SQPN

8 Responses to “ Daily Breakfast 551 - Vista and the Church ”

1. 
   Gauthier de Bekker Oct 1st, 2008 at 8:25 am

   Can you pleas place a link of the dutch transelation as a link??
   Thanks

   Gauthier de Bekker

2. 
   Steve Robichaud Oct 1st, 2008 at 3:02 pm

   With respect to California’s proposition 8 and Joe from the bay area, it was my understanding that the California has a law on the books, properly enacted after a ballot initiative, which defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman. It was also my understanding that a judge with an agenda has declared this to be bad law. So to fix the problem there is another referendum on the ballot this fall which again defines marriage as the union of one man with one woman, which for about 98% of the world is an obvious truth. As such, this referendum bans nothing, but it mere defines what for most of us is obvious truth.

   Sadly, Joe, a few misguided American are trying to redefine what marriage is. Even if California follows Massachusetts by instituting something that it calls the marriage of two men, it does not change reality. There is no such thing as marriage between two men because no man will ever be able to produce an ovum internally, accept the fertilization of this ovum, and bear a child after nine months in his womb; he has no womb!

   Malcom X one said, “You can put an old shoe in an oven but that doesn’t make it a cake.” Redefining marriage to include the union of two men is like redefining primates to include cows. Such would destroy the significance of the grouping of primates, and so-called gay marriage destroys the significance of marriage, which is one man and one woman in covenant with God for life.

3. 
   Michael C Oct 1st, 2008 at 4:39 pm

   It appears there is a lot of misunderstanding of what this proposition is about from people that don’t live in California.

   What has been shown nationwide is that the majority of people do not have an objection to couples having their legal & civil rights regarding finances, hospital visitation, wills, inheritance etc. Also previous votes & surveys have shown is that the majority of people do not believe in the specific concept of legally state sanctioned same sex marraige.

   However just because the majority of people are opposed to same sex marraige does not mean that they are also for punitive laws or propositions that ban it. It is very important to learn & understand that there is a huge difference. Punitive bans/prohibitions like that are unnecessary and counter to already existing legal rights. Plus they carry the stigma of targeting a lot of our fellow human beings(remember racist punitive laws in the past?) with such intolerance & reputiation to a level that I’m sure Jesus would never approve of.

   Holding to our faith in God & Jesus so much includes loving those we may disagree with. People forget that Jesus spent much of his time with sinners of all types that also were good people.

   I’m very concerned that the misunderstandings on this are fostering a climate of unnecessary intolerance, division and hate akin to the dangerous long long ugly stain of racism that has festered for so long in our country and around the world.

   I pray to the Lord that he blesses all of us with peace, tolerance and love.

4. 
   Jim In Columbus, Ohio Oct 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pm

   I’ll add this for consideration.

   Use the word “marriage” to describe a committed relationship between a woman and a man that practice a faith and that have committed in a religious rite (marriage ritual) performed by a qualified leader of their church.

   Use the words “civil union” to describe a committed relationship between two adults that do not practice a faith…regardless of their gender. This could include the relationship between a man and a woman that live together and want to have a right to survivorship of communal assets or for medical purposes, but don’t have the ceremony performed by an official of a church.

   Keep the word “marriage” as special for people practicing a faith.

5. 
   Peter in Houston Oct 2nd, 2008 at 8:26 am

   In New Zealand, they have embraced the concept of a “civil union” and it is treated in every way as a marriage except by name. Any two people can engage in a “civil union” and be recognized in all aspects of the legal system as if they were a legally married couple.

   They preserve the santitity of marriage by not allowing same sex marriage, but they understand that there are legal, fianancial, and legacy issues that society must deal with and that it is not the government’s place to say who can and cannot be recognized as a bonafide couple.

6. 
   Eamonn Oct 4th, 2008 at 4:23 am

   Your discussion of Catholic Social Teaching was simply wonderful! You mentioned that the Vatican was very forward looking in writing this document over four years ago.

   I agree, but let me ass that the American Bishops wrote on this subject about 22 years ago (1986), in their pastoral letter, Economic Justice For All.

   You can read it <a href=”http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/EconomicJusticeforAll.pdf”on their website:
   http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/EconomicJusticeforAll.pdf

7. 
   Don Oct 8th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

   I just watched a video about why Proposition 8 affects everybody. You need to watch this for yourself. It is absolutely chilling.

   http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713?bctid=1819819843

8. 
   Jeff Oct 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

   Thank you for the link, Don. I will forward this to everyone I know.

   I am reading a very timely book, “How to Win the Culture War” by Peter Kreeft. Easy read, 120 short pages–EVERYONE should read this book. Although written in 2002, it rings so much more true for 2008.

Leave a Reply