More questions about gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaliLobo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I could provide a list of all the gay/ LGBT organizations if you’d like. Then there is the Advocate, a gay /LGBT publication that is certainly part of the network.

Peace,
Ed
Mark Shea had an article today where he was contacted by an individual of some group. I’m guessing when you throw out lines like ‘our side will win’ that could be considered having a homosexual agenda?

patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/10/the-gay-vanguard-of-history-threatens-to-bury-me.html

Complete with the seemingly obligatory ‘bigot’ accusation.
 
Hold it…wait…I found it!!

THE GAY AGENDA:

evula.com/jokes/homosexual_agenda.html

Right from a gay website.
You should really learn to read the URLs of links you post before you post them. There is no gay “agenda.” The gay “agenda” can only be described as:
  1. Waking up on time for work.
  2. Working hard.
  3. Paying bills.
  4. Spending free time enjoying life with friends and family.
  5. Getting a good night’s sleep.
So insidious! :rolleyes:
 
You should really learn to read the URLs of links you post before you post them. There is no gay “agenda.” The gay “agenda” can only be described as:
  1. Waking up on time for work.
  2. Working hard.
  3. Paying bills.
  4. Spending free time enjoying life with friends and family.
  5. Getting a good night’s sleep.
So insidious! :rolleyes:
You should add #6 - Developing a sense of humor.

But think about it for just a minute…if there was no agenda there would be no gay activists or gay sympathizers…or gay pride parades.
 
You should add #6 - Developing a sense of humor.

But think about it for just a minute…if there was no agenda there would be no gay activists or gay sympathizers…or gay pride parades.
Or maybe even no lawsuits against Christian businesses.
 
I have come to the conclusion that because we value equal protection under the law (a good thing), discrimination (a bad thing) against any group is wrong.

MY rationale is this: If Caesar wants to provide equal tax incentives and other benefits to homosexual couples that*** Caesar*** makes available to heterosexual couples, then Caesar is free to do so whatever Caesar wants with Caesar’s own money.

We Christians, however, are to render unto God what is God’s.

Consequently, they can call it what they want, but I am a Catholic who was sacramentally married to my spouse in the eyes of God at a Catholic nuptial mass in a Catholic Church before a Catholic priest and a congregation of (mostly) Catholic friends and family.

No homosexual or lesbian will ever be able to make that claim.
 
Simple. The economic incentives and jobs created due to legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Although gays are small in percentage, they have disproportionately high incomes.

Also, the fact that gays are well-organized politically, and arguably show more love to people than Christians, will continue to ensure that they will never be oppressed.
So because they have deeper pockets and a more favorable public reputation amongst certain demographics, we should just stop trying to transform the culture? Sorry, I don’t think those are very good reasons to throw in the towel.

Again, history is long. Even if we grant that their victory is “inevitable” in the short term, that doesn’t tell us anything about where society is going to be at in 100, 200, 300 years or longer. We keep proclaiming the truth because it is the truth and it always will be. And that truth has the power to attract and convert. Even if we lose some current battles, we know to Whom the final victory belongs. So if you want to back the horse that is going to win the entire race, then you’re actually better off backing the Church and not the secular culture. 😉
 
@rossum
Do you have evidence that the Catholic Church in the USA has been forced to marry divorced people?
You know that the CC does not recognize divorce, so you ask a decidedly impertinent question. Just like gay couples who impertinently ask what’s wrong if they rent a Catholic parish hall for their wedding reception. Why ever should they go to a venue that would be glad to take their business where the owner does not see anything wrong with gay “marriage”? Or the gay couple making it a point to apply to adopt at a child placement service under Catholic Charities, instead of approaching non-Catholic placement agencies. They can’t stand the institution for its belief that SS"M" is a lie. In fact, there is another apt word to use in addition to impertinence here. The word is malice. Such attacks on the Church are based on malice.
I note that you have provided no evidence to show that I made any untrue statement.
No need to re-hash same old argument lines, which invariably leads to your canned list, each of which has been countered from the anthropological, biological, social, and moral standpoint many times. You don’t say anything new to your pro-gay rationalizations in your 8k+ posts. I realize gay “marriage” is close to your heart, of great personal interest to you, so you follow(ed) each judicial ruling on the state and Federal level, actively participating in discussion mostly in the World News section of CAF. You have been in just about every gay “marriage” thread there since Massachusetts legalized it in 2004. Now you are being expansive, engaging the forum base in the Social Justice section, sometimes even in the Moral Theology section.

So pardon me if I conclude you are not here for an honest exchange with Catholics. You probably succeed in pulling down Catholics on the fence to your side, and my sense is that is your objective. May the light in the consciences of these fence sitting Catholics be re-ignited by the truth that SS"M" advances a great deception. Even if the SS"M" momentum reaches success in all 50 states, as the OP is predicting, your side can only prove that legal is not necessarily moral. Just like abortion is legal but will always be immoral and not in accord with the Creator’s will. It is sad that humans exercise the gift of free will that impoverishes the soul, even sadder that those wearing judicial robes codify in law something that runs counter to the inherent dignity of men and women.

I do not discount that a man pairing with another man and a woman with another woman may have real love for each other. We Catholics just believe they can not be true spouses to each other, provide balanced modeling behavior as same sex “parents” to children, and form family units that optimally serve as the basis of society. You believe otherwise and have all the arguments diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on gay “marriage”.
 
