• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope

Only when done properly, misterman, only when done properly.

It's the bees knees as they say.

Oooh. I'll never watch reruns of Kung Fu the same again. "Show me the proper position, Grasshopper."
 
Moderator's Warning:
We are going to start behaving now.
 
Now that breaking up a family is relatively easy, the whole purpose of marriage (making a foundation for a family) is compromised. That opens the door to expanding the definition of marriage and thereby the definition of family. Moving the goalposts indeed.

The thing that breaks my ****ing teeth is that you "moral conservatives" are so opposed to gay marriage-- opposed to allowing homosexuals to settle down, start families and raise children like good people are supposed to do-- but when I start talking about no fault divorce being the real threat to the institution of marriage that needs to be abolish, I'm the repressive lunatic. Try to stop people from doing the wrong thing, and you're a totalitarian and a busybody; try to stop them from doing the right thing and you're "upholding the fabric of society".

Christ, it's no wonder this country is ****ed.
 
The thing that breaks my ****ing teeth is that you "moral conservatives" are so opposed to gay marriage-- opposed to allowing homosexuals to settle down, start families and raise children like good people are supposed to do-- but when I start talking about no fault divorce being the real threat to the institution of marriage that needs to be abolish, I'm the repressive lunatic. Try to stop people from doing the wrong thing, and you're a totalitarian and a busybody; try to stop them from doing the right thing and you're "upholding the fabric of society".

Christ, it's no wonder this country is ****ed.

There is some truth to that. From the more Traditionally Christian perspective, no fault divorce IS a threat to the institution of marriage.

However, those who believe this number too few.
 
From Reuters.com:

Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope | Reuters

In other words, Pope Benedict is desperate because same-sex relationships and families are becoming more accepted. Such acceptance is based on people becoming more familiar with gay individuals through personal experience, the media and studies that disprove myths about them. Because those myths are easily disproved with tangible evidence, Benedict has realized that he must try to scare people into agreeing with him by appealing to more vague and subjective concepts like "dignity" and "promotion of family" and "social cohesion".

Frankly, Benedict is moving the church backwards as this ridiculousness undermines its increased embracing of scientific inquiry in modern history by basing arguments about measurable realities, like the effect of same-sex parenting on children, on nonsense rather than research. By making these comments, he's likely just going to alienate more Catholics, thereby continuing to make the Church its own worst enemy. One would think that after its child sex abuse scandal, it would take a dose of humility. Guess not.

It is wrong headed thinking. Sad to hear such spoken by any leader of anything so widely accepted.
 
I don't see gay marriage as "watering down marriage even more" so I will have to disagree with you there. Marriage is what you make of it and if you want to trivilize yours that is your right and your problem. Gay marriage no more affects my marriage than a neighbor buying a blu-ray affects my marriage. If someone's marriage is ****ty, that's on them, not because of some other marriage.

this is the common sense and facts that some people will never see.
 
Looks like I struck a nerve again. So sowwy ;)

Considering the Pope hasn't really been an actual threat for centuries, it's my nerve of historical reality. Yes, you did cause it pain and suffering.
 
Do you think that using the word fundamentalist is really only accurate when discussing protestant biblical inerrancy? Of course not. The meaning has changed, whether you or tohers accept that change or not. Had it not changed the term Islamic Fundamentalist would be entirely oxymoronic.
The Islamic fundamentalists have similarly narrow, literalist and modernist tendencies.

You see? You've just placed a modern definition on the word that does not relate directly to its origins. That's fine with me, even though I don't accept your new definition. You have every right not to accept the OED's definition of homophobia, but don't expect anyone else to accept your redefinitions of the lexicon with the same degree of respect that's accorded to the OED.
Actually fundamentalism is a direct reaction to modernity and one that takes a lot of the perspectives of modernity.
 
Christ alive! How many more times do you need to have the definition of 'homophobic' explained to you? "Extreme and irrational dislike of homosexuals". It's an adjective, not a feckin' diagnosis.
And how many times do you have to have the origin, connotations and the fact we don't have to except this silly neologism explained to you Anda?
 
And how many times do you have to have the origin, connotations and the fact we don't have to except this silly neologism explained to you Anda?
Forgive me if I don't take lessons on philology from someone who uses a preposition as a verb.
 
The thing that breaks my ****ing teeth is that you "moral conservatives" are so opposed to gay marriage-- opposed to allowing homosexuals to settle down, start families and raise children like good people are supposed to do-- but when I start talking about no fault divorce being the real threat to the institution of marriage that needs to be abolish, I'm the repressive lunatic. Try to stop people from doing the wrong thing, and you're a totalitarian and a busybody; try to stop them from doing the right thing and you're "upholding the fabric of society".

