If We Don't Say No to Same-Sex Unions, then Why Not Incest and Pedophilia Says Archbishop

[WanderAimlessly]

I’ve been making this argument for years!

What is so annoyingly ironic is how liberal publications like the National Catholic Reporter will write full length articles lauding homosexual couples in some form or fashion, and then write an article lambasting pedophile priests. Hypocrites.

If you legitimize one form of sexual deviancy, you legitimize them all.

So have I and I have gootten flamed for it. Some cannot handle the truth

 

[fix]

Yes, I can. But how does homosexual marriage weakens family structure?

For one thing it will change the perception of marriage. That will affect how children view marriage and all relationships.

If we decide to start calling murder a medical therapy will that not change how we view medicine? Or, has it already happended? I mean many will consider direct abortion a matter of medical “choice”.

 

[Mirdath]

I don’y have to do that. They make it known publicly.

And guess what – you don’t have to pay attention to them or respond.

Love does not include subjecting children to unnatural unions that lack complementarity. That is abuse.

Well, let’s close the boarding schools and non-coed dorms then! It’s not a nuclear family environment, it must be abusive!

The Cleavers are not the only viable or even the only used model of the family unit. And wouldn’t you agree that even an imperfect but loving family is better for a child than being stuck in an orphanage?

 

[JimG]

The issue of consent is precisely why NAMBLA is would like to lower the age of consent.through legislation.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Sure, some people are exploited by that industry. Some people are also exploited to make your shoes. I don’t see much of a difference other than that there’s more nudity in the former.

Pornography can be degrading and exploitive. Not always. I do not see it as a great societal ill, however.

(edit: thanks Dale! )

DO your research.

 

[thechrismyster]

Consent makes it none of your business (whether or not you think it evil)

mmm. major defect in logic. I make my business whatever I want to. If two consenting adults do something stupid or that i think is wrong, i’ll completely blurt out my opposition and try to right the wrong.
the liberals never understand that good HAS to poke it’s nose into evils house.
I find great satisfaction of sticking my nose where i can, that may, perhaps, lead me to right a wrong.

even if it’s 2 consenting adults.

 

[Mirdath]

DO your research.

What makes you think I haven’t?

thechrismyster:

mmm. major defect in logic. I make my business whatever I want to. If two consenting adults do something stupid or that i think is wrong, i’ll completely blurt out my opposition and try to right the wrong.
the liberals never understand that good HAS to poke it’s nose into evils house.
I find great satisfaction of sticking my nose where i can, that may, perhaps, lead me to right a wrong.

even if it’s 2 consenting adults.

Then you are nothing more than a [Mod edit: removed personal attack] busybody, guilty of pride (in that you are ‘better’ and have a ‘right’ to interfere), spite (in that you take joy in ruining what you do not have), and a host of other sins yourself. As a Christian you are under no obligation to ‘poke your nose into’ others’ private affairs, and indeed doing so exhibits not only [Mod edit: removed personal attack] nigh-incredible tactlessness but also your own shortcomings.

[Mod edit: removed personal attack]

Also, do you know just how creepy your post sounds?

 

[Mirdath]

If you really ARE “sticking your nose” into other peoples’ houses uninvited, it doesn’t make you ‘good’ – it makes you a criminal. You’re free to say whatever you like, but you aren’t free to attempt to force people to behave in every way as you would have them do, or to surveille them.

Also, do you have any idea just how creepy your post sounds?

 

[fix]

And guess what – you don’t have to pay attention to them or respond.

Well, let’s close the boarding schools and non-coed dorms then! It’s not a nuclear family environment, it must be abusive!

The Cleavers are not the only viable or even the only used model of the family unit. And wouldn’t you agree that even an imperfect but loving family is better for a child than being stuck in an orphanage?

It is not about a pie-in-the sky ideal. Redefining natural institutions to placate folks with misdirected desires has effects for all of society. It changes the way we live, the way we view reality, the way we view right and wrong, the way we raise children, the way we think.

It is not about so-called “rights”. It is about a type of domination. Not true freedom to live as we ought to live, but a false freedom to do as we want. It says to heck with children, to heck with marriage, to heck with the natural order.

 

[eliasaph99]

The primary purpose of marriage is procreation.

The tax benefits and other social benefits attached to marriage have their root in the assumption that a married couple will be producing children and thus be in need of said benefits.

A homosexual couple has no chance at procreation with eachother. As such, the primary purpose being void, homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry.

In the United States, there is no real need to create civil unions, although it is occurring. If two homosexual people want to confer benefits upon eachother, (like inheritance, standard of living, etc.) they can contract with each other for said benefits. The creation of civil unions simply makes a ready made state contract, which is wholly unnecessary.

 

[eliasaph99]

What makes you think I haven’t?

Then you are nothing more than a [Mod edit: removed personal attack] busybody, guilty of pride (in that you are ‘better’ and have a ‘right’ to interfere), spite (in that you take joy in ruining what you do not have), and a host of other sins yourself. As a Christian you are under no obligation to ‘poke your nose into’ others’ private affairs, and indeed doing so exhibits not only [Mod edit: removed personal attack] nigh-incredible tactlessness but also your own shortcomings.

[Mod edit: removed personal attack]

**Although I don’t agree with the posters sentiments, you should back off. Comments dictating to Christians how they should or should not behave based upon the religion they profess are wholly inappropriate when coming from a self-confessed agnostic.

