Need help arguing against a gay marriage ban

[Sugar]

As I've mentioned before, I work for the editorial page of my local paper, which means, I also sit on the editorial board. The editorial board, among other things, decides what the position the paper will take (if any) on various issues as well as endorsing candidates for office.

Last week the state legislature had a press conference essentially saying that they are planning to try to get gay marriage banned. Insiders say that they're trying to get on the ballot with the 2008 presidential election (PA's process is longer than a lot of states), no doubt since PA went blue in 2004.

SO I heard my boss say last week that perhaps we (the paper) need to sit down and formulate a stand on the issue. I'm one of the most liberal people on the board and plan to argue against what the state legislature is doing, however I have no doubt I will end up arguing with our more conservative members. I have been trying to ready myself for the fight by doing research, but have come up a bit short.

I'm looking for good solid pro-gay marriage arguments (or anti-ban ones anyway), especially retorts to the predictable anti-gay marriage arguments, since these are questions I know I'm going to have to answer.

One of the reasons I'm asking you guys becasue I remember a year or so ago I thought one of you (sparky, Tower, Strand???) had a really cogent retort to the whole "why outlaw three people getting married..." etc. argument. I tried the Ledge search, but still can't find it.

You can direct me to Web sites or other sources or just present your positions here. I'm actually a little embarassed that I need help on this and that I'm not well enough armed on my own, but I finally decided to swallow my pride and just ask for help. I'm really going to have to have my ducks in a row on this one; the area is istorically conservative and while I may not be able to convince them to come out against the ban, I may be able to punch enough holes in the conservative argument so that we just don't take one at all.

I really appreciate anything anyone can add...including any retorts to the whole "slippery slope" argument...

[DavidMn]

I dont mean for this to sound like a simple answer, but to me it's purely and simply fear. What I mean by that is they are afraid that somehow if I were to marry Derek, that the institution of marriage would crumble before god's feet. I just fail to understand that logic. Hope that helps.

[strandinthewind]

My position is the govt. should sanction no form of marriage at all. In other words, the terms "husband," "wife," and "marriage" should appear nowhere in the actual law. If your church wants to marry you - great. Then, it should be on you to fill out the paperwork to get the rights of visitation, inheritance, tax benefits, etc. automatically given to people married under the current definition of some religions.

But, my idea will never happen because the far religious right cannot abide anything other than the Christian idea of marriage. So, until then, it is against the Const. prohibition of establish a formal religion to say that only one form of religious mariiage (albeit the most popular form) automatically gets sanctioned by the govt. So, all forms of marriage should be included in the govt. def.

[Sugar]

I dont mean for this to sound like a simple answer, but to me it's purely and simply fear. What I mean by that is they are afraid that somehow if I were to marry Derek, that the institution of marriage would crumble before god's feet. I just fail to understand that logic.

And I don't understand it either.

Here's a good essay I found:

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

[DavidMn]

And I don't understand it either.

Here's a good essay I found:

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htmI find it interesting that Anthony Kennedy would make a statement like that being a Reagan appointee.

[Sugar]

My position is the govt. should sanction no form of marriage at all. In other words, the terms "husband," "wife," and "marriage" should appear nowhere in the actual law. If your church wants to marry you - great. Then, it should be on you to fill out the paperwork to get the rights of visitation, inheritance, tax benefits, etc. automatically given to people married under the current definition of some religions.

So if you're not the chuch-going type, you're saying people need to register as a "union" in order to get the custody, tax, and death type benefits? Making the unreligious not so much married as "unionized"?


So, until then, it is against the Const. prohibition of establish a formal religion to say that only one form of religious mariiage (albeit the most popular form) automatically gets sanctioned by the govt. So, all forms of marriage should be included in the govt. def.

Including, say a marriage among three people? (There are already laws against marrying young people and animals based on issues of consent which is why I'm not bothering with that argument.)

[Sorcerer386]

Well, being an absolute libertarian, I'm afraid my views are way too idealistic to use in an argument, but I'll say them anyway.

First, the whole "if this passes, then people could argue they want to marry an animal." Umm...generally from what I've seen, it takes consent (the saying of "I do" in a traditional marriage) from BOTH sides in order to marry. How is an animal going to consent to marriage?

Second, the rest of the conservative's argument on the "definition of marriage" view is that anyone could marry, people could marry more than one person, etc. My question has always been, WHO CARES?!? What the Hell do I care if the neighbor down the street wants to marry his sister? Do I agree, or would I do the same? HELL NO! But if it's not hurting me, or anyone else for that matter, what's the big deal? As for bigomy coming into play, I may be wrong but I believe there ARE people in the U.S. who can marry more than one spouse because of their culture. Plus, like I said, how many people are truly going to consent to having their spouse marry another person? And if that spouse DOES consent to it, again, WHO CARES?

There are just way too many other issues that I feel are SO much more important than all of this. Let people marry who they will if it makes them happy. After all, the U.S. guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness, albeit that that pursuit doesn't hurt anyone else. Marriage is NOT hurting anyone else. Again, I guess I'm just too idealistic, but I just really don't care what other people do if they aren't hurting anything.

[markolas]

I find it interesting that Anthony Kennedy would make a statement like that being a Reagan appointee.

Well, H. W. Bush appointed Souter, and Ford appointed Stevens, and they're two of the most liberal justices...so you can't always go by that.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well, being an absolute libertarian, I'm afraid my views are way too idealistic to use in an argument, but I'll say them anyway.

First, the whole "if this passes, then people could argue they want to marry an animal." Umm...generally from what I've seen, it takes consent (the saying of "I do" in a traditional marriage) from BOTH sides in order to marry. How is an animal going to consent to marriage?

Second, the rest of the conservative's argument on the "definition of marriage" view is that anyone could marry, people could marry more than one person, etc. My question has always been, WHO CARES?!? What the Hell do I care if the neighbor down the street wants to marry his sister? Do I agree, or would I do the same? HELL NO! But if it's not hurting me, or anyone else for that matter, what's the big deal? As for bigomy coming into play, I may be wrong but I believe there ARE people in the U.S. who can marry more than one spouse because of their culture. Plus, like I said, how many people are truly going to consent to having their spouse marry another person? And if that spouse DOES consent to it, again, WHO CARES?

There are just way too many other issues that I feel are SO much more important than all of this. Let people marry who they will if it makes them happy. After all, the U.S. guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness, albeit that that pursuit doesn't hurt anyone else. Marriage is NOT hurting anyone else. Again, I guess I'm just too idealistic, but I just really don't care what other people do if they aren't hurting anything.


I think I'm in love with you...:xoxo:

[Red]

I think it boils down to something really basic. With issues like war, poverty, racism, problems with education or lack thereof and many more, too many to name, people need to waste their valuable time on somebody's private life? So the state of the country is just so perfect and there are absolutely NO problems to solve that the government feels the need to jump all over LOVE? I could scream, its so absurd.

[Sorcerer386]

I think I'm in love with you...:xoxo:

:lol: LOL :lol:
And here I was waiting for some harsh responses!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:lol: LOL :lol:
And here I was waiting for some harsh responses!

Well I'm the gay GOPer around her (almost a libertarian...ALMOST)

So, this is why I give you love :xoxo:

[Rickypt]

I think that the government should get out of the "marriage" business, leave that to churches to do as they wish, and instead have a set of laws that guarantee certain benefits and define certain responsibilities to a union, allowing that union to define itself any way it wishes (with obvious exceptions).

However, Sugar, I don't think that's how your paper should approach the gay marriage ban issue. Opponents of gay marriage are defining your issue by putting a ban on the ballot, so you need to respond accordingly.

The simple argument is that denying a gay or lesbian couple the same benefits and privileges as a heterosexual couple is discrimination. It is indefensible, and that's why court after court rules accordingly.

If you are against gay marriage, it means that you don't think gay people should get equal treatment as straight people. Pure and simple. So those against gay marriage should admit that and stop hiding behind arguments about protecting the family, or sanctity of marriage, or the "slippery slope" to legalizing polygamy. Massachusetts has already proved that gay marriage isn't a threat to anyone.

If I were you, I'd advocate that your paper lay it out clearly: if you believe in equal rights for gay people, then you support gay marriage, if not, then you support discrimination. Make your choice, but know what it means.

The polygamy thing and slippery slope are just red herrings. Supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with blowing wide open the definition of marriage. Don't let the others frame the issue. Keep it simple and obvious---do you support discrimination against gay people, or don't you.

[sparky]

And I don't understand it either.

Here's a good essay I found:

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm


Sugar, I suggest you go out and buy a book called "The Commitment" by Dan Savage. It will give you every single thing you need. Or just google him, as many excerpts of his book have appeared other places. He starts off not wanting to get married at all, and through a series of misadventures, his opinion changes a bit. It will solve all your problems re: the editiorial.

[SomeKindaMother]

We *must* have separation of church and state. If Christians believe the bible, then you know that God has given us free choice…for which we all will answer for in the end. But the point is, those choices are ours to make. If God thinks free choice is good enough for us, what makes the government think they know better than Him? Maybe it’s a sin, maybe it isn’t. If you believe it’s a sin, then so be it. I sin every day but I’m still allowed to live my life as I see fit so long so I don’t hurt others. Go right ahead and believe gay marriage is a sin. Pray for them if you want, but don’t deny their civil rights. People have to make their own choices and deal with their own consequences. I think so many people are worried about the consequences others will deal with rather than their own. :shrug: Good luck with your arguement and let us know how it goes!

Kelly :)

[strandinthewind]

So if you're not the chuch-going type, you're saying people need to register as a "union" in order to get the custody, tax, and death type benefits? Making the unreligious not so much married as "unionized"?

No, I am saying none of those benefits should exist. There should be no registering at all with the govt.

Instead, people should privately contract for these benefits a la a will, a Power of Attorney, etc. The far right claims that gay and other people can obtain 95% of the rights automatically granted to heterosexual marriage by executing these documents - so they should continue to do so and not "ruin" marriage. I say that if these rights are so easily obtainable, then everyone should have to do it by contract and the govt. should not automatically grant them to anyone.

Including, say a marriage among three people? (There are already laws against marrying young people and animals based on issues of consent which is why I'm not bothering with that argument.)

I say if you want to marry 10 consenting people - you should be able to do so without the govt. interfering in your life. That is why the govt. should not sanction any union or marriage. It is forcing the concept of the religion of many on everyone, which is wrong.

[strandinthewind]

:lol: LOL :lol:
And here I was waiting for some harsh responses!

I totally agree with you. But, people cannot stand other people being too wild and too free :shrug:

[SomeKindaMother]

That is why the govt. should not sanction any union or marriage. It is forcing the concept of the religion of many on everyone, which is wrong.

Wow. That is something I had never even considered before....sorta like I must've figured that sanctioning was something from the dawn of time and had always existed. Shows what a bubble I've lived in. I will think about that.

Kelly :)

[irishgrl]

isnt there some sort of Constitutional angle? such as due process? or discrimination via Civil rights (race color religion national origin sex age political beliefs?)

I am at work or I'd delve into this further.....

[strandinthewind]

^^

The only Constitutional issues I see are

1. promoting one religion over the other violates the anti-establishment clause -

2. arguably, due process/equal protection is being violated because not all people can get the same rights - though homosexuals are not a suspect class (which is harder to discrimminate against) and homosexuals can marry women, though they chose not to, etc.

Finally, the Full Faith and Credit clause pretty much overrides the DOMA - and another state will be forced to accept a sister state's definition of marriage.

[SuzeQuze]

Here's a good reason, unequal treatment perpetuates descrimination and hatred. I suppose it would be hard to prove this but if you just use common sense it isn't so much of a leap.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1569739

By RAY HENRY Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. Feb 2, 2006 — A teenager armed with a hatchet and handgun opened fire inside a gay bar early Thursday, wounding at least three people in what police are investigating as a hate crime.

A bartender at Puzzle Lounge told The Associated Press that the young man, dressed all in black, ordered a drink and asked if Puzzles was a gay bar. He finished his drink shortly after midnight, ordered another, then started attacking people, the bartender said. Three were hospitalized Thursday.

Police were searching for Jacob D. Robida, 18, Police Capt. Richard Spirlet said.

An arrest warrant sought to charge Robida with assault, attempted murder and civil-rights violations. According to a court filing attached to the warrant, a woman in the bar recognized had recognized Robida as a current or former student at New Bedford High School.

The teenager was armed with a handgun and "some sort of cutting instrument," Spirlet said.

The bartender said the attacker was swinging a hatchet.

After finishing his drink, the man walked to the back of the bar where two men were playing pool, shoved one to the ground, then pulled a hatchet from his sweat shirt and began swinging at the man's head, cutting him, the bartender said.

Other patrons tackled the man, sending the hatchet sliding across the floor, the bartender said. That's when the man pulled out a handgun, he said. The gunman shot both pool players and also fired at a patron who was leaving the bathroom, hitting him in the chest.

"He was shooting at everyone," said the bartender, who asked to be identified only by his first name, Phillip, because of concerns about his safety.

The attacker also shoved him before running out, Phillip said. He said police found the hatchet and a machete in the bar.

Puzzles is popular with the local gay community and is listed on Web sites offering resources to gays and lesbians.

New Bedford, a city of 94,000 residents, is 50 miles south of Boston.


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[JazmenFlowers]

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. Feb 2, 2006 — A teenager armed with a hatchet and handgun opened fire inside a gay bar early Thursday, wounding at least three people in what police are investigating as a hate crime.[/I]
how freaking insane is this? I have often thought about things like this happening or a bomb like on Queer As Folk...scary ****

[Sugar]

Well, being an absolute libertarian, I'm afraid my views are way too idealistic to use in an argument, but I'll say them anyway.

First, the whole "if this passes, then people could argue they want to marry an animal." Umm...generally from what I've seen, it takes consent (the saying of "I do" in a traditional marriage) from BOTH sides in order to marry. How is an animal going to consent to marriage?

Second, the rest of the conservative's argument on the "definition of marriage" view is that anyone could marry, people could marry more than one person, etc. My question has always been, WHO CARES?!? What the Hell do I care if the neighbor down the street wants to marry his sister? Do I agree, or would I do the same? HELL NO! But if it's not hurting me, or anyone else for that matter, what's the big deal? As for bigomy coming into play, I may be wrong but I believe there ARE people in the U.S. who can marry more than one spouse because of their culture. Plus, like I said, how many people are truly going to consent to having their spouse marry another person? And if that spouse DOES consent to it, again, WHO CARES?

There are just way too many other issues that I feel are SO much more important than all of this. Let people marry who they will if it makes them happy. After all, the U.S. guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness, albeit that that pursuit doesn't hurt anyone else. Marriage is NOT hurting anyone else. Again, I guess I'm just too idealistic, but I just really don't care what other people do if they aren't hurting anything.

Wow...I thought this thread was dead....:lol:

The importance issue is a real one here in PA, in my opinion, since the state legislature is under fire for both shoving through a 34% pay raise (since repealed) and for a botched property tax reform. In last week's paper my take was basically, "Hello? Why are we talking about gay marriage when people NEED tax reform."

I, like you, frankly have a hard time caring who someone else wants to marry. Other than tradition, I don't know that I have a problem with three consenting people getting married. Frankly the most disturbing thing I've found in doing research are conservative sites, not pro-pologamy ones, saying "You want to kill gay marriage? Start pushing for legalized pologamy."

These people need jobs...

[strandinthewind]

how freaking insane is this? I have often thought about things like this happening or a bomb like on Queer As Folk...scary ****

This is not a very popular opinion around here, but I blame religion (from the Catholic Church on down) for this. I get that some are worse than others and the majority do not advocate violence, but they all demonize gay people and by associating the actions of some gay people and some not even gay people like peds. with all of gaydom. That demonization cannot be handled by many, which leads to people like this fukctard wanting to punish gay people. So, yes, to me, the fault lies with religion and its endless persecution of gay people as if they are the sole cause for suffering in the world.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

This is not a very popular opinion around here, but I blame religion (from the Catholic Church on down) for this. I get that some are worse than others and the majority do not advocate violence, but they all demonize gay people and by associating the actions of some gay people and some not even gay people like peds. with all of gaydom. That demonization cannot be handled by many, which leads to people like this fukctard wanting to punish gay people. So, yes, to me, the fault lies with religion and its endless persecution of gay people as if they are the sole cause for suffering in the world.

I actually agree with most of this. I don't think it is the intention of say the Catholic Church to advocate violence towards gays/lesbians in ANY WAY! But I think, like you said...some people just can't handle that "demonization" and feel that somehow in their warped minds they are doing a "good deed". But I don't know whether to blame this on religion or just nutcases? :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I actually agree with most of this. I don't think it is the intention of say the Catholic Church to advocate violence towards gays/lesbians in ANY WAY! But I think, like you said...some people just can't handle that "demonization" and feel that somehow in their warped minds they are doing a "good deed". But I don't know whether to blame this on religion or just nutcases? :shrug:

Well, the Catholic Church equates homosexuals with peds. and then demonizes the peds. because it knows most people hate homosexuals on some level. Then, out of the other side of its mouth, it says don't hurt them. I mean equating an innocent human being to some other freak who gets off hurting prepubescant children in an effort save its own ass is horrible and can only lead to violence. So, yes, it is the religion itself to these eyes.

[Sugar]

I think that the government should get out of the "marriage" business, leave that to churches to do as they wish, and instead have a set of laws that guarantee certain benefits and define certain responsibilities to a union, allowing that union to define itself any way it wishes (with obvious exceptions).

However, Sugar, I don't think that's how your paper should approach the gay marriage ban issue. Opponents of gay marriage are defining your issue by putting a ban on the ballot, so you need to respond accordingly.

The simple argument is that denying a gay or lesbian couple the same benefits and privileges as a heterosexual couple is discrimination. It is indefensible, and that's why court after court rules accordingly.

If you are against gay marriage, it means that you don't think gay people should get equal treatment as straight people. Pure and simple. So those against gay marriage should admit that and stop hiding behind arguments about protecting the family, or sanctity of marriage, or the "slippery slope" to legalizing polygamy. Massachusetts has already proved that gay marriage isn't a threat to anyone.

If I were you, I'd advocate that your paper lay it out clearly: if you believe in equal rights for gay people, then you support gay marriage, if not, then you support discrimination. Make your choice, but know what it means.

The polygamy thing and slippery slope are just red herrings. Supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with blowing wide open the definition of marriage. Don't let the others frame the issue. Keep it simple and obvious---do you support discrimination against gay people, or don't you.

I've also thought that perhaps "marriage" just needs to be relagated to a religious distinction and that there be some extra step of registering with the government that everyone needs to do to be recognized by the government as a union.

The simplicity/red herring argument is an interesting one too. I've seen it argued that where gay marriage is recognized there hasn't been any rush for people to marry their sister, their cat, or six people down the street.

Not letting other guy redefine the issue is a good one. It's hard because as people lob their arguments at you the natural reaction is to attempt to respond to them. But perhaps in this case it would be more effective not to address those scare tactics and keep on point. Thanks!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well, the Catholic Church equates homosexuals with peds. and then demonizes the peds. because it knows most people hate homosexuals on some level. Then, out of the other side of its mouth, it says don't hurt them. I mean equating an innocent human being to some other freak who gets off hurting prepubescant children in an effort save its own ass is horrible and can only lead to violence. So, yes, it is the religion itself to these eyes.

I can see that.

On another note...when comparing Catholics and Protestants in terms of their "views" on gays...Catholics look like saints.

[strandinthewind]

I can see that.

On another note...when comparing Catholics and Protestants in terms of their "views" on gays...Catholics look like saints.

Well, no they do not. Again, the Catholic Church convinced people that being gay means you are ped., which is just untrue. So, yes, the Church is not Jimmy Swaggert saying he would punch any gay guy who came onto him, but that is a distinction without a difference to these eyes :shrug:

[Sugar]

Sugar, I suggest you go out and buy a book called "The Commitment" by Dan Savage. It will give you every single thing you need. Or just google him, as many excerpts of his book have appeared other places. He starts off not wanting to get married at all, and through a series of misadventures, his opinion changes a bit. It will solve all your problems re: the editiorial.

Thanks! I didn't even know he had a book out. I'm a regular reader of his columns and like his sraightforward logical approach. That's exactly what I need in this circumstance.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well, no they do not. Again, the Catholic Church convinced people that being gay means you are ped., which is just untrue. So, yes, the Church is not Jimmy Swaggert saying he would punch any gay guy who came onto him, but that is a distinction without a difference to these eyes :shrug:

Yes, I suppose you are right...

I guess I just have a soft spot for some Catholics, as it is all that I know. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Yes, I suppose you are right...

I guess I just have a soft spot for some Catholics, as it is all that I know. :shrug:

Oh - don't get me wrong, the Church has done so many wonderful things and inspired billions. I think overall it is a good is not great organization, despite the blemishes I am harping on here. A good example is Mother Theresa - some, including me, call her a saint - others blame her for millions of unwanted pregnancies and endless suffering because she refused to advocate birth control in India. I think the good she did more than outweighes that.

[dissention]

A good example is Mother Theresa - some, including me, call her a saint - others blame her for millions of unwanted pregnancies and endless suffering because she refused to advocate birth control in India. I think the good she did more than outweighes that.

Don't make me laugh.

[strandinthewind]

Don't make me laugh.

laugh at the idea that people despise her for that or laugh at that fact that I think the good she did outweighed that?

On edit - yes, I think she should have advocated birth control.

Also, within the Catholic definition of that word (a holy person who is exceptional in their faith) - she was just that, regardless of lay opinion.

[dissention]

laugh at the idea that people despise her for that or laugh at that fact that I think the good she did outweighed that?


Laugh at the fact that you consider that wench to be a "saint."

[Sugar]

^^

The only Constitutional issues I see are

1. promoting one religion over the other violates the anti-establishment clause -

2. arguably, due process/equal protection is being violated because not all people can get the same rights - though homosexuals are not a suspect class (which is harder to discrimminate against) and homosexuals can marry women, though they chose not to, etc.

Finally, the Full Faith and Credit clause pretty much overrides the DOMA - and another state will be forced to accept a sister state's definition of marriage.

Good stuff, Jason. Thanks.

I'm going to be actively arguing with folks who are going to want us to support the ban, and I'm only going to get one shot at this so the more ammo I have the better. Thanks...all of you...for helping me to cover all the bases.:thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

Laugh at the fact that you consider that wench to be a "saint."

