YOU WROTE: “I left Christianity, more correctly, Catholicism because of this hiding behind beliefs; if you’re a bigot, just come out and say you are. I am sick and tired of seeing people justifying their hatred for others by hiding behind a belief system – they make the choice to descriminate, no one else. Have the back bone to come out, and say, “I hate [zyx] because I choose to make that decision” – rather than saying, “oh, well, my religion says it is bad”.
……………………………..

I take umbrage with your assessment that the Catholic Church and Catholics “hate” homosexuals. And I doubt any Catholic has made the claim that “my religion says it [sodomy] is bad.” Your perspective is narrow: atheists,non-believers, and responsible physicians and therapists are among those who ALSO have been loud and clear that sodomy is bad.

Of all the numbskull claims I have heard, this takes the cake.

In a nutshell, Kawai, I’m concerned that YOU are spreading hate toward anyone who is not in your parade!

Didn’t you ever count your blessings? I’ve raised my children to do so when they have the “gimmies.”

We ALL suffer from one thing and another. Here’s my list:

My girlhood dream was to be a Pan Am stewardess – but I am too short; I was talented enough to be in a performing dance ensemble – but I am too short; White people treat me coldly (I have olive skin) – until my husband walks in (he’s White); I want to work in my chosen profession – but I have a painful disability (fibromyalgia); I would love to have a father – but he abandoned us when I was an infant.

Hang in there.

P.S. Truth is hard to swallow, friend. The truth is, homosexual priests brought scandal to The Catholic Church. The Lavender Mafia ARE militant gays. The Rainbow Sash Movement, too. They are among tye non-serious “social Catholics.” For the last 30 years since Vatican II and the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960’s, Catholics – you and I – have not been properly catechized (taught).

Here you are very very wrong,
One could make teh same argument against the gay communitys marriage outreach programs”s.

You say they do not have a right o interfer, but thats democarcy.

Religion is a relevant topic in law and social policy in America.

America is a deeply religious country and our law in may ways historicaly refelct this!

“THE FREE EXCERICSE OF RELIGION”
Also when the constitution says establish religion, it does not mean silencing religion. It means naming one faith over another, but fairly give both religions access to government!

The definition of something is important!

If you redefine soemthing, you must explain to the goveremnt why?

You also must make a compelling argumnet, why the the goverment benefits from gay marriage!

Also the people have a right to have an imput, and so far millions have said “NO” to gay marriage!

Most how ever are willing to give gay men hospital visitation’s, and privacy, and property rights!

But when it come’s to children, marriage..the state and sociey have a say.

And screamin it smy civil right, is not a sufficent argument.

What kind of civil right?

Is it a privacy right?

A state right?

One could argue as to why there is bias in the current system that gives married couples more rights than a defacto one – why give couples tax breaks and special fringe benefits?

For me, do away with the bias in the system that that marriage simply becomes a cute ceremony for those wish to partake, those who don’t or can’t, shouldn’t be discriminated against via biased laws in place.

You can pass every law in the book
and gay groups will soon relaize the disconnect has to do with not the law, but homosexuality itself!

What disconnect? the issue is the bias in the system; one stance is that if same sex marriage is allowed, then same sex couples can finally receive all the benefits and responsibilities of a marriage, thus allowing their relationship to be protected under law.

If the government came out tomorrow and declared that it would remove all bias in the legislative framework towards married couples, you would see the same sex marriage movement fizzle out – the reason for one existing would be removed as same sex couples would finally get the benefits and protection that they wish for.

Thats shows youre lack of kknowledge of religious law, actually they have alot more rights than just that.

They have a role in shaping what the definition of family will be.

No, they don’t; they have the right to make their voice hear regarding their position on the matter, but they don’t have the right to interfer in the legislative process – by doing so would be merely implementing, aka ‘establishing a religion’ by proxy by the mere existance of the idea of ones religious doctrine in shaping a law.

Marriage is Private and therefore an argumnet could be made, why do gay’s want the govermnet back in there family affairs!

If you ask the government in the historic “Lawurence Supreme Court case to get out of youre bed rooms.

But then ask that goverment regulate youre marriages, by a mariage licence.

I find that to be hypocrytical!

Its not about civil rights, ist about making people like me!

You can pass every law in the book
and gay groups will soon relaize the disconnect has to do with not the law, but homosexuality itself!

Recent crimes, opinions about gay people in Denmark is an example!

Also what is the threat if the goverment did not issue a marriage licence?

Why not get the goverment out of the job of issuing licence’s to gay or straight people?

1)They have the right to disagree, and if they wish to refuse a marriage within their church, as a private instititution, they’re quite entitled to that, infact, protected by law infact.

Thats shows youre lack of kknowledge of religious law,
actualy they have alot more rights than just that.

They have a right to set policy ina democray also.

They have a role in shaping what the definition of family will be.

The” The free expression of religion” does not mean sitting quite in one’s church.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.