My name is Gretchen and I am a recovering Catholic.

I went through religious ed at St. Paul's in Hingham, MA, and my fiance went through their elementary school and his family attended mass there. We are *not* having our wedding in The Church.

An 8 year old boy was accepted into St. Paul's for next year and was recently notified by the principal, Cynthia Duggan, and Rev. Rafferty (who was my fiance's teacher, and my mentor growing up!), that his accepted was reneged b/c the school found his parents were two lesbos.

I am looking into official ways to protest the church and am hoping some folks are picketing outside there this Sunday. Fucking intolerant idiots. The only good thing is the Archdiocese of Boston is helping him enroll in other Catholic schools in the area...

http://www.wickedlocal.com/hingham/topstories/x968916809/Archdiocese-helping-lesbians-son-enroll-in-another-Catholic-school

"that his accepted was reneged"

edit: "that his *acceptance* was reneged"

"Rights that would make gay citizens like any other citizens -- able to marry the person they love."

Dude! I have the RIGHT to marry Ewan McGregor! Who knew?? I'll be informing him of our nuptuals asap!

On a less-sarcastic note, the Catholic church has always been against abortion and gays. Always will be. Why the outrage now? Picketing a church is for their long-held views is oh, I don't know, pathetic!

Didn't the church also used to be against divorce? They managed to get around that one when so many of their followers wanted divorces. After enough gay catholics marry, it'll eventually be accepted too.

@Gretchen: "I am looking into official ways to protest the church and am hoping some folks are picketing outside there this Sunday. Fucking intolerant idiots. "
_________

Sounds like you are beaming with tolerance yourself there.

"An 8 year old boy was accepted into St. Paul's for next year and was recently notified by the principal, Cynthia Duggan, and Rev. Rafferty (who was my fiance's teacher, and my mentor growing up!), that his accepted was reneged b/c the school found his parents were two lesbos."

This just happened in Boulder, CO too. No sign yet on whether children of divorced parents will also be expelled.

The church still IS against divorce. Remarriages are not accepted and are adultery (unless, of course, you're rich/powerful, but the whole world has been ever thus)

"I have the RIGHT to marry Ewan McGregor!

You do."

I'm sure he'll be interested to know that. And last I checked, private schools could expel kids for any reason. It's part of being "private".

"Sounds like you are beaming with tolerance yourself there."

As a private institution, the Saint Paul's elementary school has the right to set its own admission standards. I would never disagree with that - but must I agree with their decision and logic behind it?

I respect their right to disagree with me, but dissent in and of itself is not "intolerant". Asking them to accept "all of God's children" is not intolerant; it's asking them to be consistent. This is a place I grew up with, attending mass and CCD every week. I was told about how God is this wonderful spiritual being that loved all of us. I was never told that gays didn't count - that they were some kind of mistake of Creation. This is a constant theme of "buts" and special little exceptions to their message of love. I have found it within The Church and the Bible and it is the reason I am no longer affiliated with any religious body.

I find it hypocritical of them, and since I was part of the parish for the better part of 15 years, I can say this conclusively. Unless you're from Hingham and were a St. Paul's parishioner, you cannot - you simply aren't privy to the same information I am.

Momof4 - you can marry Ewan McGregor...but, not to be rude, he probably doesn't want to marry you. That whole "two consenting adults" thing sucks!! I would have had Jason Statham legally bound to me at birth.

Momof4: you can get remarried in the Catholic church if the first marriage is annulled by the church. This is separate from legal proceedings.

When I was in the 8th grade, my Catholic school threatened to not let me graduate because my father was $50 short in the collection plate. In their generosity of spirit, they accepted $25, instead. It's about the money.

The whole annulment thing is ridiculous. They annul marriages even when people have children...as if it never happened? Obviously, the church does allow divorce, they just call it something else.

LS: I agree! I was just saying that you *can* get remarried in the church.

Yeah, when they start to feel it in their pocketbooks, they'll accept gay marriage. It's all about money. May take a few more decades, but they will. Then, they'll come up with a different name for it - the "abomination marriage" or something.

"... who eventually can't help but nibble on the low-hanging fruit ..."

Oh. my. God.

I can't believe you just said that.

I'm going to laugh all day long about that line... Thanks Amy.

>>The whole annulment thing is ridiculous. They annul marriages even when people have children...as if it never happened?

That's definitely one of religion's nuttier magic tricks.

I know a Catholic guy who is still moaning - some 20 years after the fact - that his ex-wife wouldn't agree to an annulment so that he could remarry with all the trimmings.

He said - with absolutely no irony - "She just doesn't get the principle involved."

That's definitely one of religion's nuttier magic tricks.

Add that to excommunication.

My mother was threatened with it decades ago when she married her first husband. She married an Italian citizen in a civil ceremony in Italy, then married him again in a religious ceremony in the US. The first priest she went to for advice threatened to excommunicate her.

I guess marrying men from another country is also an "insidious and dangerous" threat to the church. The second priest was more reasonable.

In another shining moment for the church, they refused to allow my mentally handicapped nephew to receive the sacrament of Communion because he couldn't demonstrate that he fully understood what was going on. Again, another priest saw things differently.

So much of Catholicism involves shopping around until you get what you want.

Momof4, seriously? Do you really think that "I have the RIGHT to marry Ewan McGregor" is even kind of a relevant counterpoint?

We all know you're getting at "I have the right to marry him because I love him, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen."

The difference is, and you KNOW this, that Ewan doesn't reciprocate that love for you. The made-up problem you face isn't even close to the same. One person in the relationship is unwilling to marry. Not some outsider telling you that you can't.

The issue with those cases being given public press is that the parents in question LIED about, or withheld information about, their marital status and sexual orientation to get their kid enrolled into those private religious schools. I feel for their kid because he must have been humiliated, but I don't feel for the parents. What they did is a complete and utter violation of the policies and hypocritical as well. They knew the rules going in, and they do not get to cry foul when they got caught breaking them. If they want to be treated equally, then they have to play by the rules just like everyone else. They shouldn't get special treatment just because they are gay.

I am all for gay rights for marriage, adoptions, and etc... I think people of all race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc... should be allowed the same rights as every American citizen. (Note I said American CITIZEN, NOT every person in America. But alas, that is a topic for another thread...)

However, having said that, I actually don't have a problem with PRIVATE RELIGIOUS institutions not allowing gay/lesbian/ and people who do not actually practice the schools specific religion into their schools. Private school is not a RIGHT. Education is a right, but not fancy private education. There are many other good private and public schools that a kid CAN attend. Private institutions don't have to answer to the public as they don't use public funds. They are privately funded by the enrollment fees, tuition, and by donors and the church they are affiliated with. They are allowed to have specific policies that limit their enrollment and have the right to deny any application they want. That is why the call them "exclusive". Do I agree with their philosophies and thier policies? No. But they do have the right to have and enforce those policies as a private religious institution. I can protest it by choosing NOT to send my kid there and by NOT giving them my money. I think it would be unreasonable of me, as a non Catholic, to get upset that a private Catholic school won't accept my (future hypothetical) son. We aren't Catholic. It doesn't make any sense that they would accept us into their program. They same thing goes for gays/lesbians. It is against their policies because it goes against their religious teachings. I dont agree with it, but that is how it is. We don't have the right to demand that an privately funded instition change their rules just because we don't like them. If you don't like their rules, send your kid (and therefore give your money) somewhere else.

"As a private institution, the Saint Paul's elementary school has the right to set its own admission standards. I would never disagree with that - but must I agree with their decision and logic behind it?"

No you don't. Just because someone has the right to do something, that doesn't mean that you can't express your disagreement with how they exercise their rights. A lot of people these days seem to confuse tolerance with approval. We sometimes have to tolerate things we don't approve of for the sake of having an orderly society. My wife and I know a couple of whom we don't approve of their child rearing methods. But since they aren't our children, and they aren't doing anything illegal, we have to tolerate it. We can and have expressed our concerns to them, but that's all we can do.

