Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[estesbob]

Who exactly has argued that only and all people in love should be allowed to marry?

Or, if this is clearer, consider the statement:
“I thought the criteria was two people ‘open’ to procreation”

Does that fairly show that the Catholic view wholeheartedly approves of incestuous heterosexual couples marrying?

That is what states do. If you want to argue for full scale anarchy in your country, that is an experiment I shall watch with great interest.

Again, produce a reasonable sample of such couples and it may be possible to answer.

So “love” isn’t the criteria.It’s having a “reasonable” sample?

 

[DrTaffy]

So “love” isn’t the criteria.

Again:
Who exactly has argued that only and all people in love should be allowed to marry?

Or, if this is clearer, consider the statement:
“I thought the criteria was two people ‘open’ to procreation”

Does that fairly show that the Catholic view wholeheartedly approves of incestuous heterosexual couples marrying?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t think there are many people who want homosexual marriage to be the law of the land who are out to ‘harm the society.’ There are some anarchists out there, but people who have homosexual desires range the political spectrum. They reflect in most areas, the same politics we see in the society at large. There are some very conservative homosexuals out there who can quote the constitution from memory; belong to the NRA, etc. etc.

My former co-worker was gay (Japanese/American) and quite conservative. He told me he was not into the gay marriage thing at all.

At the other end of the spectrum - I actually watched a gay lesbian activist on TV say that destroying traditional marriage was the goal of the gay rights movement, but that this couldn’t be openly declared. I have also heard variations of this argument about undermining the traditional socially oppressive Christian structure of society from academia. It’s a fairly widespread, well known radical trend that has influenced gay activism. You see it in feminism too. To deny it to me is foolish.

 

[gilliam]

I actually watched a gay lesbian activist on TV

And I just watched a cat make a touchdown on TV. So what!

There are a lot of very good and patriotic lawyers who are fighting for homosexual marriage, they are loyal officers of the Court and to even insinuate that they are in any way anarchists, (because you saw someone on TV say so) is ludicrous.

I don’t agree with them, but I would never accuse them of deliberately setting out to bring down society.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Bolded above, very interesting and comports with my concerns as well. We are told to be “nice” and not offend people, not to be “bigoted” or judgmental which in realit forces us to either tell or accept lies as truth so as not to offend someone. Right now the gay movement is ascendent because its promoters have done a great job in laundering the reality, invariably portraying a desire to redefine marriage as fair or as the cause celebre among the glitterati akin to marching with King to Selma. The vast majority of the public think in terms of themselves…gee I guess it doesn’t hurt me if Joe and Sam get married, and indeed it doesn’t. Just as someone else’s quickie divorce doesn’t hurt you or a woman next door getting an abortion doesn’t hurt you…the larger impact on society is ignored until it’s too late. As you said I am not so disturbed by Joe and Sam as I am with the seeming tolerance of this movement’s violation of others civil rights…most notably speech and religion. I guess we have to see enough oxes gored before people wake up to the real impact on society but like no fault divorce and abortion, it will likely be way too late.

Yes, pushing the pro gay marriage agenda, no matter how contradictory, offensive or absurd the allegations or arguments get, is completely accepted, even encouraged. It has all of the hallmarks of a mission, even a crusade. When the anti gay marriage side opens up and presents our case honestly, we are immediately attacked; however our arguments are never really consistently addressed or refuted. I don’t think serious open dialogue is really what both sides want. I am deliberately saying exactly what I think here to test the waters…and they are boiling!

I do think it is unpleasant to get into these arguments and to have to pushback against people on these issues. It is not fun. But I feel I don’t have an option. I honestly think this effort to normalize gay marriage is a form of sickness, evil. There you have it. It is my duty to oppose it. And, as you point out, the stakes are high. I guess Jesus wasn’t in a “good mood” headed to the cross, was he? I always try to so hard to get along with everybody; when I don’t I feel I have somehow failed. You have to suck it up here I guess.

 

[FollowChrist34]

And I just watched a cat make a touchdown on TV. So what!

There are a lot of very good and patriotic lawyers who are fighting for homosexual marriage, they are loyal officers of the Court and to even insinuate that they are in any way anarchists, (because you saw someone on TV say so) is ludicrous.

I don’t agree with them, but I would never accuse them of deliberately setting out to bring down society.

Where did I say that the lawyers fighting for homosexual marriage are anarchists?

 

[gilliam]

Where did I say that the lawyers fighting for homosexual marriage are anarchists?

Who do you think are the vanguard for getting homosexual marriage institutionalized in the US? Certainly not anarchists who appear on TV shows,

 

[FollowChrist34]

Who do you think are the vanguard for getting homosexual marriage institutionalized in the US? Certainly not anarchists who appear on TV shows,

I think it is a much wider social trend. To me, the main players are by and large heterosexuals, in entertainment, social media, education, business, and law. Most of the judicial activism is by straight judges committed to gay rights as a civil rights issue built on a parallel to the civil rights movement in the sixties. You saw a similar trend with the pro choice movement - exact same thing led to Roe vs. Wade. Was that put through just by pregnant women wanting abortions? Same mentality, new cause.

I am not discounting the efforts of gay activism in this of course. And I am fully aware that the more vocal members of this gay community, in the media or society or even on this forum, do NOT represent all gay people. I think gays are actually under a fair amount of pressure to toe the line on this issue within their community. (and they are willing to because they are sick of prejudice and rejection, not necessarily because they care about getting married)

(Gotta go for now.)

 

[edwest2]

The NYT article takes the sanguine view that we can continue to depopulate indefinitely with no adverse effects.
I disagree. Most western countries will end up with aging populations relying on social welfare programs that they will no longer be able to afford. Economic activity will decline, deflation may become a permanent aspect of the economy, further leading to a permanent recession. Nations which maintain below-replacement level fertility rates indefinitely will eventually disappear or be absorbed.

But time will tell. I noticed that they commented that Ehrlich had been discredited in his overpopulation claims, something which seems to be not widely recognized.

Ehrlich got it wrong. We were selling grain to our sworn enemy, the former USSR, during the Cold War. The aging of the global population will mean either action will be taken now or right before it’s too late. The latter is far too often the case.

nia.nih.gov/research/dbsr/world-population-aging

“The Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing…After They Have Exhausted All the Alternatives.” attributed to Winston Churchill.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think it is a much wider social trend. To me, the main players are by and large heterosexuals, in entertainment, social media, education, business, and law. Most of the judicial activism is by straight judges committed to gay rights as a civil rights issue built on a parallel to the civil rights movement in the sixties. You saw a similar trend with the pro choice movement - exact same thing led to Roe vs. Wade. Was that put through just by pregnant women wanting abortions? Same mentality, new cause.

I am not discounting the efforts of gay activism in this of course. And I am fully aware that the more vocal members of this gay community, in the media or society or even on this forum, do NOT represent all gay people. I think gays are actually under a fair amount of pressure to toe the line on this issue within their community. (and they are willing to because they are sick of prejudice and rejection, not necessarily because they care about getting married)

(Gotta go for now.)

The comparison with civil rights has no basis in fact. Jane Roe never got an abortion. Her real name is Norma McCorvey. Here’s how abortion was sold:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Ed

 

[LisaA]

The comparison with civil rights has no basis in fact. Jane Roe never got an abortion. Her real name is Norma McCorvey. Here’s how abortion was sold:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Ed

And she subsequently became an ardent pro life activist. She said she was USED by others to promote this agenda. As FollowChrist34 said, it was not pregnant women demanding abortions that got the law changed, it was secular progressives who are behind many social changes. Further the same kind of lies that promoted abortion are being used to promote redefining “marriage” such as the supposed death toll from “back alley abortions” made up from whole cloth and completely erroneous. Oh and there was the theory that abortion was compassionate because once women could abort their babies all children will be wanted children and there will be no more child abuse and neglect…how did that theory work out?

Now we are told that it’s “fair” to redefine marriage because Joe and Ted getting married doesn’t hurt you does it just like if Suzy next door got an abortion it didn’t hurt you either or if your co worker sexually abused his kids it really had no impact on your kids…you see how easily people fall into this state of “well if it’s not hurting me why should I care…” as if it’s all about our individual lives and what’s in it for us either way.

 

[JimG]

"If you like your marriage, you can keep your marriage, even after it’s been deprived of its basis in the nature of things.

Not so. In fact, the loss of an understanding of human nature means a loss of understanding what marriage is: the physical, social, and spiritual union of a man and a woman. Bringing forth new life is the natural function of such a union, so by its essential nature, based on the identity of the parties as man and woman, it is oriented toward very serious objective responsibilities that transcend personal interest and last a lifetime. If we realize what it is, we cannot ignore it or take it lightly. If we don’t, it can be whatever anyone wants, and in the end becomes impossible to take seriously."

Source

Sure. Masha Gessen was right. Ultimately, marriage must be destroyed. But first it must be emptied of any meaning. After that, it will collapse like an empty balloon. Society’s death wish must be fulfilled.

 

[eViLpOpTaRt]

I could never figure out how any “Catholic” may be for gay “marriage” and remain as a “Catholic”.

Some Catholics are less judgmental and more willing to live and let live.

 

[JimG]

Some Catholics are less judgmental and more willing to live and let live.

Well, I suppose Catholics can be for adultery, fornication, cohabitation, theft, abortion, and any number of things which are all objectively wrong, as long as we live and let live. We can personally tolerate a lot of wrongdoing if it doesn’t personally affect us, but some of us might be young enough to have to live through the subsequent societal collapse.

 

[LisaA]

Some Catholics are less judgmental and more willing to live and let live.

Judgemental has nothing to do with it. Either you practice your faith in thought word and deed or you don’t. Would you say the same thing about other practices against the Church’s teaching?

