Squashed wedding announcement disappoints gay couple

[Elizabeth502]

Correct me if I am wrong…

But State marriage is declared by the physical state…not the Federal Government.

It is, yes. To clarify, however, when I use the word “State” I am referring to government in general. The notion that marriage is a religious matter, or that government should have no interest in the formal coupling of citizens for the purposes of creating households for the raising of children, is ludicrous. The “State” (i.e., the government) is rather interested in incentivizing the doing of what no government can do: provide a Mommy and a Daddy, and lead, in a complementary intimate setting, the natural or adopted children of that setting, to assimilate into the body politic and become balanced, healthy citizens.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would venture to say that 90% of our country’s population has committed sodomy

Right.

 

[peduzzi89]

If you knew what both the Catechism and the encyclicals, addresses, and USCCB statement papers say, you would be unable to claim what you claim about how same-sex couples are ‘no different’ than heterosexual couples. You may interpret pointing out the facts about your postings as “rude,” but I stand by the content of your posts versus Church teachings. They are not “assumptions.” Your words speak for themselves. Whether you do know “exactly” what the Church says and simply choose to oppose it for reasons known only to you, or whether you are limited in your knowledge of Roman Catholic Church settled doctrine on sexuality and the family, is kind of immaterial, because in either case your postings are not supported by Catholic teachings.

You’re missing the point entirely. A) it is an irrefutable fact that I know what the catechism says, unless you’re claiming that I can’t read. B) what is immaterial is the very content of that catechism in relation to the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage in the overwhelming majority of society that doesn’t, in fact, subscribe to the catechism.

Claim what you want about what my words say, but I stand by the fact that inserting sarcasm into an arguments is less than the Christian thing to do.

It’s a pet peeve of mind when someone says something rude then blames it on the interpretations of whomever found it rude. Sounds like passing the buck to me.

 

[peduzzi89]

Right.

Do you actually have a rebuttal to this? Resorting to sarcasm as their only rebuttal is something people do when they know they’re wrong. If you do have a rebuttal, we can discuss whether you think more than 10% of the population has ever looked at porn, masturbated, had oral sex to completion, or any other of the things that fall under sodomy. I don’t know why many people seem to think that only gay sex is sodomy.

 

[adrift]

.

I took the following quotes from your answers

[It’s a pet peeve of mind when someone says something rude then blames it on the interpretations of whomever found it rude. Sounds like passing the buck to me.

I find the following quotes to be rude. Will you now pass the buck?

And your saying it’s just because they want to is just so useless and assinine! I

How rude of you to make such assumptions.

If you think that was an act of selfishness then you are living in a fantasy world

Shame on you, senior member, for jumping to conclusions and using snide remarks. Not what Jesus would do.

As for this comment, it indicates that you need to reread the catechism

Just because something is supported by natural law doesn’t make it a right, just states that that’s how nature works. If we only abided by natural law we would still be hunters and gatherers.

Natural law is not the same as nature as presented in the Catechism. Maybe you should be less offended and offensive in this discussion.
[/quote]

 

[sedonaman]

That is absolutely not the only reason adoption exists! Millions of couples who can’t have children turn to adoption simply because they want to have children and for no other reason. …

The government didn’t institute adoption because there were lots of childless couples running around who wanted children. The need was generated by children without parents; after all, the government had to do something with them besides letting them fend for themselves. “At the time the orphan train movement began, it was estimated that 30,000 vagrant children were living on the streets of New York City.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train

Childless couples, by contrast, do not present any crying need of survival that government needs to address. I never heard of “Childless Couple Trains” because there weren’t thousands of vagrant couples living on the streets.

I would venture to say that 90% of our country’s population has committed sodomy so involving it in the same sex marriage debate is useless.

Based on this statement and your claim to be Catholic while supporting same-sex unions, I would wager you have been hanging around with the wrong crowd.

---

“Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. None of them have ever been held accountable.”

 

[buffalo]

Just because something is supported by natural law doesn’t make it a right, just states that that’s how nature works. If we only abided by natural law we would still be hunters and gatherers.

As for your second two statements, it’s not clear what you’re trying to ask by either of them. Could you clarify?

OK - now I know you do not know what natural law is.

 

[adrift]

Do you actually have a rebuttal to this? Resorting to sarcasm as their only rebuttal is something people do when they know they’re wrong. If you do have a rebuttal, we can discuss whether you think more than 10% of the population has ever looked at porn, masturbated, had oral sex to completion, or any other of the things that fall under sodomy. I don’t know why many people seem to think that only gay sex is sodomy.

Where is the proof of your statement and that it just wasn’t made up?

Definition of SODOMY: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal

Homosexual sex is always sodomy but anytime the above definition is engaged in no matter who does it, is sodomy. All the other things you list I reject as sodomy unless you can provide the proof that it is. By definition, it is not sodomy, wrong, sinful, but not sodomy.

 

[buffalo]

That is absolutely not the only reason adoption exists! Millions of couples who can’t have children turn to adoption simply because they want to have children and for no other reason.

I would venture to say that 90% of our country’s population has committed sodomy so involving it in the same sex marriage debate is useless.

Your [sic] was unnecessary because I didn’t mean “you are” in that case; that was an appropriate use of your. Sorry that your attempt to be snarky backfired.

Let us lower the bar even further.

 

[peduzzi89]

The government didn’t institute adoption because there were lots of childless couples running around who wanted children. The need was generated by children without parents; after all, the government had to do something with them besides letting them fend for themselves. “At the time the orphan train movement began, it was estimated that 30,000 vagrant children were living on the streets of New York City.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train

Childless couples, by contrast, do not present any crying need of survival that government needs to address. I never heard of “Childless Couple Trains” because there weren’t thousands of vagrant couples living on the streets.

Based on this statement and your claim to be Catholic while supporting same-sex unions, I would wager you have been hanging around with the wrong crowd.

---

“Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. None of them have ever been held accountable.”

Regardless of the original reason for instituting adoption, many people still do solely because they want children. More importantly, many many gay couples adopt children whose biological parents were abusive or failures as parents.

 

[adrift]

Your [sic] was unnecessary because I didn’t mean “you are” in that case; that was an appropriate use of your. Sorry that your attempt to be snarky backfired.

And your [sic] saying it’s just because they want to is just so useless and asinine!

Your
Your is the second person possessive adjective, used to describe something as belonging to you. Your is nearly always followed by a noun.

You’re

You’re is the contraction of “you are” and is often followed by the present participle (verb form ending in -ing).

The Bottom Line

The confusion between your and you’re occurs because the two words are pronounced pretty much the same.

The ironclad rule - **no exceptions **- is that if you’re able to replace the word with “you are,” you’re saying you’re. Otherwise, your only choice is your.

 

[sedonaman]

Regardless of the original reason for instituting adoption, many people still do solely because they want children. More importantly, many many gay couples adopt children whose biological parents were abusive or failures as parents.

So turn them over to people who are admitting to abusing each other and calling it “normal”?

 

[peduzzi89]

OK - now I know you do not know what natural law is.

There is more than one way to define natural law. What the catechism says is not the only viewpoint. Whether or not one believes that is a different matter, but just because every word I say doesn’t align with the catechism doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.

 

[buffalo]

There is more than one way to define natural law. What the catechism says is not the only viewpoint. Whether or not one believes that is a different matter, but just because every word I say doesn’t align with the catechism doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Yo have demonstrated you don’t.

However, give me the philosophical understanding of natural law so we have a basepoint.

 

[adrift]

There is more than one way to define natural law. What the catechism says is not the only viewpoint. Whether or not one believes that is a different matter, but just because every word I say doesn’t align with the catechism doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.

People here are using the Catholic definition because we are on a Catholic site.

 

[peduzzi89]

No they don’t. And your position is not a Catholic position. It opposes settled Church doctrine on this specific issue for society.

Yes they do…that’s not an opinion.

 

[sedonaman]

There is more than one way to define natural law. What the catechism says is not the only viewpoint. Whether or not one believes that is a different matter, but just because every word I say doesn’t align with the catechism doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.

The Catechism is distillation of the Catholic Church’s 2,000-year experience with human nature and behavior, but your generation comes along now and claims to know the real truth? Gimme a break.

---

To avoid appearing uncharitable, Christians must now not only tolerate evil, but they must fund it and validate it as well.

 

[buffalo]

The Catechism is a 2,000 year distillation of the Catholic Church’s knowledge about human behavior, but you come along now and claim to know the real truth? Gimme a break.

---

To avoid appearing uncharitable, Christians must now not only tolerate evil, but they must fund it and validate it as well.

without any backup no less.

 

[adrift]

Yes they do…that’s not an opinion.

Wow! I am trying to put this kindly but it sounds like a child’s answer “do too” . Of course it is only your opinion. You do not provide documentation of your statements what else could it be but an opinion.

 

[peduzzi89]

adrift:
(Your saying that it’s just because they want to)=subject of sentence

It’s your saying of that phrase that I’m modifying with is ____

If it were someone else’s saying of it, it would be “his saying”, or “my saying”