Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
However, to say that an owner of a dog is responsible for its aggression is not to say that the dog is a person.
Do you mean “not responsible”? I thought that was the claim. She said the dogs make their own choices, and that she wasn’t responsible for what they did. The logical conclusion is that if dogs are responsible for their own behavior, then we should treat them as responsible entities, i.e. persons.
 
All Catholics should be republicans? I guess economics and views on taxation and business shouldn’t go into voting? My grandfather was a model Catholic who did more for the church and other people than anyone I have ever met, and he was a democrat. Stop trying to force your views on others. In every other country in the world things like abortion and gay marriage are not political issues that decide elections. Remember that.
Your grandfather’s Democrat party bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Democrat party of today. The Democrat party stands in direct opposition to core moral teachings of the Catholic Church on abortion, homosexuality euthanasia and fetal stem cell research. It’s not a matter of anybody forcing their views on you-nobody forced you to be a Catholic. But the modern Democratic Party has made it impossible for a Catholic in good conscience to have voted for any of their presidential candidates since 1976. It is unfortunately nearly impossible for a Catholic to vote for a Democrat candidate in any national election as their national leadership has support of unrestricted restricted abortion on demand as a litmus test for power in their party
 
Then I’m sure you’re aware that there are a number of other species on the planet that practice homosexuality and bisexuality, and that in animal communities, sex serves many social functions.

Nothing like a little “real biology,” eh?
Man is not an animal.

God bless,
Ed
 
I wonder. Given that California is becoming more Hispanic all the time, would it not be also be increasingly Catholic?
Probably not. The Catholic Church has a high loss of adherents - roughly 10 % nationwide , but twice that among Hispanics. Children of Hispanic immigrants often wind up in Evangelical or Pentecostal denominations. Half of Hispanic evangelicals are converts, with more than 43 percent of them tracing their roots to the Catholic Church.
religionnewsblog.com/20471/catholic-protestant-religion-trend

Of course, Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations are no friendlier to gay marriage than is the Catholic Church
 
Your grandfather’s Democrat party bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Democrat party of today. The Democrat party stands in direct opposition to core moral teachings of the Catholic Church on abortion, homosexuality euthanasia and fetal stem cell research. It’s not a matter of anybody forcing their views on you-nobody forced you to be a Catholic. But the modern Democratic Party has made it impossible for a Catholic in good conscience to have voted for any of their presidential candidates since 1976. It is unfortunately nearly impossible for a Catholic to vote for a Democrat candidate in any national election as their national leadership has support of unrestricted restricted abortion on demand as a litmus test for power in their party
I agree and have said the same often. How can people not see that the parties have changed over the years? Perhaps they don’t study the parties enough, perhaps they don’t read enough, perhaps they are too lazy to do the homework, or perhaps they are just plain stubborn. I know that my Irish Catholic grandfather who went to daily mass for many years would not recognize the Democratic Party now.
 
Will anyone answer my questions?
For those of you that support gay marriage…would you also support a Catholic school refusing to hire a teacher who was a practicing homosexual?
 
Indeed. Why is it even being argued as a violation of the US Constitution? Can’t the states decide for themselves?

Oh wait, Marshall changed the thinking on that one.
hmmm?

Would you be willing to explain?
 
1973 was the year that a group of gay activists voted to remove Homosexuality as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. It had nothing to do with science.
Really? Gay activists in 1973 overthrew the leadership and membership of the American Psychiatric Association? That sounds like quite a coup !
 
I just though I would reiterate this point, Dale:

They risk the potential of losing tax exempt status. See United States v Bob Jones University.

Although some people here have already lauded such a move.

It’s coming.
Perhaps. As I mentioned earlier, there are a sizable number of people who would like to remove the privileged tax status of religion, if religions want to participate in the political process.

But, as I mentioned earlier, this has nothing to do with how a religion conducts its practices. Unless, of course, that religion considers money more important.
 
Really? Gay activists in 1973 overthrew the leadership and membership of the American Psychiatric Association? That sounds like quite a coup !
Him he didn’t say they overthrew the leadership-he pointed out, correctly, that homosexual behavior was removed only because of the vote of a plurality of members attending the 1973 convention.
 
Perhaps. As I mentioned earlier, there are a sizable number of people who would like to remove the privileged tax status of religion, if religions want to participate in the political process.

But, as I mentioned earlier, this has nothing to do with how a religion conducts its practices. Unless, of course, that religion considers money more important.
But it would signifigantly reduce the Church’s ability to operate. Many parishes would go bankrupt from the real estate taxes alone, let alone if donations were taxed as income.
 
In today’s gospel reading Jesus assures Peter that the Gates of hell will not prevail against his Church. It was a welcome reminder for me as to be honest threads like this lead me nearly to despair, It’s one thing for a judge to overturn the will of the people concerning marriage. It’s quite another thing to see the number of Catholics who applaud and defend his decision.
 
Him he didn’t say they overthrew the leadership-he pointed out, correctly, that homosexual behavior was removed only because of the vote of a plurality of members attending the 1973 convention.
Actually, he did imply that. To quote:
1973 was the year that a group of gay activists voted to remove Homosexuality as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. It had nothing to do with science.
His statement implies a homosexual takeover of the American Psychiatric Association.
 
Of course, they’ll be legalized. It’s wrong, but the Man Boy Love Association would be for it.

God bless,
Ed
Ed, I’m not a Catholic, but I think that Catholic reasoning is above that kind of attack.
 
Actually, he did imply that. To quote:

His statement implies a homosexual takeover of the American Psychiatric Association.
He stated no such thing. What he stated was the facts. Hopefully you did not believe that homosexual behavior was removed because of a peer-reviewed scientific study and after a long and reasoned debate.
 
There was somebody that said this:

"7 million votes were just thrown out the window by one judge - one judge.

This is why Americans are enraged to a point where fewer and fewer of them support civil unions because they know their will never be an end to it untill the gay marriage pushers get what they want.

By the way - the judge is openly gay - which means he should have dismissed himself from presiding for obvious biased reasons."

I don’t know if any of you will agree with it but I’m also enraged by this as well having one judge going against seven million California voters that voted to ban gay marriage once and for all. It is unfair to the California voters and everyone else including the Catholics that are against gay marriage and that includes me. Gay marriage may have to legalized in all fifty states whether we want it or not and for us all that oppose gay mariage, What are we to do?
 
In today’s gospel reading Jesus assures Peter that the Gates of hell will not prevail against his Church. It was a welcome reminder for me as to be honest threads like this lead me nearly to despair, It’s one thing for a judge to overturn the will of the people concerning marriage. It’s quite another thing to see the number of Catholics who applaud and defend his decision.
The first reading is pretty pertinent, too!
 
In today’s gospel reading Jesus assures Peter that the Gates of hell will not prevail against his Church. It was a welcome reminder for me as to be honest threads like this lead me nearly to despair, It’s one thing for a judge to overturn the will of the people concerning marriage. It’s quite another thing to see the number of Catholics who applaud and defend his decision.
I think that this is precisely the problem. The Catholic Church is the gate of salvation to the world. Christ gave us the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which means we were entrusted with the Gospel and our duty is to spread that Gospel to save souls. Well, far too many of us have abandoned that duty and instead have given into the ways of the world. Pope Pius V said that all evil in the world can be traced to lukewarm Catholics. That has never been more true that in our day. We need only look at all of the Catholic politicians who vote against the teachings of Church.

God help us all.
 
I agree and have said the same often. How can people not see that the parties have changed over the years? Perhaps they don’t study the parties enough, perhaps they don’t read enough, perhaps they are too lazy to do the homework, or perhaps they are just plain stubborn. I know that my Irish Catholic grandfather who went to daily mass for many years would not recognize the Democratic Party now.
Too lazy to do their homework is the correct answer. My family was for the Democrats in the 1960s because they did stand up for what we believed. Today, the Republicans reflect that better. The Democratic party was infiltrated but everyone just kept thinking, “My Dad voted for the Democrats. So that’s what I should do.”

But I would never, ever identify myself as being affiliated with a particular party because some people hold what their party stands for (or what they think it stands for) as being like a religion.

God bless,
Ed
 
hmmm?

Would you be willing to explain?
Two words: judicial review. Marshall made is possible for state law, even law that does not contradict or otherwise interfere with federal law, to be subject to review by the USSC. Combine that with the 14th amendment, and we now have was another said “constitution > everything else”.

And given the US Constitution’s silence on marriage, why is it even a federal issue? The 10th amendment reserves that issue to the states. But with judicial review and the 14th amendment, it is suddenly a federal issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top