Catholic cardinal: Church 'caricatured' as anti-gay

[estesbob]

Has the Catholic Church fought against “gay rights legislation” or to preserve the institution
of marriage as the union of a man and woman?

Comes down to ones definition of “homosexual rights”

 

[VanSensei]

Has the Catholic Church fought against “gay rights legislation” or to preserve the institution
of marriage as the union of a man and woman?

Really, I see it as preserving the institution of heterosexual marriage, which, if done right, is not a bad thing. I’m not a fan of it being shoved in one’s face as a way to change one’s view, but other ways are fine.

 

[SeannyM]

Marriage is not a Constitutional right for anyone.

That is not anti-gay, and GLBTQ folks have the same rights as anyone else.

Freedom of religion is not restricted to worship.

actively campaign against my rights.

Don’t force your “religion” on us then. You are asking the secular state to recognize your relationship.

Inaccurate, untrue and a very weak argument.

Actually, marriage is consider a civil right per the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia. And you are incorrect when you say that gay people have the same rights as anyone, any argument to the contrary is pretty ridiculous. And everyone who files for a marriage license is asking the secular state to recognize their relationships, so I don’t really see your point there, and I definitely don’t see how that’s “forcing my religion on you.” Anyway, I’m generally confused by your post… Sorry.

 

[LisaA]

Actually, marriage is consider a civil right per the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia. And you are incorrect when you say that gay people have the same rights as anyone, any argument to the contrary is pretty ridiculous. And everyone who files for a marriage license is asking the secular state to recognize their relationships, so I don’t really see your point there, and I definitely don’t see how that’s “forcing my religion on you.” Anyway, I’m generally confused by your post… Sorry.

Amazing how gays always drag out the Loving case to “prove” that marriage to someone of the same sex is a right established by the Constitution and upheld by SCOTUS. In fact Loving was the case of a traditional male female, one of each, marriage where one of the two parties had a darker skin tone than the other. How does this establish the “right” to marry anyone you wish? Further if the right to marry anyone you wish exists, why limit to two males or females? Why limit marriage to just humans. Some woman married a carnival ride and another married a bridge. If the word marriage doesn’t mean something unique, it frankly means nothing. Ironically your demand to be called “married” simply devalues the entire concept. It is neither natural, nor unique, nor supported by history, theology, or sociology.

As to gays forcing their religion on the rest of us, look only to the numerous cases where private businesses were sued, fined, threatened, picketed, and in some cases closed their doors because they wouldn’t bake Bob and Joe a wedding cake or photograph Sally and Sue’s “wedding.” We had a case in this city and the small business closed thus putting a family’s livelihood at stake. Is this truly what you want? Wouldn’t it be easier just to go to another bakery? This whole homosexualist activism is true hate speech.

I am so supportive of the HUMAN rights of homosexuals and in fact left a very lucrative job after the firm I worked for fired two gay males for being gay. That is the kind of right I believe in and support. I do not support forcing private businesses to compromise their personal or religious standards to mollify a radical activist who has a perverted sense of what rights are endowed by our Creator. I also truly abhor the commercialization of child production, and that is exactly what it is, by homosexuals. All children deserve to have a mother and a father,something that is impossible in a homosexual union.

I don’t care about your sex life. I don’t care who you live with. I don’t care if you walk down the street holding hands, are in each other’s wills, and celebrate your anniversary at Sardi’s. I do care when as was stated previously, you shove your sex life in my face, demanding that I know only “allow” it but also elevate it to the same relationship as a married man and woman I push back.

Lisa

 

[estesbob]

Actually, marriage is consider a civil right per the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia. And you are incorrect when you say that gay people have the same rights as anyone, any argument to the contrary is pretty ridiculous. And everyone who files for a marriage license is asking the secular state to recognize their relationships, so I don’t really see your point there, and I definitely don’t see how that’s “forcing my religion on you.” Anyway, I’m generally confused by your post… Sorry.

When did your denomination decide homosexual behavior was not sinful?

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Well, the main point of what the other poster is saying is that the Church has donated money to such causes.

Seems to be true; according to this, dioceses gave $180,000 toward the 2012 Minnesota campaign:

startribune.com/politics/statelocal/174800591.html

Whether that’s a good thing to do, that’s another question.

The main point I was making it is that the Church is using the money in support of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, a law that has been supported by most administrations until
this one.) I agree that the Church has the right to support this law and defend against the
change in the definition of marriage.
By the way, the Church is also one of the first to minister to victims of AIDS, no questions
asked. They are truly for the person, period.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Has the Catholic Church fought against “gay rights legislation” or to preserve the institution
of marriage as the union of a man and woman?

It has funded anti-gay legislation in Minnesota, Maryland, Washington State and Maine.

 

[Elizium23]

It has funded anti-gay legislation in Minnesota, Maryland, Washington State and Maine.

When you say “anti-gay legislation” what exactly do you mean? Jail sentences for sodomites? All homosexuals must sit in the back of the bus? Routine denial of housing to homosexual couples? What exactly are you talking about here?

And as a Catholic, you should know that the Church is female, and is referred to as “she”. Thank you.

 

[NeedsMercy]

When you say “anti-gay legislation” what exactly do you mean? Jail sentences for sodomites? All homosexuals must sit in the back of the bus? Routine denial of housing to homosexual couples? What exactly are you talking about here?

hrc.org/nomexposed/section/the-catholic-hierarchys-devotion-to-fighting-marriage-equality

 

[Elizium23]

hrc.org/nomexposed/section/the-catholic-hierarchys-devotion-to-fighting-marriage-equality

Supporting traditional marriage is not “anti-gay”. That is standing up for true familes comprised of one man and one woman. Please desist from your rhetoric about “anti-gay” because it’s patent nonsense.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Supporting traditional marriage is not “anti-gay”. That is standing up for true familes comprised of one man and one woman. Please desist from your rhetoric about “anti-gay” because it’s patent nonsense.

Hit a nerve, Elizium23? I don’t think that 41 words constitutes “rhetoric”, but no matter. You have absolutely no right to tell me to “desist” in posting anything. I have as much right as you to give my opinion. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.

 

[Elizium23]

You’re part of the caricature of your own Church - lovely.

As has been explained, homosexual persons have all the civil rights that straight people have. There is zero legislation at present that restricts any of their rights at all. Every man in the USA has the right to marry a woman, and vice versa. You can’t get much more equal than that.

Sin has no rights and marriage will not be redefined. A man cannot “marry” another man any more than he can “marry” a carrot. But I am sure that we will shortly be hearing of human rights for carrots so that they can be married by whoever wants to.

I don’t know about you, but I would personally not want to consummate a “marriage” with a carrot. Not only would it be unnatural but it would be painful.

 

[JimG]

Obviously, man and woman are sexually complementary. Their reproductive systems are complementary, and because they are complementary, marital relations are possible. That’s just anatomy and biology. It is the structure of the sexes, not the Church, not the State, which resulted in the institution of marriage, which has, since the beginning of history, involved man and woman. Because without complementary sexes, marital relations are not possible. New life is not possible,

The State has an interest only because it is interested in the continuation of the species and the state, and the procreation and raising of new citizens.

The Church has an interest because God ordained this already natural union, as a sacrament. It also has an interest in the continuation of the species, the raising of children, and the preparation and religious training of children to be children of God.

It’s not so much that gay marriage is a sin. There are a lot of sexual sins. It’s that same sex marriage is simply impossible. Pretending that it is possible devalues real marriage and adds to the harm already done to children by contraception and divorce, and by extramarital sex.

 

[NeedsMercy]

You’re part of the caricature of your own Church - lovely.

Explain, please.

 

[LisaA]

Obviously, man and woman are sexually complementary. Their reproductive systems are complementary, and because they are complementary, marital relations are possible. That’s just anatomy and biology. It is the structure of the sexes, not the Church, not the State, which resulted in the institution of marriage, which has, since the beginning of history, involved man and woman. Because without complementary sexes, marital relations are not possible. New life is not possible,

The State has an interest only because it is interested in the continuation of the species and the state, and the procreation and raising of new citizens.

The Church has an interest because God ordained this already natural union, as a sacrament. It also has an interest in the continuation of the species, the raising of children, and the preparation and religious training of children to be children of God.

It’s not so much that gay marriage is a sin. There are a lot of sexual sins. It’s that same sex marriage is simply impossible. Pretending that it is possible devalues real marriage and adds to the harm already done to children by contraception and divorce, and by extramarital sex.

Good point. Often we hear well marriage is already doomed thanks to contraception and easy divorce so what is one more nail in the coffin? Of course this completely ignores common sense…you know the old story if you’re in a hole, stop digging! We’ve seen the damage done to society by the weakening of marriage as a lifelong relationship where children are conceived and raised. Why would we want to continue down the path of destruction by devaluing the unique and complimentary mental, physical and emotional relationship that has sustained it for thousands of years?

Sadly the homosexualists have been able to proclaim that the Chuch is anti-gay when the same prohibition exists for other sexual sins. This is thanks to the media which is not only seemingly ignorant of biology, it has no clue what the Church teaches. Further the Church is clearly justified in its opposition to same sex “marriage” knowing that today they are suing bakeries and photographers and inn keepers, tomorrow they will be banging down the doors of the Church demanding a “marriage” ceremony within.

Lisa

 

[signit]

The main point I was making it is that the Church is using the money in support of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, a law that has been supported by most administrations until
this one.) I agree that the Church has the right to support this law and defend against the
change in the definition of marriage.
By the way, the Church is also one of the first to minister to victims of AIDS, no questions
asked. They are truly for the person, period.

Right. I may have misunderstood and thought you or the other poster was saying that the Church did not give to one or more of these campaigns.

I also support the Church’s “right” to do this. Obviously the local leaders making that decision feels the Church has a significant stake in the issue.

There is still a side issue of whether the Church “should” do it. Some parishioners might not want their donations going to a ballot question instead of other programs.

 

[LisaA]

Right. I may have misunderstood and thought you or the other poster was saying that the Church did not give to one or more of these campaigns.

I also support the Church’s “right” to do this. Obviously the local leaders making that decision feels the Church has a significant stake in the issue.

There is still a side issue of whether the Church “should” do it. Some parishioners might not want their donations going to a ballot question instead of other programs.

You, like the pro gay forces quoted in the article have falsely stated that funds came from “the Archdiocese” and in your sentence above, inferred the donations were taken from the funds for soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Note that the organization is not part of the Church but is a political organization that receives donations from individuals and other organizations such as the KofC.

It’s quite disingenuous to state falsely that parishioners’ donations to the parish or archdiocese for its operations are going to support political campaigns. Please read the article and understand how your words are misleading if not outright false.

Lisa

 

[signit]

You, like the pro gay forces quoted in the article have falsely stated that funds came from “the Archdiocese” and in your sentence above, inferred the donations were taken from the funds for soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Note that the organization is not part of the Church but is a political organization that receives donations from individuals and other organizations such as the KofC.

It’s quite disingenuous to state falsely that parishioners’ donations to the parish or archdiocese for its operations are going to support political campaigns. Please read the article and understand how your words are misleading if not outright false.

Lisa

The other article, though (post #49, a pro-gay article, but citing public records), says that dioceses in turn contributed to the Minnesota Catholic Conference Marriage Defense Fund. According to the article, dioceses gave $180,000 to the fund.

Understood, that’s not a large donation, per parishioner.

 

[Brendan]

It has funded anti-gay legislation in Minnesota, Maryland, Washington State and Maine.

Actually, all the legislation that the Church has supported is decidedly PRO gay.

The Church supports the sanctification of souls, and thus opposes any legislation that endangers souls, such as the redefinition of marriage.

The Church opposes such legislation out of love and concern for those afflicted with SSA.

If the Church actually encouraged such legislation, it would be party in the destruction of souls, and that WOULD be anti-gay.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

It has funded anti-gay legislation in Minnesota, Maryland, Washington State and Maine.

Your links in previous posts show the Church supporting legislation that would ban same-sex “marriage.” The Catholic Church has always been against this legislation for the very reasons Brendan points out:

Actually, all the legislation that the Church has supported is decidedly PRO gay.

The Church supports the sanctification of souls, and thus opposes any legislation that endangers souls, such as the redefinition of marriage.

The Church opposes such legislation out of love and concern for those afflicted with SSA.

If the Church actually encouraged such legislation, it would be party in the destruction of souls, and that WOULD be anti-gay.

Try a different context:

I love my future wife and children so much that I’ve decided to live a life of purity until I am married. I am sacrificing something that brings momentary joy and pleasure because I know there is an even greater joy ahead.

That is the essence of the Church’s teaching about same-sex couples. The Church loves these couples so much that she encourages them to sacrifice the desires of their flesh for the joy of the Kingdom of God.

If you had a friend that could inherit the greatest gift ever bestowed on any human being, something you knew would bring them more joy than anything else could, and the only catch was they had to sacrifice something they really enjoyed, wouldn’t you do everything you could to help them gain the greater gift?