04 August, 2011

No Homophobia - George Weigel - National Review Online

No Homophobia - George Weigel - National Review Online
Posted by at

12 comments:

  1. Anonymous04 August, 2011

    I dislike the term homophobia and agree that it's use is a way to silence critics. That said the rest of this article by George Weigel was nonsensical. Because the Church does not agree with the state's definition of marriage to include same sex couples does not marginalize the Church any more than it not agreeing with marrying divorced Catholics. I think Mr. Weigel is desparate to find reasons to disapprove of the state enacting a law that in no way affects him or his fellow Catholics. Michael

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous04 August, 2011

    Utter. Incoherent. Drivel.

    Firstly, the passage of equal marriage in NY did not require one to obtain both a civil and a religious marriage. It certainly did not mean that in Ontario.

    Secondly, even if it did, how does this make the US a totalitarian state? Communist Poland also required vehicle registrations, does this mean Ontario is a totalitarian state as well? I fail to follow Mr. Weigels logic here. Seems like a foolish attempt on his part to simply smear progressive states by using the weakest "guilt by association" argument that I have witnessed in some time.

    Lastly, how does equal marriage negatively impact anyone's religious rights?

    Seems equal marriage is actually expanding religious freedom and not constraining it. For example, if I belong to a religion that permits marriage between same sex individuals - I now have the liberty to have my marriage recognized by the state. Similarly, if I have no religion at all - I am free to seek equal a marriage license directly from the state.

    "Orthodox Christians" seem quite content to allow married couples to obtain civil divorces - even though divorce may offend their notion of what is permitted within the boundaries of their sect. Why then do they insist that the state deny equal marriage? This is simply inconsistent and Weigel breezes right past this inherent contradiction as he contorts his thinking to support his personal biases regarding marriage and gays.

    Rarely have I seen such incoherence on public display.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous04 August, 2011

    Martin, exactly. Mr. Weigel is known to be a rather intelligent, rational individual. Has the prospect of gay marriage that in no way affects him or his church unhinced him that completely that he would publish and article such as this? Or is this the only attack on same sex marriage that is left to its opponents? In which case the battle for same sex marriage is won. Michael

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous05 August, 2011

    Marriage by its very definition is between a man and a woman.That the State has decided to change that definition does not make it so.I have no problem with those who want to engage in sexual activity with a person of the same sex.That is their choice.But I don't have to agree with it nor do I have to support it in word or deed.
    If people want to have official papers showing their relationship is accepted by the State then that is the business of the State but it is a sin.
    Therin lies the problem. Catholics call this action of same sex a sin. Therefore oppose it because it is a sin.
    And it does affect the tradional concept of marriage because the law will now determine that socially,financially and legally same sex couples have the same if not greater rights than tradional marriages.
    I have no problem with people wanting to have sex with each other provided I have the right to object to it because I see it as a grave sin that has consequences for those engaged in such acts morally and physically.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous05 August, 2011

    My dearest Anonymous - simply asserting that the definition of marriage is "between a man and a woman" does not make it so either. Sneeking your conclusion into your defintion is hardly a valid argument.

    I have no problems with Catholics defining the "sacrament of marriage" in any way they see fit. In fact, most folks who self-identify as Catholic could not care less about the "rules". For example, most Catholics break at least one of these rules (or commit a sin if you prefer): a) no pre-marital sex, b) no cohabitation prior to marriage, c) no use of contraceptives, d) no obtaining an abortion, e) no obtaining a divorce etc... etc...

    Why is it that you feel that enshrining your personal religious belief in law about equal marriage is justified, while you apparently ignore all of these other sins permitted by the law?

    Do you think our secular laws should be based solely on one sect's religious views? If so, which sect and why?

    What happens when 2 sects disagree on a law?

    Whose religious view should take precedence over another? What principles will the state utlize to separate the "true" religion from the less true religions?

    Be careful what you wish for Anonymous - a theocratic foundation to the civil law is a slippery slope indeed. You might just find yourself with less religious liberty instead of more when you invite the state to decide which religous view is the correct religious view.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous05 August, 2011

    Thank you Martin. Because Catholics do not obey church laws re abortion,pre-marital sex etc is no the issue.The discussion is about marriage and how it is defined.You will agree I'm sure that from earliest times 'home-making' was carried on between a man and a woman for the good of society.My only point was that because a government decides another way does not change the basic truth of what marriage is all about.
    And speaking of the slippery slope.Already those who disagree with same-sex unions are unable to keep their jobs if that job relates to 'marriage'.The state has already decided that in most instances one must agree with same-sex unions and teach that such unions are good.
    The natural law has taken quite a beating of late but that is a topic for another time.
    Thank you for your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Janus Bellator05 August, 2011

    "Marriage by its very definition is between a man and a woman."

    Phfffft*** "Marriage" means a blending, a combining. Gender has NOTHING to do with it.

    "Catholics call this action of same sex a sin. Therefore oppose it because it is a sin."

    The concept of "sin" is important only to those who believe in it. Catholics are quite free to oppose it for themselves, but they are NOT free to oppose it for anyone else. And not all Catholics are opposed to same sex marriage, either.

    "And it does affect the tradional concept of marriage because the law will now determine that socially,financially and legally same sex couples have the same if not greater rights than tradional marriages."

    Equal rights, yes; not greater. And so what? How are you being harmed by your gay neighbor's marriage?

    "...I see it as a grave sin..."

    That is entirely YOUR problem. No one else wants it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous06 August, 2011

    Dear Lady Janus:

    Sorry but blending etc has everything to do with marriage and gender is what makes the world go round and what makes for marriage's reality.
    And yes, we are harmed by the actions of our neighbours in this regard.
    More diseases and family problems because we have agreed to go against what is natural.
    And grave sin is not just MY problem. Murder,rape,robbery etc is everyone's problem as are the consequences of the misuse of the sexual drive.
    Have a relaxing week-end

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous06 August, 2011

    The Catholic Church defines marriage as indisolvable. Yet the state allows divorce and remarriage. The Catholic Church forbids marriage between a couple that is living together, yet the state allows this. The state allows marriage for a couple who've announced they are not wanting children, yet the state allows this. Where's the protest against society redefining marriage in these cases? Michael

    ReplyDelete
  10. Janus Bellator06 August, 2011

    "Sorry but blending etc has everything to do with marriage..."

    That's what I said. Pay attention.

    "...and gender is what makes the world go round..."

    Oh, gee...and here I thought it was gyroscopic precession...

    "...and what makes for marriage's reality."

    Got news for ya...everyone has their own reality, and if same sex marriage is part of it, then that is true for them.

    "And yes, we are harmed by the actions of our neighbours in this regard."

    Oh, balls. You're not injured in any way. Your very sensitive religiosity is offended by the choices freely made by those who do not share your religion and values, but you're not being harmed at all.

    And yeah, it IS your problem. It sure ain't mine.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous06 August, 2011

    Are you harmed by a non Catholic neighbour who remarries? If not, why not, and if so why aren't you demanding that the Catholic view of marriage indissolubility be made normative for all? Michael

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous08 August, 2011

    Are you harmed by a non Catholic neighbour who remarries? If not, why not, and if so why aren't you demanding that the Catholic view of marriage indissolubility be made normative for all?

    Hi Michael

    I think we are harmed by our neighbours failed marriages and remarriages. Unless of course you don't believe there are adverse affects on children emotionally, socially and even financially when parents go their separate ways, often one hostile to the other.There are plenty of damaged children and adults as a direct result of failed marriages and the introduction of step mom or dad into the equation.

    Of course if no children are involved it lessons the collateral damage.

    Cheers
    Paul

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics