Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[sedonaman]

…

Homosexualist: Active homosexuals who are trying to make it compulsory for all. The term could extend to those trying to force their own ideas on supposed equality for those of peculiar sexuality. It definitely includes those types who consider their same sex proclivities to be far superior to heterosexuals.

And that activity is what I call political homosexuality.

 

[AmyBrownEyes]

Just look at the title of this thread: “Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective).” The message of that generation to its own members was, “You don’t have to care what others think of you; consequently, you don’t have to care about others.” Not a very Catholic [or liberal] message.

Well I care about what others think of me and I care about others.

Forty years ago, they said all they wanted was to be left alone. If that was the case, how did we get to the point of debating whether or not they should be able to “marry”? Since then, and realizing that they had to have the support of the general public, homosexuals have hidden their agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs behind smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” But now Corvino tells us what they really want: moral approval, IOW, they want my heart and soul. It’s not enough for me just to be tolerant.

So what if it matters if thats what homosexuals want. Homosexuals aren’t hiding their goals or beliefs.

It’s fairly simple to see by extrapolation that there is a pattern to Satan’s work here, and to realize that once the current demand is met, it will be followed by yet others even more outrageous, and nothing will end the demands until society is destroyed, which was the whole idea from the beginning.

So being a homosexual is Satan’s work? Or people who support gay rights that is Satan’s work twisting their mind? Yeah that makes a lot of sense, but not to me, it doesn’t mean anything to me. Maybe it means something to you.

 

[AmyBrownEyes]

Amen!

One of the homosexualists’ goals (from an article from one of their own magazines years ago): They want to have “legal” sex with our children even in public parks whenever they want to. In other words, children will no longer be protected from these predators by law. They do not want any laws restricting sex by either age of consent or gender predilection. They want the USA to be like Sodom. This is true freedom to them and they believe it must be forced upon us all. There would be no such thing as “immoral” sex.

That is so untrue. I am sure there are homosexuals who want to have sex with children but the numbers are higher in the heterosexual community. That is repulsive and digusting thing to say that us homosexuals want to have sex with your children. Homosexuals have their own children lesbians do and gay men can adopt children but not as a couple. No one would even legalize a bill that enables homosexuals to have sex with children that is never going to happen. Watch To Catch A Predator those are the perverts who want to have sex with children, don’t leave those sickos out and don’t put all the blame and hatred on the gay community.

Homosexualist: Active homosexuals who are trying to make it compulsory for all. The term could extend to those trying to force their own ideas on supposed equality for those of peculiar sexuality. It definitely includes those types who consider their same sex proclivities to be far superior to heterosexuals.

Well if you believe that then why are there heterosexuals who use the “gay panic defense” in court. A heterosexual person has nothing to scared about if a gay makes a move on them.

 

[AmyBrownEyes]

I am not a homophobe unless it can also mean that I fear what will happen to our country (and our world) because of this “debauchery” that they are trying to legislate into “accepted morality.” “Homo-disgusto” more accurately describes me! QUOTE]

You seem to be proud to be describing yourself as “homo-disgusto”. So homosexuals disgust you and you don’t like homosexuals? If you fear what this “debauchery” is going to do to our country then why don’t you move out of the U.S.A.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Excellent post, sedonaman!

Make that a third or fourth vote. I’m speaking particularly of the understanding that the law does employ categories, legitimately so. This is a major misunderstanding of the proponents of “equal rights.” Thus, children are equally persons as adults are, but are not granted the same rights as adults. Citizens have more rights than non-citizens. A parolee does not have the same rights as someone who was never a convicted felon. Someone not born in this country does not have the right to run for President. Those are all forms of legitimate discrimination.

Conversely, the law does recognize the concept of “protected classes”: thus, racial minorities, disabled persons, and – in many States – officially, gays. But the areas of protection are specific. They relate to the recognized **civil **rights of housing, education, employment, voting. So far, marriage has never been declared a **civil **right.

As a related aside, I hope everyone will be watching the CA court decision on Prop 8, to be announced Tuesday morning. The arguments contained therein may provide fuel for the campaign to overturn the recent Maine decision, and other attempts at reversing recent State-level ‘gay-marriage’ laws.

 

[Belle777]

Amen!