Seeing as you don’t believe in Jesus, I find your question above completely offensive. It is wrong of you to refer to God in such a flippant and cavalier manner using no reverence whatsoever.**

Also, do you know just how creepy your post sounds?

 

[Mirdath]

fix:

It is not about so-called “rights”. It is about a type of domination. Not true freedom to live as we ought to live, but a false freedom to do as we want. It says to heck with children, to heck with marriage, to heck with the natural order.

It is not domination; for many, it is escape from persecution – and, like it or not, freedom to live as we believe we ought. Lucky you, you have such freedom already. Others don’t – and if the ‘natural order’ gets in the way of that, something’s obviously wrong with it.

In the United States, there is no real need to create civil unions, although it is occurring. If two homosexual people want to confer benefits upon eachother, (like inheritance, standard of living, etc.) they can contract with each other for said benefits. The creation of civil unions simply makes a ready made state contract, which is wholly unnecessary.

Why not create civil unions for all, and leave marriage to the churches? It’s an idea I’ve proposed in past threads, and I’ve yet to see a reason not to do just that.

Although I don’t agree with the posters sentiments, you should back off. Comments dictating to Christians how they should or should not behave based upon the religion they profess are wholly inappropriate when coming from a self-confessed agnostic.

Seeing as you don’t believe in Jesus, I find your question above completely offensive. It is wrong of you to refer to God in such a flippant and cavalier manner using no reverence whatsoever.

I disagree. It is easy even for an outsider to see that the poster entirely ignores the spirit of the Christ’s teachings in order to satisfy his own voyeuristic arrogance. Nor was I always an outsider – I have quite a good idea of what Christian behavior is expected to be, and that doesn’t make the cut. I do not ‘confess’ agnosticism, I profess it. It is not something to be ashamed of. That poster’s interpretation of his rights and indeed duties as a Christian, however, is – it reflects badly on all of you.

I apologize if you were offended by my flippancy – I realize the question itself is something of an old one, but I meant it genuinely: who made thechrismyster so great an authority that he has dominion over the lives of others? What reason has he for attributing divine rights to himself?

 

[pprimeau1976]

Rather than talk about it here, I have a view on civil unions and marriage that I would appreciate other people’s (name removed by moderator)ut on:

Civil Unions

 

[thechrismyster]

Then you are nothing more than a [Mod edit: removed personal attack] busybody, guilty of pride (in that you are ‘better’ and have a ‘right’ to interfere), spite (in that you take joy in ruining what you do not have), and a host of other sins yourself.

no, no, no you have me all wrong. I’m not the bad guy. I’m just willing to help others who have skewed views to see the error of their ways. It almost makes me a public servant, a humble public servant who doesn’t give a whit about decorum or faux manners that have pervaded this Godless society.

Also, do you know just how creepy your post sounds?

Thank you.

 

[Benedictus]

I make my business whatever I want to. If two consenting adults do something stupid or that i think is wrong, i’ll completely blurt out my opposition and try to right the wrong.
the liberals never understand that good HAS to poke it’s [sic] nose into evils house.
I find great satisfaction of sticking my nose where i can, that may, perhaps, lead me to right a wrong.

This attitude, my friend, is why so many people hate Christians. Most non-religious people (or, for that matter, most people who aren’t fanatical Christians) have no problem with Christians doing their own thing: worshipping, praying, and living their lives as they see fit. However, when Christians start sticking their noses in other people’s private lives, things change.

People who don’t follow your religion have little interest in obeying your religion’s rules. Like it or not, we live in a society whose members embrace a very wide variety of beliefs. You can’t expect everyone to follow your rules in their private lives. And please don’t use the government to try and force people to follow your rules.

 

[Mirdath]

no, no, no you have me all wrong. I’m not the bad guy. I’m just willing to help others who have skewed views to see the error of their ways. It almost makes me a public servant, a humble public servant who doesn’t give a whit about decorum or faux manners that have pervaded this Godless society.

It makes you a voyeur [Mod edit: removed personal attack]. Decorum is there for a reason; [Mod edit: removed personal attack] some of us don’t have to fake our good manners.

 

[thechrismyster]

It makes you a voyeur, a stalker, a trespasser, a vigilante, a scandal-monger, and generally a pompous, interfering blot upon the escutcheon of your faith and your society. Decorum is there for a reason, and unlike you, some of us don’t have to fake our good manners.

ouch. that stung.

decorum and manners has bred a generation of pandering, liberally correct and socially conscious automatons who are controlled by their corporate overlords breaking stride only long enough to occasionally question their being before suddenly returning to their comastose lives for fear of the opinion of others.

thats creepy.

society controls you or you control society.

and, kind sir, my manners are coveted by the young and old alike.

 

[Aramis]

Well, let’s close the boarding schools and non-coed dorms then! It’s not a nuclear family environment, it must be abusive!

Examine the Records of the US BIA’s Mount Edgecombe Residential School… and you will find that it was an abusive and brutal environment.

 

[Benedictus]

decorum and manners has bred a generation of pandering, liberally correct and socially conscious automatons who are controlled by their corporate overlords breaking stride only long enough to occasionally question their being before suddenly returning to their comastose lives for fear of the opinion of others.

So… minding my own business will make me into an automaton?

 

[Dale_M]

The primary purpose of marriage is procreation.

Yet we allow couples who are past the age of bearing children or who are otherwise infertile, to get married. Surely marriage for such persons must have some other socially redeeming quality?