Need help arguing against a gay marriage ban

[markolas]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

You got the joke right? I think

I don't think I did.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by markolas

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]

Originally Posted by amber

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. 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]

Originally Posted by snowman

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by Sugar

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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

[snowman]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by snowman

I believe strongly in what I was saying, ..

As do we all...

Originally Posted by snowman

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

I do hope this isn't really your attitude.

[SomeKindaMother]

Originally Posted by amber

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]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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.

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]

Originally Posted by markolas

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]

Originally Posted by Sugar

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]

Originally Posted by SomeKindaMother

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.