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

The charity level of this thread is not up to CAF standards.

Stop attacking each other

Charitably discuss the issues, not each other.

If you can’t do that, don’t post.

 

[edwest2]

And she subsequently became an ardent pro life activist. She said she was USED by others to promote this agenda. As FollowChrist34 said, it was not pregnant women demanding abortions that got the law changed, it was secular progressives who are behind many social changes. Further the same kind of lies that promoted abortion are being used to promote redefining “marriage” such as the supposed death toll from “back alley abortions” made up from whole cloth and completely erroneous. Oh and there was the theory that abortion was compassionate because once women could abort their babies all children will be wanted children and there will be no more child abuse and neglect…how did that theory work out?

Now we are told that it’s “fair” to redefine marriage because Joe and Ted getting married doesn’t hurt you does it just like if Suzy next door got an abortion it didn’t hurt you either or if your co worker sexually abused his kids it really had no impact on your kids…you see how easily people fall into this state of “well if it’s not hurting me why should I care…” as if it’s all about our individual lives and what’s in it for us either way.

It’s about what the media has labeled the “Me, Me, Me Generation.” Radical Individualism is the issue, and a problem, as Pope Benedict has pointed out. That is followed by an obsessive desire for novelty, for instead of following natural truths, much less religious truths, they will reshape society in their image and likeness, disregarding history and disregarding sound advice.

The force of law will cause problems but it cannot erase the truth of what marriage is. And part of it can properly be called a state of self-delusion. Gay marriage enshrined in law will make some people believe a distorted living arrangement represents a way for gay people to have their behaviors regarded as good and right. Whereas, in the past, they suffered rejection, they will now have universal acceptance, as if passing laws can change the fundamental truth about what marriage actually is.

I wish the best for individual gay persons, however, this is a social experiment that falsely presents itself as having no effect “on my marriage” or children or anyone else. The goal is to change perceptions. To indoctrinate the young, without their parents even knowing.

But the truth will remain. Have hope, my brothers and sisters in Christ. Be part of the remnant that God nurtures and has nurtured whenever such a turning away occurs. Be the salt of the earth. Too many have let their salt lose its savor and so it is thrown out and trampled underfoot.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Well, I suppose Catholics can be for adultery, fornication, cohabitation, theft, abortion, and any number of things which are all objectively wrong, as long as we live and let live. We can personally tolerate a lot of wrongdoing if it doesn’t personally affect us, but some of us might be young enough to have to live through the subsequent societal collapse.

From Bishop Fulton Sheen (written a long time before today):

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1130-fulton-sheen-Plea-For-Intolerance.htm

Ed

 

[LisaA]

From Bishop Fulton Sheen (written a long time before today):

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1130-fulton-sheen-Plea-For-Intolerance.htm

Ed

I’ve seen many of Bishop Sheen’s TV shows, and read his books. He was clearly a prophet who spoke the truth. But don’t you wonder what he would think of the world today? What was considered outrageous in Bishop Sheen’s day would barely generate a raised eyebrow in 2015…cohabitation? abortion for any reason at any time? divorce(s) and remarriages? 70% of minority children born out of wedlock? irresponsible males who impregnate women and abandon them and their children? “breeding” babies like cattle with high technology and using women as broodmares, men as “studs” for singles or same sex couples? Men thinking they can as easily marry another man as a woman and women who think they can marry another woman? men deciding they were really women and having surgeries and hormone treatments to indulge this fantasy…and women who think they were really men who have the same procedures?

Honestly he was right about the road we were travelling but I suspect he didn’t realize how quickly we’d arrive.

 

[edwest2]

I’ve seen many of Bishop Sheen’s TV shows, and read his books. He was clearly a prophet who spoke the truth. But don’t you wonder what he would think of the world today? What was considered outrageous in Bishop Sheen’s day would barely generate a raised eyebrow in 2015…cohabitation? abortion for any reason at any time? divorce(s) and remarriages? 70% of minority children born out of wedlock? irresponsible males who impregnate women and abandon them and their children? “breeding” babies like cattle with high technology and using women as broodmares, men as “studs” for singles or same sex couples? Men thinking they can as easily marry another man as a woman and women who think they can marry another woman? men deciding they were really women and having surgeries and hormone treatments to indulge this fantasy…and women who think they were really men who have the same procedures?

Honestly he was right about the road we were travelling but I suspect he didn’t realize how quickly we’d arrive.

I watched it all unfold. A few points about the present:

Reject shame.

Reject guilt.

Reject sin.

It was a coordinated attack and it is being aided most by the mass media telling lies and actors and actresses showing us how much better or fun or “real” immorality is. One can’t possibly meet any high standards, or maintain very good behaviors. Let’s just admit that we’re all driven by sex and money and our standards are whatever we imagine.

Human nature being what it is, embracing our immoral selves without feeling any shame or guilt is best. Even good - whatever that means. Individuals invent right and wrong. Man is god.

Ed