Pope Says Gay Marriage Poses A Threat To 'Justice And Peace' In World Day Of Peace 2013 Address

[Dawkinsrocks]

God is a homosexual

It us proven that rabid homophobia is over-compensation at discomfort concerning one's own homosexuality

You know like cardinal obrien denouncing gays whilst trying to fuck any man he could get his hands on

 

[steveox]

GOD is real,, Jesus is real, But the bible didn't tell the whole stories. They didn't say if Mary was pregnant in the story, All it says was mother mary was a virgin now yall know that's not possible though science.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

God is a fictional homosexual schizophrenic with insecurity issues and violent tendencies

When you said the bible doesn't tell the whole story you are at least right about it being a story

 

[PLC1]

Oh you bet

http://www.stewwebb.com/uncategoriz...o-earth-pray-says-nasa/?shared=email&msg=fail

I thought god was supposed to end the world through fire, not by throwing a big rock at it.

 

[cashmcall]

That's about right...

First off the Pope in many ways is correct..But talking about Gay Rights. The concept of “rights” has been mangled out of recognition.IMO
A fundamental right is: A moral principle giving you (the individual) freedom of action in some area. Your right to life says that you are right to keep on living. Your right to free speech says that you are right to speak out… although you may still be wrong/mistaken, on your content. Your right to property X says that you are right to dispose of it as you wish. And so on.
Thus, fundamental rights belong to individuals. (By the way, they also precede government, logically and morally. Government does not create them, it merely recognizes them. Or not, in the case of a tyranny.)
Committing to somebody is your right. But having third parties change their behavior for you, in recognition of your commitment, is NOT your right. It is a privilege that government may give you, through a licensing process known as a “marriage license”. All licensing processes exist precisely to CREATE discrimination, for public policy reasons. Example: A driver’s license says that Mary can drive, while John can’t. A license to practice medicine says that John can, while Mary can’t. That’s intentional discrimination, created for public policy reasons.
Thus, obtaining a State marriage license is NOT a fundamental right. It is, rather, a public policy issue.
I support gay partners – and with the continued exclusion of polygamists, the incestuous, etc.. because I think that would be the best public policy. Others disagree with me. That’s why we have democracy. Pro or con, I accept the democratic outcome on it (while still keeping my personal opinion, of course; my own view of how things should be and I hope they stay that way).

 

[steveox]

I thought god was supposed to end the world through fire, not by throwing a big rock at it.

Metors destroy the earth

That's what the book of revelations mean

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

God will end the world the way he started it

Fictionally

 

[PLC1]

 

[cashmcall]

Have you thought about how all of a sudden the liberals are pretending to be Constitutionalists, citing the 14th Amendment(at the supreme Court) as if they actually gave a hoot about equal protection under the law, this after decades of shilling for affirmative action, PC campus speech codes, reparations, anti-male divorce courts, the subsidization of contraception by religious objectors, “abortion on demand,” etc. I an sick of this gang of phonies and tyrants; I don’t believe a word they say anymore....And on Prop 8, I think that it stinks that the government of California won’t defend its own duly-passed-by-the-people law before the Supreme Court, leaving the people of the state in dubious standing. Regardless of what one thinks of the issue, this is a terrible precedent, giving the government an effective veto over any law it doesn’t like and disenfranchising the voters. That in itself should be challenged in court, though obviously, even if they were forced to defend it, there would be nothing to prevent them from doing a crummy job of it. That, I think, is actually a bigger issue than whether or not gay marriage should be legal in California...

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You can't beat the church for some good old fashioned discrimination

You probably hanker after a golden age when you could openly discriminate against blacks, Jews, commies, faggots, spics, injuns and all the other people who have suffered massively at the hands of respectable law abidin Christians

 

[dogtowner]

You can't beat the church for some good old fashioned discrimination

You probably hanker after a golden age when you could openly discriminate against blacks, Jews, commies, faggots, spics, injuns and all the other people who have suffered massively at the hands of respectable law abidin Christians

isnt it ironic that daw paints himself with himself with the same brush he attempts to demonuze people of faith with ?
just another skinhead. swell...

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

"daw paints himself with himself"

A prize for anyone who can decode that particular piece of nonsense

My own view is that it would be a struggle to do as dog suggests as thus far I have not been able to lift myself

But I guess that the laws of physics don't apply in dog's world

Like the laws of reason

 

[cashmcall]

doc who..coming from you it means a lot..thanks

 

[Aus22]

First off the Pope in many ways is correct..But talking about Gay Rights. The concept of “rights” has been mangled out of recognition.IMO
A fundamental right is: A moral principle giving you (the individual) freedom of action in some area. Your right to life says that you are right to keep on living. Your right to free speech says that you are right to speak out… although you may still be wrong/mistaken, on your content. Your right to property X says that you are right to dispose of it as you wish. And so on.
Thus, fundamental rights belong to individuals. (By the way, they also precede government, logically and morally. Government does not create them, it merely recognizes them. Or not, in the case of a tyranny.)
Committing to somebody is your right. But having third parties change their behavior for you, in recognition of your commitment, is NOT your right. It is a privilege that government may give you, through a licensing process known as a “marriage license”. All licensing processes exist precisely to CREATE discrimination, for public policy reasons. Example: A driver’s license says that Mary can drive, while John can’t. A license to practice medicine says that John can, while Mary can’t. That’s intentional discrimination, created for public policy reasons.
Thus, obtaining a State marriage license is NOT a fundamental right. It is, rather, a public policy issue.
I support gay partners – and with the continued exclusion of polygamists, the incestuous, etc.. because I think that would be the best public policy. Others disagree with me. That’s why we have democracy. Pro or con, I accept the democratic outcome on it (while still keeping my personal opinion, of course; my own view of how things should be and I hope they stay that way).

I tend to agree with Cashcall. It will be up to the lay person that will decide. With so many inquires into pedophiles . I don' think the lay person will follow the clergy on sexual"morals.

 

[cashmcall]

I tend to agree with Cashcall. It will be up to the lay person that will decide. With so many inquires into pedophiles . I don' think the lay person will follow the clergy on sexual"morals.

I hope you understand..I follow the clergy on sexual morals..I want to make that clear..