Anyone have the link for the letter?
I was confirmed by Ambrosic when he was a Bishop, seemed like a good guy....that's all.
I was confirmed by Ambrosic when he was a Bishop, seemed like a good guy....that's all.
Cardinal Ambrosic
- Thread starter red
- Start date
baci2004 said:Anyone have the link for the letter?
I was confirmed by Ambrosic when he was a Bishop, seemed like a good guy....that's all.
it was in the globe as an op ed a few days ago.
Has anyone stopped to think how this will impact those who never marry?
Unmarried people, by not being "married" really lose out on transference of benefits and inheritance. Estate law decidedly favors "married couples". Let's not even get into the numerous tax benefits like income sharing etc.
This is a great idea to have the right to express and recognize one's love for one of the same sex.
Admittedly I am not an expert in all the financial ins and outs that apply to married folk but it seems to me that others who are not into same sex marriage,will be at a big financial disadvantage.
So, by instituting same sex marriage without looking at the impact it has on same sex friends who are unmarried, or on singles, are we in effect helping one group at the expense of another? Are we not forgetting a whole other group of people (those without the political clout)? Should we not redefine ALL aspects of marriage and insurance/benefit/inheritance laws to allow EVERYONE the same right?
I am not speaking against same sex marriage, just against leaving behind a silent many, against singles having to pay more, against creating a not very level playing field...period.
And oh, I forgot, who really cares what the Church thinks? If you agree, then fine, if you don't...then you may just go to Hell!
Unmarried people, by not being "married" really lose out on transference of benefits and inheritance. Estate law decidedly favors "married couples". Let's not even get into the numerous tax benefits like income sharing etc.
This is a great idea to have the right to express and recognize one's love for one of the same sex.
Admittedly I am not an expert in all the financial ins and outs that apply to married folk but it seems to me that others who are not into same sex marriage,will be at a big financial disadvantage.
So, by instituting same sex marriage without looking at the impact it has on same sex friends who are unmarried, or on singles, are we in effect helping one group at the expense of another? Are we not forgetting a whole other group of people (those without the political clout)? Should we not redefine ALL aspects of marriage and insurance/benefit/inheritance laws to allow EVERYONE the same right?
I am not speaking against same sex marriage, just against leaving behind a silent many, against singles having to pay more, against creating a not very level playing field...period.
And oh, I forgot, who really cares what the Church thinks? If you agree, then fine, if you don't...then you may just go to Hell!
Interesting points wop. I think the classic legal definition of marriage is so worded from a tax perspective because it's expected that married people (man + woman) will eventually have kids. Once a family unit is established, the financial burdens clearly increase. A child obviously cannot be expected to provide for himself / herself so it is incumbant on the parents to perform this duty for several years.
In today's world though, there are many married people (man + woman) who choose not to have kids. And with gay marriage, it is of course, a biological impossibility that kids will be naturally made as a result of this marriage.
So from a tax perspective, it may be useful to redefine the laws to benefit those with children. i.e. Base the benefits on the familiy unit as opposed to union of 2 individuals.
In today's world though, there are many married people (man + woman) who choose not to have kids. And with gay marriage, it is of course, a biological impossibility that kids will be naturally made as a result of this marriage.
So from a tax perspective, it may be useful to redefine the laws to benefit those with children. i.e. Base the benefits on the familiy unit as opposed to union of 2 individuals.
While not a Catholic, I agree with the Church on this one. To me same sex marriages are just plain wrong. If two people want to engage in a homosexual relationship, they can do so in their own lives, they can live together...just don't call it a marriage.
One can show compassion yet believe something is wrong.There are many people who believe same sex unions are wrong. This does not make them "homophobic" ( what the ***does that mean anyway?), only that they do not agree with a practice or activity. It is possible for individuals to "tolerate" (another misused word) homosexual activity, yet not believe in same sex marriage. The Catholic Church does not believe in divorce, so why would anyone be surprised that they come out against same sex marriages?
One can show compassion yet believe something is wrong.There are many people who believe same sex unions are wrong. This does not make them "homophobic" ( what the ***does that mean anyway?), only that they do not agree with a practice or activity. It is possible for individuals to "tolerate" (another misused word) homosexual activity, yet not believe in same sex marriage. The Catholic Church does not believe in divorce, so why would anyone be surprised that they come out against same sex marriages?
As I've grown up and considered and reconsidered my own personal beliefs, I've increasingly found it odd that the RC Church deigns to advise individuals as to the best course of marriage. This is an institution which forbids its own senior members (priests, bishops, cardinals) to enter into marriage themselves. While I can objectively understand this (they are supposed to be 100% dedicated to delivering the word of God) it just goes to show that there is no basis in reality for what they are saying.
Some will say that this is, of course, the whole point. Religion at one level is supposed to represent that which we do not physically have. Faith is just that - faith. But for me, I just need my faith to have an element of real world reality. To that extent, I can't see myself taking counsel on marriage from a person (priest etc) who has never been married himself.
