Viewing 1 - 6 out of 6 Blogs.

This blog is the second part of the my gay marriage blog from Facebook:

C: jennifer, i'm so proud that you're my friend and i admire how much you stand for your faith. hope i was some help. lemme know if you need some back up, lol. ;)

C: goodness gracious! All I have to say is that each person is entitled to hold his own beliefs and opinions. An opinion cannot be worng. It is just a personal thought. Although there are many oposing opinions being thrown around there is no need to attack one another for them. Holding a certian opinion which may be different from someone else's does not give the somone else the right to attack a person for it. I am often accused (and here jennifer is being accused) of being closed minnded. How can we be close minded when we are simply stating an opinion and allowing you to have your own? I am so annoyed with being called 'judemental' or 'closed minded' simply for expressing an opinion contrary to someone else's. THE END.

C: Wow. Sorry I missed the first 40 hours of action here. OK, well I honestly only got about halfway through reading the comments, but I'll try to read the rest later. So far, I think there are several issues that need to be further addressed...
1) The definition of love. People are throwing that word around all over this page (and throughout real-life conversation) as through it needs no explanation whatsoever, that it is completely self-explanatory and obviously demands certain things while curtailing others. If that were true, then we would not be squabbling here at all. The late great Pope John Paul II said, "Love is not merely a feeling;" (if it were, then Christ's call to love our neighbor at all times would be pretty empty--you think God's ultimate request was that we cultivate an emotion? on the contrary, God's was a call to ACTION); "it is an act of will that consists of preferring, in a constant manner, the good of others to the good of oneself." What that means is that it is selflessness in action meant to preserve the true good of the other person. That leaves some ambiguity as to the nature or identity of the "true good," and I will return to that momentarily.
2) The nature of choice. So, our call is one of love, and love is an act that involves choosing the good. Do you see what that entails? In order for us to "choose the good," there must be some alternative (AKA the bad). Otherwise, we aren't really choosing. It's not a choice if there's only one option. Christians preach that God is love, that he created us out of love and for the purpose of loving. That's where free will comes into play. We weren't given freedom because good and bad are equal so we can just select whichever we prefer. We were given the capacity to choose (choice is a CAPACITY, not a right--you either have it or you don't) that we might choose the good over the evil.
3) The concept of natural law. This has bearing even for non-Christians, as I realize many of you are. I could get into Catholic teaching of God's divine law or its specific application in church law, but church law is applicable only to those who recognize the jurisdiction of the Church (as many of you Catholics apparently do not--might want to check on exactly what it means to be Catholic, something defined by the Church and not by you as an individual). But anyway, natural law is the set of rules regarding good and evil that are known to all people regardless of religion. Does this mean they know that they know these things? No. We know a lot of things that we don't know we know (see Plato's description of Socrates in the Meno demonstrating for the slave boy that, although he did not know he knew the Pythagorean theorem, he knew every step of the proof, and therefore had all the knowledge necessary to use the theorem).
(For a more complete list of reasons we may act as though we don't know this law written on the heart, see the works of J. Budziszewski, a philosophy professor at UT, called What We Can't Not Know, Written on the Heart, and The Revenge of Conscience).
No, what is an example of an application of this natural law? There are certain actions and attitudes that all societies have agreed upon as evil and intrinsically wrong. All have condemned the deliberate killing of innocent human life. They may justify certain actions by claiming that their act was not "deliberate" or that the victim was either not "innocent," not "human," or not "alive," but they agree that the deliberate killing of innocent human life is wrong. Also, all societies have had some form of marriage. Some may be polygamous while others monogamous, but they still recognized the institution of marriage.
C. S. Lewis says, "Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud for double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well just try to imagine a country where two and two made five." He is demonstrating the universality of natural law. Sure, assorted societies have disputed its applications, but the very existence of those specific applications demonstrates that there is something beyond those applications that is BEING APPLIED, something that transcends each instance of doing good or doing bad, and those universal absolutes are GOOD and BAD. (Plato talks about these A LOT in relation to art being a specific application of the universal BEAUTY--very fascinating).
4) The nature of good and evil. So natural law shows man what is good and what is not. As the title "natural" implies, something is good if it acts in accordance with our human nature and is bad if it acts contrary to our nature. This obviously begs the important question of what exactly human nature is. Many claim we are nothing but animals. If that were true, there could be no good or evil, and speaking of them would be nonsense. Human nature involves both intelligence and the capacity to choose, AKA free will. Though many animals demonstrate great intelligence, none show any evidence of true freedom; they are simply conditioned by their genetics and environment. If man too is simply a combination of genes and environment, I shouldn't be writing--in fact, NONE OF US SHOULD. Without freedom to choose the good, there ceases to be any good in relation to us. Debate ends, and we simply do whatever helps us survive (or whatever instinct happens to be strongest at that moment).
So good is about acting in accord with our nature. Most societies have recognized that the very existence of a human nature points to a design for humankind, and a design implies a DESIGNER. That was one of the demonstrations of the reasonability for having faith for many great philosophers and theologians throughout history, BUT today that is not our focus, and though we may not all agree about what a human nature suggests about the numinous reality, we should be able to agree that such a thing as human nature exists.
So let's look at the current issue: homosexuality. Is it fitting with our nature? Some say, "Yeah, it's natural, you see it in nature with animals sometimes." Well, okay, if that's what we mean by natural--that it occurs in nature--then fine. But if that's our definition of natural, then cancer too is natural, because we see it in the animal kingdom as well. I think we all agree that cancer is bad, and therefore, that faulty definition of natural does not in any way imply "good," it simply implies "real." So, if, as I had previously suggested, we define natural as what works in accordance with our nature, and homosexuality is something that operates in relation to the sexual aspect of our nature, then we need to examine the nature of human sexuality.
5) The nature of sex. What is the purpose of sex? One popular answer today is pleasure, which seems to make sense given that sex indeed produces pleasure. But just because pleasure is one consequence/result of sex, does that make it its purpose?
It might be easier to examine that question using something other than sex for a moment, something whose nature our society seems to have maintained a better (though far from perfect) grasp on: eating. Food tastes good. Is that eating's purpose or just a consequence? I argue that it is a consequence--not a bad one necessarily, but a consequence nonetheless. If tasting something good were the purpose of eating, then when presented with a delicious poison, we would drink. You say, that's ridiculous, and I agree, but that is because both of us recognize that, when discussing food, something transcends taste: sustenance. Therefore, I would argue that the purpose of eating is not to taste something good but rather to nourish our bodies.
Now I've just lost the respect of a lot of you, I know--that's if I'd maintained it up until now, of course--because we live in a society that treats pregnancy like it's a disease. Most insurance plans now cover pregnancy-related costs the same way they handle cancer. We have contraception to act as "disease prevention" and abortion as a "cure" in case the prevention fails.
Nonetheless, biologically, procreation is the purpose of sex. Guess what: not one of us would be here if sex didn't result in pregnancy. (Even if you were conceived by some alternate means of conception, I can guarantee your great-grandmother wasn't, so you still wouldn't be here unless someone's sex resulted in pregnancy).
Further evidence of the reality of the procreative dimension of sexuality is seen within the gay rights movement itself. As soon as an area recognizes any kind of "gay marriage" (or civil union, etc.), the next item on the agenda for gay rights proponents is legalizing adoption by gay couples.
Let's call procreation the FIRST DIMENSION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY (I'll illustrate 1.5 more as I go on--you'll see what the .5 means).
Now, up to a point you can argue that animals share in the first dimension of sexuality--they too use sex for reproduction (I tend to refer to animal's use of this dimension as reproduction and man's as procreation simply to distinguish between a sociological term that focuses on function in animals and a theological term that focuses on personhood in man). The next dimension, if at all present in animal sexuality, is certainly much less demonstrable there than in human sexuality.
Another typical answer to the question "What is the purpose of sex?" besides pleasure is "love." Now, I have provided the definition of love according to JPII already--"an act of will that consists of preferring, in a constant manner, the good of others to the good of oneself"--but I do not think, by and large, that that is what people mean when they say it is a purpose of sex.
I think they are talking about attraction, infatuation. There are biological specifications to be made about the chemicals at work in the body when man is reacting to infatuation as opposed to the more developed stages of attraction, but, not being a biologist myself, I cannot provide them. However, I think that in noticing that sex seems to bond two infatuated people together is still very useful to us here in this analysis.
Sex has a binding power, a power to unite the people who are having sex. Granted, if a person is promiscuous, over time that bonding may weaken so much that it appears to disappear entirely, but given that (as I will argue) promiscuity is not the correct use of man's sexuality, we can still consider this binding power and list it amongst our purposes of sexuality, given that, in addition to being a creature of biology, man is also a creature of emotion.
Therefore, let us call this unitive purpose the SECOND DIMENSION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY.
Now, onto the ".5" I referred to earlier. Allow me to preface this by saying that I do not believe this third dimension is any less important than the first two (in fact, I would put more weight on it than either of the others). HOWEVER, given that it is a concept that becomes demonstrable not from secular philosophy, as the first two did, but from Christian--specifically Catholic--theology, it is not something that everyone will readily recognize and will therefore not form a major part of my investigation later on.
This third purpose of sexuality is sacramental, meaning that it both mirrors God's will and unites the couple with God. We see this mirroring in Christ's description of Himself as the bridegroom and the Church as his bride. We will call this the THIRD DIMENSION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY. However, as I said, I will not be fixating on this aspect.
So, to review, love demands that we choose good over evil, and the good of others of the good of ourselves. Illuminated by the nature of freedom, natural law illustrates what the good is: anything that works in accordance with our nature. And finally, with regards to the sexual aspect of our nature, the two purposes of human sexuality that we will be investigating are the PROCREATIVE and the UNITIVE.
Now finally the introductory material is behind us and we can actually address the topic at hand: homosexuality. There are two aspects of the blanket term homosexuality (a term that can surprisingly be pretty ambiguous) that I think would best be addressed separately: homosexual actions and homosexual desires.
I will begin with homosexual actions, seeing as they are much more concrete and easier to work with in relation to our two previously established dimensions of sexuality.
Test #1: Do homosexual actions fulfill the procreative dimension of human sexuality? Because sodomy (which refers to both anal and oral sex--and YES, that does indeed include heterosexuals as well) is sterile by its very nature (it takes an egg and a sperm to make a baby, and sodomy does not provide those two key elements and is therefore not open to life). Sterility and procreation are polar opposites, so I think the result of Test #1 is clear: homosexuality does NOT fulfill the procreative dimension of human sexuality.
Though in truth I could end my analysis there and say, "Case closed, homosexuality is unnatural (which means it does not act in accordance with our human nature, remember?), and that's the end of that." In a way, that is the end of that. By failing to comply with that one dimension of human sexuality, homosexuality is effectively proved unnatural, which we have established translates to WRONG. However, I would like to continue because I find the second test very interesting and very telling.
Test #2: Do homosexual actions fulfill the unitive dimension of human sexuality? Does sodomy between homosexuals unite them as we have observed heterosexual sex does? This test is not as black and white as Test #1. Sodomy seems to bind them together in some ways: they experience something deeply personal in each other's presence--indeed, with each other's aid, they become vulnerable with one another in a way they are not vulnerable with other people, and they feel closer to each other after the act. So at first glance, the answer SEEMS to be that sodomy too is unitive.
However, there is more to examine. That sex by its very nature produces intimacy does not prove that all instances of sexuality fulfill the unitive dimension of sexuality. In What We Can't Not Know, J. Budziszewski observes that "although [sex] consummates the friendship of wife and husband, it perverts the friendship of comrades, just as it perverts the friendship of parent and child." Whether or not his conclusion about sex between comrades is correct (that is what we are trying to find out), we can hopefully agree that sex between parent and child does not properly unify the two parties.
Therefore, not all sexual actions fulfill the unitive dimension of sexuality. So, what is required for a sexual relationship to PROPERLY unify? Well, who remembers how we previously defined love? For those who need a refresher, we said that love is "an act of will that consists of preferring, in a constant manner, the good of others to the good of oneself." So if natural law calls us ultimately to love, what does that imply for us here?
It implies that, in order to properly unify, sex must somehow assist the parties involved in moving their concentration from "the good of oneself" to "the good of others." True unity involves moving the gaze from oneself, forsaking selfishness.
Before venturing into the realm of homosexuality again, let's take a moment to examine whether or not heterosexual sex does this. Looking at committed spouses, for example, it certainly seems to. They care about one another in a way that goes far beyond feelings--many are willing to give their life for the other, and the sexual bond increases that care and unity--and remember that those are not simply feelings but that they have action backing them. So, that shows that heterosexual sex has the capacity to fulfill the unitive dimension of sexuality, moving the gaze of each party from himself to his partner.
But does heterosexual sex always work that way? I don't think it's too difficult to see that it does not. Take for example a man and woman who meet at a nightclub and end up having an anonymous one night stand. Their sex was entirely motivated by selfishness--albeit mutual selfishness--and their sex only allowed further growth of the selfless drive within them, allowing one to use the other and essentially objectify him, treating the other as a means to his pleasure. So no, heterosexual sex is NOT always unitive.
Okay, so now we move onto homosexual actions with regard to the unitive dimension once again. Clearly, a similar situation to the previous one night stand example could arise in the homosexual sphere, so undoubtedly homosexual sex is not always unitive. But can it ever be?
In agreement with J. Budziszewski, I would argue that it cannot. Man and woman are different but complementary by their very natures--their genitalia demonstrate this reality, as do their emotional and logical approaches to life. (I am not denying that men cannot at times behave in ways that are feminine and vice versa, but that is the exception and not the rule. In fact, it cannot even be understood without understanding the rule in the first place). So, by being different but complementary to each other, man and woman can move their focus from themselves to their partner in the act of sex.
However, with two men or two women, all they are doing is having sex with one who is like them, which does not remove the focus from oneself at all but rather puts the focus on another who is like them, putting their gaze on someone with the same traits as them, and thus essentially keeping their selfish drive intact (perhaps even increasing it).
Perhaps you dislike my argument for Test #2. If so, that's fine. I will grant you that the data contained in it is much less easily observable than the evidence I have presented in other parts of this analysis. However, even if you believe that homosexual actions can fulfill the unitive dimension of sexuality, by nature of their failing Test #1 and thus failing to fulfill the procreative dimension of human sexuality, homosexual actions are indeed unnatural and thus bad.
If we conducted a Test #3, it would be pretty easy to prove that homosexual actions are not sacramental in the Christian--particularly Catholic--sense, but I will refrain.
So, I have demonstrated the immorality of homosexual acts using philosophy and reason and without the use of theology. From here, my analysis will become much more theologically intensive, so if you do not wish to continue reading, you are under no obligation to. However, for those who do have an interest--whether Christian or not--I will continue.
Let us move our analysis onto homosexual desires. Are they wrong as well? Well, let us recall what it means to say something is wrong: that is acts in contradiction to our human nature. I would argue that any desire that cannot be satisfied in a moral way is unnatural. To emphasize this point, I will look to the only record we have of a community that was totally in accord with nature: the Garden of Eden.
I am not a Biblical literalist. I do not guarantee or even necessarily believe that the fall of man happened in the way Genesis presents it. However, being Catholic--my Catholic identity was readily apparent before now, I assume--I do believe that Scripture is inspired by God and does indeed have a lot to teach us.
So, Eden. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden, did they experience any desires that could not be satisfied in a moral way? Not until Satan, the tempter, entered the picture. Though because they were free beings they indeed had the capacity to choose the bad over the good, unlike the rest of us, Adam and Eve were not predisposed to choose the bad. Though they were the cause of concupiscence, they were not initially slaves to it themselves. Therefore, I believe that all desires not able to be morally satisfied are indeed unnatural.
That conclusion, however, raises an important question. Is everything that is unnatural/wrong sinful? No, it is not. Right and wrong have to do with the moral quality of something. Sin has to do with the blameworthiness of the person involved in that "something." In order for something to be sinful, three conditions must be met: wrongness of the action, knowledge of the wrongness, and freedom to do the action.
So, are homosexual desires sinful? Some might instantly say, "Of course not!" now, claiming that no one is free in that situation because none of us have control over our desires. Not so fast though. I will admit that, to a point, some desires are beyond our control, but not all are, despite what we'd like to believe. If you flood your mind with garbage from raunchy TV, you are naturally going to have some desires arise from that. We have a lot more control over our desires than we admit--we just have to be proactive in our thinking.
So are homosexual desires always wrong? Probably not. Sadly, in this fallen world, we become disposed to some things that we would not like to become disposed to. However, I believe that homosexual desires can indeed be our own fault and can thus be sinful. We need to be very aware and try to purify ourselves in all things at all times.
One final thought: In spite of the immorality of homosexual actions, our call as Christians is to embrace and comfort those who struggle with homosexual desires and urges. We are to hate the sin but love the sinner, and it is important to remind ourselves that we are all sinners and that a person is not defined by their sexual urges. Jason Evert says it best: "I have friends who have homosexual temptations, but I do not speak of them as ‘gay’ or even as ‘homosexuals.’ To do so would be to define them by a label, as if that is all there is to them, and that is all they will ever be. We should not define ourselves by our struggles. ‘Homosexual’ is not what you are. For one thing, you are a guy with many talents, struggles, gifts, and other characteristics, but most important of all, you are a son of God, and that is your identity. Therefore, do not identify yourself with your brokenness but with your calling."
Mother Teresa was known for welcoming in people who struggle with homosexual desires and caring for them. One day, “someone asked [her] for her views on homosexuality. She stopped the interview and told the reporters that if they had any more questions about homosexuals, they would refer to them from now on as ‘Friends of Jesus.’ This is how the Church sees those who carry this cross” (Evert—132). Mankind must follow her example, trying to end homosexual practices but, above all, to care for those who struggle with these unnatural desires.
Thanks for reading. God bless you all. Never stop seeking Truth. Feel free to message me with any questions/concerns. Again, God bless.
In His name,
~Michael Hannon
~Kairos XXVI

