Right or Rite, Civil Discussion in Order

amazing webposition. credit you.
http://enskeep.freehostia.com/cheap-ho3e/onyx-hotel-tour.html onyx hotel tour
england hotel
http://ruction.freehostia.com/compare-b3/hotel-yield-management.html hotel yield management

this bonus ;)

азиатки жестко

все даже больше из жизни азиаток и другихплемен мира , все о сексе и его проявления

Father Reese said:
"These churches argue that if God made a person a homosexual then it would not be wrong for that person to establish a committed and loving homosexual relationship that included sexual activity."

There is scientific evidence that alcoholism has a genetic component. If God made alchoholics "that way", why would He object to them living their lives in a drunken stupor? Why should they fight the urge to drink to excess? After all, God made them like that.

:-(( 666 terror Ж-)))

Look at this...

Father Reese claims that he would prefer to see the issue of gay marriage settled not by courts or referendums, but by state legislatures.

But surely he knows that in Massachusetts, where the legislature was required by law to place a referendum measure on the ballot that would almost certainly have resulted in overturning the decision of the state's highest court permitting gay marriage, it failed to act -- breaking the established law with something like insouciance.

So this is what Father Reese is reduced to in his effort to expand homosexual rights and privileges -- denigrate the role of the courts and deny the will of the people.

I would call it Jesuitical.

Perhaps the most concise and accurate quote about same-sex "marriage" to come from a religious leader is as follows.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress, Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

The truth is this is a issue of social justice. Any society must recognize the unique status of marriage for the health of society, men & women themselves and their children.

It is an affront to reason and justice to pretend that family breakdown does not take precedent over homosexuals felt need for inclusion. Only a morally obtuse world view could put the wants of a small minority above the needs of the 70% illegitimacy rates among African –Americans.

Perhaps the most concise and accurate quote about same-sex "marriage" to come from a religious leader is a s follows.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress, Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

The truth is this is a issue of social justice. Any society must recognize the unique status of marriage for the health of society, men & women themselves and their children.

It is an affront to reason and justice to pretend that family breakdown does not take precedent over homosexuals felt need for inclusion. Only a morally obtuse world view could put the wants of a small minority above the needs of the 70% illegitimacy rates among African –Americans.

A scandalous apostasy from Fr. Reese.
As a Catholic priest and Senior Theologist he should not ignore the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and the Catholic Church. In this very same page I read, here below: "Crisis in Catholic America. Fewer faithful, fading trust and Pope Benedict's vision". With shepherds like Fr. Reese, who no longer represents the Catholic teachings, it is no wonder that among Catholics there are fewer faithful, and trust is fading.

A scandalous apostasy from Fr. Reese.
As a Catholic priest and Senior Theologist he should not ignore the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and the Catholic Church. In this very same page I read, here below: "Crisis in Catholic America. Fewer faithful, fading trust and Pope Benedict's vision". With shepherds like Fr. Reese, who no longer represents the Catholic teachings, it is no wonder that among Catholics there are fewer faithful, and trust is fading.

Fr. Reese needs to update his survey data:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9400728?nclick_check=1

Intrinsically, Christians want to avoid sin that offends God. We do not unilaterally harm God but we wreck our love relationship with Him by sinning. Created in His loving image, we fail to live up to expectations. All sinners need to take Jesus as Savior and Lord. He will keep us in His Father's loving will. As Lord, He bases and defines ALL sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Such obvious sins as theft, murder and adultery are unloving because each has a victim, someone not receiving love. Please tell me, who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship? Neither is a victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who could bring suit against the "sinner"? What Gospel writer or Bible prophet claimed homosexuality is sinful? (Jesus didn't!) These are not rhetorical questions; they are unanswered by those who refuse God's grace and live by working the law. How would you like to be the first to answer any one of them? If God didn't want men to have sex with other men, He would have said "Man shall not lie with man PERIOD (Leviticus 18:22, 21:13). God wanted Moses to eradicate rampant idolatry in the Jewish nation. That whole " . . . as with a woman" thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman, such as during idol worship. Paul explains it further when putting down the straight Romans (1:26-28 ) and Corinthians (1 Co 6:9-11) for "leaving their natural relations" (i.e.... as with a woman) and having idolatrous sex with men. Gay men can only imagine what sex " . . . as with a woman" would be. We are attracted to other men by definition and by God. "Homosexual" was coined about 1865, so any subsequent Bible translation using that word is a lie that needs to be emended. It premiered in a1946 English Bible and has been condemning loving Gays ever since. What is the most love one can show another sinner? Offer them an eternity with God through the redemptive cross of Jesus. When was the last time you told a disgusting, abominable, disgraceful unnatural, revolting and sinful homosexual that Jesus died for their sins? A problem is that Gays do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians. Know Jesus, know love. No Jesus, no love.

Logic requires us to grasp the truth that viewing a gay person as mere 'homosexual activity' rather than as a whole person -- created in God's Flawless Image -- needs to be counterpointed by viewing a straight person as mere 'heterosexual activity' rather than as a whole person. And whether taught as 'law' by the Roman Catholic Church or by any other church, such 'viewing' of gay persons is condescending beyond belief.

"The Catholic hierarchy argues against discrimination against homosexuals, and teaches that homosexuals should be loved and respected" is a truly abominable statement to the millions upon millions of us heterosexual parents and grandparents, siblings and other loved ones of our deeply loved and cherished gay and lesbian children, grandchildren, brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews. It reeks of head-pats and dog-bone-tossing rather than of speaking about God's equally beloved gays and lesbians deserving of every whit of the respect we heterosexuals take as our due.

To deem homosexuals unworthy of having the word 'marriage' applied to their life long relationships of love and caring ... because we twice/thrice/four or more times married heterosexuals are the only ones worthy of this word ... is a sham. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, commitments ... call them by whatever pretty name ... are never equal to marriage, and we who in the name of justice fight for our gay and lesbian children's equality will never settle for them.
The thought that my husband's and my four heterosexual children could and did marry the person they loved but that my gay son could not do the same with his beloved life partner isn't acceptable. 'Separate but equal' is never equal, as we thankfully found out when we tried to apply it to African-Americans not too many decades ago. Nothing less than the fullness of the word 'marriage' brings equality with it, in all the richness of meaning it conveys. Nothing.

As for states being the ones to decide yes or no on gay marriage, the idea is doomed to failure, thank God. Marriage is a civil right, a federal right, not a 'special right' nor a 'religious right' reserved for heterosexual couples only. Forty years ago we would have said 'and for *white* heterosexual couples only' ... until the Supreme Court struck down the law forbidding interracial marriage in the Loving vs Virginia case, and interracial marriage was at last 'allowed' (another condescending notion, this 'allowing' when applied to particular segments of society by much larger segments).

My husband was a life long (several decades) faithful, weekly Mass-attending Roman Catholic who never missed a Holy Day either, and demanded of his five Roman Catholic children that they attend weekly Mass as long as they lived at home. Had they chosen otherwise, he would have put them out. This same man had an epiphany a few years ago when -- after much inner struggling and wrestling and tear-shedding -- he finally grasped fully that the Church he had served so faithfully from his first years of life was the same Church that was telling him that four (heterosexual) of his five equally cherished children were just fine, but that the fifth (gay) was somehow 'disordered' (but 'loved and respected,' of course, remember?) How does one 'respect' persons in relegating them to second class citizenship?

He talked with his parish church's Roman Catholic priest/friend in depth; he talked with my Episcopal Church's priest/pastor in depth; he agonized deeply. I gave him no encouragement, knowing that any decision had to be fully his. And so he left forever the Roman Catholic Church and has embraced the teachings of the Episcopal Church that ALL are welcome. Today this Church struggles with the issue of sexuality in the same way it struggled a few decades ago with 'allowing' female priests (they've become a huge blessing, thousands of them) ... and, further back, 'allowing' blacks to be full members and equal participants in church life. But as it struggles, the Episcopal Church listens to the variety of voices and is realizing that all are part of the whole fabric of fullness of life in Christ ... gay, straight, trans, bi.

In our Episcopal baptismal service the congregation is a part of this celebration of welcoming a new member. The service is usually done within the main service of Holy Eucharist, and one of the questions in the Baptismal Covenant we're asked as a congregation is: "Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?" Our response: "I will, with God's help."
The openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire, V. Gene Robinson, has been a treasure to our Episcopal Church, and continues to work toward equality as he serves his diocese with love returned in kind. He has predicted that society "would eventually see the full inclusion of all of God's people," and those of us moms and dads and other loved ones of our precious gay family members will help this prediction to come true, praise God.

The following is from St. Thomas Aquinas: "He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust."

In faith,
Lois

Finally a voice of reson comming from a Catholic. I'm a bit shocked.

As it is unwise for the courts to force gay marriage onto the ballots it is even more unwise for religion to use tax free, tax deductible money collected at tax exempt facilities for political goals, anti abortion specifically. It installs faith in government at tax payer expense, undemocratic.

Take a fools advice and be very very quiet, politically. Encourage your flock to be righteous in every way and insist they respect the rights of others to sin, profusely. Saying you're protecting unborn life the way police officers abate muggers is so lame it needs a litter.

The wrath of truth is upon us. Further kidding one's self is fool hearty. Don't you think?

Father Reese states "I think it is foolish for churches to expend their political capital opposing the legalization of gay marriage." At worst, such a statement is galling in its rejection of the Church's clear, unambiguous teaching on this issue. At best, it represents galling ignorance of the same from a Catholic priest. As Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, for example, has explained: "A correct conscience recognizes that there are some choices that always involve doing evil and which can never be done even as a means to a good end. These choices include elective abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem-cell research, human cloning and same-sex marriage. Such acts are judged to be intrinsically evil, that is, evil in and of themselves, regardless of our motives or the circumstances. They constitute an attack against innocent human life, as well as marriage and family." Each citizen is certainly entitled to their opinion on this topic. Moreover, Father Resse is both correct and to be commended for his admonition that all parties in this debate should be treated with charity and respect. However, he is a Catholic priest. To the extent that he elects to ignore church teaching in the formation of his own conscience, that is unfortunate. To the extent that he takes the next step and expresses his dissent as a matter of preference or personal opinion he is facilating a scandal on the faithful.

Hypocrisy is thy name...

It is fascinating to watch society undergoing so rapid a change. More and more in our literature and media we see not only an increasing tolerance, but a growing acceptance of it. Change is frightening and so it is not surprising that it is an emotional issue.

Much to the chagrin of orthodoxy, reason tells us that gay marriage is OK. So what does God tell us? Early Christians had a prevailing viewpoint based on the interpretations of scripture by the Jewish leaders of that era. Of course, that interpretation of scripture was likely different than the "original" words provided. Since then, our society and knowledge has changed significantly. Is there a new interpretation of scripture that helps us with where we are now?

One thing I do find curious is that while there is some discussion of homoxsexuality and man/woman marriage in the Bible, there is pretty much no direct guidance at all from Jesus' lips.