So when the RC Church says that gay marriage is Very Bad, I just can't bring myself to lend a whole lot of weight to their argument.
Some will say that this is, of course, the whole point. Religion at one level is supposed to represent that which we do not physically have. Faith is just that - faith. But for me, I just need my faith to have an element of real world reality. To that extent, I can't see myself taking counsel on marriage from a person (priest etc) who has never been married himself.
So when the RC Church says that gay marriage is Very Bad, I just can't bring myself to lend a whole lot of weight to their argument.
The issue you suggested was that he is not compasionate for some reason beyond me. I simply stated you lack the compasion in this debate to offer an objective opinion. The issue, put another way, is you'll look to put down the RC Church no matter what it's stand is on anything. Therefore I find your comments nauseating at best.red said:lets see: you said "Thing is this is where you are wrong. He isn't a man of god. He is though, a man of God. If you know the difference then there may still be hope for you too."
I said: "not sure where you are going re capitalization"
your response was:
"Then you shouldn't be posting about anyting religious. Grab a Bible.
If you do then there is some hope for you."
what does any of this have to do with being compassionate?
I started this by questioning how he can consider himself to be compassionate when he was unwilling to see how is actions and words were hurting others. Its unclear how a discussion of my compassion or lack thereof should enter into it. You seem to want to take a discussion and turn it back on the debater rather than discuss the issue or public figure at hand.
I still think it is about the cash.
Think about it...why does same sex marriage need legal recognition, if not to have access to all those financial advantages of being married.
Spiritually, 2 people can call themselves "married" have a ceremony, and behave as if they are "married".
Legally, they can even have a pre-nuptial Agreement that defines the relationship in legal terms and if things go bad, the "divorce" can take place.
Politically, The Charter of Rights guarantees people will not be discriminated against.
Socially, same sex couples are already successfully adopting and raising children.
So why the need to have this legislated were it not for access to those financial benefits?
Besides, with marriage comes a 50% chance of divorce, and who would wish that unless there was something to gain in the gamble?
Think about it...why does same sex marriage need legal recognition, if not to have access to all those financial advantages of being married.
Spiritually, 2 people can call themselves "married" have a ceremony, and behave as if they are "married".
Legally, they can even have a pre-nuptial Agreement that defines the relationship in legal terms and if things go bad, the "divorce" can take place.
Politically, The Charter of Rights guarantees people will not be discriminated against.
Socially, same sex couples are already successfully adopting and raising children.
So why the need to have this legislated were it not for access to those financial benefits?
Besides, with marriage comes a 50% chance of divorce, and who would wish that unless there was something to gain in the gamble?
n_v said:The issue you suggested was that he is not compasionate for some reason beyond me. I simply stated you lack the compasion in this debate to offer an objective opinion. The issue, put another way, is you'll look to put down the RC Church no matter what it's stand is on anything. Therefore I find your comments nauseating at best.
I will send over some eno for your stomach. While you still have not explained your problem with not capitalizing the word god, I was not putting down the RC church, but debating the public statements of a public figure.
I have not made any other comments with respect to other RC teachings or doctrines- so the basis for your statements is more than a little unclear.
I do not believe he is acting in a compassionate way to the those who are gay, because he is attempting to take away from them a right to marry. Why? who knows. His article which he had published in the Globe and Mail was designed to win public support for his position that gays are not entitled to marry and that allowing gays to marry somehow denigrated the sacrament of marriage. I believe that Jesus Christ would have embraced gays as an oppressed group, and would not have tried to allow them to be further persecuted. Every time a right is denied, it makes further discrimination that much easier.
I get tired of hearing about "gay rights" as it relates to marriage. Every man in this country has the right to marry a woman, and every woman has the right to marry a man. Same rights for all. Now, you may not choose to marry, which is your choice.You may choose to live with someone of your own gender, that is your choice. Nowhere does it state that a person has to be married. Where is the discrimination? Actually there is discrimination everywhere in our society and every person practises it. We may discriminate on the basis of intelligence, gender, height, weight, personality, nationality, religion, age, hair colour, musical taste, favourite sports team...and so on. We select people as our friends based on criteria we choose; maybe we do not want a$$holes as friends..we discriminate against them; maybe we only want intelligent people in our social circle, so we discriminate against the stupid; yes this is a reach, but the fact is when we select people based on certain criteria we discriminate against those who do not fit our criteria.
Marriage was deemed to be between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It isn't between a man and a monkey, a woman and a horse, or between a brother and sister, nor is it between first cousins. There are a myriad of reasons that marriage was defined to be between a man and a woman. Leave it as is. If homosexuals want to live together, fine. Just don't call it marriage.
Marriage was deemed to be between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It isn't between a man and a monkey, a woman and a horse, or between a brother and sister, nor is it between first cousins. There are a myriad of reasons that marriage was defined to be between a man and a woman. Leave it as is. If homosexuals want to live together, fine. Just don't call it marriage.
