Gay marriage effort stalls in heavily Catholic RI

The catholics have a lot to answer for. In future, they will be seen as the anti-christ church.

What a relief that at least one New England state is holding out against something that is wrong.

tomas wrote:

The catholics have a lot to answer for. In future, they will be seen as the anti-christ church.

As will anyone who denies the Christ and His Word the Bible. Read it and learn.

Maybe you catholic extremists would like to move to Iraq, where you can advocate death to any sexual minority that does not please you and contradicts you non-scientific view of the world?

tomas wrote:

Maybe you catholic extremists would like to move to Iraq, where you can advocate death to any sexual minority that does not please you and contradicts you non-scientific view of the world?

If anyone has to leave I think it would be less costly to deport all the homosexuals, don't you?

Catholics in RI are not voting to kill gays.

They just think marriage is between a man and a woman only.

tomas wrote:

Maybe you catholic extremists would like to move to Iraq, where you can advocate death to any sexual minority that does not please you and contradicts you non-scientific view of the world?

Boo hoo.

Martin Sheen, a renoun Roman Catholic actor and father, well known for taking roles in socially responsible and important films :

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Think some more.

tomas wrote:

The catholics have a lot to answer for. In future, they will be seen as the anti-christ church.

Wow Tomas, you're insane. The Roman Catholic church is not the anti-christ. Do some reading. We believe in the loving forgiving Jesus Christ, our savior who died for our sins, rose from the dead, is now seated at the right hand of the father and waits to judge the living and the dead. Those who don't believe, shall perish.

A sin commited by one person, shall not be burdened upon another. Each person is responsible for their own judgement.

Catholics don't hate gay people, we honesly don't agree w/ their life style and believe that a marriage is a holy union between a man and a WOMAN before God. I could NEVER judge a person because they are gay, in our faith, ultimately they will face the ulmighty and he will make the call. Our bible clearly states that men shall not lay with men. Also, not only are Catholics against homosexuality, so aren't MANY other faiths including jews and muslims. GO FIGURE. We have open gay people in the US, try going to Middle East w/ that lifestyle you'll be KILLED.

From the article:

"Religion remains among the biggest hurdles."
"Given its size, the church carries political clout. On the last Inauguration Day, every statewide elected official began the morning with a special Mass at the Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul, celebrated by Bishop Thomas Tobin."
"So why make anyone even have to vote on something that at least some of their constituents will be upset about if you already know the votes aren't there."

The irony here is that Rhode Island was supposed to have been founded by Roger Williams as a haven for religious tolerance and a model for what he called "the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."

The myths and superstitions of one group, however sizable, should not be the basis of secular law for everyone else.

There remains no rational secular basis for denying gay and lesbian citizens the equal protections of the law, including the right to civil marriage, anywhere in the United States. All arguments in opposition are illogical, irrational, or religious (the latter being the same as the other two, IMO).

PAPERTIGER wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow Tomas, you're insane. The Roman Catholic church is not the anti-christ. Do some reading. We believe in the loving forgiving Jesus Christ, our savior who died for our sins, rose from the dead, is now seated at the right hand of the father and waits to judge the living and the dead. Those who don't believe, shall perish.
A sin commited by one person, shall not be burdened upon another. Each person is responsible for their own judgement.
Catholics don't hate gay people, we honesly don't agree w/ their life style and believe that a marriage is a holy union between a man and a WOMAN before God. I could NEVER judge a person because they are gay, in our faith, ultimately they will face the ulmighty and he will make the call. Our bible clearly states that men shall not lay with men. Also, not only are Catholics against homosexuality, so aren't MANY other faiths including jews and muslims. GO FIGURE. We have open gay people in the US, try going to Middle East w/ that lifestyle you'll be KILLED.

What theists fail to understand is that history shows that both religion and government are best served when each is kept as far as possible from the other.

Jerald wrote:

... There remains no rational secular basis for denying gay and lesbian citizens the equal protections of the law, including the right to civil marriage, anywhere in the United States. All arguments in opposition are illogical, irrational, or religious (the latter being the same as the other two, IMO).

Don't forget "unreasonable".

snyper42 wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't forget "unreasonable".

Fair enough, and I would agree with you.

However, I prefer to stick with "rational" over "reasonable" arguments. "Rational" arguments are those that can be deduced from evidence; "reasonable" arguments almost always include empirical evidence but allow for elements of feeling or emotion.

Those who oppose an equal legal status for same-sex marriage are most challenged when they are asked to provide evidence for their claims, whether those claims concern the "procreation" argument, the "social stability" argument, the "child-rearing" argument, or the "historical definition" argument. Filtering out the elements of emotionality (religious arguments or the not-uncommon "ick" factor regarding homosexuality) and asking for evidence places debaters in the position of having to justify their claims with more than mere feelings or the all-too-common "opinion" (as in "Everyone has a right to his or her opinion"). No one has a right to his or her own facts.

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
Fair enough, and I would agree with you.
However, I prefer to stick with "rational" over "reasonable" arguments. "Rational" arguments are those that can be deduced from evidence; "reasonable" arguments almost always include empirical evidence but allow for elements of feeling or emotion.
Those who oppose an equal legal status for same-sex marriage are most challenged when they are asked to provide evidence for their claims, whether those claims concern the "procreation" argument, the "social stability" argument, the "child-rearing" argument, or the "historical definition" argument. Filtering out the elements of emotionality (religious arguments or the not-uncommon "ick" factor regarding homosexuality) and asking for evidence places debaters in the position of having to justify their claims with more than mere feelings or the all-too-common "opinion" (as in "Everyone has a right to his or her opinion"). No one has a right to his or her own facts.

Always with the statistics what one PhD says, what another publication says blah,blah,blah, listen to yourself everyone who disagrees with the same-sex marriage for what ever reason you your statistics name calling or what ever will not change our minds [can you say Sodom and Gommorah] to Christians, Muslims and Jews GOD made it very clear it is an abomination for a man to lay with another man as with a woman cut and dried. All you people with agendas abandon faith as soon as it says no. When it's all said and done the truth will come out and those who chose will be accountable for there choices and actions.

deputydawg wrote:

<quoted text>Always with the statistics what one PhD says, what another publication says blah,blah,blah, listen to yourself everyone who disagrees with the same-sex marriage for what ever reason you your statistics name calling or what ever will not change our minds [can you say Sodom and Gommorah] to Christians, Muslims and Jews GOD made it very clear it is an abomination for a man to lay with another man as with a woman cut and dried. All you people with agendas abandon faith as soon as it says no. When it's all said and done the truth will come out and those who chose will be accountable for there choices and actions.

I abandoned "faith" because a faith-based understanding of the world fails on so many levels in so many ways. I am thankful that I was able to overcome a powerful line of indoctrination into mythology and superstition that goes back thousands of years to begin to understand the world based on reason.

I am sure that you are correct that reason and science (statistics, publications, PhDs, etc.) will not change your mind. I am not speaking to you, then. I hope to reach those who can still think critically in some areas even while they cling to ancient myths. I know they exist; I have met many and convinced some. The members of my immediate family are good examples: all religious theists, but accepting, supportive, and vocal in equality for gay and lesbian people.

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
Fair enough, and I would agree with you.
However, I prefer to stick with "rational" over "reasonable" arguments. "Rational" arguments are those that can be deduced from evidence; "reasonable" arguments almost always include empirical evidence but allow for elements of feeling or emotion.
Those who oppose an equal legal status for same-sex marriage are most challenged when they are asked to provide evidence for their claims, whether those claims concern the "procreation" argument, the "social stability" argument, the "child-rearing" argument, or the "historical definition" argument. Filtering out the elements of emotionality (religious arguments or the not-uncommon "ick" factor regarding homosexuality) and asking for evidence places debaters in the position of having to justify their claims with more than mere feelings or the all-too-common "opinion" (as in "Everyone has a right to his or her opinion"). No one has a right to his or her own facts.

That an opponent is "unreasonable" holds weight in court. ;)

snyper42 wrote:

<quoted text>
That an opponent is "unreasonable" holds weight in court. ;)

You are quite correct, and I defer to your wisdom. ;-)

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
I abandoned "faith" because a faith-based understanding of the world fails on so many levels in so many ways. I am thankful that I was able to overcome a powerful line of indoctrination into mythology and superstition that goes back thousands of years to begin to understand the world based on reason.
I am sure that you are correct that reason and science (statistics, publications, PhDs, etc.) will not change your mind. I am not speaking to you, then. I hope to reach those who can still think critically in some areas even while they cling to ancient myths. I know they exist; I have met many and convinced some. The members of my immediate family are good examples: all religious theists, but accepting, supportive, and vocal in equality for gay and lesbian people.

Another atheist heard from. It's a ancient myth because I believe in the WORD OF GOD the real myth is wanting rights because of a sexual preference. It all boils down to people who believe what you believe don't need you to trumpet for the cause and I'm sure your family has heard your schtik. Because people like me will not change so what's your point?

deputydawg wrote:

<quoted text> Another atheist heard from. It's a ancient myth because I believe in the WORD OF GOD the real myth is wanting rights because of a sexual preference. It all boils down to people who believe what you believe don't need you to trumpet for the cause and I'm sure your family has heard your schtik. Because people like me will not change so what's your point?

My point is that since you tend to believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence, that you believe in things that are unproven and unprovable, that you lend credence to a belief system that places a greater reliance on faith than reason, your ability to make a rational judgment on anything is gravely compromised.

deputydawg wrote:

<quoted text>Always with the statistics what one PhD says, what another publication says blah,blah,blah, listen to yourself everyone who disagrees with the same-sex marriage for what ever reason you your statistics name calling or what ever will not change our minds [can you say Sodom and Gommorah] to Christians, Muslims and Jews GOD made it very clear it is an abomination for a man to lay with another man as with a woman cut and dried. All you people with agendas abandon faith as soon as it says no. When it's all said and done the truth will come out and those who chose will be accountable for there choices and actions.

Yes, the truth will come out and set us free, and we will be able to tell our kids the truth again. Plus, "normal variation" and "it's not a choice" have never been proven.

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
My point is that since you tend to believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence, that you believe in things that are unproven and unprovable, that you lend credence to a belief system that places a greater reliance on faith than reason, your ability to make a rational judgment on anything is gravely compromised.

The only compromise is the one I will not make. I have nothing against civil unions if it makes you feel better but marriage is outrageous and the faith you bash because you need evidence well faith is substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. If you can't get up in the morning and not see God's hand in creation the you are the one with the problem not me, it is not a accident that things are in balance you can't find any so-called empirical proof then you simply can't or won't see and you are free to stay blind and deny the existence of a intelligent creator.