Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[Ming]

No. It's not propaganda. It's religion. Not all religion is propaganda. You need to use words correctly.

religion... propaganda... many think they are the same thing. Maybe you are uncomfortable with the fact that many would consider your church's teachings propaganda, but that's reality. Deal with it. But believe what you want. Again, it's your choice and your opinion... but it doesn't make it facts.

[C0ckney]

Yes. And that was wrong.

why should your son, or anyone else for that matter, listen to anything you say if you can't practise what you preach?

[Kidlicious]

religion... propaganda... many think they are the same thing. Maybe you are uncomfortable with the fact that many would consider your church's teachings propaganda, but that's reality. Deal with it. But believe what you want. Again, it's your choice and your opinion... but it doesn't make it facts.

That's ridiculous. It's just flat out bs.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

this is why so many wars have been fought over the church. so many have died. and for what?!

here we are still.

[Kidlicious]

why should your son, or anyone else for that matter, listen to anything you say if you can't practise what you preach?

My son has been taught that people sin, even his father, and that that's no reason to sin.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

i would probably think you've never done anything wrong. most things the church calls a sin is a joke. of course... gangster life might have something do to with that.

[Ming]

Well.. it has. In my case they changed the curriculum in 'social studies' (which is what I teach) up in British Columbia. So that's not really true. It has affected Christian professionals in a negative fashion.

So what... curriculums change all the time, and for many different reasons. All professionals have to deal with it.
But that wasn't the point I was making and you know it. MANY Christians have claimed and gone on record saying that gay marriages will effect their marriages... cheapen them... take away from their own relationships. I say BS to that. Does two guys getting married change your love, your devotion, your vows to your wife/husband. NO. And if you really want to say it does, then maybe you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place if you allow the action of two strangers to effect that relationship.

They have a Christian university in British Columbia that has had considerable difficulties getting accreditation because they insist that everyone who attends follow a biblical standard of behavior. They are a private college, funded solely by donations.

Again... so what. That's their problem. It's a Christian University. If they want to stay a Christian University, they will just have to deal with the problems of standing by their beliefs and accept the consequences of their actions. And they should try harder to get donations from like minded people.

Then we have the bakers, and other Christians who are trying to earn a living. They are being told that they have to cooperate with it, Kim Davis in KY as well, being told that her participation is required and she sat in jail for it.

Do the crime, do the time... They broke the LAW. They don't have the right to discriminate. Believe what you want, nobody is stopping that... but you are not allowed by law to discriminate. That's a fact.

Does it affect our public lives? Absolutely.
And so Christians are very right to stand up for our own rights, freedom of religious expression.

And nobody is denying you your freedom of religion... but the government is denying you the right to discriminate other people.

You would think that it was a horrendous violation of justice to arrest people for being gay.

And you would think that it was a horrendous violation of justice to arrest people for being christians...
But the good news is, neither happens in this country.

And look at where we are now, arresting people who's only 'crime' is to choose not to participate in something that they do not believe.

No, their crime was discrimination... and that is against the law for everybody.

That being said, it gets back to the question that I asked. "What is the purpose of marriage"? Catholics see it as a sacrament, just like baptism. Baptism has a purpose, as does Marriage, and it's not something that society decides. God has said, "this is what marriage is to be", and it's purpose is to provide for children and for a husband and wife to cleave to one another. That is why we cannot simply stand by and say that it means something very different.

I thought you asked what is the purpose of sex... but never mind.

Yet again... Catholics are free to believe whatever they want. Yes, it's a sacrament... God said it... blah blah blah... People, men and women, get married all the time, outside the Catholic church. But that doesn't change the sacrament. Gays getting married doesn't change the sacrament.
If you really think that two strangers getting married changes the "sacrament" than maybe you should check your beliefs. The sacrament is in the eyes of the those that believe... simply because others don't believe what you do doesn't change what you believe.

[Aeson]

It's still a parental obligation. That some parents are unwilling, and bad, doesn't change this. There's lots of crappy parents out there, and you're right, my job is to teach their children as best I can.

I like my job, but I have to understand my role in how everything works. The parents come first, not me.

And schools should be there for when parents fail.

Well, ok, I cited the CDC. Is the CDC not a reliable source for you?

Your conclusions aren't supported by the statistics you are trying to support them with.

In what way is it a misrepresentation to state that gay men are a very high risk group for STDs?

In that you are pretending it's a problem with homosexuality. It isn't. It's a problem with unprotected promiscuous sex. You're also ignoring most of the world's population, various subsets of which have very different statistics in this regard.

Which is why I've been arguing that the act in itself is risky, like smoking is an act. You're arguing that a person can take steps to reduce their risk by changing their behavior. A smoker can stop smoking and reduce their cancer risk. I'm arguing the same can be done by homosexual men.

Being homosexual isn't "an act".

Having sex is an act, and can be done in many different ways. Some ways are riskier than others. A homosexual can have safe sex, a heterosexual can have risky sex. It's not a risk innate to sexuality.

Well, sure, but you're still looking at an incredible 100x risk factor there. To me that's mindblowing. Condoms aren't perfect, Aeson. I wouldn't trust my life to them.

Now you're going even further in your misrepresentation of the statistics. They are not describing the relative risk of using condoms or being monogamous so can't be used to describe the risk of homosexuals who use condoms properly and/or have monogamous relationships.

[Aeson]

You would think that it was a horrendous violation of justice to arrest people for being gay.

I would support the arrest of a publicly elected official who decided they would not uphold the law and instead would deny marriage licenses to heterosexual couples.

(That is the proper analog. Your analog is not an analog at all. The analog to your "analog" is "it was a horrendous violation of justice to arrest people for being Christian". Which was not what you were drawing an analog to.)

[giblets]

Maybe if homosexuality wasn't stigmatized there would be fewer closeted men having anonymous sex with other men and they'd have relationships with other men instead

[Kidlicious]

Maybe if homosexuality wasn't stigmatized there would be fewer closeted men having anonymous sex with other men and they'd have relationships with other men instead

Maybe. And?

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Maybe if homosexuality wasn't stigmatized there would be fewer closeted men having anonymous sex with other men and they'd have relationships with other men instead

they already have that - it's call being a priest.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would support the arrest of a publicly elected official who decided they would not uphold the law and instead would deny marriage licenses to heterosexual couples.

What law? Legally she is bound to uphold the law in KY as it is. All of it, not just the parts of it. That's the problem here. Kim Davis already swore a legal oath and she could have been arrested for failing to uphold her oath. Now, perhaps to you it's a simple matter, but legally it is not. You cannot arrest someone for legally performing her duties. And now KY has settled the issue by permitting the clerks to exercise their freedom of conscience.

Secondly, would you have supported arresting clerks who issued illegal licenses to homosexual men and women prior to Oberfell? If not, why not?

Thirdly, those who were seeking a license, came from Ohio. Why would they drive all the way across KY to find the clerk who wouldn't issue them a license rather than, staying in Ohio, going to other clerks in KY in Louisville that they had to drive across to get to Davis? This is like having a bakery right across your street and then driving 200 miles to find a different bakery. Doesn't pass the smell test to me.

(That is the proper analog. Your analog is not an analog at all. The analog to your "analog" is "it was a horrendous violation of justice to arrest people for being Christian". Which was not what you were drawing an analog to.)

I'm not sure you believe the first amendment exists. You cannot argue that Davis' constitutional rights are abrogated because of Oberfell.

[Ben Kenobi]

And schools should be there for when parents fail.

And should we take the children too? Schools are not parent replacements. We can help but we are not.

Your conclusions aren't supported by the statistics you are trying to support them with.

Then why does CDC state that homosexual men are an at-risk group?

In that you are pretending it's a problem with homosexuality. It isn't.

Where did I state that? All I stated is what the CDC stated, that the risk factors of homosexual sex are roughly 100x that of the general population with regards to gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV and chlamydia.

It's a problem with unprotected promiscuous sex. You're also ignoring most of the world's population, various subsets of which have very different statistics in this regard.

So your argument is that it's an American problem not found elsewhere? Curious. I don't think unprotected promiscuous sex is confined to Gay men, and yet we don't see similar ratios for heterosexuals. I went with Americans because I had good statistics to cite. I don't think "It's only Americans" is a very compelling argument here.

Being homosexual isn't "an act".

Having homosexual sex is.

Having sex is an act, and can be done in many different ways. Some ways are riskier than others. A homosexual can have safe sex, a heterosexual can have risky sex. It's not a risk innate to sexuality.

And that, I believe is my point.

Now you're going even further in your misrepresentation of the statistics. They are not describing the relative risk of using condoms or being monogamous

No, but they are showing that the real-world risk is 100x. Your argument is that condoms are the solution, but you're dealing with a group of people who have been told that for at least 30 years.

Nothing has changed, and in many ways, the situation is getting worse not better. 65 percent of new HIV infections are gay men, vs 57 of the total infections.

so can't be used to describe the risk of homosexuals who use condoms properly and/or have monogamous relationships.

It's not editing out for this, no, but it is including all of them as a collective. So it is a fair study that way. It's not making exceptions for heterosexuals either.

My argument is not, "there is no way to lower your risks". My argument is that the real world risk does not reflect what you are saying it is. We have to accept that the risk is what it is, not what it might be if things were different.

[Ben Kenobi]

So what... curriculums change all the time, and for many different reasons.

In our case, the Corren Accord made it so that two men had the opportunity to change ours to include what they believed were necessary components. That is unprecedented. No other group has had such access. The Corren Accord introduced required elements, giving me the palatable choice of holding a job in my chosen profession and teaching against my faith unnecessarily, or finding work in another field. I took a third option.

So yes, gay marriage did have a significant negative impact on mine, and on other Christian professionals here in BC. We're talking equal rights, why did they give 'special rights' here that others did not have access to? Why should the changes trump my freedom of religious expression, something which is constitutionally protected in Canada? See, if we believe rights actually matter, Christian professionals have conscience rights too.

But that wasn't the point I was making and you know it. MANY Christians have claimed and gone on record saying that gay marriages will effect their marriages... cheapen them... take away from their own relationships. I say BS to that. Does two guys getting married change your love, your devotion, your vows to your wife/husband.

In my case yes it does. It no longer says 'wife' on the marriage certificate. Perhaps for you folks this isn't important because you're already married. For those of us who are not, we are swearing different vows than you did.

What your argument is, is that because other people are getting married that it shouldn't affect how I feel about her. But... that's part of what I'm getting at. Marriage is much more than just about feelings. Marriage is a sacrament, a public act. It is not a private act between two people who love each other. This is the main source of the conflict. Changing what that public act means changes what marriage means.

Again... so what. That's their problem. It's a Christian University. If they want to stay a Christian University, they will just have to deal with the problems of standing by their beliefs and accept the consequences of their actions. And they should try harder to get donations from like minded people.

It's legal discrimination that the courts have stepped on and granted the university their accreditation. It should never have happened in the first place as they are a private university.

Do the crime, do the time... They broke the LAW. They don't have the right to discriminate. Believe what you want, nobody is stopping that... but you are not allowed by law to discriminate. That's a fact.

Does Oberfell say that we are to arrest Christians who refuse to participate in gay marriage? No, it does not. And Davis has been fully exonerated and successfully protected her conscience rights. She should never have been arrested in the first place.

And nobody is denying you your freedom of religion

Yes, they are, Ming. Why did Davis sit in jail?

But the good news is, neither happens in this country.

Davis, again. I'm surprised you're saying, "it doesn't happen", when it has.

No, their crime was discrimination... and that is against the law for everybody.

Why then did Davis ask that her name be removed from the license? Why were the people seeking a license from Ohio, not KY? That's not discrimination in the slightest. They had numerous options they could have availed themselves without inconveniencing themselves. Instead they sought out Davis. Why?

Yet again... Catholics are free to believe whatever they want.

Then why are Christians being arrested for doing that? We are not free.

Gays getting married doesn't change the sacrament.

Can Christians obtain a marriage license without the state?

If you really think that two strangers getting married changes the "sacrament" than maybe you should check your beliefs. The sacrament is in the eyes of the those that believe... simply because others don't believe what you do doesn't change what you believe.

It changes the public meaning of marriage, and changes what the license says, at least in BC. Do you not think that removing references to "wife" is a substantial change in the marriage contract?