Archbishop Dolan Urges Obama: End Campaign Against Marriage, Religious Freedom

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, first, civil union* is* the law where I live, the governor signed it into law last year I think.
It is not our job to bring hate and fear into a world that has quite enough. It is our job to be Christ to one another.
Civil union is a law long overdue necessitated by treating people in disgusting and shameful fashion. All laws that had to be enacted to protect people from the hateful acts of other people, were necessitated by sin. And not the sin of the people the laws protect.
Please explain what you mean by “treating people in disgusting and shameful fashion.”
Are you also saying you agree with the idea of making gay marriages lawful?
 
Please explain what you mean by “treating people in disgusting and shameful fashion.”
Are you also saying you agree with the idea of making gay marriages lawful?
I absolutely agree with the law of “civil union” which gives two adults regardless of gender the same civil rights and responsibilities previously afforded under marriage statutes that applied only to heterosexual couples. That is: the rights of making medical decisions when the partner is unable to, rights of inheritance, property, insurance, tax filing as a couple and so forth.

I am a rather firm believer in Sacramental marriage. The first thing is a matter of civil law. The second thing is a matter of religious belief.

As to your first question, do you really not know how gay couples have been treated under the law in the past? It’s a fairly ugly story and I’d rather not have to detail those things. Perhaps you could research this yourself if you are unaware.
 
As to your first question, do you really not know how gay couples have been treated under the law in the past? It’s a fairly ugly story and I’d rather not have to detail those things. Perhaps you could research this yourself if you are unaware.
This is an excellent point, which harkens back to the days of segregation. You can make a reasonable claim that private businesses (and possibly even communities) ought to be able to discriminate against whatever quality they feel like as Rand Paul tried to do not that long ago. However, even Rand Paul admitted that the Civil Rights act was justified because “there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s.” Specifically, he was talking about the terror that black people in the South were subjected to. White people had the power to humiliate, violate, unjustly persecute, and physically abuse black people. Nothing short of a government mandate (or possibly armed uprising by African Americans) was going to be able to change this culture in a reasonable time span.

Homosexuals have also suffered some injustice, although, I would argue not nearly so pervasively as in the case of segregation. We’ve seen a few such examples very recently, in the booing of a gay soldier and the suicide of a gay teen. Does this constitute a “overriding problem” in society which warrants a Gay Civil Rights Act? Maybe, it probably depends on who you ask. I would say, however, that even Rand Paul would likely admit that states are well within their authority to make such a law, or even to strike down a law which would be likely to continue the discrimination against gays.
 
Homosexuals have also suffered some injustice, although, I would argue not nearly so pervasively as in the case of segregation. We’ve seen a few such examples very recently, in the ***booing of a gay soldier ***and the suicide of a gay teen. Does this constitute a “overriding problem” in society which warrants a Gay Civil Rights Act? .
I am sorry to see you participate in the manufactured outrage against an imaginary “injustice” - the booing of a gay soldier who asked a question in a presidential debate. But if you want to compare that to lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and segregation, go ahead. It just makes your position look all the more silly.

Ishii
 
I am sorry to see you participate in the manufactured outrage against an imaginary “injustice” - the booing of a gay soldier who asked a question in a presidential debate. But if you want to compare that to lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and segregation, go ahead. It just makes your position look all the more silly.

Ishii
How about tying a boy to fence and beating him to death, that satisfy your criteria for “not silly?”

Please, if people don’t know about the realities of life as a gay person in America, please try to find out yourselves or let it go. It’s not a fun discussion.
 
I am sorry to see you participate in the manufactured outrage against an imaginary “injustice” - the booing of a gay soldier who asked a question in a presidential debate. But if you want to compare that to lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and segregation, go ahead. It just makes your position look all the more silly.

Ishii
I thought it was a dramatic example of how a community can and does demean the voices of gay people. It also demonstrated the amount of respect that people have for homosexuals to do this in front of a national audience. I did not mean that the incident itself was that horrific.
 
I thought it was a dramatic example of how a community can and does demean the voices of gay people. It also demonstrated the amount of respect that people have for homosexuals to do this in front of a national audience. I did not mean that the incident itself was that horrific.
You implied that booing the gay soldier was an “injustice”. What was unjust about that?

Ishii
 
How about tying a boy to fence and beating him to death, that satisfy your criteria for “not silly?”

Please, if people don’t know about the realities of life as a gay person in America, please try to find out yourselves or let it go. It’s not a fun discussion.
Yes, that was awful, but how often does that happen? You take one tragedy and compare it to the systematic injustice that blacks had to endure for decades as if gays are suffering unjustices every day. On the contrary, the gay agenda is rammed down our throats. So quite comparing the two please.

