The Defense of Marriage Act is ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court
#21
Well I was not surprised by this decision, although the speed by which they had arrived to it did, but I just don't feel anymore allegiance to this nation anymore. My heart weeps for my friends who have rejoiced and supported this decision. 


Kyrie Eleison!

Reply
#22
(06-26-2013, 04:00 PM)Meg Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 03:59 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 03:57 PM)Meg Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 03:40 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 03:35 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: A sad tragic day. The inmates are running the asylum. One step closer to Divine Justice being  unleashed. For my part, I will verbally object whenever the topic comes up, and point out what the bible says about this. Point out that my allegiance is with the laws of God.

Can I assume you do the same whenever someone mentions divorce?

Are you in favor of same-sex marriage?

No. I'm in favor of consistency.

Why are you in favor of consistency for this particular subject?

Because opposition to same sex marriage is often based largely on personal animus.  I do not share that visceral animus. However, I do hold to Catholic teaching.
Reply
#23
(06-26-2013, 03:40 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 03:35 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: A sad tragic day. The inmates are running the asylum. One step closer to Divine Justice being  unleashed. For my part, I will verbally object whenever the topic comes up, and point out what the bible says about this. Point out that my allegiance is with the laws of God.

Can I assume you do the same whenever someone mentions divorce?

That's the thing. Marriage -- not the Sacrament in itself, of course -- was destroyed a long, long time ago, about when Henry VIII had it bad for Anne Boleyn. It's been downhill ever since. It isn't gay "marriage" that's messing us up; it's divorce, and that's been a done deal for a long time. Gay "marriage" is just another symptom.

Reply
#24
You know gang, from reading E. Michael Jones comment on Dante's ninth ring of hell, where Dante put the banksters and the homosexuals, pops in my mind. Wall Street Bankers gave boat loads of do-re-mi to Obama, and while they are true capitalists, they are also the most liberal proponents of social change. It makes me think that Dante could see better than we can.

tim
Reply
#25
After hearing the news of this and people cheer it on all over the media and Internet I go to ONE place where I would hope Traditional Catholic people would discuss it....

Only to find it announced by someone who's transgender (which apparently is OK now with traditional Catholics).

Times are changing.
Reply
#26
(06-26-2013, 04:20 PM)Ursus Wrote: After hearing the news of this and people cheer it on all over the media and Internet I go to ONE place where I would hope Traditional Catholic people would discuss it....

Only to find it announced by someone who's transgender (which apparently is OK now with traditional Catholics).

Times are changing.

Well, I'm also a lawyer and a Catholic. Is that okay?  May I exist, please?  Thanks.
Reply
#27
(06-26-2013, 04:23 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 04:20 PM)Ursus Wrote: After hearing the news of this and people cheer it on all over the media and Internet I go to ONE place where I would hope Traditional Catholic people would discuss it....

Only to find it announced by someone who's transgender (which apparently is OK now with traditional Catholics).

Times are changing.

Well, I'm also a lawyer and a Catholic. Is that okay?  May I exist, please?  Thanks.

Idk, shouldn't it be a Catholic and a lawyer (in that order)? The faith is the most important thing, not finding loopholes within it.


I guess we as Traditional Catholics need to adapt and change? 
Reply
#28
(06-26-2013, 04:37 PM)Ursus Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 04:23 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 04:20 PM)Ursus Wrote: After hearing the news of this and people cheer it on all over the media and Internet I go to ONE place where I would hope Traditional Catholic people would discuss it....

Only to find it announced by someone who's transgender (which apparently is OK now with traditional Catholics).

Times are changing.

Well, I'm also a lawyer and a Catholic. Is that okay?  May I exist, please?  Thanks.

Idk, shouldn't it be a Catholic and a lawyer (in that order)? The faith is the most important thing, not finding loopholes within it.

I guess we as Traditional Catholics need to adapt and change? 


Ursus, just cut it out. Discuss the topic at hand and desist from getting personal, espeically if you're going to go about it with ridiculous nonsense like the order in which a poster puts "Catholic" when describing herself. Clare has done nothing in this thread but uphold Catholic teaching. So stop NOW.
Reply
#29
(06-26-2013, 04:06 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: That's the thing. Marriage -- not the Sacrament in itself, of course -- was destroyed a long, long time ago, about when Henry VIII had it bad for Anne Boleyn. It's been downhill ever since. It isn't gay "marriage" that's messing us up; it's divorce, and that's been a done deal for a long time. Gay "marriage" is just another symptom.

I disagree.  Divorce and its cultural acceptance is certainly a problem and did indeed open the door to other things, but there is not a logical connection from divorce to gay marriage.  Gay marriage is a logical contradiction in itself.  And homosexual acts are always gravely immoral.  But God himself allowed divorce in the past in some circumstances, and even now, non-sacramental marriages can be dissolved in some cases.  Gay marriage is a different thing altogether.  The acceptance of gay marriage cannot follow logically from the acceptance of divorce (or the abuse of it), though it certainly follows in the practical sense of people simply wanting more sexual "freedom".  Divorce does not alter the meaning of natural marriage, but gay marriage does.
Reply
#30
I'm confused. There is a transgendered person here? If yes then I am sincerely interested in hearing how this person is able to uphold the Catholic faith. Maybe there should be a separate thread for this? or maybe it is so simple that it can be summed up in a few words.

Anyway...since we have a lawyer here do you think I can get a short explanation on how it is possible that the majority of California voted against gay marriage, yet the small population of supporters was able to get it overturned? Does this not violate the rights of the state majority that voted against same sex marriage?

Thanks!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)