Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[SuperLuigi]

Yes, exactly. I think it is really in the end a quest for social acceptance, equal footing, status. Equality under the eyes of the law is achievable through civil unions. But as you pointed out, that is not enough.

My guess is even after the victory, the same demons will still be around… We (The Intolerant) are not the real thorn.

I don’t think it ever will be enough. The fact is natural law says that gay relationships cannot ever the same or equal to straight ones.

Look for them to continue their frustration at our expense, and in some cases, those some voices will be defending Islam to the letter.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Gen 2:18: “And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.” (Douay Rheims) For homosexuals that is another homosexual. And surely Biblical references to one flesh do not merely imply sex but to a much more profound human commitment two people create with each other.

And as we have already demonstrated childbearing is not a prerequisite for marriage thus an objection to SSM can not logically be made based on an inability to procreate.

1Cor 7:9 “But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.” (Douay Rheims)

God created homosexuals. Gay and straight marry based on attraction. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Heterosexuals to the opposite.

Marriage has evolved over time. Not all that long ago interracial marriage was also banned by states.

The marriage commitment of 2 homosexuals will not any more destroy the institution of marriage than heterosexual marriages that end in divorce. If anything the love and committment of 2 homosexuals can even strengthen the institution of marriage.

Jesus chose to side with love, compassion, with empathy. And recognizing the good that all faithful monogamous unions, SS ones included, can bring to the table, things such as love, fidelity, kindness, etc is more important, I believe, for the Christian than rigidly adhering to a supposed traditional set of rules governing who can marry whom. That frankly didn’t even exist in much of the Bible.

“Leave!’ Hazel Motes cried. ‘Go ahead and leave! The truth don’t matter to you. Listen,’ he said, pointing his finger at the rest of them, ‘the truth don’t matter to you. If Jesus had redeemed you, what difference would it make to you? You wouldn’t do nothing about it. Your faces wouldn’t move, neither this way nor that, and if it was three crosses there and Him hung on the middle one, that wouldn’t mean no more to you and me than the other two. Listen here. What you need is something to take the place of Jesus, something that would speak plain. The Church Without Christ don’t have a Jesus but it needs one! It needs a new jesus! It needs one that’s all man, without blood to waste, and it needs one that don’t look like any other man so you’ll look at him. Give me such a jesus, you people. Give me such a new jesus and you’ll see how far the Church Without Christ can go!”

― Flannery O’Connor, Wise Blood

 

[ARSpade]

Gen 2:18: “And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.” (Douay Rheims) For homosexuals that is another homosexual. And surely Biblical references to one flesh do not merely imply sex but to a much more profound human commitment two people create with each other.

And as has already been demonstrated childbearing is not a prerequisite for marriage thus an objection to SSM can not logically be made based on an inability to procreate.

1Cor 7:9 “But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.” (Douay Rheims)

God created homosexuals. Gay and straight marry based on attraction. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Heterosexuals to the opposite.

Marriage has evolved over time. Not all that long ago interracial marriage was also banned by states.

The marriage commitment of 2 homosexuals will not any more destroy the institution of marriage than heterosexual marriages that end in divorce. Or for that matter celebrating what was believed and appeared to be a marriage and then annulling it later. If anything the love and committment of 2 homosexuals can even strengthen the institution of marriage.

Jesus chose to side with love, compassion, with empathy. And recognizing the good that all faithful monogamous unions, SS ones included, can bring to the table, things such as love, fidelity, kindness, etc is more important, I believe, for the Christian than rigidly adhering to a supposed traditional set of rules governing who can marry whom. That frankly didn’t even exist in much of the Bible.

You need to be careful with that cherry picker. Those things can be dangerous.

 

[YADA]

With all due respect to the Archbishop - the War on marriage started long ago with the advent of artificial birth control followed by the full assault during the 1960’s with the “free love” movement and the 1970’s assault on the unborn with the passage of abortion on demand … as soon as that happened the War on Marriage was lost … its been lost for a long time now

What we are reaping is the result of that lost War

 

[SuperLuigi]

With all due respect to the Archbishop - the War on marriage started long ago with the advent of artificial birth control followed by the full assault during the 1960’s with the “free love” movement and the 1970’s assault on the unborn with the passage of abortion on demand … as soon as that happened the War on Marriage was lost … its been lost for a long time now

What we are reaping is the result of that lost War

Interesting post.

