Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

NY advocates rally to legalize gay marriage

May 12th, 2011, Promulgated by benanderson

Former Rochester Mayor Bob Duffy (now Lieutenant Governor of NYS) follows the Democratic party line of reducing the marriage debate to a matter of rights.  He even pretends to hold this view because of his Catholic upbringing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP8ee59223e904488696a9f381f4b48c91.html

Lt. Gov. Robert Duffy told the group that the gay-marriage bill remains one of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s top three legislative issues but they have “a little fight ahead.” It has previously passed in the Democrat-controlled Assembly.

Cuomo, a Democrat, said last week that based on talks with legislative leaders and rising poll numbers, he believed the Senate would produce the 32 votes needed before the legislative session ends in June. Cuomo heads to Syracuse on Tuesday to start a tour to push priorities including gay marriage, a tax cap and ethics reform.

“Nobody in the state should ever question or underestimate Gov. Cuomo’s commitment to marriage equality,” Duffy said, getting loud and sustained applause. “This state respects the rights of everybody. This is not a political issue. This is not about Republicans and Democrats. Marriage equality is an issue of civil rights.”

Duffy, the former Rochester police chief and mayor, said his mother had been a nun for several years and his father was a former seminarian so he “grew up in the Parris Island of Catholicism.”

“It was always about civil rights for everybody,” he said.

Opponents of gay marriage include the New York State Catholic Conference, representing the state’s bishops on public policy.

Both Cuomo and Duffy are publicly professing Catholics who have met with the favor of Albany’s Bishop Hubbard.  The Rochesterian Duffy would fall under the jurisdiction of Rochester’s Bishop Matthew Clark.  Hopefully we will get some sort of public statement from Bishop Clark as to the proper Catholic position.  Kudos to Bishop Murphy (of Long Island) for his vocal support of marriage.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Both-sides-swap-vows-1376524.php

Over the past week, some of the state’s bishops have called senators urging them “to stand firm in defense of the historic understanding of marriage,” Poust said. Bishop William Murphy, the Catholic leader on Long Island, mentioned the need to fight same-sex marriage in his column in Long Island Catholic, which is mailed to over 100,000 homes.
Poust would not say which legislators received calls (or which prelates made them), but the island is home to nine Republican senators. Scott Reif, spokesman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, said Skelos is opposed to the measure, but it hasn’t yet been discussed privately among senators. Some, including Mark Grisanti of Buffalo and James Alesi of suburban Rochester, are not publicly committed. Alesi told the Times Union, “If same-sex marriage came up after next fall’s election, I’d be willing to say it will pass.”

Once again – this is not a matter of civil rights. It a question of “What is Marriage?”

Tags: ,

|

45 Responses to “NY advocates rally to legalize gay marriage”

  1. avatar Anon says:

    Hm… As I was told by my priest in this very diocese (Rochester) gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage. No two people committed to one another, whether gay or straight, will ever weaken marriage. He said only divorce destroys marriage. A thought to chew on.

    Oh, and by the way, where did Jesus say he was against gay marriage? Homosexuality was surely something he was aware of yet he says nothing on it. If he did I must have missed that in my catechism…

    I fear I know that to this some of you my respond with harsh and hateful passages from Leviticus… DON’T… We know not all these things should be taken literally and we understand that much of the law revolved around the culture and do not apply to us today as Christians (women covering their heads and such). As for Paul in Romans… I believe the same could be said…

  2. avatar Anon says:

    PS… isn’t it just ever so possible that you could be wrong… isn’t it just ever so possible that the spirit could be leading us to a day where, yes, we might be able to tolerate to people of the same sex loving one another in holy matrimony before their God, whom they love…. maybe just maybe

    Or are you all so sure of yourselves that you claim to know God’s will on this subject that it is not even worth considering… I really am curious

  3. avatar Anonymous says:

    Ben – Does Lt. Gov. Duffy profess to currently be Catholic — or does he just claim that he was raised in a Catholic household? If he is still Catholic, do you know in which local Catholic parish he and his family consider themselves to be members?

    Also, Bishop Clark already spoke definitely about the proper Catholic position on Christian marriage in his Along the Way column in the Catholic Courier several years ago:
    http://www.catholiccourier.com/commentary/bishops-column/what-we-believe-about-the-sacrament-of-marriage/?keywords=marriage&tag=&searchSectionID=

  4. avatar Dr. K says:

    First, your priest is an idiot.

    Second, just because Jesus didn’t specifically condemn something doesn’t make it right. There are no specific words from the Lord in the Bible about abortion, human cloning, masturbation and an assortment of other immoralities. That doesn’t make these sinful actions good or acceptable. I don’t believe Christ specifically said not to make a molten calf idol. Is that OK?

    “If he did I must have missed that in my catechism…”

    Speaking of your Catechism: #2357 – “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which present homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10], tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [Persona Humana 8]. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. “ and #2367 – “Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 “Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.”15”

    If married couples are called to give life, and homosexual acts are disordered and contrary to natural law, then homosexuals can not marry.

    respond with harsh and hateful passages from Leviticus

    The word of God is hateful? You should file a complaint with God’s secretary.

    We know not all these things should be taken literally and we understand that much of the law revolved around the culture and do not apply to us today as Christians

    Who gave you the authority to determine what in scripture should be taken literally and what not? Doesn’t that authority rest with the Catholic Church? The Church has deemed homosexual acts and marriage to be immoral.

    As for Paul in Romans… I believe the same could be said…

    Not only have you dismissed the Old Testament, but you have chosen to ignore the New as well.

  5. avatar Dr. K says:

    “Or are you all so sure of yourselves that you claim to know God’s will on this subject that it is not even worth considering… I really am curious”

    You’re the one putting yourself above the Catholic Church and suggesting that the Holy Spirit wants homosexual marriage. You shouldn’t be so sure of yourself.

  6. avatar Anon says:

    Dr. K. Thank you for your response, I appreciate you taking the time to answer me. I don’t wish to toss out the old and new testament or believe that God is hateful.. (God is love and those who live in love live in God) I only mean to say that this is a time where it seems we must flesh out the idea of what marriage is and if Gay couples should be allowed to marry. To me it just seems that they should… that’s what my conscience tells me.

    When you say “who am I” to determine what should be taken literally and what should not, I will admit that there are people far more qualified than me… however, that being said, I am still a member of the body of Christ and am church, along with many others within the body who share my view. We are no less catholic than you, however, we are leaning in a different direction on this topic. I think we ought to be open to where the spirit leads us and open to listening to one another. May God’s will be done!

  7. avatar Anonymous says:

    I think we ought to be open to where the spirit leads us and open to listening to one another.

    Which spirit are you referring to; evil or holy?

  8. avatar Dr. K says:

    To me it just seems that they should… that’s what my conscience tells me.

    Mine says otherwise.

  9. avatar Anon says:

    Hm… I do want to say that you’ve made some good points… and certainly I will try and remain skeptical of my own position. I truly do want to do and believe what is pleasing to God. Today, though, it can be difficult knowing what that is… Even with a sincere heart and the best of intentions we can arrive at seemingly opposing views.

  10. avatar Anon says:

    @ anonymous 116222

    Which spirit are you referring to; evil or holy?

    Really? What do you think.

  11. avatar Dr. K says:

    Think for a moment about what homosexual acts and marriage REALLY are. Block out the fantasy images and stereotypes presented by television and think about the reality. Does homosexual intercourse make sense? Aren’t we as humans designed so that a man and a woman have sexual intercourse and create new life? The bodies of man and woman are complimentary. What do we have with homosexuality? The function of giving life has been replaced with pleasure alone. Homosexual intercourse defies how we are biologically created. It is not how our sexual organs are designed to function.

  12. avatar Anon says:

    Thanks… I have considered these facts as well… and honestly they do make me want to agree with you. Certainly nature points us towards living a heterosexual life… nothing seems to make biological sense in regards to homosexuality.

