Catholic school parents seek removal of signs supporting gay-marriage ban
October 18, 2012 at 12:53 am in Grand Forks Herald
At Holy Rosary School in Duluth, it’s been a battle of the political signs some mornings, with one group of parents protesting the presence of a message to “Vote Yes” for the marriage amendment in front of the school. The Catholic Diocese of Duluth says parents shouldn’t be surprised that the school reflects the beliefs of the church that operates it.
Continue Reading
When a church becomes a political action committee, they should have their tax exempt status revoked.
Hot debate. What do you think?
60 
55
and would you apply the same revocation to every other nonprofit organization that takes a position on a public policy issue?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
57 
8
Judging from the size of the settlements paid to victims of sexual abuse, I think the non-profit status needs to be reexamined as well.
Nope, just churches who are pretending to be churches instead of political organizations.
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
39
I agree with Mac.. I also agree that any non-profit that uses its non-profit status as a political venue should loose their non-taxable status.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
20
The parents need to remember this is a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL. Of course it will support and teach church doctrine. If you don’t like what they stand for send your child to public school. You do have a CHOICE.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
74 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
18 
28
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
22 
32
Just because you do not believe the life style of is right does not mean you hate them. That is like saying because I don’t believe in little green men I hate them also.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
27 
39
It matters to me. I didn’t log in to read a one-sided view on the subject matter. The topic is open to discussion.
Like or Dislike:
18 
10
So Mac, if you haven’t had beast sex; aren’t planning to have any in the future; and aren’t currently fighting off urges to have some beast sex; why should your opinion of beast sex matter to anyone?
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
15
Seriously? The bestiality argument? What next? People wanting to marry their toaster?
Yawn.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
13
It’s amazing how the “Good Christians” seem to always head for the “Beasts” on this subject……Well Glen then I guess a comparison would be equating the policies to squelch gay marriage as akin to being the Taliban. So Glen…Are Catholics American Taliban? See how foolish such comparisons can be?
Like or Dislike:
14 
11
Gentlemen all I did was change one word in the previous post, which is just as outragous I believe….. and I am NOT Catholic.
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
I agree Glen. I should have said your kids will grow up thinking being gay is wrong, not hating gays.
My Christian faith prohibits homosexuality. If I believe the Bible, then I cannot choose to be gay.
That said, because I believe it is wrong does not mean I need to legislate against it. That is the mistake most Evangelical Christians make. Because we believe it is wrong, EVERYONE must believe it is wrong.
That is a very poor reading of the Scriptures. God’s Law applies to God’s people. To non believers the Bible is foolishness. Trying to shove something they consider foolish down their throats is counterproductive to say the least.
Evangelicals should concentrate on getting people to know God before trying to get them to follow His rules. A little backwards if you ask me.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
18
I just never understand how a person of science and logic still believes the bible. Personal faith I can understand. Bible philosophy I cna understand. But a book full of tales that were written at a time when something like thunder and lightning was interpreted as a God having a rage in the heavens is really no more valid than much of the Greek Mythology that the original authors had been educated on in the first place. Interesting, but not to be taken literally. I mean if it works for you then have at it. I just don’t understand how people who deal with logic as part of their profession can accept the bible (Other than the philosophies) as valid.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
23
As my old religion teacher(a rather awesome old nun) used to say, “everthing in the Bible is true, and some of it actually happened” Meaning, you can’t take every story literally (like Jonah being swallowed by a giant fish), but the message behind it is what matters (you can’t run from God).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
4
Christianity is based on the Bible Tundra. You cannot have one without the other. They are inextricably mixed.
The same can be said about Muslims and the Quaran.
In order for a faith to function, they have to have a way to transmit what is important to them from one generation to another. Before the printing press it was done orally and through scrolls and books that were shared. Now we have 1,000,000 different ways to accomplish the same thing.
I believe. Because much of what I believe is unprovable, I just have to go on faith.
I have very little patience with people who spend their lives trying to “prove” the bible. They are missing the point. They need to read Hebrews closer.
God is way to big for our minds to ever comprehend. His ways are not ours. When we try to “prove” Him all we are doing is trying to control Him. If I can reduce God to a set of absolute facts, then I can make Him do my bidding.
Hasn’t worked since Adam and Eve; can’t see how it will work now.
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
In that light then there’s only one kind of pray that’s an actual prayer. One that gives thanks. Praying for anything regardless how noble it might seem has little more value than a letter to Santa. It seems that most people of faith do pray for all sorts of things. My theory is it’s because the idea that they’re basically on their own when it comes to life’s trials and tribulations is far too scary to consider. Without faith in some invisible being watching over them then there’s two huge problems they have to face. I just mentioned the first, and the second is that maybe this is all there is….So what the hell is life all about anyway.
My only real connection to spirituality is that there’s one inescapable truth….This energy force called “Life” Somehow this energy has created at least this one planet filled with living energy. This much is true and there’s no simple answer to it for me. Could some supreme energy force with an actual conscious create? Or is everything everywhere a result of an infinite amount of random actions? Your guess is it’s made on purpose, mine is it’s all random.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
You are very close Tundra. “Our Father who art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done … ”
Intercession prayer “Oh Lord won’t you buy me a Mercades Benz, my friends all drive Porche’s I must make ammends … ” only works when it is in God’s will.
I pray and receive what I pray for almost daily. Dear Lord give me peace. Help me do the right thing. Help me to want to do Your will instead of mine …
I have yet to receive a decent car, a job that pays the bills working only 40 hours per week, or teenage sons with a reasonable amount of impulse control.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
“Please save this person or that” is probably a prayer you use in your profession from time to time. Although a noble and selfless gesture it too is petitioning the gifts of a deity for what is a more desirable outcome. Which in reality negates the concept of a “Devine Plan” from this deity for all of us. How can you have that faith and then petition for the deity to make what you’d consider the best outcome?
I still don’t really understand how a person who’s had to have a deep understanding of science can accept religious doctrine. I can understand blind faith to a point, and I can understand basic philosophies such as the Ten Commandments that aren’t exclusive to Christian doctrine. Beyond that it would seem like a person of science would basically just be over looking a great deal and not giving it much thought for concern that logic would challenge faith.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
It’s easy to reconcile God & science. Not necessarily religion & science. Two different animals.
Most of he early “scientists” were devout. Christian & Muslim alike. Even Chinese polytheists were trying to find the order that is apparent in the universe.
Life as the result of random chance has never set well with serious scientists (This is not an argument for intelligent design. Scientists, like any good detective, do not believe in coincidence). As you said, it simply does not make sense.
Why don’t we know how everything works? We don’t have all the variables. We have only known about DNA since the 1960s. What is be,low that?
A good rule of thumb: when you hear someone say “X” is the smallest building block without adding “that we know of now,” take everything else they say with a grain of salt.
We are constantly discovering new things that throw the old out. We are still looking for how it all ties together.
We are no closer now than we were when Loevenhook (? Spelling) invented the microscope.
How can I believe in God? Nothing else makes sense. God & science are synergistic, not antagonistic.
That distinction is s imply politics: man made & subject to change.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
I enjoy having intelligent conversations about this with people of faith that don’t turn into some sort of proving ground. I don’t pigion hole myself into a lable like agnostic or atheist, but more of a amature student of philosophic thought. I find basic truths in several religions and life guides (Toa Te Chin mostly) that I’ve looked into that seem to coincide throughout them all because they generally break down into basic wisdom for living. Putting a religion around that wisdom sems to be a basic function that I’m more than familiar with in my early days of getting sober and clean. A need to do this thing together instead of alone to give us a feeling of personal support. In my case it was climbing out of hell. In most early religions it seems there was a whole lot of that just in a thing called day to day living. To congregate with what is essencially your “Tribe” (Even today if you think about it your congregation could be considered your tribe because supposedly that’s where you should feel the most support from. In a town like Forks you might live several blocks from each other, but this one entity probably brings you into more of a neighborhood than the actual neighborhood you live in….Or basically…Your tribe). Anyway all of this is fairly off topic, but fun anyway.
One think though….Regardless of what belief we start from the question of why is there anything in existance (Including a deity of any sort) is one of those questions that just can’t be solved…..Even though they keep trying. I guess we basically need to just kick back and experience the ride. Take what we can use, and try not to screw things up…..And isn’t that basically at the heart of all religious thought….As least initially?
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
That was a very thoughtful and respecful discussion. It was great to read.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
If these parents (1) don’t agree with the church’s teaching and (2) don’t respect its right to free speech and freedom of religion, they should take their kids elsewhere and leave the school alone.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
9
No Charles, you are incorrect. You do not honor free speech by trying to stifle it. You honor it by encouraging it.
This is just the latest in a long string of controversial issues facing the church. When this is resolved there will be another to take its place. There is a long tradition of dissent in the Catholic Church. Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic monk.
The church is ever changing. That is why it has survived this long. It has a long history of debate. The Dark Ages came about when the Church prosecuted dissent. They ended when the church stopped acting as cop & got back to leading people to Christ.
Dissent is like the poor, it will always be here. It is not the dissent that is important, it is what you do with it
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
26
Churches should have no business pushing for laws in government. If gays wish to get married let them, It is none of our business. Marriage is not something to be infringed on by anyone if they wish to do so. This is a free country to decide what we want, freedom of religion as well. Religious views shall have no business in Government decisions, shall remain seperate. Never do i want this country dictated by any Religion.
Like or Dislike:
14 
9
Religious organizations do have the right to peddle their dogma. It is also true that the tax regulations forbid endorsing candidates if religious groups want to keep their tax exemption. In this case, it is likely that because the topic is an issue — as opposed to an endorsement of a candidate, that the school is within the rules.
That said — do I agree with their position? Heck no! This is all about a bunch of bitter old men wanting to sell their old testament righteous indignation as a “moral position.” It’s pathetic.
The bad news for those stuffed up old curmudgeons is that most of their flock doesn’t pay attention to them anyway: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/catholic-voters-reject-political-influence-of-bishops-173726901.html
I just wish that that more regular Catholics churchgoers would start to ask their priests why $27 million of their donations gets spent on Washington Lobbyists every year.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
23
I have spent roughly half of my career working in Catholic hospitals. Even though they pay less than the prevailing wage, they tend to have a “feel” that I enjoy.
A little known secret is Catholic hospitals are traditionally the dumping ground for gay priests. I am not talking pediophiles, I am talking openly gay clergy.
In the hospital I worked in California, both of the full time priests were gay. It got a little dysfunctional when one was found murdered by his lover. Fun times.
I have always gotten along well with these priests, even though I was Baptist. I remember one memorable conversation at a low key party: To me celibacy means no sex (male, female, animal); none.
The priest I was talking with had a lover (not the one who was killed) and was explaining the Bible was talking about male/female. Male/male did not count. I disagreed but that was ok. It was his soul not mine.
I need to be very clear: these men were FANTASTIC pastoral care practitioners. They were kind, caring, and helped many people through some very difficult times.
With these people as a background I have to wonder if the school should look at the speck in its own eye before going after the plank in everyone else’s.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
14
Flying Nurse, I’ve met a number of gay priests. I would have expected them to be jaded and full of self-loathing, but not at all. Super guys with a level of compassion and selfless serving not often seen.
Like or Dislike:
11 
16
There is a school of thought that says that some gays join the priesthood because of the vow of celibacy. If gay is wrong, no sex is a way to control that.
Since it inevitably fails, like gays everywhere, these people have to find a way to incorporate it into their self image.
Celibacy is a religious decision. If you try to use it as a way to hide from yourself; you fail.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
The octrine of priestly celibacy was established at the First Lateran Council of 1123. Before then, priests could freely marry. Despite all the religious trappings, it was purely about money. Given the seminaries across the US are closing, it’s clear that it functions as a disincentive.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
Along with what your saying. I heard or read someplace that it was because some preists would aquire land willed to them from parishioners and then instead of turning it over to the Catholic organization they’d will it to their sons. That was why they decided to put an end to priests not having families.
I don’t know about the nuns, but I’m guessing that was probably done at the same time eh? Can’t have a bunch of unmarried nuns running around available if the priest can’t be available.
By this day and age celebracy should be given as a path choice instead of a requirement. For one thing both priests and nuns have to council families. Having personal insight like most ministers in other religions would probably be a big help.
Like or Dislike:
9 
7
You are real close. Today, few Catholics know anything about the history of their church, beyond what their priests tell them. And they know next to nothing too.
For centuries, parishes earned huge amounts of money from the profits of surrounding lands bought or willed to them. This is oe of the reasons simony developed; buying the position of priest. There were no seminaries, and most priests couldn’t even say mass…they just collected their money. Those parishes were bequeathed to the first born son, who continued to earn the bucks. The Church wanted to eliminate that system, and have would-be priests pay them for the parish. Thus the Lateran decision. Most religions demand that a minister be married. You can’t be a rabbi without that. Would you go to a priest for marriage counseling? How on earth could he identify with the problem beyond spouting doctrine?
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
What puzzles me is why the catholic church denies so much of the rape, molestation charges of young boys from their priests.. Once one is caught, they sure are fast to move their priests to another region or country to avoid prosecution.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
That’s pretty much past tense. I’m pretty sure they’ve gone to great lengths to make sure there’s no more cover ups….And expecially no more shipping the problem to some new location……That was worse than the initial cover up. I have to feel empathy for all the rest of the preists who end up under suspecion because of those old practices
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
It happened a few years ago not too far from me, the priest got transferred to South America and out of U.S. jurisdiction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
It may seem strange coming from a non-believer, but no matter. The Catholic Church has dogma and doctrines. Doesn’t matter how valid they are objectively, they make up the beliefs of that church. When you proclaim belief, you accept them. There are no Luthers anymore, and besides, his arguments were way more intellectual than most people could offer today. As for the reporter, he/she could work for the Herald. The identity of the group of parents as being Catholics or not is conveniently left out. If non-Catholics, and only sending their kids there to avoid public schools, tough.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
Good point my reporter grumpy friend. I sure never thought of that.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
There is a lot of experts on the Catholic church here. Oh, and a lot of hate…
Like or Dislike:
9 
13
Oh let’s cut the hyperbole. Reciting history is not hate, it’s just history. The Latin Church simply doesn’t teach it to parishoners. So most Catholics believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to Jesus, that Limbo is an official doctrine, and that St. Linus succeeded peter.
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
You are right there is a lot of intolerance and hate directed toward churches and religion.
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
You know what would go a long long way to stopping that so called “Hate” (More like annoyance actually) If those who are so into their religions would stop trying to force their beliefs on the rest of society. We see how well that works in the middle east where in some places the following of religious law is absolute, and absolutly a detriment to basic freedoms much of the time. I swear if most of you “Good Christians” had your way our laws would look much the same as some of their laws. Quit forcing your views on society and you’ll be surprised how much better you’re recieved once people don’t feel they need to be weary of your intentions…
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
Okay let’s just all agree with Tundabeast. Who is moving the goal posts? Did Catholics start Obamacare rulings against their beliefs? Did Christians bring up gay marriage? By the way, where does the lion’s share of all charity come from? Those evil Christians….
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
As usual you’ve got half the information to draw your conclusions. The Health Care Reform bill does not go against anyone’s religion. It forces no religion to do anything within its religious working. It does treat their outside business interest the same as very other business interest in the country…especially since they have interests that employ people from other faiths. None the less I’m pretty sure it’s a moot point because I think they made some adjustments that allows them a pass.
As for bringing up gay marriage…..Bringing it up isn’t he problem. Making it a huge issue is….Now let’s see….Who did that? Keep pondering…it’ll come to you.
As for charity….Charity comes in many forms. To say that Christians corner the market isn’t all that accurate since much of what they do is part of their on going missions to add more Christians…..like the old soup kitchens where the price for food was a sermon…….Charity or business plan?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
I was raised Catholic (all the way through confirmation). I went to the Dark Side (became a Baptist) as a young adult. I read my Bible, did a little study, and decided that while 7.5-8/10 of Catholic doctrine is biblically sound, I could not hang with the 20%-25% that was not. Jesus had a brother (several in fact) so I doubt Mary stayed a virgin (blessed Mary ever virgin). I also believe that it is heretical to pray to a saint for intercession (we are to pray to only one person – Jesus – for intercession), and while I loved John Paul II (he was a rock star) I doubt if he thought he himself was infallible.
The Catholic church ceased to be a force for good when it became the state. By doing so it succumbed to all the temptations of power just like any other human organization.
The Catholic church is why we have separation of church and state. It is why that concept is vital to a free society’s survival.
Catholic church back then, crazy wing nut Protestants now, a radical Imam tomorrow. Until God comes back to rule in person, never trust His supposed followers to run anything. They are no more qualified than anyone else; and probably less so.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
I’m gonna nit pick you just a bit. The Pope is not infallible generally, only in certain circumstances is he considered infallible.
I always thought that the seperation of church and state was more a response to England having a state run church, but I would have to brush up on my history to be sure of that one.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
How can those parents be surprised that a Catholic School would be anti-gay marriage? If a Church differs so much from your personal point of view, then leave and go elsewhere…or nowhere. Just as many Lutheran Churches left the ELCA after they started allowing gay ministers. People do have a choice.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
To be free from sin is true freedom.
When you are sinful, you are chained to your sins and do not have freedom.
How many people on this forum are not in their right mind? By justifying sin, you are promoting it and accepting it.
The Bible clearly states that practicing homosexuality is sinful. Those that practice homosexuality are chaining thamselves to the darkness of sin.
Like or Dislike:
14 
10
That’s one philosophy….There are plenty who will say that being free of religious dogma is also true freedom
Like or Dislike:
8 
9
You are correct Robert. The Bible is also explicit in that EVERYONE is chained to their sin. No one escapes. It is also very clear that man grades sin on a curve, not God. Sin is sin. If you break one little area, you have broken them all.
In other words, a homosexual is no worse or no better than the man who looks at a woman other than his wife with lust, or the office worker who abuses their boss’ time by playing on facebook on the job, or the child molestor/murderer. They are all the same in God’s eyes.
That is why he tells Christians to be very careful pointing fingers. At one time he will hold the mirror up to us and we will all fail.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Which brings up the philosophical question asked for centuries and a main tenet of Gnosticism: How could the perfect create the imperfect? In other words, God created sin. Religions just find it a convenient way to be needed.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Then again isn’t the Yin & Yang a symbol for what’s a basic universal law? If there’s good then there must be bad……But is that Devine or basic physics?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Yin & yang supposes two equal & opposing forces at war with each other. While there is evil in the world it is subordinate to God. The devil is not equal to god. He/she/it is a created being. He/she/it has to follow the rules just like everyone else
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
The Devil is the God of this age. ‘Tis a woman just now, a woman that reigns in hell.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
If you want to go that direction then you should remove the “This age”. Historically there’s been enough evidence of overwhelming evil acts and/or devastating natural or man made conditions that would lead people into believing such a philosophy was true of those times also. This age is far less dire than the times of plagues or famine when people really had reason to believe the world was godless….
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
I have never had a problem with that particular quandary. God is perfect. We are not. He knew that when he made us. It did not take him by surprise when we screwed it up.
God is the creator, not the creature. He is perfect. I am not.
Just because I do not understand or approve of some of his decisions (cancer, war, child abuse …) does not make him any less God.
He designed things for His pleasure, not mine. That fact has been making people angry for millions of years.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Which god are you referring to FN? I ask because humans have believed in (or invented) thousands over the ages.
My guess is that the response will favor the god of the inverted thumb!
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Just when I tought we were done…You pulled me back in. That line of reasoning seems to be a religious cop out for what can’t be explained. It basically says that your deity has some plan behind all this so it has to be right. Which is a whole lot easier than to say that you believe in a god, but there’s no way that this god crated everything and then just let things play out however they go. Because that would have to be an acceptance that whatever we do…We only have ourselves once we’re here as a life form. That no amount of praying and worship will make a difference because there’s no interventions. People want to believe in the hand of god directing their lives, but how about this…….A god says though actions “Here’s the gift of life….It’s up to you how you use it” and then bows out? Just on this one planet there’s so many life forms on a continual creation basis that mabe that’s the only real job this god does…create…..What happens after that is generally the circle of life for most other life forms. Our life form raises other life forms and grow other life forms to keep ourselves alive. In order for us to live we must kill and eat other living matter. You could basically say that’s a very unjust living formula. Why did the deity create life that has to take life to continue? Wouldn’t a loving deity create life forms that were self sustained so they don’t have to kill other living matter to exsist?
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
For a deity, your god seems remarkably human. He looks like a human. He is subject to the emotions of a human. He even changes his mind (e.g., the Flood story). Makes ya wonder who created whom.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“Here’s the gift of life….It’s up to you how you use it” and then bows out?
That is what Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin believed. It was a very common belief among the founding fathers. When modern Evangelicals attribute certain beliefs to the founding fathers (describing how we are in fact a “Christian” nation) they are inevitably wrong.
As a historian who is also a Christian, their playing fast and loose with the facts makes me insane. What are they thinking? God needs their help?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists and Masons. It fell into line with the ideas of the Enlightenment. Fundamentalists today don’t seem to grasp that Jefferson used the term “Creator,” not “God.” They saw what a mess Europe was with the secular and sacred working hand in glove, and didn’t want it in their Utopia.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Besides religious convistions, here is another reason that I am against gay “marriage”.
The retirement pensions, Social Security, etc. were originally setup to have a husband work and later collect the pension, Social Security, etc. His It was setup that his wife would draw off his pension, Social Security, too. Remember the days when the wife stayed home to take care of the children, rather than school breakfast, after school programs and day care doing it?
If you allow homosexual “marriage”, then the “partner” or whatever they would be called, would then draw off these pensions, Social Security, etc.
This would send shock waves into the pension and Social Security funds. More people drawing off it, means less money in the fund, that could reduce future benefits to those that are to already to recieve it.
I assume some people on this forum have or will recieve a government (state, etc.), union and/or company pension. If a pension fund has 20,000, etc. retirees and 2,000 (remember the 10% Society and all their claims that 10% of the population is gay?), that could add 2,000 more people to that particular pension program.
In order to pay those additional pensions, the original 20,000 may have to have their benefits (pension payment, health benefit, etc.) reduced now or in the future.
With all the pension funds that are underfunded right now, it would not be a great idea to add those extra gay marriage “beneficiaries” to it.
So all you people recieving a pension or plan to, ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE LESS MONEY OR OTHER PENSION BENEFITS (health insurance coverage, etc.),SO HOMOSEXUALS CAN HAVE THEIR COVERAGE???
Lets see who all for it! Will you be willing to have you or a family member take money, benefits, etc. cuts to have gay “spouses” covered?
Redefining marriage has economic consequences, too. Is your checkbook willing to take a hit?
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Your argument makes no sense. How does same sex couple getting married any different then hetro’s getting married when it comes to the items you mention? Now days in particular most couples are both employed and paying into their own funds. It only works if the married couple is Hetro? Talk about pulling out a scare tactic that doesn’t exist.
So what you’re basically saying is that even though the exact same thing happens to all couples, that Hetro couples deserve to ride the tide of the gays adding to these funds but unable to pass them on to a spouse. That’s about as selfish of a reason I’ve ever heard
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
The reasoning is that pension funds were setup for the worker and a survivorship for the hetro spouse.
Redefining marriage, to include gay “marriages” would rock the boat by adding more payees from pension funds.
There is only so much money in a pension fund. Add alot of more people to the pension payout, would result in less money in the “pool”.
I am trying to get people to think, before being a cheerleader for gay “marriage”. They think it will not cost them anything. It will by adding more people to the pool that will drain it.
As far as state pensions, there are many in the US, that are broke. If you think the taxpayers are going to pony up to “save” these pension funds, think again. Cutting pensions is what is going to happen.
Redefining marriage has its consequences. Both morally, economically, etc..
In the Bible, Genesis 2:18-24 says that God created woman for man, so that they will be together. Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
That still makes no sense. So by that logic a company that has no gay employess would have the same problem if everyone in the company was married and stayed together until death. If that’s so then that would seem to be a pretty worthless retirement plan.
What you’re saying isn’t much different then saying that by allowing minorities into the total work force to compete on all levels was a bad thing for us white folks because it hurt our chances to have the top jobs….So by tha logic should minorities have been kept at low level servitude? That’s basically the same bass ackwards logic…….
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Sorry Robert, I’m with Tundra on this one; your argument makes absolutely no sense.
First, since at least the 1970s, the majority of women are working, therefore collecting their own social security and pensions. The days of a woman depending on their husband’s contributions for benefits are long gone.
Second: the pension administrator does not care if it is a male or female they are writing the check to. They are writing a check. They do not look at the name, much less the sex.
If the “male” was insured and his “mate” is entitled to benefits, it does not matter the sex of the mate.
I am also aware of several cases where the woman was a public service employee (police officer, fire fighter, etc) and the man had a “normal” job with your average anemic 401K. When the wife died (usually cancer) the husband was entitled to her retirement survivor benefits. There was no distinction because he was a man.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2