 

[FollowChrist34]

With all due respect to the Archbishop - the War on marriage started long ago with the advent of artificial birth control followed by the full assault during the 1960’s with the “free love” movement and the 1970’s assault on the unborn with the passage of abortion on demand … as soon as that happened the War on Marriage was lost … its been lost for a long time now

What we are reaping is the result of that lost War

Yes, and we will continue to do so. I do think the effort against gay marriage is our duty but given the secular ideology we are up against and its open ended redefinition of the human person, could we prevail against that? (Look at Islam, what they are doing about it.) By its own admission, this mentality is “beyond God.” You create your own destiny, morality. And, this time, let’s realize NOW that it won’t stop here, ok? This will continue and continue and continue. By its nature, secularism is restless and ever changing; never finding. So get used to it. It is a wake up call. Just figure out which side of the line you are on - there is your peace. Don’t get sidetracked by victory and defeats. This isn’t a chess match. We’re degenerating on a very very old trajectory. Augustine would be right at home.

 

[LisaA]

Gen 2:18: “And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.” (Douay Rheims) For homosexuals that is another homosexual. And surely Biblical references to one flesh do not merely imply sex but to a much more profound human commitment two people create with each other.

And as has already been demonstrated childbearing is not a prerequisite for marriage thus an objection to SSM can not logically be made based on an inability to procreate.

1Cor 7:9 “But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.” (Douay Rheims)

God created homosexuals. Gay and straight marry based on attraction. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Heterosexuals to the opposite.

Marriage has evolved over time. Not all that long ago interracial marriage was also banned by states.

The marriage commitment of 2 homosexuals will not any more destroy the institution of marriage than heterosexual marriages that end in divorce. Or for that matter celebrating what was believed and appeared to be a marriage and then annulling it later. If anything the love and committment of 2 homosexuals can even strengthen the institution of marriage.

Jesus chose to side with love, compassion, with empathy. And recognizing the good that all faithful monogamous unions, SS ones included, can bring to the table, things such as love, fidelity, kindness, etc is more important, I believe, for the Christian than rigidly adhering to a supposed traditional set of rules governing who can marry whom. That frankly didn’t even exist in much of the Bible.

Your interpretations reflect your opinions, not a cogent argument or even a study of theology. Can you point to a single Biblical scholar who thinks that as the saying goes it doesn’t matter if it’s Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve! It does actually. Further what did God command…to multiply and be fruitful. Adam’s helpmate was not given a shovel and rake to help in the Garden but the complimentary nature that allowed her to conceive and bear children.

Further as the poster said, your “cherry picker” has missed some of the best fruit including MULTIPLE admonitions about homosexual relations…and ABOMINATION a term used for very few human endeavors. Paul also had a few choice words to say about men that lie with men and women who lie with women. Jewish law is completely opposed to homosexuality…completely. Jesus was a practicing Jew so don’t go down the “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality” Because he didn’t have to. It would be like saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west…goes without saying.

Archbishop Chaput noted that the kind of pretzel logic used to justify actions completely in opposition to Christianity should be an Olympic event. People who try to make claims that have no basis in biology, theology, history, tradition, psychology or sociology have a very tough road ahead.

 

[LisaA]

With all due respect to the Archbishop - the War on marriage started long ago with the advent of artificial birth control followed by the full assault during the 1960’s with the “free love” movement and the 1970’s assault on the unborn with the passage of abortion on demand … as soon as that happened the War on Marriage was lost … its been lost for a long time now

What we are reaping is the result of that lost War

With hindsight we can see this. And they wonder why after all of these failed social experiments we are not eagerly embracing gay “marriage?” You know something about those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I hope we can stop the contining destruction of the family.