L: .... Is this really happening?
Its silly to be fighting over this, it was silly to post this on facebook, and it was silly for everyone to be in such a ridiculous rage over something that one person has to say. Who are we to tell people what they can and Can't do, who are we to quote from a book that has no definite interpretation, and who the hell are we to tell people how to feel. I love men obviously, and those of you who know me would never suggest otherwise. However, people can love other members of the same sex. Its happened, its true and yes there is a such thing as being gay and lesbian. If its from the media, how come homosexuality traces back to g-d effin knows when B.C. ages? It happens. As for sexual relations, I love sex... sex is great its awesome and those of you who have had it know what im talkin about. Now... B/c there is such a thing as being gay and lesbians, and they are people just like everyone else, they too probably enjoy sex as well..and just like heterosexuals want to get married for someone they feel close to, OMG... SO DO GAYS/LESBIANS... WHY?? BECAUSE THEY ARE PEOPLE TOO. THERES NO ROCKET SCIENCE INVOLVED!!!! omgsh I am brilliant. As for giving it up before im formally commited to someone, oh well. Im jewish, not christian, and I'm not condemning christians but we don't make nearly as big a deal about this as some do. Goodnight, shalom and happy superbowl

C: I'd enjoy a lot of things that still aren't good. And in resposne to the "who are we to say" etc...
Tolerance is a good thing, a virtue in fact, but it is is not blind--we are not supposed to tolerate everything. Should we tolerate rape, murder, etc.? You say OF COURSE NOT, and I agree, but that's evidence that not everything is to be tolerated. Tolerance has value in that we must put up with some evils in order to prevent greater ones. But why be intolerant of our beliefs in the name of tolerance?

For more, read True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment.
And if you want a secular argument, check out what I posted because I didn't use the Bible ONCE in my analysis of homosexuality until I had already demonstrated by secular philosophy exclusive to no religion that homosexual acts are immoral. Thanks.

L: I don't read. I am in college. I drink, sleep and study. I dont use big grammar. Rape, Murder are involuntary. Harm is being inflicted. Gay people dont hurt others. Unless a gay person rapes and murders.... then i guess thats pretty intolerable. My question, is why the shit did jennifer post this knowing that it would hurt so many people, some of which she is well aware are lesbians

C: She didn't post it AT anyone. Why are you responding knowing that your response may offend Jennifer and others who share her beliefs? You're doing so because you believe that some things are important enough to stand up for even if someone takes offense, and it's the same with her.
And what makes consent our ultimate standard of good? If I ask to be tortured, is it then good for someone to torture me?

L: As for your torture question, only in bed. I believe in love and people , and I dont post things showing my disgust for the Catholic religion, because I know it would hurt people. I have more than enough opinions that do not need to be shared because of the harm they would cause to the other party members involved. This was unnecessary

C: When our nation is on the verge of legalizing something that she believes is wrong, it becomes completely necessary to speak up. Like it or not (I certainly don't), this a political issue and one that both sides should be able to speak on. If the USA was on the verge of allying itself with the Vatican, I'd expect you to share every belief you had about the Church and its supposed evils. This note was not a stab at anyone--it was a response it a governmental issue that is very real to all of us right now.

L: Like it or not, we have no power over it.
You, from what I see, are still a minor, and can not even vote.

C: She's exercising the somewhat limited power that she does have, and not that it's any of your business, but I've been 18 for 7 months and voted this past November (not that that's really relevant--are we really stooping to ad hominem arguments now?).

L: sweety, i guess this argument is unfair because I'm an asshole, and a very successful and rising model. I'm also a ridiculously brilliant scientist who was employed at vanderbilt university as a sophomore, and I know more than most graduate students know about pathology and DNA extraction and mutations. Bragging much, not even. I'm Lauren fucking Camp.... I love people, and I know what I can and can not control. Half of my photographers and homosexual, and my bosses are as well. Its damaging to ones pride, ones self esteem to hear "shit talkers" raise such unnecessary arguments. If two girl want to make out... whatever? Does it really matter? How is fighting about that going to help us with the war, or global warming? its just stupid...

C: We aren't shit talking. If you want to debate me, read my argument. I addressed everything you said. At least read the last two posts. And FYI, I'm a fashion designer. I know A LOT of homosexuals. Some of them are the devoutest Catholics I know, and one is one of my closest friends who I love very dearly. I do NOT hate homosexuals. I think homosexual actions are wrong, and I think accepting homosexuality as an identity is dangerous, but that does not make the person someone any of us should despise. We are to care for them as we would care for anyone else, lovingly and compassionately (meaning, literally, we should suffer with them).

C: Do you think homosexuality is a choice or are people born with this 'idea' permenantly?

C: I think the tendency towards homosexual desires, though probably not a birth trait as science has repeatedly indicated, do most likely arise psychologically from things we experience at a point in our life early enough to where we probably could not control what we were experiencing. However, acting on homosexual desires--or on ANY desires, for that matter--is always a choice. That's why this is not a civil rights issue. The gay rights movement isn't fighting for recognition and approval of the tendency for desire, but rather for the recognition and approval of ACTING ON those desires.
And we're debating because what I am attacking as evil is an action, not the person who commits the action.

C: Thanks guys. Yes, i do believe that if we read the whole argument, we will notice that several times many of us STRESS that God hates the sin and not the sinner, and I myself have stressed that I completely live by that stance. And if our excuse that "we're too busy" or "lazy" to read the WHOLE argument, there is no point in responding, seeing as all of these comments have been responded to in earlier posts.

C: I know you know this already, but I guess I'll go ahead any type it. The Bible may have not been written by God up in heaven and then sent to us on Earth, but the Bible was inspired by God to man. We DO know how God feels through the Bible. I have also said this before, but we cannot pick and choose what we want to believe out of the Bible. Either the Bible is Truth, or it isn't. We believe that the Bible is the word of God. Does this mean that some things in the Bible are true and some aren't? Its just like one saying that they believe Jesus was the Son of God, but not believing something He said. Does this mean that the sinless Son of God was a lier? And the fact that the Bible mentions homosexual activity more than once confirms it. You yourself claim to be Jewish, but I think you might be forgetting that the book that I got that passage out of is one of the first books of the Old Testament, Leviticus, a book that is still revered by the Jews today. And I please ask you to respect my wishes pertaining to language. You may speak how you like anywhere, but seeing as this is my facebook and my note, I ask you to respect what I have said.
I know I have posted these quotes up before, but I know some of you havent taken the time to read the whole thing:

Lv 18:22 No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that.

Lv 20:13 If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own death.
These passages are right from the Old Testament; nothing was altered. In a Jewish point of view (as well as Christian), this is the Word of God. This book is also where Jesus got "love your neighbor as yourself" from. Does this mean that Leviticus is right in one aspect and wrong in the other? Or that God inspired one part, but not the other? Jews throughout history have revered God's Word, building large temples and allowing only the High Priests to even enter the same room as the Scriptures.
I know many of you are going to attack me on bringing the Bible in again, but I have only brought these quotes because a commenter mentioned God.

L: Jews are not overly obsessed with homosexuality. We love everyone, and embrace eachother. We also like sex... a lot. And yea the Torah says a lot of crap, but we don't take it all literal from a book that was written g-d knows how long ago. DOnt tell me how to be jewish either; i think i would know

C: So which parts should we take literally from the Old Testament? Are we not to take the Commandments literally? Should "thou shalt not kill" not be taken literally? If I understand correctly, the Jews still celebrate many of the ancient traditions of their ancestors, such as circumcision. If the Jews as a whole decided that the Scriptures were outdated because it was written so long ago, one would think that circumcision would be the first thing to go.
We also have to keep in mind that God is timeless. Back then, he knew everything that was to come, and he inspired the Bible accordingly.

C: .< 1. I really haven't seen any "gay-bashing" going on in this thread, so don't accuse anyone of gay-bashing...there hasn't been any threats or slurs or anything that have been thrown around in that manner> 2. ""I didn't touch that little boy in confession"" is just as bad as saying "I love shopping with gays".
3. Faith is what helps people believe all that "mumbo jumbo" that is in the Bible. Religion, any religion, is based mainly on faith, without it; we are lost. Faith enables Catholics to believe that God inspired those who wrote the Bible, without solid proof.
okay, well an example of catholics not doing whats right...theres countless numbers of teens who've had premarital sex, thats an example......Priests touching little boys, although an example, is still stereotyping priests as child molestors, just like "i love shopping w/ gays" stereotypes gays as fun to shop with.
Faith takes you as far as you allow it to L: wow... this stupid...

C: In response to the argument that there is no universal absolute and that our personal interpretation is all that matters:
I will argue that there are set moral objective absolutes is our world. Some claim otherwise, that there are no moral objectives and that everything is relative. If that is true, if there is no such thing as "good" or "bad," if they are simply questions of preference, then debate is stupid and we are left with a power struggle because, if there is no objective, then might makes right.
If you wish to take that position, the position of relativism, go for it, but be consistent in your argumentation. If there truly are no objectives, then your opinion--and without objectives an opinion is all it can ever be--is pretty empty. You say something is true, such as homosexuality is okay, but if you are to remain consistent in your relativism, then homosexuality is only okay for you. If I believe it's bad, then it's bad for me. But what if I believe it's bad for you too? Well, you can say that no one can tell you what is good or bad, that it is all up to you, but is that claim relative as well, or is that an absolute?
If that is an absolute, doesn't the existence of that absolute--that impressing your beliefs upon others is wrong--point to some sort of objective universal? If that absolute exists, why not others? What evidence do you have that that is the only one, and why should we all recognize and obey that?
If that is not an absolute, if the idea that no one else can decide what is right or wrong for you is also relative to each individual, then our further conversation is pretty empty. I will go on believing that homosexuality is wrong for you, though you believe it is right for you. If you get angry with me for continuing my belief, then even though by the definition of relativism I can believe whatever I want and that becomes true for me, you could do something extreme and come kill me to shut me up. After all, there are no moral objectives. What if you decide that killing me is good for you? Then, as a consistent relativist, there is no reason not to kill me.
If even after looking through this you still find yourself to be a relativist, I apologize but I do not see further conversation / debate / discussion between you and any of us as being in any way shape or form positive. Regardless of what I say, you will believe that it is only my personal truth, and you the relativist will claim that your own personal truth remains true for you.
(Of course, the relativist treats relativism itself as a moral objective absolute, so their position can never be fully consistent. When asked if they are sure that relativism is true, they would have to respond "no." And if they are not sure that this position has any grounds, and indeed it cannot have any grounds without being an objective absolute, whose reality it itself refutes, then they really have no legitimate reason for continuing to speak).
And as for Biblical interpretation, though all of it is religiously true (though not all is historically true), not all of it applies to us. The regulations that don't apply to us include:
1. The ceremonial regulations, for example, how the priest must dress.
2. The dietary regulations, for example, the prohibition on eating pork.
3. The regulations for ritual purity, for example, the special rules for women during their menstrual periods.
4. The sacrificial regulations, for example, when to sacrifice a lamb and when to sacrifice a goat.
5. The civil regulations, which establish penalties: telling how particular misdeeds are to be punished.
Notice that the moral regulations are fully binding on all of us now. Though Jennifer's verse would not demand that we kill homosexuals (that is a civil regulation, and it is one that I would be willing to argue is idiotically unjust, but we cannot judge Old Testament people by New Testament standards--that's not to say God can't, but we can't know that and should leave it to him), her verse would have authority over us in a moral sense, informing us of the wrongs of homosexuality.
I hope that helped.
C: Actually, in a society where gay marriage is becoming an advocated cause, we DO have the right to protest and stand up for what we believe in.


END NOTE

So if any of you guys enjoyed that little debate (which went on for exactly one month after it was written), feel free to make some comments!

Also, don't be afraid to stand up to your friends. Every single person who commented on my blog on facebook was a friend.

The following is a blog I wrote for facebook. It got many many responses and criticisms: nearly 200. I will be adding be adding other's comments in this blog as well, so that the readers on WeVoteRight.com can read the progression of the debate..

KEY: C: stands for Conservative Debater
L: stands for Liberal Debater
Not all of the Conservatives and Liberals are the same people, but in order to protect privacy, I will group each sides of the argument.

C: Gay Marriage is definitely an issue that i feel strongly about. And if youre one of my friends, you know im 100% against it. And here's why it should not be permitted. First of all, i dont believe you can truly have a gay marriage. The definition according to the dictionary of "marriage" is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". Opposite sex. The End. Besides, marriage is not only a legal bond but a holy one. The Catholic Church declares same sex marriage as being invalid, and not to be harsh or anything, but how can any TRUE Catholic take part in something that their Church is against?