One of the homosexualists’ goals (from an article from one of their own magazines years ago): They want to have “legal” sex with our children even in public parks whenever they want to. In other words, children will no longer be protected from these predators by law. They do not want any laws restricting sex by either age of consent or gender predilection. They want the USA to be like Sodom. This is true freedom to them and they believe it must be forced upon us all. There would be no such thing as “immoral” sex.

Homosexualist: Active homosexuals who are trying to make it compulsory for all. The term could extend to those trying to force their own ideas on supposed equality for those of peculiar sexuality. It definitely includes those types who consider their same sex proclivities to be far superior to heterosexuals.

This is me being optimistic, but I’d like to believe you either misread something or that magazine isn’t speaking for every gay person.
Being a pedophile is completely different than being gay, and at least the good majority of homosexuals aren’t pedophiles.

 

[sedonaman]

…

As a related aside, I hope everyone will be watching the CA court decision on Prop 8, to be announced Tuesday morning. The arguments contained therein may provide fuel for the campaign to overturn the recent Maine decision, and other attempts at reversing recent State-level ‘gay-marriage’ laws.

Thank you also for your support. I predict that the court will act as Graglia described in my post #578 above.

 

[AmyBrownEyes]

This is me being optimistic, but I’d like to believe you either misread something or that magazine isn’t speaking for every gay person.
Being a pedophile is completely different than being gay, and at least the good majority of homosexuals aren’t pedophiles.

You are right Belle a pedophile is completely different than being gay. Many people don’t want to acknowledge that it is the truth. A good part of homosexuals aren’t pedophiles but I am sure there are some who are, but it is mostly in the heterosexual community that has the most pedophiles. Take care.

Peace,

Amy

 

[SHW]

Ah! “You can’t legislate morality.” … One of my favorite lines the Left likes to use … and the easiest to debunk, as you have pointed out.

That might not be so bad if it were the case. But Graglia offers a slightly different observation: “The salient fact of our society at the present day is that we are engaged in a culture war. It is a war between our cultural elite, the intelligencia and aspiring intelligencia (what has been called the “chattering class”), the dominant force in our universities and media of communication, on the one hand, and the ordinary American citizen on the other. The average citizen holds views on a wide range of issues of basic social policy – for example, on capital punishment, prayer in the schools, the permissibility of religious symbols in public places, enforcement of the criminal law, assignment of children to neighborhood schools, the suppression of pornography, flag burning, and, specifically, homosexuality and marriage – that are anathema to our cultural elite. The difficulty with our system of representative self-government, as they see it, is that everyone gets to vote, with the result that the views of the unenlightened masses are likely to prevail. The function of constitutional law, in the view of our cultural elite and as it has largely operated in recent decades, is to keep this from happening. The first and most important thing to understand about constitutional law is that it has very little to do with a constitution. It has become essentially a device or ruse for policymaking by judges. Such policymaking is much preferred by our cultural elite to policymaking by the elected representatives of the people because judges, given a free hand in policymaking, can generally be relied on to serve as the mirror, mouthpiece, and enacting arm of liberal academia in general and liberal legal academia in particular. … Decisions extending marital rights to homosexual unions do so on no other basis or authority than the fact that full societal acceptance, if not endorsement, of homosexuality is the current cause célèbre in today’s academia. The primary function of judicial opinions explaining these decisions is to deny or conceal this fact.”

I think that the “ordinary American citizen” as being God-fearing is now “past tense.” I think that more than 50% of American citizens are no longer concerned with pleasing God instead of self.

Most persons are but “sheeple” and follow the “cultural elite” in whatever they “preach.” These cultural elite own the media and therefore preach to Americans every day and most people do not think for themselves so they are easily fooled by this false teaching.

How many of those persons, who claimed to be “Catholic” when polled by Gallop and Pew, etc. and also voted for Obama, are actually “true” Catholics who follow the pope and magisterium in its teachings? I would guess “very few.” I do not think that our country is predominately Christian any longer. Otherwise, they would not be watching TV shows such as “Desperate Housewives” and “Two and a Half Men.”

 

[SHW]

You seem to be proud to be describing yourself as “homo-disgusto”. So homosexuals disgust you and you don’t like homosexuals? If you fear what this “debauchery” is going to do to our country then why don’t you move out of the U.S.A.

