Archbishop Warns Obama: You’ll Cause 'Conflict Between Church and State of Enormous Proportions’

[Santi2]

Misuse of the legal framework? That may be the most provocative statement yet in this thread.

One of the policies behind decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK was to abolish penal sanctions in respect of private same-sex activity between consenting adults. It was not meant to declare homosexual activity as a public moral standard.

So, you would probably have opposed those uppity black people, and those women who did not know that they should not be able to own property in marriage, if we could go back in time. What they wanted was obviously considered immoral by those who opposed them. Am I being fair?

There was no reason to oppose the emancipation of black people and conjugal rights within marriage. The struggle for parity and equity in those circumstances did not compromise public morality at the onset.

It appears that your opinion is that anyone who has a religious or moral framework which directly contradicts yours, should be quiet and not ask for their rights?

The homosexual community cannot claim that which is non-existent. Under UK laws, marriage is between a man and a woman. The law was drafted on the basis of a religious and moral framework, which means that there is support for my opinion.

 

[Mudgely]

One of the policies behind decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK was to abolish penal sanctions in respect of private same-sex activity between consenting adults. It was not meant to declare homosexual activity as a public moral standard.

There was no reason to oppose the emancipation of black people and conjugal rights within marriage. The struggle for parity and equity in those circumstances did not compromise public morality at the onset.

The homosexual community cannot claim that which is non-existent. Under UK laws, marriage is between a man and a woman. The law was drafted on the basis of a religious and moral framework, which means that there is support for my opinion.

There are those who thought that emancipation and granting women more rights was immoral. Through the lens of history, that seems strange now. There were sincere people of various religious faiths who opposed those civil rights on moral grounds. The CC was not one of the leaders of the emancipation movement, according to Noonan. It followed the lead of the Protestant denominations later in the movement. This seems to me lost on some people today. It is a smug perspective.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The homosexual community cannot claim that which is non-existent. Under UK laws, marriage is between a man and a woman. The law was drafted on the basis of a religious and moral framework

 

[donsnow]

Elizabeth502;8453102:

Broadening the definition to same sex fit in with their designs very well indeed. For many gay men, there has never been a great desire to emulate the institutional forms of the breeders, but if the situation comes up, why not have that right too?

There was a very good legal discussion paper on this put out by feminists and and the legal community in Canada, which envisioned exactly what has taken place in Canada in the ensuing years, and now is happening in America.

Read.

Law Commission of Canada, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close
Personal Relationships (Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Services, 2001).
Lessard, H., ‘‘Mothers, Fathers, and Naming: Reflections on the Law Equality
dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/10257/Beyond%20Conjugality%20Report%20EN.pdf?sequence=1

I think this is the study I am referring to here.
I was a little bit off in the time frame, but it defines the trend quite well all the same.

Good afternoon, Darryl1958,

I have read half and scanned the rest of the Summary starting on page ix of the document linked to. There’s just not enough time in my daily routine for me to read more of that massive legal document.
Furthermore, I respectfully disagree with the prevailing philosophy of that document. My philosophical, religious, emotional and spiritual conviction that marriage of a man and woman retains primacy over any other secular relationship on Earth saves me from agreeing with that philosophy. IE, there is no other secular relationship with any valid equality to man and woman marriage. So, in my life, that entire document’s prevailing premise is a fallacy.
I further opine, that no legality will change the moral and spiritual actuality of man/woman marriage primacy of place over any other secular relationship. IE, any and all nations operating with the fallacy of equality of all relationships will tear itself asunder, as God loves and lives.

Our Savior and Creator has as much a right to a protective love as any earthly parent.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

(2) The observation was made that these people, as part of the “gay agenda”, are not satisfied to quietly accept what the poster or someone else might give them, but that they insist on public statements in the media promoting and explaining their point of view. The desire and practice of free speech is characterized as evil, if it is practiced by this group. The only difference between the Archbishop publishing an open letter to the President, or the gay lobby publishing an open letter to the President, is the content of the letter. The poster would appear to allow the rights of the Archbishop, but would block the rights of the gay lobby. The poster is in favor of the exercise of certain constitutional rights for certain classes of people, and would deny the same rights for some other class(es) of people, based on personal preference and opinion, but not based on any of the codified bars to the practice of those rights.

Good afternoon, Mudgely,

I would like to point out, that both the Bishops and the Gay Rights Movement have equal freedom of speech. It’s just that, imho, the Bishops exercise their freedom of speech righteously and for the good, while the Gay Rights Movement exercise their freedom of speech evilly and to the detriment of society. IE, the former exercise responsible freedom of speech and the latter propagate irresponsible freedom of speech, from a moral viewpoint.

(Yes, there’s more than one morality. There’s moral and immoral. From the absolute moral viewpoint, provided by God Most High the Holy Trinity, there is a good morality and all other moralities become subsequently immoral viewpoints, in my belief structure.)

There was a time, when communities were allowed to protect themselves from such evil, an example of which, hollering “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there’s no fire is considered civil disorder, disturbing the peace and a crime. I give this example, because it remains my firm observation that gays have always had the same civil and criminal rights as any other segment of our society, and to holler what they’re hollering now is a lie similar to hollering “Fire!” where there is no fire.

Thank you,
Don D. Snow

 

[donsnow]

SF, Don.

Thank you, sir.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Mudgely]

Good afternoon, Mudgely,

I would like to point out, that both the Bishops and the Gay Rights Movement have equal freedom of speech. It’s just that, imho, the Bishops exercise their freedom of speech righteously and for the good, while the Gay Rights Movement exercise their freedom of speech evilly and to the detriment of society. IE, the former exercise responsible freedom of speech and the latter propagate irresponsible freedom of speech, from a moral viewpoint.

(Yes, there’s more than one morality. There’s moral and immoral. From the absolute moral viewpoint, provided by God Most High the Holy Trinity, there is a good morality and all other moralities become subsequently immoral viewpoints, in my belief structure.)

There was a time, when communities were allowed to protect themselves from such evil, an example of which, hollering “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there’s no fire is considered civil disorder, disturbing the peace and a crime. I give this example, because it remains my firm observation that gays have always had the same civil and criminal rights as any other segment of our society, and to holler what they’re hollering now is a lie similar to hollering “Fire!” where there is no fire.

Thank you,
Don D. Snow

Thanks Don. I just don’t think that speech should be regulated by government, except in very extreme cases. As much as I dislike a message, I defend the right to say it. Otherwise, we all lose the right to express our opinions and beliefs.

 

[PJM]

=The Reginator;8438828]Here is the link to the story.

And here is the link to the Archbishop’s letter.

I found this analysis interesting:

Here’s the video if you prefer to watch/listen rather than read.

I’m a HUGE Bishop Nolan Supporter; BUT I fear this will only let O know that he’s being successful in his attempt to destroy the Christian Faiths.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[donsnow]

Thanks Don. I just don’t think that speech should be regulated by government, except in very extreme cases. As much as I dislike a message, I defend the right to say it. Otherwise, we all lose the right to express our opinions and beliefs.

Hi, Mudgely,

We, sir, are agreed.

I would like to point out, there are consequences to anything, including freedom of speech.

Militant gays receive the consequences of our replies to their freedom of speech. We get called “homophobic” and can be fined or jailed for our freedom of speech against evil.

What irks me is the double standard (a politically correct phrase for the word “hypocrisy”) given to gays by the establishment: they can’t be brought to justice for inciting public unrest but we can be brought before a judge for telling the simple truth.

God loves you,
Don

 

[PJM]

=ringil;8439997]Well, I don’t have a problem with same-sex civil unions. I don’t know that the Church’s opposition to civil unions raises to the level of it’s opposition to same-sex marriage which I agree with.

***Sin is ALWAYS sin; homosexual behavior has NEVER been approved by God or His Church.

Your position is like saying I’m in favor of murder but not abortion and killing:eek***:

Friend, we are NOT God. It’s not our choice to make.

 

[Mudgely]

Hi, Mudgely,

What irks me is the double standard (a politically correct phrase for the word “hypocrisy”) given to gays by the establishment: they can’t be brought to justice for inciting public unrest but we can be brought before a judge for telling the simple truth.

God loves you,
Don

Hi Don -

Going to a fallen Marine’s funeral, and seeing his family being hurt by the members of the Westmoreland Baptist Church irked me. That may be the only time I have felt violent urges over freedom of speech, or speech about sexuality.

Life is not fair. I am stating the obvious. It is the serenity that one finds in other ways which makes it tolerable.

 

[donsnow]

Hi Don -

Going to a fallen Marine’s funeral, and seeing his family being hurt by the members of the Westmoreland Baptist Church irked me. That may be the only time I have felt violent urges over freedom of speech, or speech about sexuality.

Life is not fair. I am stating the obvious. It is the serenity that one finds in other ways which makes it tolerable.

Hi, Mudgely,

I’m no better a sinner than any Militant gay, much less the meek ones. It’s been brought to my attention by a fellow church member, there are chaste or celibate gays, too. I’m successfully practicing celibacy but need to bridle a roving eye before I can get chaste.

I can’t condemn anybody. Accusing is the Devil’s office, not mine.

When all the vicissitudes and injustices in life around me start getting me down, my remembering to sing a few verses of that old folk song, “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands”, brings me up.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Mudgely]

Hi, Mudgely,

I’m no better a sinner than any Militant gay, much less the meek ones. It’s been brought to my attention by a fellow church member, there are chaste or celibate gays, too. I’m successfully practicing celibacy but need to bridle a roving eye before I can get chaste.

I can’t condemn anybody. Accusing is the Devil’s office, not mine.

When all the vicissitudes and injustices in life around me start getting me down, my remembering to sing a few verses of that old folk song, “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands”, brings me up.

God loves you,
Don

A good friend who teaches pediatrics and I were discussing pederasty. He surprised me with the observation, “Imagine how horrible it is for these men to have sexual impulses toward children.” I was suddenly grateful not to have that affliction, and to feel more compassion for those who do. Don’t get me wrong. They commit a heinous sin if they act out those impulses. My friend’s observation gave my some humility to go with my indignation.

I have another friend who told me just last night that she and her husband are very polarized politically. One is very conservative, and the other very liberal. For the sake of the marriage, they stay away from political topics. She observed that living with him and loving him had taught her not to demonize or unfairly characterize those with opposing views. He was a good person. They just had differing ideologies on some topics.

 

[donsnow]

A good friend who teaches pediatrics and I were discussing pederasty. He surprised me with the observation, “Imagine how horrible it is for these men to have sexual impulses toward children.” I was suddenly grateful not to have that affliction, and to feel more compassion for those who do. Don’t get me wrong. They commit a heinous sin if they act out those impulses. My friend’s observation gave my some humility to go with my indignation.

I have another friend who told me just last night that she and her husband are very polarized politically. One is very conservative, and the other very liberal. For the sake of the marriage, they stay away from political topics. She observed that living with him and loving him had taught her not to demonize or unfairly characterize those with opposing views. He was a good person. They just had differing ideologies on some topics.

Hey, Mudgely,

Thanks for the insight on pedophiles. You help me turn my “There but for the grace of God, go I” attitude to that group of sinners.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Santi2]

There are those who thought that emancipation and granting women more rights was immoral. Through the lens of history, that seems strange now. There were sincere people of various religious faiths who opposed those civil rights on moral grounds.

I am sure there were but, do take note that I reverted to speculation directed at me and not at other people.

The CC was not one of the leaders of the emancipation movement, according to Noonan. It followed the lead of the Protestant denominations later in the movement. This seems to me lost on some people today. It is a smug perspective.

An assertion lacking the benefit of further research on the Catholic Church’s history, initiatives relating to social justice concerns and work amongst marginalised communities which pre-dates Protestantism.

 

[Mudgely]

I am sure there were but, do take note that I reverted to speculation directed at me and not at other people.

You have supported statements to the effect of denying freedom of speech to the gay lobby. You have stated that their use of the legal system constitutes “misuse”. In other words, rights afforded you should not be afforded those whom you disagree with. Why should you have the right to access the courts, and others should not?

An assertion lacking the benefit of further research on the Catholic Church’s history, initiatives relating to social justice concerns and work amongst marginalised communities which pre-dates Protestantism.

Judge Noonan was an adviser to Vatican II, and he is a respected academic, jurist and theologian. He has published work on the history of the Church. He supports his claim with references. How could you possibly know how much research went into that statement?

 

[Santi2]

You have supported statements to the effect of denying freedom of speech to the gay lobby. You have stated that their use of the legal system constitutes “misuse”. In other words, rights afforded you should not be afforded those whom you disagree with. Why should you have the right to access the courts, and others should not?

It can only be one of two things: a failure to grasp what I have written in my posts or, deliberately misrepresenting what I have stated therein. Out of courtesy to other posters, it would only make sense that you and I do not explore further discussion in this thread.

Judge Noonan was an adviser to Vatican II, and he is a respected academic, jurist and theologian. He has published work on the history of the Church. He supports his claim with references. How could you possibly know how much research went into that statement?

His credentials do not impress me.

 

[Mudgely]

It can only be one of two things: a failure to grasp what I have written in my posts or, deliberately misrepresenting what I have stated therein. Out of courtesy to other posters, it would only make sense that you and I do not explore further discussion in this thread.

His credentials do not impress me.

I agree let’s drop the civil rights discussion.

Noonan’s credentials were good enough for the Pope during the deliberations for V II. That impresses me.

 

[Santi2]

Noonan’s credentials were good enough for the Pope during the deliberations for V II.

So was Father Hans Kung’s, whose credentials do not impress me as well. On that note, I suggest we should also discontinue further discussion on this matter.

 

[Willpower]

Why cant there just be “religious marriage” and “legal marriage?”

I understand the religious reasons for not allowing homosexual religious marriage. But looking from a political perspective, marriage is a social institution. I provides legal benefits for both parties involved. If we are to force homosexuals to partake in different social institution (civic unions/domestic partnerships) that has the same exact function as our existing social institution of marriage, that is the definition of discrimination. Think about the fallacies of “separate but equal” back in the time of MLK. Separate never really is equal, as already demonstrated in states’ contemporary “civic unions/domestic partnerships,” and as demonstrated in our country’s past. A political leader can not institute discrimination. Don’t make this any harder on Obama.

What do you think?