Biden: I'm 'absolutely comfortable' with gay marriage

[LisaA]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

How about the the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup (where French police in Paris on 16 and 17 July 1942 with the willing participation of the French bureaucracy, police and army rounded up 13,152 predominantly non-French Jewish emigres and refugees and their French-born children and grandchildren, who were then shipped by rail to Auschwitz where they were murdered).

Those men were predominantly Catholics, though no direct blame lies on the Church for the outrage.

I don't understand this reference. What is your point? That the Church SHOULD have been blamed in some way? This was done by police (secular) with assistance of the army and French government (also secular). The religiousity or lack thereof with respect to individuals engaged in secular professions is irrelevant. The French government was neither a theocracy or promoting any religion.

Hitler at one point claimed to be a Christian too. In fact wasn't he born into a Catholic family? Given they were sent to Auschwitz it sounds like there was some affiliation with the Nazis. Why would the Church be blamed?

Lisa

[Rich Olszewski]

Originally Posted by LisaA

But the French government was neither a theocracy or promoting any religion.

You spoke of "the Crusades or the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials." Those weren't to be blamed on a church either. The accusers and executioners were Christians, albeit laity. Similarly, my example. As I said, no blame attaches to the churches for what happened either in 1942 or in centuries past.

[qui est ce]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

Those men were predominantly Catholics, though no direct blame lies on the Church for the outrage.

Rich, I think you know your history well enough to know what the strategy of Pope Pius XII was.

Hint: Sr. Benedicta.

Back to the topic.

Biden is "comfortable." Are you Rich?

[Rich Olszewski]

Originally Posted by qui est ce

Rich, I think you know your history well enough to know what the strategy of Pope Pius XII was.

I know he didn't want to confront the Germans directly. That strategy didn't do the Dutch bishops any good.

Hint: Sr. Benedicta.

Didn't know at first to whom you were referring. I know her as St. Edith Stein, Martyr and Patroness of Europe.

Biden is "comfortable." Are you Rich?

About what, dear lady?

[qui est ce]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

I know he didn't want to confront the Germans directly. That strategy didn't do the Dutch bishops any good.

In retrospect.

[LisaA]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

You spoke of "the Crusades or the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials." Those weren't to be blamed on a church either. The accusers and executioners were Christians, albeit laity. Similarly, my example. As I said, no blame attaches to the churches for what happened either in 1942 or in centuries past.

Wow that's an interesting interpretation. Actually the Church has been blamed for various atrocities over the years. You do not think the Church was blamed for the Inquisition? The Crusades? Quite honestly there are people still beating that dead horse as if it happened yesterday.

I completely agree the Church should not be blamed for the actions of individuals who are functioning in a secular role. So if the Church wasn't blamed for the 1942 incident that makes sense. But the line of your post is still incredibly confusing.

Back to the actual thread though. What I object to is the claim that if anyone or any institution opposes certain secular acts (abortion, same sex marriage, etc) they are "shoving their religion down our throat." Or that we wish to establish a theocracy...see the Santorum campaign for these charges. Certain acts or activities are outside the realm of natural law as well as many faith traditions. That we oppose those activities doesn't mean we wish to turn the USA into a large archdiocese.
Lisa

[Rich Olszewski]

Originally Posted by qui est ce

In retrospect.

Stein sent a letter to the Pope asking him to denounce the Nazis in no uncertain terms. She received no response, but it would have been disastrous for the Church had the Pope done so forcefully.

[Rich Olszewski]

Originally Posted by LisaA

Wow that's an interesting interpretation. Actually the Church has been blamed for various atrocities over the years. You do not think the Church was blamed for the Inquisition? The Crusades? Quite honestly there are people still beating that dead horse as if it happened yesterday.

It's not a dead horse at all, but the Church can't be blamed. When the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, the Pope was horrified and profoundly disappointed as he knew that there could no longer be any reconciliation between the Latin and Byzantine Catholics. Nor was the Church to blame when the Crusaders reached Jerusalem and did a wholesale slaughter of every Jew they could find.

That we oppose those activities doesn't mean we wish to turn the USA into a large archdiocese.

If you mean you and I and most Catholics when you say, "we," I agree. But, I know some Catholic people who would like nothing better than a wholly Catholic United States.

[Zosimus41]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

On the other hand, many people, both Catholics and non-Catholics, choose not to impose their own moral values on others and prefer to live and let live. In case you haven't noticed, the issue of gay civil unions and marriage is not as big a deal as it once was, which is a huge understatement. There was a time when the very topic was not even on the radar screen.

Sadley I have to agree with you

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by LisaA

No the point was that you said those who wish to restrict marriage to a man and a woman (one of each) are "shoving their morals down other people's throats." I am not saying there is any moral equivalence between slavery and abortion, just that this is the very same excuse that is often used by abortion supporters and previously slavery supporters. If you want someone to support your position, you need to have something more compelling than "hey no skin off my nose if you get an abortion."

Homosexuals have the exact same rights to marry as any other person. No one is saying homosexuals cannot marry, just that the requirements (age, mental competence, etc) are the same for them. That gives them equal protection under the law. If a man wants to marry another man and it's "all about love" then none of the other requirements of marriage could be valid either. I should be able to marry my 6 year old great nephew because I love him right? Or maybe I can marry my sister? My stepson? Three of my best friends?