Now we move onto the issue of Civil Unions. There are people who might say, "Okay, we cant change the definition of marriage, thats fine, but what about Civil Unions? We can just get one of those." Um, no. A civil union implies sexual activity. As Catholics, we believe sex outside of marriage is wrong, and a civil union is not marriage.

In my honest opinion, i dont think there is such a thing as "gay" or "lesbian". We're all people, and we're all different. I think those who consider themselves attracted to their same sex are confused, and I can tell you why. And this is going to sound VERY stereotypical of a christian conservative, but I think the problem is the media. The music we listen to, the shows we see, the movies we watch, they all influence us in ways we arent aware of. The teenage years can be tough. Bodies are changing all over the place, with all these strange liquids and eww... But its also a time of attraction. With the media encouraging gay awareness, many teenagers (and insecure adults) begin to question their sexuality. "Am I gay?" has popped into MANY minds. And then most of us shrug it off. I believe the attraction between same sex couples is nothing more than a mere admiration of the other's qualities, and often we confuse that with sexual attraction.

To all of you AGAINST gay marriage, but thinks it should be a STATES RIGHT to choose weather or not to legalize it:
I can see where youre coming from, and i nearly fell into that river too. We do not want our country to be run by religion, and many people dont even want to be influenced by it (this is a different topic, ill get on that one later), but the fact is that all of our decisions come from our morals, and our morals come from religion. So there really is no escaping it. About the states rights issue, come on...this issue is hundreds of years old! You dont believe gay marriage is right or moral, yet you think the states should choose... lets talk about the most FAMOUS incident of states rights EVER. Slavery. Im sorry, but do YOU think we should put slavery back up on our "to do list"? Because thats a states right issue too, isnt it? Its not right, its not moral, its not HUMAN, but that was an issue of states rights. So the same with gay marriage (and abortion btw). Its not right, but we still want to give states the option...i see...

The states rights issue CAN be tricky, so to those of you who just blindly agreed with me, i should raise another question. How far will we go? If we dont give states the right for SOMETHING, we wont be America. To me, gay rights is wrong. Others might think its right. How long will it be before someone comes into power who claims he follows religion, and pours our rights down the drain? Granted, I dont think the states rights issue is the way to go. AT ALL. I DO think the problem is centuries old, and if you wanted to legalize gay marriage you should STOP trying to get it through "states rights". Be creative.

Thanks for reading. If you did. That is my rant, if i get any more ideas on this issue, i'll add it. :D

L: I stronly believe in gay marriage. Sorry, I didnt read your rant - I'm a busy college student. But I think that two people can find love (which is the true base of marriage) even if they are of the same sex. Marriage shouldn't be about anything other than love. Denying two people the chance to openly and publicly express their emotions towards each other is wrong. And I don't think that we, as "straight" people, can fully comprehend the emotions of "gay" and "lesbian" people. But then again, I'm not Catholic so I don't really worry about those other tedious things. And, I really do admire your opinion so don't think I'm picking on you. :3

L: I also believe in gay marriage. I don't think the Church should be forced to have gay marriages or recognize them, but they should respect them. And the United States should definitely legalize gay marriage.
I don't have time to analyze all your points but here's my opinion on a few.
'The definition according to the dictionary of "marriage" is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"'
The only reason this is the dictionary definition is because this is the traditional, original version of the word. Like many traditions, the concept of marriage is changing. Traditions and cultures are always changing. Even in the beginnings of the Catholic church, things that we now hold as sacraments, originally began from something else and evolve into what they are today. The Sacrament of Penance is an example of that.

L: Jennifer,
I love you and I respect your opinion (it's a lot more well-informed and well-reasoned than a lot of the others that I've heard), but I can't agree with the fact that same-sex orientation comes from the media. I'm gay, and the media (both mainstream and Christian) had nothing to do with it. It's because that's simply who I'm physically attracted to. I agree that the media can have a strong influence on teens and young adults, but there are also a lot of teens that are struggling with questions about their sexual identity that have nothing to do with media influence and it can be a very scary time for them...believe me, I've been there. I was one of them

L: Personally, my issue with gay marriage and the church is this: If the Catholic Church is supposed a religion of love, then why is it condemning something that is rooted in love.
Those that say gay relationships are against the Bible are overlooking the fact that the Bible says that slavery is okay. It also says that to eat the flesh of a dead pig makes you unclean. The fact is that the Bible was written in a completely different time. The Old Testament in particular, where many of the anti-gay statements come from, was written in such away that Jesus himself overthrew some of the content in it. Also, in Jesus' time, he reached out to the outcast and those shunned by society, the prostitutes and tax collectors. I believe that if Jesus Christ were on Earth today, he'd be far more welcome to homosexuals than the Church is.
Furthermore, the idea that the media is the reason for sexual preferences towards the same-sex is unlikely. Homosexual relations are littered throughout history. However, public opinion has not been tolerant or loving enough to accept any deviation from what is considered a "proper" relationship.

C: you said that the Catholic Church condemns homosexuals. The Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuals, rather the act. In interpreting the Bible, we must be very careful on what we choose to interpret. If we begin to discard traditions and such with the excuse that the Bible is "outdated" or "old fashioned", then we will lose its meaning all together. The Bible was not meant to please us, but rather to speak God's word. We cannot pick and choose what we choose to be outdated and what we choose to be truth. Otherwise how can we tell? Yes Jesus stretched his hand to those who were persecuted, he did not justify prostitution just because prostitutes were marginalized. He told them to repent
On the media: In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence.

L: But why prevent gay marriage under US law? It is not unethical, so there is no basis for it to be illegal. I just want to know how you respond to that.

C: Im pretty sure i know what your thinking. "Im not gay, it couldnt hurt, so why not?" Because the survival and prosperity of our society rests on the institution of marriage. As we have seen, healthy citizens are far more likely to be produced by intact marriages than by broken ones. Same-sex marriage would empty marriage of its meaning, make heterosexual marriages even more disposable, and undermine the health of our nation. The fact is, you need more than just love in a healthy marriage, that much is certain. I hate to sound so...I dont know what the word is, but homosexuals physically cant satisfy each other like a man and a woman can. Another factor to make a marriage successful is not only your private lie but your public life as well. The fact is, divorce rates would skyrocket, as many couples cant handle public disapproval. (Not saying you should always listen to the public, just mentioning the divorce rates) It is also a major public health issue, for obvious reasons.

L: "The fact is, you need more than just love in a healthy marriage, that much is certain"-you. Actually that's not a fact, just an opinion. I think love is enough. Because with love you imply compatibility, trust, and a desire to be together, and it shouldn't be just "love", but rather unconditional love- that's what marriages need to work. And you said the "prosperity" of our country. Well, I'm pretty sure we'll prosper enough even with gay people. And how would you yourself know if a homosexual can please another of the same sex, when you, yourself are not. I don't know, and I don't pretend to know, because I'm straight and therefore haven't the faintest clue as to how they feel emotionally towards another of the same sex. But it's true, the government has no reason at all to prevent gay marriages. Just because you're Catholic doesn't mean the whole world is, and we, especially the government, should be tolerant and understanding of others. Also, as free, consenting adults, there is nothing wrong legally or ethically with what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

C: Actually, love does not imply trust or compatibility. If it did, we would all marry our first loves, and that just doesnt happen. We can be in love with someone totally wrong for us. When I was speaking about the prosperity of our country, i was talking about the fact that a marriage is where it all starts. Even now, with children from divorced families, we see an effect. I myself am from a broken family, and i have seen the effect on myself and my little sisters. Children need a mother and a father, and not two of the same.
About me being Catholic, I am very much aware that not everyone is. I lived in a Muslim country for two years, and met tons of people with exotic religions, some of which I had never heard of before. I can only say what i believe, and if i were to say that i supported gay marriage even though i believed it was wrong, just to please people, i would be a hypocrite. And the Catholic church IS tolerant and understanding of others. Jesus took in the prostitutes and tax collectors. He did not condemn them as everyone else did, he ate with them. But he did not praise their actions.
And there is something wrong with the statement, "as free, consenting adults, there is nothing wrong legally or ethically with what they do in the privacy of their own homes." There can be many ethical or legal wrongs one can commit in the privacy of their own home. Murder, growing marijuana, underage drinking, they all can happen in the privacy of one's home.

L: Now, I have to take offense. I have been able to respect what you have said so far, but you are not a doctor and as far as I know, you are not sitting on some hidden stockpile of 20+ years of contrary medical testimony. You have no idea what it is like to go through the process of months of psychiatric counseling. You have no idea what a suicide intervention feels like. I went through all of that in DC and I don't wish any of that on ANYONE. And for your information, it was not because I'm gay, it's because I was 3000 miles away from home and abandoned by all of the "friends" who turned on me the minute I was honest about who I was. I'm guessing you don't know what that's like either. So, please, think of others before you talk about "political pressure" over "medical evidence" because you have no idea what it's like to live that...

C: Its true i have no idea what its like, and i apologize if it offends you. The statement "In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence." was taken straight from the source, I didnt make it up. And yes, I do know what it feels like to be turned on by all my friends. Long story.

L: How can you call it love if there's no trust or compatability? If you're in-love with someone wrong for you, thats not really love and most definetly just infatuation, which is easily mistaken for love. And when i said free consenting adults, i was obviously talking about SEX. I just didn't want to be impolite and say it out and loud but perhaps I have to for you to understand. There are tons of things that go on in homes that are wrong- like what you said, but I was speaking only of sex. The word "consenting" should have been a hint. As well, I think in the future that we will see more gay marriages, and since younger generations are being brought up to be accepting, I don't think the divorce rate would really sky rocket if gay marriage were legal.
I used to believe that "homosexuality" was a medical disorder, as well. And then I made some friends who happened to like the same sex, and some that liked both sexs--and being around them I began to realize that there was nothing "medically" wrong with them, just like how there's nothing wrong with me "medically" because I like boys. But, idk, to deny someone their personal freedom to choose who they want to be with is wrong on all levels. If I had a child who happened to be gay, I would only worry about their happiness, and nothing else. But then again I don't believe that there is a "natural" and "intended" way that we are supposed to live.
To me, there's far greater problems in the world to concern myself with than someone's sexuality.

C: i dont believe that homosexuality is a medical disorder either, and the comment about the psychiatric society confirmed that. If it was, then gay marriage SHOULD be legal.

