It’s a small sample in one city. I don’t know if it is different in other areas. I know that my friends that live/lived in NYC lived very different lives then I did as single people. I wouldn’t say that their lives represented mine. The study could represent the culture of the San Francisco Homosexual community rather than Homosexuals in general.
The same way of how Protestantism started with Catholics who left the Church, and now many are born into Protestant families. Because they grew up in a Protestant family, the grow up not knowing about Catholicism and not having the advantage of growing up with the sacraments. And about what I was saying about the Holy Eucharist. I recommend looking further into the Catholic Church’s teaching on how human marriage of one man and one woman is a sign of the Heavenly Wedding Feast between Christ and His Bride, the Church. And we Catholics participate in this Wedding Feast when we go up to receive Holy Communion. In other words, through Baptism and Holy Communion, all who are members of the Catholic Church are married in a larger way to God.I still don’t get what you are saying - How does someone not believing in the Real Presence make me not believe in the Real Presence?
Nothing is an accident. Although I didn’t intend it
It doesn’t make the Real Presence any less Real if less people are participating in it. It still has the same value. It doesn’t become more Real if the Church is empty or full. The Church hasn’t gone anywhere. It is there if they want it.The same way of how Protestantism started with Catholics who left the Church, and now many are born into Protestant families. Because they grew up in a Protestant family, the grow up not knowing about Catholicism and not having the advantage of growing up with the sacraments. And about what I was saying about the Holy Eucharist. I recommend looking further into the Catholic Church’s teaching on how human marriage is a mere shadow of the Heavenly Wedding Feast between Christ and His Bride, the Church.
You asked how something can be devalued. If someone doesn’t believe in the Real Presence they aren’t going to treat it with respect. If someone doesn’t believe that marriage is important they won’t treat it with respect. And the government’s redefining of it devalues it by making it seem to people like a meaningless human construct.
It’s not a meaningless construct to people that believe in the Sacrament.You asked how something can be devalued. If someone doesn’t believe in the Real Presence they aren’t going to treat it with respect. If someone doesn’t believe that marriage is important they won’t treat it with respect. And the government’s redefining of it devalues it by making it seem to people like a meaningless human construct.
If they believe they treat it with respect if they don’t they don’t. You can’t legislate people into believing. You can’t make Protestants believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist by outlawing all other kinds except Catholic Communion.Then why are the “gay” activists trying so hard to change what the law says is marriage? Why were they not content to leave the definition of marriage alone and be satisfied with calling it a “civil union” which meant having all the same government benefits?
While it wasn’t historically involved in the granting of marriage, government has historically recognized the institution.
I think it has to do with CIvil Union being a state construct and civil marriage a federal recognized one.Then why are the “gay” activists trying so hard to change what the law says is marriage? Why were they not content to leave the definition of marriage alone and be satisfied with calling it a “civil union” which meant having all the same government benefits?
Traditional marriage predates religion and as well as any government institution. A good government will have laws that make sense. If the government changes the definition of marriage for homosexuals in order to be consistent they can’t say no to any other type of sexually perverted behavior. And marriage in the eyes of most will seem like a joke.
Then why didn’t they just fight to have a “civil union” be federally recognized?
No. Marriage is already being treated by straight people (look at Hollywood) as a joke. So what leverage do straight people have in keeping traditional marriage?Traditional marriage predates religion and as well as any government institution. A good government will have laws that make sense. If the government changes the definition of marriage for homosexuals in order to be consistent they can’t say no to any other type of sexually perverted behavior. And marriage in the eyes of most will seem like a joke. [emphasis added]
Consensual polygamy has no victim, yet it is a crime.
So how does the government going along with the joke help marriage? What’s not a joke is all the poor kids born out of wedlock because of people taking marriage as a joke.
It’s a crime so far. But I would bet a million dollars (if I had it) that polygamy and incest are going to next up at bat since they have a stronger argument than the homosexuals had. The only argument that homosexuals are using is an emotional one. But the polygamists and the ones who want incest to be recognized by the state have a historical precedent. And the argument that people in incestuous relationships might have a deformed baby won’t hold up in the courts since the government fully expects that every unwanted baby will be aborted.
It might be ephebephilia, you never know.It’s a crime so far. But I would bet a million dollars (if I had it) that polygamy and incest are going to next up at bat since they have a stronger argument than the homosexuals had.
I agree with you on this 100%. And with regard to incest and children with deformities there are already a couple of “scientific” studies saying that incestuos relationships don’t have any effect on offspring and that their children are normal. Now these studies came out directed to children of sperm donors when the ridiculously high numbers of offspring of one sperm donor living in a close area started to come out with the purpose of telling people the fears that half sibling unknowingly getting married and have children are nothing but myths, however I wouldn’t be surprised if the groups in favor of incest will start bringing those studies out.It’s a crime so far. But I would bet a million dollars (if I had it) that polygamy and incest are going to next up at bat since they have a stronger argument than the homosexuals had. The only argument that homosexuals are using is an emotional one. But the polygamists and the ones who want incest to be recognized by the state have a historical precedent. And the argument that people in incestuous relationships might have a deformed baby won’t hold up in the courts since the government fully expects that every unwanted baby will be aborted.
The original question is answered by the Catechism and has been referenced several times in this thread. The civil order has an obligation to recognize marriage, because marriages make families and families are the indispensable building blocks of society. The homosexual lobby has no right to demand that their sexual relationships be recognized as equivalent to marriage because they are not marriage.
What I bolded above is actually not a new teaching in liberalism. I took a college class called “Human Sexuality” in 1986, and I remember that it made that claim about incest in the college textbook way back then. It’s strange how for decades liberal college professors have been teaching that it’s a myth that birth defects are caused by incest, and now “gay marriage” apologists are singing a different tune about it for the “gay marriage” debate because they want to deny the fact that incest will be next. It’s a kind of feigned moral indignation. I think their memory will suddenly be refreshed once they’re sure that they’ve won the battle on so-called “gay marriage”. Once that happens, I am 100% certain that the same ones who argued for “gay marriage” will be defending incest and polygamy with the same zeal. Maybe the fact that these supposedly new studies are coming out means that they are confident that the battle for “gay marriage” is already in the bag and want to start setting up for their next battle for redefining marriage again but this time to include incest and polygamy.