The View : The Pope Denounces Gay Marriage


#1

Was on youtube the other day and happened to watch about a minute of this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=fOQ0g-VQmT4
I couldn't stomach more than a minute. They started up with the expected commentary...All the comments I saw listed under the video were in favor of 'gay marriage'. So I commented by saying "Two thumbs up for The Pope". I noticed when posting it stated "comment pending approval" and I have yet to see it posted. I guess this is what you would call shaping public opinion. Since they are probably filtering the comments to their agenda you can still give it a thumbs down if you so desire.:D


#2

[quote="seattle99, post:1, topic:286523"]
Was on youtube the other day and happened to watch about a minute of this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=fOQ0g-VQmT4
I couldn't stomach more than a minute. They started up with the expected commentary...All the comments I saw listed under the video were in favor of 'gay marriage'. So I commented by saying "Two thumbs up for The Pope". I noticed when posting it stated "comment pending approval" and I have yet to see it posted. I guess this is what you would call shaping public opinion. Since they are probably filtering the comments to their agenda you can still give it a thumbs down if you so desire.:D

[/quote]

The View debating gay marriage is like a starving wolf debating the merits of free sheep meat. We know the answer before the "discussion."

The View ladies are horrible, save for Hasslebeck.


#3

[quote="He_Man, post:2, topic:286523"]
The View debating gay marriage is like a starving wolf debating the merits of free sheep meat. We know the answer before the "discussion." ...

[/quote]

Well, it is called **The* View* [singular].

What is probably at play on The View is something Cass Sunstein calls "The Law of Group Polarization":

Abstract:

In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. For example, people who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion, to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm; people who believe that global warming is a serious problem are likely, after discussion, to insist on severe measures to prevent global warming. This general phenomenon – group polarization – has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions. It helps to explain extremism, "radicalization," cultural shifts, and the behavior of political parties and religious organizations; it is closely connected to current concerns about the consequences of the Internet; it also helps account for feuds, ethnic antagonism, and tribalism. Group polarization bears on the conduct of government institutions, including juries, legislatures, courts, and regulatory commissions. There are interesting relationships between group polarization and social cascades, both informational and reputational. Normative implications are discussed, with special attention to political and legal institutions.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=199668


#4

[quote="He_Man, post:2, topic:286523"]
The View debating gay marriage is like a starving wolf debating the merits of free sheep meat. We know the answer before the "discussion."

The View ladies are horrible, save for Hasslebeck.

[/quote]

Yep. Not to mention crass, vulgar and intolerant.

[quote="sedonaman, post:3, topic:286523"]
Well, it is called The View [singular].

What is probably at play on The View is something Cass Sunstein calls "The Law of Group Polarization":

[/quote]

LOL. I was called for Jury duty a few months ago, and have been called in 3 times in the last 10 years but was never called up for the jury selection process. I thought the wait was purgatorial the first two times, but then someone flipped the TV on and "THE VIEW" was on. So, I got up and went to the other end of the room. Still could hear it as loud as if I was sitting next to it.

I think I'll get time off of Purgatory for the time that I was required to be in that room and be subject to those women. Next time, I'm going to request that I be able to wait in a different room or have them turn down the volume to where I cannot hear it. Convicted criminals should be punished, not potential jurors.


#5

[quote="seattle99, post:1, topic:286523"]
I noticed when posting it stated "comment pending approval" and I have yet to see it posted. I guess this is what you would call shaping public opinion. Since they are probably filtering the comments to their agenda

[/quote]

It's sadly common practice on YouTube generally by people who can't handle dissenting opinions.


#6

Hey Seattle99,

You might want to purchase Bill Donohue's newest book
"Why Catholicism Matters: How Catholic Virtues Can Reshape Society in the 21st Century":

catholicleague.org/why-catholicism-matters/


#7

I dont' know why people insist on using the term "gay marriage". Its completely impossible for gays to married, or for two people of the same gender in union to be defined as "married". Marriage is one man one woman. By its very semantic nature!

But yeah, The View. Gross. Completely void of any decency.


#8

[quote="Newbie2, post:4, topic:286523"]
...
LOL. I was called for Jury duty a few months ago, and have been called in 3 times in the last 10 years but was never called up for the jury selection process. I thought the wait was purgatorial the first two times, but then someone flipped the TV on and "THE VIEW" was on. So, I got up and went to the other end of the room.

...

[/quote]

I have noticed that hotels that have a breakfast room will invariably have a TV in it with CNN on, as do airport waiting areas. Talk about mass indoctrination.


#9

That was the most one sided discussion ever (as most of their discussions are. The View should be renamed "The ONE VIEW".

A REAL marriage should be between one man and one woman.. you can call any other combination whatever you want BUT in the eyes of our CHURCH instituted by Christ and the sacrament instituted by the Catholic Church, it certainly is NOT a marrige.

Until the Pope AND the Church magisterium rules that gays may be married. within the Church, gay unions are NOT marriages.

The rest of the world may call it whatever they want, but we will not. Sorry, I have nothing against gays. I hope they make it to heaven too, and I wish them every happiness. But that's where the Church stands, and as Christ says, the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

It could change BUT not unless the Pope says so,


#10

[quote="sedonaman, post:8, topic:286523"]
I have noticed that hotels that have a breakfast room will invariably have a TV in it with CNN on, as do airport waiting areas. Talk about mass indoctrination.

[/quote]

Fox News makes liberals go nuts, MSNBC makes conservatives go nuts, CNN is as close to neutral as you can get short of Al Jazeera which seems a bit anti-western, but that's because it shows the ugly that other channels censor, they present the opinion and the other opinion


#11

[quote="Dakota_Roberts, post:10, topic:286523"]
Fox News makes liberals go nuts, MSNBC makes conservatives go nuts, CNN is as close to neutral as you can get short of Al Jazeera which seems a bit anti-western, but that's because it shows the ugly that other channels censor, they present the opinion and the other opinion

[/quote]

Well, they could show the BBC instead, but I don't know if people would like it since it's so not-American-centric. ;)


#12

[quote="curlycool89, post:11, topic:286523"]
Well, they could show the BBC instead, but I don't know if people would like it since it's so not-American-centric. ;)

[/quote]

The Beeb is still Western-centric


#13

[quote="vera_dicere, post:7, topic:286523"]
I dont' know why people insist on using the term "gay marriage". Its completely impossible for gays to married, or for two people of the same gender in union to be defined as "married". Marriage is one man one woman. By its very semantic nature!

But yeah, The View. Gross. Completely void of any decency.

[/quote]

On her show, Ellen Degeneres made it a point to tell then Presidential candidate John McCain that it should be called marriage. It's not semantics. It's not logical either.

The View? Yech.

Peace,
Ed


#14

[quote="wcknight, post:9, topic:286523"]
That was the most one sided discussion ever (as most of their discussions are. The View should be renamed "The ONE VIEW".

A REAL marriage should be between one man and one woman.. you can call any other combination whatever you want BUT in the eyes of our CHURCH instituted by Christ and the sacrament instituted by the Catholic Church, it certainly is NOT a marrige.

Until the Pope AND the Church magisterium rules that gays may be married. within the Church, gay unions are NOT marriages.

The rest of the world may call it whatever they want, but we will not. Sorry, I have nothing against gays. I hope they make it to heaven too, and I wish them every happiness. But that's where the Church stands, and as Christ says, the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

It could change BUT not unless the Pope says so,

[/quote]

"It could change?"

I find that comment unbelievable.

Peace,
Ed


#15

[quote="Dakota_Roberts, post:10, topic:286523"]
Fox News makes liberals go nuts, MSNBC makes conservatives go nuts, CNN is as close to neutral as you can get short of Al Jazeera which seems a bit anti-western, but that's because it shows the ugly that other channels censor, they present the opinion and the other opinion

[/quote]

I've quit CNN. I look at some news text here and there but that's it.

Peace,
Ed


#16

And for once, Ed, we agree! :thumbsup: It can’t change. It’s dogma, not subject to change, that marriage is for a man and a woman only.


#17

And once again, it's open season on Catholics! I just love how the women on "The View" feel it's OK to shoot down our faith, but would never, ever consider doing the same to other denominations. That would be wrong. The other thing I like is when these self-righteous women who know next to nothing about Catholicism think they are qualified to comment on our beliefs. And then, it's the same old story: You have no right to say what you say because you have pedophile priests and that trumps everything else that your Church might think. Alright, alright. If you don't believe what we Catholics do, you have a right to. However, you do not have the right to make ad hominem attacks against the Pope. They made him a laughing-stock. But, yes, this is acceptable. So, seattle99, your opinion and those of your companions aren't worth the paper they're printed on. You do not exist in our eyes. You are irrelevant.

Did you ever think that the reason these folks mock Catholicism is because they are afraid that we may be right?


#18

[quote="NeedsMercy, post:17, topic:286523"]

Did you ever think that the reason these folks mock Catholicism is because they are afraid that we may be right?

[/quote]

And Whoopi Goldberg has many times made no bones of the fact she blames Catholicism itself for the harshness of the Nuns that taught her at her school. I've heard her say as such on several occassions, even when I've happened to watch a bit of The View, which we get out here in this country(along with Ellen, which is MUCH MUCH worse).

For me the View is situated on a taste scale somewhere between Oprah and Ellen, which is to say it's taste is like a rotten pear as compaired to a rotten banana and a rotten apple!


#19

Severely doubt it.


#20

[quote="colliric, post:18, topic:286523"]
And Whoopi Goldberg has many times made no bones of the fact she blames Catholicism ...

[/quote]

Who made Whoopi Goldberg an expert on anything? And who would believe anything said by anyone named "Whoopi"?


"To fund liberal programs, confiscate liberal wealth."


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.