Gretchen, you shouldn't be so...a) recovering, and b) confrontational.

Otherwise you might have remarked that a certain Jewish carpenter is supposed to have said Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Sabrina: The parents filled out the form with both their names. The fact the school didn't see this until AFTER allowing the kid isn't deceit on the parents' behalf. The names aren't being released. Maybe one of them has a name like Tracy or Taylor and the school assumed it was the dad's name...and once the woman went to speak w/ Fr. Rafferty he, like, totally OMG'ed!

Dave: So we agree. I am tolerating the school's decision, but I do not agree with it and think they are sending conflicting messages. This isn't the same as my being "intolerant". Intolerant would be my saying they aren't allowed to do this.

"b) confrontational."

New to these here parts?

Re: "I have the RIGHT to marry Ewan McGregor!" "You do." "I'm sure he'll be interested to know that."

No, he won't be, which is exactly the point. You do have the right to marry Ewan McGregor, just as he has the right to marry you. He just doesn't want to exercise that right. If you want to deny civil rights (specifically, marriage) to people based on sexual orientation, just own up to that fact - don't disingenuously suggest that it's no different from you not being able to fulfill your movie star fantasy crush.

the Catholic church has always been against abortion and gays.

no it hasn't

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm

"The church still IS against divorce. Remarriages are not accepted and are adultery (unless, of course, you're rich/powerful, but the whole world has been ever thus)"

My second wife wanted to be married in the Catholic church. The problem was that both of us were divorced. This was easily fixed for the low ,low price of $400 (1989 price) each and a few lies to go through the annulment process.

I am wondering if the church then considered her two boys from the non-marriage to be bastards.

Some years later, I received a letter from the diocese asking if I had any objection to her having our marriage annulled and, later, another letter telling me that once again, I was free to marry in the Catholic church.

The church will never condone divorce when there is that much money to be made selling annulments.

Their schools, their rules, sorry. They have the right to their beliefs, as wrong as you or I may believe them to be.

I'm saying-via sarcasm-that no one has the RIGHT to marry anyone. We have laws that ALLOW some to marry some others. Within decently strict guidelines. Love doesn't appear anywhere in them. Nor, frankly, should it. Marriages for love tend to dissolve faster. Something about the bloom off the rose, I imagine.

Fair enough Gretchen. But I still stand by my original statement that the school has the right to kick out their kid as much as I disagree with it.

I am sure that the parents had a handbook of some kind stating the policies prior to admission so they can't claim ignorance. If the policy was always that homosexual parents were not allowed to have their kids attend, and they tried to skate around it, then they are still wrong. If, however, the school avtually knew about the parents status, and admitted the child anyway, and THEN changed the rules, I think there might be an argument for the parents, but I don't think that is the case here. I would be willing to believe that the parents withheld some info or deliberately misled the admissions staff so that their child could be admitted. Then, when they got found out, they tried to cry discrimination. THAT is what I take issue with.

Surely the parents had a chance to disclose their status at some point no? Even if both their names were on the form, was there a section where they had to list their marital status? Gay marriage is not legal in every state so they would have had to list themselves as single on the same form if that state does not allow gay marriage. IF they claimed themselves as married on the admission form, and are indeed not married, then they lied. IF they deliberately let the school believe that they were a hetero couple, then they still lied by omission. Yes, the schools admission staff should have followed up and actually met BOTH parents prior to childs admittence, but that still does not erase all culpability on the parents part.

Of course we aren't getting the full story via news, because let's face it, the news is bias. They aren't going to take the side of the school. I am not saying that IS what happened, because I don't really know. But I have seen this before and the parents are always made to be the victims of discrimination when the reality usually is, they are the ones that screwed up.

I am not saying I agree with the policy, or that I think it's "right" that they kicked the poor kid out, but I do not get to determine the policies of a private religious institution.

Steamer, what is the point? Why lie about something you obviously don't believe in to get recognition from an institution you don't respect?

Catholic doctrine doesn't mesh with the number of out-of-wedlock births, people cohabiting, divorce, etc. They aren't required to change, but ignoring reality isn't a long term survival strategy.

