E
- Status
M
maximus
Guest
This is the whole point, once SSM is defined as a right and all objectionors are subjected to governmental repression. It is a short path for all other things like polygamy, group marriages, and whatever can be thought of next. Because once the precedence of marriage redefinition is established how can the other permutations be denied. Many SSM advocates acknowledge this and admit it as a logical progression.
E
edwest2
Guest
Why make assumptions? How do we get the next generation of children? There is a natural law built into men and women, religious or not, the law has to be followed. Don’t follow it, you get nothing. No children.You like to play “hide and seek”? The phrase “natural law” is used as an abbreviated form for “natural MORAL law”, which has nothing to do with biology.
There are other arrangements, equally good, maybe even better.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is STILL a fallacy.
The gender of the partners is not relevant. You advocate a lifelog commitment, and now you argue against it. Why do you change your stance so quickly?
Other arrangements? I’ve been watching the alternative lifestyles since the late 1960s. They fail. Three kids by 3 different women and no connection to anybody. Now that the experiment is ending - all those guys are left with is a 40 ounce beer, a dog, and their truck. The women? They end up with nothing. And the kids? The baby got thrown out with the bathwater.
It won’t be long: “Gay Married couple loses adopted children in divorce related legal battle.” Back to square one for the kids.
Peace,
Ed
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I think “pretend” is the right word, Lisa. “Sham,” “mockery” and “grotesque parody” also apply. There is something truly nightmarish about the whole same sex “marriage” phenomenon, by which I refer to its surrealistic upheaval of normalcy. And it is indeed an “experiment,” foisted on the American public who have been deluded that homosexuality is a “good” and that the sexual practices of homosexuals are somehow normal.
The selfishness and hedonism underlying the whole homosexualist “movement” is blatantly apparent, as is a deep-seated inferiority complex, which the homosexuals hope to ameliorate by engaging in their grotesque parody of marriage. “Gay marriage doesn’t hurt society.” The anger, deep division and resentment that a small minority have created belies that statement entirely.
E
edwest2
Guest
It’s also irrational because clearly, the orgasms are the most important thing regardless of whatever mix and match combination you can think of. Marriage? I don’t think so. Benefits, yes.
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri
Peace,
Ed
F
Faithdancer
Guest
That is an interesting and informative editorial, Ed, and ever more relevant. I was dismayed to see that two Georgetown law professors were signatories to that abominable statement. Well, that school has long since ceased being Catholic in anything but name only, so go figure.
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Yes someone should inform this gentleman that the battle has already been won oh 2,000 years ago with the resurrectiom of Christ
E
edwest2
Guest
It was part of the plan. Break the connection between Catholic institutions of higher learning with the Church so dissident teachers could poison their colleagues with ideas that were carefully and deceptively packaged as a false “freedom,” so they could teach a new batch of young people the wrong things, year in and year out. Our trust, as true Catholics, was abused, and they counted on us trusting them… until it was too late.
1967
catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm
Read it and weep. Not all the “reformers” and radicals dressed like Hippies, some wore expensive suits and had the right credentials to “sell” deception. Ever wonder how things started to run out of control at Catholic universities as they began to become more like their secular counterparts? The trust of sincere Catholic students was abused as well.
The point here is that all involved operated at all levels of society to gradually turn it into their image and likeness so they could proudly declare: “I’m PROUD to be - fill in the blank. I defy anybody to tell me to do anything!!! Except I will remake society to suit me and force people to comply. I WILL tell people what to do.”
Peace,
Ed
F
Faithdancer
Guest
A sample from the “beyondmarriage.org” platform:
“For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?”
“…Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner…”
“Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households…”
This organization clearly seeks to do far more than simply “expand” the definition of marriage. Their deeper agenda is political/economic- they seek to create a system of government benefits for any and all relationships and social arrangements that can be conceived. It isn’t so much about marriage as it is about redistribution of wealth and advancing the “welfare state.” The concluding paragraphs of their statement make that abundantly clear.
Do we need any further evidence that the “gay agenda” is part of a larger socialist agenda? It is no wonder that the atheist/Marxists march lockstep with the homosexualists, since their ideal of a totalitarian leftist dystopia is the same.
