Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Certainly the call for more and more acceptance of sexual contact we now consider to be abnormal will come as we accept more and more Homosexual sex.
The old saying is that there is nothing new under the sun, and these aberrational acts have been performed for thousands of years, but accepting the perverse because Caligula did it , does not make it right.
Good for His Excellency!
We need more clergy that speak their minds!
Hell is for homos.
Pass the Chic-Fil-A’s!
“But I won’t marry them. It just can’t be done.”
What a wonderful, logical and concise summary.
BXVI obviously realizes that this issue is going to be the one that the forces that hate the Church and Christianity are going to use for their immediate legal attack in European countries and the US, because he has appointed a raft of new bishops (even to San Francisco!) who are very clear and outspoken about the issue, no matter the reaction.
This comes after years of earlier bishops who either seemed to tacitly approve of it, or were too scared to say anything about it. All that did was weaken the position of the Church.
Good luck and many years to your new bishop!
Yeah, but people don't think that way. They merely feel.
It should be obvious that if a form of argument leads to some absurd conclusion then something is wrong with the argument and any conclusions that result from its application should be questioned.
Almost no-one gets that though, except those that have some background in mathematics or logic.
Logic doesn’t work with the mentally blind... but we try it anyway... hopefully some will listen.
But some words seem so true: “He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury.” (Proverbs (RSV) 9:7)
As I often say, you can’t reason somebody out of a position reason didn’t get them in to....
Of course, I love and approve of the Bishop’s statement fully!
Of course he’s right. But this argument will be called “hateful” and soon there will be “laws” passed against “hate speech”, and a man like this will face fines and imprisonment.
Don’t kid yourselves...Progressivism is most of all a fascistic doctrine...go back and read about Woodrow Wilson and even Theodore Roosevelt...they viewed their opposition as not only wrong...but evil.
100% on the money! Good to hear it from a bishop.
Absolutely! The Bishop is asking a very logical question, one that I've asked my liberal friends. The reaction is the same, they have no answer so they cry "Homophobe". Every argument they put forward to justify homosexual "marriage" can be used to justify all types of unions. IMHO thanks to this gay marriage legislation, in 20 years or so, we'll be fighting to keep polygamy illegal. Especially given the rise of sharia in the west.
When you strip it all down, marriage was created for the production and the protection of the next generation period. That's why you have inheritance, child support obligations and until recently, adoption only to married couples. Progressives with their "gay marriage" are destroying the core of society, the family.
Eventually, the conservative churches might again take control of marriage as a religious rite, outside of the realm of government control and influence.
The reason that government got involved in the first place was seemingly legitimate, that society had an interest in promulgating marriage and children, so it should “help them out” married couples with largess. However, overnight this turned into a situation of furthering government power and control.
The first step in doing this is the hardest, that from a given time, couples that wish to be married will only be recognized in that denomination’s churches as married, not getting a government license to marry at all.
As far as the government (typically the IRS) is concerned, they will be called POSSLQs. Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters. They will keep their unmarried names in public, and known as Mr. and Mrs. only in their church and to friends and family.
Another hard step will likely need the agreement of many conservative churches, to *not* recognize marriage outside of their conservative churches. This will have to be “grandfathered” for those couples married previously, of course.
After some years, when this comes into effect, those couples married in civil services will have to officially no-contest divorce, before they can be married in church or have their marriage recognized as legitimate.
Government wants its control, however, so will not appreciate the effort to restore marriage to a religious rite. They will continue to try and force churches to marry anyone and everyone, and force couples to be government married and licensed.
So this is not just a glib exercise, but a very serious decision by the conservative churches, to separate “the state” from “the church”.
It really is quite obvious that he is asking the correct question.
As you said, he's speaking logically. Of course the homosexual activists don't like this, because they know that if everyone else did the same, they may not be quite so in favor of homosexual marriage.
It won't be long now, in the US, before some polygamists start agitating for their 'right to marry'. On what grounds will a court that has already allowed homosexual marriage deny them to anyone else?
The left has bastardized the argument by bringing the notion of equality into it. It has nothing to do with equality, but more to do with what is being distributed. Suppose, for example, that you have a large surfeit of apples that you wish to divide amongst your ten friends. The apples are divided, and each friend gets an equal moiety. One of the friends, however, is not satisfied. He doesn’t care for apples, and insists that in the name of equality you give him pears. But in effect, he has not been treated inequitably, because he has had the same thing and in the same proportion as the other nine.
Therein lies the crux of the matter and the slippery slope. A society can live by whatever morals they chose to live by, whether they be based on a religion or pulled out of a hat, like gay marriage. The only reason polygamy isn't legal is because polygamists haven't organized as well as the homos have, but with the advent of gay marriage, the argument against polygamy, incest, etc. can hold no water. Governments would have to change the laws to allow for any behavior between consenting adults.
Reason and Logic (according to nature) is supposed to be the basis of Rule of Law. Without reason—you can justify any silly, arbitrary thing-—like two men can “marry”. Such stupidity and unnatural conclusion can only happen with Unjust, arbitrary law which is unconstitutional because it defies Reason (and Natural Law).
BTW, Marxists want to remove God from our Natural Rights-—and Reason from our laws—so that they can control everyone with Unjust Law. Marxists destroy and pervert words (Wittgenstein)—control words and you control the perceptions of the people)—like “marriage” and “family” and “Pro-Choice”, etc. so they can normalize any outrageous, evil thing—like killing and taking children from their biological parents, etc.
It should be against the law to change the very definition of words in Legal Dictionaries. That destroys the ability to debate and refer to the past-—the Marxists have to destroy knowledge and history because of the promotion of their Big Lies.
Rule of Law is the only thing which can keep us from becoming a Totalitarian State——and the Marxists (since Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr) have destroyed the meaning of Justice-—Just Law.
Outrage? His comments are simply the “gay marriage” argument itself, taken to the next logical step.
I pray he does not “back down” from this comments - and stands by them. It won’t be long before their truth will be revealed.
LOL - the good Bishop left off some of the folks in San Francisco who 'love' horses... Yep, might even want to 'marry' one and claim the animal as a dependent at tax time... Lots of groupings other than a 'man and a woman'.
How about a woman who wants to marry 300 potential 'immigrants' from third world countries? Who can deny true love? Especially when each of her 'husbands' give her a $5,000 diamond ring?
I want to go to his Church... I want him to be my Bishop...
In my daily activities I encounter many such couples, including some people of whom I am quite fond and have no desire to harm or see harm come to them. That however does not change the reality that their behavior choices are
biologically irrational
psychologically delusional
societally destabilizing
morally narcissistic
scripturally heretical