Although I disagree with the archbishops interpretation of DOMA as someone that
support same sex marriage I have no problem with the catholic chapel not
allowing gay marriages in its facilities and/or the catholic priest (or any
other Chaplin whose religion does not support same sex marriage) not conducting
such services provided they do not stand in the way of other religions and
judges that support same sex marriage from doing so in other venues.
I'm telling! BO will fix this.
As a gay man I have to ask "WHY IS THIS NEWS?" Here's another
NEWSFLASH: Temple marriages won't be performed in the West Point chapel either!!
I don't know of any gay couple who wants to get married in ANY religious
building that doesn't support them. Honestly, why would I want to marry someone
I love in a place full of hate & misunderstanding and total lack of
It is unclear from the article whether or not the chapel in question is
Government property or the property of the Catholic church.If
Catholic ministers (or other ministers) won't marry gay couples in their own
facilities, fine. However, if the properties are government owned, they need to
be available to all couples regardless of orientation.Honestly, I
don't understand why any gay couple would want to be married in/by an
organization that doesn't accept them fully anyway.
I never imaged the Catholic Church would allow the marriage of any same sex
couple in any of their facilities. I don't see why the story is news. It's
just business as usual.
That is their right. I commend them for sticking up for what they
believe.Again, freedom is a great thing.Keep up the good
@worfviewing your comment in context of all the comments around it pretty
much tells the story. It clearly reflects far more poorly on you then those that
support gay marriage.
Having grown up in upstate New York, I've been to West Point and the chapel in
question. It seemed like a reasonably attractive and peaceful edifice. I guess
it must be full of hate because the individuals who officiate in the chapel
believe that it is wrong to perform same-sex weddings.By that
reasoning, all gays and their supporters who believe that any religion that
opposes same-sex marriage is wrong are full of hate. Because, of course, it's
impossible to disagree with someone without hating them.
Hooray!I am glad this made it in the news. Based on the comments
claiming this doesn't matter, just proves that to them it does matter.Hooray!
'Based on the comments claiming this doesn't matter, just proves that to them it
does matter.' - Chris B | 11:25 a.m. Oct. 6, 2011 Kinda like how
you complain homosexuals are all 'in your face' about it... but you
see no contradiction on posting on every. Gay. Story. On the DSNews Chris? I guess it's fine when YOU get all 'in their business.'
Want another example of this Double Standard? Missouri executive
order 44, October 27, 1838. 'Again, freedom is a great thing?'
@ Longfellow: Actions speek louder than words. Even for religious
organizations. Do you really think that Fred Phelps and his group are acting in
a Christ like manner when they protest carrying the signs they carry? How about
when a religion actively does all it can to limit the rights of a group? HOW is
that acting out of love or understanding? When you read the comments on this
site said directly to gay people HOW is that love?@ Chris B: It
DOESN'T matter because marriage is a LEGAL contract between two people, the
CEREMONY is the religious aspest of the union. A marriage is just as legal and
binding whether it is performed in a church, synogogue, Justice of the Peace's
office or Mountain top. So really it doesn't matter.
@Pagen;You're preaching to the choir (both cymrul & I are
gay).@Chris B.Truly, it doesn't matter that *some*
churches won't marry us. There are enough of them that will that those who
won't are losing business (member migration - religion is all about the
money).What matters is that religion can do whatever they want - but
government recognition (of our marriages) is for ALL of us, not just those who
Pagan: I will say it very nicely but yes one can hate the sin but love the
sinner. The thing is everyone that has lived on this earth EXCEPT one has
sinned and will sin. The only perfect person was Jesus Christ.Just
because my son makes a mistake and is punished for it doesn't mean I don't love
him. Homosexuality is a grievious sin as noted by prophets old and modern.
Nothing in this has changed. Just as an sexual relations outside of marriage
between man and woman is a grievious sin as noted by prophets old and modern.
Whether I agree with your lifestyle or not doesn't mean I hate you.
Disagreement doesn't mean hate. I can show to you just as I can to anyone but
just because I don't agree with you, I'm a hater. Because I am a member of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, my beliefs mean I hate you by your
standards. Yet, that is as far from the truth as anything. Our Heavenly Father
loves every man woman and child on earth. However, he does not stand for any
violations of his commandments.