    I do also believe that Gay people can fall in love and that they are gay by no fault of their own. This love is what I believe leads them to want to have a public ceremony before their family and friends to show their commitment to one another. This is how and why I have arrived at my current position. Because I am not certain I feel uncomfortable telling someone that what they are doing is right or wrong. Today this issue seems to be graying…

  13. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    Anon,
    Thank you for your inquiry. In due time, I will attempt to address the questions you raise in more depth. I truly believe that by leaving such comments (preventing CF from becoming an echo chamber) we can more directly address the questions many people have in their minds, but often don’t express. Thank you for voicing your thoughts.

    DrK,
    Thanks for defending the Church’s position.

    Anonymous-131129,
    Thanks for that link! I was unaware of it.

  14. avatar Anonymous says:

    As a practicing and active Roman Catholic I firmly support gay marriage. Gay people getting married have absolutely no impact on me or my family. The church does not have to allow gay marriage. When the state finally wakes up gives all people in this equal rights and passes gay marriage it will have no effect on the church, after all there is a separation of church and state. If you are so against gay please tell me how letting two people who love each other get married will have a direct impact on you? My wife and I have 4 children, all school aged, we talked last about gay marriage and we all agreed to support it. So my wife and I and the older kids all called the State Senators on the list you provided and told them of our support for gay marriage.

  15. avatar A Catholic says:

    Sexual activity that is biologically sterile by nature cannot ever meet the definition of marriage. You don’t even have to be a Catholic to recognize that. Does stating that reality make me a bigot?

    BTW, those in James Alesi’s State Senate district should give him a polite reminder to vote against gay marriage, as he did last time. He is a Catholic, but said to be possibly wavering on this.

  16. avatar Scott W. says:

    First off, one doesn’t have to demonstrate an tangible impact on another for something to still be wrong; that’s a libertarian principle, not a Catholic one. And note well: Progressives constantly pester innocent people about the societal harm caused by intangible racism, yet if we say homosexuality also causes a similar societal harm, all of a suuden they become cold empiricists demanding hard evidence of harm. Talk about special pleading! Secondly it just so happens that it does have a tangible impact. If I put on a funny general’s hat, stick my hand in my shirt and pretend I’m Napoleon, it may not effect other people, but same-sex marriage is the equivalent of getting a court order saying that everyone around me must salute and say, “Oui! Mon General!” In other words, it’s argumentum ad baculum, or making everyone acknowledge a lie with legal force. It’s no mistake that in all these same-sex legislations that there is not one whiff of anything resembling conscience-protection clauses. It’s not a mistake because it never was about equal rights, but an assualt on the virtue of chastity and to marginalize anyone who disagrees. And we are already seeing the fruits–in Connecticut school ciriculums were adjusted to teach the normalcy of same-sex marriage and parents could not opt out short of pulling their child out of the school. A year or so ago, an employee of Brooks Brothers got fired because he wouldn’t acknowledge his manager’s same-sex marriage. The interesting thing was that he tried his best to remain silent on the subject, but that wasn’t good enough for the manager who kept pestering him about it until he cracked. These examples are good indicator of what those who believe in true marriage are in for if the onslaught against chastity continues. Namely, a kind of modern Test Acts.

    Then, in addition to the Church’s teachings on homosexuality in the Catechism already given, the Church has specifically delt with homosexual unions here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

    What is noteworty about this document is that it has similar lanuage that Evangelium Vitae has about abortion laws: Namely, that laws in support of them are illegitimate. And not only that, the duty of the Catholic response is the same:

    In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.

    When I was a high school catechist, I had one girl in confirmation class that did not think abortion was wrong. When I told our priest, his response was, “She’s in the wrong church.” That’s hard cheese to swallow I suppose, but just like abortion, if one thinks homosexual acts and same-sex marriage are morally acceptable, they are in the wrong church.

  17. avatar A Catholic says:

    Scott W.

    Well said, all bases covered.

  18. avatar Anon says:

    Scott when Martin Luther thought indulgences were wrong was he in the wrong church… I mean yes he left… but he was right about a lot of things (Pope Benedict XVI has said as much)… and the church (well at least the higher ups) was wrong.

    The church is always in a state of trasition and change… constantly centering itself more on Christ. It’s not wrong for any Catholic to desire change in their church if the holy spirit is at work in them. These things (homosexual marraige) are not at the center of our faith… I don’t believe these are non negotiables.

    My point is that the hierarchy has been wrong in the past (Galileo) and we have changed over time… who is to say that this isn’t one of those things that could change. It is because of discussions like these that progress is possible… we either change to a better theology centered more on Christ or we shore up old ways of thinking.

  19. avatar Anon says:

    Also… I don’t think that we can equate a lifestyle choice to to abortion…

  20. avatar Anon says:

    Sorry I just wanted to say… I withdraw the word choice from my last comment.

  21. avatar Scott W. says:

    Scott when Martin Luther thought indulgences were wrong was he in the wrong church…
    I mean yes he left… but he was right about a lot of things (Pope Benedict XVI has said as much)… and the church (well at least the higher ups) was wrong.

    Please tell me you are aware that indulgences are still part of Church teaching. There may have been abuses with indulgences, but abuse doesn’t proscribe use. So Martin Luther was wrong because he rejected the teachings of indulgences altother. On to the next error…

    The church is always in a state of trasition and change… constantly centering itself more on Christ. It’s not wrong for any Catholic to desire change in their church if the holy spirit is at work in them. These things (homosexual marraige) are not at the center of our faith… I don’t believe these are non negotiables.

    And you are wrong, the Church does not change fundamental and binding teachings and faith and morals of which the teachings on sexual conduct are one. As quoted earlier, “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which present homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10], tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [Persona Humana 8].” Another way of putting it is that this is infallible by the ordinary magisterium. On to the next error…

    My point is that the hierarchy has been wrong in the past (Galileo) and we have changed over time…

    First off, since the Church did not bind the faithful to accept geocentrism, this is a non-issue. Secondly, Galileo was wrong because he thought it the universe was heliocentric. On to the next error…

    who is to say that this isn’t one of those things that could change.

    By that logic, who is to say that God is three persons in one divine nature isn’t one of those things that could change?

    It is because of discussions like these that progress is possible… we either change to a better theology centered more on Christ or we shore up old ways of thinking.

    This is begging the question. It assumes that green-lighting objectively perverse sex acts is “better theology”. You haven’t a leg to stand on other than chronological snobbery.

  22. avatar Scott W. says:

    Here is the Catechism section on indulgences:

    1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.

    What is an indulgence?

    “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.”81

    “An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.”82 The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.83

  23. avatar Anonymous-131129 says:

    Ben – Bishop Clark also signed the 2008 New York State Catholic Bishops Statement on “Same-Sex Marriage”

    http://www.nyscatholic.org/admin/news/document/856_2008-06-09%20bishops%20marriage%20statement%20on%20letterhead.pdf

  24. avatar A Catholic says:

    Anon.- Isn’t one of the basic elements of marriage that the ablility to procreate is a norm? That’s not to say that this is the only element of marriage or that every married couple is able to have children. But in a homosexual relationship, there is never an ability to biologically produce children. The norm for a homosexual relationship is sterility. The Catholic teaching on marriage reflects what nature teaches us. It isn’t something that can be changed.

    Some Catholics may begin down the road of rejecting the teaching against homosexual “marriage” once they’ve rejected the teaching on artificial contraception, which also is an attack on marriage. Accepting the non-procreative aspect of artificial contraception within marriage may lead people to a false idea of the definition of marriage.

  25. avatar Anonymous says:

    Maybe this will help Catholics understand why same-sex unions contribute to the “Culture of Death.” Then, together , we can begin to rebuild the Culture of Life. You won’t want to miss this golden opportunity!

