The following comes from a May 2 post on LifeSiteNews.com.
While pro-family advocates have noted the incredible rate at which the homosexualist movement has gained the political upper hand in the last five years, others are voicing concern about the shrinking “social space” in the public discourse for those who still object to “gay marriage.”
Some pundits on the left and the center-right are warning that as the homosexual movement gains legislative ground, the freedom to object is narrowing and those holding out against it are increasingly under threat. The stunning advances made by the “gay movement” some are saying, is not a triumph for social freedom, but for an increasingly brutally enforced social conformism.
Left-libertarian British journalist Brendan O’Neill warned in a column in Spiked, that in 20 years of writing on political issues, “I have never encountered an issue like gay marriage, an issue in which the space for dissent has shrunk so rapidly, and in which the consensus is not only stifling but choking.”
The change in public opinion, O’Neill added, can best be described as a “conformism, the slow but sure sacrifice of critical thinking and dissenting opinion under pressure to accept that which has been defined as a good by the upper echelons of society: gay marriage.”
“In truth, the extraordinary rise of gay marriage speaks, not to a new spirit of liberty or equality on a par with the civil-rights movements of the 1960s, but rather to the political and moral conformism of our age; to the weirdly judgmental non-judgmentalism of our PC times; to the way in which, in an uncritical era such as ours, ideas can become dogma with alarming ease and speed; to the difficulty of speaking one’s mind or sticking with one’s beliefs at a time when doubt and disagreement are pathologised.”
Elsewhere, O’Neill described the movement as an “iron fist in a velvet glove,” and denounced the Conservative government’s “authoritarian instinct” in forcing objectors to comply. He said it is the only issue on which, after having argued against it from a “liberal” perspective, he has received death threats.
Christopher Caldwell, a writer for the Weekly Standard, wrote for the Claremont Institute website last month, “The most troubling aspect of the gay-marriage movement is that, more than any social movement in living memory, more than feminism at its bra-burning peak in the 1970s, it aims not to engage in lively debate but to shut it down.”
The internet has made it much easier to shut down this debate, Caldwell added. “Anyone who expresses the slightest misgivings about gay marriage can become the object of boycotts, blacklists, and attempts to get him fired.”
“It is certainly worth asking why, if this is a liberation movement, it should be happening now, in an age not otherwise gaining a reputation as freedom’s heyday.”
“Half the country cannot even fathom the logic of it,” Caldwell said. “Until about a decade ago, the public was nearly unanimous in considering it a joke.”
“In a decade, gay marriage has gone from joke to dogma,” and now both activists in the homosexualist movement and their supporters in governments and media consider “gay marriage” to be a fait accompli and only a matter of time before it is universal throughout the west.
O’Neill quotes polls in the U.S. that found 58 percent of Americans support “gay marriage”, compared with just 37 percent a decade ago; and a British poll in which 62percent in support compared to 31 percent against 10 years ago.
O’Neill adds that in that time, it has become increasingly dangerous for anyone in politics or elsewhere to object. “Opponents of gay marriage are now treated by the press in the same way queer-rights agitators were in the past: as strange, depraved creatures, whose repenting and surrender to mainstream values we await with bated breath.”
In his review of the book From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage, by Michael J. Klarman, Caldwell notes the effect of the media’s promotion and the changes in law have had on public opinion. He wrote, “A barrage of judicial activism on one issue can soften up voting public’s resistance on others.”
“Marriage litigation has been a bonanza,” he added. “Judicial fiat put a halo of normalcy around gay marriage where none had existed before…When elites rally unanimously to a cause, it can become a kind of common sense.” No one, he said, wants to be seen to be more conservative than his neighbours, and “the elite view thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
O’Neill wrote that while the movement normally gets cast as a continuation of the American civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s, “it’s better understood as a continuation, and intensification, of the modern state’s desire to get a foot in the door of our private lives and to assume sovereignty over our relationships.
“From the get-go, the depiction of the campaign for gay marriage as a liberty-tinged movement for greater equality was questionable to say the least,” he said.
Where “gay marriage” has been installed, it has largely been the result of the deliberate suppression of the democratic process and the work of the judiciary, the “legal elite.”
Caldwell writes, “Never since the Progressive Era has there been a social movement as elite-driven as the one for gay marriage. No issue divides the country more squarely by class. Opponents of California’s anti-marriage Proposition 8 have come to include virtually all of Hollywood, Apple, Google, Amazon, and the White House.”
O’Neill agrees, saying, “Grassroots public protesting for the right of homosexuals to marry was notable by its absence. Instead, this has been a movement led by lawyers and professional activists, backed by the CEOs of hedge-fund corporations and newspapers of record such as The Times.”
Caldwell quotes research that found public support for gay marriage has been increasing by four points a year since 2009. “Public opinion does not change this fast in free societies. Either opinion is not changing as fast as it appears to be, or society is not as free,” he concludes.
To read original post, click here.
Satan has accelerated his battle plan for the destruction of souls and the Church. He must be very appreciative of how easy it has been made for him by the “hapless bunch of bishops”.
I would question the implied cause-and-effect here. The author implies that polls have moved in favor of same sex couples having the liberty to obtain marriage licenses BECAUSE there have been boycotts, etc.
I actually think the boycotts, etc. have hurt marriage proponents. I think people react negatively by any attempt to coerce their opinion.
What the author misses, to the peril of the traditionalist marriage advocates, is that equality proponents have found the right way to describe the basic fairness of allowing individuals the freedom to marry – or the freedom to not marry – as their religious institutions might prescribe or proscribe, in a way that is easily accessible to the electorate and to legislators.
Marriage proponents haven’t won at the ballot box because they threatened retaliation against those who would vote (in secret – by the way) against them. They are winning at the ballot box because they have finally begun to communicate in a deep way with the electorate.
But for those who are concerned at the rapid – almost daily pace – of states adopting marriage equality: fear not! Unless the Supreme Court declares same sex marriage across the land, which is almost completely unlikely, then same sex marriage advocates have a couple more states that might ‘convert’ over the next few months to years. But AFTER those handful of states, they face a see of red…states that they have no hope of winning over. So after Illinois, maybe Oregon, possibly Minnesota, the pickins look pretty slim for the same sex marriage proponents.
Your Fellow Catholic: In another thread, I asked you a couple questions and hope you can address them here. You speak of equality of marriage, but fail to address the fact that in order for a same-sex couple to attain a marriage license, marriage has to be redefined. Marriage between one man and one woman is the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads and nothing else has the ability to unite a couple (i.e. a man and woman) with any child born of their union. Do you understand that in redefining marriage, the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads is eliminated? In redefining marriage, we are not creating a new alternative to coexist alongside marriage, but changing the meaning of marriage and thus eliminating the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads. In changing the words defining marriage, the institution itself becomes changed and dissolved into a social contract of adults with no regard for the well-being of children. In talking about “gay-marriage” you are not advocating the participation in marriage, but the complete redefinition of marriage. Therefore, the question to you is do we need an institution that unites kids with their moms and dads? God Love You.
MD I think if you follow the responses you will see that I already answered those questions. However, I know that it is very easy to miss responses on CCD, as they sometimes get interleaved with other replies and they seem to have removed the option to subscribe to comments. So I’m happy to sum up what I said there:
So the answer is this, and it is basically fivefold. First, I’m not sure that marriage is the only institution that unites parents to children. Home ownership does that. Inheritance law does that. The issuance of birth certificates indicating fathers and mothers does that. Trust law does that. Boring, I know. Not the same as marriage, I know. But it is incorrect to assert (without evidence) that marriage is the only institution that unites couples to their children. So if you want to mimic Magghie Gallagher and NOM’s lines about this issue, perhaps you ought to ask them why they posit that marriage is the only institution that unites parents to their children.
Secondly, issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples does not redefine marriage. Gay people don’t want some new kind of marriage. They just want the same marriage that memorializes and celebrates a lifetime of love and commitment that any other couple wants when they get married. When the Supreme Court ruled that Barak Obama’s parents, had they lived in a state like Virginia instead of Hawaii, were able to legally obtain marriage licenses, it did not define marriage. They merely extended the numbers of people who were eligible. Same with same sex marriage.
Thirdly, extending the number of people who can obtain marriage licenses does not destroy the institution of marriage. It GROWS it. If your marriage is destroyed by the gay couple next door doing something you don’t approve of at City Hall, then perhaps you ought to seek marriage counseling.
Fourth, marriage also unites kids to their NON-biological children. And marriage unites couples who have no ability or interest in raising children. Including these various couples in the institution did not redefine it, nor did it destroy it. Same with same sex couples.