Sabrina: I never mentioned I had the "right" to tell the school they must allow the child.

No one has. In fact, we all seem to agree that it's pretty rotten of St. Paul's to do this, and yet we support the private institution's ability to make its own calls. That's a right we all uphold, much like in Amy's other post from today. I don't thing it's ethical of them, but I'll defend their right to carry out the admissions process in the most ass-backward, bigoted, hurtful way they would like.

I think you're arguing with me even though we're saying the same thing.

Now that I go back and look, I think you are right Gretchen.

:-) Now let's have a DRINK.

>>Marriages for love tend to dissolve faster. Something about the bloom off the rose, I imagine.

Speak for yourself, momof4!

I do wonder why anyone would even WANT to fight to send their kid there anyway though. The Catholic Church is not exactly subtle in their disdain for homosexuals. Why on earth would you CHOOSE to send them to a school run by an religious organization that has a history of being homophobic? That doesn't seem logical to me. Wouldn't a persons mindset be "Maybe I should avoid them and not try to send my kid there. They don't like gays. It might be bad for my kid" ??? Surely there are other amazing schools to send my kid to no? Does he/she HAVE to go to THAT one?"

The only reason I can see doing so is if you were deliberately out to prove something and force acceptance which in that case, I can't support you either. ("You" is general of course) At that point, it looks like you are trying to infringe on someone elses rights, just because you want to excercise your right to be gay. And you aren't doing you kid any favors either.

I have to admit that I find it weird that the Catholic Church does not even recognize the death of a spouse as the end of a marriage. A friend of mine was widowed in his 20s (his wife died shortly after childbirth), and he still had to go through the annulment process before he could marry again.

It's 5 o'clock somewhere Gretchen!

"The issue with those cases being given public press is that the parents in question LIED about, or withheld information about, their marital status and sexual orientation to get their kid enrolled into those private religious schools."

This was not true in Boulder, where the two little girls, who have clearly and openly had two mommies all along, had attended the school the previous year and were not allowed to return.

Look, a private school is a private school. I know this and support it. However, I was raised in the Catholic church and so I also will speak up and say how much it disgusts me that the church will treat some sins (homosexuality) as ones that should be visited upon the children while others (divorce) are not. This, however, is only to be expected where the Archdiocese of Denver is involved.

The church has every right to do what they did, and no one should disagree. That is their doctrine. I cannot understand why two lesbos would even want to put their child into that environment? Sorry folks, there are people who think and teach homosexuality is a sin and I think some here need to accept that as part of their world. I always love the irony of it when so many of their priests like little boys.

"I do wonder why anyone would even WANT to fight to send their kid there anyway though....The only reason I can see doing so is if you were deliberately out to prove something and force acceptance which in that case, I can't support you either."

I disagree. Read Andrew Sullivan and his tortured efforts to reconcile his Catholic faith with his homosexuality. These parents are believing Catholics who want to practice their faith at the same level as any other sinner in the Church. I agree that they are probably mistaken in that effort, but to assume that it's only because they are troublemakers is unduly harsh.

Funny, the article did not give any details on why homosexual marriage is a fundamental threat to (modern) society. I suppose there might have been a good reason to eschew the practice back in the days when the average life expectancy was forty and children dropped like flies. The impetus was to reproduce as much as possible, I would guess, and things like homosexuality, abortion, and prostitution would seem like fundamental threats to stable reproduction. (I still think that abortion is a threat; the greater the number of abortions, the smaller the chance of a society carrying on through its children.)

As far as your remark about closeted homosexuals and frustrated heterosexuals in the priesthood, I sincerely hope you are merely trying to give a possible reason for that despicable behavior, rather than excuse it. If they are forbidden from "interaction" with others, they can always "interact" with themselves, Biblical doctrine notwithstanding.

Well, momof4, your sarcastic “point” sort of missed the mark.

You act like you’re somehow superior for not marrying because you love someone, but it doesn’t make you superior in any way. I think it makes you sort of sad. If you don’t mind sharing, why did you get married? Obviously it wasn’t for love, since that’s not something that should be involved according to you.

