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

[DexUK]

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

What you determine as unjust is not necessarily someone else’s determination. We live in a democracy.

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

‘Moral’ truths come from religious conviction. It is from that conviction that you draw your reasoning. Without a religion anywhere in the world, nobody would care. And clearly, many people who don’t have our religion don’t care… The Pope himself has accepted - and taught - that we shouldn’t be imposing our beliefs on people who don’t share them.

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.

So democratic exercise of law and legislation is tyranny now? That’s a very odd definition of tyranny. We Catholics don’t have to avail ourselves of legal rights to do things if we don’t want to.

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

So if homosexual partners already adopt, then what difference is homosexual ‘marriage’ going to make? Nothing worse is happening than is happening already, but some injustices towards homosexual people, such as those that I identified, are being corrected.

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.

The Church has said we are against it, indeed. But others are not members of the Church and therefore not bound by our dogmas or, indeed, our notions of mortal sin. As a Catholic I am bound by my Catholicism not to ‘marry’ a person of the same gender as myself. And I have no desire to do so. But I have no right to seek to stop someone who is not a Catholic from availing themselves of that opportunity if it’s presented to them. In essence, I officially abstain from having an opinion on their decision.

That is obfuscation.

No. It’s my position - I am bound by the authority of my local Ordinary but I am also bound by my conscience. Under that conscience, and within the rules of the Church, I am able to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” - i.e. the authority of the secular State to legislate for whatever it wants to legislate for. I won’t be availing myself of it as a Catholic, but I’m charitable enough to recognise that for other people the benefits of a secular law on the matter provide a remedy for significant injustices. But it is a secular decision, not a religious one.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

What you determine as unjust is not necessarily someone else’s determination. We live in a democracy.

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

‘Moral’ truths come from religious conviction. It is from that conviction that you draw your reasoning. Without a religion anywhere in the world, nobody would care. And clearly, many people who don’t have our religion don’t care… The Pope himself has accepted - and taught - that we shouldn’t be imposing our beliefs on people who don’t share them.

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.

So democratic exercise of law and legislation is tyranny now? That’s a very odd definition of tyranny. We Catholics don’t have to avail ourselves of legal rights to do things if we don’t want to.

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

So if homosexual partners already adopt, then what difference is homosexual ‘marriage’ going to make? Nothing worse is happening than is happening already, but some injustices towards homosexual people, such as those that I identified, are being corrected.

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.

The Church has said we are against it, indeed. But others are not members of the Church and therefore not bound by our dogmas or, indeed, our notions of mortal sin. As a Catholic I am bound by my Catholicism not to ‘marry’ a person of the same gender as myself. And I have no desire to do so. But I have no right to seek to stop someone who is not a Catholic from availing themselves of that opportunity if it’s presented to them. In essence, I officially abstain from having an opinion on their decision.

That is obfuscation.

No. It’s my position - I am bound by the authority of my local Ordinary but I am also bound by my conscience. Under that conscience, and within the rules of the Church, I am able to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” - i.e. the authority of the secular State to legislate for whatever it wants to legislate for. I won’t be availing myself of it as a Catholic, but I’m charitable enough to recognise that for other people the benefits of a secular law on the matter provide a remedy for significant injustices. But it is a secular decision, not a religious one.

and go and make disciples of all Nations…

The question is of course what is it you disciple?

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

Yes,

and as we go and make disciples of all Nations the question arises…to what are we disciplining those we disciple to???

 

[fix]

Yes,

and as we go and make disciples of all Nations the question arises…to what are we disciplining those we disciple to???

Apparently for some it is to moral relativism.

 

[fix]

What you determine as unjust is not necessarily someone else’s determination. We live in a democracy.

Yes, and so? A democracy must be infused with moral truth. That some want slaves or abortion is no evidence such things ought to be lawful.

‘Moral’ truths come from religious conviction. It is from that conviction that you draw your reasoning. Without a religion anywhere in the world, nobody would care. And clearly, many people who don’t have our religion don’t care… The Pope himself has accepted - and taught - that we shouldn’t be imposing our beliefs on people who don’t share them.

Moral truth exists whether you accept it or not. It is objective and eternal. The Pope does not support laws favoring homosexual unions. Please show us proof of your assertion.

So democratic exercise of law and legislation is tyranny now? That’s a very odd definition of tyranny. We Catholics don’t have to avail ourselves of legal rights to do things if we don’t want to.

You may want to review what the Popes teach:

Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.

So if homosexual partners already adopt, then what difference is homosexual ‘marriage’ going to make? Nothing worse is happening than is happening already, but some injustices towards homosexual people, such as those that I identified, are being corrected.

They should not be adopting “married” or not. That is the point.

The Church has said we are against it, indeed. But others are not members of the Church and therefore not bound by our dogmas or, indeed, our notions of mortal sin. As a Catholic I am bound by my Catholicism not to ‘marry’ a person of the same gender as myself. And I have no desire to do so. But I have no right to seek to stop someone who is not a Catholic from availing themselves of that opportunity if it’s presented to them. In essence, I officially abstain from having an opinion on their decision.

You are bound to oppose these unjust laws. That applies to all not just to members of the Church:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

No. It’s my position - I am bound by the authority of my local Ordinary but I am also bound by my conscience. Under that conscience, and within the rules of the Church, I am able to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” - i.e. the authority of the secular State to legislate for whatever it wants to legislate for. I won’t be availing myself of it as a Catholic, but I’m charitable enough to recognise that for other people the benefits of a secular law on the matter provide a remedy for significant injustices. But it is a secular decision, not a religious one.

That is not the Catholic Church’s position. We are all bound by the moral law and Church authority. You cannot be dispensed from it.

 

[DexUK]

Yes, and so? A democracy must be infused with moral truth. That some want slaves or abortion is no evidence such things ought to be lawful.

Moral truth exists whether you accept it or not. It is objective and eternal. The Pope does not support laws favoring homosexual unions. Please show us proof of your assertion.

You may want to review what the Popes teach:

They should not be adopting “married” or not. That is the point.

You are bound to oppose these unjust laws. That applies to all not just to members of the Church:

That is not the Catholic Church’s position. We are all bound by the moral law and Church authority. You cannot be dispensed from it.

That’s just your opinion. And, indeed, it isn’t shared by the majority of Catholics in the USA, according to polls.

I take my lead from the Pope. In his own words: (translated into English) *“There are already many same-sex couples who live together who deserve a legal solution to questions of pension, inheritance, etc., that might fit into a new legal model”. *Yes, the Pope doesn’t want actual Marriage, but there’s no reason why a legal model shouldn’t exist that gives the same rights. I’m already on record on this site as saying that I’d be happier if the State got out of the ‘marriage business’ altogether and left the sacrament of marriage to churches and the legal protections of partnership to legislation without having the State act as defacto ministers at ‘weddings’ where religions are not involved. But the long and the short of it is, no matter what it’s called, if the Pope can see a solution where same-sex couples are given analogous legal rights such that they match the rights between a woman and a man who are contracted in matrimony (at least as relates to what can be possible with a same gender partnership) then if it’s good enough for the Pope, it’s good enough for me.

Note also that, unless I forget to to do so, in relation to same sex legal partnership arrangements I refer to them as ‘marriage’ not marriage - i.e. I’m using a qualified word with quotes around it, since there isn’t really another analogous word to use.

 

[markeverett49]

Google ‘gay forums’ and do a search for ‘breeder’ and you’ll find long discussions of the subject by people who publicly identify as homosexual persons. Some think it is derogatory while others say it was MEANT to be (—straights are like cattle and breed, while 'gay’s are more evolved) but it didn’t really catch on. Some say it is as bad as a non-homosexual person referring to a homosexual person as “queer” while others say it really isn’t because homosexual persons have never had societal power so that if calling a ‘straight’ person “breeder” (-or a ‘straight’ woman a ‘fish’) is offensive, heterosexuals really have only themselves to blame. Others are horrified by this and think it is as bad as the “N” word. Opinions vary, even among educated homosexual persons. (Curiously, when I was in seminary, the guys most likely to refer to a woman as the “C” word were all homosexual. I never got that, and some guys who were homosexual themselves didn’t get it other, while others just thought it was funny. It takes all kinds…)

 

[marymary1975]

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.

Deux, give to this ten more years of: kids as small as kindergarden and first grade being indoctrinated in public schools about homosexuality and told that is natural and good for you (which they are doing already), studies published by experts stating that lesbian women are superior parents and that children raised in a homosexual household are way more emotionally stable and are more successful than children raised by heterosexuals (I’ve read at least five so far that are all across the media), experts saying that children are better without fathers, the media publishing all over the place articles from experts and universities saying that homosexual relations are more stable than heterosexual relations, that women are happier partner with other women, that men don’t pull their weight in the family, that married women are unhappy and frustrated, that even when both man and woman work outside the home the woman is the one that does everything, that what women need is a wife, that lesbian women are more succesful, that divorced women who eventually have become lesbians have a healthier and happier life; to all that add radical feminism promoting that men are a pain and is better for women to not marry, the hook up culture which only grows and grows more.everyday, numbers raising more and more every year of women becoming single mothers by choice through sperm donors because according to them men haven’t catch up with women and are no good to form a family, more books written by doctors saying that lesbians and single mother by choice are the two ideal scenarios to raise children… give to all that just ten more years and you are going to see how SSM is going to affect you.

I have seen already several threats in this form about people complaining about difficulties regarding finding a person worth of marrying, and that is now, imagine now in ten years when thanks to the same sex marriage movement 90% of women are going to be convinced that men are the worst thing that can happen to women and they are only good for hook ups and is better to raise your kid with another children. Then you are going to see how it can affect you.

 

[DexUK]

Deux, give to this ten more years of: kids as small as kindergarden and first grade being indoctrinated in public schools about homosexuality and told that is natural and good for you (which they are doing already), studies published by experts stating that lesbian women are superior parents and that children raised in a homosexual household are way more emotionally stable and are more successful than children raised by heterosexuals (I’ve read at least five so far that are all across the media), experts saying that children are better without fathers, the media publishing all over the place articles from experts and universities saying that homosexual relations are more stable than heterosexual relations, that women are happier partner with other women, that men don’t pull their weight in the family, that married women are unhappy and frustrated, that even when both man and woman work outside the home the woman is the one that does everything, that what women need is a wife, that lesbian women are more succesful, that divorced women who eventually have become lesbians have a healthier and happier lofe; to all that add radical feminism promoting that men are **** and is better for women to not marry, the hook up culture growing, numbers raising more and more every yearof women becoming single mothers by choice through sperm donors because according to them men haven’t catch up with women and are no good to form a family, more books written by doctors saying that lesbians and single mother by choice are the two ideal scenarios to raise children… give to all that just ten more years and you are going to see how SSM is going to affect you.

I have seen already several threats in this form about people complaining about difficulties regarding being unable to find a marriagle women and that is now, imagine now in ten years when thanks to the same sex marriage movement 90% of women are going to be convinced that men are ****, they are only good for hook ups and is better to raise your kid with another children. Then you are going to see how it can affect you.

So basically, you believe that people will decide they are homosexual as a result of some sort of contagion in society.

Honestly? Really? Do you really think that people will, as a result of SSM, decide that they aren’t going to be heterosexuals any more? Or that children brought up in an environment with two same gender guardians are automatically going to dismiss any notion of ever having a heterosexual relationship?

Do you really think that people are THAT weak willed?

Now while I don’t approve of homosexual couples using the adoption of children as some sort of ‘fashion statement’, despite that those that have done so have not ended up with homosexual children. All they’ve ended up with is non-judgemental children. And, I suppose, you would say that being non-judgemental about homosexual people is bad thing…

Personally I prefer not to judge other people for their lives and honest desires about how they wish to behave, in particular as it’s their own private business and none of mine.

I do recognise judgementalism in others though and I condemn it in all situations equally, including those situations where homosexuals judge heterosexuals harshly.

 

[fix]

That’s just your opinion. And, indeed, it isn’t shared by the majority of Catholics in the USA, according to polls.

Not my opinion. The Church is correct. The majority is wrong.

I take my lead from the Pope. In his own words: (translated into English) *“There are already many same-sex couples who live together who deserve a legal solution to questions of pension, inheritance, etc., that might fit into a new legal model”. *Yes, the Pope doesn’t want actual Marriage, but there’s no reason why a legal model shouldn’t exist that gives the same rights.

Yes, legal solutions exist right now. That does not mean redefining marriage.

I’m already on record on this site as saying that I’d be happier if the State got out of the ‘marriage business’ altogether and left the sacrament of marriage to churches and the legal protections of partnership to legislation without having the State act as defacto ministers at ‘weddings’ where religions are not involved. But the long and the short of it is, no matter what it’s called, if the Pope can see a solution where same-sex couples are given analogous legal rights such that they match the rights between a woman and a man who are contracted in matrimony (at least as relates to what can be possible with a same gender partnership) then if it’s good enough for the Pope, it’s good enough for me.

The Pope does not want the State out of the marriage business, liberal Catholics want that.

Note also that, unless I forget to to do so, in relation to same sex legal partnership arrangements I refer to them as ‘marriage’ not marriage - i.e. I’m using a qualified word with quotes around it, since there isn’t really another analogous word to use.

The Pope, this one or past ones, does not support homosexual unions. Rome has said specifically we are bound to oppose them. All you have cited is that before he was pope he said legal devices could be used such as contracts, not HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS of any sort.

 

[fix]

Claims that Pope supported gay civil unions disputed

In a letter to the Carmelite nuns of Buenos Aires on July 8, 2010, when the debate on homosexual marriage in the country was in full swing, then-Cardinal Bergoglio wrote, “Let’s not be naïve: This is a not simple political struggle, but an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill but a move of the Father of Lies, who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

 

[DexUK]

The Pope also said: “What [the religious minister] does not have a right to do is to force the private life of anyone,” he says. “If God, in his creation, ran the risk of making us free, who am I to butt in?”

I take my lead from that too.

Frankly, what homosexuals do and how they want to live their lives and the legal protections they may wish a democratic state to grant them are no skin off my nose and nothing to do with me.

Honestly, if SSM goes through, are you really going to wake up the following morning and find the sky has fallen in?

Personally, I think that for all heterosexual people, life will continue exactly as it did before. People will still be born, raised, married, have children, eat, play, worship, give alms, die, be buried and inherit estates exactly as they did before.

Nothing substantial will be different for any of these people. The only change will be the knowledge that some of the things that heterosexual people have are now available to a handful of homosexual people, but none of these good things will be diminished as a result. There won’t be less sacramental matrimonial graces to go around. There won’t be less worship in our lives. God will not - and cannot - diminish as a result.

I simply cannot, for the life of me, explain this desperate opposition to something that won’t and can’t affect me or you. And frankly, I have to wonder whether it is born of prejudice against people who aren’t “us”.

 

[fix]

The Pope also said: “What [the religious minister] does not have a right to do is to force the private life of anyone,” he says. “If God, in his creation, ran the risk of making us free, who am I to butt in?”

I take my lead from that too.

How does that apply in any possible way?

Frankly, what homosexuals do and how they want to live their lives and the legal protections they may wish a democratic state to grant them are no skin off my nose and nothing to do with me.

They affect society profoundly if they demand to redefine marriage.

Honestly, if SSM goes through, are you really going to wake up the following morning and find the sky has fallen in?

Again this is a terribly reductionist understanding of the serious threat. Once you erase marriage you change the basic unit of civilization. How children are raised and how they view family will be changed in ways you cannot imagine yet.

Personally, I think that for all heterosexual people, life will continue exactly as it did before. People will still be born, raised, married, have children, eat, play, worship, give alms, die, be buried and inherit estates exactly as they did before.

Nothing substantial will be different for any of these people. The only change will be the knowledge that some of the things that heterosexual people have are now available to a handful of homosexual people, but none of these good things will be diminished as a result. There won’t be less sacramental matrimonial graces to go around. There won’t be less worship in our lives. God will not - and cannot - diminish as a result.

I simply cannot, for the life of me, explain this desperate opposition to something that won’t and can’t affect me or you. And frankly, I have to wonder whether it is born of prejudice against people who aren’t “us”.

You must not care about children. You certainly do not care about Church teaching.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Pope also said: “What [the religious minister] does not have a right to do is to force the private life of anyone,” he says. “If God, in his creation, ran the risk of making us free, who am I to butt in?”

I take my lead from that too.

Personally, I think that for all heterosexual people, life will continue exactly as it did before. People will still be born, raised, married, have children, eat, play, worship, give alms, die, be buried and inherit estates exactly as they did before.

Nothing substantial will be different for any of these people. The only change will be the knowledge that some of the things that heterosexual people have are now available to a handful of homosexual people, but none of these good things will be diminished as a result. There won’t be less sacramental matrimonial graces to go around. There won’t be less worship in our lives. God will not - and cannot - diminish as a result.

Dex,

Frankly, what homosexuals do and how they want to live their lives and the legal protections they may wish a democratic state to grant them are no skin off my nose and nothing to do with me.

Honestly, if SSM goes through, are you really going to wake up the following morning and find the sky has fallen in?

What causes me concern is for someone that protests so much and says that he does not care, that not caring produces much more than one would expect than a simple statement like…

I understand your position Fix, it does not affect me and quite frankly I am not concerned!!!

I simply cannot, for the life of me, explain this desperate opposition to something that won’t and can’t affect me or you. And frankly, I have to wonder whether it is born of prejudice against people who aren’t “us” .

Shakespeare caught on to this in Hamlet

**“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” **

which can be

**“The man doth protest too much, methinks.” ** for a man that says he does not care

**“The homosexual doth protest too much, methinks.” ** for the homosexual that says he has no vested interest in the fray and just wants to be left alone…

but in the end if someone cares not, reads and thinks something as opposed to nothing based on caring not, then why is it that someone that cares not speaks so vehemently to promote something they care not about?

Me thinks that someone protesting so much must care more than someone that does not or that someone would not post any opposition because they just don’t care.

 

[fix]

Dex,

What causes me concern is for someone that protests so much and says that he does not care, that not caring produces much more than one would expect than a simple statement like…

I understand your position Fix, it does not affect me and quite frankly I am not concerned!!!

Shakespeare caught on to this in Hamlet

**“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” **

which can be

**“The man doth protest too much, methinks.” ** for a man that says he does not care

**“The homosexual doth protest too much, methinks.” ** for the homosexual that says he has no vested interest in the fray and just wants to be left alone…

but in the end if someone cares not, reads and thinks something as opposed to nothing based on caring not, then why is it that someone that cares not speaks so vehemently to promote something they care not about?

Me thinks that someone protesting so much must care more than someone that does not or that someone would not post any opposition because they just don’t care.

I have to wonder if the poster ever raised children? How can a reasonable person not be shaken to his core by the fact some poor kid will be seeing two, or more, men acting as mother and father?

Pope JPII called it a new ideology of evil. It most certainly is evil. The poster only focuses on the emotionalism of the two homosexual persons. No care is given to the children or the rest of society. So, now little kids across the land will be indoctrinated into the false Gospel of “gay” love. If you stand with Christ you will be called prejudiced. If you have concern for the innocent children you are a hater.

There is no way such thinking can be reconciled with the faith.

 

[CopticChristian]

How does that apply in any possible way?

They affect society profoundly if they demand to redefine marriage.

Again this is a terribly reductionist understanding of the serious threat. Once you erase marriage you change the basic unit of civilization. How children are raised and how they view family will be changed in ways you cannot imagine yet.

You must not care about children. You certainly do not care about Church teaching.

Fix,

May I summarize for the lurkers.

**It is important to register thoughts as they apply and when they don’t apply discard them. When we see somone register thoughts that don’t apply we should be suspect.

We care about what affects society profoundly for those that demand that we redefine marriage.

Minimizing the problem is a reductionist understanding of the serious threat, that should cause lurkers to be suspect of an agenda. Once you erase marriage you change the basic unit of civilization. How children are raised and how they view family will be changed in ways you cannot imagine yet.

You must care about children and you must care about Church teaching. **

 

[marymary1975]

So basically, you believe that people will decide they are homosexual as a result of some sort of contagion in society.

Honestly? Really? Do you really think that people will, as a result of SSM, decide that they aren’t going to be heterosexuals any more? Or that children brought up in an environment with two same gender guardians are automatically going to dismiss any notion of ever having a heterosexual relationship?

Do you really think that people are THAT weak willed?

Now while I don’t approve of homosexual couples using the adoption of children as some sort of ‘fashion statement’, despite that those that have done so have not ended up with homosexual children. All they’ve ended up with is non-judgemental children. And, I suppose, you would say that being non-judgemental about homosexual people is bad thing…

Personally I prefer not to judge other people for their lives and honest desires about how they wish to behave, in particular as it’s their own private business and none of mine.

I do recognise judgementalism in others though and I condemn it in all situations equally, including those situations where homosexuals judge heterosexuals harshly.

yes, I DO believe people are that weak willed. Look at your surroundings, everything that is proposed in the media people immediately assume it as true and follow it without even thinking. Let’s forget about SSM for a minute, look at vaccination. Because a pair of people decided to publish a study saying vaccination may be link to authism now there a huge anti vaccination movement. Parents don’t want to vaccinate their kids because now vaccines are the ultimate evil in the world. Media says do this and everybody run.to do it. Media says don’t eat eggs now people don’t eat eggs. The most unbelievable reports that go against any common sense are published and people believe it without even thinking. Even worse, do you remember that man who predicted the famous rupture, ok the guy predicted the thing twice or three times and failed all three and after his last fail people donated millions MILLIONs of dollars to his church to the point that now after saying three blatant lies he is richer than before. People were believing and donating millions into a guy who is obviously wrong and you want me to think people are strong willed?

That report of lesbians being superior parents is another perfect example, they published the most biased report in the world which is clearly tweaked (the report itself says it to make it worst, they grabbed a bunch of wealthy white lesbians and compared their kids to the kids of black women living in projects) and now every single pediatrician, doctor, psychologist and the vast majority of people argue that the ideal environment for a child is a lesbian household and my poor daughter with heterosexual parents is doomed because I haven’t become a lesbian yet (oh and did I mentioned I was told that by one pediatrician) it can’t be more clear from the report that it was twiked and in fact, it was the lesbian women themselves who filled up the questionaries and now everybody believes it is the irrefutable truth. And I can keep going with many other examples of how people believe everything they hear on the media and accept it as true, and you still want ME to Believe that people are NOT weak willed??? In fact you don’t even have to go far, start speaking to young people, ask them if they think children need a father, ask women over 30 how they feel about men, look at articles on the internet and you are going to see how everything that I listed is right now being believe by the majority of people.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’ve hoped to find a very direct way to express what’s at issue in the attempt by gay activist groups & their allies to elevate the legal status of homosexual & lesbian couples to marriage in law.

After night prayer, it was clear that the real intent of the movement is hidden behind the apparent value placed on marriage. But recall that this was exactly the same community which, not very long ago, used the term “breeders” to * denigrate marriage and fruitful married couples to the status of breeding livestock who were going to provide the children which same-sex couples would raise*.

The sexual revolution from the start had marriage as its primary target, constantly assailing it as a form of slavery for women, hypocrisy, and destructive of freedom. These also were the hallmarks of every single “Pride Parade”; and anyone who ever had the misfortune to see how wives who had unknowingly married gay men were treated by their husband’s partners in vice knows exactly what the real feelings of gay activists are for the participants in real marriage.

Marriage has already been eroded by the secular laws which treat it as a temporary contract and not as a sacrament instituted from the start of human existence on earth. “Marriage Equality” is actually aimed at a death blow to what remains of attachment to sanctity & chaste & fidelity in marriage, to what remains of marriage as a sanctuary & the haven in which children can be raised.

In every aspect, “Marriage Equality” is the sum & crown of the Culture of Death that Blessed John Paul II so thoroughly analyzed in Evangelium Vitae : such laws when enacted will institute a form of drag marriage, which, like drag which satirizes women’s beauty & heterosexual desire of men as nothing more than a cosmetic-fashion enhanced performance, would be nothing but a continual profanation from the very places where marriages ought to be honored.

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.

“Equality” in the sense of equal outcomes means death to liberty.

 

[marymary1975]

And by the way Deux your statement that children of homosexuals are less judgmental, did you know that comes exactly from the same three biased studies that were not filled neither by the children nor their teachers nor caretakers but instead were filled by lesbian women who KNEW what the study was about, had a personal interest in the study and were informed previously what was going to happen with the study. Do you think a person being in trial for murder is going to answer yes when the judge asks if he killed the person? Do you think that a lesbian woman is going to say anything other than her kids are not judgmental? You are talking to me about people not being weak willed and you are also falling, without thinking, for something you haven’t read and just something you heard on the media. You are proving my point, you heard on the media that children of homosexuals are less judgmentals and you accept it as true without even questioning the source. See how easy is to convince people?

 

[CopticChristian]

I have to wonder if the poster ever raised children? How can a reasonable person not be shaken to his core by the fact some poor kid will be seeing two, or more, men acting as mother and father?

Pope JPII called it a new ideology of evil. It most certainly is evil. The poster only focuses on the emotionalism of the two homosexual persons. No care is given to the children or the rest of society. So, now little kids across the land will be indoctrinated into the false Gospel of “gay” love. If you stand with Christ you will be called prejudiced. If you have concern for the innocent children you are a hater.

There is no way such thinking can be reconciled with the faith .

Fix,

I do not know…this sentence does give pause and reflection…

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.

I believe you make a good point. I have children and grandchildren and I believe any lurker that has children would wonder as you suggest. Most parents are reasonable and I believe that a reasonable person should be shaken to his core by the fact some poor kid will be seeing two, or more, men acting as mother and father.

You are correct to point out Pope JPII calling it a new ideology of evil. It is evil. The absence of God in these situations=evil. When someone focuses on the emotionalism of the homosexual persons, then this dismisses the care we should be giving to the children and the rest of society. We must care and for those that don’t care we should hear silence.

You and I can imagine little kids across the land will be indoctrinated into the false Gospel of “gay” love. If you stand with Christ you will be called prejudiced. If you have concern for the innocent children you are a hater. This imagined reality should be kept in the forefront of every conversation with those that promote this emotional plea. I understand that some may suffer however what is more important and I would say, you would agree…The Best Interest Of The Children…

There is no way such thinking can be reconciled with the faith and lurkers should recognize faithless thinking, acting, speaking and speak up with Faith in truth.