C: Jennifer,
You have some very strong opinions and unlike the others who have commented her, I have to say, I completely agree with you. I know its hard to find people who share your opinions and can be very frusturating at times (I went through this whole ranting, crying, upset thing at school one day last week because i was so sick of people attacking me for holding the opinions I do) but know that there has got to be people out there who agree with you and if not, well, at least you have me :-)

L: If you want to come from the Catholic side of this and be centered on that, God doesn't condone any love. no matter where it comes from who who it comes from. And as a Catholic I believe in Jesus Christ and he died for me to save my sins. this doesn't mean that I can go around interpreting the Bible and say that someone's love for another is wrong. No one and i mean NO ONE! chooses to live an oppressed life. no one CHOSE to be gay and no one CHOSE to be looked down upon (even though they shouldn't because not you nor I have that right or say...only God does if this is getting all religious) My sister is gay. she tells me all the time if she could be straight she would do it in a heart beat. but shes not. she isnt going to hide her happiness with another woman because of what people think of her. heres a little bit of what I had put in a paper..
I believe in Gay rights. It is not only a personal conflict i face with each day just because the people i care about most happen to be gay. this too isn't correct for people to demand that they don't also have equal rights. Who do you think you are to say that someone shouldnt be happy in their life or to say what they should even do with their life? Don't judge someone for who they are and dont degrade them for who they have become-no one chose to live an oppressed life. Some of you say you are good Christians or even Catholics and say that it is wrong for people to judge, who are you to be a hypocrite when it comes to this and judge someone on their actions that have nothing to do with you? let them live the life they want with out your voice being heard.

C: although, while I do think that the media plays a huge part in all of this, I don't think the problem lies entierly within the media.

L: You don't go around asking everyone if it's alright for you to engage in any relation that you may have chosen, so why should they be any different? they dont deserve to be put in a section where they have to be voted on to be happy in life.
Being gay isnt a choice, it is what God has made you-God has made every single person unique and if that means that they are homosexual then let it be. it is a scientific imbalance of chemicals in your brain. nothing to do with the psychiatric ward.
Bringing religion into politics isnt right either....not every person in this country is Catholic never mind Christian. our country is based on freedom of choice and religion...some choose not to have religion. love is never wrong. if you arent gay dont look down upon or judge those who are, its not their fault if they are gay just like its not someones fault if they have been raised close minded. having gay rights is different than gay marriage as well. saying gay rights should be illegal means that they should have absolutely nothing to do with even the thought of being gay... taking away gay rights is taking away what our country was based on...freedom...
ill talk more about this later. and one more thing youre looking up something that was in 1973...thats over thirty years ago...we have new technology and more of an understanding as why things the way they are and i cant stress this enough but being gay is a chemical imbalance absolutely should not be even taken into consideration from the psychiatric ward! my gay sister and my friends and my sisters friends should not be evaluated by a psychiatric ward because of who they are!
oh and as to your response to rachel i thought it was VERY steryotypical for you to make and assumption that gay's are the only one with STD's. no they are not. in fact 1 out of every 4 people in the US alone have some sort of STD so are you saying that 1 out of every 4 people in the US is also gay and has had sex with the same gender and has an STD? and just to also let you know my sisters friend's have been in relationships and some even married and have gotten divorced because they later on realize that they are gay or got married (even in a catholic church) because they felt like they werent being accepted (and not to get too harsh) but they didnt feel accepted because of people like you that want to take away their rights as a human being and an american, divorce would not skyrocket because of gays that sounds 100% ridiculous. and the sexual life of others is none of yours to say if they are or are not satisfied sexually with who they decide to give themselves to.

C: First of all, this note was not posted to try and convince anyone of anything, or to condemn or look down upon anyone. It was also not made as a board to fight on. It was made simply to organize my thoughts. And I have never EVER looked down on ANYONE who is gay or lesbian, i want that to be clear. If i havent mentioned it here yet, i DONT think we should act differently towards or look down upon homosexuals. I think theyre human beings (like everyone else) and they should be treated with respect and dignity. I dont judge them to act a certain way either. And i am not a hypocrite because of what i believe. On the sentence, "let them live the life they want with out your voice being heard." This is America, and I am allowed to have my own opinions.
btw, there is no clinical evidence that homosexuality is genetic, or any other kind of health issue.
On bringing religion into politics: What we believe comes from our religion. It would be hypocritical to claim to believe something, yet vote differently because we are afraid to bring our religion into politics.
and if you read correctly, i NEVER made the assumption that gays are the only ones with STD's. The transfer rate of STD's is statistically higher in homosexuals, and thats it.
And on the sentence, "but they didnt feel accepted because of people like you that want to take away their rights as a human being and an american", i have a good friend who is a lesbian, and getting married. I know she will face some hard times, and i dont agree with it, but i will DEFINITELY support her. If you know me, i am a very good person to talk to. I listen, i dont judge. She knows my position, but i am not one to sit and preach to her. I want to be there for her, which is what a good friend does.

L: if youre trying to say that they dont deserve the rights of everyone else in this country including marriage, that is looking down upon them as well as taking away respect for them. i never said you didnt have a voice in this country, im just saying that i think what youre saying is wrong (this is all my opinion) and there is evidence you were just reading into things in 1973 rather than 2008...
i believe in my country and the people in it, its consideration for others as well as me. i have no right to say if one should or should not get married because of who they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with. Jesus never said 'DO NOT BELIEVE IN GAY MARRIAGE!" he said 'BELIEVE IN ME" and I do...
and if you also read correctly half of what i sent to you was from a paper and i didnt point out you specifically in my paper. i have a video that i actually cant find right this second, but it is of a man going around a neighbor hood knocking on doors asking them if it was alright if he married a certain woman. in the end it has a slide saying something along the lines of 'you dont go around asking if its alright for you to marry the one you love, why should we?" i am not going to believe everything that the government or my religion tells me. im sorry that is forcing something down my throat that i dont morally support i am going to stand up for myself and support what i want and think what i want-my parents and i have different views- i will not tolerate anyone and even my parents to force something down my throat that i do not believe is correct for me, my friends or my nation. and you cant be 100% against something but support someone or something that is engaging in it, thats contradicting your self.

C: i am 100% against it, but i will not sacrifice a friendship because we have different views. And i refuse to be someone who abandons their friends in thier time of need. i will support HER and be there for her. I cant change her mind, so all i can do is pray for her and be there for her.

L: im not saying that you should sacrifice your relationship with your friend but just because youre friends doesnt mean that you have to support her. i have had many occasions where i have had friends not support me in my decisions. but you are making the acception with your beliefs. thats just like saying that you are 100% abortion but if one of your friends got it you would support her because you didnt want to sacrifice your friendship

C: what i meant was, i wouldnt abandon her. If one of my friends WAS getting an abortion, i would know that theyre going through a very hard time, and the last thing they need is me telling them that theyre a bad person. Yes, i would try to help, but if they wont take my advice, the only thing i can do for them is to be there for them.
And about me posting my opinions, I do believe i have the right to post this, just as you have the right to comment, just as you all have the right to comment. What debate is NOT meant for is saying that someone doesnt have the right to bring up an issue that is important to them, because then this just wouldnt be America anymore. As you can see, I didnt tag anyone on this note, because it is not directed at anyone. It is simply a note of my beliefs, and I am allowed to believe whatever I want. and yes, i am aware that people question their beliefs. If we didnt, we'd be blindly following our religion. And blind religion just isnt religion anymore.

C: to an earlier comment on me being close minded: I would like to point out that I was not brought up close minded, I have developed opinions on my own. I have lived and traveled and experienced many different cultures and religions in my life so far, and all my opinions have formed from that. I dont have two catholic parents looking over my shoulder every second, expecting me to follow catholicism. Actually, it is with debating with my father that made me begin to really feel strongly about issues. Just because i happen not to agree with you on certain topics does not mean i am close minded.
There was an earlier comment about "letting people live how they want to live" and such. I ask you let me do the same. I mentioned that i do not look down upon those who are gay, and i ask that all of you do the same for those who think gay marriage is wrong.

to Christians who haven't yet decided where they stand: http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm

C: I wasnt gonna say anthing but I feel that all of the people reading this are taking it the wrong way and then feel the need to attack jennifer. She expessed HER opinion on HER facebook. She's not asking anyone to agree with her. She is simple expressing a beleif that she is passionate about. There is nothing wrong with that. And once yall started attacking her she defended it. Theres nothing wrong with having a discussion about your opinions but yall dont need to attack her. If you are so defensive, go write your own blog and rant all you want. Everyone has their own beliefs and no matter how much yall argue your not going to change anyones mind. It's good to see the other side on things and everyone makes good points but dont make it personal. Jennifer wasnt meaning this to be personal or directed to anyone in particular, so dont make it that. You have the right to state your opinion but your not going to change eachothers mind so theres no reason to get all worked up about it. Jennifer: I really respect you for hanging through all this. I know it's hard to have an opinion that not many agree with but like sheila said: your not alone. I agree with you 2 :D

C: Wow...you guys. You're entitled to your opinions and to address them as such. But in NO way does ANYONE have the right to attack the person who states their opinion. What purpose does it serve to attack the person? It won't make them change their minds, or make them feel like they are wrong. It's a great thing to be able to comfortably talk about views and beliefs. It gives everyone the potential to see things in a different light. That's progress. What kind of progress do we get by insulting people? There is none. All it does is leave people angry and full of hurt feelings. The world is already filled with enough drama and anger. Why create it ourselves?
I think it's great that people feel so strongly about something, and are willing to state it. I hope no one finds offense in this. Like I said, it's wonderful of you all to state your opinions, even if it's completely different from someone else.

C: to a comment earlier about Jesus not saying that homosexuality was wrong: 1 Corinthian 6:9 Paul mentions “men who lie with males”, and the Bible DOES mention homosexuality. Man-male intercourse in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are in a list of things that risk not inheriting the kingdom of God. In Mark 10:2-12, Jesus cited two texts from Genesis, 1:27 and 2:24, that back up Paul’s critique of homosexual practice. I guess this only matters if youre Catholic and think that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.

C: And sort of in response to what has been said, please to not attack me, I can only say what I believe. I am NOT attacking anyone!
But you ARE free to state your opinions on the ISSUE, even if they contradict mine.

