Pelosi Says Her Catholic Faith ‘Compels’ Her To Support Gay Marriage

[CMatt25]

I’m Catholic, I do. Pelosi is Catholic, she does. Many Catholics do, they just don’t post here.

If I were, I would.

 

[Havard]

For instance; what process led to the selection of your profile picture? (Rhetorical) The cross, in type and color, of the picture has a distinct meaning in both history and connection to the modern Catholic church.

Ohhh, okay, there is a different picture if you go to his actual profile, and I thought that’s what you were referring to… the photo of Scott himself.

 

[PTL]

Their civil rights already ARE protected.

Marital law is civil contract law. A person ( gay or straight) who is currently bound by a marital contract may enter into a binding marital contract with one, unmarried, consenting, non consangenous human person of appropriate age and of the opposite sex.

Those are the same conditions that apply to everyone, gay or straight.

Marriage equality therefore already exists.

Heterosexuals have no more civil rights than a homosexual person in this matter. All are already equal before the law.

That is exactly I do not understand. Why those people who already have the benefits still yell? They have what they need, they have no reason to make trouble. Why do they want the “name” of “marriage” to cheat themselves? Homosexual relationship is not “marriage”. Period. Even you call it “marriage”, it is still not. Do they just want to make trouble for the sake of making trouble??

 

[CMatt25]

To Julia Mae’s point…none of the things you stated are issues that both or all parties with sound minds and without coercion have chosen to enter into by their own free will. No one gives consent to be murdered or raped…No one gives consent to be someone’s slave and property…no one agrees to be stolen from…no one agrees to acts of violence perpetrated against their person.

Those who wish to enter into same sex marriage are of legal age, consent of their own free will without coercion or threat of violence against them and do so to establish a more cohesive relatinonship with their chosen mate.

I know people seem to like to cloud an issue with unrelated issues sometimes. So thank you Publisher for clearing that up! That’s one of the more common sense things I’ve read in the discussion. God bless you and peace be with you friend.

 

[mab23]

She’s just as Catholic as Hatsune Miku is a real-life person.

what you can’t be Catholic and support Gay marriage , shes not leading a Gay marriage coalition she just stated her opinion which was “im guessing” an honest one -

I think the main point of being a Christian is to except Christ as our savior and try to live by his teachings

• I don’t remember reading anything Jesus taught about marriage , and I know as Catholics we accept the Teachings and traditions of the church, but not one person is without sin , so how bout we pray for her INSTEAD of wanting to kick her out of the church

 

[ellipsis2]

As I skip reading the whole thread because I know where it’s going, my opinion is that we give a gay union all the rights a marriage union has and not worry about the semantics. Let them have the same rights a married couple has. The Catholic Church does not have to perform the ceremony. They will not be forced to anymore than they are "forced " to perform a ceremony for divorced persons. Being gay is not against the law in this country, so let’s not take it down the road of those actions that are against the law…including bestiality. If we as a country were more tolerant we wouldnt be in this mess right now…IMHO

 

[LilyM]

Then what do you counter offer to protect their civil rights?

How shall you oppose marriage equality? And to what levels are you prepared to carry out your opposition?

I would propose something I mentioned earlier - what we in some Australian jurisdictions call a ‘relationships register’, open to gay and heterosexual couples. No marriage or marriage-like ceremony required for entry on the register, just filling in appropriate forms

Entry on the register grants certain rights and protections to each of the partners without their being forced to spend lots of time and money on convoluted and not-as-effective ad hoc legal arrangements.

For just one example, automatic recognition of violence occurring within a registered relationship as domestic violence, meaning in some cases it is treated more appropriately by police, courts and social services. Perhaps inheritance rights, insurance and
superannuation rights, rights in regard one partner having a say in the medical care of the other when required, rights (or responsibilities if you like) of one partner in regard any child or children jointly raises with the other. Whatever rights it may be difficult or impossible to legally protect otherwise.

My point is this - most any relationship you can think of has certain legal rights and responsibilities attached. Doctor/patient, seller/buyer, lawyer/client, parent/child,
employer/employee etc. Rights and responsibilities that come into play automatically by mere fact of the existence of the relationship. Rights and responsibilities that do not need
to be contracted into and cannot be contracted out of.

Why should some protections not be afforded, some responsibilities not be spelled out in legislation, for those who enter into a committed homosexual relationship and choose to be recognized by the state as such?

 

[mab23]

As I skip reading the whole thread because I know where it’s going, my opinion is that we give a gay union all the rights a marriage union has and not worry about the semantics. Let them have the same rights a married couple has. The Catholic Church does not have to perform the ceremony. They will not be forced to anymore than they are "forced " to perform a ceremony for divorced persons. Being gay is not against the law in this country, so let’s not take it down the road of those actions that are against the law…including bestiality. If we as a country were more tolerant we wouldnt be in this mess right now…IMHO

Amen to that!

 

[CMatt25]

As to determining rather some one is in hell or going to hell is treading dangerous waters.

Yes Jesus said something about it in Matt 7. When people tread those waters it’s one of the things that turns me off.

 

[Holly3278]

I really wish someone would just go ahead and excommunicate this woman. Hopefully it would bring about her repentance but I doubt it would.

 

[PTL]

I would propose something I mentioned earlier - what we in some Australian jurisdictions call a ‘relationships register’, open to gay and heterosexual couples. No marriage or marriage-like ceremony required for entry on the register, just filling in appropriate forms

Entry on the register grants certain rights and protections to each of the partners without their being forced to spend lots of time and money on convoluted and not-as-effective ad hoc legal arrangements.

For just one example, automatic recognition of violence occurring within a registered relationship as domestic violence, meaning in some cases it is treated more appropriately by police, courts and social services. Perhaps inheritance rights, insurance and
superannuation rights, rights in regard one partner having a say in the medical care of the other when required, rights (or responsibilities if you like) of one partner in regard any child or children jointly raises with the other. Whatever rights it may be difficult or impossible to legally protect otherwise.

My point is this - most any relationship you can think of has certain legal rights and responsibilities attached. Doctor/patient, seller/buyer, lawyer/client, parent/child,
employer/employee etc. Rights and responsibilities that come into play automatically by mere fact of the existence of the relationship. Rights and responsibilities that do not need
to be contracted into and cannot be contracted out of.

Why should some protections not be afforded, some responsibilities not be spelled out in legislation, for those who enter into a committed homosexual relationship and choose to be recognized by the state as such?

What you said is like “civil union”. As far as I know gay people already have those rights in US. In the company I work, we have to fill the insurance form every year in January. From at least 5 years ago, there is a category for the coverage of “partner” on the insurance form. That is for gay relationship. They have been covered in health insurance from long time ago. As for domestic violence, if there is any violence and you call the police, it will be taken care of.

 

[mab23]

I really wish someone would just go ahead and excommunicate this woman. Hopefully it would bring about her repentance but I doubt it would.

Is that truly the answer…

shouldn’t we just forgive her…

what if we change Gay marriage to Garriage - and Marriage is still marriage with one man and one women - with same US rights

would we be happy then ! ???

personally im more concerned about the slaughter of unborn babies than I am about this!

 

[CMatt25]

Is she stupid or just plain dumb? The Catholic Church is against “gay marriage” and she should know that. I think she does know it but she just wants to act like she’s ignorant or something.

My guess is to advance to Speaker of the House, to have as a woman achieved such a high honor of having been next in line at the time to the Presidency after the VP, I’d rule out stupid or dumb. I’d also rule out that she wants to act ignorant or something. More likely I think maybe she believes on certain issues pertaining to secular civil law as a public officeholder in a democratic-republic, a nation of plural beliefs, in separating her faith from her public policy positions. But stupid or dumb or wanting to act ignorant or something? Nah. :nope:

 

[Jeanne_S]

That’s something I never understand about Catholics. Some as you stated say she’s not Catholic. And I’m not sure if you meant “as much as we don’t feel she shouldn’t have the right to call herself one, she is one”. Or if you meant “as much we don’t feel she should have that right, she is one”. But I don’t understand why any faithful Catholic would say she is not Catholic or should not have the right to call herself one when the Church doesn’t say that. To say she is not or shouldn’t have the right to call herself one seems to go against Church teaching. The same thing these Catholics who say these things are critical of her of doing.

I would say she is a poorly formed Catholic at best,along with Biden,Seblius,Kerry…I agree with a previous post,they need our prayers. Personally,I see Pelosi as a bit of a dimwit.Seblius is the one that really concerns me

 

[jilly4ski]

As I skip reading the whole thread because I know where it’s going, my opinion is that we give a gay union all the rights a marriage union has and not worry about the semantics. Let them have the same rights a married couple has. The Catholic Church does not have to perform the ceremony. They will not be forced to anymore than they are "forced " to perform a ceremony for divorced persons. Being gay is not against the law in this country, so let’s not take it down the road of those actions that are against the law…including bestiality. If we as a country were more tolerant we wouldnt be in this mess right now…IMHO

Why should this happen?

Like I tried to get across before, is that the state gives benefits to those in a married state for a specific reason. Namely to promote marriage. None (or very few) of the benefits to the state or society are fulfilled by same sex or polygamous relationships. (Thus the state does not give them benefits). For all the “civil rights” (they aren’t actually rights, so I am not sure why they are called it) like hospital visitation, sharing of property, and other such things can be taken care of through other legal documents.

Why should the state give benefits to those who do not fulfill the requirements and do not fulfill the purpose for which the benefits were/are given?

 

[mab23]

My guess to advance to Speaker of the House, next in line at the time to the Presidency after the VP, I’d rule out stupid or dumb. I’d also rule out that she wants to act ignorant or something. More likely I think maybe she believes on certain issues pertaining to secular civil law as a public officeholder in a democratic-republic, a nation of plural beliefs, in separating her faith from her public policy positions. But stupid or dumb or wanting to act ignorant or something? Nah.

ha ha ha THIS!

 

[PTL]

Is that truly the answer…

shouldn’t we just forgive her…

We surely forgive her, but creating scandal is detrimental to the Church. Forgiving and correction are two different things. We can forgive, but she needs to be corrected.

 

[mab23]

Why should this happen?

Like I tried to get across before, is that the state gives benefits to those in a married state for a specific reason. Namely to promote marriage. None (or very few) of the benefits to the state or society are fulfilled by same sex or polygamous relationships. (Thus the state does not give them benefits). For all the “civil rights” (they aren’t actually rights, so I am not sure why they are called it) like hospital visitation, sharing of property, and other such things can be taken care of through other legal documents.

Why should the state give benefits to those who do not fulfill the requirements and do not fulfill the purpose for which the benefits were/are given?

For Equality - and polygamy is just wrong - I wouldn’t include that

and for Gay-rriages

so they have equal rights - plenty of the population in US has made a laughing stock of marriage - true Marriage is the sacrament in the church anyway!

which wouldn’t change if Gay-rriages happen

 

[Havard]

Is that truly the answer…

shouldn’t we just forgive her…

what if we change Gay marriage to Garriage - and Marriage is still marriage with one man and one women - with same US rights

would we be happy then ! ???

personally im more concerned about the slaughter of unborn babies than I am about this!

If you have a moment, check out this Q&A on the matter put out by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It answers most of the points you bring up!

 

[mab23]

We surely forgive her, but creating scandal is detrimental to the Church. Forgiving and correction are two different things. We can forgive, but she needs to be corrected.

sometimes I truly wish Jesus was next to me , so I could ask him - what do you think , and then we really wouldn’t need to debate