<p>The only gay person (or rather bisexual person) I know is not really happy. But he’s kind of feminin so…</p>
<p>Fides et Ratio…stop hating on the gay people.</p>
<p>I don’t hate gay people. Many of my best friends are gay. What I hate is the left-wing political gay agenda. Funnily enough, most of my gay friends aren’t very hot on it either.</p>
<p>lovely .and i care? no</p>
<p>Fides, what do you mean by you hate the left-wing political gay agenda?</p>
<p>he means how we dont want people being prejudiced. what an evil agenda of ours. freedom is awful.</p>
<p>Basically, the public education system indoctrinating our children with “gay is good!” shenanigans. Also, pressuring churches to bless homosexual “marriages,” which goes against their faiths, by branding those who refuse to comply as “intolerant,” “bigoted,” and everything else under the sun.</p>
<p>gay is no more good than straight, but we should accept both. and it kind of is intolerant to refuse gays the right to marry. it doesn’t affect these peoples’ lives, and they literally are refusing to tolerate their getting married. Not tolerating is the definition of intolerance.</p>
<p>You should not expect people to change their religion for you, especially when you don’t even follow it.</p>
<p>If I were a priest or minister, I would die before I would conduct or bless a homosexual marriage in my church. Kill me instead. Throw me in prison for life – I don’t care. I refuse to betray my God. Call it whatever you like.</p>
<p>You are asking people to change their religion to suit you. Where is your tolerance of them? Thankfully, freedom of religion laws say that we don’t have to buckle… for now, anyway. (A couple of terms under the Democrats will likely change that…)</p>
<p>the Bible can be used to support any cause. You shouldn’t follow it literally. there were slaves in the Bible, should we have slaves? no. what’s important is to follow the main ideas of the bible. (if you’re Christian). Times change. It’s time we let gays have the same rights as all other Americans.</p>
<p>I’m not going to get into a theological debate with you – it is already humorously obvious that you don’t have the tools, anyway. All you need to know is that I’m a Catholic, and as such I believe that homosexual marriage is wrong. Allowing them in the name of the Christian faith would a terrible sin. Period. </p>
<p>This is my religious belief. The laws of the land protect it. What I am fighting for is merely the upholding of these laws, otherwise known as freedom of religion. People like you, however, seem hell-bent on taking my freedom away.</p>
<p>Fides et Ratio, I am Catholic also; but I find many of your political stances to be highly inflexible and, at times, irrational. </p>
<p>I don’t know how things are like in Canada, but here in the United States, we live in a democracy, where there is seperation of church and state. To say that gays shouldn’t marry solely based on religious grounds is totally undermining everything that this nation stands for.</p>
<p>Fides et Ratio, i may not be Catholic but i go to a Catholic school and it’s hardly “humrously obvious” that I can’t partake in a theological debate. However, yes you have freedom of religion. great, so long as it doesn’t interfere with other peoples’ lives. you’re trying to use your freedom of religion to take away rights from gay individuals.</p>
<p>A better question: why is the word “gay” used so commonly in lieu of negative words?</p>
<p>“I don’t know how things are like in Canada, but here in the United States, we live in a democracy, where there is seperation of church and state. To say that gays shouldn’t marry solely based on religious grounds is totally undermining everything that this nation stands for.”</p>
<p>Contrary to secular liberal revisionism, America’s separation of church and state laws were created to protect religion from the government, NOT the other way around. You might want to read up on that, skippy.</p>
<p>You know what? If homosexuals want to have civil unions at city halls or at WILLING churches, I really don’t give a damn anymore. Ask me to vote and I’ll vote against it, which is my right in a democracy and a matter of my faith, but you won’t see me crying in my Wheaties if and when it happens. But the second gay groups – or gay-agenda friendly governments – try to infringe upon the religious rights of churches who refuse to perform or bless gay marriages, that is when I must put my foot down. THAT would be totally undermining everything America stands for.</p>
<p>“However, yes you have freedom of religion. great, so long as it doesn’t interfere with other peoples’ lives. you’re trying to use your freedom of religion to take away rights from gay individuals.”</p>
<p>No, I am simply trying to protect religious people from those who are trying to force them into going against their religions.</p>
<p>Maybe your religion believes that gay marriage. But someone else’s religion may not be that way. Don’t you think that it’s a bit unfair to impose your religious beliefs upon others? It’s amazing that Americans get mad at Muslims for their intolerance towards religious dissent when we have our own intolerance within our own country.</p>
<p>“Basically, the public education system indoctrinating our children with “gay is good!” shenanigans. Also, pressuring churches to bless homosexual “marriages,” which goes against their faiths, by branding those who refuse to comply as “intolerant,” “bigoted,” and everything else under the sun.”</p>
<p>Um, you don’t need to got to a church to get married. Marriage is a legal contract, no more no less</p>
<p>Personally, I think we should abolish marriage altogether and only have civil unions – for gay and straight people. That way churches can refuse to “marry” gay people (thus respecting their religious views) and gay couples can have the same rights as straight people (thus respecting their life choice)</p>
<p>If the gay couples are so bent on getting married then they should just go to Canada and get married. It’s legal there, right?
There! Problem solved.
And marriage is supposed to be “a union of two souls in love” so it can’t be abolished because of that sentimental value.</p>