LGBT equality same as black equality

[TimeEntrance]

Okay, here is the book. You can scroll to the page numbers I listed below. I would suggest typing in the page number 116 then hitting enter. Read the bottom of page 116 and then type in the page number 126 and hit enter. These pages cut to the chase and Ian Stewart mentions homosexuality on page 126.

Reviews of his book can be found on Amazon.Com. While I’m not certain I’ve gotten the impression Ian Stewart is an atheist or at most an agnostic. I very much doubt he’s a conservative Catholic with a religious driven agenda.

Book: docstoc.com/docs/98283327/The-Mathematics-of-Life

Pages:

100
112
113
114
116 (bottom of)
118
126
127
128

 

[setter]

True, and that’s why eventually same sex marriage here in the US will eventually become a reality. More and more people are not buying into the “disordered”…“sin”…“unnatural”…“sex is for procreation”…“natural law” arguements. Society as a whole is…has…become more diverse in more ways than race and sexualtiy. Most people are beginning to realize that the sexual orientation of their neighbor or their marriage status does not effect them in any way.

All becomes a mirage of deception in the desert of relativism. Natural law is unchangeable by any “realization” of supposed “most people”. Your use of “reality” is a man made construct and refusal to allow reality to inform with truth through listening to and respecting natural law design …an objective dis-ordering, mis-alignment, mis-use, that ultimately will only cause harm to the body-soul created person.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Frankly, I’m just *relieved * that most (if not all) of us agree on racial equality. There’s a lot of “good ol’ days of the 50’s” attitude here, so it’s just nice to be reassured that that attitude does not extend to racial hatred. I mean it should just be assumed at this point, but you never really know. Did anyone else feel that way when reading this thread?

 

[CopticChristian]

There is a new community paper in our town that is being launched with the specific agenda to “advance the public agenda on behalf of the LGBT community”. I want to respond with a natutal law, non-religious argument why the LGBT and black equality issue are not comparable.

Any suggestions for how I articulate the argument that equality for the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual community” is not the same as “the equality that was fought for the black community” as they state.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Setter,

There is no proof that being LGBT is genetic, predetermined, fixed or any other such nonsense. There is a choice in choosing to accept this behavior or reject this behavior. There is no way anyone can look at someone and say “hey look that gay person”. Gay exists in the mind. There is no ability to distinguish by any known study the concrete existence of a gay mind. It is known only by behavior.

Being Black is a trait that one is born with and cannot choose. If you are born black you cannot choose not to act or be black. You are black. The world sees you as black. There is no ability to not be black.

The correlation is a non-sequitor. No one argues non-sequitors.

 

[Alindawyl]

Alindawyl, this is not quite accurate. Someone is same-sex attracted (i.e., a homosexual) not because they have homosexual sex but because they are attracted to members of the same sex. No physical act need be accomplished for someone to know that they are a homosexual. Same-sex attraction does not refer to attraction to specific sexual acts but attraction to people of a specific sex.

Yes, someone is characterized as same-sex attracted because of the desires they feel. Any form of unjust discrimination against those who feel sexual desire for the same sex is wrong and cannot be accepted. This is exactly what the Church teaches. We must always treat the person with respect.

In the world at large, I’ve not known anti-homosexual sentiment to discriminate between homosexuals who have homosexual sex and those who do not. All that is needed for such sentiment to manifest is one of two things: 1) an actual admission that one is same-sex attracted; or 2) the mere* perception* that one is same-sex attracted, whether or not that perception is accurate. The anti-homosexual sentiment I’ve personally experienced has usually been of the 2nd sort, and the perpetrators of it did not bother to notice that I was not having homosexual sex when I walked passed them, nor did they ask if I was planning on having homosexual sex in the near future, nor were they interested in knowing whether or not I had engaged in homosexual sex in the past.

What you say here is correct, and those who discriminate in this manner are clearly acting against Catholic teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraphs 2357-2359 explains how we must treat persons who struggle with same-sex attraction. We are to accept the person with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, but we are not to accept the BEHAVIOR which, unfortunately, most will choose in response to those disordered desires if they are given license to do so. We must always remember that the desire is disordered, and therefore any actions done by giving in to that desire are likewise disordered.

