Thread: Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum

It is for the church and people of faith.

But for a government and people of reason and intelligence it fails totally and utterly as a poorly written and edited creation of humanity to control and dominate its populace. It is not, should not and should never be used as the basis for the creation or support of any ANY law.

And if the church wants to keep its special privileges or powers under the secular law then it should have to abide by the law or be stripped of those special benefits. i mean tax exempt status should not be granted to any church that does not recognize same gender marriage. they should be stripped of their tax exempt status if they endorse any political stance on any subject whatsoever. Churche should only be concerned with tending their flock and those who want o come to them and leaving anyone or anything else alone And if they want to take money or provide a public service then they should be held to the exct same standards as any other organization secular or not. meanign that if the law says that homosexuals have the legal right to adopt any particular kid then the church should not be allowed to deny them that right and anyone who does deny themthat right should be led out in handcufs and placed in prison.

It is for the church and people of faith.

But for a government and people of reason and intelligence it fails totally and utterly as a poorly written and edited creation of humanity to control and dominate its populace. It is not, should not and should never be used as the basis for the creation or support of any ANY law.

And if the church wants to keep its special privileges or powers under the secular law then it should have to abide by the law or be stripped of those special benefits. i mean tax exempt status should not be granted to any church that does not recognize same gender marriage. they should be stripped of their tax exempt status if they endorse any political stance on any subject whatsoever. Churche should only be concerned with tending their flock and those who want o come to them and leaving anyone or anything else alone And if they want to take money or provide a public service then they should be held to the exct same standards as any other organization secular or not. meanign that if the law says that homosexuals have the legal right to adopt any particular kid then the church should not be allowed to deny them that right and anyone who does deny themthat right should be led out in handcufs and placed in prison.

Originally Posted by Rahmota

But for a government and people of reason and intelligence it fails totally and utterly as a poorly written and edited creation of humanity to control and dominate its populace. It is not, should not and should never be used as the basis for the creation or support of any ANY law.

And if the church wants to keep its special privileges or powers under the secular law then it should have to abide by the law or be stripped of those special benefits. i mean tax exempt status should not be granted to any church that does not recognize same gender marriage. they should be stripped of their tax exempt status if they endorse any political stance on any subject whatsoever. Churche should only be concerned with tending their flock and those who want o come to them and leaving anyone or anything else alone And if they want to take money or provide a public service then they should be held to the exct same standards as any other organization secular or not. meanign that if the law says that homosexuals have the legal right to adopt any particular kid then the church should not be allowed to deny them that right and anyone who does deny themthat right should be led out in handcufs and placed in prison.

Not that I support any religeon at all, but the Catholic position on homosexual relations predates homosexuality as a political issue in American politics by about 2000 years. You want religious institutions, responsible for instruction in morality, to change their teachings based on current political climates?

The city can, honestly, do whatever it wants. The archdiocese has announced that regardless of the effects on their work, they will not violate what are, effectively, their own bylaws in order to perform that work. The ball is in the court of the city council. I personally think this is kind of an ego trip for DC. It's a single city trying to prove it can bend one of the worlds most powerful organizations to its will, and they're probably going to get burned, to one degree or another.

Originally Posted by daddio

all of it tiger.

if you find sex ickey, well I hope you grow out of it
if you find it un-natural, you're plain wrong
sodomy is inherently unhealthy and therefore subject to public health concern

Come on mate, I enjoy sex as much as anyone but you can't ay that it isn't 'icky'. Hell, all those fluids flying about and all...

I don't find it unnatural, but then homosexuality isn't unnatural either.

And both are a public health concern; just what health issues affect only homo couples?

Originally Posted by timj219

Even if homosexuality was in fact a "lifestyle" and not a sexual orientation none of this would be relevant.
Does the "organization" of homosexuals make them more evil or more immoral than other sinners in the eyes of god or the church?
Does their desire to enjoy the same privileges as heterosexuals make them make them more evil or more immoral than other sinners in the eyes of god or the church?
Does the fact that they have a different view of sin than the church make them more evil or more immoral than other sinners in the eyes of god or the church?
Obviously the answer to these questions is no. Just as obviously the difference between homosexuals and other sinners is politics. Your argument is still ridiculous.

I think it's a matter of the church being forced to recognize sinful consort as making a family. The church is well within its rights to defined such in any way it sees fit.

I'll point out, that I think the church's view is stupid, both as a non Christian (non believer isn't the appropriate term) and as someone who has an interest in the bible. I believe the bible clearly shows that Leviticus is no longer valid.

Not that I support any religeon at all, but the Catholic position on homosexual relations predates homosexuality as a political issue in American politics by about 2000 years. You want religious institutions, responsible for instruction in morality, to change their teachings based on current political climates?

I want an organization that practices evil mind controlling hateful intolerant bigotry to change their ways because it is evil and bigoted against innnocent decent human beings who have done nothign wrong. they love each other and care about each other and make as decent and cring and strong and loving families as any other humn being and better than some human beings.

Originally Posted by Rahmota

I want an organization that practices evil mind controlling hateful intolerant bigotry to change their ways because it is evil and bigoted against innnocent decent human beings who have done nothign wrong. they love each other and care about each other and make as decent and cring and strong and loving families as any other humn being and better than some human beings.

Who gives a FUCK????????

What the fuck is the Goddam difference if someone hates fat people or homosexuals????

The only difference is homosexuals are protected and fat people aren't, as a matter of fact liberals hate fat people and want to make laws to control their eating habits....

Why the fuck is a homosexual more important then a fat person????

**DING-DING***

Because gays are loyal liberal voters and fat people aren't. There is no "fat people" special interest group to pander to as a fucking whole.

You folks got some big fucking balls extending special rights to those who vote for the liberal slew of shit.

There is no REAL equality, liberals aren't interested in equality, they're interested in retribution and oppression.

Of course this simple idea will right on deaf ears because liberals wont be able to comprehend it because its too fucking complex of an idea that equality is for everyone NOT JUST MINORITIES AND GAYS.

It makes me very angry when others get exclusive rights because they happen to be "different".

Originally Posted by Porras

I think it's a matter of the church being forced to recognize sinful consort as making a family. The church is well within its rights to defined such in any way it sees fit.

I'll point out, that I think the church's view is stupid, both as a non Christian (non believer isn't the appropriate term) and as someone who has an interest in the bible. I believe the bible clearly shows that Leviticus is no longer valid.

Of course they are well within their rights. That does not make it a moral choice. The church views contraception as a sin. Masturbation is a sin. Adultery is a sin. But they pay employees and offer them benefits- including spousal benbefits - whether those employees commit those acts or not. They are treating homosexuals differently than evey other sinner because it is politically expedient for them to do so. Not becausse they are compelled by religious or moral constraints.

Originally Posted by turnitup5000db

Not that I support any religeon at all, but the Catholic position on homosexual relations predates homosexuality as a political issue in American politics by about 2000 years. You want religious institutions, responsible for instruction in morality, to change their teachings based on current political climates?

The city can, honestly, do whatever it wants. The archdiocese has announced that regardless of the effects on their work, they will not violate what are, effectively, their own bylaws in order to perform that work. The ball is in the court of the city council. I personally think this is kind of an ego trip for DC. It's a single city trying to prove it can bend one of the worlds most powerful organizations to its will, and they're probably going to get burned, to one degree or another.

Nobody wants the church to "change their teachings". Yet I see this argument repeatedly in this thread from those defending the church.

Originally Posted by timj219

Nobody wants the church to "change their teachings". Yet I see this argument repeatedly in this thread from those defending the church.

I'm not really defending the church, I'm defending the church's right to deny benefits deriving from itself to whomever it chooses.

Originally Posted by Rahmota

I want an organization that practices evil mind controlling hateful intolerant bigotry to change their ways because it is evil and bigoted against innnocent decent human beings who have done nothign wrong. they love each other and care about each other and make as decent and cring and strong and loving families as any other humn being and better than some human beings.

Rahmota wants the church to change its teachings... twas more directed toward him, but the point stands. Some people only want to do this to thumb their noses at the vatican, methinks.

Originally Posted by turnitup5000db

I'm not really defending the church, I'm defending the church's right to deny benefits deriving from itself to whomever it chooses.



Rahmota wants the church to change its teachings... twas more directed toward him, but the point stands. Some people only want to do this to thumb their noses at the vatican, methinks.

It's another false argument. You're defending rights that nobody is denying. Of course the church has the right to do it. But it's hypocritical and immoral to place politics above charity like this.
As for Rahmota you are right I missed that.
But I think even his (or her) posts can be seen as addressing recognition of civil marriage. Certainly the church would not have to change its teachings in order to do that. The church recongizes civil marriage between two formerly divorced people when it comes to paying spousal benefits even though they do not recognize the marriage as a legitimate sacrament.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

It makes me very angry when others get exclusive rights because they happen to be "different".

What rights do you see people wanting to extend to homosexuals exclusively that we don't extend to other people? The right to be who they are without discrimination, the right to marry the person they love, the right to adopt children, etc. I don't see anyone denying others these rights like we deny them to people based simply on their sexual proclivities. Be specific instead of just engaging in hyperbole.

Originally Posted by timj219

It's another false argument. You're defending rights that nobody is denying. Of course the church has the right to do it. But it's hypocritical and immoral to place politics above charity like this.
As for Rahmota you are right I missed that.
But I think even his (or her) posts can be seen as addressing recognition of civil marriage. Certainly the church would not have to change its teachings in order to do that. The church recongizes civil marriage between two formerly divorced people when it comes to paying spousal benefits even though they do not recognize the marriage as a legitimate sacrament.

I understand your POV, now, put your self in the Churches shoes. The city continues to act against what the Church believes in and to them its a big "fuck you" by the city to the Church and they have had it with the "fuck you" that the city continues to give them.

Pretty much "don't bite the hand that feeds you" otherwise your ass is going to go hungry and you're to blame entirely for not respecting the provider.

Is it wrong to use the homeless as a bargaining chip? absolutely but I dont see any other solution to the problem... The Church has to draw the line and I realize that and you should too.