She did do so much good for so many. In fact, exponentially far more than you or I will ever do :shrug: So, yes, though she is a human being and had faults, she was as good as she could have been in her faith and billions were better for it. But, I know I know - night day - black white - hot cold - etc. - and I love ya for it :angel:

[strandinthewind]

Good stuff, Jason. Thanks.

I'm going to be actively arguing with folks who are going to want us to support the ban, and I'm only going to get one shot at this so the more ammo I have the better. Thanks...all of you...for helping me to cover all the bases.:thumbsup:

You are more than welcome. Again, in the end, the sole question is is it right for the govt. to push the majorities concept of religious marriage on the minority. The answer must be no because this country was founded on religious tolerance after years of persecution abroad, which lead to the lang. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... .” - here is fairly cool site http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx

GOOD LUCK!!!!

[dissention]

She did do so much good for so many. In fact, exponentially far more than you or I will ever do :shrug: So, yes, though she is a human being and had faults, she was as good as she could have been in her faith and billions were better for it. But, I know I know - night day - black white - hot cold - etc. - and I love ya for it :angel:

Methinks you don't know all that much about that little witch other than what's been regurgitated in the mainstream press about her supposed "good deeds." She's proof positive that religion is what's been wrong with this world since day one. Paint it whatever color you want, but I'm not about to fawn over a single thing that she did.

[strandinthewind]

Methinks you don't know all that much about that little witch other than what's been regurgitated in the mainstream press about her supposed "good deeds." She's proof positive that religion is what's been wrong with this world since day one. Paint it whatever color you want, but I'm not about to fawn over a single thing that she did.

I knew a Sister who worked in her organization and knew her.

But, I guess you are correct, she never tended to the sick, clothed and fed the poor, and inspired no one :rolleyes:

Now, if you want to say religion is a bad thing and through that she hurt people, sure she did.

I am not a fan of wiki - but his is pretty good and seemingly a fair and balanced portrayal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mother_Teresa/Archive3

[dissention]

I knew a Sister who worked in her organization and knew her.

That's nice. Your point?

But, I guess you are correct, she never tended to the sick, clothed and fed the poor, and inspired no one :rolleyes:

We're talking about the stout little witch that praised Gandhi after he suspended civil liberties in India in the mid-seventies. The same witch that took millions upon millons of dollars from people via donations and never once built a single hospital in India, instead her and the Vatican funneled it to missionary work in Africa, while telling the people who donated the money that it was going to build health care facilities in India. I can go on and on if you'd like me to.

Now, if you want to say religion is a bad thing and through that she hurt people, sure she did.

She sure did.

[dissention]

I am not a fan of wiki - but his is pretty good and seemingly a fair and balanced portrayal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mother_Teresa/Archive3

Ha! Bless his heart, Mother Teresa is about the only thing I'll ever really agree with Christopher Hitchens on.

How anyone can call that witch a saint is beyond my comprehension.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Laugh at the fact that you consider that wench to be a "saint."

And I wonder why am I considered the soulless one after such comments as the one above.

[dissention]

And I wonder why am I considered the soulless one after such comments as the one above.

Why? Because you seemingly have no respect for the plights of other people who don't live lives that are as advantageous as your own, as demonstrated by the numerous stements you've made in the past, while probably holding that witch in as high regard as Jason. Show me the hospitals she was supposed to build with all the money that she took. Explain to me why she was praising the state of India after it was stripped of civil liberties. Explain to me why people received such disgusting medical care even though it's estimated that hundreds of millions were donated. Explain to me what she meant when she said that the world is being helped by poor people suffering and accepting it.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Why? Because you seemingly have no respect for the plights of other people who don't live lives that are as advantageous as your own,

Oh Josh please get off that high horse you are on.

What have YOU done to better the world? What have you done that helps you sleep well at night? In your nice, comfortable bed...in your nice warm apartment...and other times sitting in front of your computer day in and day out. Sell the bitch, donate the money to what you consider a worthy charity and go live in a box on the streets somewhere...:rolleyes:

[dissention]

Oh Josh please get off that high horse you are on.

What have YOU done to better the world? What have you done that helps you sleep well at night? In your nice, comfortable bed...in your nice warm apartment...and other times sitting in front of your computer day in and day out. Sell the bitch, donate the money to what you consider a worthy charity and go live in a box on the streets somewhere...:rolleyes:

I see you're incapable of explaining any of those things involving Mother Teresa to me. Big shocker.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I see you're incapable of explaining any of those things involving Mother Teresa to me. Big shocker.

Actually, yes...I am. I have no clue how to answer your questions, because I'm not familiar enough with any of it to comment.

But I still support the "help Josh move into a cardboard box" fund...

[dissention]

Actually, yes...I am. I have no clue how to answer your questions, because I'm not familiar enough with any of it to comment.

Then I'm quite curious as to why you branded my comment "soulless" for calling Teresa a witch when you know so little about her and the things she did.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Then I'm quite curious as to why you branded my comment "soulless" for calling Teresa a witch when you know so little about her and the things she did.

Sweety I knew you never had a soul...long before you ever made that comment about Mother Teresa...

I am bored, that really is the only thing I can come up with at the moment. :shrug:

[dissention]

Sweety I knew you never had a soul...long before you ever made that comment about Mother Teresa...

Ouch. It feels as if you pierced right through me with that zinger.

I am bored, that really is the only thing I can come up with at the moment. :shrug:

It shows.

[JazmenFlowers]

I am bored, that really is the only thing I can come up with at the moment. :shrug:
well don't f*ckin admit it! ahhh! :lol:

sorry hon, gotta laugh at that

[JazmenFlowers]

zinger.
I haven't heard that word in a long time...much less, seen it written...


...makes me think of little debbie cakes

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Ouch. It feels as if you pierced right through me with that zinger.


It wasn't supposed to be...you don't believe in souls...therefore you don't have one. :shrug:

It shows.

As do your 26,000+ posts...

Don't you have something more valuable to do with your time? Like working for PETA, ACLU, save Blondie or some other inane organization? ;)

[dissention]

It wasn't supposed to be...you don't believe in souls...therefore you don't have one. :shrug:

Poor me. Save me. Pray to The Invisble Cloud Being for me.

Don't you have something more valuable to do with your time? Like working for PETA, ACLU

I already work with PETA and the ACLU. I thought you already knew that? ;) Certainly beats reading Coultergeist over and over, and then regurgitating her talking pointsfor no apparent reason.

some other inane organization? ;)

You preaching about inanity is rich.

[JazmenFlowers]

As do your 26,000+ posts...
lol

I often wonder how someone DOES get 26,000 posts in such a relatively short amount of time.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I already work with PETA and the ACLU. I thought you already knew that? ;) Certainly beats reading Coultergeist over and over, and then regurgitating her talking pointsfor no apparent reason.

How on EARTH do you find time...your always...well....HERE! :lol:

But I'm glad they help you rest well at night ;)

[Brwn_eyes0511]

lol

I often wonder how someone DOES get 26,000 posts in such a relatively short amount of time.

*bites* *tounge*...but PMs...;)

[dissention]

lol

I often wonder how someone DOES get 26,000 posts in such a relatively short amount of time.

A big mouth helps. ;)

[markolas]

This is not a very popular opinion around here, but I blame religion (from the Catholic Church on down) for this. I get that some are worse than others and the majority do not advocate violence, but they all demonize gay people and by associating the actions of some gay people and some not even gay people like peds. with all of gaydom. That demonization cannot be handled by many, which leads to people like this fukctard wanting to punish gay people. So, yes, to me, the fault lies with religion and its endless persecution of gay people as if they are the sole cause for suffering in the world.

Don't say "religion" when what you really mean is "Christianity." :)

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Don't say "religion" when what you really mean is "Christianity." :)

It's the Jews I tell you...they started this whole mess! ;) :p

[JazmenFlowers]

A big mouth helps. ;)
lol...

...and we'll leave it at that

[RavenOfRhiannon]

Here is a letter I wrote in 2004 that was published in my local paper:

The other day at the Alliance Hospital, 225 concerned citizens prayed together. That day 1,370 people were murdered in the United States, 86,400 women suffered from acts of domestic violence, 47 people died as a result of alcohol related incidents, and 225 people ‘concerned citizens’ prayed together.
These concerned citizens did not pray for the murder victim’s families. These concerned citizens did not pray for the abused women. These concerned citizens did not pray for the families of the drunken driving victims.
They gathered to pray for the United States Senate to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. This made the front page of the Odessa American; not the victims, not the abused women, not the children who lost parents to drunken drivers.
This is Christian Charity at its worst. Do we really need to spend time and energy denying taxpaying U.S. citizens the rights they deserve?
We keep hearing about the sanctity of marriage being threatened by same-sex couples from the pulpit, the TV and the radio.
Does not Britney Spears’ 55-hour marriage fly in the face of this sanctity? Why are we not organizing prayer for her? What about Jennifer Lopez’ third marriage? How many teenage girls are pregnant and married by 17, divorced by 18?
I don’t understand why two people wanting to make a lifelong commitment and enjoy the more that 1,100 federal benefits this entails more of an affront to marriage than the above mentioned escapades.
I understand churches that teach homosexuality is a sin not wanting to sanctify these unions. They don’t have to. No church is required by law to host or perform a heterosexual marriage; they should not have to do the same for a homosexual one. Catholic Churches to not recognize divorce, but it is recognized by the federal government.
Gay marriage is not about an affront to religion, Christian or otherwise. It is about two people wanting to commit to each other and be able to count on the government to grant the same 1,100 rights that entails.
It is a civil action. The Constitution has historically served to expand liberty and equality by abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote, among other rights. This amendment would mark the first time that a specific group of Americans, namely same-sex couples and their children (yes, many same-sex couples have children) would be singled out and denied rights and discriminated against in the U.S. Constitution. This amendment is nothing more than legislative gay bashing.
Instead of pulling the country together to fight terrorism, and meet our common challenges, our compassionate conservative president has decided to divide our country with a bitter political battle that will drag our Constitution through the mud.
It is interesting that President Bush again called for the amendment during the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. The president said he was deeply disturbed by the ‘activist judges’ in Massachusetts.
On March 12, 1956, 81 members of congress signed a resolution condemning Brown as a ‘clear abuse of judicial power,’ and as part of an alleged ‘trend in the federal judiciary to legislate in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the people.’
Sound Familiar?
Does the 14th Amendment not guarantee equal protection under the law? This is what we are asking for; equal protection. I don’t want to be a second class citizen.
This country was founded upon the separation of church and state. Proponents of same-sex marriage are not asking the church to condone anything they do not want to. We just have to realize that marriage in the church and the marriage license are two different things.
There is a solution for this: change the wording of the marriage license. All licenses should be called civil union licenses. Solely, the church in religious services can use the word marriage. It would grant same-sex couples all the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, and the church could breathe easier.
When you look at all the other problems facing the world, why round up 225 people to pray on this when there are better uses of prayer.

