"Pope Francis says ‘ideological Christians’ are a ‘serious illness’ within the Church

(1) About the biological component of your not existing problem:

A man is not able to marry a man - so easy is the not existing problem. If the states in the world today change the languages of the people and they start to call something marriage what has absolutelly nothing to do do with marriage any longer, then this is a completly different problem - what has indeed nothing to do with homosexual people or a discrimination (in the negative sense of this word) of homosexual people.

I'm for example not discriminated because I'm not able not bear a child. I'm a man - so how could I bear a child? That's impossible. It's normal for a man not to be able to bear a child, although I'm able to imagine that it is maybe the most beautiful thing in the world to be pregnant. But even if to be a pregnant could be the fullfillment of the highest perfect thinkable and feelable happyness - I'm only a man - I have to live with this deficite. That's not a discrimination - and this will never be a discrimination.

(2) About the sciological component of your not existing problem:

If discrimination leads people of a society to become members of a group of people who are in average more wealthy than others, then someone could be happy to become discriminated in such a way - and the discrimination would be not a discrimination any longer. And exactly this happens even from time to time. Short: Not everyone who says "I am gay" is really gay.

In general I don't see how someone is discriminated who has a good job, earns a good money and is respected from everyone. A very long time ago for example a first line manager of mine was a homosexual man. He never was discriminated from anyone - although no one spoke about gay marriage in those days. It's completly absurde to think only a little this man had problems because he was homosexual or he had problems because of any wrong form of discrimnation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7QGn09pznU

 

[MENTION=51439]thebrucebeat[/MENTION]

By the way: "discrimination" is in the roots of this words only a positive word. To be able to discriminate something doesn't mean to make something good or bad - it just simple means to be able to discriminate something: to see differences between different things. Discrimination brings the perception into a correlation with the reality all around. Your are for example "discriminating" your own name - if someone says your name then you are automatically reacting - much more reacting than on other names. Such a discriminaion is not only normal - such a form of discrimination is even essential. Not always is everything the same. There are differences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_2BmZ6ELaI

 

There isn't a biological reason for same sex couples to remain unmarried.

My state (Washington) and about 15 others license the marriage of same sex couples.

Plus, much of our federal government recognizes those state-licensed marriages uniting same sex couples, as a result of a recent Supreme Court ruling.

Your idea of discrimination is close, but not good enough. Same sex couples who are not allowed to be married are denied a fairly wide range of features. Our constitution demands that making these (or any other) features available selectively must be backed by a justification that is strong enough to withstand court challenge. No such justification can be found for denying marriage to same sex couples. Thus courts will continue to rule that marriage discrimination is illegal. And, we can see that even with our Supreme Court, which is composed of highly conservative justices all but one of whom is a Catholic.

 

Yes, discriminating is the act of detecting that two things are not equal.

Our constitution states that we must be treated equally, unless there is a justification that can withstand judicial challenge for treating us unequally.

In that sense, our government is forbidden to detect a difference between citizens - forbidden to discriminate.

 

Depends what you like to see in "marriage". A contract between two companies - then it's indeed unimportant what's the gender of the companies. But in this case it could for example be dangerous for two young men or two young women to live together, because the state could interpret this as a kind of marriage. But if you see in marriage the traditional institution for the creation of a family, then this has nothing to do with anything what a state is or what politicians like what human beings should be.

So what? Your problem - not my problem.

Also not my problem. For me is this what US-Americans are calling "justice" in lots of cases only a strange mix of terror, horror, comedy and mental illness.

It's for me personally completly uninteresting wether two men in the USA are politically marrying or not marrying. The problem for me starts if others are envolved - in case of same sex marriage I see some very big problems. Keyword: trafficking in human beings.

Your supreme court has absolutelly nothing to do with the catholic church. By the way: I heard the new mayor of NY was - or will be? - introduced from two protestant priests, two rabbies and an imam - while about 50% of the population of NY are Catholics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0NoHN1TU5I

 

As Jesus would put it, "What you do unto the least among ye, ye do also unto me."

 

So a black lawyer in 1960 who had to sit in the back of the bus should have shut up and enjoyed his life?
A gay man in 2013 who can't visit his life partner in the hospital should just shut up?
Moronic argument.

