Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[Jermosh]

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer

your best post yet

Better then backpedaling.

I canot help but notice you dismiss facts constantly.

What FACTS?

The standard deduction alone is $10,900 even if one spouse has no income verses $5,450 for a single (which is usless unless the single has income)

As again this has absolutely nothing to do with children.

It is clear your eyes, ears, and mind are closed on the issue so I see no reason to pursue the facts with you

See 2nd remark.

and for spouses? (the same)

No, a simple drivers license will do.

there you go now your getting to the truth

If you dislike truth, why attempt to debate?

Are you implying marriage is a $45 relationship?

Where did I state that? I said that one perverted couple can get a civil covenant for $45 and another has to spend $1000s. Why is that ok since God see both as immoral and both are against Natural Law.

So are you going to attempt to show that Civil Marriage is designed to promote procreation or not? Up this point, I have only seen some bad tax knowledge.

[doubtingdaniel]

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer

or that "In God we Trust" (look on any printed money)

First of all "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency didn't start until 1957!

Originally Posted by doubtingdaniel

Gay marriage wouldn't be anymore damaging to the individuals than heterosexual marriage!

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer

I disagree

It is certainly your right to disagree but your disagreement is nothing more than blatant prejudice unless you have some sort of evidence to support it. So do you?

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer

ever heard this " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Yes, paragraph one of the Declaration of Independence. That doesn't mean your God. I have never ever heard a Christian refer to the Judeo-Christian God as Nature's God. Not once! Why? Because the natural world is suppose to be Satan's domain. But lets say this is referencing to the Judeo-Christian God. If we agree that homosexuality occurs among many species in nature than Nature's God made them that way in the first place and the Laws of Nature entitle gays to the same rights as straights.

U.S. Federal Constitution, Amendment 1 Freedom of Religion, Speech and Press; Rights of Assembly and Petition:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, signed by President Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate in 1797
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”

Yes some of the Founding Fathers were Christian. Alexander Hamilton and John Hancock were prime examples. But the fact of the matter most of the founding fathers were Deists including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison are just the ones I could think off the top of my head.

It’s important to remember that the separation exists for the benefit of the religious as well as for the non-religious, straights and gays, democrats and republicans. The best way to ensure freedom for all was to have the government remain as strictly neutral on religious and personal matters as possible. This is important for American Christians to understand. It may be tempting for the Church to tear down the wall between them and State now that they have a comfortable majority.What if that ever changes? What will protect your religious or personal rights in that future? What would stop a Wiccan majority from using public school teachers to coerce their children to pray to the goddess, a Muslim majority from passing Sharia laws or a Hindu majority from using public tax dollars to build monuments to Shiva? American Christians may look back and realize that they demolished the very thing that would otherwise protect them.

Think About It.

[doubtingdaniel]

Originally Posted by edwest2

And there it is. The cry for a Secular Nation. And tolerance for all, except religious people who should have no say. Make sense? No. Freedom of speech? No.

That is the heart of the matter. Or as it was put on another forum: We don't want to feel ashamed or guilty or sinful anymore. Man wants God out of the way so he can do whatever he wants. It's happened before.


Peace,
Ed

Yes, I cry for a secular nation! America was constructed by our Founding Fathers who knew the importance of separation between Church and State! The Church condemns homosexuals and imposes its followers to regard them as nothing but sinners who need to be caste into hell. The religious majority in the government therefore hinders the rights of gays because they take the Church's side and not that of the law. No one is oppressing your right to free speech. A secular nation protects your right to free speech and freedom of religion! The second someone or some group tells you that you can't say this, you can't worship that, or you can't marry him/her then they're in violation of the law and I would personally fight or even die to defend your rights!

As I stated above, it’s important to remember that the separation exists for the benefit of the religious as well as for the non-religious, straights and gays, democrats and republicans. The best way to ensure freedom for all was to have the government remain as strictly neutral on religious and personal matters as possible. This is important for American Christians to understand. It may be tempting for the Church to tear down the wall between them and State now that they have a comfortable majority.What if that ever changes? What will protect your religious or personal rights in that future? What would stop a Wiccan majority from using public school teachers to coerce their children to pray to the goddess, a Muslim majority from passing Sharia laws or a Hindu majority from using public tax dollars to build monuments to Shiva? American Christians may look back and realize that they demolished the very thing that would otherwise protect them.

Once again get it through your head. When Christians claim that the barrier of Church and State only hinders their freedom of speech or religion they are wrong!!! A secular nation is designed to protect the rights of everybody and the rights of homosexuals are being oppressed!

So its a simple concept: Stopping you from oppressing everyone else isn’t oppressing you.

Think About It.

Pat Robertson, a radical left wing Christian “Teaching the First Amendment”
“Let me show you precise language of the First Amendment: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Now, if a federal judge comes in as an agent of Congress and prohibits the free exercise of religion, then he has violated the First Amendment.”

[Benadam]

[quote=doubtingdaniel;5123615]

Once again get it through your head. When Christians claim that the barrier of Church and State only hinders their freedom of speech or religion they are wrong!!! A secular nation is designed to protect the rights of everybody and the rights of homosexuals are being oppressed!

civil society develops rights in order to protect what it requires to function as it intends. So those things that cause society to function have rights because they perform a duty. This is precisely the reason civil societies began demanding that couples required the approval of the community before rights were given. The community required that the couple function in a way properly ordered because the family is recognized as the environment that socialized it's future citizens. This is a profound duty provided by the human pairbond.

I don't deny that homosexuals are misunderstood and subject to alot of unjust hatred. OTOH our society provides homosexuals the right to not have to suffer this way. Homosexuals are not denied rights that are common to all citizens.

There is no oppression involved when rights are demanded that civil society has not developed a need to protect in order to properly function.

What will experience a state of oppression is the environement that has provided a safe place for the beginning of human life since the dawn of it's existence.

Whenever victimhood is claimed falsly the false victim makes a real victim of someone else and points them out as their abuser.

So its a simple concept: Stopping you from oppressing everyone else isn’t oppressing you.

exactly

Think About It.

[Other Eric]

Originally Posted by doubtingdaniel

First of all "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency didn't start until 1957!





It is certainly your right to disagree but your disagreement is nothing more than blatant prejudice unless you have some sort of evidence to support it. So do you?



Yes, paragraph one of the Declaration of Independence. That doesn't mean your God. I have never ever heard a Christian refer to the Judeo-Christian God as Nature's God. Not once! Why? Because the natural world is suppose to be Satan's domain. But lets say this is referencing to the Judeo-Christian God. If we agree that homosexuality occurs among many species in nature than Nature's God made them that way in the first place and the Laws of Nature entitle gays to the same rights as straights.

U.S. Federal Constitution, Amendment 1 Freedom of Religion, Speech and Press; Rights of Assembly and Petition:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, signed by President Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate in 1797
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”

Yes some of the Founding Fathers were Christian. Alexander Hamilton and John Hancock were prime examples. But the fact of the matter most of the founding fathers were Deists including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison are just the ones I could think off the top of my head.

It’s important to remember that the separation exists for the benefit of the religious as well as for the non-religious, straights and gays, democrats and republicans. The best way to ensure freedom for all was to have the government remain as strictly neutral on religious and personal matters as possible. This is important for American Christians to understand. It may be tempting for the Church to tear down the wall between them and State now that they have a comfortable majority.What if that ever changes? What will protect your religious or personal rights in that future? What would stop a Wiccan majority from using public school teachers to coerce their children to pray to the goddess, a Muslim majority from passing Sharia laws or a Hindu majority from using public tax dollars to build monuments to Shiva? American Christians may look back and realize that they demolished the very thing that would otherwise protect them.

Think About It.

I'm sorry, doubtingdaniel, but I find your reasoning to be poor.

In the first place, it seems your conception of Natural Law and the God Who inaugurated such is flawed on your own terms. What is it about the phrase "Nature's God" that is incompatible with the God of Christianity? Do you assume that any action a man might undertake to be moral merely because it has a parallel within the natural world? Wouldn't this, carried to its logical conclusion, prohibit the regulation of nearly any vice since, as the Marquis de Sade pointed out, Nature was responsible for putting said vice into a man's head to begin with?

