Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[estesbob]

It hardly matters what some black pastors believe. Better to look to Martin Luther King who wrote in his famous Letter from Birmingham County Jail, “We know from painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

King goes on to say: “Let me rush on to mention another disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership…I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be some of our strongest allies. Instead, some of them have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of the stained-glass windows.”

So just because a bunch of white pastors, priests and rabbis didn’t support King, that does not mean that he was wrong. And just because a bunch of black pastors do not support gay rights, that does not mean that it is wrong for LGBT people to seek justice.

One does not choose to be Black. The idea that homosexual behavior and race are equivalent is specious.

 

[estesbob]

Again, that is not my ‘definition’ of marriage, but what I think marriage is mainly about, as opposed to just sex acts.

hem.

Whos definition is it? Why did it take eons for this definition to come about? What makes us so much smarter than all who went before us?

 

[Thorolfr]

Justice in what way? Black people are easy to identify. Their skin color is 100% recognizable. Anyone can and should control their personal sexual behavior because we all have that choice.

Ed

We also try to protect people from being fired from their job on the basis of religion. But using your logic above, why is that necessary? After all, you can’t tell that some one is Catholic, for example, by looking at them. All they have to do is control their outward behavior so that no one would know that they are Catholic. They would have a choice. If a Catholic employee got fired by a Protestant employer, it would be their own fault.

 

[LisaA]

Not to mention Alveda King, who works with Priests for Life: “Neither my great-grandfather, an NAACP founder, my grandfather Dr. Martin Luther King Sr., an NAACP leader, my father Rev. A. D. Williams King, nor my uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. embraced the homosexual agenda that the current NAACP is attempting to label as a civil rights agenda. In the 21st century, the anti-traditional marriage community is in league with the anti-life community, and together with the NAACP and other sympathizers, they are seeking a world where homosexual marriage and abortion will supposedly set the captives free.”

Yes the idea that a Southern Baptist preacher from the 60s was anticipating his incredibly important work would be hijacked to promote providing marriage to homosexuals defies reason. As the secular progressives try to push aside Reverend King’s background as a minister aside, invariably calling him Dr King when through his life he was known as Rev King, they can more easily latch their current cause celebre to a legitimate movement to get basic civil rights.

Read about what blacks when through…not getting to try on clothes at a store and not being able to return them if they didn’t fit, not swimming in public pools, not being allowed in public entertainment facilities, not being able to get jobs, being beaten, hosed, blocked from a schoolhouse door… and tell me that Jim and Bob’s demand to have Sweet Cakes bake their “wedding” cake compares. What utter piffle.

 

[estesbob]

We also try to protect people from being fired from their job on the basis of religion. But using your logic above, why is that necessary? After all, you can’t tell that some one is Catholic, for example, by looking at them. All they have to do is control their outward behavior so that no one would know that they are Catholic. They would have a choice. If a Catholic employee got fired by a Protestant employer, it would be their own fault.

So now Faith and sodomy are also equivalent? Utter, utter nonsense.

 

[LisaA]

You’re the one who responded to the poster’s use of “darlin”. I was merely responding to your post.

Not on topic, the ‘darlin’ reference was not directed to you either.

 

[estesbob]

Yes the idea that a Southern Baptist preacher from the 60s was anticipating his incredibly important work would be hijacked to promote providing marriage to homosexuals defies reason. As the secular progressives try to push aside Reverend King’s background as a minister aside, invariably calling him Dr King when through his life he was known as Rev King, they can more easily latch their current cause celebre to a legitimate movement to get basic civil rights.

Read about what blacks when through…not getting to try on clothes at a store and not being able to return them if they didn’t fit, not swimming in public pools, not being allowed in public entertainment facilities, not being able to get jobs, being beaten, hosed, blocked from a schoolhouse door… and tell me that Jim and Bob’s demand to have Sweet Cakes bake their “wedding” cake compares. What utter piffle.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Again, that is not my ‘definition’ of marriage, but what I think marriage is mainly about, as opposed to just sex acts.