 

If I see it the right way then you are calling me a extraamerican "moron" because US-laws are sometimes more than only idiotic. Why for heavens sake should anyone not be able to visit someone in a hospital?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3ULSrprfYY

 

Because they aren't family. Those are our laws. That is how they are discriminated against.
Was the 1960 black lawyer not being discriminated against because he made a good living?
Are you starting to see how your argument is ridiculous?

 

Laws from idiots for idiots? Everyone has friends. Why should friends not visit their friends in hospitals? What's the sense of such idiotic laws?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHdPWNBHREA

 

So you agree they are being discriminated against?
Good!

 

"Schach!" (Check!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrUoJ2vj7ps

 

Good! You have made progress.

 

By marriage, I'm assuming we mean the civil union between two individuals that is licensed by the state and recognized by all states (as required by our constitution) as well as the federal government. We have only one use of the word in state and federal law to my knowledge - and it certainly has nothing to do with corporations.

There is no "danger" in same sex couples being married. And, many of these same sex couples do have children.

 

The issue concerning hospitals has to do with how hospitals determine who has certain decision making rights.

These decisions include treatment and even visitation.

Marriage confers the right of decision making on the marriage partner. Without marriage, decision making would likely fall to some family member or even to the state.

Think of being in serious medical condition, deemed unable to make decisions for yourself. Now, consider what it would mean to have your wife or husband be excluded from all critical care decisions and denied even visitation.

 

What costs a child on an american slave market? Or with other words: A child has the right to have parents - but adults don't have the right to own children. That's a very difficult problem. Only and exclusivelly the needs and wants of children are important in case of abortions. Children are not an article of commerce under quota regulation - they are free human beings. Homosexual parents are for example not a good model for heterosexual children to learn their gender role.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9DmuT5mUQ

 

You should start one day to learn something. Today could be a good day. Homosexual 'marriage' is maybe only a new trying to build a [social] perpetuum mobile by squaring a circle. In the end maybe hsomeidual s aer s8uifdefrg much more than aionyone lese whi is only interested to create genderless poeope for our leikasrers so they have a another new toy they are able to play with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scI1GIkIWuk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSRVaC3Pv3s

 

This way to think is more then only strange for me in this context. It's normal that people are visiting their friends in hospitals.

What? A completly new perspective for me. I do what my wife says.

As far as I know in Germany everyone could also have the right to make all decisions in case of medical care for another person. This needs only a declaration of a common will to do so. The problem: there is often not a big maneuvering room in case of really serios problems of health and not everyone is able to make good decisions in such a situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtuW08ZIgvg

 

I'm sorry. I honestly can't read this post. It is unintelligible.

 

I can't speak for other atheists but I didn't take the new Pope's comments to mean that you don't need to do the religious stuff to go to heaven. I took them to mean that in the course of the journey through life, some people who claim to be Christians and devoted to Christ are acting in ways that contradict that statement, even when some of those people think they are doing Christ's work. He's saying that people who are super religious are not automatically better and more Christ-like just because of that. He's also saying that religious folks don't need to demonize atheists and those who have no religion because what's really important(for life here on Earth, not necessarily to get into heaven) is that people are kind and good.

To me this sounds like a Pope with his head on straight. He sounds like a person with his eye on the right prize, which isn't the one the church has been focusing on. He's saying it's not the responsibility of religious folks to attack gay people, women, and non-religious people but instead that it's their responsibility to LIVE by Christ's words and examples, which includes neither of those things.

All in all, to me, he is a breath of fresh air. I fully understand that he is still religious and believes in all that stuff and that's he's not saying anyone can go to heaven. I'm not really concerned with heaven, but I am concerned with how people treat each other and he's addressing that in a major way from one of the most visible posts in the entire world.

 

Doesn't make any matter. The sentence you are not able to read is completly unimportant in the context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56diSlsmnTc

 

Why did you write it?

 

On no special reason. Frustration maybe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMIGQp4YhuU

 

So you are beginning to understand the discrimination gays face in this country.
Excellent progress.

 

You are calling it "excellent progress" to try to teach a German like me that the USA is a country discriminating homosexuals? If you think so. Nevertheless I'm sure you understood what I said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ2YNKbGqFc