Homosexual Marriage. Why is the Church picking this battleground ?
#31
(01-01-2013, 05:59 PM)MRose Wrote:
(01-01-2013, 04:48 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-01-2013, 02:57 AM)ggreg Wrote: Personally, I don't get why they see homo marriage as something that will change society significantly  more than other moral declines do.

Because society is headed toward the direction of saying the Church's teaching here is hateful and cannot be tolerared. Hate groups aren't given non-profit status, don't get the hospitals licensed, don't get their schools accredited, and generally people who publicly belong to hate groups have trouble making an income. The Church's other teachings can be dismissed by society as antiquarian, but the Church's stance on homosecuality could eventually lead the Church back into the catacombs.   
I think this is very likely. My wife and I were speaking about this subject just yesterday. I think the tipping point may be when the State tries to force all groups to perform their "marriage ceremonies." My wife predicted that after a law is passed which gives no real exemptions for religious exemptions or otherwise, people will specifically seek out Catholic priests and ask them for a marriage. The real ones will refuse and go to jail - at best.

That is not likely to happen.  Not until being anti-sodomite is as rare as being pro Nazi.

In fact in the legislation over here there are specific protections for all religions and I don't think the religions even needed to fight for them.  The politicians put them in from the word go.  A few psychos have tried to argue against them but they've got nowhere.

There is a MASSIVE number of people who are very pro freedom and very anti political correctness and they would punish a democratic government for forcing acceptance onto any religion.  The tide has turned on that score.  People are increasingly fed up of being told what to think or who to be nice to.

Not to mention the Muslims.  As soon as a couple of homosexuals turned up at an East London Mosque and asked to be married there would be blood on the streets.  They could not force Catholics and not force Muslims and Orthodox Jews.  Those people are small in number but they would riot over something like that, no question about it.

Many people know a homosexual or two and think of them as nice people and productive members of society.  Many people have a family member who is homosexual.  Without religion they think, "why not" when it comes to homosexual marriage?  State marriage is nothing more to them than a government piece of paper like a passport or driving licence.  Nobody here would suggest that homosexuals should not have driving licences or passports and the average secular person thinks the same about civil marriage.  They see no reason that homosexuals should be denied that piece of paper if their government is secular, as it claims to be.
Reply
#32
(01-01-2013, 03:25 AM)cgraye Wrote: Perhaps they see a particular danger in something that is unnatural and disordered being formalized and enshrined in law.  It's one thing to tolerate it, but to give it official public sanction is something else.  And as horrific as abortion might be, it is not unnatural in that way.  So perhaps they are worried not so much by immoral things being legal, but by unnatural things being specifically recognized in law.  It does seem that that is a significant departure for society.  I'm not sure such a thing has ever been done in the history of mankind.  It seems like even in cultures where homosexual acts were widely practiced, people would have considered the idea of homosexual marriage rather nonsensical.

I don't see how it isn't unnatural.  Women are hardwired to nurture their children -- it is in their very nature.  Killing their children is the exact opposite of that, is it not?  So, if it's the opposite of one's nature, then it's unnatural, no?
Reply
#33
This might be seen as a ridiculous question but which is more "natural"

Two homosexuals wanting to live together and have their relationship recognised by the legal system, and society at large, or Hugh Hefner's latest marriage to Crystal Harris?

As much as I dislike both states I have more contempt for Hugh Hefner and his new bride than the homosexuals.  The motivations of the homosexuals certainly seems more human and is easier to have some level of empathy with them.  In that sense, at least to me, it is less unnatural.



Interview above.  Not embedded in order to not subject you to these two disgusting people.

Reply
#34
(01-02-2013, 06:53 AM)ggreg Wrote: That might be a factor I agree.  But why protest it at all?  Given how weak these Bishops have been over the last 40 years this would be a perfect thing to ignore.   All they would need to say would be that a Catholic cannot get married to a person of the same sex and leave it at that.

It feels like they are drawing a line in the sand with this issue and I am confused as to why they would.

It's the law of the land in Canada, and I don't remember our clergy putting up anywhere near this much of a fight.  I'm sure a few did, but there wasn't a peep from the pulpit - and I circulated between several different parishes at the time.

Actually I attended the NO back then and one of the lectors at my home parish was a Liberal Party Member of Parliament who supported the legislation.  Our parish priest defended her up to the hilt.  Here's what he told Lifesitenews when a bishop in an entirely different province criticised her position:

Quote:“Aileen Carrol is a member in good standing of this parish,” Fr. McDevitt told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview.  ... “Quoting one reactionary bishop out in Calgary who wants to spew off about everything under the sun because he’s a short man who needs to get lots of press - that’s not the basis of how the church works in Canada.”

I honestly don't understand the change that has occurred since then and I didn't expect the leaders in the UK to be much more conservative than the ones here.
Reply
#35
(01-02-2013, 10:55 AM)Pheo Wrote:
(01-02-2013, 06:53 AM)ggreg Wrote: That might be a factor I agree.  But why protest it at all?  Given how weak these Bishops have been over the last 40 years this would be a perfect thing to ignore.   All they would need to say would be that a Catholic cannot get married to a person of the same sex and leave it at that.

It feels like they are drawing a line in the sand with this issue and I am confused as to why they would.

It's the law of the land in Canada, and I don't remember our clergy putting up anywhere near this much of a fight.  I'm sure a few did, but there wasn't a peep from the pulpit - and I circulated between several different parishes at the time.

There was a Bishops' statement about it.  From the CCB, as I recall.

(01-02-2013, 10:55 AM)Pheo Wrote: Actually I attended the NO back then and one of the lectors at my home parish was a Liberal Party Member of Parliament who supported the legislation.  Our parish priest defended her up to the hilt.  Here's what he told Lifesitenews when a bishop in an entirely different province criticised her position:

Quote:“Aileen Carrol is a member in good standing of this parish,” Fr. McDevitt told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview.  ... “Quoting one reactionary bishop out in Calgary who wants to spew off about everything under the sun because he’s a short man who needs to get lots of press - that’s not the basis of how the church works in Canada.”

I honestly don't understand the change that has occurred since then and I didn't expect the leaders in the UK to be much more conservative than the ones here.

I used to support same-sex marriage back then.  Events have shown me how foolish this was.
Reply
#36
(01-02-2013, 09:09 AM)ggreg Wrote: This might be seen as a ridiculous question but which is more "natural"

Two homosexuals wanting to live together and have their relationship recognised by the legal system, and society at large, or Hugh Hefner's latest marriage to Crystal Harris?

As much as I dislike both states I have more contempt for Hugh Hefner and his new bride than the homosexuals.  The motivations of the homosexuals certainly seems more human and is easier to have some level of empathy with them.  In that sense, at least to me, it is less unnatural.



Interview above.  Not embedded in order to not subject you to these two disgusting people.

Neither and this is a foolish comparison. The fight is over the protection of the most basic structure of a civilized society. This is more than about to girls getting tax benefits for doing scissors. Marriage is the foundation of the family from which children are born and raised. Homosexual  and philanthropist mock-marriages are both abominations to a cornerstone in the social structure. Falling for these cheap 'reductio ad nauseum' arguments only strengthen the continued breakdown of society.
Reply
#37
(01-01-2013, 04:48 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-01-2013, 02:57 AM)ggreg Wrote: Personally, I don't get why they see homo marriage as something that will change society significantly  more than other moral declines do.

Because society is headed toward the direction of saying the Church's teaching here is hateful and cannot be tolerared. Hate groups aren't given non-profit status, don't get the hospitals licensed, don't get their schools accredited, and generally people who publicly belong to hate groups have trouble making an income. The Church's other teachings can be dismissed by society as antiquarian, but the Church's stance on homosecuality could eventually lead the Church back into the catacombs.   
Applause @ Someone1776.......well said......
Reply
#38
(01-02-2013, 07:08 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(01-01-2013, 05:59 PM)MRose Wrote:
(01-01-2013, 04:48 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-01-2013, 02:57 AM)ggreg Wrote: Personally, I don't get why they see homo marriage as something that will change society significantly  more than other moral declines do.

Because society is headed toward the direction of saying the Church's teaching here is hateful and cannot be tolerared. Hate groups aren't given non-profit status, don't get the hospitals licensed, don't get their schools accredited, and generally people who publicly belong to hate groups have trouble making an income. The Church's other teachings can be dismissed by society as antiquarian, but the Church's stance on homosecuality could eventually lead the Church back into the catacombs.   
I think this is very likely. My wife and I were speaking about this subject just yesterday. I think the tipping point may be when the State tries to force all groups to perform their "marriage ceremonies." My wife predicted that after a law is passed which gives no real exemptions for religious exemptions or otherwise, people will specifically seek out Catholic priests and ask them for a marriage. The real ones will refuse and go to jail - at best.

That is not likely to happen.  Not until being anti-sodomite is as rare as being pro Nazi.

In fact in the legislation over here there are specific protections for all religions and I don't think the religions even needed to fight for them.  The politicians put them in from the word go.  A few psychos have tried to argue against them but they've got nowhere.

There is a MASSIVE number of people who are very pro freedom and very anti political correctness and they would punish a democratic government for forcing acceptance onto any religion.  The tide has turned on that score.  People are increasingly fed up of being told what to think or who to be nice to.

Not to mention the Muslims.  As soon as a couple of homosexuals turned up at an East London Mosque and asked to be married there would be blood on the streets.  They could not force Catholics and not force Muslims and Orthodox Jews.  Those people are small in number but they would riot over something like that, no question about it.

Many people know a homosexual or two and think of them as nice people and productive members of society.  Many people have a family member who is homosexual.  Without religion they think, "why not" when it comes to homosexual marriage?  State marriage is nothing more to them than a government piece of paper like a passport or driving licence.  Nobody here would suggest that homosexuals should not have driving licences or passports and the average secular person thinks the same about civil marriage.  They see no reason that homosexuals should be denied that piece of paper if their government is secular, as it claims to be.
Perhaps I am mistaken, or perhaps things are different in the U.K. than the U.S. However, I do not see there being a concerted effort toward manipulation of clergy and religious institutions in general - even though Mohammedans and Orthodox Jews are strongly anti-homosexual marriage, the media and the homosexual movement do not hate them like they hate Christians and specifically the Catholic Church. The attitude of "if you do not want a homosexual marriage, do not get one" is extremely, extremely prevalent around here, and I have a hard time seeing enough people caring enough to do something about it. I hope I am wrong.
Reply
#39
Our Cardinal George chimed in on this calling us all to phone our State representatives and tell them we oppose it's legalization. Kudos Cardinal George.

2 shiny copper's worth. I dilike Hef a ton. He makes my skin crawl and not for the Playboy life he pretends. He is a snake. In the day before he became Playboy Inc, he used to eat lunch at a place called Feast on a Bun. It was a hot dog stand which was smack dab in the middle of gay territory. He was rumored to be queer back then. His marriages to me look like a slithering old demon sucking the life out of a young nubile beauty. I'm revolted.

tim
Reply
#40
(01-02-2013, 03:58 PM)Tim Wrote: Our Cardinal George chimed in on this calling us all to phone our State representatives and tell them we oppose it's legalization. Kudos Cardinal George.

2 shiny copper's worth. I dilike Hef a ton. He makes my skin crawl and not for the Playboy life he pretends. He is a snake. In the day before he became Playboy Inc, he used to eat lunch at a place called Feast on a Bun. It was a hot dog stand which was smack dab in the middle of gay territory. He was rumored to be queer back then. His marriages to me look like a slithering old demon sucking the life out of a young nubile beauty. I'm revolted.

tim

Those women play along though partly because of the fame and meeting celebritys and partly for the money.  And let's face it, they have probably slept with a couple of dozen or more men BEFORE they make it to his house.

They are all beautiful women and could all land themselves a modestly wealthy youngish husband I've no doubt.  They also want the fame and the celebrity friends.  They have been seduced by that before they deliver themselves into Hefner's clutches.

It's not like they are poor but beautiful young women from Eastern Europe or South America and Hefner is a sex tourist.  Those women from the provinces are facing grinding poverty.  Hugh Hefner's women are nearly all US citizens and have plenty of normal options.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)