Elizabeth, I find your points have a lot more politics in there and I do not feel any need to engage in that. I see you did not intend to insult me and I apologize for my reaction.
I did not take offense. I merely regretted that you misunderstood me. And I further regret that you see my posts as somehow “political” when in fact they report, what most would consider accurately, the highly politically-charged attacks and attempts to dominate the media by the Gay Lobby. That’s not a “political phrase.” It’s a dispassionate assessment by those who have studied political posturing and lobbying for some time. Other posters have also cited such observations by media watchers. A lobby is merely an interest group advocating for its own agenda to be front-and-center – in some cases through legislation, in some cases through PR visibility, in some cases (as with gays), both.
I wonder how much of the liberal media you watch. I watch more than I care to, because I tend to be looking for something non-sensationally charged, and am normally beyond disappointed in what is covered. Today, for example, on most of the MSNBC shows, there was virtually wall-to-wall coverage of gay issues – from the chaplaincy issue, to the Rutgers case, to remarks by various black leaders. And this dominance of coverage has been true since Biden’s remarks of several weeks ago. I’m sorry: several weeks of banner headlines about gay issues on the most prominent media sites is completely disproportional to its importance in society, and even to its recent topicality. And this happens regularly: whenever there’s the tiniest window of opportunity, the entire Grand Canyon of coverage opens up.
And here’s why it’s obvious that it’s politically driven. Hardly every homosexual is a political activist. And given that homosexuals make up such a small portion of the population as it is (one would never know, watching MSNBC: one would swear that 70% of the viewing and voting public is homosexual), and that further, the most aggressive activists among them make up even a smaller percentage, there’s no question that this is Lobbying, writ large.
(One of the most essential techniques of any lobbyist is to suggest that the interest group in question is considerably larger than it really is in the population; that is suggested in various ways: by exaggerating statistics/membership, by aggressively consistent public relations outreach, by attempts to ensure “representation” on a regular basis, on daily shows: i.e., if you have three panelists every day, and a member of very small interest-group X becomes a Regular on the panel every day, the audience begins to assume that one-third of the viewing public is a member of said interest group!)
Having spent a lot of time with murderers, crooks and gays in committed relationships, and then further having a colleague murdered only a few months ago, I am as clear as I need to be on where I stand with these comparisons.
Not a Catholic position. Moral theology (you will find out, hopefully, when you study it) does not operate on such mutually exclusive, or comparative premises. Evil is evil. Some things are intrinsically evil. When it’s a matter of intrinsic evil, there’s nothing “relative” (“more” or “less”) about it, by definition.
Another thing you seem not to be clear about, or well acquainted with: Many practicing, compassionate Catholics are both supportive of the Magisterium on this issue and charitable toward homosexuals which they personally know. Being charitable toward them as brothers and sisters, in one’s personal encounters, does not require support of their lifestyle, let alone of them “marrying.” That’s another false dichotomy which the Gay Lobby has seized as one of its Talking Points. This translates, literally, to: Not being an advocate of the Gay Political Agenda = being A Hater. This is out-and-out propaganda – being plied especially toward youth, who use the word “hate” casually in this context to apply to socially conservative positions, but especially with regard to homosexual issues, because they have been indoctrinated to adopt that language.
I believe we as a church should be free to deny marriage, and the state should provide it as a right.
Not a Catholic position. Other posters here have explained why it isn’t.
I wish you well in your studies. God speed.
The reference to water-carriers is a reference to the media, as well as to those who parrot media phrases unthinkingly. Some of those people are Catholics. I will highlight where this is echoed below, by the CDF: