Regular Guy's Prediction To Come True
Just as I predicted, at least one Catholic priest will be performing gay "marriages" when the California Supreme Court ruling requiring gay "marriage" (H/T: The Curt Jester):
Catholics have long rejected homosexuality, and the Pope issued a statement a day after the court's ruling affirming that marriage is suitable only between one man and one woman.Let's be clear: this is not an issue of equality. Equality means recognizing as equal things that really are equal.
Bishop Allen Vigneron of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland has written a letter which has been interpreted as urging his flock to oppose the November ballot initiative: "As faithful citizens, Catholics are called to bring our laws regarding marriage into conformity with what we know about the nature of marriage," he wrote.
Kerry Chaplin, a director at California Faith for Equality, a group which fights for same-sex marriage rights, says she knows at least one Catholic priest who will be marrying people and one Methodist minister who will defy her church's doctrine and bless same-sex marriages next week. [Emphasis added.]
But homosexual relationships are not and cannot be equal to heterosexual marriages for the simple reason that heterosexual marriages can be fertile, and homosexual relationships cannot be. And it is because a society always needs a new generation of citizens to be raised up that it extends recognition and support to married couples.
To formally redefine marriage as being essentially about something other than begetting and raising children undermines all families.
And before you come along with the same trite arguments that all gay "marriage" supporters constantly parrot, please take the trouble to click the 'gay "marriage"' label at the bottom of this post, and see the answers I've given to numerous people who came here before you. It will try my patience less, and you might learn something.
30 comments:
I thought you predicted that priests will be forced to pressured to perform homosexual marriages. The case here seems to be of a priest who agreed to do it.
The first is a violation of religious freedom. The second is an issue of discipline within the Catholic church. If a priest chooses to oppose Church teachings he has a perfect right to do so as far as secular law in concerned. Freedom of religion includes freedom of heresy.
Ori,
If the priest ever gets the balls to "come out of the closet" he will be truly disciplined, perhaps even excommunicated for his lack of obedience. We must pray that first, this article is wrong about such a man and second that if he does exist, that he finds the error of his ways. This priest has every right not to be prosecuted by state authorities for his participation in homosexual "marriages" but he should expect to be censured by his Church which teaches all truth.
But yes, soon you will see priests, rabbis, and others "of the cloth" who will be sued for not "providing marriage services" for those who are engaged in sinful behavior. I suspect it will first be those religions who don't have a "clear-cut" rule about homosexual behavior. People with SADD (same sex attraction disorder)will go after churches without a clear rule regarding homosexuality and attack those churches until they capitulate. It will take longer to go against the Catholic Church and other traditional churches but they will simply try to silence us like they have in Canada and try to make us irrelevant.
But yes, soon you will see priests, rabbis, and others "of the cloth" who will be sued for not "providing marriage services" for those who are engaged in sinful behavior.
Probably, but my point is that it's still a prediction, not a confirmed fact.
BTW, people being sued isn't a big deal. I could file the paperwork to sue you for failing to teach me to levitate. The question is whether the courts will throw these suites out or not. If not, then that's pressure in violation of the 1st amendment.
And, ori, the tide in America seems to be going the way of Canada - where the rights to free speech, free thought, and free religious expression are dampened by "Human Rights Commissions."
Heck, in New Mexico, a Christian photographer was sued and had to pay $6,600 for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.
A violation of the First Amendment? Certainly, but according to many, the First Amendment no longer applies to those who object to gay "marriage."
Here's what I'm not seeing: a flood of "gays" getting "married. Wassupwidat?
Heck, in New Mexico, a Christian photographer was sued and had to pay $6,600 for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.
I would have to know more about the facts of the case before forming an opinion.
Well, Michael, you can start here.
As far as your comment about procreation in a gay marriage goes, there are many children who need to be adopted who are often the results of what you would see as illicit sex acts.
Many gay couples that I know have children through artificial insemination, "normal" sex, surrogate mothers and adoption. This means that there really is no need for more procreation in an over populated world.
Would the marriage of a man & a woman over 55 be considered worthless in your eyes? If their prior spouses had left them widower & widow, then they would not be marrying for the purpose of procreation. They would be marrying for love.
To declare love for another is the true purpose of marriage to me!
To declare love for another is the true purpose of marriage to me!
So, like Humpty Dumpty, you make the word mean whatever you like; and not just for yourself, but for the whole world.
All of human society must be re-ordered to please you.
I'll bet you even think it's OK for you to be that self-centered, don't you?
No more than you, Paul.
You are the person who is asking for dialog.
I have declared my love and committment for my same gender spouse, including a canadian marriage. I am only asking for the right to have my marriage be recognized as yours is.
That's right, I alone, Paul the Regular Guy, invited heterosexual marriage out of whole cloth and decreed it to be the standard for all human cultures throughout history.
You do understand that there was a world before you were born into it?
And if your marriage is the "same" as mine, how many kids will you be having to be citizens in the next generation?
Just what does society gain from your "marriage"? Nothing.
To you, marriage is about what you get, not what you give.
The argument you've presented appears to be a bit flawed. A lesbian couple could, through in vitro insemination, become a fertile couple in the exact same way a heterosexual couple who are unable to reproduce the 'natural way' could. The purpose of marriage isn't purely to consummate. Marriage is meant to formalize the union of the two parties under God. If you think that the purpose of marriage is solely to reproduce then YOU are undermining the purpose of marriage.
Unfortunately for your argument, Drew, the Church also teaches that in vitro fertilization is also illicit, for the same reason we oppose embryo-destructive stem cell research: it reduces human lives to objects to be manipulated.
No marriage is not solely about children, but it is primarily about children, and it is because of children that society is interested.
And if the institution of marriage isn't about children, then what institution is?
Well, then I guess all those non-fertile seniors shouldn't be getting married. I certainly hope dear old mom and dad die at exactly the same time so neither is left to live out those lonely sunset years all alone. No more marriage for them.
And don't bother adopting. Those kids don't count either. Cuz if they counted, then gay couples adopting would be like other 'normal' families.
Just keep spreading that hate that jesus lived for.
And before you come along with the same trite arguments that all gay "marriage" supporters constantly parrot, please take the trouble to click the 'gay "marriage"' label at the bottom of this post, and see the answers I've given to numerous people who came here before you. It will try my patience less, and you might learn something.
Not only can you not read, you cannot think, and you cannot argue.
You are a minority. If you cannot persuade, you will not get your way.
Which is fine with me.
The only ones responsible for the failure of the institution of marriage are those who have participated in it...namely, heterosexuals.
Sure, blame the gays for ruining marriage...why not make them responsible for the oil crisis and global warming as well?
One fact you ignore is that more abuse is inflicted on children each year by one or more married parent. Funny you never hear the church ranting about amendments about that.
Society is a changing and all we hear are the same tired, obscenely ignorant, bigoted comments.
My advice, if you don't want gay marriage...then don't marry a gay.
And if you disapprove of lynching gays, don't lynch them?
If you disapprove of counterfeiting, don't counterfeit?
Child abuse is illegal you moron. Much more abuse is inflicted on children by the boyfriends of their single mothers than any other source.
I don't blame gays for ruining marriage. Marriage hasn't been ruined. But I do accuse gays of desiring to destroy marriage.
Still with opponents as evidently stupid as you, I probably shouldn't worry so much.
Paul, your a complete moron. When you "lynch" or "counterfeit", you are actually hurting someone else. Who are gay people hurting by getting married? Who are gays hurting by having or not having children? Just your silly religious sensibilities, that's who!
Society doesn't have to be "re-ordered" Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with you, who you marry, your religious beliefs, society at large, or how many kids you have. Its simply a matter of a basic human right that all citizens of this country should have. It is a LEGAL right and recognition.
If you want to look at the history of marriage: at one point wives were the property of their husbands. Things change! Get over it!
But, hey, you want to stick your nose in other people's business like that...Maybe we should outlaw fatasses like you from getting married, because we don't fat children to be citizens of the next generation.
You ignoramus. Get a life...maybe join a gym, you loser!
It doesn't affect you if I'm counterfeiting.
And if it's not my business, if you're not reordering society, then why does it take court decisions to implement gay "marriage"?
Why do you have to redefine a word to mean something it's never meant before?
Your arguments boil down to nothing but insults and petulant demands for what you want.
Please....counterfeiting is affecting someone.
A court decision on this issue does not "reorder" society because it does not affect YOUR marriage. The court decision ONLY affects gays who previously couldn't marry. What happens to you (or society) if gays can marry? NOTHING! (And please don't give me crap about marrying pets...that's moronic.)
The definition of "marriage": IT HAS ALWAYS CHANGED!!! It also didn't use to mean that a man and woman were equal partners. It also didn't mean that black people could marry white people. Are you against women's rights, and civil rights?
And why do YOU need laws to define it as between a man and woman? All that does is take away rights from others. You get NOTHING out of that.
Mind your own marriage!
Why do we have to redefine marriage to something it's never meant before??
Well, let's see....it's also never meant that fat people can get married. Let me suggest a constitutional amendment that says that marriage is between 2 skinny people.
Why? Because the obesity rate in this country is very high, and we don't want any more fat-kid-genes.
Think your rights are being violated? How does that make you feel, PAUL?
Oh...p.s. want the religious angle on Fat Marriage, for you bible thumpers?
Gluttony is a sin! I don't want you and your kind imposing your sinful, gluttonous ways on the children.
Do us all a favor, and kill yourself. Do it for the children!
p.p.s. Sloth is a sin too.
Oooh...you're going to hell!
Remember when you got picked on as the fat kid on the playground? Well, that's what hell is going to be like, because, apparently, all the gays you hurt will be there with you, and we're gonna be pissed!!!