Hope that helps!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Here is a letter I wrote in 2004 that was published in my local paper:

The other day at the Alliance Hospital, 225 concerned citizens prayed together. That day 1,370 people were murdered in the United States, 86,400 women suffered from acts of domestic violence, 47 people died as a result of alcohol related incidents, and 225 people ‘concerned citizens’ prayed together.
These concerned citizens did not pray for the murder victim’s families. These concerned citizens did not pray for the abused women. These concerned citizens did not pray for the families of the drunken driving victims.
They gathered to pray for the United States Senate to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. This made the front page of the Odessa American; not the victims, not the abused women, not the children who lost parents to drunken drivers.
This is Christian Charity at its worst. Do we really need to spend time and energy denying taxpaying U.S. citizens the rights they deserve?
We keep hearing about the sanctity of marriage being threatened by same-sex couples from the pulpit, the TV and the radio.
Does not Britney Spears’ 55-hour marriage fly in the face of this sanctity? Why are we not organizing prayer for her? What about Jennifer Lopez’ third marriage? How many teenage girls are pregnant and married by 17, divorced by 18?
I don’t understand why two people wanting to make a lifelong commitment and enjoy the more that 1,100 federal benefits this entails more of an affront to marriage than the above mentioned escapades.
I understand churches that teach homosexuality is a sin not wanting to sanctify these unions. They don’t have to. No church is required by law to host or perform a heterosexual marriage; they should not have to do the same for a homosexual one. Catholic Churches to not recognize divorce, but it is recognized by the federal government.
Gay marriage is not about an affront to religion, Christian or otherwise. It is about two people wanting to commit to each other and be able to count on the government to grant the same 1,100 rights that entails.
It is a civil action. The Constitution has historically served to expand liberty and equality by abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote, among other rights. This amendment would mark the first time that a specific group of Americans, namely same-sex couples and their children (yes, many same-sex couples have children) would be singled out and denied rights and discriminated against in the U.S. Constitution. This amendment is nothing more than legislative gay bashing.
Instead of pulling the country together to fight terrorism, and meet our common challenges, our compassionate conservative president has decided to divide our country with a bitter political battle that will drag our Constitution through the mud.
It is interesting that President Bush again called for the amendment during the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. The president said he was deeply disturbed by the ‘activist judges’ in Massachusetts.
On March 12, 1956, 81 members of congress signed a resolution condemning Brown as a ‘clear abuse of judicial power,’ and as part of an alleged ‘trend in the federal judiciary to legislate in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the people.’
Sound Familiar?
Does the 14th Amendment not guarantee equal protection under the law? This is what we are asking for; equal protection. I don’t want to be a second class citizen.
This country was founded upon the separation of church and state. Proponents of same-sex marriage are not asking the church to condone anything they do not want to. We just have to realize that marriage in the church and the marriage license are two different things.
There is a solution for this: change the wording of the marriage license. All licenses should be called civil union licenses. Solely, the church in religious services can use the word marriage. It would grant same-sex couples all the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, and the church could breathe easier.
When you look at all the other problems facing the world, why round up 225 people to pray on this when there are better uses of prayer.

Hope that helps!

WOW! Well said Randy. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[DavidMn]

Well, H. W. Bush appointed Souter, and Ford appointed Stevens, and they're two of the most liberal justices...so you can't always go by that.This is true, but done you think that would NEVER happen under this administration. Not with that pitbull Rove around anyway.

[markolas]

This is true, but done you think that would NEVER happen under this administration. Not with that pitbull Rove around anyway.

I'm not sure what Rove has to do with it. These two justices that Shrub has appointed are fascists. In this case, they aren't going to turn out to be liberals or moderates, and you better hope to hell Stevens lives another 3 years.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I'm not sure what Rove has to do with it. These two justices that Shrub has appointed are fascists. In this case, they aren't going to turn out to be liberals or moderates, and you better hope to hell Stevens lives another 3 years.

Well there is always that rat poison! ;) ;) ;)

[DavidMn]

I'm not sure what Rove has to do with it. These two justices that Shrub has appointed are fascists. In this case, they aren't going to turn out to be liberals or moderates, and you better hope to hell Stevens lives another 3 years.That could be. I always thought Rove was the real psychotic wacko of that administration though.

[DavidMn]

Well there is always that rat poison! ;) ;) ;)Yeah, yeah, Yeah. You and your lover Ann....:lol:

[markolas]

Well there is always that rat poison! ;) ;) ;)

You better hope to hell he lives, too. After all, you're a filthy queer just like the rest of us, no matter how many Ann Coulter books you buy.

[DavidMn]

You better hope to hell he lives, too. After all, you're a filthy queer just like the rest of us, no matter how many Ann Coulter books you buy.I'm neat. Some of the time anyway....:rolleyes: :lol:

[markolas]

That could be. I always thought Rove was the real psychotic wacko of that administration though.

I think there's enough to go around.

[DavidMn]

I think there's enough to go around.This is true. Seen one, you seen em all.:lol:

[SomeKindaMother]

That's nice. Your point?



We're talking about the stout little witch that praised Gandhi after he suspended civil liberties in India in the mid-seventies. The same witch that took millions upon millons of dollars from people via donations and never once built a single hospital in India, instead her and the Vatican funneled it to missionary work in Africa, while telling the people who donated the money that it was going to build health care facilities in India. I can go on and on if you'd like me to.



She sure did.


This is a woman who lived her life in poverty, as I’m sure you know. Poverty…by choice. The *only* thing she wanted to do was care for God’s most needy people. You don’t have to believe in God to recognize that sort of dedication. You think she was an accountant? A businesswoman? An activist? No, she never claimed to be. She didn’t even want publicity for herself and took absolutely no credit for any good deed she ever did. I don’t know a thing about money given nor do I care. It doesn’t take one thing away from the good she did. You can think she should have stood up for or against whatever you want. That wasn’t what she felt her purpose was. She just wanted to help individual suffering. If you didn’t do the same, live the same, understand the inner dynamics of what was going on, then you really have little idea of what you’re talking about with your small portion of a distorted story you’ve heard/read.

I don’t intend to get into a debate with you. I have no doubt you are fully capable of tearing me, Mother Theresa, and God all to bits. You don’t revere her, fine. But the fact that you could use such vile descriptions of a person who dedicated her life to the service of others is almost beyond my comprehension. You’ve condemned her for not doing enough? Please.

Kelly :)

[Brwn_eyes0511]

This is a woman who lived her life in poverty, as I’m sure you know. Poverty…by choice. The *only* thing she wanted to do was care for God’s most needy people. You don’t have to believe in God to recognize that sort of dedication. You think she was an accountant? A businesswoman? An activist? No, she never claimed to be. She didn’t even want publicity for herself and took absolutely no credit for any good deed she ever did. I don’t know a thing about money given nor do I care. It doesn’t take one thing away from the good she did. You can think she should have stood up for or against whatever you want. That wasn’t what she felt her purpose was. She just wanted to help individual suffering. If you didn’t do the same, live the same, understand the inner dynamics of what was going on, then you really have little idea of what you’re talking about with your small portion of a distorted story you’ve heard/read.

I don’t intend to get into a debate with you. I have no doubt you are fully capable of tearing me, Mother Theresa, and God all to bits. You don’t revere her, fine. But the fact that you could use such vile descriptions of a person who dedicated her life to the service of others is almost beyond my comprehension. You’ve condemned her for not doing enough? Please.

Kelly :)


:xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

I'm not sure what Rove has to do with it. These two justices that Shrub has appointed are fascists. In this case, they aren't going to turn out to be liberals or moderates, and you better hope to hell Stevens lives another 3 years.

Well, Alito in his first vote voted to stay an execution, which is hardly a conservative position. In fact, he broke rank with Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, which hopefully is a good sign.

[strandinthewind]

Don't say "religion" when what you really mean is "Christianity." :)

Well, no. I mean pretty much all religion. I get that there are a few rouge ones out there that tolerate homosexuality, but they are in the vast minority.

[strandinthewind]

This is a woman who lived her life in poverty, as I’m sure you know. Poverty…by choice. The *only* thing she wanted to do was care for God’s most needy people. You don’t have to believe in God to recognize that sort of dedication. You think she was an accountant? A businesswoman? An activist? No, she never claimed to be. She didn’t even want publicity for herself and took absolutely no credit for any good deed she ever did. I don’t know a thing about money given nor do I care. It doesn’t take one thing away from the good she did. You can think she should have stood up for or against whatever you want. That wasn’t what she felt her purpose was. She just wanted to help individual suffering. If you didn’t do the same, live the same, understand the inner dynamics of what was going on, then you really have little idea of what you’re talking about with your small portion of a distorted story you’ve heard/read.

I don’t intend to get into a debate with you. I have no doubt you are fully capable of tearing me, Mother Theresa, and God all to bits. You don’t revere her, fine. But the fact that you could use such vile descriptions of a person who dedicated her life to the service of others is almost beyond my comprehension. You’ve condemned her for not doing enough? Please.

Kelly :)

I agree. However, you have to understand Dissention - no matter how many people this woman clothed and fed and inspired, he cannot see past any faults and has an overall need to bitch about them - and I love him for it :wavey: :wavey:

[stargazer99]

Well, Alito in his first vote voted to stay an execution, which is hardly a conservative position. In fact, he broke rank with Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, which hopefully is a good sign.

I about fell off my chair when I first heard this! For one brief, fleeting moment, I actually thought to myself "Maybe there is a god afterall..." :)

Based on his past record, though, I'm not holding my breath that this trend will continue.

[amber]

I. But the fact that you could use such vile descriptions of a person who dedicated her life to the service of others is almost beyond my comprehension. You’ve condemned her for not doing enough? Please.

Kelly :)

I'm no expert, but I believe he condemned her for taking millions of dollars in donations ostensibly to help people in India, but really it was funnelled into missionary work in Africa through the Vatican. In other words, if that is true, she lied, lied, stole. Is it still really being of service to someone if you are simultaneously stealing from them and duping the donors who wanted to help?
So, what is her "service to others" ? Are you speaking of her service to the Vatican? Because it looks like that's who she was really "helping".
He wasn't saying she didn't do enough, he was saying she did wrong - ie lie, cheat, and steal, which she did in the guise of religious faith.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I'm no expert, but I believe he condemned her for taking millions of dollars in donations ostensibly to help people in India, but really it was funnelled into missionary work in Africa through the Vatican. In other words, if that is true, she lied, lied, stole. Is it still really being of service to someone if you are simultaneously stealing from them and duping the donors who wanted to help?
So, what is her "service to others" ? Are you speaking of her service to the Vatican? Because it looks like that's who she was really "helping".
He wasn't saying she didn't do enough, he was saying she did wrong - ie lie, cheat, and steal, which she did in the guise of religious faith.

Oh dear lord amber...don't bring this back up! Josh seems to be gone...for a whole 24 hours...can we enjoy...PLEASE?!?!

;)

[amber]

Oh dear lord amber...don't bring this back up! Josh seems to be gone...for a whole 24 hours...can we enjoy...PLEASE?!?!

;)

Enjoy what? Your posts?! :rolleyes:

I like when Josh is here. And I can bring up anything I want, tool.

[SomeKindaMother]

I'm no expert, but I believe he condemned her for taking millions of dollars in donations ostensibly to help people in India, but really it was funnelled into missionary work in Africa through the Vatican. In other words, if that is true, she lied, lied, stole. Is it still really being of service to someone if you are simultaneously stealing from them and duping the donors who wanted to help?
So, what is her "service to others" ? Are you speaking of her service to the Vatican? Because it looks like that's who she was really "helping".
He wasn't saying she didn't do enough, he was saying she did wrong - ie lie, cheat, and steal, which she did in the guise of religious faith.