Quote from InSearchofGrace:
I do not discount that a man pairing with another man and a woman with another woman may have real love for each other. We Catholics just believe they can not be true spouses to each other, provide balanced modeling behavior as same sex “parents” to children, and form family units that optimally serve as the basis of society. You believe otherwise and have all the arguments diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on gay “marriage”.

The vast majority of Catholics in the Western World do not believe that.
 
You know that the CC does not recognize divorce, so you ask a decidedly impertinent question.
It is a decidedly relevant question. Divorce is an area where civil law differs from Church law. Despite the difference, the Church has not been forced to follow civil law by remarrying divorced people. Hence, some of the fears expressed about the Church being forced to marry same-sex couples are similarly groundless.
No need to re-hash same old argument lines, which invariably leads to your canned list, each of which has been countered from the anthropological, biological, social, and moral standpoint many times.
So, you have no evidence that I made an untrue statement. Thank you for making that clear.

rossum
 
I have come to the conclusion that because we value equal protection under the law (a good thing), discrimination (a bad thing) against any group is wrong.
I agree with you about valuing equal protection. But…in order to provide equal protection…the parties have to be equal.

What we have today are unelected, activist judges determining that a same sex couple is EQUAL to a married couple and therefore cannot be “discriminated against”.
The BIG problem is same sex couples ARE NOT equivalent to married couples.

This will be corrected as soon as objective judges re-visit these improper determinations.

Unfortunately, many gay couples will then find their “marriage” is not valid or legally recognized. Then we will be back to square one.

Perhaps then the gay community will realize that it would have been better to work for a change in the civil union/domestic partnership laws. Since the gay community claimed that all they wanted was equal rights and benefits, as afforded to married couples…it would have been simpler to work to grant those rights and benefits to domestic partners.

But no…that does not seem to fit their agenda.
 
What we have today are unelected, activist judges determining that a same sex couple is EQUAL to a married couple and therefore cannot be “discriminated against”.
The BIG problem is same sex couples ARE NOT equivalent to married couples.

This will be corrected as soon as objective judges re-visit these improper determinations.
That is not completely correct. In some US states, and in some European countries, SSM was not put in place by judges, but by legislators in the normal course of law-making. Both Vermont and the UK are examples. Your argument is of limited applicability.

rossum
 
Quote from InSearchofGrace:
I do not discount that a man pairing with another man and a woman with another woman may have real love for each other. We Catholics just believe they can not be true spouses to each other, provide balanced modeling behavior as same sex “parents” to children, and form family units that optimally serve as the basis of society. You believe otherwise and have all the arguments diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on gay “marriage”.

The vast majority of Catholics in the Western World do not believe that.
I am a Catholic in the Western World and I do believe as InSearchofGrace does. Therefore your statement about a “vast majority” it totally absurd!
 
That is not completely correct. In some US states, and in some European countries, SSM was not put in place by judges, but by legislators in the normal course of law-making. Both Vermont and the UK are examples. Your argument is of limited applicability.

rossum
Please allow me to expand my statement.

This will be corrected as soon as objective judges re-visit these improper determinations and unconstitutional laws.
 
Please allow me to expand my statement.

This will be corrected as soon as objective judges re-visit these improper determinations and unconstitutional laws.
The UK laws are not unconstitutional. I am not aware of any legal appeal against the Vermont, and other, state laws, on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

rossum
 
The UK laws are not unconstitutional. I am not aware of any legal appeal against the Vermont, and other, state laws, on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

rossum
I cannot speak for the laws of Parliament, but within the U.S. I can say…“just you wait”.
 
It is a decidedly relevant question. Divorce is an area where civil law differs from Church law. Despite the difference, the Church has not been forced to follow civil law by remarrying divorced people. Hence, some of the fears expressed about the Church being forced to marry same-sex couples are similarly groundless.

So, you have no evidence that I made an untrue statement. Thank you for making that clear.

rossum
Your question is not relevant. Re-read the top part of my post regarding impertinence and malice. Since gay couples can’t make the CC honor their make believe marriages, they do the next best thing, examples of which are illustrated in the actual examples I provided.

Catholic priests would just as go to jail or be martyred than marry gay couples, remarry divorced couples (not the same as those who obtained an annulment). It would be like asking them to break the seal of confession. I imagine the basis of living the faith in practice are non-ultimate truths to you.

It will take more than provocative pronouncements in this forum about the truth of marriage, to thin the calcified scales in the eyes of pro-gay “marriage” advocates.
,
 
The vast majority of Catholics in the Western World do not believe that.
Do you think the truth of marriage is a question of numbers, of popularity?

Admittedly, it is not easy to be a Catholic in belief and practice these days. Catholics who want to change the teaching on non-negotiables like marriage and contraception have succumbed to worldly beliefs and practices. In dying on the cross, Jesus, as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, invited us to leave the things of this world.
 
Catholic priests would just as go to jail or be martyred than marry gay couples, remarry divorced couples
I look forward to seeing your examples of where this has happened in the US or Europe.

How long has civil divorce been legal? How many priests have been forced to marry two divorced people?

I rest my case.

rossum
 
I look forward to seeing your examples of where this has happened in the US or Europe.

How long has civil divorce been legal? How many priests have been forced to marry two divorced people?

I rest my case.

rossum
When the labour party told Catholic adoption agencies that they either send some children to gay couples or close, these agencies closed.

I think, know that priests will go to prison before they “marry” gay couples in Catholic churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top