Considering that marriage technically falls under secular laws of this country, the religious arguments you present become inconsequential when looking at the bigger picture. Religion does not own marriage. Marriage is a function of a SECULAR SOCIETY! Marriage is available to heterosexuals who DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD! Aren't you appalled by this? Aren't those heterosexual atheists who get married destroying the sanctity of marriage? Get over the hate you hold for homosexuals and you might spend a little less time in the Hell you believe in.
Drew, you're correct that religion doesn't own marriage. Marriage long pre-dates any extant religion.
But neither does the state. It has not authority to modify marriage to mean anything other than what it's always meant.
Anonymous, your thought processes are breaking down; you can't even get through a single comment in under three posts.
Remember when you got picked on as the fat kid on the playground?
Sorry, you are mistaken that I was the fat kid on the playground. I was the littlest one. I didn't gain weight until I was over 35.
Well, that's what hell is going to be like, because, apparently, all the gays you hurt will be there with you, and we're gonna be pissed!!!
Let me just take a moment to unpack this... you believe in hell, and look forward to picking on me there. Yeah, right, I believe that.
I'm hurting gays by writing my opinion on my blog. Gay "marriage" doesn't affect me, but my blog affects you. You have now ably illustrated how gay marriage can hurt society: gays are famously unable to tolerate dissent from their self-centered, pleasure-seeking, anti-life agenda. You will threaten bloggers, sue photographers, and disrupt religious services.
Anonymous, your arguments still boil down to nothing other than insults (and now threats), and petulant, childish demands to be given what you want.
Do the other homosexuals realize how severely you're undermining their arguments?
"Why do you have to redefine a word to mean something it's never meant before?"
ummm...you mean like the word slavery?? Yeah, you're right the government or the courts should never have had to redefine words like that...
"But neither does the state. It has not authority to modify marriage to mean anything other than what it's always meant."
...yup, like when marriage always meant between two people of the same race...yeah, too bad the laws needed to be changed on that as well...
"gays are famously unable to tolerate dissent from their self-centered, pleasure-seeking, anti-life agenda."
...spoken like someone who obviously must have enjoyed those pleasures seeing you seem to know what the gays want...me thinks tho doth protest too much...
Funny how bigots can always find some way to twist the facts to support their own prejudice.
And like all the other anonymous' said, maybe you should start worrying about when the government starts passing laws to stop the fat people from pro-creating...obviously you're gonna have to start worrying about that one Paul...maybe its your own inability to control your desires that makes you worry about what other people do...
Ok, now go run to your church and be absolved of your fat sins..
You know, if some of this people (like anonymous) were actually looking for an answer, trying to understand the Catholic position, thinking about the answers that you've given them and the truth behind them, I'd love to read those comments. I like it when someone questions my faith because answering them also helps me strengthen it.
But when they make absolutely no sense at all, I wonder... if you dislike this blog and what is written on it so much.... do they know they can just STOP READING IT?
Then again, if they were truly looking for the truth, they would've converted.
I can't help but think back to the comments of Professor Kirke in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe": "Logic! Why don't they leach logic at these schools? [...] I wonder what they do teach them at these schools..."
This might be just so much troll-food (I keep remembering a friend of mine repeating to me, over and over: "Don't feed the trolls! Don't feed the trolls!"), but I want to try, at least once:
Anonymous: do remember that God exists, and that He has revealed a great deal about Himself to us, and that that means something (to put it lightly). Your worldview, I'm afraid, only works if someone jettisons reality, and manufactures (or adopts an already-manufactured) an agnostic/atheist/non-theist worldview. If, in fact, humans are created by God, in the Image and Likeness of God, then our opinions about "what's fitting for humanity" (e.g. definition of marriage, conditions in which sexual activity is good, vs. conditions in which sexual activity is bad, etc.) are all stuff and nonsense if they don't agree with our God-given, God-created nature (which Christians and astute philosophers call "the natural law").
To cry, "I want it, and you can't stop me, and I don't think you should be able to stop me!" works quite well as an appeal to the gallery (and as a heart-tug with well-meaning people who, in the words of an old colleague of mine, "have soft hearts, and heads to match"), but I'm afraid it doesn't fly in logical circles.
Now, if you really want to make your case (and be taken seriously, as opposed to being dismissed as a troll), perhaps you could lay out (very specifically--including all teh unspoken assumptions) the reasons why you feel you're right? For the sake of argument, assume that no one else takes your position to be self-evident and/or obvious.
What say? Are you game?
In Christ,
Brian
How Sex Works
"From the time we are teenagers through mid-life or longer, we are capable of sexually reproducing. Sex plays a major role in much of our culture -- we see it in our fashion, literature, music, television and movies.
From a biological standpoint, the goal of sex is to merge two sets of genetic information, one from the father and one from the mother, to make a baby that is genetically different from either parent.
In this article, we will explore the biology of sex -- otherwise known as human sexual reproduction. We will examine the body's sexual organs, the biological cycles of sex, and the process of fertilization"
This would be the non-religious argument for marriage as a matter of good public policy, in case anyone was wondering.
Post a Comment