Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Lodi resident questions political newsletter and Mass at Catholic Church

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, November 12, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 7:01 am, Sat Nov 12, 2011.

Once a Catholic, Robert Smith returned to church on Oct. 30 for several reasons — he says he wanted to enjoy a Mass while praying for his family and friends. He attended Mass at St. Anne’s Catholic Church that day because his mother wanted to renew ties to Catholicism.

But Smith, a 10-year Lodi resident, was disappointed by the Mass because he believed the homily delved too much into politics, particularly the touchy subject of gay marriage.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

107 comments:

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:08 pm on Wed, Dec 7, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated...Your assumption in knowing when I am being silly and when I am serious is laughable. Good one, Darrell. (chuckle)

    Very good point! It is very difficult to determine when in actuallity you are serious or humorous... to be more clear, what I should have said was... that when it “appears”that you are attempting to be serious, it is humorous. Thank you for catching that one! That does make a big difference.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:22 am on Wed, Dec 7, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "Thank you klee... but really, humor is so easy when all one has to do is read anything you post... espcially when you attempt to be serious."

    Your assumption in knowing when I am being silly and when I am serious is laughable. Good one, Darrell. (chuckle)

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:22 am on Wed, Dec 7, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Thank you klee... but really, humor is so easy when all one has to do is read anything you post... espcially when you attempt to be serious.

    Your assumption in knowing when I am being silly and when I am serious is laughable. Good one, Darrell. (chuckle)

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:50 pm on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Thank you klee... but really, humor is so easy when all one has to do is read anything you post... espcially when you attempt to be serious.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:25 pm on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Awww... how cute... you're giving humor a try. Keep at it. It does a body good...especially at your age. LOL

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:29 am on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Klee stated...Oh, no! I'm crushed!


    hummm.... of course... and you said I was fragile... LOL

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 8:12 am on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "Actually, I was not trying to be funny... I really think of you that way."

    Oh, no! I'm crushed!

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:41 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated...At least you are "trying" to be funny, Darrell. You're not there yet, but keep on trying. Personally, I think your funny bone must have been removed long ago

    Actually, I was not trying to be funny... I really think of you that way.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:39 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Hey, I bet my Palin impression is better than yours! LOL!

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:38 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    At least you are "trying" to be funny, Darrell. You're not there yet, but keep on trying. Personally, I think your funny bone must have been removed long ago.

    Uh oh... I better be careful or you and ol' Patty will start calling me nasty names again. Yikes! ~^~^~shivers~^~^~

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:14 am on Sun, Dec 4, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated...Just because you cannot converse well with him, and disagree with his opinions, does not make him the one that is unreasonable and narrow-minded.
    Then Klee stated as a reflection of Mr Sunderson's comment...( "Mr. Baumbach, your posts are impossibly imbecilic.") ...”This is a common occurrence”.In other words, Klee confers that she thinks my posts are commonly imbecilic)

    Klee... you are an equivalent to a flea owning stock in an itch cream company....LOL
    It is interesting that you can so easily play the hypocrite but have no clue that you are.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:58 am on Sun, Dec 4, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated...: Obviously Warner Sunderson is very intelligent. Just because you cannot converse well with him, and disagree with his opinions, does not make him the one that is unreasonable and narrow-minded.

    Yes Klee, I'm sure he does “appear” to be intelligent to “you”... that is a given... and no, I can easily converse with him, but I prefer not to when he attempts to control and dictate the parameters of the conversation and what he considers fact.
    I think it is very unreasonable to state that rights should not be afforded a group of people because the particular group's did not have innate cause of action. For example, affirmative action rights are given to certain groups ( minority groups) . These rights are given even though they were not born with this problem. To state that Muslims and various groups should be denied their rights just because you disagree with their behavior is narrow minded in my view. In 1960, homosexuality was considered a deviant behavior by many psychologists. I am sure Mr Sunderson would object to that characterization back then and now. I'm sure that he would consider that kind of thinking narrow minded as I would now. Unfortunately, he is not narrow minded about one group but is on another .

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 9:44 pm on Sat, Dec 3, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Warner Sunderson wrote, "Mr. Baumbach, your posts are impossibly imbecilic."

    This is a common occurrence.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 9:41 pm on Sat, Dec 3, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "From my perspective, you are unreasonable and narrow minded"

    Darrell: Obviously Warner Sunderson is very intelligent. Just because you cannot converse well with him, and disagree with his opinions, does not make him the one that is unreasonable and narrow-minded.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:03 pm on Sat, Dec 3, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Sunderson stated...Mr. Baumbach, your posts are impossibly imbecilic. You have absolutely no grasp of the issues...

    Coming from you,all I can say is “thank you so much” I would have been concerned had you said something constructive as that would be off track for you.

    Please help me out since I do not grasp the issues...

    1. Civil marriage has nothing to do with churches. ( What did I state that would indicate that I do not understand civil marriage and the church)?
    2. Where did I state that polygamy is not innate because some people practice it?
    3. You stated...We all drive cars; this does not infer that driving is innate... This is Kindergarten Speak... Why would you think such a silly statement was needed? I did not infer polygamy was innate... I said it is you that think unless something has a study that states something is innate, you do not think “rights” should be afforded that group.

    This is what I meant by any discussion with you is worthless as only you have the ability and authority to determine fact. From my perspective, you are unreasonable and narrow minded

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 12:34 pm on Sat, Dec 3, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Mr. Baumbach, your posts are impossibly imbecilic. You have absolutely no grasp of the issues. Civil marriage has nothing to do with churches. Polygamy is not innate because some people practice it. We all drive cars; this does not infer that driving is innate. You have not addressed Mr. Paglia's claims. You have not addressed my statements either. The only point you've established is the one six inches above your eyes.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 12:42 am on Sat, Dec 3, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "Leave the church out of the argument"

    The church involvement is the argument here. The church injected itself into this head on by going out into the community to vote to deny their fellow Americans their equal rights. The church should stay out of it.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 6:46 pm on Fri, Dec 2, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    I see that Darrell still cannot address the issue. I'm not surprised. People like Darrell keep bigotry alive and well in this country. Ironically... Darrell would be the first to scream foul if he were the one on the receiving end of those votes to deny him his equal rights.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:23 am on Fri, Dec 2, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    In Singapore, Muslims are legally permitted to practice polygamy in accordance to Islam

    I guess that means Mr sunderson believes that these people should be jailed as there is no study he can find that shows polygamy is innate.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:12 am on Fri, Dec 2, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Who supports poligomy that Mr Sunderson wants to discriminate against...

    http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/bustupinbountiful/studies.html

    A $150,000 study commissioned by the Justice Department and Status of Women Canada, looking at the legal and social ramifications of polygamy, was released January 13, 2006. Four papers make up the study. Two papers come to different recommendations about polygamy and the law.

    One study recommends that Canada legalize polygamy. The paper was done by three law professors at Queen's University in Kingston. The paper argues that a Charter challenge to Section 293 of the Criminal Code banning polygamy might be successful. The study also argues that Canadian laws should be changed to better accommodate the problems of women in polygamous marriages, providing them with spousal support and inheritance rights. (read the study: Expanding Recognition of Foreign Polygamous Marriages: Policy Implications for Canada)

    1. Many Muslim people support poligomy... Many Muslim men have more than one wife and dearly love and adore their partners. Sharia Law says it is appropriate. Mr Sunderson wants to discriminate again these Muslims who are in loving relationships.
    2. Legalising polygamy has been repeatedly proposed and discussed in the Russian Duma, or parliament  In  Islamic regions of Russia, men argue that polygamous marriage is traditional and will encourage men to take greater responsibility – thereby alleviating poverty and improving "moral" education. Mr Sunderson again, wants to discriminate against these people because he cannot find a study that supports this contention.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:07 am on Fri, Dec 2, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Caroline Humphrey , who specialises in the anthropology of communities on the edges of the former Soviet Union, has spent much of her career studying the Buyrat people who live north of the Mongolian border in Siberia. Humphrey says that anthropologists slowly build a deep knowledge and understanding of a place and culture, but nevertheless, her discovery that there is a polygamy lobby.
    "Friends of mine in Siberia told me that their friends were lobbying parliament to legalise polygamy," she says. "I always knew that there were men who like the idea of polygamy, but what I found fascinating was that women were also in support." http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/27/polygamy-study-russia-central-asia … of course if Mr Sunderson was the judge, he would discriminate against these people as well.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:49 am on Fri, Dec 2, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Provincial Attorney General, Oppal, would have happily continued to ignore the polygamous business in Bountiful except for the fact that the Attorney General of Utah, Mark Shurtleff, came calling on him in late November demanding that something be done, as girls as young as 13 years of age have been crossing the border from Utah into Bountiful to be married off to much older men. Another troublesome issue is that some of the polygamous wives in Bountiful have begun to complain about their treatment and their lack of consent to their "marriage" arrangements. Also, young men have been ejected from the Community in order to avoid a competition for young wives with the older leaders in the community.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:47 am on Fri, Dec 2, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    POLYGAMY AROUND THE CORNER... http://www.childbrides.org/canada_REAL_polyg_around_the_corner.html

    REAL Women of Canada - (Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life)

    Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, and Liberal MP, Tom Wappel, were ridiculed during the same-sex marriage debate last spring when they claimed that the same-sex marriage bill would lead to demands for the legalization of polygamous unions. It turns out, however, that they were right on the mark.

    Same-sex marriage in Canada has only been legal for about six months, but already the demands for polygamy have been creeping out from the dark shadows and are gradually moving onto centre stage. The issue will soon be before the courts in BC.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:23 am on Fri, Dec 2, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Sunderson stated... current marriage laws discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation...
    Church does not make law.... legislators do. Leave the church out of the argument and do not expect the church to do something that their religion says is inappropriate. If the legislators decided to deprive rights to a group of people, go after these politicians. Domestic partner laws increased and improved rights to domestic partners but there are still differences between a couple married in church and a domestic partner that registers with the state.
    I think it is inappropriate to force the church to agree with this political issue when to them it is a moral issue. So attack the legislators and leave the church alone. Unfortunately People like Mr Sunderson fan the flames of bigotry agaist the church as evidenced by observing attitudes like Klee.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:46 pm on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Warner Sunderson: You make some great points. Unfortunately, those that support denying their fellow Americans their equal rights are not much interested in trying to explain their position. How could they? Their position is indefensible.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:42 pm on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: Again, you try to divert the issue and discuss what you think of me personally because you cannot address the real issue.

    It's sad that the church would defile a beautiful Sunday Mass by encouraging parishioners to go out and vote to deny their fellow Americans their equal rights. No one should be allowed to cast a vote to deny someone his or her equal rights in this great country. Everyone in this country is free to think whatever they like about someone else's race, age, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation, but they may not deny them their rights. Let's see if you can handle addressing the real issue, Darrell. I'll bet you just want to continue to call me names. That happens when you can't speak on the actual issue....you do it all the tme.


     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 9:51 pm on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Mr. Paglia, current marriage laws discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation, an immutable characteristic that is not chosen and can not be changed. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation. To the best of my knowledge there is no qualified or respected researcher or medical/psychological association making the case for polygamy in this regard. If you can post a link which cites reputable studies identifying polygamist as a sexual orientation, you should do so. Continuing to repeat a baseless claim will not further the discussion.

    The link you posted to bolster your position that churches were being faced with lawsuits in an attempt to force them to perform same-sex marriages made no such claim. One church which was renting a facility to the general public was sued because it discriminated. The church can discriminate against its own members all it wants. It can deny membership all it wants. When it begins doing business in the public square, it may not discriminate. Again, please post a link to confirm your claims that churches are being denied their first amendment rights or your argument is invalid.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:25 pm on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    K lee stated...Going by Darrell's definition it looks like we're all bigots.

    then Klee stated...Sounds like you.

    Klee... obviously if you think dictionary.com definition of bigot sounds like everyone... I am part of every one... right? so of course "YOU" would think that...

    Me... I think it does not sound like anyone but you ... you are a church bigot who cannot understand what the church does. Your bigotry blinds you to reality. Maybe you should try going to church and see for yourself... you need experience.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:58 pm on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote...
    :big·ot [big-uht] Show IPA noun
    a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion
    -----------------------

    Sounds like you.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:55 pm on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "You take the stance that the church wants to deny rights when in fact they are simply teaching what they perceive is moral"

    Hello? The church does want to deny rights? That’s the problem.

    The church may teach whatever they like to their parishioners! And, of course, the parishioners can sit in the pew and listen and agree with whatever they like as well.

    You can also believe that g a y people should not have the same rights as you, Catholics or anyone else that you feel are morally superior to g a y people. However, no one (you or the Catholic Church) should EVER be allowed to cast a vote in this free country of ours to deny the equal rights of our fellow Americans. It’s immoral, unethical, illegal and unconstitutional. It should NEVER happen.

    Thank goodness many people are starting to see the light and support equal rights for g a y people. Maybe some are finally putting themselves in their place and realizing that they too would not want their own rights denied due to race, age, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation.

    We the people… NOT… We the heterosexual young white Catholic male people without a disability…

    You may believe and teach this in your own home, Darrell, but this country is better than that and I support those that deserve the same equal rights as every other American in this country. God forbid that someone like you is ever allowed to deny the rights of a fellow American based on race, age, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation.



     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:03 am on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    .Sorry Klee... it is not my definition... it is at dictionary.com...and yes... your stance is very bigoted against the church... no doubt....

    You take the stance that the church wants to deny rights when in fact they are simply teaching what they perceive is moral... in your view, the church is bigoted and desires and encourages its members to harm others by suppression of what you perceive are "rights". Therefore, you have an erroneous understanding of what the church does and in your bigoted view cannot possibly understand their actions and intent as loving. Your bigotry blinds you Klee.


    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
    big·ot   [big-uht] Show IPA
    noun
    a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 6:10 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "now when it comes to cats, democrats who do interns and liberals... you are very tolerant and not bigoted at all..."

