Why "Marriage Equality" really means "DEATH TO MARRIAGE"

[CJECulver]

I doubt that this change will be immediate. It will be gradual, as perceptions of what marriage is and is for shift.

Enjoyed your blog post. In looking for things to disagree with you over (which is always more fun than agreeing, right?) this particular assertion raises its hand in eager volunteerism.

I don’t think the shift has been nearly so gradual; I think, in US society, it is already the dominant view of the secularist and pro-SSM faction, and is quickly spreading to the rest of society. We can see this in the rapid shift over the past ten years in attitudes toward SSM. Whereas a mere decade ago most Americans opposed it, today a clear majority supports it.

The lynchpin in this rapid shift in attitudes I think lies in the second point in your blog post: the triumph of absolute individualism, all wrapped up today in the one single word, “consent”. Having jettisoned all previous moral baggage, having tossed our moral compasses in the trash bin and turned our backs on our traditional moral principles, what we have left is the ultimate expression of individualistic triumph, as personified in your citation from Benedict XVI. John Donne has lost; every man IS an island, and what I do on my island is none of your damn business. I do not send for whom the bell tolls, not because it tolls for me, but because it’s of no consequence to me. Therein lies the Great Lie.

And so what we are left with is “consent”, and all of Western morality reconfigured around those seven little letters. From birth control to abortion, from assisted suicide to legalized prostitution, from SSM to polygamy, polyamory and (yes) ultimately incest, because I (or “we”) choose it, it must not be forbidden to me. Whether here in the US we argue from a right to privacy or from “equal access” it comes down to the tyranny of the individual. And the accepted maxim, “My rights stop at your nose”, as it were, frosts the cake. Each of us IS an island, and between your island and mine is this great wall which our respective rights must never cross. (Of course, the wall itself is a mirage, but never mind.)

Ironically, one of the few sexual alternatives (words such as “deviation”, “perversion” and, especially, “sin”, having been banished from refined society) that modern mores forbid is bestiality, generally on grounds that “animals cannot consent”. Of course, the attempt to impose the concept of free will on animals at all is ludicrous in the extreme, as if to assume the problem is not so much that animals can’t consent as it is that they are unable to communicate their consent to us. To make consent an issue at all viz. animals is akin to arguin that we shouldn’t abridge their freedom of religion.

I say “ironically” because, while modernity is in a struggle to legalize that which is currently illegal, the ironic fact is that, in the US, bestiality, which is so offensive to modern mores, is currently legal in most states. Once again, never mind. Reconfiguration is a work in progress.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The worldview behind “marriage equality” is one radically (that is, at the root) different from the traditional European and indeed Christian worldview. Namely, it rejects two basic ideas:
(i) that men and women are complementary and therefore bonding them by law and custom is beneficial to each other and society; and
(ii) that marriage is about children, begetting and raising them in a safe, healthy environment.

The truth is that those who support “same-sex marriage” are more our ideological opponents than moral ones. They don’t have immoral ideas about marriage; in fact, I believe they think marriage should be life-long with fidelity and love. However, the way they see the world is radically different from the way we do.

What’s the consequence?

Only something dramatic (like a sign from God) can often convince people to change worldviews. Ultimately, if this worldview gets the upperhand, Christians will be faced with three alternatives:
(i) shut up and cower away and hide;
(ii) submit; or
(iii) stand up for the faith and be persecuted.

This might be a good thing for the Church, for the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You are not looking at the entire picture, you are only looking at the final pages of a book with many chapters. Your second paragraph is exactly what the OP is talking about and you don’t see it. You are blaming straights for the failure of marriage but you are missing the fact that there is anti- life movement which started about 50 years ago and which is exactly the same movement that is right now pushing for gay marriage and is even using the same techniques and the same story.

Evidence that these are the “same exact movements”?

 

[CJECulver]

Evidence that these are the “same exact movements”?

This is an anecdotal datum, in no way proof of anything. However, I’m old enough to remember when there actually was a controversy over pre-marital sex. Arguments in favor generally started with, “As long as they love each other…”

 

[DexUK]

Would people please explain to me why and how my parents’ heterosexual sacramental marriage will be affected by the two homosexual women on the other side of town availing themselves of a civil marriage?

What effect will it have on my parents by granting them the same legal rights in respect of each other as my parents have? Where exactly is that going to cause ‘DEATH’ to my parents’ marriage? What difference is it going to have on the relationship my parents have with each other?

