The same-sex marriage “debate” continues if by debate you mean name-calling and threatening the other side. This story on the intolerance of the other side ought really be heard. The New York State Catholic Conference posted “A Note on Intolerance” on their facebook page. Here’s the last paragraph (the story preceding it is just plain scary):
We are unjustly called “haters” and “bigots” by those who have carefully framed their advocacy strategy. The entire campaign to enact same-sex marriage is conducted under a banner of acceptance, and equality and respect for others. Yet behind that banner of tolerance is another campaign – of intimidation, threats and ugliness. What at first appears to be simple juvenile behavior by a few is becoming a culture and climate of abusiveness toward those who disagree. I hope and believe that it represents a minority of those advocating for same-sex marriage, but it needs to be publicly addressed by that advocacy community. Otherwise, is this the future we look forward to in our state? Intolerance masquerading as tolerance, intimidation in the name of respect? I hope not, but the wind certainly seems to be blowing in that direction.
On this topic, my wife caught a glimpse of this group of people from out of state rallying support for traditional marriage on the streets of Fairport. WHEC reports (later they went to Archangels School):
A catholic group protesting same-sex marriage came to Rochester today. They say that one man tore up one of their banners in Fairport and one of the protestors got hit on the head with a bottle thrown from a car.
News 10NBC spoke with the group earlier while they were in Irondequoit. They carried signs that said “Catholics reject same sex marriage.”
They say they’ve been defending traditional marriage across the country. And today, about 15 members of The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property came to Rochester.
That takes some courage. I wouldn’t doubt that many of the jeers came from the group they are representing – Catholics.
A member of the group, 15-year-old Damien Murphy, attends a Catholic High School in Pennsylvania. We asked why he was there. He said, “Because it offends God, this same sex marriage. Traditional marriage is between a man and woman. That’s the way God made it.”
Not a bad answer, but IMO it would be more prudent not to invoke God or religion in this debate. It isn’t necessary. As usual, if you want to learn how to defend marriage in such a way, see the excellent paper entitled “What is Marriage?” And don’t get discouraged if you see polls not in our favor because they’re all over the board:
Same-sex marriage continues to show a split in the polls. A Quinnipiac University survey finds that 58% of New Yorkers support the passage of a bill legalizing gay marriage while 36% are opposed.
A recent Siena College polls showed a slim majority of New Yorkers in favor of gay marriage – 52% to 42%.
However, according to NY1/YNN Marist Poll, a majority of adults in New York — 53% — say marriage should only be between a man and a woman while 46% do not agree with that definition
And if you haven’t yet contacted Jim Alesi, who is wavering on the issue, be sure to do so.
Tags: Homosexual Agenda
|
Ben, other than pray, is there anything we can do if we’re out of state?
Sassy,
I dunno – these folks were from out of state if you wanna do what they did.
23817,
My wife said there were many horns honking in Fairport as well.
I decided to reappropriate the acronym LGBT for better causes: Loving Goodness, Beauty, and Truth. ^_^
Given: LGBT = Loving Goodness, Beauty, and Truth
Then: All Catholics support LGBT. (But only when defined as the Given above.)
Given: All people are made in God’s image and we are called to love our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Then: Of course we love homosexuals–they’re people too.
Given: “Love the sinner, hate the sin”; homosexuality is characterized as a sin.
Then: We do not support their lifestyles BUT instead encourage them to live chastely (as everyone is called to do).
Given: Marriage is between one man and one woman and must allow for the possibility (however slim) of procreation.
Then: Civil unions between homosexual partners are not “marriage” and never will be because they do not fulfill any of those requirements.
Given: The intimate marital act is called as such because it only belongs within the context of marriage.
Then: Anything otherwise is sinful (cohabitation, etc) and ought to be condemned.
You might want to contact the National Organization for Marriage.I’ve gotten two robocalls from them asking my views and if I’d call my State Senator,though what I actually did was ask him to hold the line against SSM with a face-to-face handshake.
Perhaps 130153 means catholic (with a little c) as opposed to Catholic with a big c.
I totallly agree with the above post. To call oneself Catholic, you have assent to the full teachings of the Catholic Church. You cannot pick and choose the doctrine you follow. And if you are very open and verbal of that support, then one’s actions fall into the realm of scandal.
