A Woman is Made to Be A Woman : Catholic Stand:
'via Blog this'
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
39 comments:
"And I really think is that part of the Evil One’s plan to destroy families — to get us all to think that it is a bad thing to say that women are made to fill this role. It isn’t bad though, God’s plan is not bad."
What if there is no Evil One, no God, and no plan? Wouldn't it then make sense that women should be able to plan their lives in a way that allows them to have both a career and a family. My wife took off ten years to have and raise our two sons. The rest of the time she was on the pill. The boys are now men off on their own and she is enjoying a successful career. There was no plan but our plan and it worked out just fine.
"What if there is no Evil One, no God, and no plan?"
Then all we have left to do good instead of evil is tradition. And all the more reason not to abandon it.
" Wouldn't it then make sense that women should be able to plan their lives in a way that allows them to have both a career and a family."
Not possible. Everybody, man, woman, theist, or atheist, is only granted 24 hours in a day.
My wife didn't take any time off, but she did change her career for one more fitting to the role of motherhood- and even then, one look at our house says that we've both taken on far too many responsibilities.
Also, I'd point out that your plan has *NOT* worked out fine at all. Neither of your children are married, they have no children of their own, and one has rebelled so far as to claim to be homosexual just to spite "our plan". Not much of a success rate, that.
One son is looking to finish law school, which is fine with me. The other is gay, which is also fine with me. You're the one who thinks there is something wrong with that. Remember?
Not thinks, Knows. With the certainty that all of this has happened before and *my side always wins* in the end.
Your side will not win if it keeps bashing gays.
We did when the Greeks opposed us. We did when the Romans embraced homosexuality. We did when converting the Native Americans. What makes you think that, in the long run, the United States can win while embracing a sexuality that has no evolutionary future?
"What makes you think that, in the long run, the United States can win while embracing a sexuality that has no evolutionary future?"
Sexuality does not have to have an "evolutionary future". It's not about evolution, it is about human rights. Homosexuality is no longer considered to be a disorder other than by outmoded religions. It's not about winning. It's about doing the right thing.
How can something wrong be a right?
Sexuality is about the evolution of the human species, and needs to be considered in that light. If we turn wrong things into rights, we don't deserve to survive or have freedom.
"If we turn wrong things into rights, we don't deserve to survive or have freedom."
Ah! But they are only "wrong things" to religious people who have no say in the matter if the court decides they are rights. You can't fight the Supreme Court. Aren't the rulings on Prop 8 and DOMA overdue?
They're "wrong things" to the CDC as well. They're "wrong things" to primitive tribes trying to keep their populations stable in an unforgiving environment. They're "wrong things" from an evolutionary standpoint.
Why are you trying so hard to make what is wrong, right?
Plus, the Supreme Court is political, not scientific.
I think gays are being unfairly judged by Catholics because of the Church's opposition to any sexual activity that is not intended for procreation.
See new post, there's a heck of a lot more to that than just Church Teaching or religion (about a 3:1 ratio, and that's even from a radical Catholic radio show broadcast from Ave Maria Florida, online, and at several Catholic radio stations- had to look it up and blog about it when I got home- I heard the first episode in my car).
I will listen to it later. What this all comes down to is religious groups claiming that all children deserve a father and a mother. This is the entire case for those who oppose gay marriage. All other arguments are unconvincing or irrelevant. Since we already know that the government does not prohibit single parenthood and it does not prohibit gays from having children, even by surrogates and artificial insemenation, nor does it prohibit gays from living together and having sex, why should gays be prohibited from marrying? And who says that all children must have both a father and a mother? There is no law requiring that.
The key is, maybe we should. Maybe we should ban surrogacy. Maybe we should ban infertile couples from enjoying the tax benefits that are supposed to fund childhood.
Or maybe, just maybe, we should go with the much more reasonable idea of a complete separation between civil unions and religious sacramental marriage and sever the destructive cord while we still can. Every household *legal*, only those who care to go the additional step of a church wedding *moral*. And the Churches free to refuse services to anybody they wish to.
Sometimes, when you find yourself on a slippery slope when hiking, the absolute safest thing you can do is stop climbing.
"Or maybe, just maybe, we should go with the much more reasonable idea of a complete separation between civil unions and religious sacramental marriage and sever the destructive cord while we still can."
You've said this before. I don't see how doing that benefits anyone. The couple that goes through with a sacramental marriage is automatically married from a civil standpoint. Why would they not be. And I don't see where getting married by a justice of the peace makes a person any less moral than one who gets married by a priest. That's just silly to call the latter moral.
They shouldn't be because we shouldn't have preachers acting as government officials.
I can't believe I'm having to inform a wavering atheist of that idea.
The act done by a justice of the peace, can be dissolved by a justice of the peace (divorce).
The act done by an ordained minister is done by God (and as the ceremony states, what God has joined together let no man rend asunder).
Civil unions are a contract for setting up house, and have no bearing on sexuality whatsoever, and should be available to everybody regardless of sexual orientation, number of partners, age of partners, species of partners. The Justice of the Peace should not discriminate, Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason.
The preacher, on the other hand, has a positive duty to uphold the moral code he was ordained under; discrimination is required, discrimination is what he was trained to do and what he was hired to do by the parish that pays his salary.
I fully agree that the state should not discriminate- but to expect the Church to not discriminate is to completely not understand what a moral code is for.
Thus the separation. And calling it two different things will emphasize that separation.
If you want the Church out of your bedroom, then you need to get your Government out of the Church- entirely.
"If you want the Church out of your bedroom, then you need to get your Government out of the Church- entirely."
There is nothing wrong with a Catholic marriage being recorded with the government. The government is not trying to control or interfere with the running of the Church. All the Church has to do is stop trying to tell non-members how to live their lives.
Actually, the first use of marriages being recorded by the government in English Common Law was under Queen Elizabeth I- and Catholics were specifically *forbidden* from getting married. So yes, there's something very wrong in the Church submitting to the marriage laws of the State. And I don't believe for a second that the elites back east are interested in same sex marriage so that 1% of the population can get tax benefits- they're interested in it specifically so that they can better control the Church through statements like ". All the Church has to do is stop trying to tell non-members how to live their lives."- which will quickly become "All the Church has to do is endorse marriages from anybody who comes to want one, because doing anything else will mean discrimination, which will allow us to shut down the church and grab the land", just like is going on in Canada.
"there's something very wrong in the Church submitting to the marriage laws of the State"
Seriously? Because of something done by Queen Elizabeth?
" they're interested in it specifically so that they can better control the Church through statements like ". All the Church has to do is stop trying to tell non-members how to live their lives."- which will quickly become "All the Church has to do is endorse marriages from anybody who comes to want one, because doing anything else will mean discrimination, which will allow us to shut down the church and grab the land"
That sounds like paranoia to me.
If it is paranoia, then why are "Human Rights Commissions" being set up in small towns all over the United States, just like the ones in Canada that have been confiscating Church property?
It happened there, it can happen here- and it's not like the Constitution matters one whit anymore.
If you can give me a specific case of Church property being confiscated, I'm sue I will find a reason for it that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Saying that the Church should stop trying to tell non-members how to live their lives is not the first step in confiscating its property. That is just religious paranoia.
The case of British Columbia Vs the Knights of Columbus.
You said the Church. K of C is not the Church and I can't find out anything about confiscation of property.
The now required use of Knights of Columbus Halls for gay weddings, of course. And since when is the KofC "not the Church"?
Is there a justifiable reason for the Knights to rent their hall to just about anyone but gays? Do they rent it for a wedding for divorcees who don't have an annulment? That is even more serious than gay marriage.
They wouldn't, but under British Columbia's Human Rights Commission they have to.
There are beginning to be cases about annulments and divorcees in America already- in small towns that have set up their own HRC boards. And it isn't just Catholic groups that are being attacked in this fashion either.
This gets more and more absurd. A wedding reception for divorcees? The council would refuse to rent the hall?
First of all, this conversation came about after you mentioned the confiscation of Church property. It has completely unraveled and now we are discussing the absurdity of the Kights of Columbus refusing to rent their hall for a reception after a wedding between divorcees. Is there no limit to Catholic absurdity?
What do you want me to do? In one conversation you're asking me to reject Catholic absurdity, and in another you are asking me to accept Christ's teaching. Pick one.
Reject Catholic absurdity AND follow good advice like forgive seventy times seven, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, etc.
Which is it? Reject the Catholic absurdity like "forgive seventy times seven" or actually follow Catholic absurdity like "forgive seventy times seven"?
You see, what you call Catholic absurdity, is a coherent whole to me. I can't do one without the other.
The Catholic absurdity is "if we rent the hall to gays or divorcees for their wedding reception, we are participating in a sinful activity. Therefore, to do so would be against our religion". Same for paying for insurance that covers contraceptives.
But both of those are *required* by compassion for the other. Take them away, and you are taking away compassion for the other.
The entire intent of the left is to make a society dependent upon the corporations and the government. Why are you astounded by the idea that destroying civilization makes a society dependent upon the corporations and the government which has no forgiveness, when that's the very thing you're trying to create?
"The entire intent of the left is to make a society dependent upon the corporations and the government."
I don't understand how people can become dependent on corporations. I don't want people to be dependent on government. I don't think that is the intent of the left. The intent of the right is to impose Christianity on this country.
The intent of the right is to impose a Christianity on the people that is based on the corporations, same as the left. Usually the same corporations. What we need is a Catholic Monarchy to step in.
"What we need is a Catholic Monarchy to step in."
Oh yes. Wouldn't that be wonderful. You'd like that, wouldn't you. Lets give up all our freedom and democracy and install a Catholic monarch.
Considering what we have done with our freedom, and the joke that our democracy has become dominated by East Coast elites and carpetbagger aristocracy, I fail to see what is worth keeping about it.
I suppose it's worth keeping if you're an Ivy League Liberal (of either the Fiscal or Sexual variety) but for the rest of us, it's just tribute to the emperor.
"our democracy has become dominated by East Coast elites and carpetbagger aristocracy"
Is that what you see when you look at our democracy? Some Catholics have become embittered because the more fanatical political positions that they take are being shot down by the electorate. So they would like to eliminate democratic rule and replace it with a Catholic dictatorship like that of the Vatican City.
I saw that a long time before I became politically active as a Catholic. Back when I was a liberal Cascadia Separatist, it seemed obvious that all the corporations were on the New York Stock Exchange and all the profits from our natural resources were flowing *away* from Cascadia.
It isn't just Catholics who have noticed either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia
Ecotopia was written in 1975.
I haven't believed that our rule was actually a democracy for a very long time. It is always either the fiscal libertine or the sexual libertine on the ballot, NEVER anybody actually moral. And usually with campaigns bought and paid for by the same group of corporations that brought us the banker's coup of 2007 in which we lost the Constitution.
Post a Comment