I understand what was upsetting to him, but my point is the she didn’t ‘take’ anything. She lived in poverty for crying out loud. If people gave money in her name and it was “misused” by the powers that be, then that is a separate issue from her ‘person’. She didn’t campaign for anything. She simply led a beautiful life in service to plagued people that others wouldn’t even touch. I mean she cleaned them....she didn’t just read to them. Sick, stinking people with oozing sores. She did the most disgusting of chores that I’ll bet most of us couldn’t stomach. She let dying people know love and compassion. Her extraordinarily loving and selfless acts are what got her noticed by people. Many of those wanted to donate money. If you believe her name was capitalized on, that’s a separate issue…one which I have no information on or inclination to gather. I personally know someone who went to Mother Theresa’s missions on several occasions to help with the poor and sick. These places *where she lived* are disease ridden and not for the faint of heart. I didn’t try to get you to believe in God, or that Mother Theresa is a saint. You may believe the Vatican, or even all religion is corrupt, but I certainly don’t know where you think you have evidence to vilify her as an individual.

By the way, I think you misunderstood my comment about her being condemned for not doing enough. All the good she obviously did, according to the account I was responding to, not only doesn’t matter, but deems her worthy of condemnation because she didn’t personally account for money people donated to some charity in her name, contact the proper authorities to make sure it all went to the designers, architects, etc. And in her spare time she should have taken on politics. All the woman ever wanted to do was care for those considered worthless and untouchable by the masses. Yeah, a real witch all right. I am really trying to make a valid point…not to be disagreeable for its own sake.


“We can do no great things, only small things with great love.” –Mother Theresa


Kelly :) ....who believes in birth control and is pro choice, pro marriage for all, and still can see past my beliefs to hers....and the phenomenal good in this beautiful woman. She actually lived her beliefs. How many of us can say that?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

“We can do no great things, only small things with great love.” –Mother Theresa




Do you happen to listen to Sara Groves?

[SomeKindaMother]

Do you happen to listen to Sara Groves?


No I don't. I think I've heard of her though. Does she have lyrics with Mother Theresa's quote?

Kelly :)

[Brwn_eyes0511]

No I don't. I think I've heard of her though. Does she have lyrics with Mother Theresa's quote?

Kelly :)

She was inspired to write the song "Add to the Beauty" by that very same Mother Teresa quote...which also became the name of her new album and the overall theme of the album. The quote is placed inside the CD booklet! I was just wondering if you listened to her at all...because it was odd that you chose that quote.

www.saragroves.com

you can listen to some of "Add to The Beauty" at her site. :thumbsup:

[markolas]

Well, no. I mean pretty much all religion. I get that there are a few rouge ones out there that tolerate homosexuality, but they are in the vast minority.

I'm starting to understand how DrummerDeanna felt.

[markolas]

Well, Alito in his first vote voted to stay an execution, which is hardly a conservative position. In fact, he broke rank with Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, which hopefully is a good sign.

When was this? Must've been in his first day on the job.

[Sugar]

Here is a letter I wrote in 2004 that was published in my local paper:

The other day at the Alliance Hospital, 225 concerned citizens prayed together. That day 1,370 people were murdered in the United States, 86,400 women suffered from acts of domestic violence, 47 people died as a result of alcohol related incidents, and 225 people ‘concerned citizens’ prayed together.
These concerned citizens did not pray for the murder victim’s families. These concerned citizens did not pray for the abused women. These concerned citizens did not pray for the families of the drunken driving victims.
They gathered to pray for the United States Senate to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.

I remember when you wrote this. I especially like this beginning.

[amber]

I understand what was upsetting to him, but my point is the she didn’t ‘take’ anything. She lived in poverty for crying out loud. If people gave money in her name and it was “misused” by the powers that be, then that is a separate issue from her ‘person’. She didn’t campaign for anything. She simply led a beautiful life in service to plagued people that others wouldn’t even touch. I mean she cleaned them....she didn’t just read to them. Sick, stinking people with oozing sores. She did the most disgusting of chores that I’ll bet most of us couldn’t stomach. She let dying people know love and compassion. Her extraordinarily loving and selfless acts are what got her noticed by people. Many of those wanted to donate money. If you believe her name was capitalized on, that’s a separate issue…one which I have no information on or inclination to gather. I personally know someone who went to Mother Theresa’s missions on several occasions to help with the poor and sick. These places *where she lived* are disease ridden and not for the faint of heart. I didn’t try to get you to believe in God, or that Mother Theresa is a saint. You may believe the Vatican, or even all religion is corrupt, but I certainly don’t know where you think you have evidence to vilify her as an individual.

By the way, I think you misunderstood my comment about her being condemned for not doing enough. All the good she obviously did, according to the account I was responding to, not only doesn’t matter, but deems her worthy of condemnation because she didn’t personally account for money people donated to some charity in her name, contact the proper authorities to make sure it all went to the designers, architects, etc. And in her spare time she should have taken on politics. All the woman ever wanted to do was care for those considered worthless and untouchable by the masses. Yeah, a real witch all right. I am really trying to make a valid point…not to be disagreeable for its own sake.


“We can do no great things, only small things with great love.” –Mother Theresa


Kelly :) ....who believes in birth control and is pro choice, pro marriage for all, and still can see past my beliefs to hers....and the phenomenal good in this beautiful woman. She actually lived her beliefs. How many of us can say that?


She lived in poverty, but she worked for the Vatican. It's not random higher ups, and it's not that she didn't know where the money went and had no control over it - she had strong religious beliefs, and so she condoned the Vatican taking money from people under false pretenses, in her name, and using it for missionary work instead of what the donors had actually donated it for. (India).
Missionary work is to get poeple in other countries (Africa) christianized. The practice in itself is abhorrent, but when you lie about it, that makes it worse. And when you take money for it in your name, from people who donated that money for India, and don't tell them what it's used for, that is double worse. Christianization is not necessary for any third world countries, food and shelter and education is.
She can have lived her entire life in a cardboard box, or under my nosehairs for all I care - the point is still that she lied for her faith, or helped others to lie about donations. And the money went to the Vatican for christ's sake - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Vatican immensely wealthy already?
Great, she administered to the sick and poor. Curtis and Paula do that every day, too, but they haven't been nominated for sainthood. I get that she helped and comforted people, but the basis of lies leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If you have no information about people who "capitalized" on her name, and no inclination to gather any, then how can you possibly contend that she is blameless? You only know one side as it stands right now.

[snowman]

Biologically speaking - one of the primary purposes for any species (plant or animal) to exist on this earth, is to pro-create- pass on it's off spring so the species will survive. If the ability to pro-create is hindered or stopped, the species becomes endangered or extinct.

So biologically speaking - if gay marriage were sanctioned as a viable, recognized, mainstream institution, then in theory, the human species could become endangered or extinct due to the simple fact that gay marriages do not allow the human species to pro-create/pass on offspring.

[markolas]

Biologically speaking - one of the primary purposes for any species (plant or animal) to exist on this earth, is to pro-create- pass on it's off spring so the species will survive. If the ability to pro-create is hindered or stopped, the species becomes endangered or extinct.

So biologically speaking - if gay marriage were sanctioned as a viable, recognized, mainstream institution, then in theory, the human species could become endangered or extinct due to the simple fact that gay marriages do not allow the human species to pro-create/pass on offspring.

So you think that if gay marriage was legalized, everyone would turn gay? I have no idea why I'm even responding to such stupidity as this.

[amber]

So you think that if gay marriage was legalized, everyone would turn gay? I have no idea why I'm even responding to such stupidity as this.
I was actually wondering if this person mistook the title of this thread for the opposite of what it really is. :confused:
Hey, Snowman - she wants suggestions for arguing against a gay marriage ban.
But even if she didn't, the whole procreation thing is a....singularly ineffective argument given the current population of the world coupled with the imminent or already occuring scarcity of resources.

[heyjupiter678]

Biologically speaking - one of the primary purposes for any species (plant or animal) to exist on this earth, is to pro-create- pass on it's off spring so the species will survive. If the ability to pro-create is hindered or stopped, the species becomes endangered or extinct.

So biologically speaking - if gay marriage were sanctioned as a viable, recognized, mainstream institution, then in theory, the human species could become endangered or extinct due to the simple fact that gay marriages do not allow the human species to pro-create/pass on offspring.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board. And that says a lot.

What does gay marriage have to do with the reproductive ability of heterosexuals?

[DavidMn]

So you think that if gay marriage was legalized, everyone would turn gay? I have no idea why I'm even responding to such stupidity as this.I dont blame you for being hot under the collar, but remember this: You are who you are, dont let someone that makes ignorant statements about people like us change that.:thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

I about fell off my chair when I first heard this! For one brief, fleeting moment, I actually thought to myself "Maybe there is a god afterall..." :)

Based on his past record, though, I'm not holding my breath that this trend will continue.

Me too - well, at least "we" got THAT vote - maybe he will continue in that trend, but I am not holding my breath, though I think his past record is relatively not that bad and it could a whole lot worse. But, time will tell.

[strandinthewind]

I'm starting to understand how DrummerDeanna felt.

Well, it is not a personal thing to you or anyone. I am just citing to facts. And, please do not misunderstand me like I think Deanna and others did. I think religion is a great thing that does great things. I just think the powers to be in almost all organized religion use that true and real great thing as a tool to gain power and then misuse it. Certainly, the Catholic Church has done that with the ped. tragedy. I mean they knew these people were hurting kids and just shuffled them off to another Parish when caught. Then, when called out for that, they equated peds. with gay people because they knew a very significant number of people think all gay people are peds., which no data supports and they knew that. Does that mean all of the Catholic Church is a 100% bad organization? Of course not. I personally think the Church is a wonderful but very flawed and archaic organization as the facts indicate almost all organized religions are. So, what I do is take the good and leave the bad and also try to change the bad in whatever small way I can. But and again, this is not a personal attack on anyone's private religious beliefs unless those beliefs are along the lines of the Church did nothing wrong in the ped. scandals, which I then only point out is factually incorrect. I also think religion is a highly emotional topic for people because their lives are so emotionally involved in organized religion in one way or another and they see that belief crushed by stunts like this. I mean it is a little hard not to call Jerry Fallwell and his ilk prikcs because they are so full of hate and that pulpit hatred hurts people.

I hope that made sense and again, I am just noting facts.

[strandinthewind]

When was this? Must've been in his first day on the job.

It was his first vote, I think.

[DavidMn]

Well, it is not a personal thing to you or anyone. I am just citing to facts. And, please do not misunderstand me like I think Deanna and others did. I think religion is a great thing that does great things. I just think the powers to be in almost all organized religion use that true and real great thing as a tool to gain power and then misuse it. Certainly, the Catholic Church has done that with the ped. tragedy. I mean they knew these people were hurting kids and just shuffled them off to another Parish when caught. Then, when called out for that, they equated peds. with gay people because they knew a very significant number of people think all gay people are peds., which no data supports and they knew that. Does that mean all of the Catholic Church is a 100% bad organization? Of course not. I personally think the Church is a wonderful but very flawed and archaic organization as the facts indicate almost all organized religions are. So, what I do is take the good and leave the bad and also try to change the bad in whatever small way I can. But and again, this is not a personal attack on anyone's private religious beliefs unless those beliefs are along the lines of the Church did nothing wrong in the ped. scandals, which I then only point out is factually incorrect. I also think religion is a highly emotional topic for people because their lives are so emotionally involved in organized religion in one way or another and they see that belief crushed by stunts like this. I mean it is a little hard not to call Jerry Fallwell and his ilk prikcs because they are so full of hate and that pulpit hatred hurts people.

I hope that made sense and again, I am just noting facts.I get it. I've never been offended by what you've said.:thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Curtis and Paula do that every day, too, but they haven't been nominated for sainthood . . . .

I believe they get paid for it (which I am not complaining about as they BOTH owe me cocktails :laugh: ) - I think the point with MT is most think the vast majority of her good work greatly outweighed any accounting BS like this, which I agree should not have been done.

But, others do not think that way.

Finally, the definition of a "saint" is a person who does extraordinary good work within their faith, which she clearly was and did :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Biologically speaking - one of the primary purposes for any species (plant or animal) to exist on this earth, is to pro-create- pass on it's off spring so the species will survive. If the ability to pro-create is hindered or stopped, the species becomes endangered or extinct.

So biologically speaking - if gay marriage were sanctioned as a viable, recognized, mainstream institution, then in theory, the human species could become endangered or extinct due to the simple fact that gay marriages do not allow the human species to pro-create/pass on offspring.

So, why let hetero people who cannot biologically have children marry? Also, marriage has nothing to do with conception from a biological point of view.

Food for thought :shrug:

[snowman]

So you think that if gay marriage was legalized, everyone would turn gay? I have no idea why I'm even responding to such stupidity as this.

From the beginning of time...if gay marriages were the norm...we wouldn't be here, skippy

[strandinthewind]

From the beginning of time...if gay marriages were the norm...we wouldn't be here, skippy

The conclusion from your argument is flawed because not everyone is gay, which it presumes.

[DavidMn]

The conclusion from your argument is flawed because not everyone is gay, which it presumes.That's too bad. The more the merrier I say!:) :lol:

[amber]

I believe they get paid for it (which I am not complaining about as they BOTH owe me cocktails :laugh: ) - I think the point with MT is most think the vast majority of her good work greatly outweighed any accounting BS like this, which I agree should not have been done.

But, others do not think that way.

Finally, the definition of a "saint" is a person who does extraordinary good work within their faith, which she clearly was and did :shrug:

Yes, you are right, she is technically a Saint. I know that.

I guess for me, if that bad stuff is true it would tend to outweigh the good things she did. Plus, in my view, birth control would have helped the poor and sick a lot more, and she was against birth control. Yes, I realize some countries don't take kindly to notions of birth control anyway - but still, MT actively worked against birth control, and I think that is the opposite of helping the poor and sick in third world countries.
It takes a great amount of personal sacrifice, will, strength, and compassion to do what she did, and I admire those qualities.
I would wish that she did not help others at least partially, if not wholly, (which is what I suspect) in service to her religious beliefs.

[snowman]

My intensions in responding to this thread were to look at this controversial issue in an evolutionary sense- not to bash gays.

[strandinthewind]

That's too bad. The more the merrier I say!:) :lol:

And people sure as hell would dress better :cool:

[markolas]

Well, it is not a personal thing to you or anyone. I am just citing to facts. And, please do not misunderstand me like I think Deanna and others did. I think religion is a great thing that does great things. I just think the powers to be in almost all organized religion use that true and real great thing as a tool to gain power and then misuse it. Certainly, the Catholic Church has done that with the ped. tragedy. I mean they knew these people were hurting kids and just shuffled them off to another Parish when caught. Then, when called out for that, they equated peds. with gay people because they knew a very significant number of people think all gay people are peds., which no data supports and they knew that. Does that mean all of the Catholic Church is a 100% bad organization? Of course not. I personally think the Church is a wonderful but very flawed and archaic organization as the facts indicate almost all organized religions are. So, what I do is take the good and leave the bad and also try to change the bad in whatever small way I can. But and again, this is not a personal attack on anyone's private religious beliefs unless those beliefs are along the lines of the Church did nothing wrong in the ped. scandals, which I then only point out is factually incorrect. I also think religion is a highly emotional topic for people because their lives are so emotionally involved in organized religion in one way or another and they see that belief crushed by stunts like this. I mean it is a little hard not to call Jerry Fallwell and his ilk prikcs because they are so full of hate and that pulpit hatred hurts people.

I hope that made sense and again, I am just noting facts.

Well, I just kind of object to the idea that religion in general is this horrible thing, and the religions that aren't are these aberrations. But I guess since I'm a practitioner of one of those "rogue" religions you mentioned, I would have that opinion.

[DavidMn]

And people sure as hell would dress better :cool:Maybe there'd even be hope for me...:rolleyes:

[markolas]

From the beginning of time...if gay marriages were the norm...we wouldn't be here, skippy

Don't call me skippy, asshole.

[strandinthewind]

My intensions in responding to this thread were to look at this controversial issue in an evolutionary sense- not to bash gays.

I did not take it that way and merely pointed out why you conclusion was flawed. Again, you do not have to be married to procreate. To me, marriage is about the love, the bond, etc.

[amber]

Well, I just kind of object to the idea that religion in general is this horrible thing, and the religions that aren't are these aberrations. But I guess since I'm a practitioner of one of those "rogue" religions you mentioned, I would have that opinion.

Aren't there few enough of the awesome religions to technically classify them as aberrations? I can only think of...2-3 awesome ones. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Well, I just kind of object to the idea that religion in general is this horrible thing, and the religions that aren't are these aberrations. But I guess since I'm a practitioner of one of those "rogue" religions you mentioned, I would have that opinion.


Again, organized religion, not religion itself, is the bad thing that hurts people.

Regarding your religion, to wit:

There are many schools, sects and subsects of Buddhism. As with Christianity, no consensus exists within Buddhism about gay and lesbian relationships. Buddhism is most concerned with whether an action is helpful and based on good intentions. This differs from Christianity which often evaluates an action, based on whether it is good or evil; positive or sinful according to a system of morality.

Apparently, the Buddha did not leave any teachings on homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior. He strongly encouraged his followers to "be a lamp onto yourself" -- to examine and test the truth of religious teachings before accepting them.

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

[strandinthewind]

Aren't there few enough of the awesome religions to technically classify them as aberrations? I can only think of...2-3 awesome ones. :shrug:

That cite I posted above goes into that. It should also be noted that even within the Christian Faiths, some sects "allow" it, a la the Episcopal Church.

[strandinthewind]

Maybe there'd even be hope for me...:rolleyes:

Well, the road would be hard and the work long, but you'd make it :xoxo:

[markolas]

Again, organized religion, not religion itself, is the bad thing that hurts people.

I don't think all organized religion is bad and hurts people.

[markolas]

Aren't there few enough of the awesome religions to technically classify them as aberrations? I can only think of...2-3 awesome ones. :shrug:

How are you defining "awesome"? And aren't there only 5 or 6 world religions to begin with?

[strandinthewind]

I don't think all organized religion is bad and hurts people.

The facts do not support you. All the ones I know of , save some sects and perhaps the Buds., of have and continue to do so. But and again, these same organizations do a tremendous amout of good as well. Does that outweigh the bad - who can say.

[amber]

That cite I posted above goes into that. It should also be noted that even within the Christian Faiths, some sects "allow" it, a la the Episcopal Church.
Yes, I was thinking of mentioning the sects - but according to my math, the ratio of "cool" ones (and the criteria isn't solely whether they accept homosexuals or not) to not cool ones would still be such that the cool ones could be defined as "aberrent". And perhaps I could give extra "bad" points to some of the middle eastern religious practices/beliefs? :laugh:

I'll go read your link. That was a good description of the distinctions b/t Christian ity and Buddhism, BTW. :)

[snowman]

I did not take it that way and merely pointed out why you conclusion was flawed. Again, you do not have to be married to procreate. To me, marriage is about the love, the bond, etc.


Marriage obviously does include love, the bond, etc. But in it's bare essence-the main purpose for the institution of marriage is to unite two people who have the capability of propagating offspring. Through the millenium, this allows the species to survive. Gay marriage, does not allow this, because two people of the same sex cannot have children of their own.

No, you don't need to be married to have kids, but you have to be of the opposite sex.

[DavidMn]

Well, the road would be hard and the work long, but you'd make it :xoxo:Thank you. I think when I win th powerball, I'll put you on the payroll as my fasion consultant. Lova ya.:xoxo:

[snowman]

Don't call me skippy, asshole.

Don't call me asshole, skippy.

[amber]

How are you defining "awesome"? And aren't there only 5 or 6 world religions to begin with?
I don't have the exact numbers (especially counting sects) but I would still classify 1 out of 6 as abberant, statistically.

abberant

1. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.

[markolas]

The facts do not support you. All the ones I know of , save some sects and perhaps the Buds., of have and continue to do so.

Wait a minute...you said the facts don't support me, and then you turned around and granted my point. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

. . . No, you don't need to be married to have kids, but you have to be of the opposite sex.

That does not support your argument that marriage should be only for procreation. I mean the cavemen were not married in any sense I can think of and we are here today as a result of that :shrug: In the end, marriage has nothing to do with biological procreation, which was the foundation of your argument. Can marriage be a great way to raise kids. Sure it can. i do not think anyone is arguing against that.

[amber]

Marriage obviously does include love, the bond, etc. But in it's bare essence-the main purpose for the institution of marriage is to unite two people who have the capability of propagating offspring. Through the millenium, this allows the species to survive. Gay marriage, does not allow this, because two people of the same sex cannot have children of their own.

No, you don't need to be married to have kids, but you have to be of the opposite sex.
The purpose of marriage was originally a financial and/or political purpose. At least christian marriage. Even native americans had to pay bride and husband prices. :shrug: People can and do procreate just fine without marriage, so your argument is flawed.

[markolas]

I don't have the exact numbers (especially counting sects) but I would still classify 1 out of 6 as abberant, statistically.

abberant

1. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.

I don't think 1 out of 6 is fair.

[strandinthewind]

Wait a minute...you said the facts don't support me, and then you turned around and granted my point. :lol:

I am pretty sure throught history all religions have fought wars over territory, etc. - thus all are bad in that aspect. I could be wrong though as I do not know everything about all religions on the planet. But, I do know this, to this day, organized religion is still a ruling power and with that power comes bad acts. Thus, my point.

[amber]

I don't think 1 out of 6 is fair.
I just used it because you said "aren't there only 5-6 world religions?" :shrug: It was just an example, although I believe the ratio probably is around that.

[DavidMn]

Boy this thread is sure alive today. Nice to see peoiple give a ****.:)

[strandinthewind]

Thank you. I think when I win th powerball, I'll put you on the payroll as my fasion consultant. Lova ya.:xoxo:

If you win the Powerball, I am going to marry you!

[markolas]

Boy this thread is sure alive today. Nice to see peoiple give a ****.:)

I should be painting, or doing something else constructive.

[DavidMn]

:laugh: I should be painting, or doing something else constructive.when you paint, can I watch it dry?;) Btw when I have dressed up a bit, I've been told I'm actually pretty good looking, for whatever that's worth..:rolleyes:

[amber]

I should be painting, or doing something else constructive.

:laugh:
Me too, homework and errands. It's fun for a bit, though. At least I'm enjoying myself. :p


Hey, which asshole ate my skippy?!?!?

[markolas]

:laugh: when you paint, can I watch it dry?;) Btw when I have dressed up a bit, I've been told I'm actually pretty good looking, for whatever that's worth..:rolleyes:

Well, it's acrylic, so it pretty much dries before the brush even makes it to the canvas. But you can if you want. :shrug:

[DavidMn]

Well, it's acrylic, so it pretty much dries before the brush even makes it to the canvas. But you can if you want. :shrug:You got the joke right? I think

[markolas]

You got the joke right? I think

I don't think I did.

[DavidMn]

I don't think I did.I was just making reference to when you were talking about doing something more constructive today by painting, so I added the watching it dry just for fun. Have you ever heard of the expression I'd rather watch paint dry?

[snowman]

The purpose of marriage was originally a financial and/or political purpose. At least christian marriage. Even native americans had to pay bride and husband prices. :shrug: People can and do procreate just fine without marriage, so your argument is flawed.

Your points are well taken. My argument is flawed........I am an asshole....I give up..............ay carumba.....

[strandinthewind]

Your points are well taken. My argument is flawed........I am an asshole....I give up..............ay carumba.....

Don't get so defensive about being wrong. I often am :laugh:

Also, I realize other people got at you a little, which I think was wrong BTW - though this is a touchy topic and tempers are going to get up a little.

[Sugar]

Frankly, I'm amazed the thread remained civil as long as it did. :shocked:

And it's not as though anyone is mandating gay marriage. That would be the only scenario that would threaten the future of our population as I can see it. But this, of course is one of the arguments. That marriage is for building families and continuing society. Of course:

1) gay couples can adopt,
2) gay couples can have children, just not children that are biologically related to both of them,
3) when I got married, I don't remember having to promise that I would have children.

But, hey snowman, thanks for giving me an opportunity to utilize some of my arguments!

[Sugar]

Apparently, the Buddha did not leave any teachings on homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior. He strongly encouraged his followers to "be a lamp onto yourself" -- to examine and test the truth of religious teachings before accepting them.

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

Are you certain on this one? If so, it's a fab point and one that dovetails nicely with your earlier point about the whole "not establishing one religion" thing in the Constitution.

But I'm sure you knew that...;)

[markolas]

Are you certain on this one? If so, it's a fab point and one that dovetails nicely with your earlier point about the whole "not establishing one religion" thing in the Constitution.

But I'm sure you knew that...;)

He's right. The Buddha didn't mention homosexuality.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Don't get so defensive about being wrong. I often am :laugh:



Christine wants to know...why are they so right when he's so wrong? :laugh:

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8807/mor76jk.jpg

[snowman]

Don't get so defensive about being wrong. I often am :laugh:

Also, I realize other people got at you a little, which I think was wrong BTW - though this is a touchy topic and tempers are going to get up a little.

I'm not being defensive- more like a touch of :rolleyes:

I believe strongly in what I was saying, which btw, was received very defensively and perceived incorrectly, by those who chimed in.

Ah, but it is fun to stir the shti around here..

[Sugar]

I believe strongly in what I was saying, ..

As do we all...


Ah, but it is fun to stir the shti around here..

I do hope this isn't really your attitude.

[SomeKindaMother]

She lived in poverty, but she worked for the Vatican. It's not random higher ups, and it's not that she didn't know where the money went and had no control over it - she had strong religious beliefs, and so she condoned the Vatican taking money from people under false pretenses, in her name, and using it for missionary work instead of what the donors had actually donated it for. (India).
Missionary work is to get poeple in other countries (Africa) christianized. The practice in itself is abhorrent, but when you lie about it, that makes it worse. And when you take money for it in your name, from people who donated that money for India, and don't tell them what it's used for, that is double worse. Christianization is not necessary for any third world countries, food and shelter and education is.
She can have lived her entire life in a cardboard box, or under my nosehairs for all I care - the point is still that she lied for her faith, or helped others to lie about donations. And the money went to the Vatican for christ's sake - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Vatican immensely wealthy already?
Great, she administered to the sick and poor. Curtis and Paula do that every day, too, but they haven't been nominated for sainthood. I get that she helped and comforted people, but the basis of lies leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If you have no information about people who "capitalized" on her name, and no inclination to gather any, then how can you possibly contend that she is blameless? You only know one side as it stands right now.

She worked for the poor, sick, homeless, and dying…not for money OR notoriety. I find it laughable that someone could condemn all her good due to the fact that she didn’t take a stand against an organization she trusted. All she wanted to do was help one single person at a time. A true inspiration since that is something we all can do.

When I have donated to Mother Theresa’s Missions I have never even considered whether it goes to India or to Africa or stays in America. Maybe you think I should be judged for not caring where my donations went or investigating under whose charge it was supposedly ‘misappropriated’.

I know Curtis and Paula help the sick, poor, and dying every day and our world is so much better because of them. It takes a special person indeed to do what they do and I really admire them for it. But be thankful that nobody has nominated them for sainthood now, because they are still very much alive. ;) My mother was a nurse and I know more than I’d like to about some of the things they go through. However, as I said originally, I wasn’t arguing the point that Mother Theresa should be considered a saint…or even that you should believe in religion….hers or otherwise. Just that her good work stands on its own merit and needs no qualification.

Mother Theresa had taken a vow of poverty. While my Mom did countless good deeds through her nursing, she also made good money for it and was glad to get home away from the stress and trauma of the day. Mother Theresa dedicated her *entire life* to doing what only an elite few can do hour to hour.

As far as who ‘capitalized’ on her name. Like I already said, I’m not arguing either side of that issue. Again, the only point I ever had was that the woman is far from a villain….no matter what you choose to believe about any donations. She simply had faith that she was doing her little bit of good….one person at a time.

I said I wouldn’t debate this and I certainly didn’t intend to continue with this at all….let alone this small novel, but I really don’t think you understood what I actually said to begin with. I was never debating about the if/when/where’s of any money. That just wasn't her thing.

Kelly :)

[SomeKindaMother]

She was inspired to write the song "Add to the Beauty" by that very same Mother Teresa quote...which also became the name of her new album and the overall theme of the album. The quote is placed inside the CD booklet! I was just wondering if you listened to her at all...because it was odd that you chose that quote.

www.saragroves.com

you can listen to some of "Add to The Beauty" at her site. :thumbsup:

I'll have to give it a listen. I have a painting with that quote on it. Actually, I had given it years ago to my mom. It's been mine since April. :(

Kelly :)

[SomeKindaMother]

I'm starting to understand how DrummerDeanna felt.

What the heck happened to Deanna?! I was assuming she was on vacation. She is such a lovely, smart, sweet girl and I sure hope she's still around.

Kelly :)

[SomeKindaMother]

I remember when you wrote this. I especially like this beginning.


I meant to say earlier that I also thought this was a wonderful letter. What about sending to papers nationwide??

Kelly :)

[amber]

She worked for the poor, sick, homeless, and dying…not for money OR notoriety. I find it laughable that someone could condemn all her good due to the fact that she didn’t take a stand against an organization she trusted. All she wanted to do was help one single person at a time. A true inspiration since that is something we all can do.


As far as who ‘capitalized’ on her name. Like I already said, I’m not arguing either side of that issue. Again, the only point I ever had was that the woman is far from a villain….no matter what you choose to believe about any donations. She simply had faith that she was doing her little bit of good….one person at a time.
I was never debating about the if/when/where’s of any money. That just wasn't her thing.

Kelly :)
You don't seem to be basing your opinion of MT on all the facts. You only see that she ministered to the sick and poor - not that she lied or was complicit in lying, not that she did so in part to further her faith's and the Vaticans agendas. And you even say you are ignoring the money part.
So, that's fine if those sort of things don't bother you, or if you don't want to believe they are the truth (which you don't seem to).
For me, just the fact alone that she worked against birth control for these countries, and that she worked for the Vatican, and that she lied to donors, leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. If you call it "not taking a stand against an organization that she trusted" I call it "working for the Vatican and helping its agenda and being complicit in lying to donors in the name of her religious beliefs". Which I don't care for.

tomato, tomahto.
:) :wavey:

[SomeKindaMother]

It takes a great amount of personal sacrifice, will, strength, and compassion to do what she did, and I admire those qualities.
I would wish that she did not help others at least partially, if not wholly, (which is what I suspect) in service to her religious beliefs.

Why on earth would you wish that? Even if it were to be wholly true....wouldn't that be the epitome of what religion is supposed to create as opposed to the self-righteous emoters of evil?

If someone condemns anything religious simply because of their opinions of religion, then aren’t they doing the very same thing that every bigot does?

Kelly :)

[SomeKindaMother]

My intensions in responding to this thread were to look at this controversial issue in an evolutionary sense- not to bash gays.

For what it's worth, I did understand what you meant. Maybe you were a bit too succinct. A problem that I unfortunately don't have.

I do believe in marriage for all, though. I have enough kids to keep the world going strong for awhile. :laugh:

Kelly :)

[SomeKindaMother]

You don't seem to be basing your opinion of MT on all the facts. You only see that she ministered to the sick and poor - not that she lied or was complicit in lying, not that she did so in part to further her faith's and the Vaticans agendas. And you even say you are ignoring the money part.
So, that's fine if those sort of things don't bother you, or if you don't want to believe they are the truth (which you don't seem to).
For me, just the fact alone that she worked against birth control for these countries, and that she worked for the Vatican, and that she lied to donors, leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. If you call it "not taking a stand against an organization that she trusted" I call it "working for the Vatican and helping its agenda and being complicit in lying to donors in the name of her religious beliefs". Which I don't care for.

tomato, tomahto.
:) :wavey:

Okay, where did she lie? By negligence? Not doing enough work in the office after she was done helping the suffering?

Do you believe that since India is overpopulated the people should kill their children? To Mother Theresa, promoting the use of birth control would be similar to you or I promoting killing off excess population. You don't agree...and even I don't agree, but she didn't do it to bring harm. It was simply what she believed in her heart as the right thing. Just because you don't agree, how can you condemn her for her beliefs?

:wavey:

Kelly :)

[amber]

Okay, where did she lie? By negligence? Not doing enough work in the office after she was done helping the suffering?

Do you believe that since India is overpopulated the people should kill their children? To Mother Theresa, promoting the use of birth control would be similar to you or I promoting killing off excess population. You don't agree...and even I don't agree, but she didn't do it to bring harm. It was simply what she believed in her heart as the right thing. Just because you don't agree, how can you condemn her for her beliefs?

:wavey:

Kelly :)


If her beliefs aren't beneficial, and if she lied and/or helped those who lie in her name - I can easily condemn her. I don't really care if she thought she was doing the right thing and following her beliefs. Some murderers probably think the same thing. (and no, I am not comparing her to a murderer - I am saying just because someone believes something is right, doesn't make it right). It was her beliefs that were problematic as well as helpful.
Like I said in a previous post, I admire the strength of will, stamina, compassion it takes to do what she did. Her intent doesn't make her actions and the results of her actions excusable (to me).

I found these snippets if you are interested. :shrug:


"Lots of organizations have been doing work in India, many indigenous organizations. For what Mother T. did, she received the lion's share of the publicity and funding from overseas by relatively wealthy Western contributors (including the stock market thief, Keating, who gave her millions he had stolen from investors). The point is that there were many organizations of charity in India doing more work than hers. They were ignored while she was recently beautified by the Pope. I told you about the Bofal plant explosion that killed many from cyanide gas, Mother T. sent a few sisters and they all arrived late, and they didn't do anywhere near what the other organizations did, yet she rec'd even there, the lion's share of the publicity. Moreover, Mother T. used her publicity to argue against birth control in INDIA of all countries (soon to be the most populous nation on earth, and soon to surpass China in population.)"


