Pray for California

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faithdancer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**If **you have negative attitudes towards homosexuals and homosexuality, be they feelings of contempt, or hatred, or prejudice, or antipathy, or inherent superiority, then you are a homophobe.
All your criteria is based on your projection onto people you do not agree with; it is a pergorative. A pergorative you used against everyone who disagrees with you. You don’t know any of us but because we disagree with you, you assume contempt, or hatred, or prejudice, or antipathy, or inherent superiority.
“Homosexualist” is some silly nonsense word that homophobes created to put gay people and straight people who support gay people in a box together…
 
Nobody ever wants anything for no reason.
The Catholic Church has very good reasons for knowing that same-sex unions are not marriage. The reasons are much better than anything I’ve heard from the same-sex unions can be marriage side.
There is a thread on CAF trying to get the same-sex union crowd to define marriage. Few would give a definition and none could defend it.
 
Marriage and the States definition are not necessarily the same thing
Feel free to mention this to Elizabeth502, who tried citing the State’s definition of marriage as something that strengthens her argument about what marriage is. Forgetting, evidently, that some localities actually do allow for gay marriage, and all localities allow it for impotent couples and couples who don’t want children.
All your criteria is based on your projection onto people you do not agree with; it is a pergorative. A pergorative you used against everyone who disagrees with you. You don’t know any of us but because we disagree with you, you assume contempt, or hatred, or prejudice, or antipathy, or inherent superiority.
And if you would own the fact that you hold negative attitudes about gay people, my calling you a homophobe would no longer be a pejorative, even if I did want it to be. Just like calling me a “homosexualist” has no pejorative force, because I don’t allow it to.
 
Feel free to mention this to Elizabeth502, who tried citing the State’s definition of marriage as something that strengthens her argument about what marriage is. Forgetting, evidently, that some localities actually do allow for gay marriage, and all localities allow it for impotent couples and couples who don’t want children.
Where did she cite the State’s definition of marriage as something that strengthens her argument? It is my experience that is the same-sex union is marriage crowd that hangs their hat on a State definition; like I said they don’t have one of their own.
And if you would own the fact that you hold negative attitudes about gay people, my calling you a homophobe would no longer be a pejorative, even if I did want it to be. Just like calling me a “homosexualist” has no pejorative force, because I don’t allow it to.
I don’t hold negative attitudes about homosexual people. All you have to go on is the fact you disagree with my definition of marriage. Therefore, it is a perjorative.
 
The Catholic Church has very good reasons for knowing that same-sex unions are not marriage. The reasons are much better than anything I’ve heard from the same-sex unions can be marriage side.
There is a thread on CAF trying to get the same-sex union crowd to define marriage. Few would give a definition and none could defend it.
That is interesting. Do you have that link? I would like to see that!:D:D:D:D:D
 
That decision was actually a nuanced, conservative decision that lessened the power of congress to just do things willy nilly. Congress has the constitutional authority to tax, which is what the ultimate decision was in the Obamacare decision. Don’t like it? The same thing happened in the 1930s with Social Security. It can certainly be said that, unlike Griswald, Roe v. Wade or even Brown v. the Board of Education, it was NOT an activist decision, which is how the court is supposed to operate.
Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose…you just need to learn how to swallow the lose.
What you didn’t notice was the absolute shocker that a command to purchase a thing in the market, enforced by government power, is now a “Tax”. That’s pretty willy and nilly.
 
As I understand the term, a homosexualist is someone who may or may not be actively homosexual but who supports the homosexual agenda, often militantly.
No criticism but I have only seen “Homosexualist” of CAF and that fairly rarely.
 
Where did she cite the State’s definition of marriage as something that strengthens her argument? It is my experience that is the same-sex union is marriage crowd that hangs their hat on a State definition; like I said they don’t have one of their own.

I don’t hold negative attitudes about homosexual people. All you have to go on is the fact you disagree with my definition of marriage. Therefore, it is a perjorative.
There is a big difference between holding a negative attitude about homosexuals as human beings, and holding a negative attitude about militant homosexuals and their cheerleaders trying to force everyone else to pretend that their sexual practices are normal and equal to the life giving sexual act between a man and a woman. And their whole push for “marriage” comes down to just that.
 
Barring any further delays, the US Supreme Court is expected to announce on December 3rd whether or not it will take up the matter of the 9th Circuit Court’s upholding of a District Court overturn of Proposition 8, the California measure, passed in 2008, which would amend the California State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, only. If the court refuses the case, same sex “marriage” will quickly resume in California, perhaps within days. This is landmark because if the court does take up the case, analysts think it will overrule the Circuit and District Courts’ decisions, since to affirm the decision could in effect make same sex marriage the law of the land. Even the most liberal court members may not be willing to deal with the fallout from such a decision- not just yet, anyway. Justice Kennedy may be the swing vote, as he often is.

Prop 8 and its identical predecessor have been passed twice.by the people of California, only to have it blocked by the courts. In the case of Prop. 8 the initial adverse ruling on this proposed amendment was made in the District Court by an openly homosexual judge who should have recused himself. The higher, Circuit Court upheld his decision not to recuse himself.

The impedance of this amendment, passed by the will of the people, is a gross miscarriage of justice and a deliberate thwarting of a popular vote. Please join your prayers to mine that the US Supreme Court does the right thing, takes up the case and overturns the lower court’s decision.
Prophets of Gloom!!! The world is not all that evil good sir. There is good in people you know? Yes even in gay people too. We are not called to be crusaders but witnesses to God’s love to the world.
 
There is a big difference between holding a negative attitude about homosexuals as human beings, and holding a negative attitude about militant homosexuals and their cheerleaders trying to force everyone else to pretend that their sexual practices are normal and equal to the life giving sexual act between a man and a woman. And their whole push for “marriage” comes down to just that.
Giants doesn’t seems to understand what it takes to “own” a pergorative. To “own” it requires that it be true. If someone calls me a Papist, I can “own” it because it is true, I am Catholic.

So basically Giants, was affirming my claim that homophobe is a perjorative used against people they disagree with. Giants believes because I disagree, I am a homophobe, it is true, therefore I should just “own it.” When in reality it is not true, so Giants insistence proves my claim.
 
Prophets of Gloom!!! The world is not all that evil good sir. There is good in people you know? Yes even in gay people too. We are not called to be crusaders but witnesses to God’s love to the world.
And the Holy Sacrament of Marriage- what of that? Is it only a Holy Sacrament in the Catholic Church, or universally?
 
Again the law is decided by humans.
Correct. And in particular the law in California is decided by humans. We shall have to wait and see what the humans on the US Supreme Court decide.

rossum
 
And the Holy Sacrament of Marriage- what of that? Is it only a Holy Sacrament in the Catholic Church, or universally?
Not universally, since there is no “Holy Sacrament of Marriage” in California law. There is only “marriage” in California law. The California version is already different because it allows for divorce and remarriage, which the “Holy Sacrament of Marriage” does not. What is being decided is whether or not another difference will be added between the two.

rossum
 
Not universally, since there is no “Holy Sacrament of Marriage” in California law. There is only “marriage” in California law. The California version is already different because it allows for divorce and remarriage, which the “Holy Sacrament of Marriage” does not. What is being decided is whether or not another difference will be added between the two.

rossum
The question was directed to a Roman Catholic. But thanks for sharing!🙂
 
For those Catholics who think there is any room for equivocation on the issue of same sex “marriage:”

"There are certain “non-negotiables” in Catholic social teaching. As we all know, there are some laws and tendencies in our society that violate God’s laws and the natural rights and dignity of the human person.

Abortion and euthanasia are never allowed because they involve the direct taking of innocent human life. There is also no negotiating the God-given definition of marriage and family based on the permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman." (italics mine)
Archbishop Jose Gomez, Los Angeles

source: the-tidings.com/index.php…-election-year
 
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?

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?
None of these arguments work towards allowing gay marriage to pass. As Catholics we don’t want to force any behavior on anybody. We wish that people follow God’s will out of the free choice of their own will.

The whole issue of gay marriage is not about Catholics wanting something. It’s not about desire on the side of the Church. Pro gay marriage people bring up desire a lot… We have to realize that many of our desires are intrinsically deluded and disordered, and that arguments on important points should be made using reason and faith, not desire.

We’re not either forcing the world to fit the God given marriage model laid out by Jesus-Christ. We’re fighting the good fight for this divine conception in a democratic and civilized way, through public debates and legal and political action. Though I can’t speak for the every single individual, on the whole of the Catholic church, there is no coercion of society at large on this matter, only love of truth.

This isn’t about the Church imposing its desire on top of the desire of the gay minority. It’s about the Church opposing the model of marriage given by Christ to the desire of the gay minority. Yes, as Catholics we know that the world will be evil until judgment day, but we also know that we must resist it with all our power. That is what we are currently striving to do. Don’t tell us not to even try to spread the kingdom of God in the world!

We never spoke of choosing the legal system over God. As Christians we must use all channels available for good! This is an important one.

Even though the sanctity of marriage is a small portion of Christ’s teachings, it is still a very real and present one. He gave it to us for the good of all people, people who have same sex attraction included.
 
Correct. And in particular the law in California is decided by humans. We shall have to wait and see what the humans on the US Supreme Court decide.

rossum
agreed
Not universally, since there is no “Holy Sacrament of Marriage” in California law. There is only “marriage” in California law. The California version is already different because it allows for divorce and remarriage, which the “Holy Sacrament of Marriage” does not. What is being decided is whether or not another difference will be added between the two.
This is missing the point. The further that legal marriage goes from Holy marriage, it is the same as when all law distances itself from God’s law: the further law abiding citizens will be held to be holy. The only profound and lasting goodness comes from holiness. It is not just an option which is open to religious people, all people regardless of faith need this goodness.
 
Feel free to mention this to Elizabeth502, who tried citing the State’s definition of marriage as something that strengthens her argument about what marriage is. Forgetting, evidently, that some localities actually do allow for gay marriage, and all localities allow it for impotent couples and couples who don’t want children.
And the localites which do “allow” it are dangerously corrupting the structure of society and opposing the natural law principles which are the underpinnings of criminal, civil, and constitutional law. As to impotence, that’s been covered in other threads. Try using the search feature. It’s a wonderful antidote to laziness.
😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top