T
Local Catholic Developer Helps Fund Same-Sex Marriage Ban Initiative
- Status
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
God bless these people and what they stand for. If the hotels, etc are boycotted, it will not make it necessary to bless each room one goes into.
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
M
Maxply
Guest
Mr. Manchester deserves enormous respect for his action.
Just remember how well-funded the opposition is!
Just remember how well-funded the opposition is!
B
Benedictus
Guest
Hopefully good will triumph over evil and this measure will be defeated.
T
Tonks40
Guest
Oops! I just looked at the title of this thread, and it’s suppose say “same-sex marriage ban initiative.”
I applaud the actions of Mr. Manchester. He has some prominent hotels in this area, and I’m glad he explained why he’s helping fund this measure.
I applaud the actions of Mr. Manchester. He has some prominent hotels in this area, and I’m glad he explained why he’s helping fund this measure.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
If this man is the strong Catholic he claims to be, then he would not offer the shelter of his hotels to same-sex couples and provide an environment in which to accomplish their evil. Therefore, the threatened boycott of these establishments by those with same-sex attractions is very much an empty threat. I, for one, say that such individuals are welcome to move their acts of lewd depravity to the gutter where they belong.
P
Pong
Guest
You, for one, need to go back to whatever age of rampant discrimination and intolerance would suit your narrow views. The world would be a much better place. I guess, according to you, only validly married couples should be permitted a hotel room? So that means couples should bring a copy of their marriage license to show… wait… if they’re Catholic, they had better also bring proof that their marriage has been recognized by the Church… but if they’re remarried they also need proof of anullment…
O
Other_Eric
Guest
While you are busy wishing for my temporal displacement in order to inaugurate the beginning of your own imagined utopia, I wonder if you might have time to reflect upon exactly what it is you seem to be advocating. For a Catholic, or anyone else, to provide services for or in any way facilitate the execution of a grave evil is to participate in that sin. This is not, I hasted to add, some malformed product of a discriminatory or intolerant mentality but solid Church teaching. To exempt anyone from this directive for reasons of mere convenience or out of some perverse sense of civility is to inflict scandalous injury to the Natural Law, God and His Church.You, for one, need to go back to whatever age of rampant discrimination and intolerance would suit your narrow views. The world would be a much better place. I guess, according to you, only validly married couples should be permitted a hotel room? So that means couples should bring a copy of their marriage license to show… wait… if they’re Catholic, they had better also bring proof that their marriage has been recognized by the Church… but if they’re remarried they also need proof of anullment…
In the instant case, we have the owner of several hospitality establishments who wishes to take his faith seriously. A necessary component of doing so would therefore involve some method of insuring that his hotels do not become havens of sin to which he has given shelter. That might very well mean that couples present a marriage certificate or some other means of demonstrating their marital status.
Such a policy is not necessarily one that needs to be legislatively enacted. It is merely the procedure of a private businessman defining the terms under which he will allow his property to be used. The businessman’s freedom of religious expression and right to free association trump whatever shallow claim some might demand for sodomy.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Other Eric, I agree with you totally. Stated just a little bit differently, homosexuality does harm to the mystical body of Christ, of which all baptized are members. Sin of any kind is analogous with an infection of that body part. With Christ as the head, sin of any kind is incompatibility at its utmost. It is not OK then to say that as long as “that” does not effect me its OK. If we are each members of that Mystical Body, it does effect me. Ergo, it is not OK.
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
B
Benedictus
Guest
Interesting. You would prefer that gays have sex in public versus a hotel room. I wouldn’t have expected that.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
i haven’t read all the responses on this thread so i am sorry if i am repeating some one else’s astute observation.
i find it funny that this is the same reasoning that many business owners gave for refusing african americans (and other races as well as jews) service in their establishments. it was a part of their religion that the races don’t mix. it was their property and they felt they could run it anyway they deemed fit. the federal government said no. so they had a choice: submit to the federal ruling and open up your business to everyone, or close up shop.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
We are not speaking of innate characteristics such as race or gender. Instead, we are talking about an identity that is based solely on behavior and the potential for said behavior. Therefore, such discrimination as we mean to visit upon those with same-sex attraction carries with it no stain of injustice. Indeed, denying amenities such as a hotel room to people who have same-sex attraction is an act of Christian charity.
P
Pong
Guest
Except for the fact that SSA is an innate characteristic. A person with SSA can not change that attraction, no matter what these pseudo-therapist “become heterosexual in 90 days” types try to do. Discrimination is never an act of Christian charity, any way you try to spin it. And calling your extremely hateful attitude “Christian charity” is making the rest of us look bad.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
To hold that same-sex attraction is innate so as to attempt some sort of end-run around Natural Law and common sense morality is, let’s be clear, nothing more than selling despair to those caught up in the disorder. It denies the transformative power of Christ and turns same-sex attraction pathology into a prison from which there is no escape. There is ample evidence that exists supporting the fact that if the patient merely exerts enough effort, cure will come.
Nevertheless, let’s set aside that discussion and concede for the moment an innate genesis for same-sex attraction. In conceding as much, it still does not follow that all discrimination is alien to Christian charity. The Church herself discriminates against those with same-sex attraction in terms of serving Christ at the altar. She recognizes that some people will always be much too sick to take on any such burden. It is this loving example that the Magisterium means the rest of us to follow. Since those with same-sex attraction are predisposed to behavior that is shocking and destructive it simply makes sense to keep from them a great number of privileges, conveniences and comforts.
In this thread, we are talking of a developer who may very well face a boycott of his hotels by militant activists as a direct result of his Christian and loving refusal to countenance their attempted perversion of marriage. My point has been and remains that this is an empty threat to any developer who takes his Christian faith seriously. In providing any such activists a hotel room, one provides them with a direct and assuredly likely means to commit a grave offense to God. It is the developer’s discrimination in refusing such people shelter that is the true face of the love we are meant to have for one another.
While it is true that love will often mean feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, it is important to understand that these corporal works of mercy are not done in the middle of feigning ignorance about the sins of those in such need. When providing these comforts exacerbates the original sin and delays the sinner’s repentance, then the loving and charitable thing to do may very well be to let such a person starve naked in the street for awhile until the pain and humiliation forces him to come to his senses.
T
truagape
Guest
It’s interesting to see that moderators of these forums, have allowed your critical, un Christ-like, and UNBIBLICAL posts to continue. Do your damaging views represent a Church that cliams to represent God?
C
Cathy
Guest
"Dr. Jennifer Roback-Morse, Senior Research Fellow in Economics at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty asks this , “What if the proportion of U.S. children living with their two married parents were as high today as it was in 1970?” In 1970, 69% of U.S. children lived with their two married parents, compared with 60% in 2000, a drop of 9 percentage points.” Roback-Morse offers these realities if we had not experienced the 9% drop:
643,000 fewer American adolescents would fail a grade each year.
1,040,000 fewer would be suspended from school.
531,000 fewer adolescents would need therapy.
464,000 fewer adolescents would engage in delinquent behavior
453,000 fewer youth would be involved in violence
515,000 fewer youth would begin smoking cigarettes
179,000 fewer youth would consider suicide.
62,000 fewer youth would actually attempt suicide."
cbc-network.org/enewslett…ex_3_19_08.htm
Knowing this, promoting anything other than traditional family is harmful to children. People starting families have a right to know what is best for their children, and the government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare by encouraging the formation and preservation of traditional families.
643,000 fewer American adolescents would fail a grade each year.
1,040,000 fewer would be suspended from school.
531,000 fewer adolescents would need therapy.
464,000 fewer adolescents would engage in delinquent behavior
453,000 fewer youth would be involved in violence
515,000 fewer youth would begin smoking cigarettes
179,000 fewer youth would consider suicide.
62,000 fewer youth would actually attempt suicide."
cbc-network.org/enewslett…ex_3_19_08.htm
Knowing this, promoting anything other than traditional family is harmful to children. People starting families have a right to know what is best for their children, and the government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare by encouraging the formation and preservation of traditional families.
S
Swan
Guest
Maybe the fact that kids from other than “normal” household have to endure the bigotry, ostracism, discrimination, and sometimes outright hatred of the “normal” folks contributes to their problems. Maybe if they were treated equally by everyone in society they’d have a better shot. I speak from experience - I was born in 1958 and raised by a single working mom and I definitely endured some “holier than thou” attitudes. What it made me was more tolerant of those who fall outside the Leave It To Beaver lifestyle that so many equate with normality. Personally, I think a little compassion and less judgement would contribute more to the general welfare than telling other folks what’s wrong with them. Sorry to be rude, but as I said, I’ve survived this type of general welfare.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Saying homosexual sex is sinful, is not against Church teaching, nor is it anti-Biblical.
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
T
truagape
Guest
Would you be willing to discuss this statement in detail? Because I would.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Except that there are anti-discrimination laws throughout the US…ya can’t deny someone a room at a hotel based on sexual preference.
I’m personally against same sex marriage…the courts have no business trying to make these decisions.
- Status