“Decently strict” is sort of up for interpretation. You don’t strike me as the sort of person who ALLOWs laws to tell her who she can and can’t be in a relationship with, and that’s a compliment even though I think you’re a real jerk sometimes. If you were gay, I have no doubt you would fight tooth and nail for the equality you would deserve. Yet, because you don’t happen to be the one who isn’t allowed to live the life of your choosing, you’re A-okay with treating gays like they don’t deserve to be “allowed” to marry.

There is no logical, rational reason that straight couples should be allowed to marry and gay couples shouldn’t.

OI!
So, I guess the part where being part of a religion is not mandatory is missed? No-one is making anyone be Catholic or Buddist, or a nihilist.

If you don't like what a religion preaches, you walk. How hard IS that? If you walk into a religious school and loudly demand that they accept you, even if you are an abomination in their eyes, what do you expect the outcome to be? No-one is forcing you to do that, and it doesn't matter if that institution is being hypocritical. Divorce thing the same way, it's their perogative to enforce their rules, as long as those rules don't contravene public law. See: polygamy.

It's noted above to wonder WHY anyone gay would send their kid to a school who preaches against that. The idea is ludicrous. Either the kid will be indoctrinated that it's parents are going to burn in hell if they continue, or the parents will be constantly saying that the school is wrong, and why should they listen?

The ONLY person losing there is the kid.
Let's not be mistaken what this is about. This is about 2 adults trying to force a religious institution to accept what they will not, BY FORCE. If they sue, have boycotts, sit ins or whatever, they are forcing this. Forcing a group to accept their own point of view rather than walking away. When enough people have had it with a church, they form their own. See: Reformation.

There are, no doubt, other schools out there that could care less about gay parents. Whining about it will only increase the resolve within the institution to fight you. There is no inquisition, though I suppose the PC kind has come into vogue.

If you don't like something, you know where the door is. These institutions are run by people, regardless. Sometimes people are NOT NICE. You have to do what is needed to find those that are.

This is an interesting article about marriage. Apparently, the 1 out of 2 divorce rate is a myth. And love is definitely an important factor.

I think people often marry when they're ready to have children - picking someone "good enough" - and that works through the childbearing years, but if they're not genuinely in love with each other, those marriages disolve as the children get older and the mortality issues of midlife kick in.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/05/10/science_of_marriage_interview?source=newsletter

"I disagree. Read Andrew Sullivan and his tortured efforts to reconcile his Catholic faith with his homosexuality. These parents are believing Catholics who want to practice their faith at the same level as any other sinner in the Church. I agree that they are probably mistaken in that effort, but to assume that it's only because they are troublemakers is unduly harsh."

I don't think I am being that harsh. My opinion is that those who publicly make a fuss about stuff like this ARE out cause trouble. Otherwise why do it? Catholic doctorine states very clearly that being gay is a sin and teaches that in their schools without hesitation. I don't think that the Catholic Church really has any business judging anyone else considering their history, dont get me wrong, but this is a stance they have ALWAYS had. So why push it? My thinking is, if you know that, why would you subject your children to it unless you are only out to prove something? Subject yourself to it all you want as a willing adult, but the kid should not be forced to hear that about their parents just because the parents think that they have the right to be accepted. Under the rules of Catholosicm, they DON'T have the right to be accepted. There are plenty of religions and schools that do. Why is it so important to them to have this particular religion accept them? Like SwissArmyD said, if you don't like something, you know where the door is.

I have a very dear friend who is a former Catholic priest, and gay. He left the cloth when he realized he was gay and moved to South Florida. He still attends Mass regularly but understands that he will never really be accepted by the Church. Why he continues to remain a Catholic is beyond me honestly but, he is devoted in his faith. I asked him about this. He said that while it would make him sad that his (hypothetical) children will not get the benefit of the Catholic education he got, he understands that he made that choice when he decided to remain Catholic. He certainly would not force his Church run school to accept his (hypothetical) child. He KNOWS they will not because of what they teach about homosexuality. He will just continue to worship, and take his kid to Sunday Mass to worship (until the age where the child is old enough to decide for themself if they want to go, he added), and his kid will go somewhere else for their education. The point I am making is that there are choices. Those parents in the school situation KNOW that Catholicism doesn't accept them and yet they CHOOSE to try to force their homosexuality on them. What purpose does that serve other than to cause a stir?

If they want to be Catholic, then fine. Be Catholic. But they need to stop whining about how the Catholic Church won't accept them. Uuuuuhh.. yeah. Kinda knew that already. If you want that, then join a Universal Church of God, who caters specifically to gay and lesbian people who want religion.

If you want that, then join a Universal Church of God, who caters specifically to gay and lesbian people who want religion.

No real disagreement, but I understand why this would be hard for gays of deep faith. For people who truly believe, you don't just shop for a new religion if the old one doesn't suit you. Your religion is part of who you are. Hearing all your life how Jesus will always love you, no matter what, and then to be told, "Well, not you, homo," can be a deep betrayal. Especially when the Church adds, "You disgust us so much we're going to punish your kids on your behalf."

Catholic schools can do what they want. I can't even really blame the Church as a whole for this one, since other Catholic schools do not have the same policy, but St. Paul's is still mean-spirited for deciding that parent homosexuality is the one sin they are going to punish kids for, instead of, say, a parent being a liar or a thief or a murderer.

I get that MonicaP. And I basically agree. I get how important a persons faith is. And I also get the hypocricy of it all.

My only issue is with the gay parents that make it a public issue when they themselves knew full well what they were getting themselves into. I just don't see how that helps matters. And the only one that really suffers is the kid. Overall though, I think you and I are on the same page.

Given that it has been less thn 50yrs since the catholic church has admited that the earth is not the centerof the universe and the sun doesnt orbit us - why does anyon send their kids to a catholic school?

As for why the gay parents would send their child there? Maybe the public schoos in their district suck and its the only alternitve.

As for the alegations that the parents "hid" thier orientation - that is pure speculation.

One last thought, if the chuch run school is accepting public money via a school voucher program they are no longer a "private" school

The term "gay parents" is an oxymoron. It is just not possible for a gay couple, of either gender, to procreate. So if if doesn't exist, then it can't have rights.

YOu go to Catholic school to get a good education. I did and I am not Catholic, but then again my parents were hetero. And oh ya, was an all boys high school, and we had one obviously gay priest/teacher who disappeared after one year

"and it's not possible for many people to live without modern medical advances and drugs. Should we let them die?"

A good many of them, yes. There was an article in the Statesman not long ago about a hemophiliac who's meds cost $80k a month. For life. Guess who was paying that? Hint-not him.

I am not a fan of infertility treatments. Enough people in this world CAN have kids, and if your genes won't combine into a healthy kid on their own, there's probably a reason. Biologically speaking. Since you brought it up Amy.

I don't think you have to be Catholic at all to go to Catholic school-they are great schools. But you DO have to play by their rules. What kind of psycho parents send their kid to a place where they'll be taught their parents are sinners?? That's some serious self-hate going on there.

"Hearing all your life how Jesus will always love you, no matter what, and then to be told, "Well, not you, homo," can be a deep betrayal. "

He does love them. The problem is, the bible and jesus portray homosexuality as a sin. So, you can't KEEP sinning and think it's hunky-dory. Just like a killer can't keep killing and expect God to welcome him with open arms.

And dumb-asses, I never said I don't love my Dh. Although I would NOT have married him had we not been planning to have kids (why else would you link your finances and legality to another human??), but my bigger point was cultures who marry for things other than love have as good or better outcomes via marriage longevity. You're NOT going to always be in love with someone for your entire adult life. So lacking other things to keep you, why not leave during one of the "I'm just not IN love with you" moments? And that doens't matter, because LOVE has never been in any marriage law in this country or (to my knowledge) any other. Ever. No one has the RIGHT to marry who they love no matter what.

None of us have the RIGHT to many things that bring us happiness - a comfortable living, a roof over our heads, a peaceful neighborhood - yet a civilized society offers its citizens opportunities to do and have what brings them individual happiness, as long as we don't harm others.

It's not all about doling out rights. It's about making life meaningful, purposeful. It's about creating art and music and poetry, and also allowing couples who love each other to express that love the same as any other couple, especially if they're not hurting you or anyone else by doing so.

There's simply no valid reason NOT to allow gays to marry. These ridiculous arguments about procreation are so clearly desperate. No one cares whether a hetero couple can produce a child or not. That's not the standard we use to allow straight couples to legally marry; it should not be the standard for gays.

Besides, gay couples can adopt, and many of them do, often offering loving homes to children no one else wants. Those children don't have the right to be adopted either, but if their lives can be made better without harming anyone, why shouldn't they be? Why shouldn't we strive to allow them to experience love and security?

All of us - our whole society - is better when we try to do right by others, even if their choices differ from ours. It may not be a right, but it is a duty that we have not to impede the happiness of others when they are not impeding ours.

What those against gay marriage are doing is standing in the way of others' happiness just because you CAN. Does it personally affect you? Not at all. You just think you have the right to build a home and family but these people - who are your neighbors, relatives, and fellow citizens - don't.

That's just selfish. Self-righteous too. Anything having to do with self. It's all about you. And that's shameful.

So, you can't KEEP sinning and think it's hunky-dory. Just like a killer can't keep killing and expect God to welcome him with open arms.

I wonder whether they would apply the same policy to an unmarried hetero couple living together.

Youse guys is so full of it.

The problem is, the bible and jesus portray homosexuality as a sin. - momof4

A fe things - Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, He did tell married men to leave their wives and famillies and travel together with him though(as part of an all male group)

Also here are a few other things which the bible says is a sin

Mixing dairy and meat
Mixing fabrics in one peice of clothing
Going to church on any day other than the sabbath
Wanting to be a preist
Not being a jew
Eating shelled aquatic animals
Adultery
Thinking about sex
idolatry
blasphemy
changing religions
startng a religion

7 of those carry a death sentance

Also momo4 50yrs ago your marrige and relationship with your hispanic husband would be illegal, and just as immoral and distsastful to your fellow church goers as you find gy marrig

momof4: "The problem is, the bible and jesus portray homosexuality as a sin".

Lujlp: "A few things - Jesus never said one word about homosexuality..."

Lujlp,
I was hoping you'd come along & wrangle that point.
I was sure there was no basis for momof4's assertion. So thanks.

Love that post, Luj! Can't these folks see it's all arbitrary - pick and choose which "sins" to condemn others over and which ones to adjust for themselves? Either the church does it (ie: annulled marriages) or they make these "sins" ok within their own minds, but Jesus has nothing to do with it.

Momof4 is too smart not to see this.

At any rate, we allow for a lot of other "sins", like cohabitation without marriage, as MonicaP mentions. Why? Because it's not really our business, and it doesn't impact our own choices in the least.

Anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin can still go on believing it. Allowing gay couples to make their union legal does nothing to change their lives or their freedom to have righteous indignation over it.

So, why not just let it be? Disapproving of gays is not stopping them from coupling. We can disapprove of a lot of things, and ways that people live, without actively impeding their opportunity for happiness.

If you read that article about marriage, she makes the point that the legal entanglement to a partner is an important element in sticking it out when the "in love" feeling fades or wanes. Hetero couples have that deeper sense of security with marriage, and that helps the union last far longer than it might otherwise. That's all gays are asking for, and I cannot see where there's any benefit to society to deny them this.

"It's about creating art and music and poetry, and also allowing couples who love each other to express that love the same as any other couple, especially if they're not hurting you or anyone else by doing so."

Why not allow groups to marry then? Why condemn the fundamentalist Mormon sects that have polygamy? Why not let 7 year olds marry each other like they do in some other countries? Because marriage law has nothing to do with creating art or music or poetry or allowing couples (why only couples??) who love each other to express that love. No one is stopping them from loving or living together or fucking. Marriage has legal perks because it does stuff for society. Period. The couple in question matters not a damn whit.

"Also momo4 50yrs ago your marrige and relationship with your hispanic husband would be illegal, and just as immoral and distsastful to your fellow church goers as you find gy marrig"

Then I would not have met him and wouldn't care, would I? If it were still that way today, I would never have known different and not cared. Except, of course, that hispanics are white and spaniards have always intermarried with other europeans.

Another far reaching argument, which always gets thrown in out of desperation. Why not allow groups, kids, siblings, and pedophiles to marry?

When you don't have an argument, you resort to these extremes. There's nothing wrong with a society limiting marriage to unrelated couples. Two adult people only.

Obviously, some societies allow for multiple wives, as did God and the bible apparently, so our culture is free to adopt that too, if the majority chose it. Actually, we're free to adopt ANY arrangment, but I doubt there'd be much support for the other extremes you mentioned.

There is, however, growing support for gay marriage. Especially among our young people, gay relationships are increasingly accepted, so this will happen. You can see where societal norms are headed by looking at the next generation, and they are far more tolerant about this than us.

Furthermore, it is good for society because, as the article noted, legal commitments help relationships last longer. It is in our interests for gay couples to have solid relationships, to adopt/raise children, and be happy, productive citizens.

By contrast, there is absolutely no benefit in denying them the same opportunity for building a solid marriage and family that you enjoy. It isn't a "right"; it's an opportunity. You have it, yet you selfishly want them not to have it, even though it doesn't harm you in any way. That's purely selfish and wrong.

If it were still that way today, I would never have known different and not cared. - momof4

So, are you saying you are the type of person who lets herself be swayed by the predjuices of your peer group? Are you seriouly going to say that were race relations today what they were half a century go you never even would hav considered the man you claim to love as worthy of a relationship with you?

And FYI, as I recall you said your husband was mexican, which makes him a mix of Iberian European, native american and african.

In the historical hierachy of amerca racial predjudice indians were treated worse then slaves.

momof4 questions
Why not allow groups to marry then?
I agree, why not

Why condemn the fundamentalist Mormon sects that have polygamy?
becuase they are having sex with children and disoposing of the boys - its about sex not religon

Why not let 7 year olds marry each other like they do in some other countries?
Becuase under american law 7yr old are not compitent enough to enter into a contract

Because marriage law has nothing to do with creating art or music or poetry or allowing couples (why only couples??) who love each other to express that love.
but it does have nifty things like inhertnce, power of attorny, things that cost thousands of dollars to obtain while a marrige licence only reqirse mixed genitals, you dont even have to be sober and aware of your surrondings to get married

No one is stopping them from loving or living together or fucking.
nice dodge there, but for decades people were trying to stop them from even doing that, didnt we just dicuss the case of a girl whos school district cancelled a dance just to prevent her from being seen in public on a date?

Marriage has legal perks because it does stuff for society. Period.
Maybe it did once, but not any more

* * *

I'd also like to point one thing out here momof4.

You are attempting to use morality, particularlly the morality found in the bible, to argue against gay marrige.

Not all those what ifs you mentioned? Polygmy, child marrige, they were praciced and considered moral by the very same morilty which you now use to argue agaisnt them.

I dont know i you'll take a lesson from that or not, I just find the irony of your argument fucking delicious

Education is a right, but not fancy private education.

Show me where in the U.S. Constitution that right is listed, and I'll give you $20. Education is helpful to a good republic, but not listed as right.

Public Education Wiki

"In another shining moment for the church, they refused to allow my mentally handicapped nephew to receive the sacrament of Communion because he couldn't demonstrate that he fully understood what was going on."

Hmm. The guy up front in the fancy clothes, who's been told he can't marry, has the power to utter magic words over tasteless little wafers and the wine, and turn them into the actual flesh and blood of this guy that got nailed to wooden beams two thousand years ago for saying how nice it would be to do things for other people and for doing magic his own self. No, only men who can't marry can do magic, and they have to be in this church.

What's the part that's hard to understand?