Homosexual acts disgust me. By the way, they disgust me because they are an abomination to God. I have friends who are homosexuals. I feel sorry for them and I pray for them. I do not hate them. But, I also am not going to lie to them and tell them that I think it is okay to do these sinful acts.

Why should I move? I am not the one doing this type of sinning which is an abomination to God! I am fighting against this lifestyle. I do not want it to become “moral” through “legislation.” God’s laws are moral. Immoral laws passed regarding the homosexual lifestyle through legislation are still immoral even if legal.

I have just begun to fight. Now, where have I heard that before?

 

[SHW]

This is me being optimistic, but I’d like to believe you either misread something or that magazine isn’t speaking for every gay person.
Being a pedophile is completely different than being gay, and at least the good majority of homosexuals aren’t pedophiles.

I agree that many homosexuals are not pedophiles. However, the homosexualist agenda encompasses all deviant sexual appetites. It matters not whether it is man with man, man with child, man with animal, or orgy with all of the preceding, etc. They will not stop until all restraints regarding sexual behavior are removed. This is their goal. And then they (those who prefer children) plan to cruise the parks and pick up children because children will no longer be protected from them by law. I saw a copy of this “agenda” article from their magazine/newsletter in the AFA Journal many years ago.

 

[alacoque]

We, as Catholics, should not expect this country to legislate our views toward marriage. No religion should expect this. What if Islamic people insisted all American women be veiled? What if Orthodox Jews insisted all groceries in supermarkets be Kosher?

Alisa

Alisa: What you say above - “we, as Catholics, should not expect this country to legislate our views, etc…” is true. I bolded the word ‘our’ in quoting you because that is what puts us on different footing than you laid out in your statement. In other words, I would agree with you and you would be right if the views we were talking about truly were OURS; but they are not. They are not our personal, private, individual preferences and opinions that we happen to hold as Catholics. They are, according to the beliefs and teachings of our Church, the ‘views’ (laws) of God Himself, revealed to us.

It is almost a hard and fast ‘rule’ in this country that we (as any religion or group) should not impose our beliefs on others. In fact, that’s the one belief that IS imposed on everyone - that we should not impose our beliefs on others. So, again, that can apply just fine if the beliefs are onlyl ‘mine’ or ‘yours’ or ‘ours’. In the case of the (Catholic) Church, they are not ‘our’ beliefs or morals, they are universal Truth. Like it or not (and I know it’s not a popular idea in our time), that’s what the Church is saying…i.e. that what we hold as beliefs, we also believe are eternal Truths (capital “T”).

One might ask the question: who are you to claim your beliefs are true and mine are not or that your beliefs are more true than mine? And I’d reply the same way - that these are not MY beliefs, but God’s, revealed to us through His Church. What it amounts to, of course, is that what the Catholic Church claims to teach is Truth, period. That’s an amazing and arrogant statement to make, unless it’s true.

This whole concept can be very foreign to a lot of people today, because we, as a society and as individuals nurtured by that society, have come so far from any concept of right and wrong, true and false. So many today think and declare their faith or beliefs to be merely their own personal preferences and comfortable ideas. But this is not what the Church claims, teaches or is about. The reason the Church teaches what she does, about anything, is because it is True (and that’s the only reason to believe any of it).

Also, the Church never imposes anything and never has. The Church, as our Holy Fathers have said, proposes - then you make what you will of it.

As far as legislation goes, one could say it is always better to make laws (legislate) that coincide with and support Truth. To make laws that support and further untruths or false ideas is, even leaving religion out of it, ridiculous. No one would want to be governed by laws that had nothing to do with reality, but only reflected the personal preferences of the persons alive at that particular time.

It’s a complicated issue to think about and to resolve for oneself - and is certainly not as simple as just saying ‘don’t impose your morality on us’…not nearly as simple as that.

God bless you

 

[sedonaman]

We, as Catholics, should not expect this country to legislate our views toward marriage. No religion should expect this. What if Islamic people insisted all American women be veiled? What if Orthodox Jews insisted all groceries in supermarkets be Kosher?
…

We need to vote according to our consciences, we can demonstrate or speak out if we so choose – but to me, bottom line: This is a civil matter. If we have faith-centered beliefs about marriage, that is our private business and is between us, our church, and God.

