Pray for California

[Seeker1961]

Your opinions that the Catholic Church should change to accommodate the homosexual agenda have been noted, repeatedly.

Please find the post where I ever said that the Catholic Church should change or that I believe that it ever will.

 

[Seeker1961]

Again, you’re missing the point. The goal of the gay marriage movement is not to convince YOU of anything. They don’t CARE whether you agree with them or not, because YOU are not the ones with the authority, and your theology is not the battleground.

The secular government that we’re both living under is the battleground, and that’s where the fight is being fought. And even when your side has finally lost, you will be free to maintain that what the government defines as marriage is not actually marriage, and your churches will be free to deny the sacrament to any couple you choose.

Nicely said.

 

[Faithdancer]

Please find the post where I ever said that the Catholic Church should change or that I believe that it ever will.

If you don’t believe the Catholic Church should change, why do you argue against its teachings?

 

[Faithdancer]

And is that supposed to mean something?

It means you are way off topic. If you don’t want to pray that California averts same sex “marriage,” please state so and move on. The rest is just sophistry and quarrel-mongering.

 

[Seeker1961]

If you don’t believe the Catholic Church should change, why do you argue against its teachings?

I know you think that’s what I’m doing, but you’re missing the point. Giants stated it better than I could.

 

[Faithdancer]

Nicely said.

Has there ever been a secularist, atheist, homosexualist or otherwise anti-Catholic post on CAF that you haven’t agreed with? I’m sure there must be some but by random coincidence I’ve only seen the numerous ones in which you agree. I’d love to be shown I’m wrong, and that you always support Catholic moral teachings and defend them against the secularists, atheists, homosexualists, etc…

 

[rossum]

How does that make my argument incorrect?

You are assuming bias without evidence. One court has already looked at the case and has found no such evidence. Previous legal precedent has established that minority judges can try cases involving that minority, and that female judges can try cases involving women’s rights.

Judge Walker’s decision includes a long legal argument, taking 138 pages, setting out the basis in law he used in making his decision. You can read it here:

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of
judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the
official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and
directing the official defendants that all persons under their
control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

It is that legal justification that the USSC will be looking at if they decide to review the case. If you think that Judge Walker made a mistake in law, then his decision is available for you to read and you can point out his error to the USSC.

rossum

 

[Faithdancer]

You are assuming bias without evidence. One court has already looked at the case and has found no such evidence. Previous legal precedent has established that minority judges can try cases involving that minority, and that female judges can try cases involving women’s rights.

Judge Walker’s decision includes a long legal argument, taking 138 pages, setting out the basis in law he used in making his decision. You can read it here:

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of
judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the
official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and
directing the official defendants that all persons under their
control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

It is that legal justification that the USSC will be looking at if they decide to review the case. If you think that Judge Walker made a mistake in law, then his decision is available for you to read and you can point out his error to the USSC.

rossum

 

[SamH]

The 5% isn’t trying to redefine marriage for the other 95%. It’s trying to redefine marriage for the 5%. Nothing would change for the 95%.

And it’s entirely unconstitutional for the 95% to deny the benefits of equal protection under the law to the 5% by way of popular vote. As it would be for 5% to deny it to 95%. Or 100 million people to deny it to one.

Actually it is the 2.5% trying to define marriage for the 97.5%. It doesn’t effect you if you never paid Social Security taxes or not subject to ObamaCare. Basically the Amish shouldn’t mind.

 

[Giants]

It means you are way off topic. If you don’t want to pray that California averts same sex “marriage,” please state so and move on. The rest is just sophistry and quarrel-mongering.

If you think the current discussion is off-topic, you have only yourself to blame. I responded to one of your earliest posts addressing Judge Walker’s alleged “bias” and how his ruling contradicted the will of California voters. You picked up the “will of the people” argument and played with that for awhile. Then in response to my explanation (to edwest) on how ballot measures become ballot measures, you complained that the federal judiciary was overstepping its authority in overruling lower state courts. I told you how you were wrong there. Then you started a separate line of attack implying that state-sanctioned SSM would lead to other horrors like polygamy. I explained to you how this was likely an unfounded concern. You then picked up on my reply to a separate poster to assert, essentially, that your views were viable because you’re a Catholic on a Catholic forum. I attempted to disabuse you of this notion. You repeated it. I tried to disabuse you of it again. And now you’re whining that I’m “off-topic.”

 

[Faithdancer]

Actually it is the 2.5% trying to define marriage for the 97.5%. It doesn’t effect you if you never paid Social Security taxes or not subject to ObamaCare. Basically the Amish shouldn’t mind.

Oh no, don’t tell us the Amish have gone over to the homosexualists!

 

[Faithdancer]

“your views were viable because you’re a Catholic on a Catholic forum.”

Oh not only for that reason. Catholic moral teachings reflect Divine and natural law. Same sex “marriage” violates Catholic moral teachings.

Can we take it, then, that you will not pray for California to avert same sex “marriage?”

 

[Giants]

Actually it is the 2.5% trying to define marriage for the 97.5%. It doesn’t effect you if you never paid Social Security taxes or not subject to ObamaCare. Basically the Amish shouldn’t mind.

Just because the straight guy’s gay neighbors can now get married to each other, doesn’t mean that the straight guy cannot. So this nonsense about how a new definition of marriage would affect straight people is, well…nonsense.

 

[Giants]

Oh not only for that reason. Catholic moral teachings reflect Divine and natural law. Same sex “marriage” violates Catholic moral teachings.

Can we take it, then, that you will not pray for California to avert same sex “marriage?”

That would be a silly thing to do, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that whomever wrote the OP didn’t ask anyone to pray for California.

 

[Faithdancer]

The historical definition of marriage as occurring only between a man and a woman is obviously and fundamentally changed when it is no longer only between a man and a woman.

I freely admit my bias- I am a Roman Catholic, believe in the teachings of Holy Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church. These teachings are that marriage is a sacrament which can only take place between one man and one woman.

What is your bias?

 

[Seeker1961]

Has there ever been a secularist, atheist, homosexualist or otherwise anti-Catholic post on CAF that you haven’t agreed with? I’m sure there must be some but by random coincidence I’ve only seen the numerous ones in which you agree. I’d love to be shown I’m wrong, and that you always support Catholic moral teachings and defend them against the secularists, atheists, homosexualists, etc…

My friends know my beliefs, they know why I have made the choices I’ve made. Whatever witness I can be to those around me, whatever effect my prayers for others can have-that’s my focus. I’m not going to march around town with an angry glare at anyone who dares to disagree with me. I’m not going to wag my disapproving finger in anyone else’s face to show my commitment to the choice I’ve made. I’m going to show by the life I live that my choice to obey God has brought me JOY, not anger at the world around me that hasn’t yet made that choice.

Jesus told us that we would ALWAYS be outside of the world. Trying to force the world to conform to us without bothering to show them WHY it’s worth it is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

If you actually read anything I write here, it’s always about changing our focus from trying to force others to behave the way we believe they should to showing them the REASON why we WANT to behave differently.

There is no lasting change without God. So why do we persist in choosing the legal system over Him? Why do we persist on fighting in the voting booth instead of putting all that energy in leading people to God?? If Christians had spent half the energy or even half the money that they used trying to elect Presidents or change laws, just think how much NATURAL change might have occurred?

You can continue to fight with your lectures and your disapproval, but at some point doesn’t it make sense to look at your strategy and see if it’s even working?

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Just because the straight guy’s gay neighbors can now get married to each other, doesn’t mean that the straight guy cannot. So this nonsense about how a new definition of marriage would affect straight people is, well…nonsense.

Even if gays are “married” under the law, they are still not married nor will they ever be.

Just wait until this non-acknowledgement gets classified as hate, then come back and say it doednt affect us.

Our kids in public shools have to hear about gay rights and the gay lifrstyle, what relevance does that have to anyone, especially at school aimed at children?

As far as I know, gays can be “married” and have had those rights for a long time, theyre upset that its not legally called marriage.

You see, they dont just want to do what they want and be happy, they want to overtake, assault, and redefine marriage. They want to turn gender roles and the family unit upside down. The family unit being the foundation of society, when that is gone, society is gone.

So gay “marriage” affects EVERYONE really.

 

[Faithdancer]

My friends know my beliefs, they know why I have made the choices I’ve made. Whatever witness I can be to those around me, whatever effect my prayers for others can have-that’s my focus. I’m not going to march around town with an angry glare at anyone who dares to disagree with me. I’m not going to wag my disapproving finger in anyone else’s face to show my commitment to the choice I’ve made. I’m going to show by the life I live that my choice to obey God has brought me JOY, not anger at the world around me that hasn’t yet made that choice.

Jesus told us that we would ALWAYS be outside of the world. Trying to force the world to conform to us without bothering to show them WHY it’s worth it is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

If you actually read anything I write here, it’s always about changing our focus from trying to force others to behave the way we believe they should to showing them the REASON why we WANT to behave differently.

There is no lasting change without God. So why do we persist in choosing the legal system over Him? Why do we persist on fighting in the voting booth instead of putting all that energy in leading people to God?? If Christians had spent half the energy or even half the money that they used trying to elect Presidents or change laws, just think how much NATURAL change might have occurred?

You can continue to fight with your lectures and your disapproval, but at some point doesn’t it make sense to look at your strategy and see if it’s even working?

Please explain how a strategy of enthusiastically agreeing with anti-Catholic posts on CAF is useful. Also, your statement on voting contradicts (again) what we are told by Catholic leaders.

Although you present yourself as some great voice of tolerance, that does not excuse opposition to Catholic moral teachings. The very fact that you have are able to list your “religion” as “not a CAF Catholic” shows where the real tolerance is on these forums.

 

[Faithdancer]

Even if gays are “married” under the law, they are still not married nor will they ever be.

Just wait until this non-acknowledgement gets classified as hate, then come back and say it doednt affect us.

Our kids in public shools have to hear about gay rights and the gay lifrstyle, what relevance does that have to anyone, especially at school aimed at children?

As far as I know, gays can be “married” and have had those rights for a long time, theyre upset that its not legally called marriage.

You see, they dont just want to do what they want and be happy, they want to overtake, assault, and redefine marriage. They want to turn gender roles and the family unit upside down. The family unit being the foundation of society, when that is gone, society is gone.

So gay “marriage” affects EVERYONE really.

Oh but they want to have their “family units,” too! Isn’t it flattering, they want to mimic everything about normality!

Again- I’m extremely curious to see how those who achieve their homosexual-homosexual “marriages” will react when legalizing polygamy becomes the issue. Will they be true to their “logic” and support polygamous “marriages?” Or, will they see increasing expansion of the definition of marriage as a threat to their own “marriages?”

 

[SamH]

Just because the straight guy’s gay neighbors can now get married to each other, doesn’t mean that the straight guy cannot. So this nonsense about how a new definition of marriage would affect straight people is, well…nonsense.

So you agree it does affect people paying social security.