Poll: California Catholics strongly support homosexual unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
I don’t buy it either. I’ve seen too many couples who lived a number of years in marriage and had children secure annulments. And I certainly understand that marriages come asunder – I don’t fault people for that – so why not call it the divorce that it is?
Click to expand...
I agree with you about those “late-term” annulments.

I personally knew a priest who was the “Defender of the Faith” in annulment procedures in a NY diocese. He resigned that job because he said that he had never in his life seen so much lying under oath.
 
StAnastasia said:
I don’t buy it either. I’ve seen too many couples who lived a number of years in marriage and had children secure annulments. And I certainly understand that marriages come asunder – I don’t fault people for that – so why not call it the divorce that it is?
Click to expand...
Those lines in the Bible: they take them literally. 🤷
 
The_Old_Medic said:
Many surveys (polls) have been done with Priests all over North America. Survey after survey has show that the majority of men ordained as priests between 1970 and 2000 were actively homosexual. Not just homosexual in orientation, but actively engaging in homosexual sex with other men.

In fact, several seminaries (including St. John’s, the primary seminary for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles) were actively running out heterosexual men.

Pope John Paul II attempted to bring those seminaries under much better control, but he got sick and since then no one has pursued that goal very actively.

So, what do you expect, when the very men who are leading the flock are themselves homosexuals? Men who do not live up to their vows, and who actively support full “civil rights” for all homosexuals.
Click to expand...
The Church has relied on asexual and homosexual men to help fill the parishes for many years. The job description comes with that prohibition on marriage and sex. That’s a big deal and has its effects (to a degree) on who becomes willing to proceed. Protestant ministries have had their share of gays seeking comfort and shelter and livelihood in the ministry. 🤷
 
rlg94086 said:
In the case of the Church, it is a little further, in that the couple have to be able to perform the marital act (ordered, per se, to procreation), so the impotent are not capable of marriage. However, infertility is not an impediment.
Click to expand...
The “marital act” – I can hardly think of a more clinical and less inviting way to speak of sex.
 
larkin31 said:
Those lines in the Bible: they take them literally. 🤷
Click to expand...
Ironically, the same people who challenge the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality by saying “where in the Bible does Jesus mention homosexuality,” are often the same people who have no problem ignoring Jesus’ direct words on divorce. 🤷

I remember reading something a few months ago about the Vatican working on tightening up the annulment process because it is too loose…especially in the US.
 
edwest2 said:
Truth is the issue. As long as truth can be covered up or ignored, …
Click to expand...
Or redefined.
Homosexuals can do whatever they want right now. They can make a commitment to each other if they want to. So why did they even bother putting this on the ballot?
Click to expand...
Prop 8 was put on the ballot not by homosexuals but by those who wanted to restrict marriage to one man + one woman. There was a proposition that was passed a number of years before that did the same thing, except it created only a law; the law was subsequently overturned by the courts as unconstitutional [against the CA constitution]. Attempting to short the courts to ground, the one man + one woman advocates got Prop 8 on the ballot to amend the CA constitution. An interesting thing is the pro-homos went to court to keep it off the ballot and lost. So I don’t understand why the courts would let an unconstitutional proposition go forward and then strike it down after the vote went the “wrong” way.
Why did they even bother asking anyone to approve what they do in the bedroom? What was the point? Nobody else needs my permission regarding whatever they might be doing in the privacy of wherever they live.
God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
One would think this. In fact, you have probably seen my posts before that said that homosexuals in the late '60s claimed they just wanted to be left alone. Apparently that wasn’t enough. Then came a demand for full societal acceptance, now full societal endorsement. Not even this will be enough, though. Why? Because they’ve been lied to.
 
sedonaman said:
Or redefined.
Prop 8 was put on the ballot not by homosexuals but by those who wanted to restrict marriage to one man + one woman. There was a proposition that was passed a number of years before that did the same thing, except it created only a law; the law was subsequently overturned by the courts as unconstitutional [against the CA constitution]. Attempting to short the courts to ground, the one man + one woman advocates got Prop 8 on the ballot to amend the CA constitution. An interesting thing is the pro-homos went to court to keep it off the ballot and lost. So I don’t understand why the courts would let an unconstitutional proposition go forward and then strike it down after the vote went the “wrong” way.