Question:"Annica: It is possible her organisation has been blown out of proportion and all that. But that is certainly not Mother Theresa's fault but the sensationalism of the press! They need something sensational to write about.

Answer: ED: Yes, they do. But I want to know where all the money went that she kept collecting, and why she constantly kept asking for more and more before she had spent much of what she already had collected. And why she refused to return the money that have been gained via thievery (Keating).

Here's another:


Exposing Mother Teresa
Reveiw by John M. Swomley

One of the interesting books published in 1995 debunks the myth of Mother Teresa, who has been unjustly built into a near-saint by the media. She has been virtually untouchable as an almost sacred figure. and anyone who dares to criticize her is promptly rebuked.

The book is The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory And Practice, by Christopher Hitchens (Verso, London and New York, 1995) $12.95. Hitchens aired a documentary on her in England and has investigated her activities.

He questions her Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 because she never did anything for peace. In fact, in her acceptance speech she said, “Abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace... Because if a mother can kill her own child, what will prevent us from killing ourselves or one another? Nothing.”

Wherever she goes this is her constant message. In 1992 at an open air mass in Knock, Ireland, she said, “Let us promise our Lady who loves Ireland so much, that we will never allow this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives.” She obviously sees no connection between poverty and too many children.

In one interview cited in the book, she was asked, “So you wouldn’t agree with people who say there are too many children in India?” She said, “I do not agree, because God always provides. He provides for the flowers and the birds, for everything in the world He has created. And those little children are his life. There can never be enough.”

One of Mother Teresa’s volunteers in Calcutta described her “Home for the Dying” as resembling photos of concentration camps such as Belsen. No chairs, just stretcher beds. Virtually no medical care or painkillers beyond aspirin, and a refusal to take a 15-year-old boy to a hospital. Hitchens adds, “Bear in mind that Mother Teresa’s global income is more than enough to outfit several first class clinics in Bengal. The decision not to do so... is a deliberate one.

The point is not the honest relief of suffering, but the promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjection.”

Then Hitchens notes that Mother Teresa “has checked into some of the finest and costliest clinics and hospitals in the West during her bouts with heart trouble and old age.”

The author mentions her visit to Haiti and her endorsement of the Duvaliers, the source of much deprivation of the poor in Haiti. Also, her acceptance of stolen money from Charles Keating, “now serving a ten-year sentence for his part in the savings and loan scandal.” Keating, a “Catholic fundamentalist”, gave Mother Teresa one and a quarter million dollars and “the use of his private jet.”

During the course of Keating’s trial, Mother Teresa wrote Judge Ito asking clemency and asked Ito “to do what Jesus would do.”

One of the prosecutors in the trial wrote her telling her “of 17,000 individuals from whom Mr. Keating stole $252,000,000.” He added, “You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart--as he sentences Charles Keating--and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience.” The prosecutor asked her to return the money, and offered to put her “in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession.”

This supposed paragon of virtue never replied to his letter.

No one knows what happens to the millions of dollars Mother Teresa receives. There is no accounting and no evidence that she has built a hospital or orphanage that reflects modern health and sanitary conditions.

Hitchens details the reactionary political activities of Mother Teresa, from aiding the Spanish right wing against the anti-Franco forces who were seeking a secular society in post-Franco Spain, to her visits to Nicaragua and Guatemala to whitewash the atrocities of the Contras and death squads.

There is much more in this book, such as letters from former workers with Mother Teresa exposing her hypocrisy. Hitchens concludes his 98-page book with reference to her fund-raising for clerical nationalists in the Balkans, her endorsement by Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition, and her “cover for all manner of cultists and shady businessmen.” His last sentence is, “It is past time that she was subjected to the rational critique that she has evaded so arrogantly for so long.”

John M. Swomley serves American society in various capacities, a major one being a Jeffersonian advocate of separation of church and state.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1168

[SomeKindaMother]

If her beliefs aren't beneficial, and if she lied and/or helped those who lie in her name - I can easily condemn her. I don't really care if she thought she was doing the right thing and following her beliefs. Some murderers probably think the same thing. (and no, I am not comparing her to a murderer - I am saying just because someone believes something is right, doesn't make it right). It was her beliefs that were problematic as well as helpful.
Like I said in a previous post, I admire the strength of will, stamina, compassion it takes to do what she did. Her intent doesn't make her actions and the results of her actions excusable (to me).

I found these snippets if you are interested. :shrug:




**If** being a key word here, wouldn’t you say? Or is she automatically guilty by accusation and assumption? I know exactly what you are saying. “Just because someone believes something is right, doesn't make it right.” Exactly. Think about that for a minute.

I did read your snippets and appreciate that you took the time to post them. I found it very interesting. Although it doesn’t change my opinion, it does educate me to things I’d never heard before. Maybe it could be compared in a very slight way to a certain stevie scandal of late. One in which she was defended by a very compassionate, smart and dear fan of hers around here with the following post….


QUOTE:
I am beyond finding Stevie hypocritical, really. Do I wish she hadn't done it? yeah, probably. But Stevie has never, ever, ever, struck me as political, or even thinking about politics, or anything like that. I don't expect her to take hard lines, and base her career on her political social beliefs, at least not to a huge extent. I've always thought of her as the girl who loves to perform, and may take up random causes and charities, and sing for them, but is a largely apolitical performer.
In fact, I've always thought of Stevie as being very savvy as far as her career goes, and I've also thought of her as the kind of person who shoots from the heart, whatever whim her heart may have at that moment, but while doing so, always having an eye on not pissing anyone off. And I don't mean that in a bad way, I just think Stevie doesn't really, really, really care about the minutae of politics all that much. She's kind hearted, she's a good person, but above all she is a singer and performer, and I think that is most of what she cares about. So indeed I am pleasantly suprised when she does charitable things, b/c she's never given us any intimation that she is politically involved. And when she has sung for "causes", heck - I just get the feeling the girl likes to sing, and will do so whenever she can, and super bonus if it's for a cause.
And I think that's fine.
Remember, Stevie is the girl who can work with people, rock and roll guys, sing with anyone, and who was good with the media like no other band member was. She was the media darling, still is, and still works that way for the band and herself, as she always has.
She has people skills, and people skills don't always go with strong political stances. Besides the fact that I honestly believe she HAS few strong political stances.

END QUOTE:


Change the names, occupations… some details…and you have pretty much the jist of what I’ve been saying about Mother Theresa. Perspective is really quite relative. :xoxo:

Anyway, I give. I don’t have it in me to do these drawn out debates that accomplish nothing. I don’t have the consistency here to do it even if it were to accomplish anything. I simply felt it was unfair to let the original biased description lie undefended.

:wavey:

Kelly :)

[amber]

Those two things aren't comparable at all. If you can read that MT helped Papa Doc, and Charles Keating, and took in huge amounts of money and never built a single orphanage with it, helped whitewash atrocities and death squads of the contras, had a chance to return stolen money to those it was stolen from and did not return it, had her homes for the dying compared to concentration camps,
and compare that to me saying that I don't expect Stevie to be very political because she's a singer - than perhaps we don't really have anything to debate. Stevie is apolitical, MT worked specifically for bad political groups. And you say "seems to be true" - well, someone wrote a whole book on it, and it appears to be very well researched. Stevie is a singer, MT supposedly dedicated her life to helping the sick and poor.
I'm sorry, no offense intended, but to draw parallels between MT's death-and-evil- supporting transgressions, her stealing of tons of money - and Stevie performing at a batmitzvah is so specious as to be ludicrous. And if those horrible things MT did don't change your opinion about her, then there is really nothing more to be said. If knowing she did those things doesn't change your mind, then nothing will.

[SomeKindaMother]

Those two things aren't comparable at all. If you can read that MT helped Papa Doc, and Charles Keating, and took in huge amounts of money and never built a single orphanage with it, helped whitewash atrocities and death squads of the contras, had a chance to return stolen money to those it was stolen from and did not return it, had her homes for the dying compared to concentration camps,
and compare that to me saying that I don't expect Stevie to be very political because she's a singer - than perhaps we don't really have anything to debate. Stevie is apolitical, MT worked specifically for bad political groups. And you say "seems to be true" - well, someone wrote a whole book on it, and it appears to be very well researched. Stevie is a singer, MT supposedly dedicated her life to helping the sick and poor.
I'm sorry, no offense intended, but to draw parallels between MT's death-and-evil- supporting transgressions, her stealing of tons of money - and Stevie performing at a batmitzvah is so specious as to be ludicrous. And if those horrible things MT did don't change your opinion about her, then there is really nothing more to be said. If knowing she did those things doesn't change your mind, then nothing will.


Hell, I could write a book about anything I choose. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be biased. You reference one book and expect me to have a sudden revelation of your truth? If I were to believe books written about Mother Theresa, well then I’d have to believe she were a saint wouldn’t I? Why are you so quick to believe all evils rather than good? If someone who cared for individuals like Mother Theresa can be judged in such a harsh fashion, then I suppose there is no hope for any of us.

I didn’t ever say that I supposed anything was true. I do appreciate having some new information to *research* and discover for myself what I believe. There is usually always more to the story, and the author certainly seems to have a one sided perspective no matter how well ‘researched’ it appears. By the way, there were many missions. I’m sure the worst of the lot was chosen for this particular description. If someone is hellbent on an agenda, they’ll keep searching till they find what they are looking for. Believe it or not, I do try to be open minded. But it doesn’t mean that I will take what you posted at face value without looking into it further. You couldn’t expect me to, could you? Otherwise you’d have to do the same with me if I were to post thousands of links or snippets about her inspirational life and good works, writings, etc. But I imagine your mind is pretty well made up and no matter WHAT I were to say or post or refer you to would change your mind now would it? In your mind it seems, religion is evil, therefore anyone who does ANYTHING in the name of religion is evil as well.


It takes a great amount of personal sacrifice, will, strength, and compassion to do what she did, and I admire those qualities.
I would wish that she did not help others at least partially, if not wholly, (which is what I suspect) in service to her religious beliefs.




And yes, the parallels are relative since my contention is that Mother Theresa was just doing her thing….just as Stevie was doing her thing. Maybe they found themselves in the middle of improper situations around them, but all they wanted to do was help and bring comfort to others. You are still making and/or believing accusations that I consider unfounded or at the very least exaggerated, so my comparison is far from ‘ludicrous’. The sentiment is the same.

You win. I’m outmatched and I knew it from the beginning. Doesn’t mean I think you’re right or that I expect you to think I’m right. Just that you are a lot more experienced at ‘dueling’ than I and I’m throwing in the towel. You are a fair and qualified, albiet hasty opponent and no, you didn’t ever offend me personally.:wavey: :wavey:

Kelly :)

[foxyluva]

Im sorry to jump in the middle of all this - but why is such a big issue for Americans? For the life of me i can't understand why, if there is a seperation of church & state like there supposidly is, then why can't gay couples be married? Nobody is forcing the churches to take on this type of marriage.

I guess coming from NZ it has never been an issue :shrug: