Need help arguing against a gay marriage ban

[SomeKindaMother]

Originally Posted by amber

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]

Originally Posted by snowman

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.

Kelly

[SomeKindaMother]

Originally Posted by amber

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.

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?



Kelly

[amber]

Originally Posted by SomeKindaMother

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?



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.


"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]

Originally Posted by amber

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.

**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.

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.



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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by amber

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.

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