One would think this. In fact, you have probably seen my posts before that said that homosexuals in the late '60s claimed they just wanted to be left alone. Apparently that wasn’t enough. Then came a demand for full societal acceptance, now full societal endorsement. Not even this will be enough, though. Why? Because they’ve been lied to.
Click to expand...
This is the traditional development of civil rights growth for many aggrieved parties or groups. The whole package of justice does not come to fruition at once.
 
Judge rules that the ban on gay marriage in CA will be lifted August 18.
 
larkin31 said:
Judge rules that the ban on gay marriage in CA will be lifted August 18.
Click to expand...
Which may solve nothing, as n doubt it will be appealed. I still think the state could end a lot of headaches by getting out of the marriage business, granting civil unions, and leaving the marrying to religious organizations. In a pluralistic and secular society, the state can’t bless or sanctify anything; it can only recognize the legality of relationships.
 
StAnastasia said:
Which may solve nothing, as n doubt it will be appealed. I still think the state could end a lot of headaches by getting out of the marriage business, granting civil unions, and leaving the marrying to religious organizations. In a pluralistic and secular society, the state can’t bless or sanctify anything; it can only recognize the legality of relationships.
Click to expand...
agreed
 
StAnastasia said:
The “marital act” – I can hardly think of a more clinical and less inviting way to speak of sex.
Click to expand...
I can. The most clinical and uninviting phrase to describe sex that I’ve ever heard was “the marital embrace.” That’s just…too, too.
 
larkin31 said:
This is the traditional development of civil rights growth for many aggrieved parties or groups. The whole package of justice does not come to fruition at once.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about that. It took a civil war to overturn Dred Scott and 58 years to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson. I don’t think it took 58 hours to overturn Prop 8. Constitutional law professor Lino Graglia writes:
The difficulty with our system of representative self-government, as they [our cultural elite] see it, is that everyone gets to vote, with the result that the views of the unenlightened masses are likely to prevail. The function of constitutional law, in the view of our cultural elite and as it has largely operated in recent decades, is to keep this from happening. The first and most important thing to understand about constitutional law is that it has very little to do with a constitution. It has become essentially a device or ruse for policymaking by judges.[Note 1] Such policymaking is much preferred by our cultural elite to policymaking by the elected representatives of the people because judges, given a free hand in policymaking, can generally be relied on to serve as the mirror, mouthpiece, and enacting arm of liberal academia in general and liberal legal academia in particular. … Decisions extending marital rights to homosexual unions do so on no other basis or authority than the fact that full societal acceptance, if not endorsement, of homosexuality is the current cause célèbre in today’s academia. The primary function of judicial opinions explaining these decisions is to deny or conceal this fact.
“Single-Sex ‘Marriage’: The Role of the Courts”
by Lino A. Graglia, Professor in Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200101/ai_n8934944
Click to expand...
[Note 1: Hence the furor over Supreme Court nominee Kagan’s comment about a judge making policy. Legislatures and executive branches make policy, not courts.]
Click to expand...
“Madness, once unleashed, knows no bounds.” – Winston Churchill
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I can. The most clinical and uninviting phrase to describe sex that I’ve ever heard was “the marital embrace.” That’s just…too, too.
Click to expand...
Look, I don’t know what the big deal is here. “Sex” is too general a term, because people apply it to any sexual act. No one says to their spouse, “hey, honey would you like to do a little ‘marital embracing’ tonight?” But, we are posting about the meaning of marriage. This isn’t a discussion between spouses. (I mean, I like you Rich, but not like that. :p)

When referring to a sex act between spouses, ordered, per se, to procreation, what would you think the best, shorthand term is?
 
sedonaman said:
I’m not sure about that. It took a civil war to overturn Dred Scott and 58 years to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson. I don’t think it took 58 hours to overturn Prop 8. Constitutional law professor Lino Graglia writes:
“Madness, once unleashed, knows no bounds.” – Winston Churchill
Click to expand...
this wasn’t the point

and gays have been trying to marry for years now. They were even able to for a while in CA.
 
When referring to a sex act between spouses, ordered, per se, to procreation, what would you think the best, shorthand term is?
Click to expand...
“The coital exchange of bodily fluids in which organisms engage in the chromosomal combination of genetic traits from both parents for the formation of new organisms.”
 
StAnastasia said:
“The coital exchange of bodily fluids in which organisms engage in the chromosomal combination of genetic traits from both parents for the formation of new organisms.”
Click to expand...
Perfect! Much more sensual than “marital embrace/act.” 😃

Seriously though…suggestions? None? Okay, then “marital embrace/act” it is. I don’t want to hear any more complaints!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top