Skip to comments.In aftermath of Maine, gays step up their attacks on the Church
Posted on 11/05/2009 10:08:05 AM PST by NYer
click here to read article
Shaming and harassment is the way they implement ALL of their communist agenda.
Straw horse argument. It's not about a particular marriage; it's the institution of marriage which we don't want to be forced to redefine.
A counter question would be, what should the definition of marriage be, and who should decide what that definition is?
Was that a Catholic church, and if so, which one?
Stop tearing sown societal institutions in order to validate mental illness as healthy and normal and the problem goes away.
I’m definitely with you.
Either marriage is defined objectively as it is in the Bible as one man and one woman,
or there is no objective definition, and whatever anyone of any generation wants it to be, that is what it will be.
There is no way that it will go anywhere but in the direction of
any number of men, their daughters, their pets and the pets’ fleas constituting a “marriage”.
clue on post 34. If you live in L.A., you’ll know it..
I get a kick out of that “wrong side of history” line. Hah, they are on the wrong side of history! When was there ever same sex marriage in human history?
IMHO, one function of the law is to protect rights arising from the relationship between a man and a woman and their relation to their children. Marriage is a institution that predates any state, or any positive law, and one of the obligations of the state is to protect families.
The more the gays get their way, the worse off they are. They are like so many bratty kids who are never happy. Look what happened when the gay movement brought them out of the closet. They went to places such as San Francisco and New York City where they lived in large gay enclaves. This was the gay Disneyland. At last they were surrounded by people just like themselves. They could do anything they wanted in an environment of total acceptance. And that is exactly what they did - they did everything they wanted with as many people as they wanted and they ended up with AIDS. Be careful what you wish for.
And if you change the definition of marriage once, how many more times will it be changed?
These relationships were popular in ancient times in Rome and Greece and other civilizations as well. They were probably never elevated to the distinction of marriage but then, historically, were there any truly civil ceremonies to celebrate the union of a man and woman back then? I don't know.
What this teaches us is that, as a civilization, we are crumbling as we return to the pagan roots of society. The Governor the state of NY just issued a Press Release calling for an 'extraordinary' session of the state legislature to resolve certain issues before the end of the year. Among these is 'Providing same-sex couples the same opportunity to enter into civil marriages as opposite-sex couples' As fellow freeper 'massmike' has already pointed out, the governor's ratings can't drop much lower. The legislators have certainly watched the coverage of the vote in Maine and can interpret that to mean votes for or against them in next year's election. From what I understand, there are not enough votes to pass this legislation. Otherwise, you can expect that on next year's ballot, NY citizens will countermand this bill with an electoral vote.
“Pagan” if by that you mean a deification of the state, or science. The old pagans, at least, looked for a reality behind appearances. Today’s pagans worship only power.
IMHO, gays are mad, in the sense that Paul uses the term in Romans. I don’t like the idea of letting mad men set the rules of our society. But as to marriage, I think it more than a contract, and as I said, an institution with a dignity separate from the dignity of the state, and the primary unit of civil society. I don’t want to see society dissolves into a collective of individuals—the literal atomization of our society.
I’m trying to defend the institution of marriage by removing it from the government and giving it back to
the churches. The gays will get legal unions (partnerships) ultimately from the government, but they don’t have to be
granted marriages if that is part is returned to the church domain. Some people can’t see the distinction, I think there is a huge one.......
I’m very sorry to hear it.
Is that the same seperation that happens when dimocRATS campaign in a black church in Harlem? These people are shameless.
It’s not Benedict’s Church, it’s Christ’s Church. If you have an issue with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, bypass the shift manager (Benedict) and go right to the owner (Christ).
I love how the “peace and justice” people bastardize Christ’s time on earth- they try to use him as the poster boy for liberal causes. However, there is an inconvenient truth to Christ: he’s politically incorrect yesterday, today, and forever.
Do you honestly think Christ espoused homosexual relations? Christ loves all, but there is a difference between loving the sin and loving the sinner.
Jesus was a devout Jew who held the importance of Jewish moral law. Homosexual acts were/are verboten among the Jewish people. Hell, Jesus confronted the adulterer woman in the Gospels. Do you think he’d be easier on a gay? No. Atleast heterosexual relations are natural.
Christ also said to the adulterer woman “You are forgiven, sin no more”. The whole gay marriage thing won’t stop homosexual acts, but will only perpetuate and normalize them, which is abominable and contradict’s Christ’s message.
There will be no end to their demands.
If they succeed in gaining monogamous same-sex marriage, they will then move on to getting polygamy and group marriage legalized.
This is part of the master plan of gay activists. First, they wanted to establish the legal concept of same-sex marriage, then move on to legalizing other types of relationships.
What’s troubling to me, and seldom addressed, is that they insist that it has to be marriage or nothing for the gay community. I think that the relationships of married couples raising children is more significant to society than two childless adults of the same sex. Thus, I think it’s appropriate for marriage to be opposite sex, while some other status is the norm for same-sex.
Society should not be forced to treat all types of relationships equally. They are trying to force society to treat same-sex and eventually group relationships in the same way, with the same legal status.
They will also use the legality to try to force churches to perform those marriages. They have used it to force business owners to recognize and subsidize same sex partners. You are right, they will push and push.
As a side note, my daughter is a freshman at SDSU. She loves San Diego!