This is also not quite accurate. Granted, most same-sex attracted folks are not too keen on the language of disorder either because they are not familiar with the Roman Catholic moral theological context in which the word is used or because they do not feel that the concupiscence a same-sex attracted person expereicne is any more deviant or disordered than that which an opposite-sex attracted person experiences. But I don’t think anyone other than a child or a naif could take seriously (or seriously make) an argument that simple desire in itself justifies anything and in any context. As far as I understand it, that’s not the argument that the LGBT “community” makes.

It is quite accurate because that is precisely the argument which is being made by the LGBT community. Acceptance of those who struggle with same-sex attraction in the manner called for by the Catholic Church is not even remotely what they are arguing for. If all they were arguing for was acceptance of people who struggle with same-sex attraction, or acceptance of people who have the desire to dress as the opposite sex in public, or acceptance of people who experience the distress of having biological attributes of both sexes at once, the LGBT community would be fighting a fight akin to what other protected classes have fought and I would wholeheartedly support them in their fight. One of the protected classes is disability, and another is genetic. The latter especially is frequently argued to be at least some if not a great deal of the influence on these desires. We should never refuse to associate with someone because of a disability, or refuse to hire a person with a disability (unless it would severely impact their ability to do a particular job of course, but then that wouldn’t be an unjust form of discrimination), or refuse to sell goods or services to a person with a disability, or make fun of or humiliate a person because of their disability.

But, unfortunately, they are fighting a different fight. As others in this thread have stated, they are fighting for full acceptance of the DISORDERED BEHAVIORS in which most of those who experience these disordered desires choose to engage. They don’t want a lack of discrimination against those who feel attracted to the same sex, but a lack of “discrimination” against those who wish to engage in sexual relations with the same sex and then have those relations officially licensed by the state. They don’t want a lack of discrimination against those who feel a desire to dress as the opposite sex, but a lack of “discrimination” against men who wish to parade around in public wearing high heels, skirts, and makeup in a deliberate attempt to make themselves appear to be women and have that behavior officially licensed. They don’t want a lack of discrimination against those who desire to change their biological attributes to those of the opposite sex, but a lack of “discrimination” against those who want to have surgery to change their biological attributes to the opposite sex and then be treated as if they actually ARE the opposite sex.

It’s all about acceptance of certain behaviors, not merely acceptance of people who struggle with certain desires. A very small number of those in the LGBT community wish that wasn’t the case. But the vast majority, especially those who represent the LGBT community to the public at large, most especially those agitating for laws to redefine marriage, are focused on the behavior and want it licensed by the government at all costs.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, someone is characterized as same-sex attracted because of the desires they feel. Any form of unjust discrimination against those who feel sexual desire for the same sex is wrong and cannot be accepted. This is exactly what the Church teaches. We must always treat the person with respect.

What you say here is correct, and those who discriminate in this manner are clearly acting against Catholic teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraphs 2357-2359 explains how we must treat persons who struggle with same-sex attraction. We are to accept the person with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, but we are not to accept the BEHAVIOR which, unfortunately, most will choose in response to those disordered desires if they are given license to do so. We must always remember that the desire is disordered, and therefore any actions done by giving in to that desire are likewise disordered.

It is quite accurate because that is precisely the argument which is being made by the LGBT community. Acceptance of those who struggle with same-sex attraction in the manner called for by the Catholic Church is not even remotely what they are arguing for. If all they were arguing for was acceptance of people who struggle with same-sex attraction, or acceptance of people who have the desire to dress as the opposite sex in public, or acceptance of people who experience the distress of having biological attributes of both sexes at once, the LGBT community would be fighting a fight akin to what other protected classes have fought and I would wholeheartedly support them in their fight. One of the protected classes is disability, and another is genetic. The latter especially is frequently argued to be at least some if not a great deal of the influence on these desires. We should never refuse to associate with someone because of a disability, or refuse to hire a person with a disability (unless it would severely impact their ability to do a particular job of course, but then that wouldn’t be an unjust form of discrimination), or refuse to sell goods or services to a person with a disability, or make fun of or humiliate a person because of their disability.

But, unfortunately, they are fighting a different fight. As others in this thread have stated, they are fighting for full acceptance of the DISORDERED BEHAVIORS in which most of those who experience these disordered desires choose to engage. They don’t want a lack of discrimination against those who feel attracted to the same sex, but a lack of “discrimination” against those who wish to engage in sexual relations with the same sex and then have those relations officially licensed by the state. They don’t want a lack of discrimination against those who feel a desire to dress as the opposite sex, but a lack of “discrimination” against men who wish to parade around in public wearing high heels, skirts, and makeup in a deliberate attempt to make themselves appear to be women and have that behavior officially licensed. They don’t want a lack of discrimination against those who desire to change their biological attributes to those of the opposite sex, but a lack of “discrimination” against those who want to have surgery to change their biological attributes to the opposite sex and then be treated as if they actually ARE the opposite sex.

It’s all about acceptance of certain behaviors, not merely acceptance of people who struggle with certain desires. A very small number of those in the LGBT community wish that wasn’t the case. But the vast majority, especially those who represent the LGBT community to the public at large, most especially those agitating for laws to redefine marriage, are focused on the behavior and want it licensed by the government at all costs.

Alin,

This is thoughful and complete. I believe that Mark may want to answer the question as follows:

Do you want acceptance of Sodomy as a norm?

Do you want acceptance of women pleasuring women as a norm?

Do you want acceptance that men/men or women/women in a relationship called whatever you wish performing sodomy or pleasuring each other is a norm?

This pretty much puts everything in perspective.

 

[Alindawyl]

But that’s not actually the argument, Alindawyl. The argument for SSM is not that some or all same-sex sexual acts are good (indeed, sexual activity doesn’t actually need to enter the equation)–the argument is based on the perception that marriage is a public commitment to the relationship one has with one’s beloved through the declaration of consent and exchanging of vows and that this public act is a good thing a) for one’s community through the construction of a household (which is seen, at least by the state, as a valuable economic and/or cultural unit); and b) for the mutual uplift, growth and support of the married couple in their ongoing lives of love together. So the issue, from the perspective of most same-sex attracted folks who support or believe in SSM, is not “Everyone must accept my relationship and whatever sexual deviance I get up to in the bedroom!” but “If marriage is the public declaration of consent and exchanging of vows with the one you love, and if the state is content to grant benefits and responsibilities to couples who make such a public act without caring whether or not such couples either desire to produce or are capable of producing children, then why should a same-sex couple be denied the opportunity to make such a public act?” Sexual acts, whether homosexual or heterosexual, need not enter the equation and are, in fact, irrelevant to it.

And this is the sad result of the redefinition of marriage which has ALREADY taken place in the minds of so many people, in the wake of widespread acceptance of contraception and the removal of procreation from the concept of marriage. Marriage is NOT a public declaration of consent and exchanging of vows with the one you love. Marriage is an institution for the begetting and raising of children. Marriage, sex, and babies are intimately connected. Remove even one of them and the consequences are rather dire, which is obvious to anyone who isn’t turning a blind eye to reality.

When contraception began to be accepted by Protestants in the 1930’s, that led to a generation with a large number of people coming to believe that marriage and sex could exist together without babies being a part of the picture. Within a few decades, that generation raised by those with a somewhat faulty understanding of marriage started to think that, without babies being a necessary part of the picture, marriage and sex didn’t need to be seen as intimately linked either. Within a few decades of that, we now have a generation with a large number of people who think that there is nothing wrong with shacking up without ever getting married, nothing wrong with having sex with whoever you want just to experience physical pleasure, and nothing wrong with bringing children into the world who will not be raised in a stable family with a mother and father.

Those with that mindset only see marriage as providing legal benefits. In the case of same sex couples, they want not just those legal benefits (which are honestly a minor secondary concern) but the validation and affirmation of their disordered behavior which would come with it. The benefits came into existence in a culture that understood marriage to be for the purpose of creating a family and raising children. Society has a strong interest in ensuring that the next generation comes into existence and those who provide for and raise that generation have the encouragement to do so. Society does NOT have a strong interest, or much of any interest at all, in licensing something that’s nothing more than a public declaration of love. If someone thinks their love requires public declaration, then it’s not really love but nothing more than a self-centered begging for attention. Especially when it’s done not really to publicly declare love but to demand societal acceptance of disordered behavior.

If we permit this redefinition of marriage to a mere public declaration of love and legal benefits, to exist not just in the minds of many but the law of the land, the rapid slide of our society into libidinous self-gratification will not be halted. It’ll be just one more example of the people choosing sin over God, and we’ll end up going the way of so many other societies in the past which have disregarded natural law in favor of whatever sins they wished to make the foundation of their society. We’ve already gone a good ways down the path of sin; our slide needs to be halted, not accelerated.

 

[fniper]

Setter,

There is no proof that being LGBT is genetic, predetermined, fixed or any other such nonsense. There is a choice in choosing to accept this behavior or reject this behavior. There is no way anyone can look at someone and say “hey look that gay person”. Gay exists in the mind. There is no ability to distinguish by any known study the concrete existence of a gay mind. It is known only by behavior.