    Dr. Janet E. Smith coming to Mercy High School on Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 7 pm

    Dr. Janet E. Smith holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at
    Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. She publishes and speaks nationally and
    internationally on Catholic teachings regarding sexuality and bioethics.

    “The Right to Privacy?”
    Internationally known speaker on life issues

    Based on her new book, Dr. Smith’s talk will address the way in which a distorted
    view of freedom dominates various U.S. Supreme Court decisions on life issues under
    the guise of “the right to privacy.” Pope John Paul II, in The Gospel of Life, identified
    how this distorted view is one of the roots of the “Culture of Death.”

    Learn about some surprising connections between contraception, abortion, assisted
    suicide and same-sex unions.

    Reception to follow with gourmet coffee bar and desserts.

    Admission

    $25 per family

    $10 per person

    $ 5 per student

    All proceeds to benefit St. John Bosco Schools

    For more information please go to http://www.johnboscoschools.org

    RSVP to channa@johnboscoschools.org or 585-678-4655

  26. avatar Anonymous says:

    Dr. Janet Smith is coming to Our Lady of Mercy High School on Thursday, June 16 at 7 PM. She will discuss her latest book on the right to privacy. She will answer the many questions regarding same sex unions, contraception, abortion and various life issues. It is being sponsored by St John Bosco Schools. See website for details (events link).
    http://www.johnboscoschools.org

  27. avatar Anonymous says:

    Anon- it is NOT possible that the Church is “wrong” on this. One look at our bodies tells you why. We were made MALE and FEMALE in God’s image. If God intended every person to be able to co-create new life with every other person, why MALE and FEMALE then? What is lost on our secular culture (and a product of the contraceptive mentality) is that sex was made by God for procreation of children (and the unity of the spouses). Once we separated the two purposes, all bets were off. Sure, if sex has nothing to do with procreation, why NOT two guys getting married? Or a guy and a horse, for that matter! I digress.

    The real problem here is the contraceptive culture of death as John Paul II called it. Unfortunately, it can be said that the Church Fathers of Vatican II had something to do with it when they elevated unity of the spouses on a par with procreation. And everyone in our Church hierarchy who refuses to preach on the issue of contraception (or openly or secretly disagrees with the Church) is complicit in where we are today.

    And as for Bob Duffy, he appears to be drunk on his new-found power. Toeing the party line for ex-police officer, newly minded Lt. Governor Duffy. SHAME on you, Bob.

  28. avatar Anonymous says:

    Scott – nicely done on your body slam of Anon. He/she appears to have fled.

    I love it when they haul out the tired old “Galileo was right, the Church was wrong” argument, by which they imply that the Church is wrong every time because the Church was “wrong” once. What they fail to recogize is that nearly every scientist of Galileo’s age was “wrong” also, and it is dubious to say that Galileo’s theories fall in the realm of faith and morals. Disordered, gravely sinful sexual behavior certainly does.

  29. avatar Anonymous says:

    Anon-12925 – as a “practicing and active Roman Catholic” did it every occur to you to investigate more about what the Catholic Church teaches and why? Or do you (like most these days) feel completely free to disregard and ignore what the Church teaches? A little humility is in order, I think.

    Did it ever occur to you that just perhaps the Church which Christ founded might have a little more wisdom in matters moral and spiritual than you, your wife and your four school-age children? I guess not.

    “Nope, we just got together, decided we like gay marriage, and picked up the phone and called our senators, just like that.” Wow.

    I might add that you’re ignoring the effect of this on the souls of your four youngsters, for which you will be held accountable.

  30. avatar Anonymous says:

    Oh I haven’t fled any where. Im still here, and I still very much support gay marriage. I just called Jim Alessi’s to let him know about my support and that as my elected official I expect him to vote in favor of it too. You can go on and say what you want, but I will believe what I want. And besides if it were so wrong then my Bishop, Bishop Matthew Clark would come out and condemn Andrew Cuomo and Bob Duffy. Since he hasn’t then I too shall support gay marriage. Following the lead of my local Bishop who has been in faithful service to this diocese for over 25 years far out trumps any “body slam” you can give.