    You can try to put me down and change the subject all you want, Darrell, but the question remains... Why would anyone support the church in encouraging and supporting their parishioners to go out into the community to vote down the equal rights of other Americans? It's unfortunate that you cannot answer the question, but I am not surprised.


     
  • Kim Lee posted at 5:58 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell's definition... "bigoted = utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"

    Going by Darrell's definition it looks like we're all bigots.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 5:53 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: You are incorrect.

    This is the definition from Merriam Webster...

    Bigot; a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    This is the definition from Wikipedia (a favorite of yours)...

    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, age, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.
    ---------------------------------

    So, Darrell, I guess you're calling me a bigot because I take issue with bigotry and prejudice. Well done, genius.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:55 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated... The letter is about the church, Darrell. And I'm still waiting on your reasons why you called me a bigot.

    I can read Klee... your statements are bigoted against “the church”... you address yourself as if you are reasonable, but you are not in any way when it comes to church.... now when it comes to cats, democrats who do interns and liberals... you are very tolerant and not bigoted at all...


    bigoted = utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. ... in my opinion, this fits you to a TEE often when morals of the church are made and you post comments

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:10 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Kevin wrote, "I am also advocating the right of religious pursuit by allowing churches/religious institutions who have an issue with gsame-sex marriage to not be forced to act against their beliefs."

    I would never ask a church to accept anyone. It's their right to deny anyone acceptance into their church. I just wonder why they are so selective in which "sins" (what they consider a sin) warrant all the time and money to go out into the community to vote to deny equal rights.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:01 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798


    Kevin wrote, "Adultery and divorce laws are not common now in the US..."

    Is being "common" a good reason to deny others their rights? I think not.

    Divorce and adultery are sins... sins that hurt a lot of people. So why do you think the church does not work to make laws against such sins, as divorce and adultery, yet spends time and money on denying the marriage of g a y couples... the marriage between two devoted and committed people in love?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 12:50 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Kevin wrote, "Aside from abortion, social justice and anti-war are also very big issues the catholic church deals with in the political world."

    Staying close to this topic and addressing issues surrounding sex and the church...

    Do you wonder why the church does not put the same time and money into going out into the community to make laws against divorce and adultery along with their quest to stop g a y people from their equal right to marry?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 12:43 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Kevin wrote, "I am actually advocating for equal civil marriage status for ALL. I am also advocating the right of religious pursuit by allowing churches/religious institutions who have an issue with gsame-sex marriage to not be forced to act against their beliefs."

    So you're for equal rights for g a y couples, right? Then how can you support the church in encouraging and supporting votes to deny these Americans their equal rights?

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:22 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    Aside from abortion, social justice and anti-war are also very big issues the catholic church deals with in the political world.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:13 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    K Lee, if you look back at my postings you will see that I am actually advocating for equal civil marriage status for ALL. I am also advocating the right of religious pursuit by allowing churches/religious institutions who have an issue with gsame-sex marriage to not be forced to act against their beliefs. (see posting at 4:17 pm on Wed, Nov 23, 2011)

    Adultery and divorce laws are not common now in the US but Abortion is and the Catholic Church spend millions trying to protect the live of the unborn children.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:53 am on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "The problem is not the church if rights are limited..."
    and "...your judgment Klee."

    FYI... The letter is about the church, Darrell. And I'm still waiting on your reasons why you called me a bigot.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:50 am on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Kevin wrote, "My previous post was used simply to show the hypocrisy of those who scream for g a y rights while still denying polygamists rights. I also think you knew that but wanted to take another swipe at a church you blame."

    A church I blame? Not sure what that means. I am more interested in hearing and understanding your views and stand on why you support the Catholic Church, that you agree with, in voting against your fellow Americans... Americans that want nothing more than the freedoms you enjoy every single day.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:44 am on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Kevin wrote, "The Church accepts and loves everyone, but behavior that is sinful has always been lobbied against."

    When was the last time the Catholic Church tried to get a law passed to make divorce illegal? How about their work on adultery laws? How's that going?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:39 am on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Kevin wrote, "The Church accepts and loves everyone, but behavior that is sinful has always been lobbied against."

    We could go into a lot of ugly things regarding the Catholic Church and sinful sex, but I'll stick with the topic at hand.

    It is unfortunate, and should be illegal, for a church to encourage the parishioners to go into the community and vote against the equal rights of other Americans. Like I said... it is unethical, immoral and quite frankly not a Christian thing to do in my opinion.

    Kevin, you and your spouse should not be allowed or encouraged to vote to deny others their right to the same equal rights that you enjoy. It is not a good reason to deny others their rights because you think it's a sin for same sex couples to marry. You can be against g a y people all you want, but you should never be able to deny them their rights. There should never even be a vote for such a thing.

    Should we allow any religious group, organization or church to encourage and support the denial of equal rights to any segment of society they choose? I say, no! How about you?

    Your reasons for denying others their equal rights should be a heck of a lot better than ... those who scream for g a y rights still deny polygamist's rights. What kind of reason is that, Kevin?

    So, let me get this right... you support the denial of equal rights to other Americans because you disagree with the sexual relationship they choose in marriage and that polygamists are denied their marriage(s). Is that right? If not, please explain.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:07 pm on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Kevin... your last post articulated what I was thinking but was not able to say.... thank you!


    Klee stated... Would you be just as "happy" if your rights were reduced to less than what other Americans enjoy in this country?

    Just the opposite... The rights were expanded, not reduced... I also thought it was appropriate since the state passed legislation to improve rights. They left the church out of it. The problem is not the church if rights are limited, the legislators could fix the problem... the church should not be involved with rights... that is the job of the courts and elected officials. I think your blatant bigotry clouds your judgment Klee.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 3:21 pm on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    Actually, K Lee, I'm sure you know that the catholic church believes that homosexual behavior is a sin and thus does not support or promote it. The Church accepts and loves everyone, but behavior that is sinful has always been lobbied against. I could go through the litany of behaviors that I have heard the Church stand against, but that would be a waste of space. (although one interesting one was the military using an island as target practice endangering all the wildlife living there)

    My previous post was used simply to show the hypocrisy of those who scream for g a y rights while still denying polygamists rights. I also think you knew that but wanted to take another swipe at a church you blame. So why don't you explain why the rights of Polygamists should be DENIED after g a y rights are granted?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:40 pm on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    So, that's the excuse, Kevin? You say polygamists are denied rights so g a y people should be denied too? That sure is a backward way of trying to explain why the Catholic Church encourages its parishioners to deny others their rights.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:24 pm on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    And yet the rights of Polygamists are denied by the very same who argue for G a y rights.

    I guess it IS ok for the majority to deny the rights of some Americans.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:47 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "Its a shame that people like Klee have to show bigotry against the church. The church should be able have follow what they perceive is a moral issue. Klee wants to label the church as bigots when it is she that is one herself. The legislators can give the same rights through its registry as anyone who is married in a church. The presure should be on the politicians to make law... not the church to change their morals..."

    Oh boy... here comes Darrell and his favorite thing... name calling. So, now you call me a bigot. How am I a bigot, Darrell?

    Like I said... The Catholic Church can believe whatever they like, they have rights (interesting eh?), but the majority should never be allowed to prevail in a vote against other Americans in denying them their equal rights. And the Catholic Church encourages their parishioners to go out and vote against other Americans in an attempt to make sure they do not have the same equal rights as every other American. This is sinful, unethical, and immoral and for the well being and freedom for all of us it should be completely illegal!

    There should never have been a vote to deny Americans their equal rights. It's simply wrong. They should be stopped from trying to keep fellow Americans, they deem unworthy, from their rights as an American in this country.

    Many will turn away when this discussion comes up. They don't like to confront it head on with anyone that disagrees with their choice to deny other Americans their rights. You are not a true American if you choose to support denying a certain segment of society their equal rights. And that's a hard view to defend.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:06 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "I was very happy when California, enacted in 1999, domestic partner laws. As of 2007, California gave domestic partnerships most of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law."

    Would you be just as "happy" if your rights were reduced to less than what other Americans enjoy in this country? It's appalling that people continue to believe that it is okay for their fellow Americans to be allowed to enjoy only "most" of the rights they deserve. You should not be allowed to make that decision against another human being. The majority does not get to vote to deny a segment of society their equal rights. What a pathetic show of support for the suppression of your fellow American neighbors, friends and relatives.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:50 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "I would imagine Mr Sunderson is very comforting to you... he defines the parameters, defines what is fact and dictates one must meet his requirements for any valid discussion to take place... yes... I imagine that is very reassuring and pleasant to you since you enjoy that structure and prerequisites. How nice to win an argument before the debate begins. I admire Mr Sunderson's technique as it shows he has debate experience... control the parameters and define what fact is and the debate is already over. I decided not to play his game... that's all."

    Comforting? That’s a weird conclusion. Well, Darrell, everyone has the right to decide whom he or she will debate here on the boards. Obviously Mr. Sunderson has more class and higher standards than I do as I continue to converse with you. And yes I respect him for it. Oh, and no one has ever accused me of having structure... LOL!

    P.S. If you think you do not try to control these board debates and force your parameters on others you are kidding only yourself.


     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:48 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Continued....

    (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Below are the rights domestic partners have now no matter what the church believes... any domestic partner can get these rights ...the forms to do this are at... http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/forms.htm


    Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
    Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
    Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
    Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
    Sick care and similar family leave
    Stepparent adoption procedures
    Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
    Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
    Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
    The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
    Access to some survivor pension benefits
    Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
    The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
    The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
    Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
    The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
    The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage
    The right to claim inheritance rights as a putative partner (equivalent to the rights given to heterosexual couples under the putative spouse doctrine) when one partner believes himself or herself to have entered into a domestic partnership in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.
    From Wikipedia above...

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:45 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated...If the church wants to deny the rights of g a y people then they should do it in their church where their bigotry and suppression belongs and not out in the community where ALL Americans should be treated equally and have the same equal rights.

    I was very happy when California, enacted in 1999, domestic partner laws. As of 2007, California gave domestic partnerships most of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law.

    Its a shame that people like Klee have to show bigotry against the church. The church should be able have follow what they perceive is a moral issue. Klee wants to label the church as bigots when it is she that is one herself. The legislators can give the same rights through its registry as anyone who is married in a church. The presure should be on the politicians to make law... not the church to change their morals...

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:18 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated...And God forbid someone (Well said Warner Sunderson @ 7:09pm Nov 25th) lays it out for you, spelling it out quite clearly

    I would imagine Mr Sunderson is very comforting to you... he defines the parameters, defines what is fact and dictates one must meet his requirements for any valid discussion to take place... yes... I imagine that is very reassuring and pleasant to you since you enjoy that structure and prerequisites. How nice to win an argument before the debate begins. I admire Mr Sunderson's technique as it shows he has debate experience... control the parameters and define what fact is and the debate is already over. I decided not to play his game... that's all.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 12:11 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Kevin Paglia: It is your right to believe that “homosexual BEHAVIOR is a sin”. You have the freedom of religion and your religious beliefs are up to you. However, I believe, along with millions of others, that you may not go out into the community and decide which of your fellow Americans get to enjoy the same equal rights as you and your spouse. Isn’t there anything in that behavior, of denying others their equal rights, that sounds sinful to you?

    A g a y couple that is married cannot be considered promiscuous adulterers just because they’re g a y. A g a y couple can be just as monogamous as any heterosexual couple. Are you going to tell me that there are only a few heterosexual people that are promiscuous adulterers? Come on now. G a y couples do not give in to the “desires of the body OVER that of soul” any more than heterosexual people/couples.

    Kevin… You said, “I have stopped hanging out with fellow men who I have discovered cheat on their wife.”

    I say… GOOD!

    You also said, “It is my belief that civil/religious marriages between whomever, man and woman, same sex, multiple spouses is acceptable IF, and that is a big if, churches who disagree with the behavior are not forced to accept/recognize/participate in those marriages. I believe this is the ONLY compromise that would work in today's society.”

    I agree with you there, Kevin. The church should stay out of g a y marriage. If the church wants to deny the rights of g a y people then they should do it in their church where their bigotry and suppression belongs and not out in the community where ALL Americans should be treated equally and have the same equal rights.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:42 pm on Mon, Nov 28, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Warner Sunderson posted at 7:09 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011....

    "I was not addressing you Mr. Baumbach and was taking for granted a standard intellectual proficiency on the part of Mr. Paglia, which seems to befuddle you. I agreed with him on the fact that some researchers believe long term monogamy may not be a natural human inclination. I stated as medical/scientific fact (as opposed to religious dogma or ancient belief) that sexual orientation is an immutable human characteristic. I also stated that immutable human characteristics are not behaviors or societal institutions. I have full faith in Mr. Paglia's ability to comprehend this. I stated that the highest form of legal protection is a constitutional amendment, another fact. If you would like to enter this discussion, Mr. Baumbach, or take issue with the facts, you will need to state your position and be prepared to back it up. If your only desire is to bark, growl, or whine from the sidelines, you will be ignored."

    Very well said, Mr. Sunderson.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:40 pm on Mon, Nov 28, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Kevin: You do get your information from other sources besides Catholic.org, right?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:36 pm on Mon, Nov 28, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: You go off on people, attack and follow them around on every thread posting "no comment" because you disagree with the comments and views. You are so challenged by conversation and debate that your frustration comes through loud and clear in your angry posts. And God forbid someone (Well said Warner Sunderson @ 7:09pm Nov 25th) lays it out for you, spelling it out quite clearly, in that they won't take your bullsh!t and you start in with the ol' whining again. Poor you, Darrell... you are befuddled again.

    I anticipate your next bark and grunt. LOL!

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:50 pm on Sat, Nov 26, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated...Yes, Darrell, it would be wise for you to sit this one out.

    of course.... when someone insists on setting the ground rules and parameters to discuss a topic... and when this same person defines what facts are or no valid discussion can take place, it is wise to sit it out as any discussion is automatically invalid and meaningless from the beginning.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:50 pm on Sat, Nov 26, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Over and out...

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:50 pm on Sat, Nov 26, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    *Just in case you missed it.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:49 pm on Sat, Nov 26, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    ATTN: BARBARA WELLS

    A re-post for you. Just in case she missed it. Maybe you preferred to ignored it... I don't know.

    Barbara Wells wrote, "K Lee Homosexuality is not a race nor is it a gender."

    So... What's your point?

    Is that your only guideline for discrimination?

    Barbara... Is it okay with you to discriminate against someone because he or she is a homosexual as long as you don't discriminate due to his/her race or gender? Is it being a good Christian to you to go out into your community and cast votes against g a y people so they do not get to enjoy the same rights as you? Is it your moral obligation to make sure they do not have the same equal rights as you and I?

    Seriously... What is the church so afraid of?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:44 pm on Sat, Nov 26, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Quick post... (Ugh... Can't help it! LOL!)...

    No matter what the Catholic Church thinks about g a y people they should not be encouraging their parishioners to go out en masse and vote to suppress the rights of others. The g a y people the Catholic Church ( and other churches) want to suppress are not harming anyone. They are living their personal lives and want to make the adult decision to marry. The church needs to stay out of it. Two consenting adults that desire marriage should not even register with the church unless these couples are trying to force the church to bless and sanction their marriage. And in that case I would not agree that the church has to accept their marriage. The church has that right, but for the church to head out into the community to vote to keep another human being from the same legal and equal rights they have in this country is completely unethical and immoral in my opinion. The church can think whatever they want, but when the church tries to suppress other law-abiding adults because they do not follow the doctrine of the church, they have crossed the line. Shame on the Catholic Church (and others) for this shameful "behavior".

    Okay, gotta run now. Be back later.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:20 pm on Sat, Nov 26, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Yes, Darrell, it would be wise for you to sit this one out.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:20 pm on Sat, Nov 26, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    I don't have much time to post but a quick comment at the moment, but just wanted to add that I look forward to reading more from Warner and Kevin on this topic. It's very interesting when thoughtful intelligent people disagree and can bring their views and opinions to the table in a respectful manner.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:25 pm on Sat, Nov 26, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Sunderson stated...I was not addressing you Mr. Baumbach and was taking for granted a standard intellectual proficiency on the part of Mr. Paglia,

    Then Mr Sunderson stated... If you would like to enter this discussion, Mr. Baumbach, or take issue with the facts, you will need to state your position and be prepared to back it up.

    Oh my, let me see... I must follow Sunderson's protocol, rules, regulations and mandates or participation is banned. I did not realize Lodi News Sentinel was owned , operated and managed by Mr Sunderson. Since Mr Sunderson is the “fact” dictator and participation is conditional in recognizing that what he says is indeed fact, I think ignoring Mr Sunderson is an appropriate to do.
    As far as barking and growling that you mentioned. I'll leave it to you to continue in that way.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 10:44 am on Sat, Nov 26, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    Mr Sunderson: While I agree the Constitution is very strong protection it is NOT untouchable. Look at the second amendment. While we still currently have the right to bare arms that right is slowly being whithered away. More restrictions and more laws slowly making the legal ownership of a gun harder and harder.

    In fact, in US history there have been many amendments that have been repealed. http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html

    I would argue that a polygamist lifestyle is as genetically ingrained in humans as the homosexual lifestyle. Monogamy is a sacrifice we make as a demonstration of love for the "one".

    There have already been a couple lawsuits to "force" a church/religious institutions to go against their religious beliefs in regards to the same sex marriage issue. http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=25762

    It is not going to be an all at one time lawsuit. It will come in increments. most likely it will start with forcing churches to make their facilities available.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 8:42 am on Sat, Nov 26, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    I appreciate your query, Ms. Wells. For a brief and easily readable overview of the topic:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
    There is an extensive list of scholarly works cited at the end of the article for further reading.

    If you would like a Christian perspective, I highly recommend the documentary, For the Bible Tells Me So, which explains the biological origins of sexual orientation alongside discussion by various theologians. You can watch it in six parts on youtube:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxM8AJgbjYM&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL77159E76ECD5DEDA

     
  • barbara wells posted at 10:16 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011.

    barbara wells Posts: 25

    Warner, could you please refer me to a web site, book, article, etc. that proves that homosexuality is innate? That it is an accepted scientific fact that people are born that way?

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 7:09 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    I was not addressing you Mr. Baumbach and was taking for granted a standard intellectual proficiency on the part of Mr. Paglia, which seems to befuddle you. I agreed with him on the fact that some researchers believe long term monogamy may not be a natural human inclination. I stated as medical/scientific fact (as opposed to religious dogma or ancient belief) that sexual orientation is an immutable human characteristic. I also stated that immutable human characteristics are not behaviors or societal institutions. I have full faith in Mr. Paglia's ability to comprehend this. I stated that the highest form of legal protection is a constitutional amendment, another fact. If you would like to enter this discussion, Mr. Baumbach, or take issue with the facts, you will need to state your position and be prepared to back it up. If your only desire is to bark, growl, or whine from the sidelines, you will be ignored.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:03 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Sunderson stated...Mr. Paglia, we can not have a valid discussion unless we can agree on basic facts up front.

    So confusing. First a statement that a valid discussion cannot take place until facts can be agreed upon. Then Mr Sunderson has a discussion that by his defition is invalid. Can you please articulate clearly which are the absolute facts that need to be agreed upon before your last discussion becomes valid. In addition, there seems to be subjective opinion as to exactly what is a fact. Just because Mr Sunderson says something is fact does not mean it is.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 5:15 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Mr. Paglia, we can not have a valid discussion unless we can agree on basic facts up front.

    First, you have stated that you want a lawsuit-proof clause paired with laws that would extend marriage equality to same-sex couples. There is no protection more iron clad than a constitutional amendment and you already have that. To my knowledge, there have been no successful lawsuits brought by any couple against a church who refused to marry them. Although Loving vs. Virginia struck down marriage laws that discriminated against interracial couples, many churches at the time, and a few still today, refuse to wed interracial couples. Lawsuits have not forced them to do so. The first amendment seems to be working quite well.

    Your posts are rife with confusion between immutable human characteristics (gender, sexual orientation, race, eye color, height, etc.), behavior, and cultural constructs. Being straight is not a behavior. Being g a y is not a behavior. Being black is not a behavior. In a society moving towards equality, law abiding people should not be deemed second class citizens and excluded from civil institutions enjoyed by the majority because of an innate human characteristic, wouldn't you agree? Marriage bestows the status of family where none existed before and is a stabilizing force in society.

    I agree that monogamy is thought by some to be a cultural practice and not a natural behavior. These same people believe the natural state to be more akin to serial monogamy; and we see this all around us in our friends and neighbors and in celebrities from Newt Gingrich to Elizabeth Taylor. Our current laws allow for this, and it seems those worried about the collapse of monogamy as a societal norm would be working to outlaw divorce, not denying marriage rights to monogamous couples. Polygamy is not the opposite of monogamy, but a cultural construct in societies and religious groups where women are second class citizens. Polyandry and other family constructs have their own cultural basis. We get to decide as a society which cultural institutions we will promote and which we will discourage. Once that is decided, we must allow equal access. It seems silly that you mention the LGBT community's distaste for polygamy as if it was a big surprise. I imagine that the vast majority of interracial couples would say they do not support polygamy as well--does that surprise you too?

    I have no idea what women's rights and assisted suicide have in common or how it relates to law by degrees. Being opposed to a law which bestows equal rights because some other disenfranchised group of law-abiding citizens might then hope for equality as well is a worry held only by bigots. Extending equality is not about accepting "fringe behavior." You seem to be implying that any law which grants new freedoms or extends equality is a slippery slope to armageddon. If we change the legal speed limit from 55 back to 60 or 70 mph like it was in the past, then next year or the year after, we will allow people to drive at 150 mph. Is that more like it? Honestly, it seems like you are simply afraid of change and/or lack faith in citizens' ability to govern themselves. I think those are normal fears, Mr. Paglia, but they are not a good enough reason to deny civil rights to minorities.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 2:26 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    Warner: I have had these same discussions here before so let me summarize.

    referring to Paragraph 2: It is currently the right of a church to refuse to marry someone. but as we have seen many times in our society, lawsuits are abused to both make a buck AND to make a point. I simply want a lawsuit proof clause so churches aren't forced through lawsuits to do something against their beliefs.

    Third Paragraph: Many, MANY people believe monogamy is NOT a natural state for mankind. Search "Is monogamy natural" and you will find all sorts of articles and reports and justifications there. IF one group, homosexuals, are going to argue that people should be allowed to marry who ever they love without discrimination and with the same rights as heterosexuals, then the very same argument MUST be made for polygamists using the very similar arguments.

    I do find it interesting how the GLC, who argue for the right to marry who they love are almost always AGAINST the very same right for polygamists.

    Finally to address the law by degrees. Several years ago when euthanasia was a hot topic in Oregon the proponents of it cited the same rights granted to women to justify assisted suicide. Laws may not be by degrees but they do set precedence which can then be used to expand on new laws. Look at the increasing MPH laws on our freeways.

    I don't think it will happen over night but as actions become acceptable then more fringe behavior seems more acceptable. I am simply offering a solution that allows for the rights of all, not just the groups I believe in.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 12:46 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Mr. Paglia, I am going to assume that by "homosexual BEHAVIOR", you are referring to LGBT sexual activity, and you would include monogamous same-sex partners legally wed in their church as sinful on a par with a philandering husband. Is that correct?

    You also seem to be concerned that churches might be forced to wed same-sex couples. What is the basis of your worry? The first amendment allows your church to discriminate against anyone it chooses provided it does not do it with tax payer monies. Churches routinely refuse to marry divorcees, people of other faiths or no faith, and in some cases, even people of different races. It is their right.

    Finally, I was surprised at your comment that if same-sex marriages were to be accepted, then polygamy must also be accepted. First, there seems to be some confusion about what constitutes sexual orientation. People are born g a y; no children are born with the innate desire to be a concubine or part of a harem. As well, you seem educated enough to realize that all laws are permission by degrees. We allow 16 year olds to drive; that does not mean that we must allow 15 year olds, 3 year olds, the blind, or dogs to drive. It seems not only perfectly reasonable but ethically required to extend marriage equality to any two people of appropriate age who wish to wed.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 4:17 pm on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    K Lee: I believe that homosexual BEHAVIOR is a sin. I place it in the same category as adultery and promiscuity. That is giving into the desires of the body OVER that of soul. Truth be told I do hold adulterers as significantly more undesirable for me to associate with. I have actually had a few g a y friends over the years. One of my classmates at my 20 yr reunion had gone through a sex change operation she was met with the same love and compassion everyone else was met with. I have stopped hanging out with fellow men who I have discovered cheat on their wife.

    In terms of marriage, this is a tricky part. I do not think that churches (collective) should have the power to dictate social standards. But on the other hand society should not be able to force it's standards on churches. It is my belief that civil/religious marriages between whomever, man and woman, same sex, multiple spouses is acceptable IF, and that is a big if, churches who disagree with the behavior are not forced to accept/recognize/participate in those marriages. I believe this is the ONLY compromise that would work in today's society. It ensures the rights of the "to be married" are met AND the rights of the "we think it is a sin" groups are met and protected.

    And to be clear, if same sex marriages are to be accepted then multiple spouse marriages HAVE to be as well under the same reasoning.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 3:01 pm on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Kevin wrote, "I do recognize and accept the rebuttal that not everyone thinks homosexuality is a sin. But then some people think cheating on their spouses is not a sin as well."

    Kevin: Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?

    I know this particular argument will go on long after you and I are dust, but it is something that I believe needs to be discussed out in the open. This includes holding church leaders accountable for what they tell their parishioners. And those that insist on stopping others from their equal rights need to be held accountable.

    Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, do you believe that g a y people should be barred from their right to be married? Also, do you believe that the Catholic Church is right to go out into the community to vote against homosexual marriage laws?

    As the good Catholic I believe that you are I am interested in your views.

    Also... Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 2:16 pm on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    K Lee, I have been taught by my Catholic Church TO accept everyone and that everyone is a child of God and thus deserving of all the compassion, love and acceptance God calls us to.

    But there is a difference between accepting the person and accepting the behavior. The Church teaches that adultery is a sin as well, but those that commit adultery are not banished from the church. The phrase I have always been taught in my Catholic church education is "hate the sin, love the sinner." Sin, in what ever form, should never be just accepted because society says it is okay. And yes, I do recognize and accept the rebuttal that not everyone thinks homosexuality is a sin. But then some people think cheating on their spouses is not a sin as well.

    Anyway, being uncomfortable with a church teaching is far different from being not welcomed by the same church. If a child does something wrong then does the parent stop loving them? No, of course not. The Church doesn't hate sinners, just the sin. Any church that says sin is ok with them isn't nourishing the soul for the long road.

    There is also a difference between the true Church and the nosey Betty and Jim sitting behind you judging you.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:58 pm on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "It did not happen as Mr Smith says."

    Darrell: You were not there.

    As you reluctantly admitted, Darrell, you were not at this mass so you cannot say that it did not happen as Mr. Smith says in his letter here. Mr. Smith was there and you were not. It's that simple.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:29 pm on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee mistakenly stated... . You formed an "opinion", and basically called Mr. Smith a liar...

    Please think before you type. In the olden days, people believed that the world was flat. They would teach others that the world was flat. Does that mean they lied?
    Or, does it mean they were mistaken?

    If I say it is my opinion that Mr Smith is wrong and that what he thinks happen did not happen, I am saying he is mistaken. I cannot read his mind and have no reason to assume he lied. Klee... can you please identify the post that I stated he lied... I cannot find it.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 12:44 pm on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Barbara Wells wrote, "K Lee Homosexuality is not a race nor is it a gender."

    So... What's your point?

    Is that your only guideline for discrimination?

    Barbara... Is it okay with you to discriminate against someone because he or she is a homosexual as long as you don't discriminate due to his/her race or gender? Is it being a good Christian to you to go out into your community and cast votes against g a y people so they do not get to enjoy the same rights as you? Is it your moral obligation to make sure they do not have the same equal rights as you and I?

     
  • barbara wells posted at 10:59 am on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

    barbara wells Posts: 25

    K Lee Homosexuality is not a race nor is it a gender.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:45 pm on Tue, Nov 22, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    There are plenty of other things that the Catholic Church should be working on.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:40 pm on Tue, Nov 22, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Kevin: It is appalling to me that some people still believe that a g a y person should be barred from having the same rights as other citizens. Obviously the church is telling parishioners that homosexuality is a sin and that the parishioners should go out and cast their vote on issues pertaining to g a y rights. Now, we all know that they're not telling parishioners to go out and vote in favor of g a y rights!

    Churches who openly discuss the g a y issue in a positive light are not trying to keep anyone from their equal rights. I am not willing to ban discussion in church, if you can call it a discussion when there is a one sided presentation, but when a church is ganging up on certain individuals just because they are g a y then yes I have a problem with it.

    I absolutely believe that the church has a moral obligation to all of God's children and not just the ones that they personally (as a church) deem worthy of God's grace. It doesn't matter if that person is male, female, black, white, Asian, g a y or even another religion. There should be no distinction in God's house. And the church should absolutely not help make policy to deny people their equal rights under the law.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 6:58 pm on Tue, Nov 22, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    K Lee, for many it is a political issue, for many others it is a moral issue. Unless we are going to say Churches can not discuss moral issues then the g a y issue will be discussed.

    Additionally many current political issues are intertwined with moral issues, feeding the homeless, illegal immigrants and such. Do we really want to ban churches from discussing these issues all together? And to go a step further, do we want churches to stop informing their congregations of moral issues simply because they are being discussed in a political environment?

    And just to flip the coin, there are many churches who openly discuss the g a y issue in a positive light. Are you (general 'you") willing to ban the discussion in these churches as well or is the ban only to apply to churches you disagree with?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 6:11 pm on Tue, Nov 22, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Many churches continue to try to keep "g a y" people from having the same rights as everyone else. Personally, I feel that the church should stay out of it and should not be discussing these politics at church.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 6:07 pm on Tue, Nov 22, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "Klee... as you point is absurd, and incorrect, it is hardly worth responding. If five different people independently corroborated what I stated, I trust their opinion better than yours."

    Really, DarrelI? You lie and then you call my point absurd? Classic.

    It doesn't matter if your information came from your favorite aunt Fannie... the point is that you cannot say that this absolutely "did not happen" at church on Oct 30th because you weren't there!

    You formed an "opinion", and basically called Mr. Smith a liar, all based on the thoughts, views and perceptions of someone else. This does not surprise me coming from you. You need to stop trying to make Mr. Smith out to be a liar when you weren't even at the mass on Oct. 30th.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:07 pm on Mon, Nov 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated...Regarding the Catholic Mass on Oct. 30th... your second hand information does not give you the ability to make an absolute statement on whether Robert Smith is right or not in his observations at mass on Oct. 30th.

    Klee... as you point is absurd, and incorrect, it is hardly worth responding.
    If five different people independently corroborated what I stated, I trust their opinion better than yours. You have no clue what you are talking about. In addition to the people I talked to, I also have personally heard this priest speak to these issues on previous occasions and have followed this church for many years..
    I have confidence in this case that I amcorrect. It is not absolute as you suggest. It is my opinion. This is an opinion forum ...right?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:41 pm on Mon, Nov 21, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "Bizarre conclusion you drew.... I was referring to how paranoid you sounded, like the paper was singling you out... its just a silly software glitch which most people would not even care to comment about... no one cares about the word would specified.... it is not important in the least.

    As far as Mass, I know 5 people who did go... and they were very surprised read his interpretation as to what he says happened. I also have listened to this priest talk many times. I know more than you think. That you think different is expected."
    -------------

    Darrell: It's strange that you think I was paranoid in that I was singled out by the LNS because I used the word "g a y". I specifically stated what happened, so try to keep up, Darrell. It is odd that the word "g a y" is even in the system as a word to be blocked. It's like blocking the word "man" or "white" from the board postings. It is especially odd when the very article here has the word "g a y" in it.

    Regarding the Catholic Mass on Oct. 30th... your second hand information does not give you the ability to make an absolute statement on whether Robert Smith is right or not in his observations at mass on Oct. 30th. You weren't there, Darrell. Your "opinion" was formed based on second hand information... someone else's opinion. So, for you to say something "did not happen" even when you weren't even there is simply the ramblings of someone that just wants to be right and cannot form his own opinion. You're a follower, Darrell.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:48 am on Mon, Nov 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated...Darrell: Personally I don't think that the word "g a y" is profane. It's unfortunate that you support the suppression of the use of the word when describing a homosexual person

    Bizarre conclusion you drew.... I was referring to how paranoid you sounded, like the paper was singling you out... its just a silly software glitch which most people would not even care to comment about... no one cares about the word would specified.... it is not important in the least.

    As far as Mass, I know 5 people who did go... and they were very surprised read his interpretation as to what he says happened. I also have listened to this priest talk many times. I know more than you think. That you think different is expected.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 8:56 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: Personally I don't think that the word "g a y" is profane. It's unfortunate that you support the suppression of the use of the word when describing a homosexual person.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 8:53 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "I know much more than you think."

    I doubt it.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 8:52 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "So you were there to determine I was not there?... I know much more than you think."

    Darrell: You are not religious, let alone Catholic, so it's obvious that you weren't at the Catholic mass on Oct. 30th.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:17 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Klee stated...Now why is this word okay in the article, but not okay in the context of a response here on the boards? Weird. Oh, and it's not "profanity" IMO.

    Oh my... For sure they are out to get you. Their IT department has obviously programmed a special catch when you submit...

    As far as your post... " Really, Darrell? You were not there, so you can't make absolute statements on what was said/done that day in the church.

    So you were there to determine I was not there?... I know much more than you think.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 4:06 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Okay, this is interesting... As I tried to post a response here, the LNS error message read...

    "Error: Your comment cannot be accepted due to the presence of profanity. Please remove any objectionable content from your comment and try again."

    And what was this "profanity" you ask? It was the same word in this article and it's spelled "g a y". Now why is this word okay in the article, but not okay in the context of a response here on the boards? Weird. Oh, and it's not "profanity" IMO.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 4:02 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Mr. Smith: I'm so sorry you felt that you were told how to vote on the issue of homosexual marriage. It is unfortunate that many homosexual people do not feel welcome in the church. I really wish that would change. I understand why you left the church.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 3:54 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell Baumbach wrote, "It did not happen as Mr Smith says."

    Really, Darrell? You were not there, so you can't make absolute statements on what was said/done that day in the church.