Being Black is a trait that one is born with and cannot choose. If you are born black you cannot choose not to act or be black. You are black. The world sees you as black. There is no ability to not be black.

The correlation is a non-sequitor. No one argues non-sequitors.

Coptic Christian do you really look like George Bush? I am refering to the picture which accompanies your name.

 

[fniper]

And this is the sad result of the redefinition of marriage which has ALREADY taken place in the minds of so many people, in the wake of widespread acceptance of contraception and the removal of procreation from the concept of marriage. Marriage is NOT a public declaration of consent and exchanging of vows with the one you love. Marriage is an institution for the begetting and raising of children. Marriage, sex, and babies are intimately connected. Remove even one of them and the consequences are rather dire, which is obvious to anyone who isn’t turning a blind eye to reality.

When contraception began to be accepted by Protestants in the 1930’s, that led to a generation with a large number of people coming to believe that marriage and sex could exist together without babies being a part of the picture. Within a few decades, that generation raised by those with a somewhat faulty understanding of marriage started to think that, without babies being a necessary part of the picture, marriage and sex didn’t need to be seen as intimately linked either. Within a few decades of that, we now have a generation with a large number of people who think that there is nothing wrong with shacking up without ever getting married, nothing wrong with having sex with whoever you want just to experience physical pleasure, and nothing wrong with bringing children into the world who will not be raised in a stable family with a mother and father.

Those with that mindset only see marriage as providing legal benefits. In the case of same sex couples, they want not just those legal benefits (which are honestly a minor secondary concern) but the validation and affirmation of their disordered behavior which would come with it. The benefits came into existence in a culture that understood marriage to be for the purpose of creating a family and raising children. Society has a strong interest in ensuring that the next generation comes into existence and those who provide for and raise that generation have the encouragement to do so. Society does NOT have a strong interest, or much of any interest at all, in licensing something that’s nothing more than a public declaration of love. If someone thinks their love requires public declaration, then it’s not really love but nothing more than a self-centered begging for attention. Especially when it’s done not really to publicly declare love but to demand societal acceptance of disordered behavior.

If we permit this redefinition of marriage to a mere public declaration of love and legal benefits, to exist not just in the minds of many but the law of the land, the rapid slide of our society into libidinous self-gratification will not be halted. It’ll be just one more example of the people choosing sin over God, and we’ll end up going the way of so many other societies in the past which have disregarded natural law in favor of whatever sins they wished to make the foundation of their society. We’ve already gone a good ways down the path of sin; our slide needs to be halted, not accelerated.

Thank God we are first members of the Church Jesus established and which is guided by the Holy Spirit. And only secondly and distantly members of a culture being influenced, as always, by the unholy spirit.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic Christian do you really look like George Bush? I am refering to the picture which accompanies your name.

fniper,

I have been likened to Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Tom Cruise…never George. The photo you see is Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine. You may be too young to know about this.

 

[edwest2]

Frankly, I’m just *relieved * that most (if not all) of us agree on racial equality. There’s a lot of “good ol’ days of the 50’s” attitude here, so it’s just nice to be reassured that that attitude does not extend to racial hatred. I mean it should just be assumed at this point, but you never really know. Did anyone else feel that way when reading this thread?

Who mentioned the 1950s? And there are a good number of things to be said about the 1950s. Please - no broad brush painting of any particular era. We, as a Catholic community, and as a culture, were doing better morally during the 1950s than we are now. Abortion was not legal and The Pill did not exist.

I grew up during the late 1950s. Racial hatred was never taught to Catholics.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fix]

True, and that’s why eventually same sex marriage here in the US will eventually become a reality. More and more people are not buying into the “disordered”…“sin”…“unnatural”…“sex is for procreation”…“natural law” arguements. Society as a whole is…has…become more diverse in more ways than race and sexualtiy. Most people are beginning to realize that the sexual orientation of their neighbor or their marriage status does not effect them in any way.

Seared consciences abound.

 

[fniper]

fniper,

I have been likened to Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Tom Cruise…never George. The photo you see is Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine. You may be too young to know about this.

CC - I know of Alfred, I just find it irresistible to point out the likeness to George. And how appropo(?) their common thought - “What me worry” spooky. If you are well likened I hope it is a blessing.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Acceptance of those who struggle with same-sex attraction in the manner called for by the Catholic Church is not even remotely what they are arguing for.

Alindawyl, given that the LGBT “community” is not known to be exclusively or predominantly Roman Catholic, it should not surprise you that it does not advocate for a Roman Catholic understanding of what same-sex attraction means. Clearly, the LGBT “community” does not see same-sex attraction as an affliction, so any subsequent understanding of same-sex attraction as something with which one must struggle is largely absent from its rhetoric. If you could convince the LGBT “community” that the concupiscence experienced by same-sex attracted folks is more deviant than that experienced by opposite-sex attracted folks, then maybe they would begin to see same-sex attraction as an affliction. But then you would not be teaching traditional Catholic doctrine on the nature of concupiscence…

As others in this thread have stated, they are fighting for full acceptance of the DISORDERED BEHAVIORS in which most of those who experience these disordered desires choose to engage.

I still don’t see it, Alindawyl. Partly because it simply doesn’t make sense. There’s no point in fighting for the acceptance of any sexual behavior, ordered or disordered, because in large part one does not require the acceptance of others in order to engage in such behavior, ordered or disordered. Consequently, such acceptance is either irrelevant or moot.

They don’t want a lack of discrimination against those who feel attracted to the same sex, but a lack of “discrimination” against those who wish to engage in sexual relations with the same sex and then have those relations officially licensed by the state.

Again, I’ve problems with this:
1–As already stated, public acceptance of a sexual act is irrelevant to whether or not people will engage in that act.
2–The state does not licence sexual acts when it gives people a marriage licence or when a justice of the peace presides over a marriage rite.

Now. It could be that when you see same-sex attracted folks in a romantic relationship that you assume they’ve had sex or are planning on having sex. Moreover, it could be that you assume that the effort to eliminate discrimination against such relationships is an effort to eliminate discrimination against whatever sinful sexual activities they may get up to or may have gotten up to. But do you make the same assumptions when you see two opposite-sex attracted folks on a date? After all, they too may commit (or may have already committed) sexual sins in their relationship. Do you think that when passersby tacitly permit a display of affection (such as hand-holding) in an opposite-sex attracted couple that they’re also giving their blessing to whatever sins this couple may commit in the bedroom? I don’t think so. Why should it be any different for the same-sex attracted couple, then?

They don’t want a lack of discrimination against those who feel a desire to dress as the opposite sex, but a lack of “discrimination” against men who wish to parade around in public wearing high heels, skirts, and makeup in a deliberate attempt to make themselves appear to be women and have that behavior officially licensed. They don’t want a lack of discrimination against those who desire to change their biological attributes to those of the opposite sex, but a lack of “discrimination” against those who want to have surgery to change their biological attributes to the opposite sex and then be treated as if they actually ARE the opposite sex.

I’m trying to understand what your issue is in these cases. Are you lamenting that there are fewer and fewer occasions in which you may publicly censor a cross-dresser or transgendered person? Normally, when (if!) you see a transgendered person walking down the street, would you feel it appropriate or compulsory to ridicule them or be rude to them?

Perhaps the issue regards the expression of our own self-understanding versus how others desire us to express ourselves based on their understanding of us. Clearly our self-understanding and the understandings others have of us will never be identical, and clearly all of these versions of us must be navigated with care…but surely at some point our own self-understanding (however flawed it may be, and it’s bound to be flawed) must be asserted against those understandings of us which completely miss the mark. Or to put it in other terms, surely how we tell our story is more true than how others would tell our story to us? (Now, whether or not any of these stories is actually worth telling and who should tell it is a question for another time…)

In the end, though, I guess I just don’t see a necessary correlation between efforts to end discrimination against same-sex attracted folks and efforts to make homosexual sexual activity widely accepted or normative. I don’t see how the one necessarily equals the other, so I’m at a bit of a loss to understand why someone would insist that they are, in fact, equivalent…particularly when it’s clear that they don’t need to be.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

And this is the sad result of the redefinition of marriage which has ALREADY taken place in the minds of so many people, in the wake of widespread acceptance of contraception and the removal of procreation from the concept of marriage.

Granted–marriage has already been redefined and same-sex attracted folks are taking advantage of this redefinition. So is the argument that same-sex attracted folks are currently trying to re-define marriage actually that same-sex attracted folks are trying to re-define the redefinition that’s already taken place?

Marriage is NOT a public declaration of consent and exchanging of vows with the one you love.

Of what, then, does the sacramental act in the rite consist if not in the obtaining of consent and in the vows (or in the Consent and the Questions)?

Marriage is an institution for the begetting and raising of children. Marriage, sex, and babies are intimately connected. Remove even one of them and the consequences are rather dire, which is obvious to anyone who isn’t turning a blind eye to reality.

I’m a great believer in Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi–the law of prayer is the law of belief. I’ve looked at the Roman Catholic marriage rite. You can find it here: catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/textcontents/index/4/subindex/67/textindex/8. There’s a lot in it about the couple–their love, their vows, etc.–but very little, if anything, on the necessity of sex, and very little about children. If children are mentioned (notice the rubric in section 24, the parenthetical in section 33 [explained in section 34], and the parenthetical in section 38 making all mention of children optional/adiaphora), they are mentioned in the context of receiving a gift from God. Surely, one might say, it is imagined that intercourse is the conventional way to receive such a gift, but just as surely adoption can be seen as a way of receiving this gift, too–at least the rite does not rule such a reading out by mandating fertile intercourse. If marriage, sex and babies are all necessarily linked, then I would think that the rite would make that abundantly clear. But it doesn’t.

If we permit this redefinition of marriage to a mere public declaration of love and legal benefits, to exist not just in the minds of many but the law of the land, the rapid slide of our society into libidinous self-gratification will not be halted.

But, as you mentioned in your opening paragraph, the redefinition has already been made. It’s not something on the horizon. Moreover, the marriage rite itself does not appear to oppose it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[JFarah]

Grace & Peace!

Granted–marriage has already been redefined and same-sex attracted folks are taking advantage of this redefinition. So is the argument that same-sex attracted folks are currently trying to re-define marriage actually that same-sex attracted folks are trying to re-define the redefinition that’s already taken place?

Of what, then, does the sacramental act in the rite consist if not in the obtaining of consent and in the vows (or in the Consent and the Questions)?

I’m a great believer in Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi–the law of prayer is the law of belief. I’ve looked at the Roman Catholic marriage rite. You can find it here: catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/textcontents/index/4/subindex/67/textindex/8. There’s a lot in it about the couple–their love, their vows, etc.–but very little, if anything, on the necessity of sex, and very little about children. If children are mentioned (notice the rubric in section 24, the parenthetical in section 33 [explained in section 34], and the parenthetical in section 38 making all mention of children optional/adiaphora), they are mentioned in the context of receiving a gift from God. Surely, one might say, it is imagined that intercourse is the conventional way to receive such a gift, but just as surely adoption can be seen as a way of receiving this gift, too–at least the rite does not rule such a reading out by mandating fertile intercourse. If marriage, sex and babies are all necessarily linked, then I would think that the rite would make that abundantly clear. But it doesn’t.

But, as you mentioned in your opening paragraph, the redefinition has already been made. It’s not something on the horizon. Moreover, the marriage rite itself does not appear to oppose it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Nicely done

 

[edwest2]

I invite everyone to read the following:

cfnews.org/hm-tactics.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Slavonic]

With regard to

I invite everyone to read the following:

cfnews.org/hm-tactics.htm

I take issue with,

 In line with Kirk & Pill’s “Overhauling of Straight America”, the process of vilifying those who oppose homosexuality is now spreading with frightful rapidity. The attack from homosexuals is aimed primarily at Christianity.

 • On a Lesbian Gay, Bisexual and Transvestite (GLBT) website dedicated to exposing “Hate Crimes”, activists claim that pro-family organizations are engaging in hate speech when they criticize homosexual conduct and this “hate speech” allegedly leads to hate crimes and must be suppressed. This site equates opposition to homosexuality as equal to Hitler’s slaughter of Jews in Europe.

While that statement may be overblown (and some parts of the linked article are overblown), gay men were killed in Nazi concentration camps.

 

[edwest2]

I disagree. That last statement is not overblown.

ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/gay-marriage-is-about-power-not-love

Peace,
Ed

 

[Faithdancer]

I disagree. That last statement is not overblown.

ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/gay-marriage-is-about-power-not-love
Peace,
Ed

Good article, Ed, thanks for the link. I totally agree that the militant homosexuals won’t be content with having legally recognized same sex “marriage.” They won’t be content until any moral voice against it is utterly suppressed, until homosexuality is taught as virtuous to our school children, and until the Roman Catholic Church, as the single largest institutional opponent, is required to perform the abomination of same sex “marriage” in front of the altar.