Ishii
 
A question, it seems, you don’t have any desire to investigate.

Here is one source with admittedly dated data:
ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32353

Here is another:
gaylife.about.com/od/hatecrimes/a/statistics.htm

Some estimates claim that the reported cases only capture around 25% of the actual cases.
You still haven’t addressed my point: what about booing a gay soldier asking a question to presidential candidates constitutes an injustice? Or is free speech for liberals only when they agree with what’s being said?

As for the studies on “hate crimes”, If a heterosexual get robbed, its a mere robbery. If a gay person gets robbed, its a robbery and a “hate-crime” resulting in more punishment. All hate crimes legislation does is pit groups against each other, saying, “this group is more valuable and protected than the other group.” Hate crimes laws promote a sense of “group victimization” mentality. Very p.c.

Ishii
 
A question, it seems, you don’t have any desire to investigate.
I am not the one making the case that the plight of gays is worse or on the same level as that of the struggle of blacks - the burden of evidence is on you guys making the claims. It would be nice if you refrained from personalizing this. Do you insult me because of my religious views? Do I need to report this to the authorities? 😃
 
Yes, that was awful, but how often does that happen? You take one tragedy and compare it to the systematic injustice that blacks had to endure for decades as if gays are suffering unjustices every day. On the contrary, the gay agenda is rammed down our throats. So quite comparing the two please.

Ishii
As I said, you don’t seem at all familiar with the history of gay abuse. How often were gays beaten to death? See, it’s easy to get a stat on a black person, less easy than for a gay person. These are from some news reports over the last 10 years or so. This is the tip of an iceberg.

Venus Xtravaganza was found strangled and stuffed under a bed in a New York hotel room in 1988.
Brandon Teena (born Teena Renae Brandon), a 21-year-old trans man, was raped and murdered in Falls City, Nebraska,
Rita Hester, a transgender woman, was found on the floor of her apartment in Allston, Massachusetts on November 28, 1998. She had suffered multiple stab wounds and later died at the hospital
Fred Martinez, Jr decomposed body was found June 21, five days after his disappearance, in a desert canyon on the edge of Cortez, known as “The Pits”.[4] Murphy was caught disposing of bloody clothing in Farmington, New Mexico.[5] He was held on $500,000 bail.[6]
Gwen Araujo of Newark, California (died October 2002), an American teenage trans woman, was killed by four men, two of whom she had been raped by, who beat and strangled her after discovering she was transsexual.[7][8][9] Two of the defendants were convicted of second-degree murder,[10] but not convicted on the requested hate crime enhancements. The other two defendants pleaded guilty or no contest to voluntary manslaughter. In at least one of the trials, a trans panic defense - an extension of the gay panic defense - was employed.
Emonie Spaulding was killed in Washington, DC, in August 2003.
Roberto González Onrubia died on September 1 in Madrid, Spain, from a beating he received on August 29. This was the culmination of a nine-month period during which Dolores de los Reyes Navarro and Ainhoa Nogales Bergantiños made him a prisoner in his own home and inflicted torture, including physical abuse and sexual humiliation, on him. The two women were found guilty in 2010.[12]

Ruby Ordenana was a transgender sex worker who was found dead on March 16. An autopsy showed that she had been strangled to death. Police believe that DNA evidence shows that her murderer is a man who raped and assaulted two other transgender people.[13]

