Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church


Day One in Sodom

July 25th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

From the Democrat & Chronicle:

“Rochester City Clerk Dan Karin said 39 [homosexual so-called marriage] licenses were issued Sunday, and several couples obtained waivers to get married the same day.”

Certainly a far cry from the “hundreds” I have been reading in recent days and the “millions” I saw in one publication. May the number of homosexual pretend marriages be as low as possible.

Tags: ,


16 Responses to “Day One in Sodom”

  1. avatar Bruce says:

    Since the state of New York is into recognizing friendships, I say that we all go ahead and have our friendships recognized on here. Since coitus and complementarity are no longer needed for the state to recognize friendships and give benefits to friends, I think it is only fair that we, as a group, apply for state-recognized friendship as well. If they refuse, they are discriminating bigots, to use their language.

  2. avatar jetscubs86 says:

    Are same-sex couples eligible to receive a federal income tax refund if they file their taxes jointly?

  3. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    I hear the average life of one of these “homosexual” marriages is about 6 months.

  4. avatar Bruce says:

    It doesn’t matter. Since sexual complementarity is out, anything goes. The friendship between Richard Thomas and myself should be recognized by the state of New York too, for they have no logical or legal ground to deny that we are friends. Sexual activity is not a requirement, since that only matters in the case of heterosexuals, because it results in a new life. One no longer needs to have sex in order to be married in New York. We all could be married on here, and in reality, they can no longer stop us. Heck, I might as well marry my brother and my neighbors too, since there is nothing to prevent it.

  5. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    And don’t forget Fido and Trigger! Once marriage can be defined in this way, they the door could be opened for any type of arrangement. The powers to be are operating simply on bribary and corruption. Not much hope here.

  6. avatar Bruce says:

    Well, it is interesting, isn’t it? The requirement that only two could be married was based on the fact that only two (man and woman) could procreate. If procreation is not part of the equation, there is no need to restrict marriage to two people.

  7. avatar annonymouse says:

    Unfortunately, the sexual revolution gave us widespread acceptance of artificial birth control, which effectively severed the connection between sex and procreation in the minds of most these days. So homosexual “marriage” is an inevitability in such a mindset. I mean if sex is just for the jollies of the two involved, why not?!? Let’s have jollies equality!

    What is needed is a clear and forceful teaching of Humanae Vitae, but I have to wonder how many priests, deacons (and bishops for that matter?) subscribe to this teaching.

    And jetscubs, I think the federal Defense of Marriage Act means that such state-recognized relationships aren’t recognized by the Federal government, which means such individuals are considered individuals for tax return purposes. This despite President Obama’s unwillingness to enforce the DOMA anymore (despite the oath he took).

  8. avatar annonymouse says:

    Further to this issue, this article was published today:

    I find this sort of reporting to be disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful.

  9. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    What do U want from a newspaper that is the mouthpiece of the bishop.

    The failure to teach about contraception is what got the ball rolling down the toilet.

    It will take generations to turn this mess around and this current crop of priests and bishops, unfortunately have been the problem, not the solution.

    So many Catholics remain untaught about contraception.

    All U have to do is hear people like Dr. Janet Smith and the opposition canot muster a sentense in their defence.

  10. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    This (from the article) pretty much sums it up. It really doesn’t have anything to do with marriage (which has completely lost meaning) or rights. It has to do with forcing EVERYONE (mostly our children) to accept their lifestyle and to realize that you can be gay and no one can tell you you can’t:

    Having been together 17 years, the marriage “doesn’t really change anything,” said Cicero, 52. “I’ll change my status on Facebook.” But it arguably affects how the world sees them, he added.

    “I want them to know our relationship is just as real as their moms’ and dads’ relationships,” he said.

  11. avatar christian says:

    Bruce: I regard to your approach to marrying friends —A woman in Ghana married her dog. I saw the news article on an e-mail site a few years ago and was shocked. The priest who performed the marriage told the guests to rejoice with her because she had found happiness at last.
    Here is one link to the story:

    The woman’s family boycotted the wedding thinking it “was a stupid step to combat loneliness.” The wedding was attended by curious villagers.

  12. avatar christian says:

    Correction,In my previous post: Should have read, Bruce: “In regard to your approach to marrying friends” (since procreation or sexual activity does not matter anymore).
    Ben Anderson’s words regarding marriage as completely lost meaning came to mind when I reread that article recently, in order to post, about the woman marrying her dog (obviously for committed companionship). The concept of marriage has completely lost its meaning when people start marrying their pets.
    We have concerns with priests performing gay marriages-a man with a man, a woman with a woman, but this priest performed a marriage with a woman and a dog!

  13. avatar christian says:

    In regard to articles written in the Catholic Courier-It is not only a matter of being the mouthpiece of the Bishop, they also have secular reporters who work for them.
    Many years ago, I was interviewed for a story involving a church celebration for a woman who was being united with brothers and sisters she had not seen for at least 50 years. A Sister of St. Joseph was also involved with the story. Both the Sister of St. Joseph and I were upset at how the story was handled. The Courier initially wanted to photograph the woman at her home. Both I and the Sister of St. Joseph asked that the Courier not show up to this woman’s home but to photograph her instead, at her celebration at church, all dressed up. After agreeing to this, they went ahead and caught this woman off guard at her sparse living conditions and dressed in her old clothes. (This woman was poor and the church had taken up a collection to get her new clothes and more formal clothes for the church celebration and the occasion of her family reunion in Pennsylvania). Additionally, the reporter quoted people incorrectly in her article. For example, I made the statement, “God is Faithful.” The reporter quoted me as saying, “Boy, it sure restores your faith when you hear things that.” The reporter put everyone in a less than ideal light.
    When I made a formal complaint with the Catholic Courier, the response I was given (when they got back to me) was that the reporter probably did not understand concepts that were spoken such as “God is Faithful” because many of their reporters are from the secular world and do not have a religious background. I maintained that even if she did not understand what I or others said, she should have quoted us directly instead of “putting words in our mouths.” Again, they defended her and her lack of religious background as not understanding concepts of faith and religion and attempting to convey what she thought was the message. I ended the conversation stating that one would expect practicing Catholic reporters, or at the very least practicing Christian reporters, knowledgeable in things of faith to be writing for a Catholic newspaper. I also cited a lack of ethics in breaching the agreement for time and place for photography and that one would expect better ethics from a Catholic newspaper.

  14. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    It also has been a problem with orthodox Catholic reporters. But hopefully, the Courier in the future will reflect the MAjesterial views of the Church.

  15. avatar Raymond F. Rice says:

    Every one seems to be talking about the secular/lay homosexual agenda but no one talks about the clerical gay agenda. If you want to look into that, check out the monumental problems uncovered by “christifideles” in the Miami archdiocese!! Or you can read the crude and vulgar article on it written by the New York publication “Gawker”. Be warned it contains questionable and obscene pictures of a priest’s “partner” found on a gay dating site where it is evidently appropriate to show your genitalia .

  16. avatar Ben Anderson says:


    Every one seems to be talking about the secular/lay homosexual agenda but no one talks about the clerical gay agenda.

    I’m guessing you missed my post on priests supporting the homosexual agenda.

    And that’s only going off of publicly available information. I would imagine the story is much deeper when you start digging beneath the public sphere.

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-