Canada Legalizes Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter jdnation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Brad:
…Not to get too graphic or way off topic but do you think it is appropriate for homosexual men to live closely with other men in positions of dress and undress? Should men be allowed in the women’s locker rooms and vice versa?
Nope. Vast majority of pro-lifers are extremely patriotic.
As someone that served in the service I preferred not to be leered at by anyone man or woman.

Yes, there were people with SSA that I worked with over the years. But, those that put themselves and other in an uncomfortable position were dismissed from the service this included male and female. So as far as I am/was concerned it was not a matter of sexual orientation. But, a matter of acting on their attractions at inappropriate times with unwilling people.
 
40.png
KathleenElsie:
As someone that served in the service I preferred not to be leered at by anyone man or woman.

Yes, there were people with SSA that I worked with over the years. But, those that put themselves and other in an uncomfortable position were dismissed from the service this included male and female. So as far as I am/was concerned it was not a matter of sexual orientation. But, a matter of acting on their attractions at inappropriate times with unwilling people.
I understand that and it makes sense. However, I am sure you will find some males (non-military and for example) that would be perfectly willing to spend time in a female dressing area if allowed and be perfectly nice about it. That does not make it right or good for discipline.
 
Oh my God! After reading this, and realizing that there is a homosexual agenda in the seminaries (hopefully they are rectifying this), there is no doubt that the devil is so much at work and laughing his evil head off! It is making me sick…but not unable to work at what needs to be done! :mad:
 
re: rare interracial SSM: It might be because people afflicted with homosexuality only constitute 1-3% of the global population, although it might be slightly higher in Canada now that’s an official, state sponsored disorder.

As a Canadian, I can only see this as the culmination of many years of political apathy and inactivity of the religious & moral. We seem to have slipped into a state of permanent ignorance and passivity while our rights are subtlely eroded and our parliamentary democracy replaced by this judiciary Leviathan. What’s most frustrating is how many people, especially good and devout Catholics, think we should just let ‘secular Canada’ go about its business as ‘it’ll eventually collapse’. They seldom give any thought as to the ramifications such a collapse will have on their own rights and freedoms.

As a Catholic, I look at this and see the challenge we North Americans have largely avoided while the rest of the faithful fought for its existence across the globe. My fellow committed & young Catholics are under no illusions about the battles ahead. Msrs Martin & Chretien have provided us with text-book examples of extreme corruption and the inherent malignancy of popular streams of thought. We know that too many of our parent’s generation fell captive into the hands of relativism and escapism by neglecting to stand in the face of secular tyranny and simply turning the other cheek.

As a young person, I am disheartened by the silence of so many of our bishops. Leadership is crucial. Why is it that Cardinal Ouellet & Bishops Henry, Gagnon, Collins & Roussin are exceptions to the rule? If we lose our tax-exempt status in Canada, the faithful will not stop supporting the Church - yet this is the very reason so many bishops allude to after their own reticence draws uproar from their congregations.

Shoshana - if are serious about getting involved, first read Douglas Farrow’s essay - it can be found on lifesite.net.
 
Colm O'Higgins:
re: rare interracial SSM: It might be because people afflicted with homosexuality only constitute 1-3% of the global population, although it might be slightly higher in Canada now that’s an official, state sponsored disorder.

As a Canadian, I can only see this as the culmination of many years of political apathy and inactivity of the religious & moral. We seem to have slipped into a state of permanent ignorance and passivity while our rights are subtlely eroded and our parliamentary democracy replaced by this judiciary Leviathan. What’s most frustrating is how many people, especially good and devout Catholics, think we should just let ‘secular Canada’ go about its business as ‘it’ll eventually collapse’. They seldom give any thought as to the ramifications such a collapse will have on their own rights and freedoms.

As a Catholic, I look at this and see the challenge we North Americans have largely avoided while the rest of the faithful fought for its existence across the globe. My fellow committed & young Catholics are under no illusions about the battles ahead. Msrs Martin & Chretien have provided us with text-book examples of extreme corruption and the inherent malignancy of popular streams of thought. We know that too many of our parent’s generation fell captive into the hands of relativism and escapism by neglecting to stand in the face of secular tyranny and simply turning the other cheek.

As a young person, I am disheartened by the silence of so many of our bishops. Leadership is crucial. Why is it that Cardinal Ouellet & Bishops Henry, Gagnon, Collins & Roussin are exceptions to the rule? If we lose our tax-exempt status in Canada, the faithful will not stop supporting the Church - yet this is the very reason so many bishops allude to after their own reticence draws uproar from their congregations.

Shoshana - if are serious about getting involved, first read Douglas Farrow’s essay - it can be found on lifesite.net.
Welcome to the club, we’re all going to be very vocal about these immoral laws being passed. We should make sure to send Archbishop Gervais letters stating that Mr. Martin is not a devout Catholic by pushing issues like abortion and same-sex “marriage” and that he should not be receiving our Lord until he repents! This is scandalous to all Catholics!
 
Our first issue is organization. I live in Victoria, BC and there are only 90,000 Catholics on the whole of Vancouver Island (population 700,000 or so). I do plan on bringing this up in a Church meeting I will be attending on Monday.

On a personal note, at times I am overcome with sadness for people who have bought into the homosexual lifestyle. I just read that the male life expectancy is 38 years. 38 years! And less than 2 percent live to see their 65th year.

Re: “Catholic” Politians. I can understand the difficulty in refusing someone the Eucharist, but these are desperate times. Gervais has a responsibility of office in a similar way to Paul Martin. Martin certainly feels no remorse in effectively legalizing the persecution of Catholics from the public square, or even jeopardizing the Church’s tax-exempt status. Thus Gervais, quite logically too, should have no remorse or hesitation in denying Martin and his supporting cast Christ’s body & blood.
 
Canada is a socialist country,it doesn’t like admitting that ,but.Its true. It has 2 major political parties that are like potatoe /potato .It has been moving further and further to the left.It has a constitution that is large and complicated . When you read it sounds pretty good,but. The Soviet Union had the 1947 Stalin constitution and it sounded pretty good also. Its in the interpretation and enforcement ! Freedom of Speech and the press are getting weak in Canada .The Canadian people are oblivious to this. They should get a copy of that peom by that Rev. Martin Niemoller " FIRST THEY CAME FOR . It might open some eyes."
 
40.png
Aureole:
Welcome to the club, we’re all going to be very vocal about these immoral laws being passed. We should make sure to send Archbishop Gervais letters stating that Mr. Martin is not a devout Catholic by pushing issues like abortion and same-sex “marriage” and that he should not be receiving our Lord until he repents! This is scandalous to all Catholics!
Archbishop Gervais has staked his claim to sitting on the fence. Any letters to him should also be copied to Cardinal Levada and the Vatican.

Word has it that ‘negative tything’ willl not be well received by the bishops. Negative tything will involve with holding our tythes from dioceses which are heterodox and sending them instead to Bishop Henry. Apparently the bishops will perceive this as a threat.

I say: So what! If the Lord is first served. We are to tythe to those who feed us spiritually.
 
Ani Ibi:
Archbishop Gervais has staked his claim to sitting on the fence. Any letters to him should also be copied to Cardinal Levada and the Vatican.

Word has it that ‘negative tything’ willl not be well received by the bishops. Negative tything will involve with holding our tythes from dioceses which are heterodox and sending them instead to Bishop Henry. Apparently the bishops will perceive this as a threat.

I say: So what! If the Lord is first served. We are to tythe to those who feed us spiritually.
Good point, if our letters fall on deaf ears in Ottawa then they surely won’t in the Vatican.

I also agree with your statement on negative tithing. Bishop Henry is giving us our spiritual helpings, he deserves our support.
 
40.png
Aureole:
Good point, if our letters fall on deaf ears in Ottawa then they surely won’t in the Vatican.

I also agree with your statement on negative tithing. Bishop Henry is giving us our spiritual helpings, he deserves our support.
Cardinal Ambrozic has made a very early response to this legislation. Has anybody heard from Cardinals Ouellet and Turcotte since the Bill was passed?
 
Archbishop Gervais Comment on Prime Minister Martin
Sent to LifeSiteNews.com March 23, 2005

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/050629a.html

There is a great deal of debate going on over the position of the Catholic politician within a western democratic society. Bishops have been expressing different opinions over the role of politicians and now over same-sex unions. If the issues were very clear, as they were when Thomas More was executed, or when Boenhoffer was killed, we would not be having the same debates as we are today. Henry VIII wanted to replace the Pope in England and Boenhoffer wanted to stop the killing of the Jews. I feel that on such issues most of our Catholic politicians would stand firm in their faith.

Refusing communion and excommunication are very serious actions, and are means that the Church uses only as a last resort. Refusing communion to a leader of Parliament is serious to the extreme. I, like most other bishops, would not entertain such a thought without the backing of my brother bishops, or without prior communication with the Holy See.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, however, is fully within his right as a Catholic leader of a diocese to express his judgment on situations concerning faith and morals. He chooses now to say he would consider refusing communion to the Prime Minister, and possibly even excommunicate him. To him the PM is a federal politician. To me he is also a faithful member of my cathedral parish. He did not personally bring his party to adopt this policy. He has come to the conclusion that it is according to the plan of God for him to accept to be the leader of his party and, in this arena, it is acceptable for him to represent its policies. As the leader of the party in power, he believes that his personal opinion is not relevant to his role as leader. While I do not agree either with his argument or his conclusion on same sex marriage, I do not think, at this time, his position merits refusing him communion.
 
Ani Ibi:
Cardinal Ambrozic has made a very early response to this legislation. Has anybody heard from Cardinals Ouellet and Turcotte since the Bill was passed?
I think you hit the nail on the head with your next post.

I haven’t heard of any resposnes from Cardinals Ouellet or Turcotte since the bill was passed, so I’d appreciate it if anyone could share any with us.
 
40.png
Aureole:
This is the first I’ve heard of him, but it doesn’t exactly sound like he’s convicted in his beliefs.
I thought his comment interesting however as he inadvertently I’m sure, touched on another subject. If God is driven out of government totally, from whence then do inalienable rights come? If “rights” are granted by the state as the “supreme authority” – then what the government has given, the government can take away. Interesting. Sometimes people say more than they mean to without realizing it.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
I thought his comment interesting however as he inadvertently I’m sure, touched on another subject. If God is driven out of government totally, from whence then do inalienable rights come? If “rights” are granted by the state as the “supreme authority” – then what the government has given, the government can take away. Interesting. Sometimes people say more than they mean to without realizing it.
Hm, I didn’t think of his comment in this way. That actually makes a lot of sense, thanks for sharing it.
 
Not to veer this thread extremely off-topic, but does anyone know a site that has a good selection of secular arguments against same-sex “marriage”? I already have a decent repertoire, but I’m just wondering if there are others out there I haven’t heard of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top