages already! I can't actually imagine a successful union between you and any actual human being! Which species will you try for first?
Just a reminder - scripture is against that - but I bet you could find a sympathetic priest or two who would grant their blessings on such a thing.

No relaion to Pickett. Part 2 of Gettysburg is great. What do you thing of the movie GODS AND GENERALS? Seen LINCOLN yet? I was a history teacher before I retired. Have a great day!

Ann to get a Cahtolic marriage annulled you have to pay a fee and the paper work is time consuming. The annulment process is not just handled by a Priest at his Church. It has to go before a board with a lawyer and several Priest and than has to be approved by the Vatican. Learn something!