Squashed wedding announcement disappoints gay couple

[Corki]

Yeah, I already got my first MoveOn email too. I decided, however, not to remove myself. Sometimes it is interesting to see how the other side thinks and operates.

Sorry to quote myself but this is really an amusing exercise. Yesterday, they sent me an email inviting me to create my own Signon poll. Just think what fun some CAFers could have with that! Today, I got one that was trying to create panic because Romney was gaining in the polls. I am not sure how, but it’s related to the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

It’s cheap entertainment.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The petition has been removed.

 

[Corki]

The petition has been removed.

Both of them?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sorry to quote myself but this is really an amusing exercise. Yesterday, they sent me an email inviting me to create my own Signon poll. Just think what fun some CAFers could have with that! Today, I got one that was trying to create panic because Romney was gaining in the polls. I am not sure how, but it’s related to the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

It’s cheap entertainment.

WOW, you are so right.

I searched their petitions. They are all left-wing. Like

,Evangelical extremists and predatory pedophile priests and bishops are determined to tell women what each can do with their bodies, forbid the trial of clergy who sexually and emotionally molest children and side with Big Business, Industry and oil in polluting the planet and destroying a sustainable economy.

“Knowing that the Vatican is not likely to change its position even if people petition it for change, we offer instead this Letter of Solidarity with these faithful Catholic women religious, members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. These women need to know that Catholics and non-Catholics alike support them and recognize the theological truth and social significance of their witness. We do not want these women to believe the Vatican’s claim that they might lead the faithful astray. Their continued courage to witness Gospel values through their lives and work is essential in bringing life into this broken world.**”

Here’s a really good one:

Stop Catholic Priests from going too far during mass each weekend: Roe v Wade belongs in the courtroom, not on the Altar!

The last two weekends have been filled with hate and bigotry in Catholic Churches across the nation. Join this protest to tell your Catholic religious leaders that they have gone too far and the political agendas and social issues like Roe vs Wade do not belong in church. Let your parishioners decide their political views for themselves in the privacy of their own homes. Do not force liberals across this country to abandon our faith due to the conservative right wing political agenda to prevent the re-election of President Obama.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Both of them?

I only checked one. I’ll check the other one.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Both of them?

Ha Ha, no the other one is still there. No bigotry at sign.org

Archdiocese of Omaha: Don’t censor Lizz and Katie’s wedding news

By Laura Kenny (Contact)

To be delivered to: Archdiocese of Omaha
Encourage the archdiocese to support all love and let Lizz and Katie share their great news with the Marian High School alumni community.

Lizz and Katie joined their lives together on June 2, 2012. They were contacted by the Marian High School alumni newsletter about printing an announcement in the upcomming issue. It was all set go when the archdiocese blocked it. These are my best friends and I am asking you to contact the archdiocese and encourage them to allow Marian to print the announcement.

 

[qui_est_ce]

From their “about”

We’re nonprofit, and we can’t be bought. SignOn.org is entirely funded by small donations from our members. And unlike other petition sites, we never promote petitions because someone paid us to—we only promote the petitions that MoveOn members support. Our system works because we have a tiny staff and incredibly low overhead.

Bolding mine.

 

[Corki]

Ha Ha, no the other one is still there. No bigotry at sign.org

Ha Ha I thought so.

 

[Oldmetalhead]

Link now dead. Wanted to support Archbishop Lucas. Bummer.

 

[Kdruesedow]

Love is love, even if we disagree with it. I suppose there are a lot of things we all do that conflict with the bible. Although I do believe the church has the right not to publish it if it is against their fundamental belief, I hope this couple finds a church that is more loving and accepting of the happintess they have found.

 

[HappyAtHome]

The creator of the petition in support of the Archbishop Lucas decided to remove it once she discovered the link to MoveOn.org. She printed the names and delivered them to the Archdiocese to show the support gathered before removing the petition. Thank you to everyone who signed in support of Archbishop Lucas!

 

[sedonaman]

… I’m getting mightily tired of Catholics who seem to think that living a homosexual lifestyle is somehow a graver sin than any other. …

Then I guess you’re going to be tired for a very long time. You want us to think? Well, then tell militant homosexuals to stop telling us what to think. Homosexuals say it is unreasonable for us to expect they can be made hetero, but it’s completely reasonable for them to expect us to change what we think. :sad_yes:

 

[jilly4ski]

Love is love, even if we disagree with it. I suppose there are a lot of things we all do that conflict with the bible. Although I do believe the church has the right not to publish it if it is against their fundamental belief, I hope this couple finds a church that is more loving and accepting of the happintess they have found.

LOL, love does not a marriage make. Marriage requires lots of things that have nothing to do with love. In fact one even according to those who suppose same sex “marriages” is consent. Consent does not require love. Oh and it is a requirement that you are not married to someone else. Well what if you love more than one person. Age requirements, have nothing to do with love, etc. Why is it that requiring the participants to be a man and a woman any different than requiring there only be two parties to a marriage?

 

[Dale_M]

Ha Ha, no the other one is still there. No bigotry at sign.org

It was predictable. SignOn/MoveOn is an activist organization. The petition which everyone here was signing was against the values and goals of that organization.

 

[Kdruesedow]

LOL, love does not a marriage make. Marriage requires lots of things that have nothing to do with love. In fact one even according to those who suppose same sex “marriages” is consent. Consent does not require love. Oh and it is a requirement that you are not married to someone else. Well what if you love more than one person. Age requirements, have nothing to do with love, etc. Why is it that requiring the participants to be a man and a woman any different than requiring there only be two parties to a marriage?

Quite true, love does not a marriage make, but I suppose what I meant is that whether we agree with their marriage or not, in their hearts it is real and that will likely lead to acting like a married couple including the support, respect, trust, and yes- love- that make a marriage.
As to your second point, if, for some reason, the participants in marriage were required to be of the same sex, would you have the same argument? Would you be willing to go against your gut feeling and your heart and find someone of the “appropriate” gender to ‘love’ so that you could be married?

 

[jilly4ski]

Quite true, love does not a marriage make, but I suppose what I meant is that whether we agree with their marriage or not, in their hearts it is real and that will likely lead to acting like a married couple including the support, respect, trust, and yes- love- that make a marriage.
As to your second point, if, for some reason, the participants in marriage were required to be of the same sex, would you have the same argument? Would you be willing to go against your gut feeling and your heart and find someone of the “appropriate” gender to ‘love’ so that you could be married?

“Appropriate gender” has it basis in natural law and why the state “sponsors” marriage in the first place. The state’s interest in marriage is that it provides the basis for a stable society and is the ideal structure for begetting and raising the next generation of productive members of society. By definition a homosexual couple cannot have children. But that is the main function of a heterosexual couple (just look at evolution). Therefore your question is a red herring. But to answer your question, no, I would not, I would not get married at all.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Quite true, love does not a marriage make, but I suppose what I meant is that whether we agree with their marriage or not, in their hearts it is real and that will likely lead to acting like a married couple including the support, respect, trust, and yes- love- that make a marriage.

The State, which defines marriage, is uninterested in what’s “in the heart.” I’m quite sure that there were homosexual couples decades ago who privately called themselves married. Nothing prevents any two people from doing so. But public recognition and State support of such unions, is something else entirely. The State needs a reason/purpose to support such unions. Traditional marriage, despite divorce statistics, has been shown over time to be the most stable laboratory for the raising of the next generation, in a way which allows that generation to relate equally well to people of both sexes. That is what the State cares about. The State, being impersonal, cannot achieve that; it needs Traditional Marriage for the health and order of society, no matter how much supplemental help to families and individuals the State provides. And it is for that reason alone that the State provides benefits (incentives) for TM.

 

[peduzzi89]

The State, which defines marriage, is uninterested in what’s “in the heart.” I’m quite sure that there were homosexual couples decades ago who privately called themselves married. Nothing prevents any two people from doing so. But public recognition and State support of such unions, is something else entirely. The State needs a reason/purpose to support such unions. Traditional marriage, despite divorce statistics, has been shown over time to be the most stable laboratory for the raising of the next generation, in a way which allows that generation to relate equally well to people of both sexes. That is what the State cares about. The State, being impersonal, cannot achieve that; it needs Traditional Marriage for the health and order of society, no matter how much supplemental help to families and individuals the State provides. And it is for that reason alone that the State provides benefits (incentives) for TM.

You’re wrong about why the state took interest in marriage. Why would they give financial benefits to couples who have been doing what they are doing for thousands of years just to say yes, they agree that that’s the way to keep doing it. They didn’t. The reason they took an interest in marriage in the first place is because when two people come together to raise children and build a family, they statistically become more productive to society, not to support a moral standpoint that was uncontested at the time. The state wants people to keep doing that and so it affords special privileges to people who do. And now, we have other couples wanting to come together to do exactly the same thing only they are both of the same gender. Using that reasoning the state should in fact afford those rights to those couples as well. The biggest hole in the argument that same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry based on supporting the traditional family is that families with same sex parents and children already exist. Denying them marriage rights because you don’t think they should exist doesn’t actually stop them from existing. So in the process you’re actually denying protection to already existing families and children instead of preventing them from happening. Protect children, they say? Protect all those children who already have same-sex parents instead of ones that don’t even exist yet.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You’re wrong about why the state took interest in marriage. Why would they give financial benefits to couples who have been doing what they are doing for thousands of years just to say yes, they agree that that’s the way to keep doing it. They didn’t. The reason they took an interest in marriage in the first place is because when two people come together to raise children and build a family, they statistically become more productive to society, not to support a moral standpoint that was uncontested at the time. The state wants people to keep doing that and so it affords special privileges to people who do.

Wrong. The State has multiple reasons for supporting Traditional Marriage exclusively, but the main reason is the development of the next generation. The State cannot be a surrogate parent in the intimate way that a man and a woman can. It’s not about “morals,” per se, and what is apparently your narrow understanding of that word. Rather, it is the assimilation of the next generation into the boundaries and expectations of a civil society.

I’m sorry that you’re so bitter. There are no special benefits to society in same-sex coupling.

 

[peduzzi89]

Wrong. The State has multiple reasons for supporting Traditional Marriage exclusively, but the main reason is the development of the next generation. The State cannot be a surrogate parent in the intimate way that a man and a woman can. It’s not about “morals,” per se, and what is apparently your narrow understanding of that word. Rather, it is the assimilation of the next generation into the boundaries and expectations of a civil society.

I’m sorry that you’re so bitter. There are no special benefits to society in same-sex coupling.

Whether or not you like it, same-sex couples who have children ARE developing the next generation. Those households who hold jobs, own homes, pay taxes, and give everything they have in order to give their children every opportunity possible are a huge benefit to society. They benefit society in every single way that their married with children neighbors do. I personally know children of same sex couples who are, indeed, assimilated into the boundaries and expectations of a civil society.