It is true that too many who call themselves “Catholic” actually are not, since they severed membership as they embraced their own personal teaching authority (their personal notions and feelings, that is), discounting whatever they want of what Holy Mother Church demands of us for our membership. The really lost among them actually still attend Holy Mass and receive the Holy Eucharist. Maybe such as they just never have known what the terms of their membership are… complete acceptance of the Church’s teachings from Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium and examining one’s conscience based on such. Let’s hope so; else, they’re in really big trouble with God, because he cannot be fooled. +JMJ
As to the “marriage” issue, I would ask that those who actually support such an obviously ridiculous contradiction in terms (“married” homosexuals) please view the facts, not the fuzzy, PC stuff that’s been bought by the intelligence disadvantaged. Fact: marriage has a practical history of societal benefit; that is, continuation of our species. Fact: homosexual lifestyle is a personal choice of bedroom habits with no intrinsic public benefit. IT’S APPLES AND ORANGES, FOLKS!! No comparison whatsoever! Furthermore, the only “rights” that will be stepped on if marriage is redefined are the rights of the 98% of Americans who do NOT live the homosexual lifestyle! What these ideologues demand will discard what I have in my marriage, reducing it to mere sex acts. How is that just? Finally, if you so redefine marriage, sex acts of any and all kinds and between any and all kinds will have the right to be called “marriage” whenever the participants so desire to take out papers! Even homosexuals with brains and basic honesty do not see that they in their lifestyle can enter the institution of marriage. +JMJ
That’s why I second (and third and fourth) the reading of the article, “What Is Marriage” which is linked above.
I’m another non-religious person (though not atheist) who opposes same-sex marriage and decries the hypocrisy of anyone claiming to belong in good standing to an organization that teaches that homosexual activity is always to be avoided while also claiming that such activity is unobjectionable.(It is the persons being of the same sex,not the particular sexual acts nor the lack of marital status,that renders their sexual relationship indefensible to the logic that I believe,I realize that Catholics teach differently).
Sadly, 13561, this is where your bishop’s leadership has lacked–by allowing you and others to think you can be a Catholic in good standing and sill support SSM. Same goes for the bishop of Albany. I have to think that if Archbishop Dolan was bishop of Albany, Mr. Cuomo would not be pulling his stunts.
Here is the Church’s teaching on homosexuality:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 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.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Now one might be tempted to say that denying marriage is unjust discrimination cited in 2358. Nope. The Church explicitly delt with that here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Every Catholic should read it all, but to pick a passage as an executive summary, here:
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. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
If the State passes laws in favor of same-sex marriage, that is formal cooperation with evil. If a Catholic ignorant of Church teaching advocates same-sex marriage, that is material cooperation with evil (less serious as far as culpability goes, but still wrong). If after being properly informed of Church teaching, the Catholic still advocates SSM, it goes from material to formal cooperation with evil, which is grave endangerment.
Once again, here’s Bishop Clark’s statement on SSM, although I admit he sends really mixed signals.
http://www.catholiccourier.com/commentary/bishops-column/what-we-believe-about-the-sacrament-of-marriage/?keywords=marriage&tag=&searchSectionID
Thanks, Scott – I just bookmarked your comment for future reference.
Anon13561 – you said it beautifully. Anon130153 thinks that “Catholic” means whatever he or she thinks it means. He or she is wrong. Catholic means being in communion with the Church and her teachings, and her teachings on homosexuality (disordered affect), homosexual practice (disordered and gravely sinful) and “gay marriage” (against God’s natural law) are clear and unambiguous. To choose to ignore them is to choose to reject the Catholic Church.
A strong case could be made that Anon130153’s comments are heretical, which means that without any Priest of Bishop’s involvement, Anon130153 may have excommunicated himself or herself. Fear not, 130153, this is nothing that a change of heart and a good confession can’t remedy.
Oops…I responded to the wrong Anon in my 3:53 PM posting. My apologies to Anon 13561.
From the poll numbers cited in this post above it cannot be only Christians or Catholics who do not want marriage laws changed.
I am,as noted,a non-religious opponent of same-sex “marriage”.
I do wonder why no Catholic hierarch has stood up to say that any persons previously confirmed as Catholics who contract same-sex “marriages” have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae and can not return to communion before dissolving those unions.I think particularly of Gregory Maguire,author of “Wicked” (a heresy of its own kind to admirers of L. Frank Baum),and his brazen letter to the Pope offering an invitation to come see what good Catholics he and his “husband” are…but any persons who make the formal statement of hostility to the Church that such unions represent should be excluded thereby.
If I recall correctly, it was Bishop Jean Jadot who recommended many of the current bishops that support anti-Catholic agendas. If you do a search on his name, you’ll see what I mean. He was a pastoral advisor under Pope Paul VI.
Surely Satin is not to blame,any more than watered silk!