C: haha o i do love a good debate. ive read most of the commentsand for the record, jennifer i agree completely, 100% with what you say. cudos to you for standing up for what you believe in! =] i have a few comments of my own if yall dont mind. ok here it goes.....
yeah um homosexuality is most definitely a CHOICE!! yep i will say it again: a CHOICE!!! and i will give you a perfectly logical explanation for it. if it was genetic or related to something of that sort, homosexuality would have died out by now because i dont know if youve noticed or not but....GAY PEOPLE CANT HAVE KIDS!! i mean its a scientific fact people! "sexual relations" between gays does not give them the physical capacity to have children.
homosexuality fully and completely against the natural law of humans. i dont know if yall have actually thought through this before but heres a good metaphor: plugs and sockets. the plug goes into the socket. simple right? yep and no one with common sense would attempt to put two plugs together or two sockets together....electricity wasnt made to work that way and neither were humans: (sorry for getting visual here but it seems this is necessary...) the penis goes into the vagina. it is just as simple...you cant have two of each...it just doesnt work. and for all of you catholics out there, one of the purposes of marriage and the union of a man and wife is to procreate. oh and by the way, if you pick and choose what you want to believe from the Church, you are what is called a cafeteria catholic. and before you go all crazy on me for saying that (because ive gotten yelled at for saying that before) it is not meant to offend you. thats just what its called when you pick and choose your beliefs from the faith. let me say it again.... THAT WAS NOT MEANT TO OFFEND YOU......just so we are clear. thats right im still not done. something interesting you may not know about me: I LOVE GAY PEOPLE. they are awesome to go shopping with and hang out with. they are made in the image and likeness of God and i love them to death. you know what i hate though?? when they act on it and break all forms of moral decency left on the planet. if someone feels that they are gay and try everything they can and just feel that they cannot change, then that person is just going to have to stay chaste. and i know what you are thinking: "Chaste?! yeah right! that is so stupid! and thats not fair!" well for your information chastity is not this great evil that most people make it out to be. its a beautiful thing that shows great strength in a person and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.its just like a normal single person. like jennifer said, the catholic church does not accept gay marriage as a sacramental union and therefore condemn any sexual activity (notice i said activity not person) resulting from a gay marriage. and it is completlely possible to hate the sin and not the sinner. you might say, "well its really difficult to not judge a person based on their actions" and you are right. i said it was possible, not easy. judging others is a vice that many of us, including myself, have to work on. however, that is referring to us as individuals. the Catholic Church as a whole, the infallible(on matters of faith and morals) Church that was established by Jesus Christ and that has withstood the tests of time for over 2000 years, is able to rise above judgment and see the person made in the image and likeness of God.
that is pretty much all ive got....anything else has pretty much been said so yeah. wow that felt good.

C: felt good on this side too :D

L: ok im sorry if i ever offended anyone but i did make a point that the majority of what i said was from a PAPER and not to hurt anyone or their opinions.
and caroline being gay is not a CHOICE! no one, and once again i mean NO ONE! chooses to live an oppressed life. you really think that people want to wake up one day and say 'i think ill be gay today' no. and as for morals-YOUR morals might be to not act in sexual activity with another one of the same sex but that is not your position to define someone else's morals based on your own. and being gay, once again, is a chemical imbalance in your body! saying that they chose to be gay rather than straight is like saying a child with autism chose to be autistic rather than normal! or a black man decided to be black instead of white! whether you like it or not the same God that you preach about in your faith and catholic church MADE these people Gay...they did not make themselves gay and they most deffinitaly choose to live such an oppressed life! you think its easy to live a life that is not accepted as 'normal' its not! these people cant have their own children, these people cant even adopt as easily as others, these people did not choose to come out to their parents and be scorned upon for who they are! just because your gay doesnt mean that you chose that lifestyle it was given to you...now whether you are gay and ignore it or whether you are gay and act upon it should be no ones business besides their own! and i am not gay but this sums it up
"First they came for the Jews. And I did not speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out because I wasn't a Trade Unionist. Then they came for Me and then there was no one left to speak out for me."
~Pastor Martin Niemoller
C: There is no scientific evidence that being gay is a chemical imbalance in your brain! If so I would very much like to see the report myself. It is simply a theory that some people have come up with to explain and perhaps justify their actions. We do however have scientific proof about autism, and you know what, even though kids have autism, many have been able to overcome that obstacle.
Even more clear is the fact that God did NOT make these people gay. I have already posted a list of Bible verses directed at this, but I can bring some down again: Lev 18:22 states and I QUOTE: "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that." AND Lev 20:13 states "If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own death. "
Now, obviously we dont put them to death, but this SHOWS us that God clearly does not approve.
And if you dont believe me, look it up yourself.
I have heard the saying, "God wont give you what you cant handle." Which in this case, means that if you are gay, truly believe that you cant be anything else, and still wish to please God and follow his law, then you can look at it this way: God has placed this thought process upon you. This may be a test from God, to all of us, we really have no way of knowing. All we know is what the Bible says. So if you are gay and christian, you can think of yourself as being the ultimate example for others. Celibacy, as Caroline mentioned earlier, is beautiful. Especially celibacy for God. It shows strength and character, and post definitely piety. Above all, i think the ability to have the courage and strength to choose celibacy shows wisdom. Self-control of your own body is something that should NOT be looked down upon, but praised.

C: sigh, i wasn't going to write here but.... okay i'm not much on debating (mainly because i'm not exactly great at debating) and i also don't mean to offend you or belittle you or however you take this as, i simply don't get whats going on here.......so what you're saying is that gay people are oppressed?, are you saying that for our country or the world? cause last time i checked homosexuality is very much accepted in other countries of the world, and even in our neck of the world, there are prominent, prospering, gay people... again i'm only trying to see more on your view because i'm not exactly clear on your definition of oppressed. okay now, i don't think your saying that "being gay, once again, is a chemical imbalance in your body" is credible, you are not a doctor, nor are you gay yourself...so how do you know? i mean i can see your analogies to autistics and black people, but the difference genetics is proven fact...you can't say that gay people inherited their "gayness" from their parents because well, that would just be impossible (for reasons why, read the above 40 some odd comments its in there somewhere)

L: ok jennifer my sister is autistic and my dad is the president of her school. www. avondalehouse.com if you would like to see it...there is absolutely NO cure or idea where it comes from. JUST to clear that up because that is something that i deal with daily. not one child with autism has overcome it not ONE they have physical therapy and therapy to learn the basics for life. my sisters group home folds pizza boxes for a job..thats overcoming autism isn't it?
second of all if youre claiming that my scientific knowledge of being gay is a chemical imbalance is just a theory than so is your scientific knowledge that comes from some psychiatric ward in 1973.
robin i didnt mean to offend you if you are gay, i think that i read it somewhere in here, but what i mean by 'oppressed' is that ((and my sister and her friends have all cleared this up with me)) they dont hold hands walking down the street, they dont come out very easily for a while because they feel like they will be looked down upon or shunned from their own family and friends. they gave me the line 'oppressed life' line and it seems to fit the words i have to say perfectly. i dont know for sure but from family experience daily my sister tells me that if she could she would be straight and she would love to grow old with a man and have children, she just cant-and shes tried.

C: Romans 1 1:24-27, "And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things with their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other. They exchange the truth about God for a lie; they worship and serve what God has created instead of the Creator Himself, who is to be praised forever! Amen. Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passions for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing."
The Bible SPECIFICALLY mentions that homosexual activity is wrong, in both the new and old testament.

L: and once again last time on the catholic theory. you can not sit here and push your religion on someone because not everyone in this country is catholic not everyone believes in the bible and not everyone wants a country run by catholic values. there are other people and im sorry to say it but our country was built on freedom! just because your religious views say in a summary 'no gays' doesnt mean that everyone else of this nations do. and i highly highly doubt that any catholic would rather find herself or himself to be a gay rather than to follow God's word if this is exactly what he meant.

C: there have been people known to overcome autism: Christopher Knowles, an American poet. Birger Sellin, an author from Germany.
And about the chemical imbalances: No scientific evidence that I have seen so far. However, the report in 1973 was based off a series of trials and experiments.
On pushing my religion: The statements from the Bible were only meant to respond to the statements that "nowhere in the Bible does God say 'dont be gay'". Obviously if someone were atheist, they wouldnt care what the Bible says, and i would have no argument. But since people here have said that God never mentions homosexuality in the Bible, or that God made them that way, i have responded in kind. What i meant by "no argument", was that i would have no argument if i were to only use the Bible as my proof. And as a Catholic, I have to stand up for what I believe in. I cant just keep my mouth shut in fear that i'll offend someone, just as you do. If we were all afraid that we'd offend someone, noone would ever speak out for or against anything. I really dont like how people, even Catholics, claim that people try to force religion down other's throats, because thats just not true. As a Catholic, i believe certain things, and i am going to vote according to my belief system. about our country being built on freedom: I heard lyrics to a song recently that very much summed up the situation America has found itself in. "How much dignity will we pay for the price of freedom?"

C: okay, well i'm not gay, but i must say that although you and your family have their own experiences, in my experience, i've seen gays as pretty open, as in not being afraid to show and express themselves with pride and dignity, embracing who they are, not caring what others think of them...no offense to your sister or you, but if your sister really can't help being who she is, and there really is no choice in the matter, she should have nothing to fear because thats how God made her

L: ok jennifer if you claim your argument is only based on your religious views then you should not have once mentioned in your note a word about the government-its called separation of church and sate-and two Christopher Knowles Birger Sellin have not come over autism! these people might have been misdiagnosed! there is absolutely NO cure for autism! no not one! i can PROMISE you that, if there was a cure for autism then any one in my family would give up their lives for my sister i can honestly tell you that for a fact-and not a theory- that there is no absolute cure for autism i cant stress this enough!
and just because you havent seen what i have doesnt mean that mine is a theory and yours is true...your eyes dont pass it as a theory or not. and robin my sister was scared she didnt know what to do, one of my brothers still doesnt know because he said he hates gays all of the time, and even though God has MADE HER THAT (not stressing that on you) it is still difficult to walk outside every day and open herself up to the world. it is not easy to be Gay and she tells me that im not making that up and even though God has made her that, doesnt mean that it isnt difficult for her to live her daily life.