“For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?”
“…Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner…”
“Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households…”
This organization clearly seeks to do far more than simply “expand” the definition of marriage. Their deeper agenda is political/economic- they seek to create a system of government benefits for any and all relationships and social arrangements that can be conceived. It isn’t so much about marriage as it is about redistribution of wealth and advancing the “welfare state.” The concluding paragraphs of their statement make that abundantly clear.
Do we need any further evidence that the “gay agenda” is part of a larger socialist agenda? It is no wonder that the atheist/Marxists march lockstep with the homosexualists, since their ideal of a totalitarian leftist dystopia is the same.
E
edwest2
Guest
You are right:
“For this reason, the mere fact of the organization and strengthening of the socialist system, will deal religion an irrecoverable blow. THE TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM TO COMMUNISM, THE TRANSITION FROM THE SOCIETY WHICH MAKES AN END OF CAPITALISM TO THE SOCIETY WHICH IS COMPLETELY FREED FROM ALL TRACES OF CLASS DIVISION AND CLASS STRUGGLE, WILL BRING ABOUT THE NATURAL DEATH OF ALL RELIGION AND ALL SUPERSTITION.”
Source: marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/11.htm
It’s all there.
Wake up, my fellow Catholics.
Peace,
Ed
Footnote: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is dead. The experiment failed. This year, for the first time, most billionaires are located where? Moscow.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Yes,many of the radical “intelligensia” got behind the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at first didn’t they? The reward for their support, after they had served their purpose, was a one-way ticket to the Gulag, for many of them.
The destruction of normative social institutions such as marriage, the family and the church is just part of the process. Of course, even the Soviets did not go so far as to governmentally redefine marriage, although they did attempt to micromanage it. Ironically, under Stalin, divorce was difficult to obtain and access to abortion was restricted- not on higher moral grounds, but in the interest of increasing the population of the USSR.
The Catholic voting bloc is a sleeping giant in America. Unfortunately many of these voters are at present Catholic in name only.
L
LisaA
Guest
Thank you and to Edwest as well for so clearly and cogently explaining the real agenda. It is not about allowing people to “marry whom they love” but a desire to re-order society in a perverse and perverted way.
The very same reasoning was used for liberalizing divorce laws, that it was “better for children not to live with parents who are no longer in love” as if there was nothing more than “feeeeeelingsssss” involved. It is a desire to stay in the juvenile, “it’s all about me” world of the perpetual adolescent who is a slave to his impulses and desires. As a result marriages are undone with little thought to the impact, couples don’t bother to marry before having children, and the government becomes the spouse or the parent. Marx would be proud!
As to the latest attempt to destroy societal norms and structure, Edwest noted the essential thing for this group is that they receive society’s approval of their particular sexual practices. Whether this “other arrangement” benefits those involved, society or children is irrelevant. It’s all about “the big O” and how to achieve with society’s blessing.
And if you don’t bless us, we’ll sue you!
Lisa
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Well said, Lisa. And your analysis of the adolescent mentality is spot on. This mentality is nowhere more evident than in those who don’t have a problem with public sex. Perhaps puerile adolescent would be a better description for that attitude.
Of course, those who do not believe that human beings are possessed of an immortal soul see no essential difference in dignity between humanity and the lower orders of life so if human beings rut like dogs in the street, they may have no problem with it.
S
Slavonic
Guest
There’s a difference between selfishness and self-interest. Marriage is not selfish. It is in the self-interest of some LGBT individuals to support and fight for marriage. It’s also completely inappropriate to paint an entire group of diverse individuals as selfish.
Once again self-interest, not selfish. What’s involved in this grotesque parody? Let’s see there’s cohabitation, shared finances, a life together, mutual support, commitment, and social recognition of the relationship just to name a few. I also have to ask who’s really angry and resentful and ask why those people can’t control their negative emotions.