Alisa

What is the purpose of voting “according to our consciences” but not expecting “this country to legislate our views toward marriage”? Why bother [that is, unless your conscience is at odds with Church teaching] ?

In his book, On Conscience, then-Cardinal Ratzinger said he found it strange that some people didn’t accept the infallibility of the pope but believed their own consciences are infallible. I think there is more than a little of that going on in your comment about conscience. People readily accept the idea that they should vote their conscience, but conveniently forget that their conscience has to be well-formed according to right reason:

**A Well-Formed Conscience **

The Church equips her members to address political questions by helping them develop well-formed consciences. “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act. . . . [Every person] is obliged to follow faithfully what he [or she] knows to be just and right” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1778). We Catholics have a lifelong obligation to form our consciences in accord with human reason, enlightened by the teaching of Christ as it comes to us through the Church.

The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2007

In the last go-around, Catholics as a group did not vote a well-formed conscience; they rationalized and called it conscience.

 

[sedonaman]

…

It is almost a hard and fast ‘rule’ in this country that we (as any religion or group) should not impose our beliefs on others.
…

One might ask the question: who are you to claim your beliefs are true and mine are not or that your beliefs are more true than mine?

Ever notice that this question never gets asked of the secularist such as Corvino] who is trying to force his ideas on society? He even admits it! Can you imagine the uproar if a Catholic ever said something like that?

We must realized that in the end, all laws are someone’s imposition on society what his beliefs of right and wrong are. That’s why politicians work so hard to get elected and write laws.

 

[Alisa]

If secularists believe in pushing their own agenda upon American society as a whole, or if certain Catholics believe they are right to do the same, that must be their business. We can pay heed or not.

As for myself, I vote according to my own views and values. If the votes, when counted, go another way, I may lament that, but the votes are the votes.

If you really think about it, our personal spheres of influence are important but rather limited on a day to day basis – people we see or talk to. My belief is that God has placed each one of us in exactly the right time and place. The people placed in our lives are the people we need to minister to and love. My philosophy is to gently keep on plugging away, minute by minute, person by person, hoping to set the best example based on what I believe God expects of me.

If gay marriage becomes nationally legalized and accepted, it doesn’t mean we heterosexuals are then forced to engage in gay unions. If abortion is legal (which it is,) we don’t have to have abortions. Let’s live by our own standards! And as for “getting to heaven” – we believe in achieving that wonderful goal in the way we have been taught. Who are we to judge which individuals attain that goal? God will decide.

Alisa

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

If God doesn’t mind homosexual acts, then why did he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

It wasn’t “homosexual acts”, rather a general immorality that was sodom’s downfall. Sodom was not infamous for homosexuality. It was known as a place of plenty, where every desire was fulfilled. Homosexuality was not THE cause, rather a willful disregard for human being’s basic right of choice. In the story, the Angels (disguised as men) tested the town to see if they could be outsiders and pass through without being treated as aliens and accosted.

Putting this in modern terms, it would be like every neighbor in your town coming over to your house and demanding they have sex with your out of town company (as the men did in the story). That’s rape and sexual assault that just so happens to have an implied homosexual slant. This is NOT the same thing as people born different who want to be left alone and do the best they can with the cards they were dealt.

The cities were not destroyed because of 5-10 percent of their city who were evil homosexuals. The city was destroyed because literally ALL of them were evil. The ENTIRE TOWN sorrounding Lot’s house demanding to “know” Lot’s company was the last straw. God was willing (in the story) to spare it if even 10 righteous people lived there.

Additionally, God later said of the Israelite’s that they were in essence worse than Sodom for what they have done. So I would beg to differ that God is hell bent on a select few of our human kind ill equipped for traditional relationships. Further clarification of Sodom’s sins reveals it was a place of abundance, leisure and devoid of compassion or caring. Putting it all together paints a picture where the town was full of selfish, proud and arrogant people who felt entitled to impose whatever they wanted on a minority.

My fear for this country is not that a few gay folks want to marry and have the same civil legal entitlements that come with a state sanctioned civil marriage. We should be more concerned that our Republic that was founded on the idea that human beings were endowed with the right to choose how they conduct themselves (as long as they do not impose their choices on others) is devolving into a mob rule democracy where 50 percent plus one vote gets to impose the will of the majority against the wishes of the minority.