Because he won't stand for anyone violating his commandments is why he gave his
only begotten Son, to die for each of our sins. The problem is that we must
accept Christ as our savior, repent of our sins, be baptized in HIS Church and
then do all of the earthly ordinances. Then we must endure to the end. That
means trying to perfect our lives here on earth. That is the most difficult
thing we can do. He isn't a respecter of persons so everyone who does what is
indicated above has the same opportunity. Our failure to do so will lead us to
a less than perfect manision in the kingdom of God.You don't believe
this nor do you even consider this. That is your perogative but in the end it
is all that matters.
'The straight kid was being bullied and harassed day after day by the gay kid,
who kept telling him he was in love with him even though he knew the straight
kid was straight and even after he was asked to stop.' - Chris B | 12:22 p.m.
Oct. 6, 2011 So, this is enough reason to shoot him twice in the
back of head? 'I love you' is grounds for murder? 'I
can show to you just as I can to anyone but just because I don't agree with you,
I'm a hater.' - Bill in Nebraska | 12:21 p.m. Oct. 6, 2011 While
previously... 'Pagan: I will say it very nicely but yes one can hate
the sin but love the sinner.' - Same Your claims of love would be
more convincing Bill... if you did not insult me, by calling me a
sinner while you did it. What even makes you think I am LDS? If not, shouldn't you respect non-LDS enough not to insult them? Apparently, my message of tolerance is lost. As others use
justification for murder and inult others while claiming love. Thank
you, Bill & Chris for giving reason to support gay marriage.
All sorts of cultures and religions have prohibitions on behavior. If I don't
believe in someone's religion I am tolerant enough to appreciate the cultural
differences. If condemning homosexual behavior as part of a moral code is
hateful, then is condeming someone's condemning also hateful as well as
@Bill in Nebraska;Fiction & Fantasy isn't the rule of law, my
friend. Just because some hairy old men wearing moth-eaten potato sacks
"declare" something is such-and-such doesn't make it so; it just
indicates that they've managed to keep just enough of their wits about them to
be able to speak (maybe).Bringing superstition into the debate
indicates that you don't have any rational arguments.
This story has motivated me to contribute again to Pro-Family and Pro-Marriage
political groups, which correctly realize that killing babies is wrong and two
dudes living together are just two dudes living together.Great job
West Point Catholics!Thanks for making this a great day!
@ Cris B.If it's "just two dudes living together" then what is
the big deal if they have a legal contract in the form of a marriage
certificate? I could say the same thing sbout a man and a woman living
together. If it's no big deal then why all the uproar?
here is what I have frequently noticed on thread about this issue Chris B. You
always try to make as inflammatory and/or provocative a statements as you can
get away with as early on in a story as you can. Even when the previous post
prior to your first few comments today all generally expressed either support or
acceptance of the archbishops position you felt the need to start up with the
same rhetoric you always do. It is like a strange obsession for you.
Bill in Nebraska, HIS Church,defined.To Gods elect(Church, 1588
eklektos ), exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been CHOSEN according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to
be obedient to Jesus Christ..(1 Peter 1:1-2).For he chose us in him before
the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he
predestined us for adoption to sonship] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with
his pleasure and will(Ephesian 1:4-5). God chooses His Church.
George-meet Pagan.Pagen--meet cymrulIt's your right to feel as
you do. I'm not hateful for not understanding or accepting it, though I would be
upset if my son had a P.E. coach or Boy Scout leader who shared your views.We have a president victimizing homosexuals while urging citizens to
covet their neighbors wealth. That's causing bitterness and is decaying of our
society. Its my right to dislike that without being villainized.
Pagan,Bill's post did not include any assumptions about you. In
context, those points simply refereed to a full understanding of HIS belief
system. With so many labeling the LDS Church membership as 'haters', then he was
commenting on what LDS belief was for the sake of showing that he doesn't hate
you, despite believing that your acts are sinful.If I were to say
'your actions are immoral, therefore making you an immoral person' would that be
politically correct enough? Where does it end? Bill simply referred to your
practices according to LDS doctrine, he did not label you with anything harsh.
The only label used was no more harsh or inappropriate than calling Bill a
"member" of the LDS church. So while you accused him of making
assumptions. His comments were without and yours were full of assumptions about
him.If any label is an obvious assumption and inappropriate it's
when LGBT persons label LDS members as "haters". This attack promotes
fear, attacking, and hatred.Why condemn "sinner" yet never
"haters"?You always speak of 'double-standards' on here.
Well that is one of them. I don't hate gays at all. I simply believe in free