Fifth, if you do not approve of extending marriage licenses to same sex couples, especially those who are raising children, then you should propose an alternative situation that protects those kids in the same way that civil marriages would. Children should not be punished for the moral disapproval that you hold for their parents.
I hope this answers your questions!
Insane, YFC, literally insane. Remember that your definition of sanity is rooted in the world, the flesh and the devil; however, in God’s kingdom, your pitch is insane.
YFC, Hi it is me again. I was wondering if you have prayed to discern God’s will on this issue.
Yes, Anonymous, I have. Often and over many decades.
And you have discerned what?
Your Fellow Catholic: Thank you for your answers, but I am afraid you are off base on your reasoning.
First, if the definition of marriage is changed, the institution itself is abolished. You use rhetoric that frankly has nothing to do with marriage and the only union that unites a man and woman and any child born of their union and refer to adoption which is entirely different issue. Every child has a mom and dad and marriage is the only institution that can unite this child with his/her mom and dad. A child is conceived only by a man and woman, i.e. sperm and egg.
Second, you cannot issue marriage license to couples unless marriage is redefined. The law does not support doing so unless the definition of marriage is changed.
Your other reasoning goes back to the topic of adoption, a topic we are not addressing here, so please lets stick to the topic of marriage.
As I stated, changing the definition of marriage does NOT create a new institution that coexists alongside marriage, but changes the meaning of marriage from being between one man and one woman to between adults. When the definition of marriage is changed, there is not longer an institution that has the ability to unite a child with his/her mom and dad. It is the union of the mom and dad that conceived the child.
Do you understand the ramifications to redefining marriage and what will happen to kids? By definition, if marriage is redefined, there will be no institution that has the ability to unite kids with their moms and dads. God Love You
OK Obviously logic is lost on you. So let m e another tac. Marriage , accourding to YOUR termonology, has been redefined in a number of venues over the past decade. Can you cite a single one. ANYWHERE, where the ability of your kind of marriages have been abolished, ANYWHERE?
Aside from the consequences that redefining marriage has on children, there are other notable consequences to consider. This will in fact become a religious liberty issue and here are a few examples. First, one thing that will happen is a gay couple will want to rent space from a religious institution such as a Church. For example, a gay couple may want to hold a party or “reception” in a parish hall and the church is liable to be sued if they choose not to rent the space for said event.
It will also become a criminal act to profess a stance against the redefinition of marriage. An example of this is occurring now in Quebec where anything said against the redefinition of marriage is considered hate speech. In Quebec there is now a government funded registry of homophobic acts.
Also, in Denmark the government has mandated that Lutheran Churches to perform “same-sex” marriage ceremonies.
Don’t be foolish enough to think this will not occur in the US. It is extremely clear that it is already happening just by watching the local news at night as we see the push for the redefinition of marriage and the sigma attached to opposing it.
We need to be diligent, prayerful and loving, but work to promote the teachings of Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls.
God Love You
MD I refuted your post point by point, and your reply is simply to repeat what was refuted. Trust me when I tell you that you’re rhetoric, straight out of the mouth of Magghie Gallagher, dos not persuade. It didn’t persuade voters in the 4 states last november, and it didn’t persuade the members of the Minnesota House who voted, just today, overwhelmingly, to approve issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. The Senate takes it up on Monday, and look for the Governor to sign the bill as soon as he gets it.
If you’d like to try again to refute my refutation, then please, by all means I look forward to the dialogue. But if you just mimic the same lines, which were probably created in the context of a focus group instead of a school of sociology or theology, then I will consider the argument won.
MD writes, “We need to be diligent, prayerful and loving, but work to promote the teachings of Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls.” On this I completely agree with you.
As to the new issue you raise, but which is also a mimic of NOM’s talking points, in this case the fear that religious liberty will be abrogated, it is important to note that all liberties have limits. They are not unconditional or absolute. It may well be true that Churches who rent out their facilities to outside groups for – say – receptions, might be forced to rent those facilities for receptions of same sex couples. The test in cases like these are whether they are being offered as public accommodations, or are they private accommodations available only to members of the Parish. If a congregation rents its hall to outsiders for birthday parties, then it would indeed be illegal for them to refuse to rent the hall for the birthday of a black kid. So, again, there are limits to liberties, and some of the most difficult aspects of law are figuring out where one liberty begins and another ends.
As to the Danish example, you forget a very important difference between their society and ours: In the United States, the Constiution guarantees the separation of church and state. In Denmark, the state IS the church. It has a state religion. To get a civil birth certificate in Denmark, you must be baptized into the Lutheran church. Churches have NEVER been forced to marry ANYONE they don’t want to in the US, and they never will be. If this were even a remote possibility, you can bet that the state would have forced churches to marry divorced couples. Has that happenned?
Your Fellow Catholic: I know you think you refuted my post, but you danced around the issues giving answers that did not address the issues. First, as I stated, a child only can come from the product of a man and woman, i.e. sperm and egg. Every child has a mother and father and marriage is the only institution that can unite a child with his/her mother and father. You say marriage is not being redefined, but that is an outright lie because the legislation being passed is doing precisely that, changing the meaning of marriage. It is NOT merely issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. How can you issue marriage licenses without redefining marriage? Simple, you cannot, hence marriage is being redefined. Why is it you cannot admit that the true issue is the redefinition of marriage? How is it that any other institution can unite a kid with his/her mom and dad? A child can only come to being from the union of a man and woman and marriage is the only institution that can unite mom, dad and child. When you bring up gay adoption or other scenarios, you are skirting around the point and dismissing the meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and children conceived from their union. Only marriage has the potential to spawn offspring and it is vital to keep marriage as the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads. God Love You.
By your logic, then then a straight couple who have children they did not bear, are redefining marriages too. Look, there are endless examples of marriages that do not yield the union of people to their biological children.
I mean just take the example of the married couple who puts their kid up for adoption. They are still married afterwords. Take the example of parents who divorce after having a kid. They are still the parents of the kid.
Your Fellow Catholic: Your approach is backward and you confuse the issue as you try to incorporate things such as adoption into the definition of marriage. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman and any child born of this union. This definition does not mean a man and woman have to have a child. What you fail to comprehend and/or acknowledge is that every child has a mom and dad and has the right of knowing and being cared for by his mom and dad, unless obviously it is not good for the child. Being that every child has a mom and dad, it is only marriage that has the ability to unite kids with their moms and dads. So, I will ask you again, how can you issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex without redefining marriage? You have not answered this question and are still advocating for the redefinition of marriage although you claim otherwise. God Love You.
Attack sodomite marriage no matter where its filth lay
YFC, the electorate is no guarantee of good sense, demonstrated time and again throughout history, beginning possibly with Socrates.
YFC says of himself, “I actually think”: Well, so far, YFC, you have not shown this claim to be good.
No matter what our morally sick judiciary and our cowardly legislators say is legal, they can’t make it even acceptable by Almighty God! That is the bottom line and I have stated thus to the Press when they have called me.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
The picture looks like father and son; I didn’t realize that gay people are already marrying sons and fathers … incredible, but then the gays see no point in differentiating sex partners. The two gays in the pic are no doubt preparing the child for the same kind of philosophy called, “if it’s flesh, it does not matter what kind, as far as sexual activity is concerned”. Not a few bishops and priests have already stepped into the limelight of leading the way. The other bishops have of course done their jobs of looking askance at their brother bishops while expressing perhaps some discomfort.
What the hell are you talking about?
“We have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard.”
– Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 1993.
‘Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill (same-sex marriage legislation), but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.’
– Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis, 2010.
“For a Catholic to receive holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: ‘I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the church teaches.’ In effect, they would contradict themselves. This sort of behavior would result in publicly renouncing one’s integrity and logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.”
Archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vigneron, 2013.
“Grassroots public protesting for the right of homosexuals to marry was notable by its absence. Instead, this has been a movement led by lawyers and professional activists, backed by the CEOs of hedge-fund corporations and newspapers of record such as The Times.”
The battle over sodomy marriage is not about marriage equality but
Look at these 2 revolting sodomites!…I pray that this wonderful child, does not grow up mentally disturbed, with a personality disorder and pray not…a lesbian. This photograph is diabolic… and satan rejoices when this kind of scene is played out…three fractured people…the 2 sodomites and the innocent, trusting child, who will be scarred for life living in this household of perversion!
Proud Rhodesian, a resounding “AMEN” to your excellent comment!
Proud Rhodesian, you don’t know these people. You say the photograph is diabolic and satan rejoices. How can you say such a thing? You would need to spend a few days with this little girl and see how she is treated and what her life is like and then maybe you would have something different to say. How many girls grow up in homes without a father? This little girl has 2 fathers and hopefully get much love and attention from them. Having 2 fathers and being raised in a home with 2 men would have no effect on whether she would be a lesbian or not. God bless this family.
Mark, the more you are against the teachings of God and His Church, the more vituperative your irrational comments are. I would urge those readers who want the truth to refer to “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons “, which was released on July 31, 2003 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The following is a quote from that document.
“Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children,” the document states. Such policies, the document continues, are “gravely immoral.”
Now, Mark, rebut that.
Readers, pray for this little girl. She faces a difficult future.
Laurette, I didn’t realize that my comments about this family were vituperative. Laurette, the statement that you quoted is confusing to me. I don’t think it is right to stereotype a group of people as violent. That is a serious charge to bring against people. I think such a statement encourages unjust discrimination against some people. If someone read that and physically attacked people in such families because they were viewed as immoral, what would the Church say to that? It is difficult for me to read such words. I understand that many people have a strong dislike for homosexual persons but as a young person this was not something that I was exposed to. I must tell you that as a young person and even as a young adult I never met any women that strongly disliked gay people and wasn’t really exposed to anti-gay speech or violence. I did hear some anti-gay talk from guys but just chalked that up to ignorance.
The Proud Rhodesian’s comment sounds eerily like Luke 18:9 to 14.
Sorry Francis…poor analogy…2 gay sodomites posing before a photographer, is not an indictment about my sinfulness, for all the world to sicken at…it is a shocking, sinful presentation that all can view with horror, made all the more tragic because a child will very probably be seriously humiliated and psychologically disordered, due to the fallout from this sinful, perverse family she will be raised in…her father is the one who will be answering for this mortally sinful lifestyle…not I…
Francis you echo the constant liberal line “judge not lest thee be judge”…Rhodesian is right calling sin, sin is not an indictment. It is your liberal attitude that has allowed the culture to circle the drain…I proudly judge and I have violently confronted homosexuals especially priest, when they are exposed for the filth that they are I am by no means indicting myself. When need a new inquisition to cleanse the society and the Church…
Yes please do look upon those two loving parent of their child Do you see disgust, or do you see love shared among a family?
It actually looks like a grandfather, father and daughter.
DISGUST….. plain and simple YFC
Such despicable posts.
Then reform yourself, peter.
Any prelate that “champion’s” this diabolic lifestyle will answer…. “it would be better for him that a millstone were hung about his necks”…
For prelates who are found so guilty, it will probably be at least a Mountain of Millstones!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Forget the sexual disorder for a moment and focus on the heart of what the author is really exposing…the sheer tyrannical nature of the homosexual movement. “Christopher Caldwell, a writer for the Weekly Standard, wrote for the Claremont Institute website last month, “The most troubling aspect of the gay-marriage movement is that, more than any social movement in living memory, more than feminism at its bra-burning peak in the 1970s, it aims not to engage in lively debate but to shut it down”
The point being that we’re dealing with something being forced on us that is not democratic, moral or even desirable for anyone but a strange dissident group of utterly amoral people who want to silence us…take away our freedoms…force us to deny what we hold most dear and make those views crimes. If these two (what am I to call them..they’re not men, not women) humans in the photo were wearing brown shirts it would be less bizaare than to see what are basically fascists wearing rainbow flowered leis or necklaces (such a challenge to come up with adjectives when writing about something so foreign) They’ve become what they initially hated…BULLIES! What’s the matter with us all? As Americans, no matter what else, we’ve always fought against anything that would deny our freedoms and yet everyone is so passive as these Vandals and Visigoths threaten our whole way of life.
Is it something they’re putting in the water? (rhetorical question) Meanwhile, Bishop Campbell in Columbus bravely soldiers on in defending Church teaching in the wake of a bully lesbian trying to force him and the Church to rehire her or else even though she’d signed a duly legal document that she would abide by its rules. Does anyone here care? No, you’re all too busy castigating the bishops for not doing their jobs. It’s no wonder the homosexuals are tromping everthing in their wake…everyone’s to busy finding fault with the Church and not supporting those who’re actually on the front lines.
Don’ t use all inclusive terms such as “you’re all too busy”. Do you know all of us and what we do or not do in these matters?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
“Left-libertarian British journalist Brendan O’Neill warned in a column in Spiked, that in 20 years of writing on political issues, “I have never encountered an issue like gay marriage, an issue in which the space for dissent has shrunk so rapidly, and in which the consensus is not only stifling but choking.”
Other than the issue of abortion, which the courts took out of the hands of the people in 1973 to consequences that are still reverbating, this issue of same sex marriage threatens to shut down free speech altogether and brand those of us with alternative lifestyles(one man, one woman) as bigots, homophobes, and haters. How is that for free speech and gentile discussion?
Satan is going “all in” on homosexual sex. Knowing its deep offense to God and Man, the Devil is using Angelic intelligence to simply outfox Mankind. The article is correct – public opinion does not change so quickly. However, we need not go far back in history to see society completely transormed by evil, even though it previously seemsed open to freedom and diversity. Simply compare Weimar Germany with what happened when “National Socialism” took over. Everyone was afraid to criticise the Government due to fear: the law was taken over and due process and legal protections of all kinds (and institutional safety, too) were lost. Jews, who had accumulated much prestiege and property all of a sudden became anathema to the simple daily ongoing nature of German society. Teachers, local police — virtually everyone — joined in to be a “better Nazi” even if not formal Party members. This compares favorably to the homosexual sex movement. The end result will also be the same — citizens simply afraid to voice their opinions, with legal sanctions pursued to stifle even the slightest dissent. The homosexual movement hates families, hates the Catholic Church, hates “normalcy” to the extent theix sexual practices are stated as being “deviant”. Speech codes are already being advanced, see what happened at ESPN very recently, and throughout the corporate world. All are in danger of losing constitutional rights, if not personal freedom.
That’s exactly right St Chris.
A prof at U of Toledo was fired for writing a column in the Toledo Blade as just a citizen questioning hom. Socalled marriage. Is there an organization we can join to confront these
You know the answer to your question above and you are presumably already a member of the Church organized and founded by Our Lord and Savior and watched over by His Mother. We may be persecuted by Obama very soon as were the Mexican Catholics under Calles who Obama has a strickingly similar political plan with.
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
True, Kenneth…but I do take part in Nat’l Org.of Marriage, Brian Brown’s org. which organizes rallies etc. The problems besetting society and the Church are rarely even discussed, let alone acted on where I live.
Wait, wait. I thought we were Vandals and Visigoths? Were they Nazis?
Gee, so sorry I mixed my ‘metaphors’ (in quotations because technically vandals, Visigoths and fascists were meant to be literary devices to express villains…or if you like, those opposed to Church teaching and were not true metaphors prefaced by like and /or as) I’m the first to admit that I’m often a bit free and easy ‘widda lingo’ but I mean well. I don’t use the word nazi because it’s overused and inaccurate. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet and A cow pie posing as a chocolate sundae still stimks, so i chose these words to conjure up a type of person who will stop at nothing to bring about his own desires for his own selfish ends…an anarchist…a wanton destroyer that thinks nothing of tearing down a civilized society. Golly, I hope that clears things up for you!
Oops I meant to write ‘as opposed to a similie using like/as. Typing w/one finger on iPhone the hardest thing is catching auto finish changing wrds!
Dana, you need the large button version if the iphone. The phone is not larger, and there is only one button. Keep finger down longer for dashes. Learn morse code, and you’ll be all set.
Dear Dana and St. Christopher:
Please remember that the people you refer to as Villains, Visigoths, Vandals, Stalin wannabees, and Nazis are children of God. They are not cow dung. They are real life human beings. Loved by Christ as much as any of us. You are not entitled to literary images in order to degrade and dehumanize them.
St Christopher, I don’t think gay people hate all those things. I get angry and alienated when Catholics tie gay people to satan and the devil. I think it is extremely insulting. You talk of how the Jews were treated and I think that some people dislike gay people like many once disliked Jewish people. The Nazis demonized Jewish people just like some here demonize gay people. In regard to same-sex marriage, there is a lot more popular support for it and not as many people speak out against it. I think it is comparable to inter-racial marriage. When I was a young person a lot of people spoke out against inter-racial marriage. In the 1960’s, 80% of people were against it but the Supreme Court ruled that laws against inter-racial marriage violated the Constitution. I am sure that many people are still against it but they pretty much keep their opinions to themselves. But I am willing to bet that almost all people that are against inter-racial marriages are also against same-sex marriages.
PA there is no comparison between inter-racial marriage and so called sodomite marriage… and no it is not as supported as you think, just because you listen bogus polls churned out by the NY Times and ABC News…So you are finally admitted that the Church should be forced to accept sodomite marriage….
PA: It has been a very long time since I posted on calcath since my posts rarely ever got posted. I see you are still at it and I had to call you out on this one. Quote from you: “In regard to same-sex marriage, there is a lot more popular support for it and not as many people speak out against it.” It DOES NOT matter how many people in society say that gay marriage is acceptable. The CATHOLIC CHURCH has spoken and said that it is WRONG!!!!! What part of that don’t you get? You have publically excommunicated yourself here on calcath for this. Do not receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin that you are in. Tell me PA, the majority of the people wanted Christ put to death. Were they correct? The majority is NOT THE LAW PA!!! THe Church laws are what we are to follow. NOT the corrupt and filthy society we live in today. PA, you can choose God and His Church or you can choose to live by the rules of man. You cannot serve both! Your choice PA!
Welcome back RR, well said as usual… the fight against the sodomites is til the death….
It sure is, Canisius! I’m disgusted every day when I turn on the news and all the liberals are hard at work with their gay, mafia agenda! Physically makes me ill!
Excellent post, RR and much to the point!
Dana: I see you’re still here defending the Church and the truth! Great posts as well!
RR, I send you greeting on this Feast of the Ascension. In PA, the Ascension is a holy day of obligation. I just returned from Mass not long ago where I received the body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I also remembered you and your family in my prayers. Yes, much of what happens in society is so sad. They keep telling the story on our news of the 3 women who were held captive in Clevelande by an evil man. It is hard for me to believe that such terrible things happen in our society. I wish you and your family peace and blessings.
Marf from PA,
Don’t try to smooze us with your pious words. We know the devil’s speech and how he uses his fools to accomplish his desire for the destruction of God’s Church. From what I can read here, if you received Communion today, you had better go and find a real Confessor and soon!
May God have mercy on your sick soul,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Good one, PA! I see you are still playing the game of switch the subject. PA, FYI, the Feast of the Ascension is a Holy Day of Obligation in ALL states, not just PA. The Church is alive in ALL states! Who knew?! Ah, yes! The switcheroo game you continue to hide behind. Change the subject from your deliberate dissent from Church teaching regarding ACTIVE homosexuality to the 3 women in Cleveland. Yes, that man was every bit as evil and deviant as the ACTIVE homosexuals. Both ACTIVE homosexuals ( the ones the Church condemns and you approve of) and this man are evil and practice the works of the devil. You’re sly, PA, BUT not sly to those of us here on Calcath who have you all figured out! When you publically speak in favor of ACTIVE homosexuality on here PA, that the Church clearly declares as mortal sin, you become their accomplice and therefore you have committed a sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion and defending mortal sin. God help your soul, PA! I sure know it goes far beyond CalCath to help you! Peace and Blessing to you too, PA!
He meant that it is still on Thursday. You are blessed. Ours is on Sundays. Really messes with the Pentecost novenas. Wish they’d move it back to Thursday!
Anonymous, I don’t think they should have Ascension Thursday on a Sunday. In my opinion, if the dioceses don’t want it to be a mandatory holyday that is OK but they should still have Masses for Ascension Thursday on the actual Thursday, 40 days after Easter, and encourage people to attend Mass is they are able. When I went to school we often had the day off unless we had to make up for a snow day and then they had a holyday Mass for all the students.
RR, I hope that you have a very happy Mother’s Day. Have a wonderful day. And happy Mother’s Day to all the other moms here also.
This is more from Mark from the “gay agenda” play book. Even broadly comparing racial minorities to sodomites is reprehensible.
Well, actually, Laurette, black people were treated worse 50 and 60 years ago than gay people are now. And the talk against inter-racial marriage was even more shrill. A larger percentage of people were against that then are against gay marriage today. People that supported civil rights for black people were called names that were not so nice. Using the word sodomites against gay people is quite telling, it reminds me of how people used name calling against black people when I was younger. Yes – reprehensible.
My goodness, Mr. Fisher, your hate is showing. Do you actually believe that being nasty and insulting is a virtue? You remind me of one of the priests that taught me in high school. When I was in 12 grade he had the same attitude towards me that you do. So your attitude is nothing new to me. I am still trying to figure out what the guy had against me but maybe he just didn’t like me because I was something of a “goody two shoes” and that rubbed him the wrong way. Anyway, you could use a little less pride and a little more charity.
RR, your comment made me think of that man in Cleveland. I just think it is tragic how many young women are exploited in our country. This is just the tip of the iceburg. You can’t blame everything on the gays. That man was an ACTIVE heterosexual. But he was more than that, the rest of the story is that the man was also a murderer. One of the women he held captive and raped became pregnant 5 times and that creep starved her and beat her until she miscarried. It is hard for me to believe such evil but California Catholic Daily writes about other cases like this and thus educates us. But a point should be made that the sins of this man are no reflection on men that are good husbands to their wives, just as the sins of some gay people are no reflection on gay people that lead good lives. I did not mention it in my last post to you but telling me not to receive communion is very inappropriate. The one priest that I go to for confession has told me to go to communion often and to be devoted to the Eucharist. When we receive communion we unite ourselves with Christ. I don’t know why someone would encourage a person to distance themselves from Christ.
Mark. you are drawing false analogies. Interracial marriage is still a legitimate biological marriage. Its prohibition stemmed from ideas of racial superiority/inferiority and was based on long-standing prejudices. Homosexual “marriage” is biologically untenable; it violates the natural law. It is an absurdity to speak of same sex “marriage”. There ain’t nouch thing…
Anton, today interracial marriage is accepted by most people but 50 and 60 years ago in the US this was far from the case. Some 80% of people were against it and many considered it to be an abomination. People used the Bible to justify their objection to interracial marriage. I have a friend from the South and he said that in the church that he was raised in people in interracial marriages would not have been allowed to set foot inside his church. He joined that Catholic Church at the age of 16 in part because of the Catholic Church’s support of Civil Rights for black Americans. Yes of course, ideas of inferiority and prejudices were part of this. But today some people think that homosexual persons are inferior, some are prejudiced against them and some feel that discrimination against them can be justified.
Mark from PA,
Does it matter at all to you that God is decidedly against SODOMY!
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mr. Fisher, I know that you consider me to be a sodomite. I find it sad that you seem to get some satisfaction in throwing this word in people’s faces. We had a visiting priest today at Mass, he said that his mother, like mothers everywhere, told him, “If you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything.”
Things that were once socially unacceptable no longer are. Divorce, co-habitation, having children out of wedlock, premarital sex are now the norm. It is now considered more wrong to criticize people than to commit these sins. Many people do not see these things as moral issues. Likewise with same sex marriage. The trend now is to protect people from having to live according to someone else’s moral standards. Most people still believe in God-but they don’t believe that he is watching for people to mess up so he can punish them. The media and the entertainment industry has had a lot to do with the acceptance of gay marriage. Those who oppose it are being portrayed as crazy or mean. A lot of those who post here play right into those stereotypes. People are driven away from the pro-marriage fight by the crudeness and rudeness of those who oppose the “gay agenda”. We stand up for marriage as God intends. We must do it in the manner that He Wills.
And so, Anonymous, you’re describing yourself like a camel with its nose in the air, and running off with every breeze that comes by … from the Gospel.
I usually don’t care for “me too” posts, but this one is worth it. “A lot of those who post here play right into those stereotypes” is very well stated!
Michael Voris wrote the vortex just for you yesterday anonymous …please check out his talk that he titled “The Boretex” where he speaks from the PC, church of nice view. He describes you to a T. God love you.
It does not describe me at all, Dana. You must have really misunderstood my post.
Sorry anon. It’s quite unfair to sum up anyone in one minute and with one finger type them in a little box! Also I LOL at skai’s large button iPhone ! Dot dot dash
I forgot morse code, Dana.
Ok, Anonymous, go ahead and describe yourself so that other readers may see if your posts match your description.
Add me to those “who must have misunderstood my post” and probably many others.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Sorry I was confusing. I’ve re-read the post and I don’t see what caused the problem.
Anonymous, maybe some of us should sue anyone for using our stereotypes that we create.
The author would like us to believe that activist courts are responsible for gay marriage in this country. He writes, “Where
‘gay marriage’ has been installed, it has largely been the result of the deliberate suppression of the democratic process and the work of the judiciary, the ‘legal elite.’
This claim is false. Same-sex marriage is now legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia. In every single one of these jurisdictions, legalization has been achieved through legislative means and even, in a few cases, re-affirmed by popular initiative.
The activist courts ploughed the ground for the state legislatures and governors to sign off on the sodomy activist laws.
OK Skai, keep up saying false things and see where you end up. In November, voters in three states voted by majority vote, without duress or any work of the courts, to extend access to marriage licenses to same sex couples. A fourth state voted to not put prohibitions of SSM into its state constitution. So go ahead, keep spewing one or more falsehoods in every post here on CCD.
If the government allowed people to marry farm animals, dogs, poultry et al…would that give zoophilia a “gold” seal of approval YFC?
Some European govts do allow people to “marry” animals … well, not “marry” but to carry on with animals sexually. Maybe this is on its way to the USA.
Dear Proud Rhodesian: No one, so far as I know, is proposing allowing people to marry animals including poultry. So your question is, therefore, irrelevant.
Let us redirect you back to the truth of upholding Catholic Church teaching instead of promoting and defending mortal sin. You are letting the entire world know that you would have also been one of the people in the crowd who not only cheered for and voted for the choice to free Barabbas but who patted many others on the back for voting for Barabbas too!
YFC, activist courts in bed with major media have been prepping the ground for legislative abominations for decades. People such as yourself whose knowledge of the news goes back a year or so wouldn’t really know this; but, for those who have been reading related news stories for a half century or at least a few decades should be well aware of it.
Skai and so called YFC,
I remember only too well the discussions I had with Congressman Clyde Doyle, D, CA 23rd CD about the infiltration of the means of wide communication, the legislatures, the Democrat Party, and the courts by those intent on destroying our Republic. He was the then Ranking Member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and it was in the early 60’s.
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M> Fisher
Dear your so called Kenneth M. Fisher: What does your post have to do with anything we are talking about?
YFC, your argument has no vision to it. Voters are moved by media, courts, and politicians. All these categories have long worked on the voter, manipulated and seduced the voters into reprehensible dalliancing with the devil. If you deny this, then you really need to see about your fixation problem, and you know what I’m saying, dude. Perhaps you even seek out labels and descriptions that demean your person. Remember that you cannot find out who you are unless you are tight with Jesus, and this means through the holy Sacraments including the fullness of the Word of God.
Dear Skai – I’m down with Jesus, just so you know. We hang.
only a liberal like YFC would use ghetto slang to refer to the Divine King of History….another reason to dislike YFC
YFC, I hope you don’t get caught like some people in the news today, a man sexually abusing his pet peacock, a woman behavioral counselor in a public school indicted over video tape of her long term sex with her dog, a man caught “engaging” a mare in a barn … caught at shotgun point by the horse’s woman owner, and likely countless other precursors to the beastiality permissive laws in some European nations. There have been men arrested for sex with picnic tables, trees, inflatable companions, etc … the gay movement is the frontal attack on morality, and is followed by the legalization of all this other derangement.
Skai, you have a vivid imagination. I wonder if you were knocking back a few cold ones yesterday.
Every human being, as a mature, educated adult, understands that there are careers, places, & situations, for which we are not qualified. We don’t walk into a hospital, and become doctors, if we don’t have the brainpower to get a degree. We can’t be actors if we can’t act, and if we are not handsome. We can’t walk on a pro ballfield, if the skill, size, and talent are lacking. We can’t be good managers unless we are skilled with personal interaction. Many of my classmates became professional pilots, and were well paid. I couldn’t become a pilot, because of my poor eyesight. Do I have the right to riot, complain about oppression, or claim I am a victim of FAA prejudice? Can I write an OP Ed editorial in the Chronicle, detailing just how racist, mean, unfair, and ugly, the FAA is to the myopic? Can I win a lawsuit and gain compensation for my unjust loss? Ordinary human decency bids me refrain from such conduct. In other words, we learn as adults to refrain from life situations for which we cannot qualify, regardless of the reason. Yes, it’s unfair that I was unable to be a pilot. TOUGH!! That’s life. Life is unfair. Many Gays seem to lack this sense of tact with marriage. The basic fact is that Marriage is meant for the proper rearing of children. Children need the best that a man and a woman, have to give. And we all know that our Mothers and Fathers sacrificed themselves for us. For gays to claim that they are qualified to raise children, seems to be overwhelming hubris. Gays are only thinking of their own lives here, their own selves. Children are a distant second or third with most gays, and if fact, most of the Gays here in San Francisco lead lives that have negligible contact with children, and they prefer it that way. So, Gay guys, why the pretend act with Marriage? If you don’t prefer being around children, why the need to be married?
Very well said, Joe. The point I’ve been trying to make on many of these same-sex so-called marriage posts is that these people are driven by self-interest to the point of mono-mania…a selfishness that lacks compassion for the people they’re stepping over, a concern for the society they’re undermining and a deliberate twisting of anything we say to show them their error…eg.I in no way called anyone cow dung…wasn’t even on my radar, and myfellow said I called them cow dung et al. But as many other posters have learned, there really isn’t any point in trying to reason with them as it is as water off a duck’s back. Now myfellow will be saying a called them D.A.’s haha
So the gays there in San Francisco represent gays and lesbians everywhere? Like many heterosexual couples don’t feel the same way. Got a question that isn’t loaded? Most gay couples who have children aren’t legally married. Nor is marriage a requirement to have children or adopt. The basic fact is that Marriage is meant for the proper rearing of children.. OK. Then, a better question, joe, is why should THESE children be denied the benefit of being raised in a married household?
Again what is missing in your remarks is what is best for the child – having a Father with all of the best masculine characteristics of males, and a Mother with all of the feminine virtues of women. That is the ideal for children, and this is at the optimum with the nuclear family. No one can deny that children are sometimes the unfortunate victims of life – they are orphaned, or they or their parents fall ill with cancer, or damaged by violence or extreme poverty, or families are blighted with drugs or alcohol. Yet, we have to seek the best for children. We have to give them the right to a decent and loving life. The nuclear family provides that loving care. Gay people do not really create the impression that they are capable of the proper care of children. Look at the examples we have here in San Francisco: The Folsom street Fair, where gay men and women participate in sadism and sexuality, and the “Up your Alley” where gay men engage in open sex on a public street, or the Gay parade with it’s quirky behavior and nudism, or “Hunky Jesus” where thousands watch naked men, dressed as Jesus, mock Christians on Easter Sunday, or the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence”, men dressed as nuns, or “Nuns on the Nunway”. We as parents are watching these displays, and believe me, they do not give the impression that gay individuals are capable of decently caring for children, or providing a stable and kind environment for children. So the question remains, “Why do gays feel they have the right to get married?’ From looking at the Folsom Street Fair, let’s face it – Gays should not be presenting themselves as being capable of getting married and raising children. No. Absolutely Not.
Joe, I live on the other side of the country and I have never been to the “Folsom Street Fair” or “Up Your Alley.” From what I gather, the people involved in those fairs are not really all that interested in raising children. However, I don’t think it is right to stereotype a whole group of people by what a few in that group do. A couple of the posters here seem to link me to things like those fairs and I don’t think that is right. Gay people are a diverse group of people just like straight people are. If people want to adopt children they have to undergo a home study and be found to be able to provide a fit home for children. Straight people who are promiscuous and drink and party to excess are not fit to be raising children and gay people that live like that aren’t fit to raise children either. People need to be able to nurture their children.
PA, not only is institutional promiscuity a leading cause of institutionalized sodomy but so is idolatry. I bring this up frequently and you never ever comment on idol worship. Do you, PA, worship an idol? If so, then tell us what it is, name it.
Skai, I worship Christ.
PA, your blogs come across as you worshiping an idol you’ve named “Christ”, and not the real Christ. The real Christ says that you cannot have both mammon and Christ, but only one or the other.
Mark from PA – children deserve the example of a good Mother and good Father as roll models as intended by God.
Idols are never content to be let alone. They DEMAND to be worshiped. So it is with the idol of “gay” rights.
What we must do is love the sinner (and we’re all sinners) but hate the sin.
The “gay” rights advocates demand: “Love me; love my favorite sin.” We are being commanded to celebrate sodomy, and set the example of sodomy for children. NO!
Skai, so it seems you see my worship of Christ as the divine presence in the Holy Eucharist as worshiping an idol not the real Christ. I think that is thinking that comes from your days as a Protestant. Most Protestants don’t believe in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist so I can understand to a point what you mean.
The gays in San Francisco are the logical outcome of gays everywhere, peter. Gaydom is a movement, the leading edge of total social corruption, the first wave of the tsunami from Hell.
Those who wish to live in mortal sexual sin – are not doing God’s Will.
They are VERY SELFISH and only doing their own Will.
If they do not repent and change they will not enter Heaven.
In the words of Jesus: Mt 7:21-23.
Some bloggers are under the erroneous mind-set that when the government passes legislation which allows sinful activity to become law, i.e. “abortion”, and now same sex marriage in a few states, it is seen as making it acceptable in the eyes of the citizenry. These arguments, with a few noted “gay” persons who patronize this blog with regularity, are becoming tedious and redundant. They know what the Church’s view and position is concerning “sodomy”, homosexual activity, and the like…leave the Church…if this lifestyle animates you…LEAVE!…the Church will never endorse or validate this putrescent lifestyle…you savvy?
“Mark from PA” and “Your Fellow Catholic”: Nowhere does anything written by moi say that Jesus (or the Father) rejects those born (if that is accurate) with homosexual direction (or tendencies). What is hated is homosexual sex; a mortal sin in the Catholic Church. Regrettably, many “homosexuals” equate their sexuality with themselves, their very being. Current striving and argument makes clear that homosexuals demand the “right” to have sex with their own gender, and oppose institutions that deny them this right. Further, they want to mimic normalcy to the extent that they actually adopt babies, young and impressionable children– an abomination to many in America (including moi). The crushing presence and demands of homosexual sex advocates simply cannot co-exist with the great majority of people. It is one thing for a society to decide (or have courts decide for them) not to prosecute homosexual sexual behavior, it is entirely another to have society insist that speech codes must be used (or you are fired with no real recourse), and that there cannot be any criticism of homosexual sexual behavior, similar to what is in this blog. Yes, a society can say that it embraces a set of moral principles and behavioral expectations, and that homosexual sexual behavior is not in accord with them. This might mean that certain jobs and positions (mostly dealing with children, for obvious reasons) are closed to homosexuals (as the priesthood must be closed). It does not mean that Jesus rejects homosexuals because they are homosexuals. He may well reject them if they practice their sexual preferences (just as Christ may well punish the adulterer and the fornicator). We all need to be worthy of Christ’s sacrifice, homosexuals included. This means that a homosexual cannot have sex, unless they are married to one of the opposite sex. Period. Political homosexuals ignore this truth. It does not matter at all, Mark from PA, that popular opinion may swing toward accepting homosexual sex and its manifestations (although the polls relied on are likely not accurate); nor whatever courts may say. Homosexual sex is forbidden and is anathema to God and his Church.
“worthy of Christ’s sacrifice”? Why would God create a soul who was not worthy of the work of the Cross?
This guy is the strangest libertarian I’ve ever heard.
I regularly read Mises.org and Lewrockwell.com, ever since libertarians made major inroads on political policy through the Tea Party movement. This guy is decidedly strange in terms of libertarian philosophy.
Libertarians believe in individual rights—that individuals and private organizations should be free to order their lives as they so choose without government interference as long as their actions do not harm the property of others. Libertarians view the proper role of government as limited mostly to protecting “property rights” of individuals.
Consequently, most libertarians support not only gay marriage, but also polyamorous marriages, as long as they are relationships freely entered by consenting adults. To the libertarian, gays should be free to order their lives as they choose—which includes creating the legal relationships between people that exist in marriage.
However, libertarians generally think that employers and other private organizations should be free to hire and fire who they choose for what ever reason. Insurers should be free to deny gay applicants and private schools should be free to deny gay students because they are gay.
Thus, the part of the gay movement that libertarians generally oppose is legal protections for gays in employment rights, forced inclusion in company benefit programs, compelling private adoption agencies to place with gay couples, using legal force to protect housing rights ect.
BTW the Weekly Standard is much more of a CONSERVATIVE organ than a libertarian one. Most libertarian outlets despise Bill Kristol (founder of the weekly standard) as a war-mongering neocon who believes in big government.
JonJ, 3:05 PM,
So what is your point?
Kenneth M. Fisher
JonJ has entered a period of deep reflection, and is now at the stage of mulling over the various and sundry foundation stones of his life. He needs some prayer. He has seen the errors of his arguments but has not yet seen the true foundation.
Just that this guy is odd. I do think there are serious issues here about religious liberty.
The problem is the concatenation of things like workplace sexual harassment law, non-discrimination law and gay marriage if it comes into being. And the legal “fallout” surrounding those issues created by corporate lawyers trying to make sure their companies are “safe” will cause them to come down hard on employee behavior. You will have a world where pro-gay forces will feel free to express themselves while pro-religious views will risk career censure—all while not knowing exactly where the line is, because it’s being drawn by internal lawyers and not necessarily the courts.
While I have said I don’t see how the state can justify denying gay marriage when free association is a fundamental constitutional right, I also very much believe in freedom of religion. Gay marriage will create a mess for the activities of the Church as an employer, an educator, and as a provider of charitable services.
I see the religious exemption case that’s currently in the pipeline for the Supreme Court with respect to Obamacare as an important case. This religious exemption case will also be used to model rules for religious exemptions in the area of state gay non-discrimination laws.
JonJ – where did you go to school?
The US Constitution says nothing at all about marriage.
The right of the people to” peaceably assemble” is not marriage in any language.
US Constitution – BILL of RIGHTS –
Article I – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech;
or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
(Secondarily, each State has a Constitution which should be reviewed.
CA Constitution – Article I – “….. and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.”)
From LifeNews today…’British professor John Milbank suggests that in his country this drive for state control over the meaning of marriage and parenthood was the very point:
“There was no demand for “gay marriage” and this has nothing to do with gay rights. Instead, it is a strategic move in the modern state’s drive to assume direct control over the reproduction of the population, bypassing our interpersonal encounters. This is not about natural justice, but the desire on the part of biopolitical tyranny to destroy marriage and the family as the most fundamental mediating social institution.
Heterosexual exchange and reproduction has always been the very “grammar” of social relating as such. The abandonment of this grammar would thus imply a society no longer primarily constituted by extended kinship, but rather by state control and merely monetary exchange and reproduction.”
I am truly sorry for those of same sex attraction who are going to be hurt by these changes as much as children and society in general. As I’ve said before, I think they’re being used . I’m sorry for all involved. We’re all so fragile and there’s so much suffering in this world. I get angry because what I cherish is under attack, but I know through it all we are called to see the souls that are held hostage by satan just as those dear girls in Cleveland were imrisoned. Such evil exists in the world. StMichael pray for us!
CCC: ” 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”
CCC: ” ……. “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
Let’s call it what it is – “SAME SEX MARRIAGE is approval of SODOMY.
From what I have read on this blotsite and so many, there has been no lack of “social space” in the public discourse for those who still object to marriage equality.
Au contraire, I do worry from time to time about some people flirting with terminal apoplexy!
Like it or not, 20 states plus DC allow marriage equality or comparable status (civil unions and domestic partnerships) and represent 42% of the total US population of 314 million and 39% of the states and DC.
Not only has the train left the station, it is well down the track.
McCrea, you’d have been thrilled to reside in Sodom or Gomorrah where the percentage was a full 100%.
Skai, you still don’t understand the concept that if a heterosexual man sexually assaults another man this doesn’t make him gay. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t really say anything about the sexual orientation of the people that lived there. You have your own theology, much of it you brought into the Catholic Church with you.
Wrong again PA, wrong again……
PA, Sodom and Gomorrah were gay, every single person in those cities and towns and villages was a sex deviant, and God smote all of them for sex deviancy. This deviancy was not man and woman sex, but all other possibilities. Not only that, but God smote their fannies long before Moses was given the Ten Commandments. Any sex other than man with woman is deviant and deserves death according to God. Jesus offers to deliver such people out of eternal death, but few follow Him. You are not one of His followers because you constantly argue that sodomy is ok and that sodomites can be good Catholics.
Think about this for a moment. If every single person in that city was gay, the city would have died off non-violently when the last citizen of the city died. No need for God to smote.
But if they WERE all gay, then how did they get that way? We are pretty sure that 2-4% give or take are gay. Suddenly there was a mutation only in sodom and gomorrah that made them gay and violent? Just kind of makes one scratch one’s head…
Skai, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was handed down in oral tradition for over a thousand years before it was written down. According to you all the men there had a homosexual orientation. How in the world do you know this? Were you taught this in the denomination that you were raised in? Do you have some kind of knowledge that others don’t have? What about the children there? How were they born if all the men were homosexuals? Most of the people there were surely straight, just like most people everywhere. You have your own theology about this, it isn’t what I was taught as a young person in Catholic school and it isn’t Catholic theology.
Jim, the US Government and most States also recognize and approve ABORTION as “legal”.
That does not mean that we should ignore or condone mortal sin.
Jim McCrea says….”Not only has the train left the station, it is well down the track.”.
Jesus mercifully warns us about such arrogance when he said, “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? Luke 18: 8 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
Jim McCrea ignores Christ and proudly tells the entire world that he is also one of the majority who has fallen into the ditch of mortal sin. Jim needs our prayers. Bragging rights for the majority of passengers who are riding on a bullet train to hell is certainly nothing to be proud of.
Luke 14:5 14:5 And answering them, he said: Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit and will not immediately draw him out, on the sabbath day?
14:6 And they could not answer him to these things.
Jim McCrea when I read your comments I felt a stabbing reminder of how wrong this society is heading. I felt darkness and felt that we need to make right with our Lord for these evil comments that promote sin and discourage truth. God forgive you and lead you to His truths. May you allow your guardian Angel to do his job as God commanded and help you not fall but you do have free will, it’s often hard for many to be obedient.
I felt that it offended our Lord. I felt terribly sad that you have been bought to the ways of the world. Many have and continue to grow. I recall when I was younger there were more people who protected the unborn but today that number seems like it’s less. It’s sad that some born alive then murdered children have to be sacrificed in order for the shop of horrors abortion mill had to be exposed and now on trial but this shows that the hypocritical ideas of the socialist and liberals that use to use the excuse that abortion needs to be legal so women would not have to have underground abortions that lead to death, well abortion is legal and we are finally hearing about the women who have died or been butchered and even their unborn children were tortured merciless…Abortion is legal and there is still those evil abuses that many of the liberals preached that there won’t be if abortion was kept legal. It was all a lie…The good few are the ones who are helping expose these lies and telling the real truth. We are living the outcome…legalize abortion and look there are more homosexuals now….more to sinfulness continue to come as we continue to permit sinful choices especially since we are scandalizing our youth and the unborn!
Now guess what? People have grown more coldly towards the unborn who were born alive then killed, it’s sad that we even have to have a trial…it should of been a slam dunk…a guilty verdict of murder. I hate it when I listen to the news about the three women who were kidnapped, raped and locked up for 10 years or so, I hate it when they refer to the predator an alleged kidnapper and rapist. Alleged! Geeze, so sick! Also with J Arias case, just because she wasn’t kidnapped but she was also a victim of sexual seduction and abuse. OJ Simpson who was the real abuser got away with murder and here we have poor J Arias, she was the victim as well and is going to be sentenced.
This world is unjust and embracing same sex marriage will only continue to bring down society and bring down God’s wrath upon this wicked society. Praise God we still have the good and faithful, their prayers and sufferings are whats holding back what this wicked world truly deserves. Praise God for His mercy, one person at a time will conversions grow.
Actually, Abeca Christian, in legalizing abortion there are less homosexuals because some of them have been aborted. You can’t really blame gay people for abortion.
Instead of making fun of people, why don’t you explain why it is wrong?
Jim, well the train has left the station and is well down the track for parts of the country but I think it is different when it comes to the Catholic Church. I think the Catholic Church feels that legalizing gay marriage will lead to less marriages between men and women. They might be somewhat correct in this. I think the Church would prefer that gay people marry people of the opposite sex and keep their sexual orientation quiet. If more gay people marry people of the same sex, then less will marry people of the opposite sex. The Church encourages people to marry people of the opposite sex regardless of their orientation.
PA you are so pathetically wrong all the time…”. I think the Catholic Church feels that legalizing gay marriage will lead to less marriages between men and women.” The Church opposes so called gay marriage because it is against the will Christ and is a deadly sin… and you taught Catechism, the damage you must have done to kids, my God you will be judge by Christ for that
Mark from PA, the Church desires for all men to be so united with Jesus Christ that they can say with St. Paul “it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives within me.” All people must crucify their flesh; all must die to self. There are three vocations: orders, marriage and single life. It would seem since those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are not candidates for priesthood and may not be able to marry, they would be of the single vocation. All states of life are states of work and prayer. A single person is much freer than either of the other two states. Those people that I know who are single are quite happy. They are available to take care of the ageing in their families without having other duties. They are able to do volunteer work that the others cannot do. They can give longer hours to work when needed without conflict. They have more time for friendship. All the states of life require a 100% commitment.
Mark from PA – Quit making things up. Church teaching in the CCC is very clear – that homosexuals are called to chastity – not pretending to be something they are not – by falsely marrying someone of the opposite sex.
MAC, I think many in the Church want gay people to pretend to be something that they are not. Many don’t want people to be openly gay. Many don’t want people saying they are gay. Some of the ex-gay ministries do encourage people to marry people of the opposite sex. Many priests are gay and the Church doesn’t really want these men to be open about it either. All priests, gay and straight are called to chastity.
Interesting that the topic of gay marriage seems always to bring 100+ reader comments. Let me add one more thought: Did you know that in the states of NM, FL & NV you can buy a marriage license and get married at a drive thru wedding chapel without leaving your car? These marriages are very fast: they take less than two minutes-it is faster and more convenient than ordering a burger at McDonalds!!! What is really interesting, is that these drive through marriages are FULLY RECOGNIZED BY THE US GOVERNMENT; THESE MARRIAGES ARE RECOGNIZED BY EVERY STATE GOVERNMENT AND ARE EQUAL IN EVERY WAY AS A RITE OF HOLY MATRIMONY CELEBRATED IN A CATHOLIC CATHEDRAL! So CALCATH readers are opposed to gay marriage because it changes the meaning of marriage? Come on, guys! Let’s think this thing through!!!! Gay marriage does NOTHING to harm traditional marriage. Gay marriage is NOT HOLY MATRIMONY. Gay marriage is nothing more than giving gays and lesbians who love each other the same rights as couples who choose to tie the knot at a drive through chapel! It has NOTHING to do with the Catholic Church! It has NOTHING to do with Holy Matrimony. It only allows everyone to have equal rights and to have their relationship recognized by government.
Marriage is the faithful, lifelong union of one man and one woman.
Just why must your same sex relationships be recognized by the government, Aaron? Do you ever stop to think this whole process through? What would happen to the role of human beings, for example, if the courts gave equal rights and priviledges to cows? Wouldn’t that change how we served food in restaurants, provided sleeping quarters in motels, sporting arena seating etc? You’d have to change everything from top to bottom. Of course, you’ll respond by saying ‘but this is not about cows but about human beings’, but if you think for just a moment, and actually take into account the consequences of your supposed simple ‘Gee, we only wanna get married cuz we luuuuvvv each other.” ruse you must surely see this will change society beyond recognition. Doesn’t it cause you just a little pin prick of conscience that you’re going against Church teaching, historical tradition and natural law? Surely you’re not so simple that you can’t put 2 +2 together and come up with 4. Somehow you’ve deluded yourself that you’re the persecuted good guys just lookin’ for equality. That states are permitting this sacrilege doesn’t make it right in the eyes of God. They changed all the laws in Germany in the 1930’s too and the whole country was swept along into accepting inherently evil ideas as legitimate rules of law. When I first read about the atrocities that took place in Germany in WWII I was utterly shocked and couldn’t conceive how supposed civilized human beings could do such evil. In the past five years I’ve come to see how it happened because it is happening here in this country by people who are blind to everything but their own selfish desires. When citizens no longer care about the fate of their country, but only their own, the country ceases to be a viable nation and can only self-implode as the weakened cells (the family) have been utterly corrupted. You’re basically anarchists and are no different than Benedict Arnold, who lined his own pockets as his countrymen struggled to carry on the fight, often with no food or shoes, or a place to sleep at night so this country could be free. Now we’re facing financial ruin, a breaking down of our schools and communities and you people are clogging the courts with your specious law suits and our streets with your vile parades with nudity and perversion…but, oh, that’s right…you’re the good guys that just want to find true love and marry and live happily ever after.
Dana, actually, many of us have though this through quite thoroughly. Granting cows equality is about as close to giving same sex couples marriage licenses as requiring planes to fly upside down when they pass the equator is to requiring airplanes to be pressurized.
Not only that….if one were to engage in one of these drive by “marriages” after a night of drunken stupidity, the Catholic Church teaches that there is no undoing this mistake. You are stuck with it for life buddy!
YFC, that is not correct. A sacramental marriage is permanent. A couple who civilly marries can divorce. The sin is in getting married outside the Church, though if one were drunk, it would lessen the culpability. (Though being drunk to that point is also sinful.) If a person has been civily married and divorced, there is no impediment to a sacramental marriage. Obviously, we don’t want to encourage this because marriage is supposed to be the sacramental union of a man and woman.
No, YFC. There are certain requirements to make a marriage between one man and one woman binding. Not ALL marriages meet this criteria, and certainly not one agreed to in a drunken state.
CCC: 1625 through 1637.
CCC: 1650 is also important for those who have civilly re-married.
Mandy, the CCC does not govern the issuance of marriage licenses by the state.
Anonymous we are not talking about sacramental marriage. We are talking about state-issued marriage licenses.
YFC, their is nothing in the Federal or State constitutions regarding the governance of marriage.
Governments have gotten involved for the protection and good of children. (Adults can fend for themselves.)
Last I heard, marriage between homosexuals will not produce children.
What governs marriage is God’s first command to Adam and Eve upon leaving the Garden: “Go forth, make babies and raise them”. God said this to two people, a man and a woman. This is marriage. The state has no business in it other than money and power.
YFC, you are arguing against the Catholic Church, against Jesus Christ, against the Holy Spirit, against the Heavenly Father, and against Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, not to mention against St Michael the Archangel. Specifically you are disputing the Great Commission which tells the Church to disciple the nations; yet, you argue that the nations should inform the Church. The only possible motive for gays and their agenda on marriage is to gain state money and to destroy the Church and unseat God from His throne.
Chris I’m not sure what your point is. Marriage license issuance and records are typically regulated through in the body of laws and administrative actions of a state. But what is the point? What difference does it make? I’m trying to be dense, I just really don’t understand how it affects anything we are talking about.
Once again I beg to differ Skai. The Church has no jurisdiction regulating state marriage licenses. Jesus Christ, his Apostles, and Holy Mother Church can no more change or regulate that process than it can change or regulate who gets food stamps. It may have an opinion about food stamps, or about marriage licenses, but it is up to the civil process to regulate and issue the licenses.
YFC, countless “drive through marriages” are performed each night of the calendar, although most of these are non verbal and the cars do not go anywhere near a drive through marriage kiosk. So, what’s your real point? I know you won’t be able to say it, so read my comment on it.
Aaron, remember in the ’70s when abortion was illegal. A large part of the concern at the time was unwed mothers. Remember how scandalous it was for a girl to get pregnant out of wedlock. Remember the shame. Remember the argument that a girl could get a safe abortion if it was made legal and be spared the social stigma. Fast forward to today. Single mothers are the majority. Abortion has killed millions of people. Who in the ’70s thought women would get abortions because a baby would be a detriment to her career? Who would have imagined married women getting abortions because it wasn’t the right time for a baby? The point is, you want to open a door that will be very hard to close. If marriage becomes just a contract between 2 adults, where will it stop? What changes will happen? Maybe you just want to come back to the US with your lover and see your kids. The repercussions of it will change things in ways you don’t anticipate. Your kids are grown. Maybe you have grandkids. Think back to what it was like to be a child. Remember teenage-itis. Remember being afraid you were really adopted? Kids haven’t changed. What would it be like to have a society where no one really knew who their parents were? Where anyone could be your parent? Where your parents could change on a whim? We have a lot of that already. I read online a moving letter by a young man who was an IVF baby. He had large issues being a Catholic in a Church that said he should not have existed. Kids protect their parents from realizing how their choices have harmed them, because they love their parents. Try to remember back to your childhood.
Anonymous, was the letter by the IVF baby written by someone that had a sperm donor as a father or were his father and mother married? Does the Catholic Church consider the children to be illegitimate if the person’s biological father was married to their mother when the child was conceived through IVF?
It is not a matter of legitimacy. IVF is not to be done, even by married couples. So, in his way of thinking, he should not have been. The Catholic Church prohibits IVF because of the loss of human life in the procedure and because it insists on the connection of the marriage act and conception.
Actually Anonymous, I think that if a married couple uses IVF to have a child this may be just as valid as a child that was conceived the regular way. What if a man got drunk and forced himself on his wife against her will and got her pregnant? A child that was conceived by a married couple having IVF would actually have been planned and born because of the love between his parents and because he was wanted. The child conceived by the woman with the drunk husband was not planned or conceived in an act of love. If the young man’s biological father was his father then he shouldn’t be that upset. If his biological father was an anonymous sperm donor I can see his being up since his dad wasn’t really his biological father. Does this make sense?
Remember in Catholic morality a good intention cannot justify an evil action. IVF is immoral. It is not immoral for a husband to sleep with his wife. In the case you present, the drunkeness and abusiveness of it may be sinful. There are a whole lotta people who were not planned or conceived in an act of love. God loves them all. Usually, their parents love them too. Some kids go through a lot of self-doubt even to the point of doubting the value of their existence. Pope Benedict said that people need to hear from other people that it is good that they exist. I am sure if this struggling young man went to a priest, he would hear that while his conception was irregular, all life comes from God. God loves him, wants him and has a plan for his life. He is not a freak or a mistake.
No to IVF, Mark from PA.
CCC: ” 2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act.
The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”
So it seems that in the eyes of the Church, children born to married couples using such technologies are considered unacceptable.
Mark from PA, the children are not unacceptable. The method of conception is. Children are not at fault for how they were conceived. Just as the child of rape or incest is loved by the Lord and the Church so are the children of IVF.
Anonymous: Fact is, my grandchildren already know Tomas; we talked on a SKPYE video call today. Our family gets along very well, thank you. Is it different than when I was a child? Yes, of course it is. My grandchildren will not grow up to be homophobic, will not bully gay kids in school, will accept people for what they are. Further, if one of them realizes he/she is primarily attracted to his own gender, it will not be a big deal. A gay child will not be tossed in the street by his/her parents as so often occurs in many otherwise Christian/Catholic homes, today. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court as I write. The act prohibits the US government from recognizing gay marriage or gay relationships. Because of DOMA, I was unable to sponsor Tomas for a green card, so I moved to Spain six years ago. As a matter of principle, I do not believe it is the government’s right to decide with whom I sleep. When DOMA is struck down, we probably will not return to the USA since we have roots in Barcelona. US laws treat gay couples as complete strangers, even if they have been together for 50 years! A consequence is that when one of them dies, the survivor is obliged to pay inheritance tax on the estate of the deceased, unlike hetero couples where the survivor inherits the estate tax free. This will be constructive, since many gay survivors cannot pay the inheritance tax without selling the family home! This seems a bit unfair, don’t you think? As I stated earlier, there is NO INTEREST in interfering with the Sacrament of Marriage, which I agree is between one man and one woman. However, as noted, the Sacrament is far different than allowing a gay couple to purchase a marriage license, or state/federal government recognition of drive thru marriages.
But why wouldn’t you want your civil laws to mirror the law of the Lord. He is all-wise, all knowing.
Tragically my cousin was “queer” and died from aids, a number of years ago. His lover was an older man, (much older), I think my cousin suffered from a “gay Oedipus complex”.. . My cousin later shared with me that the man, whom he was living with for many years, also checked out…all due to aids.
Sorry to hear of the tragedy in your family. The spread of AIDS and other STD’s is a consequence of promiscuity. People like Tomas and I are not at risk of contracting STD’s since we are in a 100% monogamous relationship of 12 years.
My cousin thought the same thing as you…
“we are in 100% monogamous relationship of 12 years.” 100 percent sodomy
Aaron, I don’t think many gay children are tossed out into the streets by their parents in Catholic homes. I don’t think this is common in Catholic families. I think most Catholics support and accept their gay children. I think that this is more common in families that belong to fundamentalist sects where the homosexual orientation is seen a sinful. The Catholic Church does not teach that it is a sin to be gay. The Catholic Church does not support parents abandoning or mistreating their gay children. The bishops instruction, Always Our Children, advises parents to support their gay children. In truth, a majority of Catholics actually support civil rights for gay people, and I think most Catholic parents of gay children support civil rights for gay people.
I don’t think there is data on the religious affiliation of the families in which kids are tossed out. But several studies using various methodologies consistently report that 20-40% of homeless youth identify as LGBT. So it’s pretty hard to imagine that a good 20% of THOSE grew up in Catholic homes. But I can’t say for sure since we dont have appropriate data.
Mark: Thank you for your correction to my comments. I did not intend to paint the Church or its members as being insensitive.
We must always support and love those with the temptation of same-sex attraction.
We must never tolerate mortal sin – sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.
CCC: “2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
Mark from PA, do not confuse civil rights with the mortal sin of sodomy – which is the real reason for homosexual marriage.
Decent Catholic Parents do not want their children going to Hell.
Love the sinner (which we all are), but HATE the sin.
Never support same-sex marriage (sodomy, and perverse sexual activity.)
MAC, you need to look up Fortunate Familes, a Catholic group for families of LGBT children.