The loss of protections for the minority rights may today be in Catholic’s favor in regard to gay marriages. The dangerous precedent being set by prop 8 in CA and other states is that someday, a majority of people may decide Catholics (or Christians in general) need to be restricted or otherwise outlawed. While not possible today, understand that today’s push to use the force of law to impose the will of a majority can and will come back to haunt us with some unintended yet very real consequences.

I am personally tired of hearing ONE example of a poor public school (the blame for which belongs solely on the community and NOT the entire public school system) used as an excuse to use the force of law to discriminate against homosexuals who at least want to be monogamous and committed to each other! Will gay marriage invalidate my traditional marriage or yours? Absolutely Not! So why then are we laying the groundwork to take rights away from a minority?

What happens tomorrow when a majority takes one bad example of the Catholic faith (take priest sexual abuse for example) and some evil atheist group decides that there needs to be an amendment to outlaw the Catholic religion because our priests abuse children? The reality is that abuse of a child in the hands of a priest (or other figure of authority) is much more damaging to a child’s soul than a story about their classmate “johnny” who has two dads. The class can go home and dismiss the book as silly or pointless. The boy (of girl) who goes home from being abused is scarred for life.

Wielding power is like handling a venomous snake by the tail. Sure, you might be able to gain some short term victories, but handling a snake by the tail also is a sure fire way to be bitten by the very same snake.

 

[Elizabeth502]

My fear for this country is not that a few gay folks want to marry and have the same civil legal entitlements that come with a state sanctioned civil marriage. We should be more concerned that our Republic that was founded on the idea that human beings were endowed with the right to choose how they conduct themselves (as long as they do not impose their choices on others) is devolving into a mob rule democracy where 50 percent plus one vote gets to impose the will of the majority against the wishes of the minority.

You are so off-base it’s amazing. There is no civil right called marriage. None.

As to the ramblings about the education system (?) and priestly sexual abuse, those are off-topic.

Children have a natural right to parents of two different genders, just as biology provides for the animal kingdom, of which, actually, humans are members.

 

[fix]

If gay marriage becomes nationally legalized and accepted, it doesn’t mean we heterosexuals are then forced to engage in gay unions. If abortion is legal (which it is,) we don’t have to have abortions. Let’s live by our own standards! And as for “getting to heaven” – we believe in achieving that wonderful goal in the way we have been taught. Who are we to judge which individuals attain that goal? God will decide.

Catholics have a moral imperative to change unjust laws. We have an obligation to bring the proper moral understanding into the arena of ideas. If we do not live as Catholics as in voting as Catholics, as in Catholic pols and judges acting like Catholics, as in helping to infuse morality into this democracy, then we will continue to have an increase in tyranny.

 

[Alisa]

“Tyranny” – Fix, do you mean that when our nation votes on an issue and the vote goes against our beliefs as Catholics, that it actually could be given a term like that? I thought the process of voting on an issue was called “Democracy in action”?

Or are you speaking of the tyranny of “the devil” or something along those lines? We are far stronger than that – aren’t we?

If something is voted in or out, the American people have spoken. We as Catholic Christians are still free to live our lives as we believe God has instructed us to do.

Vote for Catholic principles, absolutely! Hold sit-ins or marches or whatever else – that is our right if we choose to go that route.

I’ve always felt that non-Christians will know us by our example rather than by our proselytizing – just my opinion. I find it’s worked in my own long life, and I believe that’s why our own four adult children are now raising their little ones in a very similar fashion. It’s because they’ve had a lifelong witness to the beliefs my husband and I hold dear to our hearts and have lived out.

Alisa

 

[Alisa]

Just for the record, I am a Roman Catholic, my husband is a Roman Catholic, and our children and grandchildren are. We live by Catholic principles and guidelines, and there are lots of us in our family.

If others in this country or others view things differently – then it is up to us to live even more as Catholic Christians, in the hope that we might be of help to others who disagree with us.

I think the problem is that those of us who post on CAF disagree on the most effective methods of attracting others to our faith. I’ve found that our way – that of living the best lives we can according to God’s directions – is very effective indeed. For example, recently my husband and I were having lunch in a restaurant with one of our sons, his wife, and their children. When we joined our hands around the table and thanked God for the food we were about to eat, several people expressed interest and asked what religion we were. A tiny step in attracting others – but a step nonetheless.

Alisa