NY Bishops Say Gay 'Marriage' Law Could be Used Against Churches
- Status
F
Fink
Guest
That
There`s one thing you have to say about Satan: he never gives up!
s pretty obvious, isnt it?There`s one thing you have to say about Satan: he never gives up!
S
supertubos
Guest
One thing is the Catholic Marriage" another thing is “the others”. If you are Muslim, you are doing something different as you may take up to wives. If you are Protestant, you keep in mind that you may divorce. If you have a civil marriage, it depends on the law. The law depends on human consensus not on God’s wishes. According to the law, you may have a gay marriage but not a marriage “Muslim style”. This shows us that the law may be paradoxical.
Homosexuality is a education disease not matter what the WHO may say. I don’t accept the word “marriage” for the gays, it could be used another word. God does not want this way, the so called “marriage” but the laws of men often are not His’.
The American Bishops have a right to their opinion and I listen to them, though I am European.
A homonym is, in the strict sense, one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings.(WKPD). There is the bow of a violin and the bow of a ship, 2 completely different things that use the same word: “bow”. We should always keep in mind that when we talk about Catholic Marriage and Gay Marriage we are talking about homonyms, 2 absolutely different things, though the word “marriage is the same”. Cheers
V
valentino
Guest
Not only will they be used they already are by many people I suppose.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
We actually pronounce the word bow “boe” (rhymes with “grow” or “doe”) for that of a violin or one for arrows, but “bau” (rhymes with “how” or “now”) for the bow of a ship, or also for the gesture of bending at the waist. So your example would technically be a homograph, not a homonym.One thing is the Catholic Marriage" another thing is “the others”. If you are Muslim, you are doing something different as you may take up to wives. If you are Protestant, you keep in mind that you may divorce. If you have a civil marriage, it depends on the law. The law depends on human consensus not on God’s wishes. According to the law, you may have a gay marriage but not a marriage “Muslim style”. This shows us that the law may be paradoxical.
Homosexuality is a education disease not matter what the WHO may say. I don’t accept the word “marriage” for the gays, it could be used another word. God does not want this way, the so called “marriage” but the laws of men often are not His’.
The American Bishops have a right to their opinion and I listen to them, though I am European.
A homonym is, in the strict sense, one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings.(WKPD). There is the bow of a violin and the bow of a ship, 2 completely different things that use the same word: “bow”. We should always keep in mind that when we talk about Catholic Marriage and Gay Marriage we are talking about homonyms, 2 absolutely different things, though the word “marriage is the same”. Cheers
I’m not sure we can use the idea of homonyms with regard to something like marriage. In a normal homonym the fact that the words are spelled and pronounced the same is just a coincidence, or the connection between meanings is so remote that the average speaker or writer doesn’t perceive it. The various definitions of marriage proposed by different people in society may be contradictory, but they are obviously very closely related. I think this quite honestly is a debate over the proper understanding of the same institution of matrimony, not just a confusion of terms.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Catholics wake-up now, or they “ain’t seen nothing yet!”
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
This is a good perspective to keep in mind. I find it unfortunate that the definition of marriage has evolved in such a way. It is what it is.…We should always keep in mind that when we talk about Catholic Marriage and Gay Marriage we are talking about homonyms, 2 absolutely different things, though the word “marriage is the same”. Cheers
Catholic definition of marriage:
“The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3art7.shtml
Merriam-Webster 1st definition of marriage:
(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Dictionary.com 1st definition of marriage:
(1a) the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
(1b) a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
Bing Dictionary 1st definition of marriage:
(1) legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners.
bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+marriage&FORM=DTPDIA
I
irishpatrick
Guest
It is very difficult for people to go against the tide of popular sentiment. Most people want to feel approved and loved by those around them.
It will take Catholics desiring to be saints in large numbers.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Have we ever lived in an era where a large number of people desired to be saints?
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Perhaps not…but there really is no choice today–Catholics stand or the nation and the west will plummet.
T
tm30
Guest
Likely not. But, as Benedict XVI stated very presciently early in his reign, the Church is bound to become smaller but stronger in its faith.
All of these legal innovations and pop culture agendas are pushing the lukewarm members of the Church away from their apathy and towards outright renunciation of their faith. The biggest growing denomination of Christianity is “non-denominational”; and the vast majority of those are baptized Catholics. These non-denominational “super-churches” are hotbeds of relativism, and there’s an entire generation of children of “former” Catholics being indoctrinated into secularism via the television, via the iPod, via social networking, and via these “churches”.
In a lot of ways, the Church will very much look like the Israel that Jesus encountered during his earthly ministry. There will be a minority of loyal disciples, and a majority of detractors, heavily influenced by people in the political and social power heirarchy.
With that in mind, it’s important to remember that Jesus did not lift a finger to save the rest of Israel from Rome, but in a crowded room on Pentecost, He sent the paraclete to the remnant of believers; and through a very small number of people who desired to be saints, the Church was born.
It’s going to be lonely out there. But if we all strive for authentic sainthood, the “difficult” decisions will be easy to make.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
An earthly separation of the wheat from the chaff.
The spiritual lines are being very strongly defined.
S
stevegravy
Guest
My perspective is the diocese in states that have same sex marriage ought to get out of the legal marriage business altogether. They should turn in their notary stamps. Next, make it very clear to the faithful the churches will not be part of the corruption and perversion that the state is descending into. From this point forward, they, the church, will do sacramental marriages only. Furthermore, only sacramental marriages will be recognized by local ordinaries according to canon law. Official state marriages will need to be contracted legally with a state authority but that authority will not be the church.
The state wants to go to hell in a hand basket let it. Keep the church separate from the state. Time to re-think the whole separation of church and state doctrine .
The state wants to go to hell in a hand basket let it. Keep the church separate from the state. Time to re-think the whole separation of church and state doctrine .
I
irishpatrick
Guest
That might–in the end–be the only logical way to handle this. However, my fear is that gays will still push for marriage in Catholic Churches. At their heart I believe gays want full acceptance and they cannot have that if Churches are not forced to marry them. Hate crimes laws appear to be the planned way and the “next step” in this process.
S
supertubos
Guest
The example “bow” was taken from the Wikipedia, as I am careful. Is it question of British vs American accent?We actually pronounce the word bow “boe” (rhymes with “grow” or “doe”) for that of a violin or one for arrows, but “bau” (rhymes with “how” or “now”) for the bow of a ship, or also for the gesture of bending at the waist. So your example would technically be a homograph, not a homonym.
I’m not sure we can use the idea of homonyms with regard to something like marriage. In a normal homonym the fact that the words are spelled and pronounced the same is just a coincidence, or the connection between meanings is so remote that the average speaker or writer doesn’t perceive it. The various definitions of marriage proposed by different people in society may be contradictory, but they are obviously very closely related. I think this quite honestly is a debate over the proper understanding of the same institution of matrimony, not just a confusion of terms.
No, homonyms’ meanings are perceived by the average person, simply he can deal with it with no problems.
On purpose, I used the example of homonyms, for the concepts are not, as you say and people think, “very closely related” but totally different. The so called marriage between 2 gays and 2 heterosexuals are as different as a “beach” and a “beech” (Hope this one fits). First of all, heterosexual marriage can generate 10 children, the gay one, not even one (another homonym?).
People think that they are talking about similar things but they are not. That’s my point. Cheers.
K
kepha1
Guest
WHERE GAY MARRIAGE IS HEADED
June 27, 2011
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on where gay marriage is headed:
Whenever the American people have had a chance to approve gay marriage, they have rejected it. In the more than 30 states that have put this issue to a vote, homosexuals have never won. The only arenas they have been able to score a victory are in some state legislatures and courts. In other words, this is a classic case of the people vs. the elites.
Ultimately, this issue will not be resolved in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court: it will be decided by a constitutional amendment. Though the Federal Marriage Amendment prevailed in the House in 2006 by a margin of 236-187, it failed to achieve the necessary 290 votes required to pass a constitutional amendment; two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, and three-fourths of the states (38), are needed.
Standing in the way of a constitutional amendment is the legitimate reluctance on the part of federal lawmakers to decide what many believe to be a matter for the states. But given that we are left with the scenario of the people vs. the elites, we are quickly reaching a tipping point, and when that happens, chances are good that this issue will be resolved by a constitutional amendment.
Currently, 30 states have constitutional language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. At the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act also defines marriage in the traditional sense. But unless there is a constitutional amendment, we will continue to have an uneven playing field, one that is ripe for further exploitation. Once marriage is separated from procreation, and Tom and Dick are allowed to marry, there is no principled reason why Tom, Dick and Harry can’t do so. After all, wouldn’t it be discrimination to say no to Harry?
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=2180
June 27, 2011
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on where gay marriage is headed:
Whenever the American people have had a chance to approve gay marriage, they have rejected it. In the more than 30 states that have put this issue to a vote, homosexuals have never won. The only arenas they have been able to score a victory are in some state legislatures and courts. In other words, this is a classic case of the people vs. the elites.
Ultimately, this issue will not be resolved in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court: it will be decided by a constitutional amendment. Though the Federal Marriage Amendment prevailed in the House in 2006 by a margin of 236-187, it failed to achieve the necessary 290 votes required to pass a constitutional amendment; two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, and three-fourths of the states (38), are needed.
Standing in the way of a constitutional amendment is the legitimate reluctance on the part of federal lawmakers to decide what many believe to be a matter for the states. But given that we are left with the scenario of the people vs. the elites, we are quickly reaching a tipping point, and when that happens, chances are good that this issue will be resolved by a constitutional amendment.
Currently, 30 states have constitutional language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. At the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act also defines marriage in the traditional sense. But unless there is a constitutional amendment, we will continue to have an uneven playing field, one that is ripe for further exploitation. Once marriage is separated from procreation, and Tom and Dick are allowed to marry, there is no principled reason why Tom, Dick and Harry can’t do so. After all, wouldn’t it be discrimination to say no to Harry?
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=2180
- Status