One of THOSE topics

[moosetracker]

So if you feel confident you will not loose if put to the test.. (and Barry could be right, it is just a scare tactic to get Catholics to vote conservative)..

 

Then why all the theatrics?? A test to see who would come running if you cried "WOLF!!!". Or are you part of the smear campaign in order to drum up votes for a conservative candidate?

[OldGreyEagle]

If Catholic Hospitals did not treat Homosexual patients, do you not think someone would have picked up on it and said something by now? To think that a Catholic Hospital would not treat a gay person is incedible. And by the way, they also deliver the babies of "Good Golly" non-married women as well. Patients who have no way of paying for the care they will receive but they are cared for.

 

I know of Catholic Hospitals that ended up closing because the physicians sent the poor and uninsured to them because it was their mission to help the poor. The insured went elsewhere and when the Catholic Hospital closed, it was termed because of "bad management", Yeah, the cream skimming physicians set the hospital up to fail but thats not important. I had thought living your belief system was supposed to be respected, guess not

[JoeBob]

Moose, if it's been the law since 1973, why is it morally repugnant now?

 

Theatrics? Me? Oh my!

 

 

Defensive much?

 

 

[moosetracker]

Who has stated it is morally repugnant to be pro-life? The only statement of morally repugnant I belive comes from your side of the table..

 

I don't think the government is trying to force NH into a seatbelt law because it's morally repugnant to have the right to choose for yourself..

 

Stating you are a business, with federal aid.. Does not mean your views are morally repugnant, just not realistic in the world of business.. Our Government is known to go back on it's word. Just ask an American Indian. But if you can keep them at bay with law.. Good Luck!

 

[Beavah]

All I can say is the Catholic church has diversified from being a religion to being a buisness by runing hospital, schools and whatever else they decided to get into buisness about.. When they crossed that line from religion to business, they are swimming with the sharks and do not have the ability to hide behind their religion status..

 

Yah, hmmmmm...

 

As OGE has pointed out to me many times, I'm not a very good Catholic apologist, being as I am one of those kind-hearted humble Protestant fellows that moosetracker seems to like so much. But I did once stay at a Holiday Inn Express owned by a Catholic.

 

Moosetracker, yeh do understand that the Catholic hospitals in this country were by and large started by kind souls who vowed not to have any personal property or a family of their own just so they could focus exclusively on caring for those in need of health care, right? To characterize that as "being a business" or "swimming with sharks" seems just a might cynical, don't yeh think? Even today, those hospitals are not for profit entities. And even today, the religious orders that own them return a large fraction of their own personal salaries to the hospitals in question.

 

NFP hospitals as a whole do have a lot of money flowin' through 'em, but by and large if yeh look at their margins they operate at less than 1%. They aren't rakin' in the the dough. The reason why so many are consolidating is precisely because they skate such a razor-thin line. Unless you're very large and can maintain a high volume, yeh just can't survive. Go down 5% on your beds filled in any given month and you're deep in the red.

 

Oh, and by the way, Catholic schools are not for the poor. The poor tend to go to public schools..

 

Overall you're right, of course. At least as long as we're talkin' about the U.S. That's because even Catholics have to pay their teachers these days, and poor folks just don't have the money to pay even a third of cost of public education (which is what some parochial schools charge). It seems odd to fault folks for expecting that their teachers have to make at least a high-poverty wage.

 

And yet despite that in cities like Cleveland and Chicago and many other urban areas, a significant fraction of the urban school population is served by Catholic schools, even though it costs 'em millions of dollars and sometimes 90%+ of their students aren't Catholic. And if yeh wander out onto the Native American reservations, you'll find those darn Catholics there too.

 

Of course, in many other parts of the world the Catholic Church offers the only decent schooling available to ordinary kids.

 

Yeh can say a lot of things about da Catholics and their musty theology and tendencies toward gettin' a bit odd about statuary and such, but it's probably not fair to fault their commitment. They do tend to put their bodies where their mouth is, and I fully admit a good number of 'em have walked where Beavahs fear to tread.

 

And my mom for some reason was sent to the Catholic hospital in an emergancy.. They billed us the same way as any other public hospital..

 

Your mom was probably sent to that hospital because the local emergency medical control felt that was the best hospital available for her condition. I know in these parts the local Catholic hospital is the major trauma surgery center for the area, so if you're in a car crash that's serious, that's where you're goin' to go. Yeh darn sure want to go there.

 

Is there a reason why they shouldn't have billed yeh?

 

No feeling like we walked into a charity operation, no reduced price due to the fact they aren't paying taxes.. (Do they pay taxes in their business ventures? Or hide behind their religion, and run tax free buisnesses?)

 

Holy smoke! Yeh do realize that public hospitals don't pay taxes, right? And yeh do realize what would happen if only public hospitals didn't pay taxes and got government money, and every other hospital was forced to charge 35% more, right? There would only be government hospitals. Back in the day, we used to call that the Soviet Union.

 

Not for profit entities of all faiths and purposes have to charge people money. Their workers deserve to be able to eat and have a roof over their heads, too. They need to pay for electricity and water just like everybody else.

 

I'll tell yeh, though. When it's my time to fade from this earth, I'm goin' to the hospice at our local Catholic hospital. A finer, more caring group of people you will never meet. Been with several friends who have gone out that way, and I can honestly say that they always put a deeply spiritual care for the family light years ahead of any financial concern. I don't mind payin' so that those people can support a family of their own, not in the least.

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker]

Beavah stated I'm not a very good Catholic apologist, being as I am one of those kind-hearted humble Protestant fellows that moosetracker seems to like so much.

Well, there goes the neighborhood!

 

mark this And my mom for some reason was sent to the Catholic hospital in an emergancy.. They billed us the same way as any other public hospital.. No feeling like we walked into a charity operation, no reduced price due to the fact they aren't paying taxes.. (Do they pay taxes in their business ventures? Or hide behind their religion, and run tax free buisnesses?)

 

Of course my Mother would be billed.. It's a business.. Of course they use a tax loop of their religion..

 

I am also sure there are plenty of good souls working in the Catholic Hospitals.. Just like in Scouting.. There are also groups of people shifting the numbers and playing games for the profit. Just like in Scouting. There are also horror stories that I have heard of very poor treatment (an yes I realize other places will have horror stories too..)

 

A Catholic hospital is run by people. The good, the bad and the ugly.

 

And yes in other countries Catholic schools do help the poor.. But we are in a discussion about the American Government and Catholic businesses. Therefore the statement was only made about American schools as our government control does not reach as far as India or Philippines..

 

Well this was fun.. So now that we have exhausted the topic of religion getting itself all tangled up in business, can anyone relate why this form of reasoning provides you with an arguemnet over the right of buisnesses that are not affiliated with a religion but a service industry, still being able to state religious veiwpoints as a valid reason to verbally hang up a shingle.. "Homosexuals are unwelcomed here" rather then just telling white lies about being booked for that weekend.. And why would the weddings be so abhorrent to service, but not the anniverseries, or renting an apartment to them or anything else that would force you to provide service for them.

 

 

 

 

[Beavah]

And why would the weddings be so abhorrent to service

 

Because marriage as it is viewed here in da U.S. and the rest of the western world is historically and fundamentally a religious act. A full-out sacrament for some, a deep biblical religious commitment for others.

 

So "gay marriage" is viewed quite simply as a deliberate sacrilege by folks who come from that tradition. Or at least a bit like someone who has never served in da military puttin' on a uniform and pretending to be a veteran.

 

If we feel we need to provide for other forms of life partnership, it would be more respecting of diversity and each others' values if we simply separated the state from the marriage business, eh? Marriage is somethin' certain religious sects do, the state has no business in it. Just let adults who are able to contract set up any partnership arrangements they'd like through their attorneys. Arranged partnerships, 4-way partnerships, Hollywood-style partnerships that expire in 2 months with no obligation. Whatever. Dismantle all the rest. No tax privilege, no immigration benefit, completely rework most of probate.

 

If yeh want, yeh can work it like a treaty, eh? Have a signing ceremony with your lawyers and a notary public there.

 

Then it would be easy, eh? Nobody should be compelled to attend someone else's religious ceremony. But if yeh just want a party catered for a contract signing, sure, why not?

