Catholic Leader: Marriage Is ‘Not About Love’ Or ‘Making People Happy’

[bodecea]

might be, however, our founders created this great country because they fled a theocracy/monarchy in england. the founders wanted anything but a theocracy.

Say that about the Puritans.

they were not our founders...read history

"The Puritans were the ones who "fled a theocracy/monarchy in England". Our Founders fled nothing...most of them had been around for a few generations.

 

[Yurt]

Say that about the Puritans.

they were not our founders...read history

"The Puritans were the ones who "fled a theocracy/monarchy in England". Our Founders fled nothing...most of them had been around for a few generations.

they fled english rule

the puritans did not found this country, but you do have a point

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“This idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history,” Donohue told host John Fugelsang, adding that the purpose of marriage is a “duty” to procreate.

“The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family,” he said. “It’s not about making people happy. It’s not about love.”

Which is why we fortunately have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this type of ignorance and hate.

Make no mistake...if we didn't have the protections of the Constitution, we'd very likely be in a theocracy...or very near like it....in some states at least.

True.

The genius of the Constitution and its case law is the recognition of the dark side of human nature – the propensity to be arrogant, hateful, ignorant, and afraid of that which is perceived to be ‘different,’ that which doesn’t conform to what is perceived to be ‘normal,’ and that which is perceived as a ‘threat’ to one’s subjective beliefs.

Given the condition of homosexuals in America currently and the hate and ignorance expressed toward homosexuals, we’re in need of the Constitution today as at any point in our Nation’s history.

And the evidence of hatred toward homosexuals can be found in this very forum, in this very thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

let's see...

rush has been married how many times?

britney spears was once married for how long?

women who can't have children should not marry?

homosexual marriage will "destroy" "traditional" marriage?

1)Irrelevant
2) Irrelevant
3) They can always adopt children
Yes. When something can mean anything it quickly means nothing.

completely relevant as you guys claim gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage, that which rush and britney were married under.

gays can adopt as well. you lose that argument before you even started it.

marriage is nothing more than a contract under the law. gay marriage would not change that definition.

care to try again?

Your first statement is incomprehensible. You can always find bad examples of anything. Most marriages are not like Brittany Spears'. In fact very few are. They are thus irrelevant to the subject.
Gays can adopt. So what? We are discussing marriage, not whether fags can adopt.
Marriage is more than a contract under law. If it weren't then gays would be fine with domestic partnerships. Ask them if they would be OK with a new category of relationship called "domestic partnership" that created the same rights and benefits as marriage.

 

[Intense]

marriage is nothing more than a contract under the law. gay marriage would not change that definition.

care to try again?

Marriage is what the participants choose to make it, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Yurt]

1)Irrelevant
2) Irrelevant
3) They can always adopt children
Yes. When something can mean anything it quickly means nothing.

completely relevant as you guys claim gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage, that which rush and britney were married under.

gays can adopt as well. you lose that argument before you even started it.

marriage is nothing more than a contract under the law. gay marriage would not change that definition.

care to try again?

Your first statement is incomprehensible. You can always find bad examples of anything. Most marriages are not like Brittany Spears'. In fact very few are. They are thus irrelevant to the subject.
Gays can adopt. So what? We are discussing marriage, not whether fags can adopt.
Marriage is more than a contract under law. If it weren't then gays would be fine with domestic partnerships. Ask them if they would be OK with a new category of relationship called "domestic partnership" that created the same rights and benefits as marriage.

50% of marriage result in divorce. thus, completely relevant no matter how much you want to bury your head in the sand. FACT: there no longer exist "traditional" marriage. deal with it.

you said women who can marry and can't have children can adopt...so can gays. thus, marriage is NOT about having children, under the law.

marriage is in fact nothing but a contract. go to any divorce attorney and ask him or her. ask women who can't have children if they would like their marriage to be called "nonproducing marriage".....get the point.

 

[Yurt]

marriage is nothing more than a contract under the law. gay marriage would not change that definition.

care to try again?

Marriage is what the participants choose to make it, nothing more, nothing less.

until you sign a marriage certificate with the government.

 

[Intense]

Catholic Leader Battles With Current Host: Marriage Is ‘Not About Love’ Or ‘Making People Happy’



Appearing on Current TV’s Viewpoint Thursday evening, Catholic League President Bill Donohue explained his opposition to the “bizarre idea” of same-sex marriage by noting that he believes marriage has nothing to do with love and happiness; but rather it is entirely about procreating.


“This idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history,” Donohue told host John Fugelsang, adding that the purpose of marriage is a “duty” to procreate.

“The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family,” he said. “It’s not about making people happy. It’s not about love.”


Fugelsang repeatedly pressed Donohue to explain where Jesus preaches anything about “treating our gay friends like second-class citizens.” The host also pointed out that the Catholic leader is a hypocrite for demanding we follow a Leviticus passage that prohibits “lying with another man,” yet he doesn’t refrain from eating pork or from wearing shirts with mixed fibers.


“I think there’s a little bit of difference between what kind of shirt I buy and two guys having anal sex,” Donohue dismissed.










Awesome video smackdown at the link.

You are dealing with one man's informed opinion and belief. Feel free to disagree.
You are not Catholic? Is it such a shock that you are not in agreement on much of anything? .... Who knew?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is/was defined by God, numbnuts.
Not by man.
Do what you can with that.

When you can get federal benefits for being married God no longer has a say in who can get married.

Bingo----get married for the bennies. Now we're talking.

And?

Citizens are not required to justify to the government why they should be allowed to exercise a given Constitutional right as a prerequisite to indeed exercise that right.

Equal protection doctrine is comprehensive, a state may not seek to deem a class of persons a strangers to its laws absent a rational basis; same-sex couples have the right to access marriage law for all of marriage’s inherent benefits, the same benefits afforded opposite-sex couples.

 

[Intense]

That Christian marriage (i.e. marriage between baptized persons) is really a sacrament of the New Law in the strict sense of the word is for all Catholics an indubitable truth. According to the Council of Trent this dogma has always been taught by the Church, and is thus defined in canon i, Sess. XXIV: "If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema." The occasion of this solemn declaration was the denial by the so-called Reformers of the sacramental character of marriage. Calvin in his "Institutions", IV, xix, 34, says: "Lastly, there is matrimony, which all admit was instituted by God, though no one before the time of Gregory regarded it as a sacrament. What man in his sober senses could so regard it? God's ordinance is good and holy; so also are agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, hair-cutting legitimate ordinances of God, but they are not sacraments". And Luther speaks in terms equally vigorous. In his German work, published at Wittenberg in 1530 under the title "Von den Ehesachen", he writes (p. 1): "No one indeed can deny that marriage is an external worldly thing, like clothes and food, house and home, subject to worldly authority, as shown by so many imperial laws governing it." In an earlier work (the original edition of "De captivitate Babylonica") he writes: "Not only is the sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture; but the very traditions, which claim such sacredness for it, are a mere jest"; and two pages further on: "Marriage may therefore be a figure of Christ and the Church; it is, however, no Divinely instituted sacrament, but the invention of men in the Church, arising from ignorance of the subject." The Fathers of the Council of Trent evidently had the latter passage in mind.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sacrament of Marriage


===============================================

The word marriage may be taken to denote the action, contract, formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union is formed or the union itself as an enduring condition. In this article we deal for the most part with marriage as a condition, and with its moral and social aspects. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage and fornication. The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by the civil law; for in such relationships there are as many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger sex. Whether promiscuity, the condition in which all the men of a group maintain relations and live indiscriminately with all the women, can be properly called marriage, may well be doubted. In such a relation cohabitation and domestic life are devoid of that exclusiveness which is commonly associated with the idea of conjugal union.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: History of Marriage

 

[Synthaholic]

“This idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history,” Donohue told host John Fugelsang, adding that the purpose of marriage is a “duty” to procreate.

“The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family,” he said. “It’s not about making people happy. It’s not about love.”

Which is why we fortunately have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this type of ignorance and hate.

Make no mistake...if we didn't have the protections of the Constitution, we'd very likely be in a theocracy...or very near like it....in some states at least.

At least NC has protected themselves through law from being ruled by Sharia.

"Because the Muslim Brotherhood was this close to taking over Greenville" - Bill Maher

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So who is the ultimate decider of what things mean and how often to we get to change the meanings of words if they start making us feel bad ?

Gays apparently see the word 'marriage' as something that will get them bennies because they were already free to love each other.

You mean like how, when it's a private insurance company, it's "Cost/Benefit Analysis" but when it's the government, it's "Death Panels"?

Exactly---

so who decides? The Supreme Court ? Are they the god of the progressives or is that only if they do what the progressives want ?

Ideally the states should obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

There’s no reason to get the courts involved.

Unfortunately social conservatives and the partisan right see the issue as a political weapon, a means by which to energize the partisan base; what better way to accomplish this than a protracted court battle, allowing republican politicians to demonize the courts while on the stump.

 

[Yurt]

“This idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history,” Donohue told host John Fugelsang, adding that the purpose of marriage is a “duty” to procreate.

“The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family,” he said. “It’s not about making people happy. It’s not about love.”

Which is why we fortunately have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this type of ignorance and hate.

you have a point, but what about states that have amended their constitutions? what if the US constitution was amended in the same way?

.

 

[Yurt]

You mean like how, when it's a private insurance company, it's "Cost/Benefit Analysis" but when it's the government, it's "Death Panels"?

Exactly---

so who decides? The Supreme Court ? Are they the god of the progressives or is that only if they do what the progressives want ?

Ideally the states should obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

There’s no reason to get the courts involved.