Why will ‘same sex marriage’ suddenly cause my parents’ marriage that has lasted for decades to suddenly disintegrate? Why is it going to prevent my brother from marrying his fiancé? What difference is it going to make to the legitimacy of my nephews and nieces should they be born?

Why is it any of my business what other people do with their lives and how they commit to each other?

The passing of same sex marriage rights into law is not going to make me suddenly wake up and want to marry the first man that crosses my path. It is not going to turn heterosexual people into homosexuals. It won’t make me wake up and decide that my heterosexual breakfast must henceforth be a homosexual breakfast, my heterosexual car must henceforth be a homosexual car, or that my heterosexual relationships with others must instantly be dismissed and replaced with homosexual ones.

Same sex marriage won’t be ‘catching’!

These arguments are a: ridiculous, b: don’t apply to us because our Church doesn’t and can’t create new sacraments of ‘gay marriage’ and c: just make us look bigoted and intolerant of people who are not part of our number anyway!

 

[fix]

Would people please explain to me why and how my parents’ heterosexual sacramental marriage will be affected by the two homosexual women on the other side of town availing themselves of a civil marriage?

What effect will it have on my parents by granting them the same legal rights in respect of each other as my parents have? Where exactly is that going to cause ‘DEATH’ to my parents’ marriage? What difference is it going to have on the relationship my parents have with each other?

Why will ‘same sex marriage’ suddenly cause my parents’ marriage that has lasted for decades to suddenly disintegrate? Why is it going to prevent my brother from marrying his fiancé? What difference is it going to make to the legitimacy of my nephews and nieces should they be born?

Why is it any of my business what other people do with their lives and how they commit to each other?

The passing of same sex marriage rights into law is not going to make me suddenly wake up and want to marry the first man that crosses my path. It is not going to turn heterosexual people into homosexuals. It won’t make me wake up and decide that my heterosexual breakfast must henceforth be a homosexual breakfast, my heterosexual car must henceforth be a homosexual car, or that my heterosexual relationships with others must instantly be dismissed and replaced with homosexual ones.

Same sex marriage won’t be ‘catching’!

These arguments are a: ridiculous, b: don’t apply to us because our Church doesn’t and can’t create new sacraments of ‘gay marriage’ and c: just make us look bigoted and intolerant of people who are not part of our number anyway!

The Church is interested in all of society. Marriage is not just a sacramental matter. It is about children and the erosion of the basic unit of civilization.

What is so troubling is that people, especially self identified Catholics, would not immediately see the serious problems with mis-defining marriage.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I have to agree with Dex, legalising same-sex marriage won’t mean “death” to marriage. Marriage has already been harmed by no-fault divorce laws and the hash of it heterosexual couples have already made. This is just another nail in the coffin.

However, legalising same-sex marriage does mean something quite significant. In a pluralist society like our own, the law is often the moral compass. By legalising same-sex marriage it means that any public argumentation against homosexuality or same-sex marriage is going to be perceived as either bigoted (at best) or a hate crime (at worst). What this legislation will mean is the further persecution of the Church.

 

[fix]

I have to agree with Dex, legalising same-sex marriage won’t mean “death” to marriage. Marriage has already been harmed by no-fault divorce laws and the hash of it heterosexual couples have already made. This is just another nail in the coffin.

I disagree. It will be the death. Yes, things have been bad for a long time, but to redefine what cannot be redefined will gravely harm children and society in a way as never before.

 

[DexUK]

I disagree. It will be the death. Yes, things have been bad for a long time, but to redefine what cannot be redefined will gravely harm children and society in a way as never before.

How on earth is it going to harm any child?

The granting of marriage rights to a minority of the population is not going to suddenly persuade the rest of the population that marriage is suddenly not for them.

It will have exactly zero effect on any heterosexual person. The only effect it will have is on the homosexual persons who hitherto were unable to make a distinct legally recognised commitment to each other. It will actively recommend the principle of commitment and monogamy to people for whom there had previously been no legal framework to live by if they wanted to live in partnership with another person of the same gender.

We may not like homosexual behaviour for morality based reasons, and that is entirely our right, but for those who do not have our beliefs, we have no right or business insisting that they live by our standards if the things they want to do will have no practical effect on us. And make no mistake about it, two women ‘marrying’ each other either in another part of town or even on the same street as me would not affect my marriage (if I were married), or my parents’ marriage, or my neighbours’ marriage or their children any more than if these same two women simply resided in the same house together un-‘married’ but without the benefits of the legal protections that legislation gives to married couples.

The ONLY people, other than homosexuals, who will be affected by same sex marriage are those who are a: related to these people and b: detest their actions and wish to impose their beliefs upon them or obstruct the actions of the partners either in this life, at the point of death or after death. The legal protections offered by extending the legislation regarding marriage to same-gender couples will then prevent massive injustices from taking place in respect of the wishes of surviving partners and deceased partners. Obstructing those rights is to metaphorically stab a grieving partner in the heart whenever they find that they’re banned from attending their own partner’s funerals as though the remains of the deceased were the property of the surviving but antagonistic blood relatives. Nobody could suggest that that would be the deceased’s wishes, but vicious and vengeful families are under no obligation at present to abide by them. That deep and abiding injustice cannot be allowed to continue.

SSM will not affect us. Why would it? We’re heterosexuals, are we not? Our rights remain unchanged and if we’re Catholics, we won’t be availing ourselves of SSM anyway. No SSM laws are proposed that apply to religious belief or to personal morals. Believe what you want to believe, but don’t expect that you have a monopoly on the enactment of legislation which applies to people who don’t share your beliefs, otherwise you act out of vengeance (which is supposed to be reserved to the Lord) and a lack of charity towards those whose views and life ambitions you don’t share.

 

[fix]

How on earth is it going to harm any child?

Are you serious?

The granting of marriage rights to a minority of the population is not going to suddenly persuade the rest of the population that marriage is suddenly not for them.

There are no “rights to grant” It is a complete fiction.

It will have exactly zero effect on any heterosexual person. The only effect it will have is on the homosexual persons who hitherto were unable to make a distinct legally recognised commitment to each other. It will actively recommend the principle of commitment and monogamy to people for whom there had previously been no legal framework to live by if they wanted to live in partnership with another person of the same gender.

It will affirm what is objectively wrong. It is gravely unjust and contrary to reason and the moral law.

We may not like homosexual behaviour for morality based reasons, and that is entirely our right, but for those who do not have our beliefs, we have no right or business insisting that they live by our standards if the things they want to do will have no practical effect on us.

This is not only contrary to the faith but it is contrary to reason.

And make no mistake about it, two women ‘marrying’ each other either in another part of town or even on the same street as me would not affect my marriage (if I were married), or my parents’ marriage, or my neighbours’ marriage or their children any more than if these same two women simply resided in the same house together un-‘married’ but without the benefits of the legal protections that legislation gives to married couples.

This s a reductionist understanding. It will affect children. It will affect any children such groupings will have custody of and it will affect all other children in many ways including any indoctrination from society adopting what is unnatural.

The ONLY people, other than homosexuals, who will be affected by same sex marriage are those who are a: related to these people and b: detest their actions and wish to impose their beliefs upon them or obstruct the actions of the partners either in this life, at the point of death or after death. The legal protections offered by extending the legislation regarding marriage to same-gender couples will then prevent massive injustices from taking place in respect of the wishes of surviving partners and deceased partners. Obstructing those rights is to metaphorically stab a grieving partner in the heart whenever they find that they’re banned from attending their own partner’s funerals as though the remains of the deceased were the property of the surviving but antagonistic blood relatives. Nobody could suggest that that would be the deceased’s wishes, but vicious and vengeful families are under no obligation at present to abide by them. That deep and abiding injustice cannot be allowed to continue.

This is emotionalist propaganda. Any perceived offense is never greater than the moral truth of the matter.

SSM will not affect us. Why would it? We’re heterosexuals, are we not? Our rights remain unchanged and if we’re Catholics, we won’t be availing ourselves of SSM anyway. No SSM laws are proposed that apply to religious belief or to personal morals. Believe what you want to believe, but don’t expect that you have a monopoly on the enactment of legislation which applies to people who don’t share your beliefs, otherwise you act out of vengeance (which is supposed to be reserved to the Lord) and a lack of charity towards those whose views and life ambitions you don’t share.

How can any Catholic can hold such an immoral position and claim fidelity to the Church?

You may want to see this:

And the archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vigneron, told the Free Press Sunday that Catholics who receive Communion while advocating gay marriage would “logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.”

 

[CopticChristian]

How on earth is it going to harm any child?

The granting of marriage rights to a minority of the population is not going to suddenly persuade the rest of the population that marriage is suddenly not for them.

It will have exactly zero effect on any heterosexual person. The only effect it will have is on the homosexual persons who hitherto were unable to make a distinct legally recognised commitment to each other. It will actively recommend the principle of commitment and monogamy to people for whom there had previously been no legal framework to live by if they wanted to live in partnership with another person of the same gender.

We may not like homosexual behaviour for morality based reasons, and that is entirely our right, but for those who do not have our beliefs, we have no right or business insisting that they live by our standards if the things they want to do will have no practical effect on us. And make no mistake about it, two women ‘marrying’ each other either in another part of town or even on the same street as me would not affect my marriage (if I were married), or my parents’ marriage, or my neighbours’ marriage or their children any more than if these same two women simply resided in the same house together un-‘married’ but without the benefits of the legal protections that legislation gives to married couples.

The ONLY people, other than homosexuals, who will be affected by same sex marriage are those who are a: related to these people and b: detest their actions and wish to impose their beliefs upon them or obstruct the actions of the partners either in this life, at the point of death or after death. The legal protections offered by extending the legislation regarding marriage to same-gender couples will then prevent massive injustices from taking place in respect of the wishes of surviving partners and deceased partners. Obstructing those rights is to metaphorically stab a grieving partner in the heart whenever they find that they’re banned from attending their own partner’s funerals as though the remains of the deceased were the property of the surviving but antagonistic blood relatives. Nobody could suggest that that would be the deceased’s wishes, but vicious and vengeful families are under no obligation at present to abide by them. That deep and abiding injustice cannot be allowed to continue.

SSM will not affect us. Why would it? We’re heterosexuals, are we not? Our rights remain unchanged and if we’re Catholics, we won’t be availing ourselves of SSM anyway. No SSM laws are proposed that apply to religious belief or to personal morals. Believe what you want to believe, but don’t expect that you have a monopoly on the enactment of legislation which applies to people who don’t share your beliefs, otherwise you act out of vengeance (which is supposed to be reserved to the Lord) and a lack of charity towards those whose views and life ambitions you don’t share.

Dex,

Support for this notion does not reflect the teachings of the Church or Catholic thought. It undermines the reality that SSM is not really marriage and to believe that it affects no one and to propogate that notion is contrary to reason.

 

[fix]

Dex,

Support for this notion does not reflect the teachings of the Church or Catholic thought. It undermines the reality that SSM is not really marriage and to believe that it affects no one and to propogate that notion is contrary to reason.

It is a very serious matter to promote such unjust measures. I cannot fathom how anyone would think endorsing such unjust laws would be reasonable and consistent with the eternal moral law. It is a true scandal.

 

[DexUK]

Are you serious?

There are no “rights to grant” It is a complete fiction.

It will affirm what is objectively wrong. It is gravely unjust and contrary to reason and the moral law.

This is not only contrary to the faith but it is contrary to reason.

This s a reductionist understanding. It will affect children. It will affect any children such groupings will have custody of and it will affect all other children in many ways including any indoctrination from society adopting what is unnatural.

This is emotionalist propaganda. Any perceived offense is never greater than the moral truth of the matter.

How can any Catholic can hold such an immoral position and claim fidelity to the Church?

Yes, I’m serious.

Legal rights are granted by legislation. Not that it would happen, but (to dream up a silly example) a law could enact the right of all blue eyed men to stand on one foot on the top of a flag pole and deny that right to brown eyed men. (Yes, I know there are in some jurisdictions Constitutions that moderate rights in law, but the point is clear). It is not fiction for that reason. Legal rights are man-made concepts and may be modified, removed or added to at any time. It has nothing to do with ‘fiction’.

It may affirm what Catholics believe to be objectively wrong. It is a matter of conscience. But not everybody is a Catholic and not everyone should be required by law to live by our ideals if they don’t want to.

You may think it’s contrary to reason, but others disagree with your reasoning. Other religions believe in reincarnation or worship multiple deities or require their women to be covered head to toe. Are we to legislate against them in a supposedly ‘free’ society?

If you think that two homosexual people are capable of having children together then you have a peculiar idea of biology. Homosexual partners being permitted to adopt is a different matter from homosexual partners being permitted to marry - and marriage of any couple, regardless of gender, does not give any rights to that couple to adopt.

Too right it’s an emotional argument. I get very emotional when I observe people who only want to attend the funeral of someone they loved (and who loved them) but are prevented from doing so because they are hated by the deceased’s family. That is not right. There can be no argument about that.

I can retain fidelity to the Church because I don’t want to be homosexually married. I don’t need it for myself and I observe the Church’s teachings on chastity and personal morality because I am a Catholic. But those who are not Catholic are not required to observe the Church’s teachings and I believe, without any shadow of a doubt, that we have no business intruding into the private lives of other people. Indeed, our Holy Father is on record as saying that same thing. I’m quite happy to agree with the Pope on this matter.

Oh, and I don’t answer to the his Grace, the Archbishop of Detroit. And, in any case, I’m not advocating that Catholics attempt to marry other Catholics of the same gender.

 

[CopticChristian]

It is a very serious matter to promote such unjust measures. I cannot fathom how anyone would think endorsing such unjust laws would be reasonable and consistent with the eternal moral law. It is a true scandal.

Fix,

There are many that come to CAF with monikors Catholic, Anglican, Byzantine, Christian that promote one of two points of view…

Essentialism=Born that Way
Social Constructionism=Culture defined sexuality

They come from the USA, Canada, the UK, Singapore and elsewhere…

I find them offering support for what would be considered spirituality, morality, and other what would be expected Christian points of view…if you see postings in other forums you would think them Orthodox in their points of view, with the exception of Homosexuality…

Here you see disruptive thoughts to undermine Catholic Teaching and as you and others commence to recognize this…it will hopefully become clear that CAF has from within some that are doing here what is being done to society in general, disruption from within…

It is for this reason that you and others like you should commence to recognize this and aid in providing insight…and why threads like this exist…

No Silence for This Lamb
The Reformation of Secular Homosexual Thinking
Wrongly Dividing the Body of Christ

that I started and ask that you and others like you aid to perpetuate so that as these issues surface there can be ready reference to counter these disruptive points of view.

 

[fix]

This is slogan, “Marriage Equality,” is the Great Lie, the great misrepresentation, hiding the actual feelings of same-sex couples for the very thing which they pretend now to respect.

It is a lie. Words have meanings. Words should convey reality. Claiming unequal items are equal is not in accord with reality.

 

[fix]

Fix,

There are many that come to CAF with monikors Catholic, Anglican, Byzantine, Christian that promote one of two points of view…

Essentialism=Born that Way
Social Constructionism=Culture defined sexuality

They come from the USA, Canada, the UK, Singapore and elsewhere…

I find them offering support for what would be considered spirituality, morality, and other what would be expected Christian points of view…if you see postings in other forums you would think them Orthodox in their points of view, with the exception of Homosexuality…

Here you see disruptive thoughts to undermine Catholic Teaching and as you and others commence to recognize this…it will hopefully become clear that CAF has from within some that are doing here what is being done to society in general, disruption from within…

It is for this reason that you and others like you should commence to recognize this and aid in providing insight…and why threads like this exist…

No Silence for This Lamb
The Reformation of Secular Homosexual Thinking
Wrongly Dividing the Body of Christ

that I started and ask that you and others like you aid to perpetuate so that as these issues surface there can be ready reference to counter these disruptive points of view.

Yes, and in a way it all falls under the banner of the dictatorship of relativism. Who is our God?

 

[fix]

Yes, I’m serious.

Legal rights are granted by legislation. Not that it would happen, but (to dream up a silly example) a law could enact the right of all blue eyed men to stand on one foot on the top of a flag pole and deny that right to brown eyed men. (Yes, I know there are in some jurisdictions Constitutions that moderate rights in law, but the point is clear). It is not fiction for that reason. Legal rights are man-made concepts and may be modified, removed or added to at any time. It has nothing to do with ‘fiction’.

No, the law must have a basis in reality and it must be just. No unjust law is any true law.

It may affirm what Catholics believe to be objectively wrong. It is a matter of conscience. But not everybody is a Catholic and not everyone should be required by law to live by our ideals if they don’t want to.

It is not a mere sectarian belief. It is a moral truth. It is known from reason.

You may think it’s contrary to reason, but others disagree with your reasoning. Other religions believe in reincarnation or worship multiple deities or require their women to be covered head to toe. Are we to legislate against them in a supposedly ‘free’ society?

First, it is not purely a religious issue. It is an issue of right reason. Secondly, not all religions have the same relationship with democracy. Christianity works very well with our government and has for centuries. Once you excise moral truth from the law you have tyranny and that is where you would have us go.

If you think that two homosexual people are capable of having children together then you have a peculiar idea of biology. Homosexual partners being permitted to adopt is a different matter from homosexual partners being permitted to marry - and marriage of any couple, regardless of gender, does not give any rights to that couple to adopt.

Homosexual “unions” adopt now. That is an affect of children. Why all the distraction arguments?

Too right it’s an emotional argument. I get very emotional when I observe people who only want to attend the funeral of someone they loved (and who loved them) but are prevented from doing so because they are hated by the deceased’s family. That is not right. There can be no argument about that.

That has nothing to do with marriage.

I can retain fidelity to the Church because I don’t want to be homosexually married. I don’t need it for myself and I observe the Church’s teachings on chastity and personal morality because I am a Catholic. But those who are not Catholic are not required to observe the Church’s teachings and I believe, without any shadow of a doubt, that we have no business intruding into the private lives of other people. Indeed, our Holy Father is on record as saying that same thing. I’m quite happy to agree with the Pope on this matter.

You are quite wrong. The Church has said, explicitly, you are obligated to be against homosexual marriage. The Holy Father is against homosexual marriage laws.

Oh, and I don’t answer to the his Grace, the Archbishop of Detroit. And, in any case, I’m not advocating that Catholics attempt to marry other Catholics of the same gender.

That is obfuscation.

 

[LightFromLight]

Well, some same-sex couples might want marriage for real rather than simply to undermine the institution (and I don’t really understand why they’d want to do that, anyway). I think attitudes have changed. As attitudes have changed towards marriage, and homosexuals start to claim that they actually want married relationships, lots of younger homosexuals actually seem to genuinely want it.

Obviously, though that doesn’t necessarily make homosexual marriage right in anyway, and I don’t believe homosexual marriage would help marriage at all, considering how damaged it seems to be already, but I’m not convinced homosexuals are as sly as they’re being portrayed.

I agree with this, too many Christian are show a lack of respect towards gay people in the way the portray them.

I think the arguments for marriage should rest purely on logic. Gay relationships aren’t fruitful and are completely different from the relationship between man and wife. Afterall the worst inequality is to try make unequal things equal.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, the law must have a basis in reality and it must be just. No unjust law is any true law.

It is not a mere sectarian belief. It is a moral truth. It is known from reason.

First, it is not purely a religious issue. It is an issue of right reason. Secondly, not all religions have the same relationship with democracy. Christianity works very well with our government and has for centuries. Once you excise moral truth from the law you have tyranny and that is where you would have us go.

Homosexual “unions” adopt now. That is an affect of children. Why all the distraction arguments?

That has nothing to do with marriage.

You are quite wrong. The Church has said, explicitly, you are obligated to be against homosexual marriage. The Holy Father is against homosexual marriage laws.

That is obfuscation.

Fix,

For the lurkers it is important to emphasize your points.

It is a moral truth. It is known from reason. It is an issue of right reason. . Once you excise moral truth from the law you have tyranny and that is where you would have us go.
Homosexual “unions” adopt now and that is an affect of children. Many do argue to distract to promote their point of view and sometimes it indicates confusion in the mind of those that argure by distraction, as they too are distracted and need correction. Many of those that promote a homosexual point of view argue with arguments that have nothing to do with marriage. It is important to correct those that error and aid those that need understanding to understand that the Church has said, explicitly, you are obligated to be against homosexual marriage. The Holy Father is against homosexual marriage laws.

It is important to point out obfuscation as obfuscation is either by intent or unattended and may indicated that turmoil exists in the minds of those that agure with obfuscation. Continued correction with a return of obfuscation may indicate an agenda.

 

[fix]

Fix,

For the lurkers it is important to emphasize your points.

It is a moral truth. It is known from reason. It is an issue of right reason. . Once you excise moral truth from the law you have tyranny and that is where you would have us go.
Homosexual “unions” adopt now and that is an affect of children. Many do argue to distract to promote their point of view and sometimes it indicates confusion in the mind of those that argure by distraction, as they too are distracted and need correction. Many of those that promote a homosexual point of view argue with arguments that have nothing to do with marriage. It is important to correct those that error and aid those that need understanding to understand that the Church has said, explicitly, you are obligated to be against homosexual marriage. The Holy Father is against homosexual marriage laws.

It is important to point out obfuscation as obfuscation is either by intent or unattended and may indicated that turmoil exists in the minds of those that agure with obfuscation. Continued correction with a return of obfuscation may indicate an agenda.

You are quite right and my intention is not to speak to personal motivations. I intend to speak to erroneous argumentation. Whatever the reason people make bad arguments those arguments should be countered so that others are not led astray.