 

[Mark121359]

With all due respect to the Archbishop - the War on marriage started long ago with the advent of artificial birth control followed by the full assault during the 1960’s with the “free love” movement and the 1970’s assault on the unborn with the passage of abortion on demand … as soon as that happened the War on Marriage was lost … its been lost for a long time now

What we are reaping is the result of that lost War

Yes! The dissent and the outright rejection of Church teachings outlined in Humanae Vitae by clergy and lay people alike has left an indelible mark! And reading some of the postings here and other places, that dissent is still strong, ever present and growing some 47 years later!

Peace, Mark

 

[YADA]

Interesting post.

… Not sure what your interesting means … or … or

Pope Pius XI warned of this attack on marriage in Casti Connubi in 1930 in response to the Lambeth Conference called by the Anglican Church that allowed artificial birth control for married couples …

Pius XI listed the consequences of this action … which were - increased divorce, increased out of wedlock births, and acceptance of abortion and the break down of the married state …

I think Pope Pius X1 would not be surprised that he was so prophetic - I do think he would be surprised at the speed of which all this occurred … especially the killing of the unborn - which is so counter to the human nature and motherhood especially …

Which is why I believe the Archbishop of San Francisco is late in identifying the War … its been lost a long time …

We pass laws that hand out monetary aid that benefits the unwed … our welfare system penalizes marriage - and rewards reproduction that occurs outside of marriage … women do not need husbands - they have a benevolent Uncle Sam … that is why in every demographic - more and more children are born to single parents - which is the number one factor in poverty … Codified in the laws and social policies …

By the way … besides the Catholic Church - do you know which other Christian Community vociferously argued against the Anglicans approval of artificial birth control for married couples? … it was the Southern Baptist Church in America … they strongly opposed this … now they have gotten on board the ABC train

 

[CaliLobo]

… Not sure what your interesting means … or … or

Pope Pius XI warned of this attack on marriage in Casti Connubi in 1930 in response to the Lambeth Conference called by the Anglican Church that allowed artificial birth control for married couples …

Pius XI listed the consequences of this action … which were - increased divorce, increased out of wedlock births, and acceptance of abortion and the break down of the married state …

I think Pope Pius X1 would not be surprised that he was so prophetic - I do think he would be surprised at the speed of which all this occurred … especially the killing of the unborn - which is so counter to the human nature and motherhood especially …

Which is why I believe the Archbishop of San Francisco is late in identifying the War … its been lost a long time …

We pass laws that hand out monetary aid that benefits the unwed … our welfare system penalizes marriage - and rewards reproduction that occurs outside of marriage … women do not need husbands - they have a benevolent Uncle Sam … that is why in every demographic - more and more children are born to single parents - which is the number one factor in poverty … Codified in the laws and social policies …

By the way … besides the Catholic Church - do you know which other Christian Community vociferously argued against the Anglicans approval of artificial birth control for married couples? … it was the Southern Baptist Church in America … they strongly opposed this … now they have gotten on board the ABC train

And why is banning artificial birth control for married couples the solution to all of these problems (children out of wedlock, rising divorce, acceptance of gay marriage, etc)?

Banning birth control would lead to a rise in birthrates, which will drain the social safety net, economy, and environment.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=YADA;12695581] … Not sure what your interesting means…

Like :yyeess: and

Pope Pius XI warned of this attack on marriage in Casti Connubi in 1930 in response to the Lambeth Conference called by the Anglican Church that allowed artificial birth control for married couples …

Pius XI listed the consequences of this action … which were - increased divorce, increased out of wedlock births, and acceptance of abortion and the break down of the married state …

I think Pope Pius X1 would not be surprised that he was so prophetic - I do think he would be surprised at the speed of which all this occurred … especially the killing of the unborn - which is so counter to the human nature and motherhood especially …

Not to take anything away from Pope Pius X1, but…once one really gets the hang of natural law and human incentive, progressive causes like birth control, changes to traditional marriage, ect. all become predictable.

Which is why I believe the Archbishop of San Francisco is late in identifying the War … its been lost a long time …

Well, I’m a younger person by most standards, and I was surprised to learn how long the gay “marriage” movement has been around. I mean, one group was talking about it in the 1950s.

I have said that it’s problematic if people in the Catholic hierarchy get surprised by this kind of stuff, because what the progressives are pushing is nothing new. They may think it is because it makes them look cool and smart, but really, it’s the same old recycled garbage that ruins civilization.

We pass laws that hand out monetary aid that benefits the unwed … our welfare system penalizes marriage - and rewards reproduction that occurs outside of marriage … women do not need husbands - they have a benevolent Uncle Sam … that is why in every demographic - more and more children are born to single parents - which is the number one factor in poverty … Codified in the laws and social policies …

If we’re going to subsidize something, we’re going to get more of it. So if we subsidize single parents and poor people, we’re going to have more of them.

I think it was the state of Georiga that was subsidizing housing for single parents. I remember hearing about teen(s) who would try and pregnant on purpose just so they could move out of the house with Mom and Dad. :tsktsk:

By the way … besides the Catholic Church - do you know which other Christian Community vociferously argued against the Anglicans approval of artificial birth control for married couples? … it was the Southern Baptist Church in America … they strongly opposed this … now they have gotten on board the ABC train

There goes their numbers…

 

[edwest2]

Being Catholic or having other beliefs has nothing to do with truth. People have faith in many things that are not true. Intelligent people accept the truth and do not deny it simply because it is true. They do not need an organized religion or a guru to tell them something is right or wrong. Mankind has that ability.

I have found that people who reject the truth do so because they just don’t WANT to accept or recognize the truth for some personal reason, even when it hits them in the face. They can come up with all sorts of reasons but deep down inside they really cannot reject it.

You don’t need faith to recognize the truth.

Well said.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

With hindsight we can see this. And they wonder why after all of these failed social experiments we are not eagerly embracing gay “marriage?” You know something about those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I hope we can stop the contining destruction of the family.

Lisa,

Have faith. God is involved. Do not allow this to be viewed as a totally secular matter. Look how long it took the ghastly legal abortion experiment to die down in the US. Prayer was part of that. At the time, I was there, we were told abortion should be legal and rare. Rare… yeah, right.

Best,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

One could say the same thing about tradition. Just because something has been perceived as traditional doesn’t necessarily have to mean it’s right.

To what tradition do you refer? Pope John Paul II clearly stated not a position but a fact.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

No the Church is the fullness of truth. We try to understand and incorporate that truth in our lives. I find often when someone disagrees with the Church’s position on a subject, they are not very well versed in the teaching and the reasoning behind it. One of the things you will learn as you move from “confused Catholic” to a practicing devout Catholic is that the Church’s teaching is not simply beautiful but completely rational, consistent, based on Natural Law as well as the Word of God. Unfortunately so many hear a short statement “the Church is against birth control” without bothering to read and understand this teaching they just spout some silly kneejerk statement like “what would some old celibate man know about this?” and dismiss it.

I assure you that if you learn more about your faith, question anything you do not understand or accept, you will be amazed and the brilliance and scholarship that goes into every word, every line of the Catechism.

In contrast the Secular Progressive viewpoint is arbitrary and relevant, based on the opinions of those in power at the time but will not stand up to rational argument. Thus the only response is “you’re a H8R! You’re a bigot! You’re a homophobe!”

Nope. We just know the truth and remember that’s what sets you free, not disordered relationships and sin. That’s what the Secular Progressives preach and it results in misery and death.

Yes. I believe the two greatest progressive “sins” are boredom due to a lack of creating and imposing socially deforming and lethal experiments, and a lack of novelty, i.e. “I wish life could be anything! Bark, bark, bark!” Iggy Pop. I mean, without this, what are they left to do?

Ed

 

[edwest2]

It is a belief or faith that one knows the the truth though. You can say you know the truth because you believe you do because you have faith in what the CC informs. Though I’m not one to go around proclaiming I know for sure the truth… I don’t even feel a need to think I do… I also don’t have the faith you do. So what you believe is truth may not be what I believe.

