This is a good example of how the media approaches issues through a liberal prism. Any issue involving the Catholic Church will invariably emphasize the negative. They're way too "intolerant" for the newsrooms of America, or the Senate Democrats for that matter. Any issue involving homosexuals will be supportive. When the two themes collide, truth will surely be a casualty. Virtually all the Church's sex scandals involved homosexual priests and teenage guys. Perhaps one could call it "pedophilia" in some highly literal sense, but to most people that conjures up visions of small children. There may have been one or two of those cases and a few cases of teenage girls, but the vast majority were teenage guys. This points up one of the grave dangers of legitimizing homosexuality. Impressionable teenagers who often have anxiety relating to the opposite sex are vulnerable to gay recruitment. There is a very thin line here. We don't want to encourage hatred or gay bashing or even cruel comments. We do want our children to be able to distinguish between normal and abnormal, and to not be embarrassed or intimidated by someone who accuses them of being "bigoted" or "homophobic" as a way of breaking down their resistance.
You sure your not mondo trader???? Homo or not....it is/was wrong and im ashamed of my church for the cover up.
The question is a bit more complicated than this. For one thing, there's the issue of consent. The priests may be homosexual or they may be pedophiles. Again, these are not the same thing. However, one does not have to wait until he's eighteen to become a homosexual. If the teenagers involved were willing, then we're talking about something other than child abuse. If they were not willing, that's another can of worms. It seems clear that these priests have a variety of sexual problems. Painting them all (or "virtually" all) with the homosexual brush will be misleading, and most likely lead to more heat than light. As for confused teenagers being vulnerable to gay "recruitment", I don't suppose you'd have any evidence to support this? Incidentally, while I may disagree with you, it is at least clear that you have put some thought into your posts.
you can say the same about drug recruitment... litsen , I know where you guys are coming from..But most of your arguments view being "Gay" as wrong...which may be the case, but try looking at it as just another choice in life...which you may like or dislike, but nontheless a choice..I was once an "impressionable teenager" as most of them are; very prone to peer pressure.... but i dont think letting two people of the same sex marry will have an impact on a teenager in that way and if it does then maybe its just him finally being able to do what he wanted.... the lisp...hahahah
if it is just a "CHOICE" as you say...why do they get to qualify for minority status??...You didn't;t suddenly at 18 decide to be hispanic did you? That is my biggest issue....Everybody in this country wants minority status...truth is, you can;t hide your skin color but you can hide your sexuality ....unless you decide to lisp.
But you assume most are trying to get minority status and cheat the government out of big money..hey, who knows..i don't know enough about this to answer that...im just defending their right to marry, not to cheat the government out of money by claiming some "fake" status as you say.... I think most of the arguments from some of the posters in this thread have been more towards hating gay people or their life style choices and how it would affect their way of life....not on their tax break from being a couple...but that may definitely be a good argument why they shouldn't allow it....peace
Why not just eliminate the tax break? After all, why should couples receive tax breaks when singles do not, particularly if they don't have children?