Christ, it's no wonder this country is ****ed.

The problem is steeped in the fact that you and I know very few truly and honestly married people.

The concept of marriage is based in religion, and it's sole reason for being is to establish a set of morals and expectations surrounding both responsible sexuality and the raising of children in a healthy environment, as its set forth by God.

In that sense, a relatively small percentage of people enter into marriage with that kind of commitment and approach. Many just think they want to play house, or they get pregnant, or they want to secure their mate from a threatening foe, or they just do it out of convenience. There's really no "life" commitment taking place; it's more of a tryout than a promise.

Therefore, divorce is a very real (and reassuring) option. Truly married people don't see it as an option at all.

It's an impossible argument to make that gay marriage is about child-rearing or a religious sexual commitment. It's a deviation from both.
 
It's an impossible argument to make that gay marriage is about child-rearing or a religious sexual commitment. It's a deviation from both.

Completely false, I am both religious, and plan on having a family one day, so I disprove your assertion.
 
Completely false, I am both religious, and plan on having a family one day, so I disprove your assertion.
Hurrah! Good for you, YS, and God bless you and the lucky lady that you lead down the aisle.
 
Forgive me if I don't take lessons on philology from someone who uses a preposition as a verb.
You mean someone who makes a typo? We all make them. There is no wit or much intelligence in pointing them out, but to make you feel happy I will be sure to point out any you make in such a way as is completely consistent with your view of them here.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if I don't take lessons on philology from someone who uses a preposition as a verb.

I've long wished to be able to engage in auto philology, but it's too much of a reach for me and I don't have the backbone for it.
 
The problem is steeped in the fact that you and I know very few truly and honestly married people.

The concept of marriage is based in religion, and it's sole reason for being is to establish a set of morals and expectations surrounding both responsible sexuality and the raising of children in a healthy environment, as its set forth by God.

In that sense, a relatively small percentage of people enter into marriage with that kind of commitment and approach. Many just think they want to play house, or they get pregnant, or they want to secure their mate from a threatening foe, or they just do it out of convenience. There's really no "life" commitment taking place; it's more of a tryout than a promise.

Therefore, divorce is a very real (and reassuring) option. Truly married people don't see it as an option at all.

It's an impossible argument to make that gay marriage is about child-rearing or a religious sexual commitment. It's a deviation from both.

hmm thats an interesting OPINION and the great thing about our country is that you are allowed to have that OPINION. Whats even better is after same sex marriage becomes legal, you will still be allowed to have that opinion. This is on of the reasons why america is great.
 
You do know there are traditional Christians ways of reading and interpreting Scripture right? That these fully explain why we do not have to maintain the Jewish dietary laws but do have to keep to basic sexual morality and other such rules?
You know, Jesus can't actually be the Messiah. From what I've heard, anyone who tries to change the laws of the Torah is a charlatan and not a Messiah.

So if you're going to ignore some of the Torah, then why not all of it?
 
Last edited:
You know, Jesus can't actually be the Messiah. From what I've heard, anyone who tries to change the laws of the torah is a charlatan and not a Messiah.

Christians have a particular way they view the Old Testament. It certainly differs from Rabbianic Judaism, but from the traditional Christian position that is, in general, irrelevant.
 
Christians have a particular way they view the Old Testament. It certainly differs from Rabbianic Judaism, but from the traditional Christian position that is, in general, irrelevant.
"If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,; which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him."
(Deuteronomy 13:1-4)

It's completely relevant. You can't be a traditional Christian but pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to follow and which ones you want to ignore. In fact, following both the Old Testament and the New Testament is contradictory, since they have contradictory information (Jesus is of virgin birth, but the Messiah has to be from the line of David.)
 
Last edited:
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot (commandments) remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Jesus is considered the consummation and fulfillment of the Law in its truest guise.

It's completely relevant. You can't be a traditional Christian but pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to follow and which ones you want to ignore. In fact, following both the Old Testament and the New Testament is contradictory, since they have contradictory information
We choose in what way we view the Old Testament. We view it as laying the stage for Christ. Rabbianic Judaism has a very different approach. This means we interpret Old Testament laws and commands through this lens.

(Jesus is of virgin birth, but the Messiah has to be from the line of David.)
Mary is of the line of David, I believe. So is Joseph.
 
Back
Top Bottom