     
  • barbara wells posted at 11:10 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    barbara wells Posts: 25

    Mr .Crowder, "Even the most casual Catholic knows" the relationship between the Old Testament and the New. You sound like you need more information, go to catholic.com or ewtn.com. I was at St. Annes as well. I support Bishop Blaire and his efforts to inform
    us of the important issues of today. I also support Fr. Ware and agree with Kevins posts.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:42 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Crowder stated...Churches and churchy civic groups have lots of ways around the prohibitions placed on their tax exempt status.

    It appears that Mr Crowder has such a sharp ax to grind with the church that his imagination is effecting his reality. I think his perception is clouded by hate

    A church is just another 501(c)(3) Organizations that must follow standard IRS guidelines in order to retain their tax exempt status. Accordingly, the IRS specifically states that Certain voter education activities or public forums conducted in a nonpartisan manner may not be prohibited political activity under section 501(c)(3 …

    If moveon.org ( a 501 C ) , who spends millions of dollars in educating its members ( in a partisan way) to state actions that effect its members with out losing its tax status, so can a church which is classified as a 501 c.

    http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#en_US_2010_publink1000200036

    Political activity.   If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements.
      Whether your organization is participating or intervening, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each case. Certain voter education activities or public forums conducted in a nonpartisan manner may not be prohibited political activity under section 501(c)(3

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:17 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Crowder stated...This is very simple to answer; we have something in this country called separation of church and state.

    Unfortunately, Mr Crowder has swallowed the secular world's thinking hook line and sinker. No where is there anything in the Constitution that the church cannot respond to the state actions.

    If the state makes a law that effects the teachings of the church, the church cannot turn a blind eye to the state. For example, if a law is made by the state that the church cannot discriminate in who they marry, then the state is in the church's business. Clearly, it is reasonable for the state and church to not be absolute in its separation. State law effects the church, and the church should have the ability to educate the members as to the effect of the state law … according to Wikipedia...
    The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
     In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as meaning absolute separation of government from all things religious.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:23 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Crowder stated..., Kevin. Mr. Smith states that he was told how to vote.

    It did not happen as Mr Smith says. In my understanding, the church is attempting to educate its members on matters that relate to church teachings. The church does not in any way tell them how they should vote. It is as if Mr Crowder has an impression that the church is saying they will excommunicate its members if they do not vote a particular way.
    If the church for example teaches killing unborn babies is not moral, and they write a newsletter talking about various pending legislation that decreases of increases the possibility of this practice, they are simply educating its members as to issues that effect the lives of their members.
    Should the church be prohibited from pointing out issues that effect their beliefs? Should they not be allowed to educate their members about legislation that is pro or con to their teachings?
    I think Mr Crowder has a biased position and is anti church and anti religion and is taking the side of a disgruntled person who has a chip on his shoulder.

     
  • Andy Crowder posted at 9:02 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Andy Crowder Posts: 245

    Kevin asks, "why shouldn't the Church have the same rights as so many other NFP organizations?"

    This is very simple to answer; we have something in this country called separation of church and state.

    Churches and churchy civic groups have lots of ways around the prohibitions placed on their tax exempt status. The Mormons are truly professionals in this regard, exerting private pressure for individuals to donate large sums to thwart civil rights legislation. I imagine you are probably an expert at skirting the intent of the law as well. I'll defer to your experience.

    I do not hate Catholics. Some of my closest family members are/were Catholics, although none of them agree with the church's stance on social issues. A couple of them have left the church in disgust. We are working on the rest.

    What I abhor is the institutional abuse, bigotry, torture, repeated genocides, the sanctioning of slavery, the devaluing of women and children, and the demonization of the LGBT community. Please tell me how to "read this with love and compassion" when people I care about continue to suffer abuse at the hands of the Catholic Church.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 5:44 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    Oh, and I sat through the same homily (not a time share presentation) and what was actually said was that by getting the info on issues in Sacramento we could "DECIDE" which issues we wanted to be heard on. Not that we had to for every issue or even how to vote. It was simply an organized way for Catholics to be heard as a voting block.

    Every other movement has a way of getting their voices heard, why shouldn't the Church have the same rights as so many other NFP organizations?

    When you read with hate in your heart you will always find contempt. Read with love and compassion and you open yourself to the same.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 5:35 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    Did read it right. Also have lived with Not for profit tax laws for nearly 15 years. It wasn't in violation when Prop 8 was being discussed, it isn't in violation now as well.

    Of course people who hate Catholics would like to find some way to destroy the church, but this claim of violating tax law is not going to work.

     
  • Andy Crowder posted at 3:53 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Andy Crowder Posts: 245

    Go back and reread, Kevin. Mr. Smith states that he was told how to vote. The priest admits that he showed a video and read the newsletter aloud which was political in nature. The tax code states that religious tax exempt status prohibits the organization from trying to influence legislation. The church does not need to endorse a candidate to violate the law. Read up.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 3:08 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2049

    "The church used it's worship service for political indoctrination, and therefore, has violated the conditions of its tax exempt status."

    To be clear, the "political indoctrination" did NOT violate any tax laws. All it was was a call for Catholics to register to get more information regarding issues being voted on in Sacramento. Addressing voter issues such as this ARE within any church's right to do so. Now if the church had said to vote for a specific political figure, then they would be in violation and risk losing their status. But asking members to get more information is not and never has been in violation of IRS laws.

     
  • Andy Crowder posted at 9:08 pm on Tue, Nov 15, 2011.

    Andy Crowder Posts: 245

    Essentially, Reverend Ware confirmed Mr. Smith's accusations. The church used it's worship service for political indoctrination, and therefore, has violated the conditions of its tax exempt status.

    Furthermore, it would not be possible to overstate the hypocrisy, misinformation, and bigotry contained in the remainder of the priest’s response. He states of marriage: “Its unchangeable definition as the union of one man and one woman. . .” Even the most casual Catholic knows that polygamy is taken for granted in the Old Testament. Ware goes on to imply that the wellbeing of children is paramount to the church’s opposition to marriage equality. His lie is not built upon even the tinniest shred of evidence. In fact, children of same-sex couples are penalized and suffer in very tangible ways due to their parents inability to marry. Besides the lack of security and legitimacy that marriage would convey, these children can’t get insurance coverage through the non-biological parent, are not considered family in matters of probate and a host of other legal situations, and can not even be taken to the doctor by the second parent in an emergency. Children of same-sex couples have been kicked out of Catholic schools upon the discovery of their parentage. It would be laughable if it was not so disgusting for the church to feign concern for the wellbeing of any child at all. The Knights of Columbus spent more money in 2008 in support of Prop 8 than on its own child feeding programs. The massive and ongoing sex scandal and accompanying coverup involving decades, if not centuries, of institutional rape and torture of children goes all the way to the top of the Catholic hierarchy. Pope Benedict XVI himself chose not to discipline a priest who had abused and molested more than 200 boys in a school for the deaf in Wisconsin, instead moving him to another parish where he continued to abuse children until his death.

    The Catholic Church is not and has never been an arbiter of morality. It's stance against marriage equality is nothing more than bigotry.

     

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

CREATE AN EVENT

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists