Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-sex “Marriage”

[mkingdomlvr]

Now that takes real skill in hating. **One has to be able to hate what someone does, while cleverly keeping that hatred from seeping over to target the person. **

Why would anyone choose to hate anything? What is accomplished by this internal mental state? Is it enjoyable? Fun to hate? Does he Church train people on how to keep a Chnese wall between their hatred for what a specific person does and the person themselves?

I’d suggest history shows very few have this finely tuned sense of hate where they can discriminate at will between the sin and the sinner. How do they learn it? Trial and error?

Just from my own experience, most folks aren’t that skillful. Not that I’m condemning them for it, I couldn’t do it either. If I were going to go to all the trouble to hate what someone does, I think I’d have a pretty hard time not hating them as people too.

But then again, I’m not big on hating.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Dear, I didnt get close at all. this is not a foot ball field were talking about, its a park. you can easily see across it. and when i say ‘straight up french kissing, tongues and all’ I think you know what i mean. its very noticable when two people, ANY people, are slobbin’ eachother down…my point was, they didnt have the discretion to move on down the field because there were children around. and no one felt they were able to do/say something about it for fear of backlash like, were homophobes…thats taking it, shoving it in our faces, and forcing us to deal with it. if it were a straight couple, being that publicly initimate, i’d likewise be offended, but wouldnt be considered a ‘hatemonger’ for asking them to cool it off…

**First of all “dear”-you’ve got much better eyesight than I have, and obviously much more interest. As I said earlier, I don’t watch what couples do in parks, straight or gay. Two people in a park that size don’t take up that much of anyone’s sight line, unless you choose to focus on them. **

As for the gay pride parades-like many straight folks you assume that those folks represent the entire gay community. Um…not so much. Yes, we do have our more “fabulous” and “out there” folks, but straights also have some members in their union that I’m sure don’t represent their entire community. Not one of my friends has ever been a part of a gay pride parade, and I only went once to the parade in NY and that was only because I had theatre tickets that night.

I think I made it clear that it was a generalization of the gay community, I know that one individual doesnt represent them all, but, like the gay pride parade, and MOST gay events, a MAJORITY, not one or two, MOST of them partake in these highly sexualized activities…and then wonder why people view them like they do. you see a guy with whips chains and in chaps on the news, talking about equality…equality to do what?? prance around with yer bare naked booty showing pretending to perform oral sex on zucchini’s?? DUDE! really?? i mean cm’on…if a straight person was behaving in such a way it’d be equally as unacceptable…

Same issue here, why are you watching if it’s so horrible? Nobody’s forcing you to go to the parades, unless your apartment window faces Broadway and someone has you tied to a chair with your eyes taped open, why would you need to see these folks?

And as for the Hamburg story…where does it say that the attacker was homosexual?

“man raped boy” man…and boy…you could almost say man and man, as the boy was 17, almost 18, if that is what determines wether a boy is a man or not…i think that pretty much sums it up. wether he was a full fledged homosexual living the lifestyle, or if he was a ‘straight’ man, with a girlfriend is irrelevant. this is a HOMOSEXUAL ACT, and therefore whoever did it has HOMOSEXUAL tendancies, and in my point of view, either or, (the supposedly straight man or the gay man) has serious mental issues…

Are you not aware that most sexual assaults on children and teens are committed by otherwise heterosexual men? Ask the FBI, or watch To Catch a Predator once in a while.

Yeah I’m aware, thats called child molestation. a man molests a young girl. a woman has sex with a young boy. its wrong. but thats not what were talking about here. were talking about HOMOSEXUALITY. wonka and others kept making the point that only straight people beat, kill, hurt homosexuals, when in fact they are JUST as predatory (if not more so) than straights…

**You’re still insisting that this attacker was homosexual and nothing in the article indicates that. Rape is about power, DEAR, not sex. **

 

[cthulhubryan]

Well, I’m asking what Natural law has to do with beating gays. Buffalo made the connection. Perhaps you can tell us? Does Naturral Law lead people to beat gays? Or Catholics? Is it written on our hearts to beat gays? Rabbits?

I assume by “beat” you mean to physically assault then obviously the answer is no. In fact, natural law would lean quite towards the opposite. One of the major forces of conflict in nature is over mates and therefore a heterosexual man and a homosexual man are not competing over the same possible mates and thus no reason for conflict.

 

[cthulhubryan]

I totally agree! And not just when it comes to marriage!

Look at the slippery slope of religion! If we allow freedom of religion for mainstream faiths, it’s inevitable that we’ll end up legalizing suicide cults and human sacrifice!

Is that slippery slope valid? If not, why is yours?

Seriously, though, polygamy is different from same-sex marriage in one important regard: a same-sex marriage is between two consenting adults. In a polygamous marriage, spouse 'A’s decision to marry new spouse ‘B’ will affect the legal rights and responsibilities of spouse 'A’s existing spouse ‘C’.

Polygamy would take a major re-tooling of the law. Same-sex marriage wouldn’t.

1. No the slippery religion slope is not valid as we have laws on the books limiting the scope of religious action. It is most easily summed up by the wiccan rede “An as you harm none, do as you will” so human sacrifice is right out, legally speaking.

Now, I can see your point with plural marriage. I will admit that your logic wins on that point.

 

[buffalo]

Obviously, I disagree, but in the same vein as your dichotomy between the act and the actor, let me put it this way:

The type of discrimination you’ve proposed in this thread is inherently harmful. Whether it’s actually evil depends on the motives behind it.

I sometimes find it very difficult sometimes not to call the Church’s actions on the matter of homosexuality evil. However, I have hope that they’ll treat the “sin” of homosexuality in the same way that they treat the “sin” of, say, schism. Just as the Church is now apparently content to allow Anglicans freedom of religion under secular law and in some cases actually engage in dialogue with them, I have the strong hope that while the Church may always regard homosexuality as a sin, at some point they’ll stop interfering in secular matters and in the lives of non-Catholics when it comes to issues surrounding homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

So… short version: no, I don’t think that Catholicism is intrinsically evil, but some pretty awful things have been done in its name lately.

This is the failure of human beings to live the Catholic proposition perfectly.

 

[Siddhartha]

1. No the slippery religion slope is not valid as we have laws on the books limiting the scope of religious action. It is most easily summed up by the wiccan rede “An as you harm none, do as you will” so human sacrifice is right out, legally speaking.

gearhead:

Seriously, though, polygamy is different from same-sex marriage in one important regard: a same-sex marriage is between two consenting adults. In a polygamous marriage, spouse 'A’s decision to marry new spouse ‘B’ will affect the legal rights and responsibilities of spouse 'A’s existing spouse ‘C’.

Polygamy would take a major re-tooling of the law. Same-sex marriage wouldn’t.

Now, I can see your point with plural marriage. I will admit that your logic wins on that point.

Huh? What logic?

To defend same-sex marriage by denying its implications for polygamy is a bit short-sighted. I support same-sex civil marriage (in theory), but let’s be honest: this opens the door to civil polygamous marriage.

I don’t see where civil polygamous marriage requires a major re-tooling of the law. If person A can civilly marry person B, why can’t person B civilly marry person C, and then person C civilly marry person A? I don’t see any major re-tooling required.

And I haven’t said anything about the fact that, historically, polygamous marriage has a greater claim to legality than same-sex marriage. The Mormons saw that, but they lost. The Muslims will raise the issue again, and they will win.

 

[gearhead]

Huh? What logic?

To defend same-sex marriage by denying its implications for polygamy is a bit short-sighted. I support same-sex civil marriage (in theory), but let’s be honest: this opens the door to civil polygamous marriage.

I don’t see where civil polygamous marriage requires a major re-tooling of the law. If person A can civilly marry person B, why can’t person B civilly marry person C, and then person C civilly marry person A? I don’t see any major re-tooling required.

And I haven’t said anything about the fact that, historically, polygamous marriage has a greater claim to legality than same-sex marriage. The Mormons saw that, but they lost. The Muslims will raise the issue again, and they will win.

First off, why do you think that polygamy necessarily that everyone in the group marries everyone else? If everyone involved is straight, why would there be any reason for same-sex marriages within the group?

Second, consider this hypothetical: person A is unconcious in the hospital. His spouse B wants one course of treatment; his spouse C wants another. Whose decision prevails? Unless you can answer this question without invoking any new legal principles that already apply to married couples, then it would require a retooling of the law to implement.

 

[Siddhartha]

First off, why do you think that polygamy necessarily that everyone in the group marries everyone else? If everyone involved is straight, why would there be any reason for same-sex marriages within the group?

