Gay activists aim to shut down Oregon health food store over owner’s support for
#1
CaptCrunch73 Wrote:Sooo, last week we all saw that the CEO of Mozilla was driven out of his job for making a contribution to the Prop 8 Amendment in CA. Now this story about how a Health Food store in OR and it's suppliers are being targeted by gay activists because the store owner made pro true marriage comments on Facebook.

How long until personal Facebook accounts are scrubbed and targeted?
How long before our FE posts are scrubbed and targeted?

Can you say minor chastisement?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-act...rs-support
Reply
#2
The moment marriage passed out of the Church and into the registry office, it stopped being a purely sacramental union. Non-Catholic marriages are not "marriage" in that sense - perhaps we should start thinking of them as "opposite-sex civil unions." Decrying same-sex civil unions in this context evinces the same kind of bigotry as any other opposition to civil rights, and the anger people express is justified.
Reply
#3
(04-09-2014, 07:55 AM)loggats Wrote: Decrying same-sex civil unions in this context evinces the same kind of bigotry as any other opposition to civil rights, and the anger people express is justified.

I agree with you. If we recognize all these other opposite sex unions as "marriages", or marriages where contraception is the norm, or second-and-third marriages, there really isn't a good argument against same-sex unions.
Reply
#4
But the Catholic Church didn't invent the institution of marriage. If you want to call civil marriages "not sacramental" that's one thing, but they are still marriages, whether it's between two unbaptized people, or two Jews, or a houseful of Mormans. Unless marriage means "wedded" which means the same as "coupling" which would exclude polygamists. I just don't see the problem with the word "marriage." Some are good, some are bad. In some countries you have polygamy and child marriages, which are horrible but acceptable in those cultures. We Christians believe what Jesus and the Book of Genesis teaches, that marriage between one man and one woman is designed by God and dictated by nature. But current laws are broadening their defintion. Anyway, the Church owns the sacraments, but marriage is the only institution that pre-dates the Church. If you don't call non-Catholic marriages "Marriages" then what do you call them? It's a legal term today. I don't agree with homosexual unions, of course, but I can't lose sleep over terms. 
Reply
#5
(04-09-2014, 07:55 AM)loggats Wrote: The moment marriage passed out of the Church and into the registry office, it stopped being a purely sacramental union. Non-Catholic marriages are not "marriage" in that sense - perhaps we should start thinking of them as "opposite-sex civil unions." Decrying same-sex civil unions in this context evinces the same kind of bigotry as any other opposition to civil rights, and the anger people express is justified.

Apparently you haven't understood that there is such thing as a valid natural marriage outside of the Catholic Church, albeit non sacramental.  Comparing that to sodomitic unions is without any kind of logic.  Only one of those two cry to heaven for vengeance and the anger expressed by sodomitic couples is without justice since they defy even the natural law.
Reply
#6
(04-09-2014, 04:18 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote:
(04-09-2014, 07:55 AM)loggats Wrote: The moment marriage passed out of the Church and into the registry office, it stopped being a purely sacramental union. Non-Catholic marriages are not "marriage" in that sense - perhaps we should start thinking of them as "opposite-sex civil unions." Decrying same-sex civil unions in this context evinces the same kind of bigotry as any other opposition to civil rights, and the anger people express is justified.

Apparently you haven't understood that there is such thing as a valid natural marriage outside of the Catholic Church, albeit non sacramental.   Comparing that to sodomitic unions is without any kind of logic.  Only one of those two cry to heaven for vengeance and the anger expressed by sodomitic couples is without justice since they defy even the natural law.

Natural Law - there's more to it than you imagine
Reply
#7
(04-09-2014, 04:18 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: Apparently you haven't understood that there is such thing as a valid natural marriage outside of the Catholic Church, albeit non sacramental.   Comparing that to sodomitic unions is without any kind of logic.  Only one of those two cry to heaven for vengeance and the anger expressed by sodomitic couples is without justice since they defy even the natural law.

So if a homosexual doesn't engage in sodomy it's OK if they get married? What about heterosexual married couples who engage in sodomy?

My point being that equating "homosexual" with "sodomitic" is irresponsible and not necessarily true at all in that 30% of male homosexuals don't engage in anal sex (assuming that's the definition of "sodomy" you're using. If you're including oral sex, the number of heterosexual people, married or not, who do that is probably on par with homosexual sexual expression).

Reply
#8
My goodness, can't a thread about the actions of the Gay Agenda (a group of proud sodomites, in the fullest sense of the term) focus on the political and moral aspects of this revolution in society without delving into what gets stuck where by whom?

No offense Vox,, loggats, or Northern Trad, but this topic is about the radical homosexuals who try to bully companies. It has nothing to do with sex.
Reply
#9
(04-09-2014, 06:28 PM)Heorot Wrote: My goodness, can't a thread about the actions of the Gay Agenda (a group of proud sodomites, in the fullest sense of the term) focus on the political and moral aspects of this revolution in society without delving into what gets stuck where by whom?

No offense Vox,, loggats, or Northern Trad, but this topic is about the radical homosexuals who try to bully companies. It has nothing to do with sex.

My point exactly, which is why I object to the use of the term "sodomites" to refer to homosexuals, many of whom don't engage in sodomy even as many heterosexuals do.  I get sick of hearing myself saying it, but I apparently have to until it sinks in.

Reply
#10
Sorry, Vox, but 'sodomite' is a whole lot easier to type than 'evil, sick perverts, whose sin cries out to Heaven for vengeance'.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)