So you THINK you know that the Church's sacramental marriage is based in religion alone?
What is Marriage?-Sociological Benefits Recent studies have surprisingly shown what most people know by instinct- that children raised by their biological parents is the ideal- and that only happens with one man and one woman.
The State and Marriage- what is the secular interest in Marriage? Why should the state care at all?
Revisionist logic- debunking the irrational thinking of the movement to redefine marriage
And finally, after all the secular arugment, we get to the religious reason- spiritual battle.
But I find it interesting that the LAST is last. Spirituality follows REASON, Reason comes first.
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.
32 comments:
I listened to the first broadcast and that was enough. Women pumping out welfare babies out of wedlock is about as far opposite of gays who can't have children getting married. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum and have nothing to do with one another. People who support traditional marriage have to fix it and stop trying to stop gay marriage, which is a lot less screwed up than traditional marriage. There is nothing about the sorry state of traditional marriage that is in any way attributable to gay marriage. It's insulting to include the two in the same conversation.
I think if we fixed it, there'd be no need left for gay marriage. Usually what we find insulting, is usually insulting because it is an uncomfortable truth to hear.
In fact, I think the only reason that the homosexual community finds marriage palatable at all, is because civil "marriage" has fallen so far down the rabbit hole it bears no resemblance at all to traditional marriage.
"I think if we fixed it, there'd be no need left for gay marriage."
Because????
"civil "marriage" has fallen so far down the rabbit hole it bears no resemblance at all to traditional marriage."
Marriage is marriage and there are all kinds. Any way you look at it, this is all about Christian taboos against homosexuality. It goes all the way back to Paul dissing the Romans. Its never going to change. It is just going to be bypassed.
What about Christian taboos on incest? On polygamy? On bestiality? On pseudosexuality? Same sex marriage is by no means the bottom of this particular rabbit hole.
Also, they're not just dysfunctional to me. They are dysfunctional in a purely biological and evolutionary sense, quite apart from their wrongs and feelings.
"Why shouldn't I judge them in return?"
If you really feel that way, you have missed the whole point of Chistianiy and turning the other cheek.
To be dysfunctional in a purely biological and evolutionary sense is not counter to Catholic morality. Some of the greatest saints were. Catholicism itself can be at times.
Turning the other cheek only goes so far. Besides- we've eliminated God from society, and therefore, the correct paradigm is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
So you don't buy what Jesus said about forgiving others. You should turn in your Christian card because you are less Christian than even me. I at least believe in forgiving those who trespass against us.
I live in an utterly pagan and non-Christian society. I have atheists and homosexuals constantly telling me that I'm wrong to be a Christian.
Which do you want, because you can't have both. Either accept my right to be Christian and stop the bullying, or let me become atheist, and realize that I may still not be on your side and that I've learned well from the bullies in my past.
And since when Bill, do you believe in forgiving those who trespass against us? You've been badgering people for weeks to abandon such silly superstitions as that- and you certainly never forgive homophobes.
I try to discourage people from acting like homophobes. I'm not gay, so they have not offended me and I don't have to forgive them. You have been offended by gay activists and you hold a grudge against gays. That requires that you forgive and not hold grudges against a whole segment of society.
I of course accept your right to be a Christian. I'm sorry if I come across as bullying. I enjoy our conversations.
I never said that people shouldn't be Christian. What I have said is that Christians shouldn't try to impose their religious beliefs on others whether it is refusing to rent out a hall for a gay wedding or to pay for insurance for employees that will provide free contraceptive coverage.
There is nothing Christian about discriminating against gays or refusing to pay for your employees' health care.
I'm not trying to destroy anything. I'm just trying to convince you that you can't apply Catholic rules to other people.
Let me know when you are able to take two sperm or two eggs and gestate a human being without technological assistance. Gays are asking for a miracle that is impossible.
And because of that, I consider them to be lying even about their own sexual attraction.
"Catholic means universal, that means Catholic rules are the right rules for everybody, and I reject your pluralistic attempt to deny that."
Wow. You really believe that. This is why this country has to protect itself from Catholic extremists. The main purpose of the First Amendment is to protect this country from being ruled by any one religion.
"And because of that, I consider them to be lying even about their own sexual attraction."
This is just part of your irrational disdain for homosexuals. Its a phobia.
That's transference. Theirs is the phobia- a phobia against procreation.
Your own attitude about gay marriage shows the First Amendment to be a miserable failure on all counts.
I assume that you are saying that freedom of speech that allows me to state my support for gay marriage makes the First Amendment a bad thing in my case?
And you think gays have a phobia against procreation? What about those who start families with the help of sperm donors and surrogates? Do they have the phobia too?
If they didn't have the phobia against procreation, they wouldn't need sperm donors or surrogates to start a family, now would they?
And I'm beginning to wonder if the First Amendment was a good idea in any case, not just isolated abuses of it. It was, of course, the result of 700 years of monarchs attempting to, and often succeeding, in taking over the church and abusing religion for political gain. But it occurs to me that a vow of poverty for politicians would have worked out much better.
"If they didn't have the phobia against procreation, they wouldn't need sperm donors or surrogates to start a family, now would they?"
No. That shows a desire to procreate. Not a phobia against procreation. You've got it backwards.
Procreation, done right, is a lot more than just buying children for status symbols.
"Procreation, done right, is a lot more than just buying children for status symbols."
That's a narrow-minded, prejudicial and judgmental statement. Have you no shame, Mr.Seeber?
Not when it comes to REALITY and TRUTH. I'm fully willing to be a bigot against idiots who don't know basic biology and are too stupid to know what my son who has an official IQ of 80 now, already knows at age 10.
Your son "knows" what you have taught him. Judging by some of the beliefs you profess and attitudes you demonstrate, I would think that he has developed strange prejudices and taboos that he will carry into adulthood.
If he only knows what I've taught him, and what he knows fits biology, then how do you explain you teaching your son to ignore physical gender?
My son is doing just fine. The only thing he has to fear is people like you.
If I made my son into a heterosexual, then you made your son into a homosexual, damaging him irrevocably, apparently.
Post a Comment