Polygamous marriage may take many forms. One guy might marry 2 women. One woman might marry 3 guys. These sorts of polygamous marriages may be called ‘radial’ polygamous marriages, since the lines of relationship radiate out from one person. You might also have radial polygamous homosexual marriages, where one guy marries 2 guys who are not then married to each other.

Other polygamous marriages may be ‘circular’, where A marries B, B marries C, C marries D, and D marries A. ‘Linear’ polygamy would occur when D marries E.

Other polygamous marriages may be ‘irregular’ in various ways. One might have a circular polygamous marriage in which one of the individuals is married to a person no one else is married to.

In any of these marriages, one may have heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual individuals involved.

Second, consider this hypothetical: person A is unconcious in the hospital. His spouse B wants one course of treatment; his spouse C wants another. Whose decision prevails? Unless you can answer this question without invoking any new legal principles that already apply to married couples, then it would require a retooling of the law to implement.

That’s simple.

If A is married in a monogamous marriage with B, then if A wants to also marry C, A would have to get B’s approval. If A wants to marry C, and B does not approve, then A and B simply divorce and then A marries C; or A gives up on the idea.

If B says “Yes” to the new situation, then A would marry C. The A-C marriage would contain specific, legally binding agreements addressing issues such as end-of-life issues.

It may be the case that A only wants B to handle end-of-life issues, and that would be part of the A-C legal arrangement.

In a polygamous marriage, each member would have clearly defined legal responsibilities.

 

[Charlotte408]

**You’re still insisting that this attacker was homosexual and nothing in the article indicates that. Rape is about power, DEAR, not sex. **

ewwwww!! aha ha aha ha ah LOL!! omigosh…check you out…FIRST of all…DEAR…LOL…some people DO still use terms of endearment, ie. honey, dear, in full sincerity…no need to get all ugly and condescending

I know this is a hot topic, but lets not forget ourselves…this is just a conversation…

and yes, i do agree with you that rape is about power, in some situations. but sometimes, it is just about sex. im not insisting the man lived a homosexual lifestyle, but i am insisting that the SEX they had was a HOMOSEXUAL ACT, and it WAS. it was two dudes!

and you keep saying that i was so ‘interested’ in watching two men make out. i wasnt. its not something you dont notice walking by. but its like, just because i noticed it, automatically makes me the bad guy, like, ‘well why are you so interested’ well because my 5 yr old kid, and all kinds of other kids are right here playing, get a frekn room! thats not even a homophobe thing to say, straight people should get rooms too instead of making out in public like that…but they cant play this ‘victim’ card like your tryin to play for homosexuals…

they make out in public, in front of kids … “well why are you so interested in watching?”

a man rapes a boy… “oh well it was rape, therefore it doesnt count as a ‘homosexual act’”

a gay man gets beat up for hittin on another dude… “OH, EVERYBODY, we have a VICTIM here”

Im in no way saying that gaybashing is ok, no frekn way its not, but its like, for every arguement that we put up, you try to flip it and undermine it by somehow turning into something WE did, or something THEY didnt do…but for your arguements its this huge play to sympathy…

 

[StillWondering]

I was agreeing with gearhead about people who make such an issue about homosexuality being a choice. I didn’t specify religious leaning because I don’t think that has anything to do with it.

And I know a lot of Catholics who talk a very good game, but also lump me and the entire gay community into the same group with pedophiles and people who want to sleep with their dogs. That’s denigrating, and it is NOT hating the sin and loving the sinner.

I agree with you that hate and discrimination is not intrinsic to most religious leanings. Humans are humans and as humans who have fallen natures, some act out in horrific ways. We are sad for these brothers and sisters of the world and hope they will repent, recant, and seek out love and truth. However, this is independent of Church teachings and in fact the Church condemns homosexual acts, as manifestations of the sin. It’s a double “and” situation. Love the sinner and hate the sin.

I also agree that there are Catholics who “talk a very good game” while ignoring Christian teachings of love. The fact that they do not take effort to understand the individual or their plights are sins of neglect. Their harmful actions to other humans are sins as well. Their superiority complex are sins of arrogance. The Church surely do not teach them this. That, as you access, violates the brotherly love all Christians are called to exhibit by Christ.

Just to be clear though, the Church teaches us that loving our brothers does not mean condoning or allowing others to sin. As Catholics we are called to evangelize and be a support. This support can be helping our brothers to learn why the Church and Christ teaches homosexual acts are wrong. This support can be a shoulder for others to lean on or cry on. This can be a loving ear for others to confide in. We are not called to be “judgmental” in the secular modern negative connotation, but we are called to state clearly when an act is against Christ’s teachings and to let others know the consequences as well as the options involved in these acts. These involve a moral assessment that is very akin to a mental judgment of the proper course of conduct.

I am not a scholar not an apologist, so sadly here I cannot explain Christs teachings well. However, I can be an ear. I can be a friend. I can defend those that are out there spreading Christs teachings in a loving, firm, supportive, and unyielding way. Those that do this in love and do not back down or compromise, those are the ones that truly love the sinner. Because if they compromise or yield in their steps they are putting their own reputation, well being, or public acceptance over their love of their brother and salvation. So respect, even if may not agree, those who truly witness in the fullness of love. Not only will your respect be respect of their fortitude and devotion, nor would it only be that, and respect for Who they believe in. It will be respect for yourself as well because you are *really *that important to them for them to care so much about you.

 

[StillWondering]

Just from my own experience, most folks aren’t that skillful. Not that I’m condemning them for it, I couldn’t do it either. If I were going to go to all the trouble to hate what someone does, I think I’d have a pretty hard time not hating them as people too.

But then again, I’m not big on hating.

It is not popularly known, simply because it is not meant as advertisement, that there are thousands and millions of nuns, priests, and volunteers around the world treating people for serious illness cause by unhealthy and often sinful living. Husbands that go to prostitutes and bring home aids to their devoted wives in African nations, society that mistreats and marginalize their own people for worldly gains leaving mothers necessitating dirt as food for their children in Haiti, young impressionable women who made mistakes and choose to abandon their babies in the streets corners in India, and countless others. Theses nuns, priests, and volunteers definitively would want the sins that created these difficulties to go away and people to live happy lives. But during this whole time, they still love each and every true patient, sufferer, or outcasts coming through their doors, whether it is an orphanage, a hospital, or a home.

These people know how to love the sinner and hate the sin well. Just because we are living in a society that does not promote these saintly people on earth does not mean they do not exists. They are everywhere around the globe and Catholicism is simply the largest charitable organization and greatest provider of health care to the needed and poor.

Yes, you and I and others who are living in luxury (I am quite poor in American standards but definitely living in luxury compared to the nation I left behind two decades ago), may not be living up to this “ideal”; there are countless, millions and millions and millions of others that do. To them it is not an ideal but a minimum. We should all strive for that instead of thinking it’s for the few and it is rare so we are excused to not seek the same.

 

[gearhead]

If you mean they as in Catholics, I don’t think you were taught correctly what it means to have Catholic love. Catholics cannot by themselves hate any one and be obedient to the Faith. They can hate the sin, but must love the sinner. They can defend themselves against the sinner and chastised the sinner, but only with love in their hearts. Anything less is faulty and weak. Anything less then having love in all works is not true to Catholic teaching.

Hmm… I think that most actual implementations of “hating the sin and loving the sinner” amount to hypocrisy; at least the ones I’ve seen personally, anyhow. I saw very little love from representatives of the Church in the lead-up to the approval of same-sex marriage here in Canada. The local archbishop even published an “open letter” in the country’s newspapers encouraging our lawmakers to invoke the notwithstanding clause.*

And the hate-filled homily that a guest priest gave on same-sex marriage at my wife’s church is the reason I no longer kneel in mass when I go with her. I won’t kneel before an altar that’s used as a podium for dissemination of hatred.

** for the non-Canadian readers: here, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is similar to the American Bill of Rights but with one important difference: you can “turn it off”. The notwithstanding clause allows Parliament to enact a law that would normally violate the Charter (i.e. normal, fundamental individual rights) by giving it an exemption from the Charter requirements, which has to be renewed every five years. Basically, the Archbishop was suggesting that the country give up on some of its basic human rights so that same-sex marriage would be prevented.*

1. No the slippery religion slope is not valid as we have laws on the books limiting the scope of religious action. It is most easily summed up by the wiccan rede “An as you harm none, do as you will” so human sacrifice is right out, legally speaking.

Right - just as we have laws limiting legal agreements (which would include marriage) to people giving full and informed consent (including being of age to consent). This means that the nuttier slippery slope arguments like “if we allow gay marriage, next pedophilia will be legalized!” and “if we allow gay marriage, we can’t stop people marrying their pets!” are also right out, legally speaking.

I have yet to hear an actually valid slippery slope argument argument against same-sex marriage.

That’s simple.

If A is married in a monogamous marriage with B, then if A wants to also marry C, A would have to get B’s approval. If A wants to marry C, and B does not approve, then A and B simply divorce and then A marries C; or A gives up on the idea.

If B says “Yes” to the new situation, then A would marry C. The A-C marriage would contain specific, legally binding agreements addressing issues such as end-of-life issues.

It may be the case that A only wants B to handle end-of-life issues, and that would be part of the A-C legal arrangement.

In a polygamous marriage, each member would have clearly defined legal responsibilities.

Sounds like that might work out okay, legally speaking. The only problem is that there is currently no mechanism in law to do everything you’re suggesting.

I’m not trying to say that you couldn’t build some sort of legal framework to allow polygamy if the political will was there. I’m sure it’s possible; many countries allow polygamy or did so in the past. All I’m saying is that this legal framework does not yet exist in any country currently debating same-sex marriage. There is nothing to suggest that same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to legalization of polygamy, so the use of any argument against polygamy as an argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage is a red herring.

 

[Siddhartha]

There is nothing to suggest that same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to legalization of polygamy…

True, it’s not “inevitable”, but I don’t see how U.S. law could declare polygamy unconstitutional given the redefinition of marriage.

…so the use of any argument against polygamy as an argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage is a red herring.

Actually, I’m not against the legalization of polygamy. I’m pro-same-sex marriage and pro-polygamous marriage. My claim is that the argument in favor of same-sex marriage, by invoking the non-inevitability of polygamous marriage, is disingenuous.

The crucial issue regarding polygamy revolves around creating protections within the marriage agreements, protections that prevent spousal, domestic, and economic abuse. We could also limit the number of parties in a polygamous marriage to no more than four.

 

[gearhead]

True, it’s not “inevitable”, but I don’t see how U.S. law could declare polygamy unconstitutional given the redefinition of marriage.

AFAIK, polygamy isn’t unconstitutional; it’s prohibited by lesser laws.

Actually, I’m not against the legalization of polygamy. I’m pro-same-sex marriage and pro-polygamous marriage. My claim is that the argument in favor of same-sex marriage, by invoking the non-inevitability of polygamous marriage, is disingenuous.

I’m not sure what you mean. I’ve never heard an argument in favour of same-sex marriage that “invokes the non-inevitability of polygamous marriage”. In the same-sex marriage debate, polygamy is usually invoked (falsely, IMO) by the anti-same-sex marriage side.

The crucial issue regarding polygamy revolves around creating protections within the marriage agreements, protections that prevent spousal, domestic, and economic abuse.

Yes, but all these things would require changes in legislation, which in turn would require political will that doesn’t currently exist.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

ewwwww!! aha ha aha ha ah LOL!! omigosh…check you out…FIRST of all…DEAR…LOL…some people DO still use terms of endearment, ie. honey, dear, in full sincerity…no need to get all ugly and condescending

I know this is a hot topic, but lets not forget ourselves…this is just a conversation…

and yes, i do agree with you that rape is about power, in some situations. but sometimes, it is just about sex. im not insisting the man lived a homosexual lifestyle, but i am insisting that the SEX they had was a HOMOSEXUAL ACT, and it WAS. it was two dudes!

and you keep saying that i was so ‘interested’ in watching two men make out. i wasnt. its not something you dont notice walking by. but its like, just because i noticed it, automatically makes me the bad guy, like, ‘well why are you so interested’ well because my 5 yr old kid, and all kinds of other kids are right here playing, get a frekn room! thats not even a homophobe thing to say, straight people should get rooms too instead of making out in public like that…but they cant play this ‘victim’ card like your tryin to play for homosexuals…

they make out in public, in front of kids … “well why are you so interested in watching?”

a man rapes a boy… “oh well it was rape, therefore it doesnt count as a ‘homosexual act’”

a gay man gets beat up for hittin on another dude… “OH, EVERYBODY, we have a VICTIM here”

Im in no way saying that gaybashing is ok, no frekn way its not, but its like, for every arguement that we put up, you try to flip it and undermine it by somehow turning into something WE did, or something THEY didnt do…but for your arguements its this huge play to sympathy…

I find your “terms of endearment” condescending and patronizing.

I’m not flipping anything, I’m simply suggesting that there are other ways to handle PDA’s in the outside world other than to stare at them and carry the event around with you for ages afterwards.

I defined the difference between RAPE and a homosexual relationship since you clearly have issues with telling the difference. Do you have the same problem when a woman is raped by a man?

If a person is beaten for the SINGLE FACT of their sexual identity, then we have a victim of gay bashing. Please point out where I said that the boy in the Hamburg attack was NOT a victim. He was a victim of RAPE not a homosexual advance.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

It is not popularly known, simply because it is not meant as advertisement, that there are thousands and millions of nuns, priests, and volunteers around the world treating people for serious illness cause by unhealthy and often sinful living. Husbands that go to prostitutes and bring home aids to their devoted wives in African nations, society that mistreats and marginalize their own people for worldly gains leaving mothers necessitating dirt as food for their children in Haiti, young impressionable women who made mistakes and choose to abandon their babies in the streets corners in India, and countless others. Theses nuns, priests, and volunteers definitively would want the sins that created these difficulties to go away and people to live happy lives. But during this whole time, they still love each and every true patient, sufferer, or outcasts coming through their doors, whether it is an orphanage, a hospital, or a home.

These people know how to love the sinner and hate the sin well. Just because we are living in a society that does not promote these saintly people on earth does not mean they do not exists. They are everywhere around the globe and Catholicism is simply the largest charitable organization and greatest provider of health care to the needed and poor.

Yes, you and I and others who are living in luxury (I am quite poor in American standards but definitely living in luxury compared to the nation I left behind two decades ago), may not be living up to this “ideal”; there are countless, millions and millions and millions of others that do. To them it is not an ideal but a minimum. We should all strive for that instead of thinking it’s for the few and it is rare so we are excused to not seek the same.

To be honest, the most acceptance I’ve found from Catholics has been from clergy and religious folks. It’s the lay people who have been the most cruel.

 

[buffalo]

**Cause of Catholic Apathy to Homosexual Agenda
Considered at the Start of the Year of the Priest
**

The April 23, 2009 edition of The Rhode Island Catholic featured a column entitled “Rhode Island, Most Catholic State, Welcomes Gay Marriage”. The column was written by the Bishop of Providence. The Most Rev. Thomas Tobin decried the “abysmal” Catholic apathy and said it must be overcome to oppose those who are “fiercely determined” to impose homosexual “marriage”. With bluntness uncharacteristic of many bishops, he noted that the homosexual lobby is well-organized, well-funded and determined to impose its agenda on all of the citizens—human history, culture and moral principles notwithstanding. He added that anyone who opposes them is quickly labeled a bigot.
Bishop Tobin said also that if only 5% to 10% of Rhode Island’s Catholic population became involved in the issue “we could have an enormous impact and help Rhode Island maintain its moral sanity.” Without actually saying so, the Bishop was referring to the laity. However, the Bishop noted that the typical Rhode Island Catholic’s response to the homosexual agenda being imposed on everyone was indifferent. He attributed that indifference to “not wanting to judge people” and that Catholics “give rationalizations about the decline of Catholic influence.” Perhaps he was also including his clergy in the latter statement.

more…
______________

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I find it fascinating that the people who decry the homosexual lobby “pushing their agenda” on the American people, see nothing wrong with pushing their OWN agenda on the American people.

“With bluntness uncharacteristic of many bishops, he noted that the Catholic lobby is well-organized, well-funded and determined to impose its agenda on all of the citizens—human history, culture and moral principles notwithstanding. He added that anyone who opposes them is quickly labeled a bigot.”

The Catholic church wants everyone to believe the way they do, and that’s fine-but they can’t legislate it in the United States.

 

[buffalo]

I find it fascinating that the people who decry the homosexual lobby “pushing their agenda” on the American people, see nothing wrong with pushing their OWN agenda on the American people.

“With bluntness uncharacteristic of many bishops, he noted that the Catholic lobby is well-organized, well-funded and determined to impose its agenda on all of the citizens—human history, culture and moral principles notwithstanding. He added that anyone who opposes them is quickly labeled a bigot.”

The Catholic church wants everyone to believe the way they do, and that’s fine-but they can’t legislate it in the United States.

No apologies are needed for “pushing” the truth onto every living human. Why ask a question if you do not want a truthful answer?

 

[gearhead]

No apologies are needed for “pushing” the truth onto every living human. Why ask a question if you do not want a truthful answer?

Hmm. If there’s any slippery slope argument in this whole debate, I think it’s here. I’m loathe to give an inch to people who think they have the God-given duty to make the world conform to their views.