Posted on 12/01/2004 6:32:00 AM PST by NYer
Cardinal Trujillo is a great man, he was the subject of a vicious attack by the B.B.C. when he questioned the efficacy of condom use to counter the spread of AIDS. All of this done under the pretence of 'journalistic integrity', yet he was still willing to be interviewed, and spoke the truth clearly and directly.
Yea .. but its not different for them .. right??
No one is stopping them from living together .. no one is going into their bedrooms .. no one is stopping them from buying house together .. no one is stopping them from leaving their things to their partners in their Wills and at hospitals, they ask you to sign a power of attorney in case someone can't make decissions for themself and they can name whoever they want.
They went the Gay Marriage route instead of the Civl Union route because they want everyone's blessings
Why do you think they always attack churches?
If they can't get what they want .. they will try and destroy it
Exactly, great point.
They always compare it to the civil rights of the 60's
Indeed they do. However they are wrong:
The assertion that homosexuals are a true minority group is false. Minority status has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court Based on three criteria:
1. Economic Deprivation -- NO! Those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals, and higher household incomes.
(W.S. Journal, 2/10/89; N.Y. Times, 8/22/90).2. Political Powerlessness -- NO! Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The Human Rights Campaign Fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs (The Economist, 4/24/93). Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable. (Turn your TV on!)
3. Immutable Characteristics -- NO! Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior!
From the Author's Foreword:
"... First, you may be surprised that "gay rights" is not described herein as a "moral issue." Second, you won't find homosexual behavior as a primary civil rights issue factor in this paper. Third, you may be surprised to learn that, as "gay rights" activists now define their position, "gayness" and protection of "gay rights" doesn't involve behavioral issues at all. Let me explain further...
Most people, both gay and "straight," who are concerned with the "gay rights" issue believe the intent of "gay rights" to involve the legal protection of homosexuals and their behavior, so as to (1) prevent homosexuals from suffering "discrimination" and (2) enable any "gay" person to "claim discrimination" under civil rights laws.
However, this understanding is now incorrect -- because gay activists and "gay rights" supporters have, in fact, redefined the issue. Here is a current operative definition of "gay rights" as gay activists and their attorneys themselves now define the concept: "Gay rights" involves the acquisition by all self-allegedly gay, lesbian and bisexual people of a special, "protected" status under civil rights law equal to that enjoyed by recognized "minority" groups, BASED SOLELY ON HOW ANYONE CLAIMING TO BE GAY, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL MERELY SAYS HE OR SHE DESIRES TO ENGAGE IN SEX.
Notice that "gay rights," as avowed gay activists and their supporters now define them, are not awarded based on how people have sex, nor on how they want to have sex, but solely on how they say they want to have sex. This distinction's full significance will become clearer as you read on..."
Extra rights would include but are not limited to: HIV medication, hepatitis treatment, smoking-related health problems, depression, etc. I don't see too many other groups receive such extra rights as some are willing to grant these people who choose this lifestyle. I can't think of too many choices that give you extra rights /sarcasm off
" Cardinal Trujillo said that the family is founded upon marriage, which is not a product of European cultural bias, but rather a standard for all human societies"
Thank you Cardinal Trujillo. The fact is marriage is not a religious institution but a fundamental human civil institution. It is ordered to the perpetuation of society. We owe it to society as a matter of justice to protect it. Homosexual behavior is destructive. We owe our neighbors both by the demands of justice and the requirements of charity not to stand by and endorse their destruction.
Ping
It's a recent change. I was weekly checking some online dictionaries and one day it was changed to include same-sex. Some folks have written the online dictionaries but they're more interested in some agenda or being PC than how the majority actually use and define the word marriage. I believe the change happened around the summer of 2003.
Thanks for that info.
Do you know if recent print version of the dictionary are the same way?
I am probably going to the book store today so I will check if noboby knows.
Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, the abolition of man.
Shalom.
Then the person who told you that wouldn't have any objection if you gave him a fat lip. Nothing "wrong" with that, right?
Shalom.
While the reality is that marriage is a reflection of the way man and woman were created, marriage has always been a 3 way contract, between a man, a woman, and the society in which they are a part.
Shalom.
ha, good point.
But instead of getting frustrated by crap like that, I just laugh at it and tell him how kooky he sounds.
I will now get down from the soapbox.
The homosexuals also spin the misinformation that ALL opposition to same sex marriage or homosexuals in generals is ONLY based on religion.
Society rewards the institution not the individual.
Society rewards marriage because it maximizes the futur of society. Homosexuals are under teh mistaken notion that an individuals ability to enjoy an orgasm is involved.
You've got some real politcal clout when you can get dictionary publishers to rewrite basic definitions.
Actually, it's not just the homosexuals. Most people since the '60s have viewed marriage as being about legalized or legitimized sex. That's why the free love crowd wanted to do without marriage. They didn't see why sex wasn't legitimate on its own.
Marriage is about uniting the man and woman into one flesh. Dogs can have sex. Dogs can make little dogs. But only people can marry.
Shalom.
I don't know if recent print versions are the same way. Imagine the egg on their face if society continues to reject same-sex marriage. They'll look like the biased bozos that they are.
Ruh roh ...
Looks like reserving the word "marriage" for contracepting heteros whose marriages are based on the same premise as homosexuals (children as OPTION of marriage) may not be enough.
Does Bush realize what "civil unions" means every time he supports marriage as hetero but reserves the right of states to confect "civil unions" and privileges attaching thereto as states see fit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.