A
Adam1986
Guest
NO I DID NOT. Please do not say things just to try and get me banned. It’s wrong and a LIE.
- Status
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
How is that even close to being analogous? Your purported right to kill Dale would obviously run against his right to life. How does somebody else’s marriage run against any of your rights?
J
j1akey
Guest
It doesn’t. /Gasp!
T
toni2008
Guest
please pray for SF and L.A. There are still mary devoted catholics in this state. We just have to make as much noise as the gays. Let us pray for this state. Saint Francis, Saint joseph, Saint claire pray for your cities. It is crazy hear in the in the bay area but this is our home. The other side wants us to leave so they wont have to hear about right and wrong. I am not leaving. These towns were started by the catholic church. L.A. too
Let us take back our state.
Let us take back our state.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes. California is a veritable litany of Saints:please pray for SF and L.A. There are still mary devoted catholics in this state. We just have to make as much noise as the gays. Let us pray for this state. Saint Francis, Saint joseph, Saint claire pray for your cities. It is crazy hear in the in the bay area but this is our home. The other side wants us to leave so they wont have to hear about right and wrong. I am not leaving. These towns were started by the catholic church. L.A. too
Let us take back our state.
San Francisco
Santa Ana
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Luis Obispo
Santa Maria
Sacramento (named after the Blessed Sacrament!)
Santa Barbara
These are just the ones that come to mind. There are countless others. We could devise a Litany of the Saints of California to be recited for the soul of the State.
Suudy
Active member
Attraction may not be a choice, but acts certainly are.
You should know that the Church teaches those wit same sex attraction are called to lives of chastity.
E
eagle_eye222001
Guest
I wasn’t trying to get you banned. I merely pointed out the implications of your argument.
My intent was to show that not all rights are equal. Should have been phrased better and for that I apologize.
It runs against my right of living in an environment where I am forced to recognize a lifestyle that runs contrary to my religious beliefs, and allows an environment where it is taught that such a lifestyle is acceptable.
Homosexuality does not promote the population as it is closed to new life. Heterosexual marriage is a much healthier lifestyle and positively impacts society more than a disordered relationship.
A fuller explanation is found at …
catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
A
Adam1986
Guest
OK. No problem. I just want you to know too, that I wasn’t trying to say same sex marriages are better or anything. HONEST! lol.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Where do you have such a right enumerated civilly?
Suudy
Active member
I disagree. I do not “do” Catholic. I “am” Catholic. I don’t do “NRA”, nor are people NRA-ual. None of the are acts that define who we are.
Listen to the lecture. It is free, and makes excellent arguments, both philosophical and theolgical, about the problem with homosexuality.
T
toni2008
Guest
yes let us be positive. God can use this for good.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Oh I intend to, thanks for posting it
I must disagree that we don’t “do” Catholic, otherwise our right to the way we practice religion would have no substantive meaning. Going to Mass, being baptized, praying the Rosary, among many other things, are examples of very Catholic behaviors which naturally accompany being Catholic. What sense would it make for someone to say “You have the right to call yourself a Catholic and think Catholic things, but not to be baptized, not to receive the Eucharist, not to evangelize others because… well, those things offend my sensibilities”?
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
Are you sure you want to argue about what the Church recognizes?
The Church recognizes that homosexual acts are grave sins.
The Church recognizes that your sexual attraction is disordered.
The Church recognizes that we are all called to chastity.
The Church recognizes that a marriage can only be between a man and woman, and that civil unions are nothing more than an attempt to weaken the sacrament of marriage in society.
J
j1akey
Guest
It just occured to me that I can’t believe that this…allowing gay people to marry…is THE big issue that other people it doesn’t affect are getting worked up about.
Let’s see, the country is in massive debt, the economy sucks, we’ve allowed multinational corporations to basically run the government, we’ve been fighting two wars for the better part of a decade, our infrastructure is collapsing right out from under us and jobs keep getting shipped over seas and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Not may people get all up in arms over ALL this yet now that gays can get married in California, this, THIS is where you need to make a stand… /facepalm
Let’s see, the country is in massive debt, the economy sucks, we’ve allowed multinational corporations to basically run the government, we’ve been fighting two wars for the better part of a decade, our infrastructure is collapsing right out from under us and jobs keep getting shipped over seas and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Not may people get all up in arms over ALL this yet now that gays can get married in California, this, THIS is where you need to make a stand… /facepalm
A
Adam1986
Guest
I will just state my opinion on this real quick and then I have to get off for the night. With the reference to Gay Pride etc, it is not about celebrating that we have sex with members of the same sex. It is not about having pride about our actions.
It is about having in pride in who we are fully and completely and that includes our sexuality. Our actions do not define us because there are homosexuals out there who are 100% chaste and yet they are proud of every part of them including their sexuality. The same way I am sure you are proud of yourself completely, right? And since sexuality is a HUGE part of who everyone is, you can say that you are in a certain sense you are proud of your sexuality.
Now I just want to point out that I DO NOT advocate or promote the “norm” of gay pride celebrations because they are often filled with debauchery.
J
j1akey
Guest
Meh, straight people are just as debaucherous as anyone else, some just try to hide it.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
If you are given the legal rights of marriage, you aren’t deprived of anything. You aren’t treated in the eyes of the law differently.
The problem is, in my view, that marriage doesn’t mean anything to society anymore than just another element of self esteem. You want social recognition and acceptance. We all do. Marriage won’t give that to you. A court can’t give that to you. And, even if a court decides that a relationship between two men is “marriage,” the effect WON’T be to confer more respect on your relationship, because many of us simply won’t accept it as the norm. Instead, the institution of marriage itself, which is almost empty of meaning, will just become completely meaningless. This isn’t your fault, individually - but you can just be handed an empty shell.
Only you can deal with your dignity. Not a court. Not me. Sorry.
N
nguirado
Guest
Perhaps you should think a second time before calling something stupid. The idea is that society defines marriage a certain way. Anybody willing to conform to that definition can get married, without discrimination.
Your definition of marriage might be two people who “love” each other. Why only two people? Isn’t that arbitrary? You’re only limiting it to two people because your tradition tells you to.
My point is that any definition of marriage will exclude somebody whose feelings don’t conform with that definition.
Can you explain why that’s a stupid point? Are you OK with excluding people who can’t just love one person from being happy with the people of their choice?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
But Adam (post 428), marriage has nothing to do with “pride in one’s sexuality.” It was devised as a contract between two consenting heterosexual adults, as a domestic institution “housing” the development of children – originally naturally born, should the couple be so fortunate. Its purpose was to ensure not just random procreation of children, but particular unified households in which not just the breeding of children, but the raising of children by two parents of implied different genders would occur in harmonious yet differentiated (by role, by gender) surroundings.
It does not mean that people of different genders have not also coupled in such state-approved unions without the intent to have (or even adopt) children, nor does marriage between two persons require the raising of children (such as marriage between two eldery people). But neither is marriage just a free-for-all. It was designed to maintain, continue, promote social order – among other things – on the micro level.
The fact that incidentally, both straight and gay people “take pride” in loving unions with others is neither here nor there. The fact, for example, that some women (even some men, but it’s more true among women) feel finally ‘fulfilled’ (and "proud) when married, is also completely unrelated to the secular condition of marriage and the “right” of grown heterosexuals to marry.
The state does not prevent two people of the same gender from loving each other, from cohabitating, from entering into their own contracts, or even from domestic partnership. In fact, domestic partnership is approved of in CA. You have special tax forms you fill out, etc. A title/role has to have meaning, or it’s just a title. I could be “proud” to be “granted rights” to do lots of things that it would not be in my best interest or society’s best interests, or my own children’s best interests, to do. Marriage has a fairly narrow purpose, regardless of whatever results, whatever personal identification it carries.
What happened today is a sacrilege – not to the Catholic Church per se, or to religious people per se (althought that, too), but to children. That arrogant ruling said today that children do not need a mother and a father, that 2 Dads are just fine, or 2 Moms. It gave the State the legal right to deprive children of their natural born civil rights to parents of different genders. How did it do this? By granting a title that implies equal parenting participation to gay couples, relative to heterosexual couples. It said (by implication) that it doesn’t care whether children have natural parents, have parents of different genders, etc.
Marriage is ultimately not about personal identity, except incidentally and secondarily. It’s about family. It’s about the structure of an institution and of society. I’m not against gays having loving relationships with children, such as through relatives, through formal associations, etc. I’m against eliminating one gender from the identification of a child with his or her parents because of state redefinition of one of the major pillars of a civilized society.
I also have to say I am deeply disappointed in the Prop 8 defense strategy. It was pathetic. They provided no convincing arguments to the court. Shame on them. They failed to articulate eloquently (which they needed to do in this political climate) why the state has a compelling interest in this definition and in this limitation. Either they were in shock, or they were overconfident, and I’m disgusted. Sad day for California and the nation. Sad day for children and the next generation. Really sad.
It does not mean that people of different genders have not also coupled in such state-approved unions without the intent to have (or even adopt) children, nor does marriage between two persons require the raising of children (such as marriage between two eldery people). But neither is marriage just a free-for-all. It was designed to maintain, continue, promote social order – among other things – on the micro level.
The fact that incidentally, both straight and gay people “take pride” in loving unions with others is neither here nor there. The fact, for example, that some women (even some men, but it’s more true among women) feel finally ‘fulfilled’ (and "proud) when married, is also completely unrelated to the secular condition of marriage and the “right” of grown heterosexuals to marry.
The state does not prevent two people of the same gender from loving each other, from cohabitating, from entering into their own contracts, or even from domestic partnership. In fact, domestic partnership is approved of in CA. You have special tax forms you fill out, etc. A title/role has to have meaning, or it’s just a title. I could be “proud” to be “granted rights” to do lots of things that it would not be in my best interest or society’s best interests, or my own children’s best interests, to do. Marriage has a fairly narrow purpose, regardless of whatever results, whatever personal identification it carries.
What happened today is a sacrilege – not to the Catholic Church per se, or to religious people per se (althought that, too), but to children. That arrogant ruling said today that children do not need a mother and a father, that 2 Dads are just fine, or 2 Moms. It gave the State the legal right to deprive children of their natural born civil rights to parents of different genders. How did it do this? By granting a title that implies equal parenting participation to gay couples, relative to heterosexual couples. It said (by implication) that it doesn’t care whether children have natural parents, have parents of different genders, etc.
Marriage is ultimately not about personal identity, except incidentally and secondarily. It’s about family. It’s about the structure of an institution and of society. I’m not against gays having loving relationships with children, such as through relatives, through formal associations, etc. I’m against eliminating one gender from the identification of a child with his or her parents because of state redefinition of one of the major pillars of a civilized society.
I also have to say I am deeply disappointed in the Prop 8 defense strategy. It was pathetic. They provided no convincing arguments to the court. Shame on them. They failed to articulate eloquently (which they needed to do in this political climate) why the state has a compelling interest in this definition and in this limitation. Either they were in shock, or they were overconfident, and I’m disgusted. Sad day for California and the nation. Sad day for children and the next generation. Really sad.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I can see it all now. Here in California ten years from now Proposition 666: A measure to legalize polygamy and beastiality. The next great human rights dignity story civil rights war to enter into…
- Status