Erika Keels (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 3/22/07) Erika, a 20-year-old black transgender woman, was murdered on March 22, 2007, on North Broad Street in Philadelphia. Witnesses saw an assailant eject Erika from his car and intentionally run her over four times, killing her and leaving the scene. A medical examiner’s report supports these eyewitness accounts. But police ruled Erika’s death an accident and have refused to conduct an investigation. The driver, Roland Button, was later apprehended, but he has yet to face criminal charges–including “hit and run” charges. When Ms. Keels’ friends, who are themselves trans, questioned police officials about the classification of her death as an accident, they were asked to disclose their “birth” names and told they were “trying to make something out of nothing.”
Larry King of Oxnard, California, was a gay or bisexual[18] 15-year-old eighth-grade student who was shot to death at his school on February 12, 2008. He wore gender variant clothes, jewelry and make-up[19] and had come out as gay at school.[19] King was bullied and teased by his fellow students due to his effeminacy and openness about being gay, having come out at ten-years-old and while in the third grade.[18] On the morning of February 12, Lawrence was in the school’s computer lab with 24 other students. Fellow student, fourteen-year-old Brandon McInerney was witnessed repeatedly looking at King during the class. At 8:15 a.m, McInerney shot King twice in the head using a handgun
Duanna Johnson, a 40-year-old African American transgender woman. In February 2008, Duanna was picked up and arrested by Memphis, Tennessee, police officers Bridges McRae and J. Swain. She was pinned down and beaten by the two men in a Memphis police jail after she refused to respond to anti-gay and anti-transgender slurs. The assault was captured on video, which aired on several regional newscasts. In an interview given to FOX 13, Duanna spoke about her experiences. “As [Officer McRae] was calling me, he said ‘hey he-she, come over here’” Johnson told FOX 13 reporters, “I knew he couldn’t be talking to me because that’s not my name.” Duanna Johnson received national media attention this past June when she went public about the brutality she suffered at the hands of two Memphis Police Officers. She became “the public face of our community’s campaign against racism, homophobia, and transphobia” according to a statement from the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center. Tragically, Duanna did not live to see full justice served. On Monday Nov 10, according to news reports, Duanna was shot “execution style” between Hollywood and Staten Avenue in Memphis, Tenn.[21]

con’t…
 
Felicia Melton-Smyth, a 41-year-old transwoman, was stabbed to death on May 26, 2008 in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. She was vacationing with a group of 20 people from Madison, Wisconsin. Francisco Javier Hoyos Reyes was arrested immediately afterwards.[22]

Angie Zapata was a trans woman who was murdered on July 17, 2008, in Greeley, Colorado. Her death was the first ever case involving a transgender victim to be ruled a hate crime.[23] Colorado is one of only eleven states that protect transgender victims under hate crime laws in the United States. Allen Andrade, who learned eighteen-year-old Angie was transgender after meeting her and spending several days with her, beat her to death with a fire extinguisher. In his arrest affidavit, Andrade calls Zapata “it”,[24] and during his trial a tape was played of a phone conversation in which he told his girl friend “gay things need to die”
LaTeisha Green was a trans woman who was murdered on November 14, 2008. The man who shot her, Dwight DeLee, was found guilty of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime against gays.
Tyli A Nana Boo Mack, a 21-year-old transgender woman, was attacked and fatally stabbed in broad daylight on the street in Washington, D.C. [29] The attack occurred on the 200 block of Q Street, NW around 2:30pm, near the offices of Transgender Health Empowerment, a transgender support group.[29] Mack was walking with an unidentified transgender woman when they were attacked.[30] Both victims were rushed to Howard University Hospital, where Mack died.

So, there’s that. .In the history of this country, gay people have been unable to find employment if known to be gay. Arrested in their own homes with their significant other, in bed, and charged with sex crimes. Beaten and robbed while police do nothing outside of gay establishments.

Of course, the problem with the last is simply being a person outside of that establishment can get a straight person beaten and sexually assaulted by “straight” men. How do I know all of this? I was a city cop in my youth. I seriously doubt it was different in my city than in any other.

Let’s move on to issues resolved by civil unions. Gay man in hospital dying a fairly horrific and painful death form complications from AIDS. The one person who has cared for him for years, stood by him and loved him, the only person he trusts, is ejected from the hospital and his family, the people who spit on him and threw him out at 15 when he said he was gay show up to tell him his suffering is all his own fault and he is going to hell.

Medical personnel, agreeing with the family, “forget” to administer pain medications or give palliative care.

After he finally dies, family goes to his house, throws out the partner who’s name is not on the title, with nothing, including all of his property and furniture and clothes. Of course, there is no funeral for any of his loved ones and friends to come to.

If you think any of this is unusual or wasn’t repeated over and over, you simply have lived a life where you do not know gay people, are unaware of gay issues and were only made aware when the so-called “gay-agenda” was, thankfully, “shoved down our throats.”

I am proud of any small part I played in promoting the agenda and doing the shoving. I regret I did not do more.

IF these people had not been treated like garbage, they would not have been so disenfranchised so as to have developed the very unhealthy subculture they ended up in. Ignorance, fear, hatred, indifference created those conditions.

I don’t think I have anything more to say on this topic. Please have the last word.
 
Code:
If you think any of this is unusual or wasn't repeated over and over, you simply have lived a life where you do not know gay people, are unaware of gay issues and were only made aware when the so-called "gay-agenda" was, thankfully, "shoved down our throats."
So its obvious you aren’t interested at all in having a conversation on this issue, but in merely pontificating. Your examples of the injustices that supposedly happened are suspect: what are your sources? Did these things really happen? If so, you should be able to provide a reliable link that authenticates your claims. Otherwise its all a bunch of LGBT propoganda. So until then, sorry, your examples are unpersuasive.
I am proud of any small part I played in promoting the agenda and doing the shoving. I regret I did not do more.
Perhaps a case could be made that the ones who like to shove the gay agenda down our throats are partially responsible for violence. I mean, if you seriously are going to encourage the mentally ill man who thinks he’s really a woman (i.e. transgenderred types) or those who define themselves by their love of sodomy (i.e. gays), then don’t be surprised when there is a backlash. The LGTB advocates say to the mentally ill transgenderred guy: “go ahead, wave your freak flag proudly” then wonder why he gets beat up. Seriously, the christians who advocate for the gay agenda are twisting what it means to be compassionate. We are told to hate the sin, love the sinner. Instead, the radical gay agenda is about embracing the sin. One would expect, Julia Mae, if you wanted to be consistent, to start an “adulterers” protection agenda. I mean, there have been probably countless cases where the husband finds the guy who his wife cheated with and beats him to a pulp. Perhaps we need to raise awareness for the adulterers then? Oh, that’s right, Jesus said to the adulteress, “go and sin no more” not “go and embrace your adultery and be proud.” Perhaps you need to re-phrase “LGTB” to LGTBA. Of course other groups could be added on later, as our society gradually comes to accept more and more depravity.

Ishii
 
I absolutely agree with the law of “civil union” which gives two adults regardless of gender the same civil rights and responsibilities previously afforded under marriage statutes that applied only to heterosexual couples. That is: the rights of making medical decisions when the partner is unable to, rights of inheritance, property, insurance, tax filing as a couple and so forth.

I am a rather firm believer in Sacramental marriage. The first thing is a matter of civil law. The second thing is a matter of religious belief.
This is from the Vatican website:
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
It also says this:
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.
 
You still haven’t addressed my point: what about booing a gay soldier asking a question to presidential candidates constitutes an injustice? Or is free speech for liberals only when they agree with what’s being said?

As for the studies on “hate crimes”, If a heterosexual get robbed, its a mere robbery. If a gay person gets robbed, its a robbery and a “hate-crime” resulting in more punishment. All hate crimes legislation does is pit groups against each other, saying, “this group is more valuable and protected than the other group.” Hate crimes laws promote a sense of “group victimization” mentality. Very p.c.

Ishii
Incorrect. A hate crime is one which involves harassment, threats or violence, and which is motivated by prejudice against someone’s race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. Simple robbery of a homosexual would not be prosecuted any differently than any other robbery, unless the required motive was present.
 
Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
Is that satisfying to you? You realize that it says: “Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they are laws in favour of homosexual unions”

Moreover, why does the state have a duty to promote and defend marriage as defined by the Vatican but not marriage as defined by a denomination which wishes to marry gay people?
 
Moreover, why does the state have a duty to promote and defend marriage as defined by the Vatican but not marriage as defined by a denomination which wishes to marry gay people?
Because marriage has been historically, universally defined as the union of one man and one woman by all societies, not just the Vatican.
This is why redefining marriage to encompass homosexual relationships is, by nature, an attack against real marriage. It seeks to redefine the essential meaning of the relationship by redefining the word.
The state also recognizes that parents have certain legitimate authority over their children, and this relationship also defines certain rights. If we redefine the word “parent” (just as the word “marriage” is being redefined) to mean anyone the child wants to call his “parent” would the state have to recognize this as a legal parent-child relationship? If so, then my kids could get a lot more financial aid for school by claiming a random unemployed man as their father.
 
Originally Posted by livnlern
Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
Is that satisfying to you? You realize that it says: “Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they are laws in favour of homosexual unions”
No, you do you realize what it is saying. And you changed the wording but still used quotation marks, which is an intellectually dishonest practice. The quotation from the Vatican is clarifying that recognizing homosexual unions is legally analogous to recognizing homosexual marriage.
 
Is that satisfying to you? You realize that it says: “Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they are laws in favour of homosexual unions”

Moreover, why does the state have a duty to promote and defend marriage as defined by the Vatican but not marriage as defined by a denomination which wishes to marry gay people?
My quote says this:
“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.”
As Catholics, we should follow what our Church teaches. It is the true Church begun by Jesus Christ over 2,000 years ago. What is “satisfying” to me is to follow what is set down by the Church. Catholics and other people of religion should not be forced to accept gay marriage as a part of our society.
Here’s another quote from the Vatican site that explains the Church’s (and every Catholic’s) positon:
“The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top