This is called rationalization. On balance, gay marriage is arbitrary. Human biology shows us the truth. The Culture of Relativism will not allow society to exist, but fragment it into tribes.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Which then begs the question why the insistence on civil recognition of these relationships? There seems to be no benefit, other than the selfish desires to get some sort of state goodies. But if sharing bennies is the real objective, it begs the question why gays think THEY are the only ones to deserve this special consideration. Is it all about sex? Should there be a test and a sworn statement that this is a person with whom I am having sexual relations? Else I can “marry” my dear friend or my example of the two sisters should be able to “marry” as well. Oh and the guy in Utah who wants his plural marriage recognized is working through the courts…so far a positive track for him. And now the dad and daughter who wish to wed.

What gays and Lesbians have done is to destroy any actual meaning or purpose to marriage.

That’s right.

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

Ed

 

[YADA]

And why is banning artificial birth control for married couples the solution to all of these problems (children out of wedlock, rising divorce, acceptance of gay marriage, etc)?

Banning birth control would lead to a rise in birthrates, which will drain the social safety net, economy, and environment.

This is the modern thinking - any thing and every thing goes and to expect self control and responsibility is somehow - un-American and judgmental … and cruel - inhuman

I think history shows - in fact the opposite is true …

With the advent of ABC - especially the introduction to the pill …

Rates of out of wedlock births increased with the introduction of the cheap and effective “Pill” Why would this be … if you can prevent the pregnancy?

Also - the number of abortions skyrocketed … with the easy availability of the Pill beginning in the 1960s …Why would this be … if you can prevent the pregnancy?

Marriage rates - 1900 = 9% Divorce rate - <1%
Marriage rates - 1930 = 9% Divorce rate - 1.6%
Marriage rates - 1960 = 8.5% Divorce rate - 2.2%
Marriage rates - 1990 = 10% Divorce rate - 4.7%
Marriage rates - 2009 = 7.3% Divorce rate - 3.6%

of course we now have co-habitation and is partner serial co-habitation as well -

Ask yourself why we have so many out of wedlock births in America today … and what enables this -

Is cheap effective birth control available - Yes … even free …

In America there are approximately 62 million women of childbearing age - of which 62% are using the pill, IUD, condoms, diaphragms, etc.

In America today -the overall illegitimacy rate is almost 41% overall - in 1960 that rate was under 6%

Births to unwed mothers by demographics -
Caucasian 29% 1980 = 20%
African American - 72% … 1930 = 17%, 1960 = 21% 1965 - 24%
Hispanic 53%
Native American 66%
Asian 17%

So with the advent of acceptance of ABC in marriage for couples with in the intervening years - that included - easy cheap access to birth control, acceptance of co-habitation and children out side of marriage, legalized abortion to kill off unwanted children … Marriage rates are declining divorce [and serial co-habitation - the unmarried equivalent of divorce]

We still manage to have over one million children aborted in America each year?

ABC - took the need to CONTROL out of the equation - which meant that the consequences were hidden and people did not have to face up to RESPONSIBILITY …

A partner on the journey was moral relativism … don’t judge and social morals are inhibiting … so now we have social acceptance of all behaviors [read the news lately a daughter is marrying her father in Mew Jersey where incest is legal ] and you can see that Marriage lost the war a long time ago …

You can believe the facts of history or ignore them …

 

[edwest2]

You’ve completely misunderstood. “They” being the homosexual cohort think that their relationship is the only one other than Natural Marriage that should receive the benefits of marriage. They react in outrage when others simply take advantage of the redefinition of marriage to reach some purpose…friends or relatives marrying for benefits or estate planning or the two men who “married” so they could enter a contest.

I THINK what gays and Lesbians want is for society to consider their relationship equivalent to Natural Marriage (a fallacy) and for others to seeminglyt dismiss the “seriousness” of their relationship and use the new laws for benefits outrages them.

So it’s a matter of I want what I want because I want it but to heck with other people who want the same thing.

Benefits, yes. A rational understanding of what marriage is, no.

Ed