  31. avatar Scott W. says:

    He/she appears to have fled.

    I wouldn’t bet on it. 😀

  32. avatar Scott W. says:

    To expand: I wouldn’t bet on it because we still have many secular-progressive canards to go through such as:

    1. The Church changed its teaching on usury.
    2. The Church changed its teaching on slavery.
    3. Pope Sixtus and Pope Gregory disagreed on ensoulment, therefore the Church wasn’t always against abortion.
    4. God makes people homosexual, therefore homosexual acts are morally acceptable.
    5. Homosexual acts can be found in the animal kinggom, therefore it’s natural (rofl!)
    6. And already we have the “Since the pope/bishop hasn’t done anything about this or that priest/theologian, that must mean tacit approval. (Never mind that stopped-clock Bp. Clark managed to sign the New York statement against same-sex marriage.)

  33. avatar Anon says:

    I notice a lot of your explanations have to do with marraige revolving around procreation… however… that isn’t all marraige is about. For example the ederly and the barren still carry out sexual relationships…

  34. avatar Anon says:

    and nope… I haven’t fled either… I have found that many priests in our diocese are also open to these new ideas and support Cuomo.

  35. avatar Scott W. says:

    I notice a lot of your explanations have to do with marraige revolving around procreation… however… that isn’t all marraige is about. For example the ederly and the barren still carry out sexual relationships…

    That was acknowledged in Anon- Anonymous-135225’s comment (c’mon anons! You don’t have to use your real name, make up a psuedonym. These numbers are real clunky to work with :))

    Anyway the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. The secondary purpose is the legitimate satisfaction of the sex urge. When the primary doesn’t exist through nobody’s fault, it naturally moves to the secondary and thus, the barren and elderly married can still have sex. Sins against chastity, be they heterosexual (say, contraceptive) or homosexual, attempt to force the secondary into the primary. In other words, it’s disordered.

    I have found that many priests in our diocese are also open to these new ideas and support Cuomo.

    Call me when they make a public statement or homily to that effect.

  36. avatar A Catholic says:

    Anon.-204144 “I will believe what I want” (Non servium)

    In the end, a person will believe what they want but if someone wants to know what Our Lord teaches through His Church, it’s not too difficult to find, even if certain Catholic priests or bishops believe and/or teach something different.

  37. avatar Giovanni says:

    ok… so this is just plain old Anon and I’ll use Giovanni going forward for the sake of discussion purposes on this thread and all others going forward. 🙂

    Scott, it is true, these priests have been candid… I’ll keep my ears opens though.

  38. avatar Anonymous says:

    Well the Lord I want to know and love, loves all His children equally and would allow love their love to manifest in marriage even same sex marriage. The laws and regulations of the Church were created and can be changed by man, this is includes the teachings on gay marriage and woman priests. Only Dogma which is from God cannot be changed!

  39. avatar Scott W. says:

    Well the Lord I want to know and love, loves all His children equally and would allow love their love to manifest in marriage even same sex marriage.

    Using the sexual function for other than what God designed it for isn’t love, it’s lust.

    The laws and regulations of the Church were created and can be changed by man,

    Our Lord protects the Church from teaching error in matters of Faith AND Morals, so no, they cannot be changed.

    Only Dogma which is from God cannot be changed!

    Dogma is also known as the Deposit of Faith. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the subesquent dubium established that male-only priesthood is part of the Deposit Faith, but this is getting off-topic.

  40. avatar Giovanni says:

    Church teaching on homosexual unions has never been made infallibly though… It has been touched on in official documents and letters from the Pope and bishops but has never been taught infallibly. That doctrine which prevents the Church from erring on faith and morals is seldom employed and therefore our Pope and bishops are fully capable of being wrong on this issue.. correct?

  41. avatar Nerina says:

    Excellent discussion thread.

    What I find so interesting about the “gay marriage” debate is how activists have changed their minds regarding state involvement in their personal lives. For years we heard, “stay out of our bedrooms.” Fine. The state did. But, now, the activists are saying, “Wait! Come into our bedroom and APPROVE of our lifestyle!” It isn’t enough for everyone to “live and let live” – the activists will only be happy when we condone, accept and celebrate their sexual choices.

    Scott W. has done the heavy lifting with many of the arguments/rationales offered by the “anons” here, but a few comments:

    Anon(Giovani?) says:

    As I was told by my priest in this very diocese (Rochester) gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage.

    And another anonymous says:

    Gay people getting married have absolutely no impact on me or my family. The church does not have to allow gay marriage. When the state finally wakes up gives all people in this equal rights and passes gay marriage it will have no effect on the church, after all there is a separation of church and state.

    Giovani, your priest is sadly mistaken. In places where gay marriage has existed for several years, we find lower marriage rates overall. Simply put – even heterosexuals no longer bother to get married.(see here:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp) That’s just one outcome of “gay marriage.” Further, children are being born to unwed parents which often leads to single parenthood. We don’t have to look far to see the dramatic effects on children who live in single parent homes. Poverty, delinquency, increased criminal behavior, drug and alcohol use, etc…It is not a pretty picture.

    The second “Anon” is being extreme in the naive. In Massachusetts (where “gay marriage” is legal), Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business because it refused to adopt children out to gay couples. see here:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm. So much for “church and state.” Guess who was hurt with this decision? Children. Lots of them. All because the Church did not want to violate Her core beliefs and the State was unwilling to respect them.

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there. Also in Massachusetts, a judge ruled that parents did not have the right to be notified about a homosexuality curriculum prior to their children being exposed to it.(see here:http://ncfamily.org/stories/070228s1.html) I’d say the parents were definitely “hurt” in this decision as were their unsuspecting children. Tolerance is not enough. The gay activists will only be happy when society proclaims that their lifestyle is on the same moral plane as traditional marriage.

    If “gay marriage” is legalized in NY, how will I, as a parent of 5 school-age children, be able to defend my position without being called a bigot or homophobe? How will I be able to stop the creeping reach of gay activism especially evident in school curriculums?

    I agree that liberal divorce laws have done a great deal of damage to undermine marriage as has the routine use of contraceptives. Contraception has divorced the procreative aspect of marriage from the unitive thus creating an environment for gay activists to say “see, marriage doesn’t have to end in the creation of children – just look at contracepting couples.” I would also argue that the emergence of the “soul mate” model of marriage has done a great deal of harm by encouraging couples to abandon marital relationships that they do not see as “fulfilling.”

    Giovani for a discussion of infallibility see my previous post:https://cleansingfire.org/2010/07/infallibility-lets-review/

  42. avatar Anonymous says:

    If you try to put two positive magnetic poles together they repel. Same thing with two negative magnetic poles. ONLY a positive is attracted to a negative. When you try to put two males or females together, they should repel. Hence, males should be with females, and females should be with males. Scientifically speaking it does NOT make sense.

  43. avatar Scott W. says:

    And almost as if on cue, here is a story of a Catholic sports anchor being fired after expressing support of true marriage: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=17025

    Same-sex marriage doesn’t affect us? Let me make the radical suggestion that losing a job for believing in true marriage affects us. [Cue rationalizations like, “Well the network didn’t specify the reasons he was fired.”]

  44. avatar Louis E. says:

    The analogy I like to make is,an opposite-sex marriage is to a same-sex “marriage” as being sworn in as a police officer is to taking the oath as a “made man” in the Mob.Committing to doing right is not “equal” to committing to doing wrong…homosexual orientation is a weakness for a bad habit,and homosexual activity is a bad habit.We don’t subsidize drinks for alcoholics,we encourage them to be sober.We are letting homosexuals down by failing to keep pressure on them to remain celibate.

  45. avatar Anonymous says:

    Very good point Louis E.

Leave a Reply


Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.


-Return to main page-