Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Same Sex Marriage Demand - Using Race to Obfuscate

There are huge differences between men and women, thanks be to God! I am no Maurice Chevalier but I thank Heaven for Little Girls! That is not to say, that one might hold the opposite view - some do. Vive la difference!
Each time I see a little girl
Of five or six or seven
I can't resist a joyous urge
To smile and say
Thank heaven for little girls
For little girls get
Bigger every day
Thank heaven for little girls
They grow up in
The most delightful way.
Those little eyes
So helpless and appealing
When they were flashing
Send you crashing
Through the ceiling
Thank heaven for little girls
Thank heaven for them all
No matter where,
No matter who
Without them
What would little boys do
Thank heaven
Thank heaven for little girls.

What would little boys do? Now, I do not think that Maurice Chevalier, let alone Messieurs Lerner and Lowe were homophobic bigots. They were answering the question that has plagued man since the Fall of Adam. The answer was Eve. To be sure my position is rather less sophisticated than Lady Gaga's anthem, but the human species requires the old X & Y to propagate - have kids - Test-tubes, and biochemistry break-throughs not withstanding of course.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. Two men can and do fall in love with another, but they can not procreate; two women can and do have sexual yearnings for one another, but they will never need birth control. The great hue and cry of this summer's key media issue, which is always a politically manufactured crisis, demands that everyone accept that marriage is something that it is not and never can be.

The Catholic Church will forever be the target of hatred and derision in America and elsewhere, until the day that mitred cupcakes cave-in and agree that abortion is a Woman's "choice" and that homosexuality is a norm. One cannot find comment section on any web-article dealing with any subject employing the word Catholic that does not have a litany of

First off, if no one ever challenged their church, the Catholic church would still be killing the rest of you so why not let's leave that "they should leave" argument on the sidelines now, okay?

Second, Gay people are not "just like adulterers?, murders, liars. . .".We're people who love other people. . . . So, there has ALWAYS been only ONE and they are Catholic and Orthodox? So, is this the 15th century we're in?
Adoption is a civil not a religious issue, so getting the Catholic church (and their anti-gay bigotry) out of this business is a step it the right direction.
Maybe the Catholic church hopes the courts will overlook the fact that they also teach that only Catholics go to heaven (Yes, they do as this ex-Catholi?c and veteran of Catholic school can attest). It follows then that their paramount concern all along should have been with placing children exclusively?y in homes where they will be raised as Catholics. But they've never raised that issue with the state of Illinois. Need any more evidence that this is all about anti-gay bigotry and NOT, as they claim, about upholding general religious principles?? . . .
How nice that the church is willing to hold children hostage to their antiquated beliefs. . . .These priests always put the children last . . .
not the ones they rape." ( all from recent Huffington Post thought pieces)

The problem for the Catholic Church in America is one of leadership and courage. The problem for America is acceptance of group think.

The lawyers working for Gay Marriage are very good. They have welded Civil Rights and Race to the same-sex marriage meme. Homosexuals are Millenium Blacks in America.
The Chains are the laws of lifestyle slavery and The Stonewall Bar in New York is the bridge at Selma.

Not really, but it works rhetorically. Logically, historically, legally and biologically a man and man will never produce a child - the same for two women.

Today in the Boston Globe, there is a powerful article by Jeff Jacoby. I do not know if Mr. Jacoby is a Catholic or not but he writes a very clear constitutional law argument into the issue.

There is no disputing the emotional power of linking the campaign for gay marriage to the struggle over anti-miscegenation laws in the civil rights era. I agree that the two are connected. But not in the way same-sex marriage advocates think.

When the Supreme Court ruled in June 1967 that Virginia’s law penalizing interracial marriage could not stand, it was not changing the fundamental and enduring meaning of marriage: It was affirming it. It was upholding the integrity of marriage by protecting it from irrelevant — and unconstitutional — racial manipulation. Virginia had interfered with the core elements of marriage in order to promote white supremacy, a value completely alien to marriage. Marriage is designed to bring men and women together; anti-miscegenation laws frustrated that design, and could not stand.

Same-sex marriage, too, interferes with the core elements of wedlock in order to advance an unrelated goal — the dignity and equality of gays and lesbians. The fact that many decent people ardently embrace that goal doesn’t change reality: The essential, public purpose of marriage is to unite male and female — to bind men and women to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior may produce. It is rooted in the belief that every child needs a mother and a father. Gay marriage, whether enacted by lawmakers or imposed by judges, disconnects marriage from its most basic idea. Ultimately, that isn’t tenable either.

Here in Chicago last Sunday the issue of same sex marriage hissed out of the slashed tires in a warehouse on 48th and Halsted and the activists immediately cried hate crime - civil rights. Let's not confuse civil rights with personal and community pride - that is what Sharia Law is all about.

I don't believe that the nature of marriage needs to be challenged as a political dodge in order for two people to be happy together. Civil union up a storm, but let's not make a barnacle goose out of log in the water*.

The Gay Marriage issue has been brought to you by the very same folks who made the Big Box Ordinances a civil rights issue that blew up on its own merits. Gov. Andrew Cuomo looks good this summer.

Read the full article by clicking on my post title.

Bishops and religious men (viri religiosi) in some parts of Ireland do not scruple to dine off these birds at the time of fasting, because they are not flesh nor born of flesh.... But in so doing they are led into sin. For if anyone were to eat of the leg of our first parent (Adam) although he was not born of flesh, that person could not be adjudged innocent of eating meat.
Giraldus Cambrensis Topographica Hiberniae


Kenny Ciesla said...

I think, rather than arguing from the Natural Law side of things, which I fully support while the rest of the world shrugs it off, the campaign against "same-sex marriage" should be fought with this slogan, "Why stop there?" If the anatomy of the individuals desiring marriage doesn't matter why do we limit it to only two people? Why do the parties have to be people? Why should we have age requirements? Why can't consanguineous individuals marry?

Hopefully this would be disturbing enough to a vast majority of Americans, but if we apply the logic of the same-sexers none from the above list should be prohibited.

pathickey said...

I think that Jeff Jacoby of the Globe does a superb job of pointing out the fallacies in the legal slight of hand.

David said...

Mr. Jacoby is not a Catholic. He is a Jew.

MarkCi said...

"Hopefully this would be disturbing enough to a vast majority of Americans, but if we apply the logic of the same-sexers none from the above list should be prohibited."

Why have age requirements? Could you be any dumber? For the same reason that minors can't enter contracts of any sort. And why only people? Uh, because animals don't have legal rights of any kind, and are even less competent than children to enter contracts.

Your moronic argument would only be "disturbing" to imbeciles. Good thing the antis are as clueless as you and this blog writer.