Marriage has a definiition and while there have been different forms of marriage, it has never been without a male/female component. You cannot change something that has not only been a tradition but is consistent with natural law just because someone wants a white dress and a cake. I am purposely leaving out the Church here because obviously you don't accept her teachings but I suspect you are smart enough to accept that an argument must be internally inconsistent before it has any merit.

Lisa

OK, I better understand your point now with regard to abortion and slavery. Thank you for clarifying. However, I did not say what you quoted; what I said was some people prefer not to impose their moral values on others but rather to live and let live. I meant that the tide has been turning in the direction of gay rights, including gay marriage, and, as stated previously, the issue itself would not even have been discussed a couple of generations ago. I think this secular attitude, for better or worse, has influenced the mindset of all of us who live in society, believers and non-believers, both religious and non-religious people, whether or not we are even conscious of the influence. Undoubtedly it has also influenced Joe Biden, who might not have held the same attitude several years ago.

[DaddyGirl]

Originally Posted by Havard

There you go again. Who is trying to make homosexuality illegal? Refer to my above post. Marriage is a stamp of approval by the government which grants special legal privileges. It is not the status quo.

Not you specifically, Harvard Ivy League guy :-)....and maybe not the other poster, above, either, whom I was trying to respond....but in general, when people protest gay marriages and the laws that allow them to try and get these laws overturned--then that is not fair.

Basically, I was commenting on the earlier comment of "live and let live" and what that means--in a safe, humane sense.

It doesn't mean let other people murder others.
It does mean...don't try and stop someone from marrying someone they love, even if it's against your religion and beliefs.

Again, not saying you are doing that...just giving my opinion on what the other poster's "live and let live" means. Okay to voice one's opinion--it's healthy and it's a person's right--but in the "live and let live" attitude, one crosses the line if one is going to interfere with another person's life in the way they want to live it.

Naturally, no one is trying to make homosexuality illegal. That's impossible. People have been homosexual since the beginning of time. You can't make something that God has made, that is natural in biology, Illegal :-)
That would be like making red hair illegal!

You agree?

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

I was commenting on the earlier comment of "live and let live" and what that means--in a safe, humane sense.

It doesn't mean let other people murder others.
It does mean...don't try and stop someone from marrying someone they love, even if it's against your religion and beliefs.

That would pertain if the State considered marriage a private matter. Except that marriage is NOT a private matter. It's a public matter. It affects society. Traditional marriage, for many reasons enumerated for several years on CAF, is regarded as promoting essential order in society -- in a way that no phony homosexual "marriage" could ever do. The State encourages tradtiional marriage for that reason -- for example, not providing to heterosexual cohabiting couples the same privileges which applied to married heterosexuals, because merely cohabiting (which is all homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals can do, regardless of pretentions to "marriage") does not promote the same order in society.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

Basically, I was commenting on the earlier comment of "live and let live" and what that means--in a safe, humane sense.

It does mean...don't try and stop someone from marrying someone they love, even if it's against your religion and beliefs.

Again, not saying you are doing that...just giving my opinion on what the other poster's "live and let live" means. Okay to voice one's opinion--it's healthy and it's a person's right--but in the "live and let live" attitude, one crosses the line if one is going to interfere with another person's life in the way they want to live it.

That is a common straw man presented by the pro-gay "marriage" lobby and liberal Catholics who don't believe in following Church teaching on this issue.

No one is stopping gay couples from "marrying" whomever they love. They can do so in any church or ceremony that will have them. Live and let live...have at it. Sodomy laws have been repealed, and adults can engage in whatever deviant behavior they wish to engage in with other consenting adults.

The question at hand is whether the government should sanction, sponsor or otherwise recognize such a union. There is no reason for society to do such a thing. A homosexual union is inconsequential to the proper functioning and continuation of the human race. The Church rightly instructs us to oppose the sanction, sponsorship or recognition of anything other than the marriage of a man and woman. That is of great benefit to society.

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

Not you specifically, Harvard Ivy League guy :-)....and maybe not the other poster, above, either, whom I was trying to respond....but in general, when people protest gay marriages and the laws that allow them to try and get these laws overturned--then that is not fair.

Basically, I was commenting on the earlier comment of "live and let live" and what that means--in a safe, humane sense.

It doesn't mean let other people murder others.
It does mean...don't try and stop someone from marrying someone they love, even if it's against your religion and beliefs.

Again, not saying you are doing that...just giving my opinion on what the other poster's "live and let live" means. Okay to voice one's opinion--it's healthy and it's a person's right--but in the "live and let live" attitude, one crosses the line if one is going to interfere with another person's life in the way they want to live it.

Naturally, no one is trying to make homosexuality illegal. That's impossible. People have been homosexual since the beginning of time. You can't make something that God has made, that is natural in biology, Illegal :-)
That would be like making red hair illegal!

You agree?

I do

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

I do

I now pronounce you liberal poster and liberal poster (a homoattitudinal union.).