I could as well claim that you assert marriage is ‘defined’ as a sex act, so both rape and polygamy would be ‘marriage’ - but such childish strawman arguments are a waste of time. Just like you trying to dictate to me what my ‘definition’ of marriage is.

But since you raise the point, no my ‘definition’ of the word ‘marriage’ would exclude neither polygamous, incestuous, underage or forced marriages, as the word ‘marriage’ is used to refer to all those things. That doesn’t mean that I approve of such marriages, just that I am willing to support my reasons for disapproving rationally rather than dogmatically insisting that ‘marriage’ is defined to exclude them.

Sorry, but I see very little rational in any of this.

 

[LisaA]

We also try to protect people from being fired from their job on the basis of religion. But using your logic above, why is that necessary? After all, you can’t tell that some one is Catholic, for example, by looking at them. All they have to do is control their outward behavior so that no one would know that they are Catholic. They would have a choice. If a Catholic employee got fired by a Protestant employer, it would be their own fault.

Religious freedom is FIRST in the Bill of Rights. Specific references to protected classes came along much later. Those classes make reference to characteristics beyond the person’s control such as race and gender.

Completely different.

 

[Thorolfr]

Yes the idea that a Southern Baptist preacher from the 60s was anticipating his incredibly important work would be hijacked to promote providing marriage to homosexuals defies reason. As the secular progressives try to push aside Reverend King’s background as a minister aside, invariably calling him Dr King when through his life he was known as Rev King, they can more easily latch their current cause celebre to a legitimate movement to get basic civil rights.

You can’t assume that Martin Luther King would not have supported civil rights for gay people. As his wife Coretta Scott King points out, many LGB people came out to actively support King and one of King’s close advisers, Bayard Rustin, was gay. It can’t be pretended that this is an issue with which King was unaware. Also, John Lewis, another giant of the Civil Rights Movement, has been very strong in his support of LGBT rights.

 

[edwest2]

Yes the idea that a Southern Baptist preacher from the 60s was anticipating his incredibly important work would be hijacked to promote providing marriage to homosexuals defies reason. As the secular progressives try to push aside Reverend King’s background as a minister aside, invariably calling him Dr King when through his life he was known as Rev King, they can more easily latch their current cause celebre to a legitimate movement to get basic civil rights.

Read about what blacks when through…not getting to try on clothes at a store and not being able to return them if they didn’t fit, not swimming in public pools, not being allowed in public entertainment facilities, not being able to get jobs, being beaten, hosed, blocked from a schoolhouse door… and tell me that Jim and Bob’s demand to have Sweet Cakes bake their “wedding” cake compares. What utter piffle.

Very well said. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. is not remembered for his Christianity so he has been reduced to a secular title.

wnd.com/2014/09/black-pastors-called-silver-bullet-against-gay-marriage/

Peace,
Ed

 

[estesbob]

You can’t assume that Martin Luther King would not have supported civil rights for gay people. As his wife Coretta Scott King points out, many LGB people came out to actively support King and one of King’s close advisers, Bayard Rustin, was gay. It can’t be pretended that this is an issue with which King was unaware. Also, John Lewis, another giant of the Civil Rights Movement, has been very strong in his support of LGBT rights.

In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Dr. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here is the exchange in its entirety

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve

Read more at godfatherpolitics.com/14139/martin-luther-king-jr-opposed-gay-rights/#AK0jIvYwZZz55Jui.99
.”

 

[Thorolfr]

Religious freedom is FIRST in the Bill of Rights. Specific references to protected classes came along much later. Those classes make reference to characteristics beyond the person’s control such as race and gender.

Completely different.

Religious freedom is a civil right in the US. It is also, I believe, a moral right, but it is not one that even the Catholic Church has always supported. When the Catholic Church has had the ability to do so, it has suppressed religious freedom. As a purely moral and religious issue, should the right to religious freedom be a protected right?

 

[Sy_Noe]

To those of you who spread such fear about a slippery slope and SSM leading to polygamy and all sorts of other off topic things… heterosexuals have the right to get a state license, to have a ceremony performed by whoever is willing to perform the ceremony and then call their unions, marriage. Now homosexuals are being given the same right under civil law. Personally I thank God for that because for too long my sisters and brothers who have felt God’s call at long last have their hopes realized. But I know you don’t see it the same way. But anyway does that mean heterosexual marriage is a slippery slope?

In addition if the main factor you use to define marriage is if the 2 people in it have the ability to have sexual intercourse with one another… I haven’t seen where that has led to opposite sex rape becoming legal or a brother and sister marrying for instance.

 

[LisaA]

Very well said. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. is not remembered for his Christianity so he has been reduced to a secular title.

wnd.com/2014/09/black-pastors-called-silver-bullet-against-gay-marriage/

Peace,
Ed

I certainly remember Reverend King during his years working for Civil Rights. He was known as a preacher, his way of speaking was as a preacher, he CONSTANTLY used Biblical references. While I am sure he would have been against gays being treated the way blacks were treated in those days, I just don’t see him marching so Bob and Joe can have a church wedding. There’s a difference between basic human rights and pushing “rights” that are manifestations of an activist cohort and agenda.

 

[estesbob]

To those of you who spread such fear about a slippery slope and SSM leading to polygamy and all sorts of other off topic things… heterosexuals have the right to get a state license, to have a ceremony performed by whoever is willing to perform the ceremony and then call their unions, marriage. Now homosexuals are being given the same right under civil law. So does that mean heterosexual marriage is a slippery slope?

In addition if the main factor you use to define marriage is if the 2 people in it have the ability to have sexual intercourse with one another… I haven’t seen where that has led to opposite sex rape becoming legal or a brother and sister marrying.

People who engage in homosexual behavior have always had the right to get a state license to get married-just like people who engage in normal sexual behavior. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the definition of marriage should be changed to allow people of the same sex to marry. it is a ludicrous proposition on the face of it-as we can see in this thread alone by the rationale advanced to support it.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I certainly remember Reverend King during his years working for Civil Rights. He was known as a preacher, his way of speaking was as a preacher, he CONSTANTLY used Biblical references. While I am sure he would have been against gays being treated the way blacks were treated in those days, I just don’t see him marching so Bob and Joe can have a church wedding. There’s a difference between basic human rights and pushing “rights” that are manifestations of an activist cohort and agenda.

 

[LisaA]

Religious freedom is a civil right in the US. It is also, I believe, a moral right, but it is not one that even the Catholic Church has always supported. When the Catholic Church has had the ability to do so, it has suppressed religious freedom. As a purely moral and religious issue, should the right to religious freedom be a protected right?

Circular reasoning. Religious freedom is number one in the Bill of Rights. It does not need any additional legislation to protect a freedom enshrined in our founding documents.

As to your unattributed and unsupported claim that the Catholic Church suppresses religious freedom, I supposed you will hearken back to the days of the Crusades or maybe some other history of a thousand years ago. And that adds to this discussion how?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

We also try to protect people from being fired from their job on the basis of religion. But using your logic above, why is that necessary? After all, you can’t tell that some one is Catholic, for example, by looking at them. All they have to do is control their outward behavior so that no one would know that they are Catholic. They would have a choice. If a Catholic employee got fired by a Protestant employer, it would be their own fault.

Government and corporate policy makers include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination policies in order to protect freedom of thought and speech on the basis of the claim that sexual orientation is nothing more than a state of mind.

The practical effect of such policies, however, is to legitimize and protect any sexual conduct associated with an orientation. The right to claim a sexual orientation should not automatically grant a license for sexual conduct.

Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant homosexual couples benefits or status that make homosexual relationships appear more socially acceptable.

 

[Thorolfr]

People who engage in homosexual behavior have always had the right to get a state license to get married-just like people who engage in normal sexual behavior.

But since homosexuality is normal for gay folks, it’s not exactly true that they’ve had the right to get a state license to get married to someone of the same-sex.