 

B

 

[Scoutfish]

"So "gay marriage" is viewed quite simply as a deliberate sacrilege by folks who come from that tradition "

 

Yeah, but that's the problem...the gays do not see it as that. They simply want the same type of service for themselves. Gays believe in God too. Gays are religious people too.

 

So now, groups "a" thinks group "B" should not get married because groups "A" is insulted?

 

That's like Bhuddists saying Christians should not be allowd to celebrate Christmas because the Bhuddists do not believe in Christmas and think celebrating Christmas is simply as a deliberate sacrilege .

 

 

SO why should Christians forfiet their own beliefs based on somebody else's?

 

I don't know, but it's the same thing the gays are asking?

 

Why should they forfiet their own beliefs and feelings because you do not agree with them?

 

My wife and myself bought our house 5 months before we got married. But we had been planning our getting married for a year . We had been dating for 3 years before that for a total of 4 years before getting married.

 

We will have been married for 16 years in 2 months.

 

But would you belive that quite a few people thought we were an abomination to marrage because we lived together for 4 months before we got married? Yep! That's right. We slept in the dame bed beside each other .

 

Yep! We were viewed quite simply as a deliberate sacrilege of marrage and God by a handfull of people.

 

About half of those people are divorced or seperated. I am still hapily married.

 

Go figure!

 

Point is, at what point was my wife and I supposed to put our own thoughts, feelings and beliefs aside because somebody else didn't agree to them?

 

At what point did my and my wifes ideals become open to their dissection and opinion?

 

At what point do any of us have to live based on somebody else's ideals and why do they elevate themselves to assume anything we do is a deliberate sacrilege to their beliefs?

 

Kinda sounds like they need an ego check and a few bubbled popped!

 

[moosetracker]

Oh.. nicely stated Scoutfish

 

I don't have a problem with anyone not attending a wedding they find they don't agree with. I don't think you need to pass a law that allows you to avoid it. If you are small enough you can find a polite reason not to be available. If you are large enough, you make sure you employee enough people who are fine with it and assign them to the service. If you are fine with it, then maybe promote is not the right word, but, there are ways you can send out signals so that someone planning a same-sex marriage will know that your business will treat their special day with the attention and respect they would appreciate.

 

Beavah writes

If we feel we need to provide for other forms of life partnership, it would be more respecting of diversity and each others' values if we simply separated the state from the marriage business, eh? Marriage is somethin' certain religious sects do, the state has no business in it. Just let adults who are able to contract set up any partnership arrangements they'd like through their attorneys. Arranged partnerships, 4-way partnerships, Hollywood-style partnerships that expire in 2 months with no obligation. Whatever. Dismantle all the rest. No tax privilege, no immigration benefit, completely rework most of probate.

 

 

So if Marriage is somethin' certain religious sects do, and we removed the state from it, there isn't any problem with religions that are fine with homosexual unions still preforming the ceremony. Right? I mean it is now up to the religion and their beliefs to if they will preform the union or not. Right? Remember ALL religions are not in agreement on this issue.

 

Also I think you have it backwards. If we remove the state from marriage, and give them some other union to preform, then anyone who is in a union preformed by the state should get employee benefits for that union, tax privilege, immigration benefits etc.. Those in a religious marriage should get not state or government benefits for that union.

 

NH was proposing that civil union thing. It is an insult to the homosexuals. To put their union on equal footing as a union between a man and his goat, or a man and a 9 year old child.. Tell them their union offers them no privileges or benefits enjoyed by a married couples. Basically a civil union had no more meaning then no union at all. Worse because going through such a sham as if this had any meaning would mean they accepted being ridiculed.

 

Most homosexuals are fine being married by a state official. If they wish for a more religious ceremony they are fine finding a religion that will accept them. If their religion has disowned them for their lifestyle, the Unitarian Church is a great one for them, because they can join it, and still keep the religous beliefs that they were raised up to believe in.

[OldGreyEagle]

So, Moosetracker, are you saying that Catholic Hospitals or some catholic hospitals do not care for gay patients? I have to ask specifically because I am not sure I understood what you were/are saying

[Tampa Turtle]

In my old hometown the Catholic diocese supported a hospice that had many gay patients with AIDS. They never turned anyone away (capacity aside) if they couldn't pay or for orientation. (Heck I know priests that are gay) I know because my mom, a catholic eucharistic minister, made the daily communion rounds there. It was a pretty expensive operation.

[moosetracker]

I never stated anything of the kind.. I just asked a question, which no one ever answered. Someone had a link that did state that did answer the question. So I dropped it. All I said was that I have no issue with routine service going down the street. I would only have issue if they turned away emergancy cases of people that did not meet with their moral code (such as gays), or services (such as having to abort a prenancy in order to save the life of a mother.).. Then I asked if they would, but no one responded..

 

TT thank you for confirmation of what I interpreted from the info in the link. Which just eluded to the fact they did have an emergency clause they had to abide by.. Yours shows they will even help when it is long term, not only for emergancies..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[JoeBob]

Moose: "I don't have a problem with anyone not attending a wedding they find they don't agree with."

Oh good! Then we agree that a caterer, florist or photographer DOES have the right to refuse service. Excellent!

What were we arguing about?

 

Lemme help you out with a few things that you can legitimately use against Catholics in the future:

 

1- Only Catholics who have attended recent confession are allowed to take communion. Stingy with the wine and crackers? Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. invite everyone to partake.

 

2- They believe that the wafer during communion miraculously turns into the body of Christ. Then they eat it. CANNIBALS!

 

[moosetracker]

Kindof threw one sentence out of context.. Didn't you? I disagree with a law being passed to support this stance.. You have to widdle out of it, by a good old fashioned lie that does not insult the customer requesting your services.

 

Umm.. about that communion is not unless you go to confession.. I have been to a catholic service that had a communion.. No one took a tally of who could partake and who could not. Everyone got up stood in line and took communion.. Even ME!!!! and I'm not catholic! No one stopped me, and everyone I was sitting with encouraged me, and I would have felt out of place not following the crowd.. But I would not let the guy put the waffer in my mouth. "Give me that I can feed myself!!"

 

The "This is my body, This is my blood" is in other religions also

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm. Yeh know, moosetracker, yeh really should sit and reflect a bit about your anti-Catholic stuff. Make fun of 'em for their theology or their hierarchy or their ceremonial trappings, but give 'em due credit too. Yeh actually thought they turned people in need away from their hospitals? What bigoted screed did yeh get that from? Yeh do realize that da Catholic Church is the primary care organization for over a third of da AIDS patients in Africa, right? In the places nobody else will go save those of da various Christian religions. And yeh do know that all not for profit health care entities are tax privileged in da US, right? They don't pay federal tax because they are a hospital, not because they are a religion. Private and public hospitals get the same exemption. But da private hospitals may well turn yeh away.

 

Now to be clear, I think if da state gets out of da marriage business, it should get out of it completely, eh? No ceremonies with civil officials apeing the role of ministers. The state has no interest in interpersonal relationships. Not for any purpose. That's the realm of churches and individuals. The only state interest is da civil matter of enforcing contractual obligations, and people should be free to contract as they see fit. One partner, multiple partners, a commune, for life, for a limited time, mingling property, not mingling property, whatever. So nope, no benefits to partners of any sort for public workers, because there's no taxpayer benefit in paying for all da various folks a worker may be in partnership with. Why should the state subsidize what is exclusively a religious institution? No immigration or custodial or inheritance privilege either.

 

What yeh seem to want is for the state to act like a church, eh? And one that competes with other churches (except that our donations to da Justice of the Peace Ministry aren't voluntary). Nah. If we're goin' to disentangle the state from da JudeoChristian form of marriage, let's build da real wall between church and state. The state is not permitted to interfere or subsidize one over another at all.

 

And I reckon anybody who wants to use da term "marriage" will have to pay the Orthodox Jews or the Catholics a licensing fee, eh? And meet their criteria .

 

So if yeh don't like da traditional view of marriage, come up with some new thing. Call it "blingering" and develop a "blingering" ceremony. Have blingering festivals. Introduce your blingermate. Don't try to steal da meaning, intent, and reputation of an institution someone else built and holds sacred.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)