Comments on: Why Catholics Have The Fight to Protect Marriage Backwards (+5 Ways To Move Forward)

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:58:41 +0000

I think the primary reason the media (and the knowledgeable people who are feeding it) believe that gay marriage is inevitable, is that it is going to come down to a court ruling, like Roe v. Wade. When Perry vs. Schwarzenegger went to court (two Californians whose marriages were taken away by Prop 8 are suing the state of California), and the “facts” and “research” and “proof” against same-sex marriage were truly on trial, all that stuff melted away into a blob of animus against gays. The court has a strong track record of declining animus and supporting minorities. If and when the Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8, all the other state amendments will dissolve.

By: DB the R

DB the R — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:29:29 +0000

Gosh, people who try to be lonely are more depressed? Really? C’mon, dude, what “scientific study” has researched people who “try to lead chaste, lonely lives”? I’d love to read the population sample and research method they used. Gimmeabreak!

By: Joe M

Joe M — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:39:44 +0000

GrettaH. Do you think that racially discriminating people is equivalent to defining what relationships are? If a mother tells her child who has a high-school crush that she doesn’t know what love is, is she violating her childs civil rights? Should the mother be sued?

By: Bruce

Bruce — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:05:23 +0000

That post above was not me, for I am not a homosexualist.

By: Joe M

Joe M — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:20:25 +0000

Greg Smith. I believe that Tom was referring to what the Catholic Church teaches about supporting gay marriage. When Pope Benedict states that gay marriage presents “the most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good today,” is there really room for misinterpretation about this? We are entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own Catholic Churches.

By: Joe M

Joe M — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:08:19 +0000

Jeremy. What about the “nature of their relationship” dictates whether or not they should qualify for a common-law marriage?

By: davide

davide — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:23:25 +0000

Dear Bruce, please do not go after Tom or Catholic vote. It is fine to come after me I am the one that made the comment. I can not speak for catholic vote, but I think they might have understood why I said what I did or it did get past the censors. Bruce was my comment “Christ like” of course it was not. But friend some of your comments made on this blog could hardly be considered “Christ like” I will work on my grammer but tell me Bruce if someone came after your father would you not honor him and defend his honor. My father is a good and holy man, I am neither of these things. My father prays for his children everyday and prolly especially for me. Tomorrow evening I am returning to Italy for a week, so all this will cool down by then. Okay see you

By: davide

davide — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:06:56 +0000

Jeremy I was being sarcastic (I’m sappy) I assumed James was a gay man cause he had the typical gay “response” to everything-denial. Gays identify themselves as “homo, gay, queer and even fag” the “breeder” comment is self explanatory gays always refer to heterosexuals as “breeders”. It was not to mean to offend. However I realize my mouth at times is offensive. Can’t tell you how many times mother has put a bar of soap in my mouth as a child.. I will do better not to offend. I have no interest in debating anything. James came after me and my father any good son would defend his father. You asked for links below you will find the links. Of course there are dozens of such links but I do not have the time or even the desire to entertain you. However please look over the info and do with it as pleases you. I would encourage you to look more deeply into these matters and remember your “feelings” regarding this are not facts. I will no longer rebuttal anything more you have to say to me cause I feel you are not the bit interested in Truth. Okay see you.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/
articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:33:55 +0000

Saddened and dismayed that CV allowed such a disrespectful comment to be published. Is this the respect that we are called to exhibit to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ? It is not.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:43:57 +0000

Wait a minute, Davide. Did you seriously just refer to some people as “gays, queers, homo’s [and] fags?” Word of caution: if you expect to have a reasonable debate, you would do well to abandon the use of such epithets and snide remarks (your “filthy breaders” [sic] comment comes to mind. As for the statistics you mention, two points: 1) sources would be nice, and 2) correlation does not imply causation. You will need further arguments to show that the statistics prove that homosexuality itself is the cause of such ills.