Rosie O'Donnell Is Engaged

  • Thread starter Thread starter SamTheNewfie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SamTheNewfie said:
That is what civil unions are for. Can’t they leave the sacrament of marriage alone?
Click to expand...
As far as I know they are not lobbying the Vatican for a change in the Sacrament.

And what I’ve known, anti-gay lobby is against any sort of legal recognition of same sex couples. So should I understand you are not against legal recognition of these couples? The way I see it, as long as the law protects these people against the depredations of those around them, both families and perfect strangers who just want to see them biting dust, I’m fine.
 
Filius_Prodigus said:
Because of the legal rights it brings. Which is why gay people want to marry to begin with. They’re already together, so they want to have the right to keep the fruits of their joint work when the other dies, hospital visits, tax benefits, pension, etc.

The Sacrament of marriage, on the other hand, belongs to the Church.
Click to expand...
Not to get too technical here, but I “think” marriage is not a Sacrament… Matrimony is a Sacrament. Marriage is a …:

legal contract?
ceremony?
?

Could be wrong.
 
@Myqyl:

Well then, my point even clearer. In any case I believe it’s mostly a battle of words. What if it gives couples protective rights, should it matter what it’s called? Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn’t, I’m undecided on that one.
 
My personal belief is that while the Sacrament of Matrimony is reserved strictly for a man and a woman, as God intended, the legal rights of marriage should be available to anyone covered by the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

But that’s not a popular point of view here…

God bless
 
Filius_Prodigus said:
And what I’ve known, anti-gay lobby is against any sort of legal recognition of same sex couples. So should I understand you are not against legal recognition of these couples? The way I see it, as long as the law protects these people against the depredations of those around them, both families and perfect strangers who just want to see them biting dust, I’m fine.
Click to expand...
I think any two people(brother/sister, mother/daughter, business associates) should be able to enter a civil union to protect their assets. It should have nothing to do with romance though. That is none of the government’s business.
 
SamTheNewfie said:
I think any two people(brother/sister, mother/daughter, business associates) should be able to enter a civil union to protect their assets. It should have nothing to do with romance though. That is none of the government’s business.
Click to expand...
This! 👍
 
SamTheNewfie said:
I think any two people(brother/sister, mother/daughter, business associates) should be able to enter a civil union to protect their assets. It should have nothing to do with romance though. That is none of the government’s business.
Click to expand...
👍 hear hear 👍
 
Government has the duty and responsibility to recognize and promote the truth, but what it is developing now is a positivistic application of truth based on merely human law or even public opinion. The good of society is not in granting legal status to, and thus promoting, aberrant behavior. The good of society comes from the advancement of that society which is children, and the divine law with which the human law must agree has as its basic command to be fruitful and multiply. This is our cooperation with God in the creation of new souls. You can denigrate this as you wish by redefining marriage or sexual mores but I will not agree nor let it slide, and you will have to pay the price at the time of Judgment for these actions. To not warn people, and Mrs. O’Donnell, of this is tacit approval of what they do and this too will be judged.
 
Earnest_Bunbury said:
Government has the duty and responsibility to recognize and promote the truth, but what it is developing now is a positivistic application of truth based on merely human law or even public opinion. The good of society is not in granting legal status to, and thus promoting, aberrant behavior. The good of society comes from the advancement of that society which is children, and the divine law with which the human law must agree has as its basic command to be fruitful and multiply. This is our cooperation with God in the creation of new souls. You can denigrate this as you wish by redefining marriage or sexual mores but I will not agree nor let it slide, and you will have to pay the price at the time of Judgment for these actions. To not warn people, and Mrs. O’Donnell, of this is tacit approval of what they do and this too will be judged.
Click to expand...
What SamTheNewfie is proposing would not be a promotion of aberrant behavior. Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples would, but that’s something else.
 
meltzerboy said:
I’m waiting for Rosie O’Donnell to reconcile with her arch-enemy Donald Trump, and then marry HIM!

I guess I have a long wait.
Click to expand...
I hope they have a pre-nup. She could learn from her enemy. The Donald always has a pre-nup.
 
why is this news? Who cares?

After I read a quote about her adopted son wanting a daddy and her saying something like “sorry, kid, I like women, deal with it” I stopped liking her as a talk show host.

Now for the next news…Leo Dicaprio eats a hamburger!

See? no one cares.
 
SamTheNewfie said:
The TV star, 49, not only launched The Rosie Show on Oprah Winfrey’s OWN network in October, but now she’s preparing to say “I do” to girlfriend Michelle Rounds.

people.com/people/article/0,20551170,00.html
Click to expand...
Since this is a Catholic forum, Rosie (the Catholic???) O’Donell is NOT engaged. She cannot BE engaged, because she cannot be married. She can have some farcical wedding ceremony, but she will not be MARRIED, not in the Church’s definition.
 
Filius_Prodigus said:
As far as I know they are not lobbying the Vatican for a change in the Sacrament.

And what I’ve known, anti-gay lobby is against any sort of legal recognition of same sex couples. So should I understand you are not against legal recognition of these couples? The way I see it, as long as the law protects these people against the depredations of those around them, both families and perfect strangers who just want to see them biting dust, I’m fine.
Click to expand...
They are not. And The Church will not change its position on marriage. It’s what the lifestyle means. There’s nothing wrong in being homosexual, it’s the inclination that leads to the practice of sex that leads to is the Church’s objection. The Church teaches us not to hate the sinner, but to love them. But “hate the sin.” In fact, the Pope cautions against any unfair activity by any of us against homosexuals and that the religious should treat them with kindness. They object to sexual activity, as they do for all unmarrieds.

They are other legal protections – we cannot discriminate in jobs and public access and housing. They can have medical directives, living wills and wills that protect the partner.

I think she’s adequately protected; and I don’t see her “biting dust.” She has had a number of successful careers. Even assuming that she is “biting dust”, then she would not have made a mockery of her first “marriage” and announced it so publicly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top