C: When I said "overcome" i did not mean "cured". Overcome means despite their conditions, they were able to accomplish what people with autism are not thought to be able to accomplish.
Here are NON religious reason why gay marriage should not be permitted:
Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an ever-encroaching government.
# Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, HPV, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc
Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).
A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.” (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research Council, 2001.
Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the crrent practice of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherless or fatherless households.
Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek to re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.
Pit the law and our government against the beliefs of tens of millions of people who believe homosexuality is wrong.
Information taken from:
Knight, Robert. "‘Gay Marriage’ is Not Only Wrong; It’S Socially Destructive." Cwfa.Org. 2 Feb. 2008 .

And nowhere in here does it say that my argument is solely based on my religious views, I want that to be clear.

L: jennifer children with autism have different severities...my sister didnt know how to walk until she was four she has never spoken a word in her life, her household room mates though some of them know how to talk theres a boy robert who when i go to pick my sister up says 'christina forgetta april 7th' he has remembered that it was my birthday april 7th from the first time i have ever met him. the severity of the persons case depends. these people might have been able to do amazing things with their lives but that doesnt mean that they have over come autism it means that they have been able to cope and accomplish something in their lives while having autism. and once again a person can get STDs anywhere! gay people are not the only ones with STDs! and one who is gay doesnt seek to encourage people to be gay! they dont go up to people and say 'hey will you please be gay and this is why....'people know if theyre straight or gay...just like i know im pro gay rights and youre against them
and a child in a gay home doesnt necessarily turn out to be gay! and domestic violence lives in a lot of homes! not just gay homes! stop singling these people out and acting like they are he god damn devil they arent theyre people too! straight people get divorces straight people have domestic violence and straight people have raised gay people!!!!!!!
C: The reason I said that yours was a theory was because you have yet to give me scientific evidence. Instead, you simply tell me that its a chemical imbalance without any evidence. I have already shown you my evidence. I have a credible source, The American Psychiatric Organization, and you have yet to show me a credible source that backs your opinion.
Please keep this note clean. I dont want any cussing or swearing on here. This note is for exchanging ideas.
I never ONCE said that straight people do not experience hardships in the home. And again, the evidence I presented was not something I made up. Statistically, domestic violence is DOUBLE in homosexual homes. According to study, MOST lesbians have been abused by a partner. I have already stated that fact. I also never said that gay people are the only ones with STDs, but STATISTICALLY they are more prone to get them. I believe I have already mentioned that.
And like I said before, I dont hate or dislike gay people at all. This note is not about gay PEOPLE its about the ACT. Please try to stay on topic.
And i do appreciate well-thought debate, but please read carefully what I write. More than once here I have been accused of saying something i did not say, so exact quotes would be useful, because I really dont like repeating. Thanks.

C: Gay marriage is not a state right for your stated reasons that it is a holy bond belonging to a MAN AND A WOMAN and not a civic recognition of two people who live together. If that is it then i am married cause i live with many others in my dorm, but as i do not consider myself married the civil recognition of living together is not valid. I believe that only to be a marriage God must enter into the relatonship for it to be a valid marriage. For God to enter into it there must be not only right intent, but also right action which means you must truely love the person and it must follow the eternal, natural, and divine laws set down by God at the beginning of time. Nothing not even man is above these laws and I believe that one of them is advesrs to same sex marriages. It is known that the the functions of marriage is to one procreate as was Gods ultimate command to adamah or man in hebrew. Be fruitful and multiply is unmistakably meant to be for the procreation of the human race. It is a biological fact that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can not procreate. the obvious conclusioon is that we are suppost to have a marriage of a male and a female.

L: "The fact is, you need more than just love in a healthy marriage, that much is certain. I hate to sound so...I dont know what the word is, but homosexuals physically cant satisfy each other like a man and a woman can."
jennifer i completely honor your right to have an opinion and to state it, but this statement is wrong on many levels. marriage is based on love and therefore all you need is love to have a successful marriage. If love was not the basis and root of marriage, what would be? money, sex, kids?. to say that two men and two women can't satisfy each other physically and spiritually is ignorant to the homosexual and heterosexual message of love. Love is a free flowing feeling that cannot be contained. you should not be condemned for loving someone, man or woman.

C: Love IS the basis to a healthy marriage, but it is not the only thing you need. You need compatibility, you need trust, respect, a physical attraction. For a HEALTHY, THRIVING marriage, you need to support each other regarding to beliefs. "Chick flicks" today are very misleading, teaching us that all we need is love. But that just isnt true. If all you need is love, like I said before, we would all marry our first loves and stay with them forever. But now, our divorce rates are higher than ever. People may have been in love once, but if they arent compatible, the marriage will not succeed. Being "compatible" and "having the same personality" are not the same. Compatibility implies that you must complement your partner. Today we have spouses cheating on each other, yet they are still in love with their spouse, which is why they wont leave them for their mistress or lover. Like i said before, you CAN fall in love with someone completely wrong for you.

L: Gay people can have kids. they are not unable to have relations with the opposite sex, they just chose not to. and if you didn't want this to turn into a heated debate, why did you comment on such a touchy subject on a web note so that others could respond? you can block comments.

C: None of us here are married, so we really cant say what is necessary for a healthy marriage. My parents are divorced. The past six or so years have filled my mother with wisdom, and I have been lucky enough to have learned from her. The fact is, that even though my mother loved my dad, they werent compatible. Contrary to what most people believe, love can fade. My dad's did. Older couples with a successful marriage have all been through tough times, and they can all tell you that you have to MAKE a marriage work. You cant just get married and live happily ever after. Its a daily challenge. But thats what makes marriage so beautiful and so sacred. The fact that a marriage is difficult to maintain only shows us how holy a healthy one really is.
I dont want to block comments. I want people to ask questions and have them answered. I want people to add and contribute. Debate is healthy. I just dont want people to insult each other. Debate is arguing on an ISSUE, not attacking one another.
And I am fully aware that gay people can have kids, there isnt anything different about their bodies, they just obviously cant have any with each other. But I feel like im stating the obvious here.

L: why do two men have to be completely wrong for one another? compatibility in its definition does not specifically state that they have to be opposite.
for me it is ridiculous to try and convince you of my beliefs because you are so rooted in your own. but when you post things like this, you are hurting many people. i am not gay, but i have family that are. and when you are condemning them you are hurting me. i have many things that i want to say, but i will not because i feel it is point less. jennifer i think you are wrong to be so firm and non understanding towards others.
thats all i will contribute to this note.

C: I never said that only men were wrong for men. Heterosexuals can be wrong for each other as well, thats what I was referring to. I was commenting on the fact that you need more than love. I said that compatibility is NECISARRY, gay or not.
EVERYONE: I am NOT condemning ANYONE! I KNOW i have said this time and time again, but I do not look down upon ANY gay person. And i ALSO i believe I have said this before, but i cannot keep my mouth shut because of a fear of offending people. I can post what I believe, just as you all can say what you believe. Noone should be taking this personally.
And to all of you who knew me in high school: You know that I have NEVER hurt anyone, intentionally or unintentionally. I never had open arguments with anyone. I was always polite and respectful. And now that I have posted something that you dont agree with, suddenly, im a terrible person? If i wanted to direct this at someone, I would have tagged them.

L: I was going to leave this be and let you have your close minded ideas be as ignorant as they really are to me and let you think them with out me helping change your mind. Chloe's right and I didnt see this before either, but your ideas really are hurtful to me and my family as well...sorry if this hurt you but now you know what its like to be shunned upon because of your ideas and what you think should and shouldnt be right. im done with this but i hope that you encounter a gay person that you love more than your own life and realize that if marriage makes them happy then let it be with out interfearance from any other person.

C: Wow... everyone's in the kitchen but no one is using the same ingredients to cook.
No wonder it's a mess.
Self-Analysis is the most feared thing (fact, ask any psychologist, professional please, not undergrad...). Everyone must step back from what is going on and regain the bigger picture or else the line you are all trying to draw will wind up at the beginning again.
Anyways...*Before replying on pure emotion as this thread shows, read to the end, gather ideas, splurg*
Let's try to agree on some terms before we go on, because it's laughably obvious that no one means the same thing even though the words are the same...
Gay - What does it mean to be gay? (or lesbian, proof that society sees a differential mistake that it's too scared correct, if you want to talk about 'lesbian-hood' msg me, it's all a big joke) Is gay just the rejection or disaffection for the other gender? Is gay feeling more affectionate towards the same gender over the other? Is it a tumor that grows somewhere no one has yet found in our finite, hormone driven bodies?
Compatibility - What does it mean to be compatible? Is it finishing each other's sentences? Is it resisting the urge to strangle them with a pillow? Is it certain abilities to produce offspring? Is it the ability to fulfill one's lifetime with an emotion?
*hang in there! keep the temp. down!*
"for me it is ridiculous to try and convince you of my beliefs because you are so rooted in your own." - Chloe Christine
wait what? It's like what you are saying is I can't get you to believe me because you believe your own things...
oh wait, you are saying that, just checking thanks
*onward in this inconsistancy test!*
There are a good percentage (#1) of married straight people that don't like each other anymore. There's obviously a high divorce rate in this country (#2). Now, many points FOR gay marriage in this thread (#3) come from the idea that 'unhappy people get married and divorced'/'if one gay couple can adopt/live/love each other, then all can'.
What about civil union? Let's fight for the civil union of two men/women. Yes! We've finally got civil union now! Now let's fight for marriage, because union should just be marriage anyways, we (#4) want equal rights! cont.
#1 - personal assumption
#2 - again, assumption from my small, daily life in this big world
#3 - Also from political debates, source MSNBC.com video diary of political debates, note that it's not their news, just recorded broadcasts of national tv.
#4 - 'We' meaning 'of the homosexual pathos, source is a gay co-worker, because not all gay people think the same, so stop being so closed minded
And that bring me to another point.
How belitting is it for you (#5) to speak for an entire 'gay' community (#6) about what you have learned from a few (#7) and what your 'emotions' or 'conscience' might tell you is right. Tell me what every black person (#8) during the mid 1700's believed about slavery and then I might reconsider. As further proof on this split in assumed ideas by the earlier arguments, I offer up this... cont.
#5 - 'You' being relative to the reader
#6 - 'gay commuity' being anyone of that pathos, source is me until God or a doctor shows me otherwise (an autopsy would substitute for bonus points)
#7 - 'few' being few, because you don't know how many people are gay, end of discussion
#8 - 'black person' being black person, because not every human of dark skin color is 'african american', America...
-What about civil union? Let's fight for the civil union of two men/women.
-Yes! We've finally got civil union now! Now let's fight for marriage, because union should just be marriage anyways, we want equal rights!
-Yay! Now we have equal political rights! Let's fight for Equal Natural Rights (#9) now!
-oh wait
It reads harsh because it is harsh. Americans are scared to take on charge. In the same stance, Americans are scared to revert back from what they have changed.(#10) There is something that is unachieveable by two men/women. It is the most precious of all living qualities. The ability to create life. (#11)
#9 - 'Equal Natural Rights' being 4 + 4 = 8, or for those who still haven't understood a word of any of my satirical posts, the ability to do something greater than yourself, because one with another and create life.
#10 - A generation fought a war to end slavery, imagine the fight to get it back...
#11 - It's the most precious because it gave you your PRIVILEGE to be among the living, to EVER EXIST
To anyone whom not of the book (#12)
You owe your sole existence to a bond that only a man and a woman can have.
No same sex gender could have created you. Be it forceful intercource (#13)
or not, try to fathom never coming into existence. Just take 5 seconds to picture nothing. Then try imagining that nothing being all there is. No chance to log on facebook. No chance to convince your dad to be with a woman (#14) and create you. You are the product of another's choice to be hetreosexual.
The key word here being choice.
#12 - 'of the book' being the bible, quran, torah. 'Not of' being 'not a follower'
#13 - 'forceful intercourse' being the courts term for rape or unwanted sex
#14 - 'be with a woman' being a polite way of saying intercourse...
btw, if anyone never understood what my numbers (#XX) meant, they are just astriks ** I use as side notes because I don't want to interupt reading with unnecesary things like (blah blah blah) or 3 sentences of 'no offense' statements.
Honestly though, by saying 'no offense' in one post and not another, you are saying that the other posts were actually meant to offend when we know no one is hear to offend others. (other than satire :p)
spell check is a great thing... hear hear? lol @ myself

C: ok i definitely have to say something now. i was just going to stay out of this b/c i know that i would accidently offend someone or tick someone off and cause a catfight. i've been there and its not fun. actually i've been there already on facebook and its not fun. anyways...
Jennifer, i'd like to say that i back you up and agree w/you. i agree w/you 100% and an extra 10% b/c you're my friend. i'm really glad and proud that you've been able to hold your own beliefs and defend them w/a passion someone can only admire.
i believe that God loves everyone. we all do. he loves us down to our very essence b/c he created us...in his image. he is divine and therefore he is perfect, however, we are human and therefore flawed. we are not perfect. as much as we try and as much as we pray we'll never be perfect. this entire note has discussed gays and their "marriages" and people have attacked, been attacked, and everyone has been hurt. whether or not gays are born gay or they choose is there own business. that's their choice. its b/w them and God. whether or not you are gay, straight, jew, gentile, catholic, protestant, white, black, mexican, purple, whatever, we'll all end up going through judgement. it's your choice. and contrary to the other belief if you are "born gay" and wish to be straight, then that is your own burden to bear. people are saying that they are "oppressed". everyone is oppressed at one point in their life, its part of growing up and living a life, surviving a life. gays don't have to act all pitiful b/c they're oppressed. christ was oppressed, did he pity himself? no. he lived a miraculous life living God's word and living a life that we all should try to do.
ok, w/marriage. none of us have been married or are ready to be married. we don't have true love b/c we're simply too young and inexperienced with life. so none of us can truly comprehend what a marriage needs to thrive on w/out fully experiencing it ourselves. but from other marriages, we know that a true marriage is based upon the mutual love between a man and a woman. other than love there is respect, compassion, compatibility, attraction, friendship, loyality, trust, reliance, and "oneness"...physically. a man and a woman's sex is the most beautiful gift that God has given us. it is a gift that should be treasued and given to only your husband or wife...not a partner. sex is the utmost way a husband and a wife can be truly one. a woman+woman or man+man cannot experience this. there is not procreation on a gay's mind when they are having sex. that's lust. i'm agreeing w/jennifer by being against gay marriage. i'm not at ALL against people being gay. i'm against their actions. not only am i against gay marriage, but i'm also against pre-marital sex. a gay "marriage" is pre-marital sex. why? b/c a marriage is a covenant binding a man and a woman with God's blessing. since the catholic church (i know everyone is not catholic but this is my belief and i am fully entitled to say this...) is against gay marriage and they do not...how would you say...give consent to that marriage, then it is NOT a marriage. there was no sacrament. so any sex that is "gone through" in a gay marriage is in fact pre-marital sex b/c it wasn't a marriage to begin with!!!
i thought i had to get that out. i don't mean to offend anyone or anything and i'm trying to be as understanding as a most possibly can in this note. we all have our own beliefs and jennifer, me, or anyone else against gay marriage in this note isn't trying to say that your own opinions are wrong. we all have our own beliefs and we're not changing them.

(CONT on part 2)

Once again, something to think about as the summer begins to slowly drift away before our eyes. November is closer than we think! Just as a disclaimer, I did not write this article. I came across this particular piece while reading the World Magazine. It sort of came out at the perfect time, too. Just one week ago, I had a conversation with a friend of mine about being a single-issue voter. I think this article explains it all: "Stop Apologizing: It's not always wrong to be a 'single issue' advocate It's become an increasingly frequent reminder to us evangelical Christians not to let our cultural identity be framed by "single issues." It was a reminder implicitly included in the "Evangelical Manifesto," a document whose basic content we at WORLD have applauded but whose political direction I questioned in our last issue. Why are the Manifesto's backers so ready to join the cultural left in suggesting a guilt trip for those evangelicals who have been preoccupied with the evils of abortion and same-sex marriage? And if some argue that the rising generation of younger evangelicals is a bit embarrassed by what they think is an out-of-balance focus by their elders, and thinks it's time to get equally exercised over issues like racism, economic justice, and the environment—well, if that's the case with our twentysomethings and our teenagers, then maybe we need to go to work and do a better job of explaining to them why we've put the emphasis where we have for the last generation and why we believe that it's time not to lower our voices. Evangelicals shouldn't be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven't been wrong to say so. We aren't fanatics. And I'm not referring here so much to the young women caught in the anguish of an unexpected pregnancy or folks bewildered by their sexual identity. I'm talking mostly about a society that goes all out to tell such people that what they're doing is just fine. There's forgiveness for individual sinners. There's judgment for societies that lead them astray. It's true that we evangelicals sometimes haven't been as zealous as we ought in fighting racism, abuse of the environment, and poverty. But on all those fronts and more, we're at least facing the right direction. We're sometimes slow. But here's the difference: What evangelical do you know who says insensitivity to the poor should be promoted? What evangelical leader is calling for more racism? Who advocates the uncontrolled plundering of the environment? That is exactly the kind of cheerleading that is going on for abortion and same-sex marriage. Whole movements and organizations devote themselves to telling us how good abortion and same-sex marriage are for society. It now is expected that Barack Obama feature on his speaking schedule, as he did on June 26, a New York fundraising dinner for the Democratic Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council—where the news account reports casually that Obama helped the homosexual lobby raise $1 million in just one evening. But here's the core of the matter. To be robustly and consistently anti-abortion is at the very same time to cast your vote for environmental sensitivity, against racism, and for economic justice. These are not independent, isolated packages. It's hard to see how anyone can claim to be a protector of the environment and not put a high priority on the preservation of human babies. To defend a focus on the future of polar bears and whales, while asking evangelicals to get less noisy about infant humans, is an embarrassing contradiction. Similarly, keep in mind that abortion is one of the most racist of all social causes in history. Minorities don't just happen incidentally to be targeted by the practice of abortion. The history of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations is racist to the core—as is their current practice. And no economist can look at the loss of 50 million American babies over the last 45 years and not wince at the impact of such a drain on the economic vitality of our society. Today's poor Americans are poorer than they would have been if we'd taken care to preserve enough consumers—and workers—to fill a state one-and-a-half times as big as California. Tomorrow's elderly will worry about Social Security more than they would have with 50 million more contributors to the system. So stop apologizing for having focused on a single issue. Don't let the "Evangelical Manifesto" or anyone else shame you into an overly narrow self-image. It's the folks promoting causes like abortion and same-sex marriage who are the real "single issue" fanatics, falsely teaching that you can mess with just one or two aspects of life without upsetting the balance God so wondrously installed in His creation order. We need to expose that lie for the tragic falsehood that it is—and to teach the next generation what a very bad bargain they have been asked to accept. If you have a question or comment for Joel Belz, send it to jbelz@worldmag.com. Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine July 12, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 14" Belz, Joel. "Stop Apologizing." World 12 July 2008: 6.

"Planned Parenthood of Houston & Southeast Texas, the number one provider of abortions in Texas, has purchased a seven story building at 4600 Gulf Freeway (I-45 & Elgin) with the intention of creating a late-term abortion center. This building will house the largest abortion facility in the Western Hemisphere where, according to the State of Texas, children will be aborted through all 9 months. Sign a petition online to stop the building of this huge mill. Go to www.texasfamilies.org and put in your name. For all students in the Houston area, this would be a great thing to focus on this year on your campuses." ~ Texas Students for Life Go to the site and sign this petition! Millions of future Houstonians will be thanking you with their lives. Think about it. One of the babies aborted here may find the cure for cancer. One might be their generation's president. Maybe one will develop a teleportation device so that we dont have to drive anywhere anymore, and we can go to Europe on a whim! Who knows? One may be your future child's best friend/spouse. Isnt that sad? :'( http://www.texasfamilies.org/

I have been having very odd dreams of late. A select few of you know the one about the Titans breaking out of their prison and singing "Mr. Cellophane" in harmony. Yeah, that was weird, but not the kind I'm talking about. Last night I had a dream about likely democratic presidential nominee barack obama. And it was a very disturbing dream. The kind where you wake up in a cold sweat in the bottom of the ocean. What ended up happening was obama and i debated and then he threatened me. Yeah. It would have been more in character if the candidate I was debating with was Hill