Y
yychobbyist
They deserved to be able to marry because, among a ton of other reasons, if we want to live in a country that is truly free and truly does not discriminate then homosexuals should have the same rights that heterosexuals do. Homosexual marriage won't do any more damage to the institution than heterosexuals have done to it.Coach said:I get tired of hearing about "gay rights" as it relates to marriage. Every man in this country has the right to marry a woman, and every woman has the right to marry a man. Same rights for all. Now, you may not choose to marry, which is your choice.You may choose to live with someone of your own gender, that is your choice. Nowhere does it state that a person has to be married. Where is the discrimination? Actually there is discrimination everywhere in our society and every person practises it. We may discriminate on the basis of intelligence, gender, height, weight, personality, nationality, religion, age, hair colour, musical taste, favourite sports team...and so on. We select people as our friends based on criteria we choose; maybe we do not want a$$holes as friends..we discriminate against them; maybe we only want intelligent people in our social circle, so we discriminate against the stupid; yes this is a reach, but the fact is when we select people based on certain criteria we discriminate against those who do not fit our criteria.
Marriage was deemed to be between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It isn't between a man and a monkey, a woman and a horse, or between a brother and sister, nor is it between first cousins. There are a myriad of reasons that marriage was defined to be between a man and a woman. Leave it as is. If homosexuals want to live together, fine. Just don't call it marriage.
</Stands up and applauds> woooo wooooo!!!Coach said:I get tired of hearing about "gay rights" as it relates to marriage. Every man in this country has the right to marry a woman, and every woman has the right to marry a man. Same rights for all. Now, you may not choose to marry, which is your choice.You may choose to live with someone of your own gender, that is your choice. Nowhere does it state that a person has to be married. Where is the discrimination? Actually there is discrimination everywhere in our society and every person practises it. We may discriminate on the basis of intelligence, gender, height, weight, personality, nationality, religion, age, hair colour, musical taste, favourite sports team...and so on. We select people as our friends based on criteria we choose; maybe we do not want a$$holes as friends..we discriminate against them; maybe we only want intelligent people in our social circle, so we discriminate against the stupid; yes this is a reach, but the fact is when we select people based on certain criteria we discriminate against those who do not fit our criteria.
Marriage was deemed to be between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It isn't between a man and a monkey, a woman and a horse, or between a brother and sister, nor is it between first cousins. There are a myriad of reasons that marriage was defined to be between a man and a woman. Leave it as is. If homosexuals want to live together, fine. Just don't call it marriage.
Then why are they soo stubborn to have the ceremony/event called marriage? Call it something else.yychobbyist said:Homosexual marriage won't do any more damage to the institution than heterosexuals have done to it.
Y
yychobbyist
Why shouldn't they have the right to try their luck at it? Why should they have to call it something else? We don't make black people call their ceremonies something else.n_v said:Then why are they soo stubborn to have the ceremony/event called marriage? Call it something else.
By not capitalizing God it is indeed disrespectful to not only the RC Church but christians in general around the world. People from the as far as man can rmember have had faith in god or gods. To some a god was the sun, to other a cow, or tree or whatever. For the most part these people had a belief in many gods. RC's and christians believe in 1 almighty Lord the God of all gods. Capitalizing acknowledges that there is one God that rules the universe. Not doing it is disrespectful to those that believe in Him.red said:While you still have not explained your problem with not capitalizing the word god, I was not putting down the RC church, but debating the public statements of a public figure.
2 dongs don't make a child, nor do 2 pussies. Please compare apples to apples.yychobbyist said:Why shouldn't they have the right to try their luck at it? Why should they have to call it something else? We don't make black people call their ceremonies something else.
Y
yychobbyist
Please take your own advice. What's marriage got to do with children?n_v said:2 dongs don't make a child, nor do 2 pussies. Please compare apples to apples.
My reference to black people was this: I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. I think it's a genetic thing. I think they're born that way. THey're born that way like I was born ambidextrous and Donovan McNab was born black. I get to marry eventhough I can bat left and right handed and Donovan McNab can marry eventhough he's black. So what's the difference between us and homosexuals?
And in answering that question please notice that I showed an awful lot of respect for you and didn't use a Patriot as my example of a black person.
" My reference to black people was this: I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. I think it's a genetic thing. I think they're born that way. "
Many disagree with that, there is plenty of evidence show it is a choice. Comparing Blacks to homosexuals is not a valid argument.Not even close.
Many disagree with that, there is plenty of evidence show it is a choice. Comparing Blacks to homosexuals is not a valid argument.Not even close.
Y
yychobbyist
In your view. Regardless. Why should they be treated any differently?Coach said:" My reference to black people was this: I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. I think it's a genetic thing. I think they're born that way. "
Many disagree with that, there is plenty of evidence show it is a choice. Comparing Blacks to homosexuals is not a valid argument.Not even close.