Unfortunately social conservatives and the partisan right see the issue as a political weapon, a means by which to energize the partisan base; what better way to accomplish this than a protracted court battle, allowing republican politicians to demonize the courts while on the stump.

so if utah allowed polygamy, then all other states should follow....

you don't understand the law well at all

 

[dilloduck]

You mean like how, when it's a private insurance company, it's "Cost/Benefit Analysis" but when it's the government, it's "Death Panels"?

Exactly---

so who decides? The Supreme Court ? Are they the god of the progressives or is that only if they do what the progressives want ?

Ideally the states should obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

There’s no reason to get the courts involved.

Unfortunately social conservatives and the partisan right see the issue as a political weapon, a means by which to energize the partisan base; what better way to accomplish this than a protracted court battle, allowing republican politicians to demonize the courts while on the stump.

LOL as if Democrat politicians didn't get any mileage out of it.

 

[Synthaholic]

Catholic Leader Battles With Current Host: Marriage Is ‘Not About Love’ Or ‘Making People Happy’



Appearing on Current TV’s Viewpoint Thursday evening, Catholic League President Bill Donohue explained his opposition to the “bizarre idea” of same-sex marriage by noting that he believes marriage has nothing to do with love and happiness; but rather it is entirely about procreating.


“This idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history,” Donohue told host John Fugelsang, adding that the purpose of marriage is a “duty” to procreate.

“The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family,” he said. “It’s not about making people happy. It’s not about love.”


Fugelsang repeatedly pressed Donohue to explain where Jesus preaches anything about “treating our gay friends like second-class citizens.” The host also pointed out that the Catholic leader is a hypocrite for demanding we follow a Leviticus passage that prohibits “lying with another man,” yet he doesn’t refrain from eating pork or from wearing shirts with mixed fibers.


“I think there’s a little bit of difference between what kind of shirt I buy and two guys having anal sex,” Donohue dismissed.










Awesome video smackdown at the link.

You are dealing with one man's informed opinion and belief. Feel free to disagree.
You are not Catholic? Is it such a shock that you are not in agreement on much of anything? .... Who knew?

Actually, I was raised Catholic.

My aunt, at 80 years old, still goes to Mass every day, except Sunday, because she doesn't like crowds. When I asked her why, she said "You feed your body every day, don't you? Why would you feed your soul only once a week?" I've always liked that.



As for Bill Donohue being informed, why do you leap to that conclusion? because he's the leader of The Catholic League? That's like saying Michael Steele was the authority on Republicanism because he ran the RNC. Or worse REINCE!!! Preibus.


What credentials does that bestow upon him, besides none?

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, often shortened to the Catholic League, is an American Catholic anti-defamation and civil rights organization. The Catholic League states that it "defends the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination."[3] The Catholic League states that it is "motivated by the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment ...to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened."[3] According to the Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics, the League "is regarded by many as the preeminent organization representing the views of American lay Catholics."[4]


Founded in 1973 by Jesuit priest Virgil Blum, the Catholic League was formed to counter discrimination against Catholics in the U.S. government and in popular culture. The low-profile group initiated public education campaigns and some lawsuits. In 1993 the group became much more aggressive with a new president, former sociology professor William A. Donohue, who also increased its size to become the largest Catholic advocacy organization in America.[4] The Catholic League is known for press releases about what it views as anti-Catholic and anti-Christian themes in mass media.
​

They are no different than the ADL.

 

[Synthaholic]

Exactly---

so who decides? The Supreme Court ? Are they the god of the progressives or is that only if they do what the progressives want ?

Ideally the states should obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

There’s no reason to get the courts involved.

Unfortunately social conservatives and the partisan right see the issue as a political weapon, a means by which to energize the partisan base; what better way to accomplish this than a protracted court battle, allowing republican politicians to demonize the courts while on the stump.

so if utah allowed polygamy, then all other states should follow....

you don't understand the law well at all

No, if Utah allowed polygamy, it would be overturned by Federal courts.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't care what people do with each other. Honestly too many people think they can forcefully control things that don't cause any harm to anyone.

 

[Yurt]

Ideally the states should obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

There’s no reason to get the courts involved.

Unfortunately social conservatives and the partisan right see the issue as a political weapon, a means by which to energize the partisan base; what better way to accomplish this than a protracted court battle, allowing republican politicians to demonize the courts while on the stump.

so if utah allowed polygamy, then all other states should follow....

you don't understand the law well at all

No, if Utah allowed polygamy, it would be overturned by Federal courts.

so could gay marriage

please try to be smarter synth...thanks

 

[Synthaholic]

What I find amusing is that Donohue obviously didn't know anything about John Fugelsang or he may have not agreed to go on his show and debate him.

Fugelsang is the son of a former nun and a former Franciscan Brother, and can cite chapter and verse with the best of them.