It seems self-evident to me that Natural Law, properly understood, means a great deal more than that men ought to behave as animals. No one I know gleans any sort of morality from observing an animal eat its own offspring. Nor do we look on tragedies such as the tsunami a few years ago, shrug our shoulders and conclude that the entire moral code, like various natural phenomena, is essentially random and arbitrary. We tend to hold certain things, such as treason, cannibalism and murder as immoral quite apart from whether these things occur in the natural world. Further, since you seem to accept the idea that Creation is under the domain and the control of Satan, one wonders why it is that you would expect Christians to take such a flawed approach in formulating Natural Law.

Natural Law has always been about observing, not the behavior but the design of creatures. Though Satan may dominate the world, he cannot create but only pervert the proper functioning of a creature or thing. Thus, we are able to look at the way a man's body has been created and use reason to discern that its proper sexual function is for union with a woman. We reach this conclusion quite separately from what one's pet dog may do to one's leg at dinner.

Finally, your appeal for a secular nation based on the deism of a few of the founding fathers is fraught with complications. You forget that at the time, deism was a more or less highly structured belief system that had more in common with churches nowadays than with the current trend in free-spirited secular humanism now in vogue. Many of the deists you cite held same-sex attraction to be abhorrent based on their own moral code. These men certainly saw no conflict between the way that the state ought to operate and criminalization of same-sex sexual practices. True patriots of the modern era would be well advised to do the same.

[htrottier]

Let's forget about civil law and consider natural law. Natural law is something that was instituted by God at the time of creation. The God of Heaven is the same God of Earth since it is His creation. The Natural Law is something that "makes sense" and "goes together." Physically you can see why the natural law (and natural way) is for a man and a woman to be married. As a friend told her daughter, men and women fit together like a puzzle. It's simple, but true! Marriage relations have 2 purposes: unity and procreation. Homosexual couples can only fulfill one of those purposes.

[Texas Roofer]

Originally Posted by doubtingdaniel

.............It is certainly your right to disagree but your disagreement is nothing more than blatant prejudice unless you have some sort of evidence to support it. So do you?
........

Why would you consider it prejudice? (and what is it?)

Yes, paragraph one of the Declaration of Independence. That doesn't mean you’re God.

as opposed to what other God?

I have never ever heard a Christian refer to the Judeo-Christian God as Nature's God. Not once! Why?

Because they believe there is but one God so the one God is the only God that is our logic

Because the natural world is suppose to be Satan's domain. But lets say this is referencing to the Judeo-Christian God.

? I am not familiar with the " natural world is suppose to be Satan's domain "

If we agree that homosexuality occurs among many species in nature than Nature's God made them that way in the first place and the Laws of Nature entitle gays to the same rights as straights.

Well that makes no sense, unfortunately any attempt to discuss that is met with cheap spin, accusations, and insinuation, so I guess we have to leave it out of the discussion

U.S. Federal Constitution, Amendment 1 Freedom of Religion, Speech and Press; Rights of Assembly and Petition:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, signed by President Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate in 1797
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”

Yes some of the Founding Fathers were Christian. Alexander Hamilton and John Hancock were prime examples. But the fact of the matter most of the founding fathers were Deists including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison are just the ones I could think off the top of my head.

Well we have to be careful to speak for the dead. One should remember they had the Pope in charge or the King in charge, neither applead to them. And deist is a God based theory

It’s important to remember that the separation exists for the benefit of the religious as well as for the non-religious, straights and gays, democrats and republicans. The best way to ensure freedom for all was to have the government remain as strictly neutral on religious and personal matters as possible. This is important for American Christians to understand. It may be tempting for the Church to tear down the wall between them and State now that they have a comfortable majority. What if that ever changes?

Your point is well taken, however our government is dancing on how to avoid Natural [Moral] Law as their base while applying Natural [Moral] Law theory. For example; have the father pay for the child, yet also separate the father and the child if the mother says so. um, so mom is in charge but nature(god) put the man in charge so now the man leaves before the birth and denies being the father. Now instead of Dad staying to lead Dad runs, so have we improved things? (Probably not)

What will protect your religious or personal rights in that future? What would stop a Wiccan majority from using public school teachers to coerce their children to pray to the goddess, a Muslim majority from passing Sharia laws or a Hindu majority from using public tax dollars to build monuments to Shiva? American Christians may look back and realize that they demolished the very thing that would otherwise protect them.

Think About It.

I truly think Natural [Moral] Law is being misunderstood.

Hope that helps

[edwest2]

There is no other perspective. While reading comments on other forums written by atheists, free thinkers and a few agnostics, the common response to critics of so-called gay marriage is Why should you care who has sex with who or in what manner?

The point here is this: natural biological function is being perverted. Men and women were made for each other biologically. Two of the same sex were not. And the common atheist, free thinker, agnostic response is Well, animals do it. Which is not true. Animals are not capable of the complex interpersonal and self-reflective relationships that humans are capable of. Whatever same sex activity they engage in involves certain situations and instinct based behaviors.

On another forum, the current heavily advertised summary of how a small group thinks everybody else should be is this: We don't want to feel guilty or sinful or ashamed ever again.



Peace,
Ed

The old Hippie, If it feels good, do it, also applies.

[AmyBrownEyes]

First I would like to say that I am Catholic and a lesbian. At one time I did like men but I wasn't comfortable around them. A guy named Kyle l asked me out last year but I didn't feel like dating him. My mind was saying don't date him you aren't attracted to men. Then he touched my cheek and told me to smile I hated that I didn't like it at all. And then one day at work a guest walked in and grabbed my shoulder asking me what a beautiful girl like me was doing up so late. Again I didn't like it I found it creepy. I am for gay rights and same-sex marriage. Marriage is about love and if two people of the same-sex love each other shouldn't they be allowed to get married? I believe God loves everyone including the gays and won't send us to hell for these reasons: Being gay isn't one of the ten commandments and it isn't one of the seven deadly sins. Innocent people have been murdered for being different (gay). Matthew Shepard, 21, was tied to a fence and beaten until he was unconscious he was found 18 hours later all blood covered his face. However Matt seemed to be awake sometime during the 18 hours because the only place on his face that didn't have blood was were his tears fell. At the trial for the two killers there were protestors with signs like "Matthew Shepard Enter Hell On Dec. 12, 1998." "God hates fags" "Thank God for AIDs" "Matt Burns in Hell", this was led by Fred Philips of the Westboro Baptist Church. What do you say about that? I don't believe God sends gays to hell God is loveable.
Charlie Howard, 23, was thrown over a bridge by three boys between the ages of 15-17 despite screaming that he couldn't swim. Charlie drowned and his body rescued a few hours later.
Then there is Lawrence (Larry) King, 15, he was shot in the head twice by Brandon McInerney for openly being gay. Larry was considered brain dead on February 13, 2008 but was kept alive for two days so his organs could be donated.
The hate has to stop a child should never be killed for being different. Matthew, Charlie, and Larry aren't the only victims of hate crimes against gays there are thousands of thousands of more victims. Please send a reply.

[Texas Roofer]

Hi AmyBrownEyes

Originally Posted by AmyBrownEyes

First I would like to say that I am Catholic and a lesbian. At one time I did like men but I wasn't comfortable around them. A guy named Kyle l asked me out last year but I didn't feel like dating him. My mind was saying don't date him you aren't attracted to men. Then he touched my cheek and told me to smile I hated that I didn't like it at all. And then one day at work a guest walked in and grabbed my shoulder asking me what a beautiful girl like me was doing up so late. Again I didn't like it I found it creepy. I am for gay rights and same-sex marriage. ...................................I believe God loves everyone including the gays and won't send us to hell for these reasons: Being gay isn't one of the ten commandments and it isn't one of the seven deadly sins. Innocent people have been murdered for being different (gay). Matthew Shepard, 21, was tied to a fence and beaten until he was unconscious he was found 18 hours later all blood covered his face. However Matt seemed to be awake sometime during the 18 hours because the only place on his face that didn't have blood was were his tears fell. At the trial for the two killers there were protestors with signs like "Matthew Shepard Enter Hell On Dec. 12, 1998." "God hates fags" "Thank God for AIDs" "Matt Burns in Hell", this was led by Fred Philips of the Westboro Baptist Church. What do you say about that? I don't believe God sends gays to hell God is loveable.
Charlie Howard, 23, was thrown over a bridge by three boys between the ages of 15-17 despite screaming that he couldn't swim. Charlie drowned and his body rescued a few hours later.
Then there is Lawrence (Larry) King, 15, he was shot in the head twice by Brandon McInerney for openly being gay. Larry was considered brain dead on February 13, 2008 but was kept alive for two days so his organs could be donated.
The hate has to stop a child should never be killed for being different. Matthew, Charlie, and Larry aren't the only victims of hate crimes against gays there are thousands of thousands of more victims. Please send a reply.

The Church does not teach God hates gays. Nor would I or most others here believe God hates gays. I would encourage you to read what psycologist say about gay hate.

Marriage is about love and if two people of the same-sex love each other shouldn't they be allowed to get married?

This is the problem we have with that point of view, marriage is in Natural [Moral] Law which is to say it is inside God's design meaning marriage is outside the control of men. Heteros will marry it is their calling, they will produce children it is their calling. Gays ( SSA if you do not mind ) can not answer the call of marriage even if they sign a marriage contract with a person of the opposite sex. See it is not the contract that makes the marriage, it is a natural pull and interdependence between a man and a woman. I understand you can love another woman, and that woman can love you. However neither woman can become the man, so the woman-woman bond no matter how deep is always a woman-woman bond, and thus never a true marriage

hope that helps

[Benadam]

Gays appeal to love as if it defines the marital bond. If that were true then brothers can marry their sisters mothers their sons, anyone can marry anyone. Taken to it's logical conclusion, since the bonds between persons are defined by love a bond between siblings is no longer about having the same parents it's about whether they love one another or not.

The fact of the matter is the bonds between persons cannot be defined by a universal quality all people bound to one another are supposed to give and recieve. In as much as I am a person who loves I am a husband who loves, a brother who loves a son who loves etc.

Human bonds are defined by the structures that bind people together. These structures begin crystalizing and build human society where humans begin life. A parental bond isn't defined primarily by love but by the fact that one person is produced and raised by another. A brother and sister aren't bound together as siblings primarily by love but by the fact that they have the same parents.

So it is with bonds so it is with the marital bond. Love can be the necessary quality between two people that can offer a substitute in the absence of the real thing ( as with adoption) but it is not ever prefered so also not equal to in that it is always the result of circumstance that was lacking a good that is natural to it.

[htrottier]

I too believe that God loves EVERYONE! He is a God of love. God IS love! However, he can dislike the sin without disliking the sinner. God created things a certain way not to limit us, but to bless us.

(I'm new at this... so I don't know if I can get the "quote" thing that everyone else has, but in reference to an earlier post And the devil's domain is not the world. The devil's domain is Hell. God's domain is the world - the devil just tries to sneak in every now and then. Jesus says "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John 16:33

[servornon]

Originally Posted by jjdrury81

Christian marriage and civil marriage are two vastly different things. I remember when my wife and I were sitting down and discussing getting married with our priest he told us just that. He told us that the civil part of marriage can be broken at will. But in the Church it is a blessed sacrament that can not be broken. Very different.

Hi jjdrury81,

First off, people should have the freedom to do whatever they want...as long as it does not damage the freedoms of other people. The government's purpose is to ensure the freedoms of the people. That means allowing the people to function in ways that they wish. When people fear for their lives because the streets are dangerous, they lose their freedom on the streets, so the government's job is to make the streets safe. If people are dieing on the construction site, thereby limiting the freedoms of the people who die (obviously, since they are dead), the government must create OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). If homosexuals are allowed to form civil unions, then the freedoms of their adopted children are limited because they have a corrupt view on sexuality and society's freedoms are limited because the homosexual union is encouraged when in fact it is a disorder.

You can pose these questions to yourself: Why censure the media? Why make divorces easy to do? Why outlaw marijuana? Why outlaw prostitution? Why outlaw underage sex? And: Why outlaw homosexual unions? Depending on how you answer these questions, so too should you answer the homosexual union question, because it deals with the same issue, which is the moral compass of society. Imagine this: a world with homosexual union should then include the following, because it would be fair: it would include a media with little to no censuring, so you turn on the TV and see nudity and swearing, and so does your child. Divorces come by the bushel and are easy to do so people's lives are turned upside down and dedication to the one's closest to you and society is diminished (this has already happened). The youth think that it is cool and acceptable to spend whole weekends in a basement room taking drugs and wasting their life (which is somewhat in society now). Prostitution advertisements are on the billboards going into towns and on the TV and newspapers, which your children can see (again, has happened in some areas). Then 13-year-olds think that it is acceptable to fornicate even more because the law allows it. Then the society accepts people joining in a fornication homosexual union, which confuses our youth. This would logically happen sooner or later after homosexual union is accepted.

It can reasonably be said that it is the virtue of society at fault and not the government when fornication or lude advertisements come up, but the government is not just allowing or accepting, let's get that clear. Let's get that very clear. Why do these people want these unions? I am pretty sure that it is for the benefits. Therefore, the government is not just allowing people to screw up their lives, but ENCOURAGING people to screw up their lives with benefits. Now that is where this really goes awry. I am not even sure that we need censuring and underage sex laws, but I AM sure that swearing, nudity, and fornication should not be encouraged. This is diminishing people's freedoms because you are inviting someone into the slavery of sin, not just letting them do it. So it isn't just accepting the alcoholics wish to go to the bar, like someone has said, it is asking the alcoholic to go to the bar with you! So it is wrong to accept it, but it is also wrong to encourage it.

[Ronald E]

Originally Posted by AmyBrownEyes

First I would like to say that I am Catholic and a lesbian. At one time I did like men but I wasn't comfortable around them. A guy named Kyle l asked me out last year but I didn't feel like dating him. My mind was saying don't date him you aren't attracted to men. Then he touched my cheek and told me to smile I hated that I didn't like it at all. And then one day at work a guest walked in and grabbed my shoulder asking me what a beautiful girl like me was doing up so late. Again I didn't like it I found it creepy. I am for gay rights and same-sex marriage. Marriage is about love and if two people of the same-sex love each other shouldn't they be allowed to get married? I believe God loves everyone including the gays and won't send us to hell for these reasons: Being gay isn't one of the ten commandments and it isn't one of the seven deadly sins. Innocent people have been murdered for being different (gay). Matthew Shepard, 21, was tied to a fence and beaten until he was unconscious he was found 18 hours later all blood covered his face. However Matt seemed to be awake sometime during the 18 hours because the only place on his face that didn't have blood was were his tears fell. At the trial for the two killers there were protestors with signs like "Matthew Shepard Enter Hell On Dec. 12, 1998." "God hates fags" "Thank God for AIDs" "Matt Burns in Hell", this was led by Fred Philips of the Westboro Baptist Church. What do you say about that? I don't believe God sends gays to hell God is loveable.
Charlie Howard, 23, was thrown over a bridge by three boys between the ages of 15-17 despite screaming that he couldn't swim. Charlie drowned and his body rescued a few hours later.
Then there is Lawrence (Larry) King, 15, he was shot in the head twice by Brandon McInerney for openly being gay. Larry was considered brain dead on February 13, 2008 but was kept alive for two days so his organs could be donated.
The hate has to stop a child should never be killed for being different. Matthew, Charlie, and Larry aren't the only victims of hate crimes against gays there are thousands of thousands of more victims. Please send a reply.

Hi Amy,
The homosexual community is only responding to the level that hate has been expressed to them. If we speak out against the homosexual community we take the side of hate and those who have committed atrocities against them. I will speak against hate. I will also understand the rage that the homosexual person will feel as a result of hate being expressed towards her or him.
As Catholics we are called to perfection in God's Love. A lot of Catholics seem to think they already know the perfection of God's Love and consequently use that distortion of belief to judge others. They forget that they will be judged according to how they judge because God knows what is in our hearts.
God Bless You Amy.

[Elizabeth502]

Benadam's post 184 is excellent in the way he frames the concepts of the legitimate and necessary role of the government in establishing the structures of an ordered society. Just because the United States of America supports individual rights, and rights of its minority groups on the broad issues enumerated in the Constitution does not mean that structures for the raising of children (which are neither enumerated nor implied in the Founding documents) are subject to redefinition & broadening by any individuals. No religion, including the RCC, is defining, controlling, or limiting the structure we call marriage in the U.S. Government does so, and must do so

in order to protect what it requires to function.