Context counts, here’s the whole list:
It’s really easy and convenient argue against the destruction of society. But same-sex marriage is not the destruction of society. I don’t think anyone is asking to end opposite sex marriages and replace them with same-sex marriages. I don’t see how churches will be shut down once two men get a marriage license at a courthouse. Actually how many same-sex marriages does it take to destroy society in your example? We have them in the US now. When do we reach critical mass? Do uniformed agents break up a family when two women kiss in wedding dresses?
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Ssm is just another nail in the coffin, the divorce/lack of traditional marriage rate speaks for itself.
E
edwest2
Guest
We have it on TV and in the movies. Love doesn’t mean anything. It pained me to watch a beautiful woman on a TV show sitting across from an average looking guy while they had lunch (both played lawyers). He tries to convince her that their sexual encounter from the night before was special. The woman nonchalantly responds that it was “just sex.”
He replies: “No, you’re wrong. I’ve had ‘just sex’ in the past but this was different.”
Her almost non-emotional reply was: “No. I don’t think so.” and they finish eating.
So, like two digs meeting in an alley, they have an encounter and walk away from each other like nothing happened.
So what kind of role models do we have out there in the media? Virtually none. How is sex treated in the media? As the only thing that matters. Relationships? Messy. Complicated. Ever watch Two and a Half Men? What was the lead character’s hobby? Having sex with women, even though his mother was engaged in just sex as well. The newer version has a different guy who, in one episode, is stranded by the side of the road, gets picked up by an older woman and ends up in bed with her.
Role models, my dear friends, we need role models that people can relate to.
At one time the media was ‘a guest in our home,’ it is now a pimp.
Peace,
Ed
He replies: “No, you’re wrong. I’ve had ‘just sex’ in the past but this was different.”
Her almost non-emotional reply was: “No. I don’t think so.” and they finish eating.
So, like two digs meeting in an alley, they have an encounter and walk away from each other like nothing happened.
So what kind of role models do we have out there in the media? Virtually none. How is sex treated in the media? As the only thing that matters. Relationships? Messy. Complicated. Ever watch Two and a Half Men? What was the lead character’s hobby? Having sex with women, even though his mother was engaged in just sex as well. The newer version has a different guy who, in one episode, is stranded by the side of the road, gets picked up by an older woman and ends up in bed with her.
Role models, my dear friends, we need role models that people can relate to.
At one time the media was ‘a guest in our home,’ it is now a pimp.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
That is way too simplistic. There are still a substantial number of married people who are staying together. SSM is a brand new issue.
Peace,
Ed
F
Faithdancer
Guest
So you claim to be Catholic, and yet support same sex “marriage?” Please explain how that works. Do you follow the teachings of the Magisterium, or don’t you?
L
LisaA
Guest
The grotesque parody is the sham that male/male or female/female combinations are the equivalent of male/female marriage. A bit of basic biology would provide ample information regarding the ridiculous idea. Further males and females are NOT the same thing. Again refer to high school biology text if you need support. Relationships with males and females are also not the same. Men and women respond differently to different stimuli. All efforts to pretend that they are identical is simply lies foisted off as truth to promote a selfish desire to have everyone else involved in their make believe games.
No one is saying you and Bob or Dick or Harry cannot commit to a lifetime together. No one cares if you share a home or bed or rolls of toilet paper. But dont’ ask me to play make believe with you. I gave up fairy tales in the third grade.
As to your claims that SSM ‘wont destroy society’ again this is simply your opinion to support your personal and sexual desires. All experiments with traditional one man/one woman marriage have proved destructive. The absolute silliness is that those who base their identity on a changable perception and a particular activity think that somehow THEY are different. THEY are so enlightened that THEIR adolescent dreams of a utopian society of anything goes will work when all of history says otherwise.
Your basic problem is thinking we’re all stupid enough to accept this silly idea as somehow benefitting society when all you really want is to pretend.
Lisa
L
LisaA
Guest
But you are speaking against your argument. If divorice rates are high, if couples do not marry what is the reason? Because society decided to tamper with traditional man/woman marriage. The divorce rates and out of wedlock births are supported by a Leftist ideology of big government taking the place of the spouse and family. It is simply a power grab and sadly has been quite effective especially in the black community.
Now you suggest we tamper further with marriage instead of supporting what works?
Lisa
- Status