Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unholy Week at the Supreme Court
Crisis Magazine ^ | 3/28/13 | George Neumayr

Posted on 03/28/2013 6:48:29 AM PDT by marshmallow

Liberal activists respect neither natural law nor positive law. What God and the people have joined together, they feel perfectly free to put asunder. Marriage, by their lights, is a purely human institution that they can make and remake at will.

This unholy cause has been on display during Holy Week at the Supreme Court, where activists, such as Hillary Rosen, declared loudly that “procreation is not the point of marriage.”

Apparently Jesus Christ was mistaken on this point. He seemed to think that marriage had to do with the two sexes coming together and becoming “one flesh,” a biological impossibility for homosexual couples. Perhaps Scripture will have to be rewritten to reflect our superior understanding of things: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his boyfriend, and they become a family through assisted reproduction or the local adoption agency.”

Jesus Christ said that marriages take place on earth but not in heaven, a teaching which turns in part on marriage’s origin as procreative: mortal men need to reproduce; the immortal don’t. Perhaps that teaching will have to be revisited and doctoral dissertations will be written on why “gay marriage exists in heaven.”

Not that opposition to gay marriage is peculiar to Christianity. Almost all cultures and religions have opposed it. As Justice Samuel Alito noted this week, its origins are so novel that the cell phone and the Internet predate it.

Yet the culture grows more and more demanding of it, a demand which has now risen to the Supreme Court. According to press prognostications, DOMA is likely dead. The Supreme Court will almost certainly strike it down. Justice Elena Kagan drew “gasps” of horror when she pointed out on Wednesday that one of the reasons for the Defense of Marriage Act was to......

(Excerpt) Read more at crisismagazine.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; General Discusssion; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: catholic; homosexualagenda; marriage; moralabsolutes; scotus; scotusmarriage

1 posted on 03/28/2013 6:48:29 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: rarestia

One good thing about liberals. They will burn like fire starter logs in hell...: )


3 posted on 03/28/2013 7:00:00 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

...and yet it should be observed that Jesus died for them too.


4 posted on 03/28/2013 7:09:24 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Homosexual marriage, gay “rights,” and all of this nonsense is about one thing and one thing only: how two adults have sex. Traditional marriage is about family, creating life, raising youth into productive adults and continuing the species.
There’s absolutely nothing about gay marriage that has anything to do with God-given rights or the rights of man. This is all about government affirmation that buttsex or mutual use of marital aids is acceptable and should be lauded.

Adam and EVE, not Adam and STEVE.

The good Lord might have created three genders; but He didn't. Maybe even four. But He created only two.

Well, maybe there ARE three genders. I have some doubts about some of the celebs. They are SO odd that it's tough sometimes to recognize gender.

5 posted on 03/28/2013 7:09:47 AM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; ...
Previous cultures didn’t need teams of social scientists to tell them whether or not orphaning a child is bad for him. They took it for granted that orphans were worse off than children born to a father and mother known to them. But this culture, in its vast wisdom, has “studied” the question and concluded that a deliberate policy of depriving children of mothers and fathers is wonderful for them. The experience is “equal” to all other experiences, we’re told. Two fathers or two mothers are just as good as a mother and a father.

One wonders how many of these children plucked from adoption homes or “assisted reproduction” labs and placed in the arms of gay couples will agree. What would once have been called child abuse is now considered the height of enlightenment. This has to be one of the first cultures in history to take outright pride in a planned policy of orphaning children and exposing them to immorality.

Catholic ping!

6 posted on 03/28/2013 7:31:37 AM PDT by NYer (Beware the man of a single book - St. Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Previous cultures didn’t need teams of social scientists to tell them whether or not orphaning a child is bad for him. They took it for granted that orphans were worse off than children born to a father and mother known to them. But this culture, in its vast wisdom, has “studied” the question and concluded that a deliberate policy of depriving children of mothers and fathers is wonderful for them. The experience is “equal” to all other experiences, we’re told. Two fathers or two mothers are just as good as a mother and a father.

One wonders how many of these children plucked from adoption homes or “assisted reproduction” labs and placed in the arms of gay couples will agree. What would once have been called child abuse is now considered the height of enlightenment. This has to be one of the first cultures in history to take outright pride in a planned policy of orphaning children

Am I reading this wrong, or is the author postulating an equivalence between being an orphan and being raised by a same-sex couple?

7 posted on 03/28/2013 7:38:16 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; rarestia

...and yet it should be observed that Jesus died for them too.


I get no small amount of grief from some of the members of my small baptist church in central KY because I believe that after the white throne judgement believers go to eternal life and non-believers go to death.

They think that non-believers don’t die the second death but spend eternity with an unquenchable (eternal) body suffering in an unquenchable fire. And many of them refuse to even discuss it.

I don’t have that sort of vengeance regarding non-believers. They are all possible converts as far as I am concerned. And I also feel no ill will toward any of them. Rather, they have my pity. God reserves meeting out vengeance to Himself alone. I am to love my enemy.


8 posted on 03/28/2013 7:49:55 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain

Actually, God created two sexes.

Man created genders, first as a linguistic construct vaguely associated with the sexes, then as a euphemism for the sexes, then as a way to deny the facts of biology inherent in the sexes in the interest of social engineering.


9 posted on 03/28/2013 7:53:44 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

On balance, leaving aside instances where the biological parents are too incompetent (whether physically, intellectually, spiritually or morally) to raise their children, children are best off being raised by their biological parents or an extended biological family including their biological parents.

On this Scripture and even the radically materialist selfish-gene version of neo-Darwinism agree. (To put it is neo-Darwinist terms: All organisms which require parental nurture for survival until reproductive age are best cared for by organisms of their species that share genotype.)


10 posted on 03/28/2013 8:05:05 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I don’t have that sort of vengeance regarding non-believers. They are all possible converts as far as I am concerned. And I also feel no ill will toward any of them. Rather, they have my pity. God reserves meeting meting* out vengeance to Himself alone. I am to love my enemy.

This is very true; we Christians are not given the Judgement Seat in respect to men's souls (but may be given it in legal matters; jury-duty comes to mind) -- instead, Jesus told us to go out and make disciples of all men; furthermore, the mark that is to discriminate the believer from the non-believer is love.

John says that it is impossible to love the unseen God if we do not love the seen brothers, there is some extension to the non-believer if you are loving your Christian-brethren while loving God: God made man in His image, if you love God then why would you not-love those that bear His image?

* The word you want is derived from mete; drop the e and add ~ing to put it in the form you need.

11 posted on 03/28/2013 8:06:23 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Regarding mete, yeah I saw that after I posted. On the internet I’ve actually spelled of, “uv”. I really wish we could edit posts here, but no site is perfect.


12 posted on 03/28/2013 8:08:54 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
Actually, God created two sexes.
Man created genders, first as a linguistic construct vaguely associated with the sexes, then as a euphemism for the sexes, then as a way to deny the facts of biology inherent in the sexes in the interest of social engineering.

I asked the question: What is the difference between sex and gender?
From Medical News Today: The words sex and gender are commonly used interchangeably, but many linguists would argue that their usage is quite distinct. Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics, while gender refers to behaviors, roles, expectations, and activities in society.

I've always used them interchangeably, but then I am NOT a linguist. Nor am I a social engineer. I DO get your point. Thank you.

13 posted on 03/28/2013 8:09:19 AM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
Previous cultures didn’t need teams of social scientists to tell them whether or not orphaning a child is bad for him. They took it for granted that orphans were worse off than children born to a father and mother known to them. But this culture, in its vast wisdom, has “studied” the question and concluded that a deliberate policy of depriving children of mothers and fathers is wonderful for them. The experience is “equal” to all other experiences, we’re told. Two fathers or two mothers are just as good as a mother and a father.

One wonders how many of these children plucked from adoption homes or “assisted reproduction” labs and placed in the arms of gay couples will agree. What would once have been called child abuse is now considered the height of enlightenment. This has to be one of the first cultures in history to take outright pride in a planned policy of orphaning children

Am I reading this wrong, or is the author postulating an equivalence between being an orphan and being raised by a same-sex couple?

On balance, leaving aside instances where the biological parents are too incompetent (whether physically, intellectually, spiritually or morally) to raise their children, children are best off being raised by their biological parents or an extended biological family including their biological parents.

On this Scripture and even the radically materialist selfish-gene version of neo-Darwinism agree. (To put it is neo-Darwinist terms: All organisms which require parental nurture for survival until reproductive age are best cared for by organisms of their species that share genotype.)

I heartily agree - but I don't see how it bears on my question.

14 posted on 03/28/2013 8:10:15 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer; MarineMom613; Ron C.; wolfman23601; ColdOne; navymom1; Pat4ever; RIghtwardHo; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

15 posted on 03/28/2013 8:14:49 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

All I know is this. I’m in my late 50’s. When I was a kid or a young adult if you had talked about 2 men or 2 women getting married people would have assumed you were crazy, on drugs, or putting someone on.

So - either this new way is the right way - or the right way is how it’s been done since the beginning of recorded history across all cultures and geography.

I’m personally going to side with the latter.


16 posted on 03/28/2013 8:22:41 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Regarding mete, yeah I saw that after I posted. On the internet I’ve actually spelled of, “uv”. I really wish we could edit posts here, but no site is perfect.

*nod* -- I hear you on the uv/of thing... it's actually kind of odd because the keys are only "sort of" close but not really. {Like, say, 'ip' instead of 'up' or foe instead of for.}

17 posted on 03/28/2013 8:24:28 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer; marshmallow; narses

Return to the “Holy Matrimony” label, and make it only of the Church, so “Holy Roman Catholic Matrimony”.

It says a couple of things. One, it is distinguished from “marriage” which is apparently a secular institution.

Two, “matri” includes the idea of procreativity, and particularly the care of mothers and children.

Third, it prevents it from being abused by homosexuals, polygamists, beastialists, etc.

As to legality, who cares? The couple can be guided in drawing up separate contracts that cover all the other concerns of a procreative couple.


18 posted on 03/28/2013 8:42:00 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I used to think people were “stupid” because they didn’t know the difference between “to” and “too” in their posts. Then I caught myself typing “to” when I meant “too”. I realized they knew, but were not paying attention to what they actually typed.


19 posted on 03/28/2013 8:54:44 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

The Supreme Court - About to Play God Again?


20 posted on 03/28/2013 9:14:42 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

The problem is not “trying to play God,” but “failing to play human.”


21 posted on 03/28/2013 1:49:47 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin' ." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson