Re: I'm at it again on FB - and feel like I'm over my head again - trying to help with the New Evangelization, but feel like I'm up the creek without a paddle

May 10, 2012

, one question I would ask in that situation is why your FB friends feel it necessary to take away your identity. Sure, if people want to have gay relationships, let them have them: it's their choice, and as adults they are entitled to their choice and whatever the consequences may be are their problem. But in redefining marriage as something very much less that you have, they are demeaning your relationship. If they want a relationship which is not procreative, or not faithful, or not a lifelong self-gift, then call it something else.

There's a blog post I ran across here: http://pewfodder.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/goodmarriage/ which expresses some of this, and I basically agree with that blogger. When (and I'm afraid it is when, not if) they redefine marriage in this country, I'll no longer conform to that definition of marriage. I've actually already asked my employer what they intend to do about it, since it will be (illegal) discrimination on grounds of religion not to provide me with an alternative term to 'marriage' on any form they ask me to complete (they've not answered yet, but as time goes by I'll keep asking...).

And, yes, I'd unfriend that person on FB. But I'd make the point that I'm doing so because of their attack on my status first; and that they are depriving me of a liberty.

Aldred

On 10 May 2012 21:26, & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

L**********3 hours ago near Chesapeake ·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like · · Unfollow Post

M***** I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

3 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

L***** Newt Gingrich?2 hours ago · Like · 1

D***** Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

2 hours ago · Like

M***** I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said " blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies " . HAH!

2 hours ago via mobile · Like · 4

M***** So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds.2 hours ago via mobile · Like

O'Connor you really want me to de-friend you because we have different morals?

about an hour ago · Like

L***** Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another!59 minutes ago · Like

D****** If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy.36 minutes ago · Like · 2

M******* This is going around my newsfeed today: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriag :)

25 minutes ago · Like · 1

O'Connor Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues come between our friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against. I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

14 minutes ago · Like

D****** I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

8 minutes ago · Like

D****Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here. We should never have redefined marriage.

6 minutes ago · Like

J***** Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

3 hours ago · Like

D***** A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples and plenty of Christians supported that because " it was in the Bible. " I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

2 hours ago · Like · 3

Da*****-Br**** - its carpet munched not monger.2 hours ago · Like

D*****-B***** Munched = muncher2 hours ago · Like

K****** , it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone can think that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

2 hours ago · Like · 5

B***** LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

about an hour ago via mobile · Like

E****** I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home, your place of worship and your private organizations. That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible, limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible idea (Inquisition!).

" God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. " , 1644

about an hour ago · Like · 3

May 10, 2012

Dear Mrs O’Connor,

The comments are telling. Shows the triumph of the modernist heresy.

These comments sound reasonable. They are not all logical, and would not have internal consistency if challenged.

(Ex: yes, we DO have a right and obligation to determine how others in our society behave and live – that’s how we keep child predators away from our children.)

And there is much confusion about what is religious and how it relates to the law. Almost all of our laws are biblically based but that does not make them religious; that’s where the moral underpinnings came from. If one removes that as the foundation, then

any law can be enacted or discarded. And when the biblical moral underpinnings are removed (Nazi Germany 1933 and after, the whole communist world), that is exactly what we do see – any law, and righteous indignation by the same folks making the oppositional

comments below.

See

Slouching Toward Gomorrah, by judge Bork.

However, BECAUSE the arguments are not logical or rational, they are able to be defeated, and others watching from the sidelines will notice and be influenced.

The string of negative energy in the postings would make any meek or borderline folks hold back.

Ex: 1990s, Pres Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearing being discussed in my office. I was trying to ignore it. I was busy with charts, no time for foolishness.

The group: “It’s all about sex; leave the man’s sex life alone; they’re just hypocrites after him; it’s all about sex.” I turned, sighed, replied to the group, “No, it’s not about sex. It’s an impeachment trial for perjury. He lied under oath, and that’s

a crime. He also lied directly to each of us on TV. The trial is about perjury.” The group spun on a dime, suddenly in anger at the President who would lie. Amazing to behold.

That’s why somebody has to speak the truth. Thank God for the great renewal in Catholic colleges (Christendom, Franciscan, Aquinas, Ave , and others)

– young people are being taught to know and articulate the truth. Some in the crowd will get it pretty quickly. And please tell your husband “thank you” for his service in keeping the bad guys away.

From: [mailto: ]

On Behalf Of & Dan O'C.

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:26 PM

Subject: I'm at it again on FB - and feel like I'm over my head again - trying to help with the New Evangelization, but feel like I'm up the creek without a paddle

L**********

3 hours ago near Chesapeake ·

·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance

rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like · [Comment] · Unfollow Post

o

M***** I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't.

SMH...

3 hours

ago via mobile · Like · 1

L***** Newt Gingrich?

2 hours

ago · Like · 1

D***** Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

2 hours

ago · Like

M***** I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said " blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies " . HAH!

2 hours

ago via mobile · Like · 4

M***** So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds.

2 hours

ago via mobile · Like

[submit]

O'Connor you really want me to de-friend you

because we have different morals?

about an

hour ago · Like

L***** Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another!

59 minutes

ago · Like

D****** If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy.

36 minutes

ago · Like · 2

M******* This is going around my newsfeed today: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriag :)

25 minutes

ago · Like · 1

[submit]

O'Connor

Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people

with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's

ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues

come between our friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against.

I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

14 minutes

ago · Like

D****** I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

8 minutes

ago · Like

D****Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here.

We should never have redefined marriage.

6 minutes

ago · Like

J***** Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the

govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

3 hours ago · Like

D*****

A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests

don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples

and plenty of Christians supported that because " it was in the Bible. " I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

2 hours ago · Like · 3

Da*****-Br**** - its carpet munched not monger.

2 hours ago · Like

D*****-B***** Munched = muncher

2 hours ago · Like

K******

, it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in

fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured

out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever

arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone

can think that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to

the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've

found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

2 hours ago · Like · 5

B***** LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

about an hour ago via mobile · Like

E******

I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home,

your place of worship and your private organizations. That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible,

limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible

idea (Inquisition!).

" God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in

His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. " , 1644

about an hour ago · Like · 3

May 10, 2012

, How would I respond to those who would those who talk about people who get married and divorce and remarry then divorce and continue on that cycle? Can we not call it marriage to anyone not in the Catholic faith? I don't think that argument would hold up.

- On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Aldred <nr@...> wrote:

, one question I would ask in that situation is why your FB friends feel it necessary to take away your identity. Sure, if people want to have gay relationships, let them have them: it's their choice, and as adults they are entitled to their choice and whatever the consequences may be are their problem. But in redefining marriage as something very much less that you have, they are demeaning your relationship. If they want a relationship which is not procreative, or not faithful, or not a lifelong self-gift, then call it something else.

There's a blog post I ran across here: http://pewfodder.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/goodmarriage/ which expresses some of this, and I basically agree with that blogger. When (and I'm afraid it is when, not if) they redefine marriage in this country, I'll no longer conform to that definition of marriage. I've actually already asked my employer what they intend to do about it, since it will be (illegal) discrimination on grounds of religion not to provide me with an alternative term to 'marriage' on any form they ask me to complete (they've not answered yet, but as time goes by I'll keep asking...).

And, yes, I'd unfriend that person on FB. But I'd make the point that I'm doing so because of their attack on my status first; and that they are depriving me of a liberty.

Aldred

On 10 May 2012 21:26, & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

L**********3 hours ago near Chesapeake ·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like · · Unfollow Post

M***** I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

3 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

L***** Newt Gingrich?2 hours ago · Like · 1

D***** Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

2 hours ago · Like

M***** I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said " blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies " . HAH!

2 hours ago via mobile · Like · 4

M***** So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds.2 hours ago via mobile · Like

O'Connor you really want me to de-friend you because we have different morals?

about an hour ago · Like

L***** Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another!59 minutes ago · Like

D****** If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy.36 minutes ago · Like · 2

M******* This is going around my newsfeed today: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriag :)

25 minutes ago · Like · 1

O'Connor Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues come between our friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against. I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

14 minutes ago · Like

D****** I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

8 minutes ago · Like

D****Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here. We should never have redefined marriage.

6 minutes ago · Like

J***** Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

3 hours ago · Like

D***** A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples and plenty of Christians supported that because " it was in the Bible. " I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

2 hours ago · Like · 3

Da*****-Br**** - its carpet munched not monger.2 hours ago · Like

D*****-B***** Munched = muncher2 hours ago · Like

K****** , it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone can think that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

2 hours ago · Like · 5

B***** LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

about an hour ago via mobile · Like

E****** I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home, your place of worship and your private organizations. That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible, limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible idea (Inquisition!).

" God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. " , 1644

about an hour ago · Like · 3

May 10, 2012

It's like nocking health because people get sick. The thing isn't to be judged by the particular deviations from it but the thing itself. And it has survived the ages!

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

405-947-2228 (office)

405-834-7506 (cell)

405-947-2307 (FAX)

pedullad@...

"...the priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions. Adaptation to civilizations and times therefore cannot abolish, on essential points, the sacramental reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself." (Inter Insignores)

Re: I'm at it again on FB - and feel like I'm over my head again - trying to help with the New Evangelization, but feel like I'm up the creek without a paddle

, How would I respond to those who would those who talk about people who get married and divorce and remarry then divorce and continue on that cycle? Can we not call it marriage to anyone not in the Catholic faith? I don't think that argument would hold up.

-

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Aldred <nr@...> wrote:

, one question I would ask in that situation is why your FB friends feel it necessary to take away your identity. Sure, if people want to have gay relationships, let them have them: it's their choice, and as adults they are entitled to their choice and whatever the consequences may be are their problem. But in redefining marriage as something very much less that you have, they are demeaning your relationship. If they want a relationship which is not procreative, or not faithful, or not a lifelong self-gift, then call it something else.

There's a blog post I ran across here: http://pewfodder.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/goodmarriage/ which expresses some of this, and I basically agree with that blogger. When (and I'm afraid it is when, not if) they redefine marriage in this country, I'll no longer conform to that definition of marriage. I've actually already asked my employer what they intend to do about it, since it will be (illegal) discrimination on grounds of religion not to provide me with an alternative term to 'marriage' on any form they ask me to complete (they've not answered yet, but as time goes by I'll keep asking...).

And, yes, I'd unfriend that person on FB. But I'd make the point that I'm doing so because of their attack on my status first; and that they are depriving me of a liberty.

Aldred

On 10 May 2012 21:26, & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

L**********

3 hours ago near Chesapeake Â·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like Â· Â· Unfollow Post

M***** I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

3 hours ago via mobile Â· Like Â· 1

L***** Newt Gingrich?

2 hours ago Â· Like Â· 1

D***** Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

2 hours ago Â· Like

M***** I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said "blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies". HAH!

2 hours ago via mobile Â· Like Â· 4

M***** So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds.

2 hours ago via mobile Â· Like

O'Connor you really want me to de-friend you because we have different morals?

about an hour ago Â· Like

L***** Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another!

59 minutes ago Â· Like

D****** If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy.

36 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 2

M******* This is going around my newsfeed today: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriag :)

25 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 1

O'Connor

Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues come between our friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against. I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

14 minutes ago Â· Like

D****** I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

8 minutes ago Â· Like

D****Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here. We should never have redefined marriage.

6 minutes ago Â· Like

J***** Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

3 hours ago Â· Like

D*****

A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples and plenty of Christians supported that because "it was in the Bible." I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

2 hours ago Â· Like Â· 3

Da*****-Br**** - its carpet munched not monger.

2 hours ago Â· Like

D*****-B***** Munched = muncher

2 hours ago Â· Like

K******

, it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone can think that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

2 hours ago Â· Like Â· 5

B***** LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

about an hour ago via mobile Â· Like

E******

I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home, your place of worship and your private organizations. That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible, limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible idea (Inquisition!).

"God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls." , 1644

about an hour ago Â· Like Â· 3

May 10, 2012

I think the point I'd make is that this is part of a long process of reducing, demeaning what marriage is. Divorce was one of the first steps in that process. And couples who repeatedly marry and divorce are not, really, married: they either have a lack of intention to permanent marriage, or they have some sort of inability to make the convenant, so it's invalid (and indeed at present technically invalid under English law, even - I can't answer for the US situation - although I doubt anyone would make a case of it).

Aldred

On 10 May 2012 22:07, & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

, How would I respond to those who would those who talk about people who get married and divorce and remarry then divorce and continue on that cycle? Can we not call it marriage to anyone not in the Catholic faith? I don't think that argument would hold up.

- On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Aldred <nr@...> wrote:

, one question I would ask in that situation is why your FB friends feel it necessary to take away your identity. Sure, if people want to have gay relationships, let them have them: it's their choice, and as adults they are entitled to their choice and whatever the consequences may be are their problem. But in redefining marriage as something very much less that you have, they are demeaning your relationship. If they want a relationship which is not procreative, or not faithful, or not a lifelong self-gift, then call it something else.

There's a blog post I ran across here: http://pewfodder.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/goodmarriage/ which expresses some of this, and I basically agree with that blogger. When (and I'm afraid it is when, not if) they redefine marriage in this country, I'll no longer conform to that definition of marriage. I've actually already asked my employer what they intend to do about it, since it will be (illegal) discrimination on grounds of religion not to provide me with an alternative term to 'marriage' on any form they ask me to complete (they've not answered yet, but as time goes by I'll keep asking...).

And, yes, I'd unfriend that person on FB. But I'd make the point that I'm doing so because of their attack on my status first; and that they are depriving me of a liberty.

Aldred

On 10 May 2012 21:26, & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

L**********3 hours ago near Chesapeake ·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like · · Unfollow Post

M***** I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

3 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

L***** Newt Gingrich?2 hours ago · Like · 1

D***** Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

2 hours ago · Like

M***** I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said " blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies " . HAH!

2 hours ago via mobile · Like · 4

M***** So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds.2 hours ago via mobile · Like

O'Connor you really want me to de-friend you because we have different morals?

about an hour ago · Like

L***** Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another!59 minutes ago · Like

D****** If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy.36 minutes ago · Like · 2

M******* This is going around my newsfeed today: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriag :)

25 minutes ago · Like · 1

O'Connor Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues come between our friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against. I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

14 minutes ago · Like

D****** I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

8 minutes ago · Like

D****Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here. We should never have redefined marriage.

6 minutes ago · Like

J***** Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

3 hours ago · Like

D***** A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples and plenty of Christians supported that because " it was in the Bible. " I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

2 hours ago · Like · 3

Da*****-Br**** - its carpet munched not monger.2 hours ago · Like

D*****-B***** Munched = muncher2 hours ago · Like

K****** , it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone can think that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

2 hours ago · Like · 5

B***** LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

about an hour ago via mobile · Like

E****** I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home, your place of worship and your private organizations. That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible, limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible idea (Inquisition!).

" God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. " , 1644

about an hour ago · Like · 3

May 10, 2012

Here's the latest:

Leonie O'Shea Strutton9 hours agoÂ nearÂ ChesapeakeÂ Â·Â

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

LikeÂ Â·Â

Jenna s,Â Bekah Magness ,Â StilleÂ andÂ 34 othersÂ like this.

Mackin RedrowÂ I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

9 hours agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Liz Kennedy WiechertÂ Newt Gingrich?

9 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Dana Karstensen-Â Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

8 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

Meghan Broussard SimecekÂ I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said " blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies " . HAH!

8 hours agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 8

Mindal Donner SeelyeÂ So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds.

8 hours agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ you really want me to de-friend you because we have different morals?

7 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

Leonie O'Shea StruttonÂ Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another!

7 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy.

6 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 5

Meghan Broussard SimecekÂ This is going around my newsfeed today:Â http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriagÂ :)

6 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 3

O'ConnorÂ Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues come between our friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against. I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

6 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Dana Karstensen-Â I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

6 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 5

Dana Karstensen-Â Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here. We should never have redefined marriage.

6 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Jeff IrwinÂ Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

6 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples and plenty of Christians supported that because " it was in the Bible. " I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

5 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 6

Dana Karstensen-Â Jeff - its carpet munched not monger.

5 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â Munched = muncher

5 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

Kacey FarrellÂ , it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone can think that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

5 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 8

Bekah Magness Â LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

4 hours agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Lupton PeaseÂ I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home, your place of worship and your private organizations. That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)Â

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible, limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible idea (Inquisition!).Â

" God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. " , 1644

4 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 3

O'ConnorÂ yes, we DO have a right and obligation to determine how others in our society behave and live â€“ thatâ€™s how we keep child predators away from our children.

2 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ There is much confusion about what is religious and how it relates to the law. Almost all of our laws are biblically based but that does not make them religious; thatâ€™s where the moral underpinnings came from. If one removes that as the foundation, then any law can be enacted or discarded. And when the biblical moral underpinnings are removed (Nazi Germany 1933 and after, the whole communist world), that is exactly what we do see.

2 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â What do child predators have to do with same sex marriage?

2 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 3

Dana Karstensen-Â â€Ž***crickets***

2 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Leonie O'Shea StruttonÂ I want to make sure I understand your argumentÂ O'Connor, people who are LGBT are child predators that we need to protect out children from???? If that is NOT your point then I am not sure why you would feel the need to bring this up!

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Jenna sÂ Oh.my.GAWD. Did you just say what I think you said ??? 0.o

about an hour agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ WOAH! there - sorry, I got a phone call and my kids woke up from a nap. NO

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ I did NOT just say that.

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ way to take things OUT of context

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

Jenna sÂ Ok. Phew.

about an hour agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

Jenna sÂ Now: clarify maybe?

about an hour agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ Kacey says: I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!....

So,what I'm saying is that there NEED to be moral absolutes. Otherwise it's okay to be a childpredator

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ And I was also responding to 's comment as well

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â I agree about moral absolutes. Protect children? Absolutely. Denying consenting adults the legal right to marry? Absolutely not. I don't think individual churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages but as long as the government calls it marriage, collects $25 for the license, & grants certain rights & privileges to the union, it is a civil right that should not be subject to discrimination.

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ Why not just call it something other than marriage - why not be happy with a Civil Union?

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

Leonie O'Shea StruttonÂ because you are not afforded the same exact rights

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Dana Karstensen-Â The united states government calls it marriage, that's why. If the government would get out of the marriage business & call it a civil union for everybody, fine. Let the churches, priestesses, etc decide who they will " marry. " my marriage would be valid in God's eyes with or without the permission slip I had to pay the government to receive.

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â UnlikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Kacey FarrellÂ , there is no " taking out of context " going on here. We are talking about CIVIL rights, not protecting criminals. I can't even believe you went there, honestly.

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Kacey FarrellÂ Your clarification....not so clarifying.

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ I'm not good at these debates. I'm no moral theologian and I haven't the eloquence of fighting this with my mommy brain. I know there is a right and a wrong. I have been on the wrong side - but the more I fight the more you're just going to tune me out and turn me off or label me as a crazy Christian/Catholic (since some people think Catholics aren't Christian, when in fact we are the original Christian). All I know is there are moral absolutes - and the " what goes for me, may not go for you " line of thinking is not logical and can lead to very murky and very dangerous waters for society.

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ oh, and this just in: we can't protect our children with our laws now:http://gawker.com/5909110/viewing-child-porn-online-officially-a+ok-in-new-york-state

Viewing Child Porn Online Officially A-OK in New York State

gawker.com

New York. A concrete jungle where dreams are made of/oh/up. There's nothing youcan't do. Including looking at child porn onlineâ€” the state has just ruled that that's legal, MSNBC reports. Here's exactly what Judge A.

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â

MathiakÂ Hey Leonie, check this outÂ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBaDVGEtp-YÂ It's by a friend of mine on this same subject.

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ - that is just horrible and hateful

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ â€Ž

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â What do child predators have to do with same sex marriage?

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ It was just an example of our laws and hurting society

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

MathiakÂ ...did you watch the whole video? They're ACTORS portraying REAL tweets by REAL people...possibly even people who call themselves Christians.

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

O'ConnorÂ I know...it's terrible

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ It's not what the CATHOLIC church teaches

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ It's totally horrible

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â How, exactly, does same sex marriage equate to child predators in the realm of " hurting society? "

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

Kacey FarrellÂ

, I feel the same way you do about the mommy brain thing, and I also don't have the ability to be articulate right now and am late with dinner. Grrrr. But I will say this...I think the most damaging thing to our society is someone thin...See More

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 3

Mark StruttonÂ

Ok I am speaking only for myself here when I say this: I am sick and tired of religious zealots directing laws in this country. Take your religious beliefs, keep them to yourself or shove them up your asses. I don't run around to religio...See More

59 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Mark StruttonÂ Right on !!!Â http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

57 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ

To love and be loved as God loves--this is the deepest desire of the human heart. God put it there when He made us in His image. Nothing else with satisfy. Nothing else will fulfill. This is what we embody as male and female. Sex is so beautiful, so wonderful, so glorious, that it's meant to EXPRESS God's free, total, faithful, and fruitful love. This is MARRIAGE. Sex is meant to express wedding vows. It' where the words of the wedding vows become flesh. God gave us sexual desire itself to be the power to love as He loves, so we could participate in divine life and fulfill the very meaning of our being and existence. It's a far cry from the way sex plays itself out in the experience of real human beings. The historic abuse of women at the hands of men; the tragedy of rape and other heinous sex crimes, even against children; AIDS and a host of other sexually transmitted diseases; unwed mothers; " fatherless " children; abortion; newborns found in dumpsters; adultery skyrocketing divorce rates; prostitution; a multibillion-porn industry; the general cloud of shame and guild that hangs over sexual matters is a different picture from what God intended. Disordered sexuality is the " Pandora box " that unleashes a host of societal evils: from the poverty of " fatherless " families, the staggering proliferation of STDs (some fatal, such as AIDS), increased violence among teens--all these can be traced to the breakdown of the sexual mores that hold the family intact as the fundamental cell of society. As sexual attitudes and behaviors go, so goes marriage. As marriage goes, so goes the family. As the family goes, so goes society. Human life, its dignity and its balance, depends at every moment of history and at every point on the globe on the proper ordering of love between the sexes. We will never build a civilization of love and a culture of life unless we first live according to the truth of our sexuality. If the Church is obsessed with sex it's because she's " obsessed " with upholding the dignity and balance of human life and the plan of God for humanity that our sexuality is meant to reveal. -- West.

54 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

StilleÂ I'm in favor of abolishing government sanctioned marriage and providing legal civil unions for any 2 consenting adults. Churches can do marriage however they see fit. I believe in freedom, above all else. I do have my beliefs about marriage, but I believe that freedom is above my beliefs and forcing my beliefs on others will never win anything.

46 minutes agoÂ Â·Â UnlikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Dana Karstensen-Â Marriage was a lot more stable when women & children were considered property.

46 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Mark StruttonÂ To love as an imaginary fairy dream does, to molest as a priest does, to cover up pedophiles as a corrupt organization does, to continue to think that war and genocide can be sanctioned by the Fairy King, to think that women are property, to continue to subjugate poor people all over the world.......Really you dont have a real leg to stand on here. I am talking FACTS NOT FAITH.

46 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â http://godisnotarepublican.net/for-every-christian-that-opposes-gay-rights/

42 minutes agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

StilleÂ

Freedom, ultimately, is the Golden Rule. We Catholics do not want to pay for contraceptives (we don't want to outlaw them, but we have a moral opposition to PAYING for them). That should be our right, even though others disagree. PeopleÂ live their married lives in a way that is contradictory to Church teaching, maybe even use contraceptives. That is their right, too, or should be anyway. I have a strong belief in separation of Church and State, even though I happen to be a religious person myself, teach my children according to Church teaching, etc.

37 minutes agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Mark StruttonÂ

To those that get moral support by ancient stories and myths I COMPLETELY respect your right and ability to do that. Those of great faith can happily exist right along side of everything else because they keep their personal beliefs out ofÂ other peoples lives unless asked. What is going on now is nothing more than legislating YOUR religion on others. --For those who don't want to pay for contraception, guess what.....I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR WAR and Civilian Deaths, but I do. I don't want to pay for your churches religious tax exemption either, but I do. I don't want to pay for the FBI to monitor and censor free speech. I don't want to pay for a Monsanto to get food subsidies, but I do. As a member of society we have to pay for things we don't agree with. It is just the way Governments work. If you don't like it try to change it, but DON'T use religion to do it. Use facts and reason.

29 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ

What is marriage? Vatican II and canon law: " Marriage is the intimate, exclusive, indissoluble communion of life and love entered by man and woman at the design of the Creator for the purposes of their own good and the procreation and education of children; this covenant between baptized personas has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of sacrament. " Â

Intimate communion of life and love. Marriage is the closest and most intimate of human friendships. It involves the sharing of the whole of a person's life with his/her spouse. .Marriages calls for mutual self-surrender so intimate and complete that the two spouses become " one, " yet without losing their uniqueness as persons.

Exclusive. As a mutual gift of two persons to each other, this intimate union excludes such union with anyone else. It demands the TOTAL FIDELITY of the spouses. This exclusivity is essential for the good of the couple's children.

Indissoluble. Husband and wife are not joined by passing emotion or mere erotic inclination, which, selfishly pursued, fade quickly away. They're joined by God in an unbreakable bond of love through the firm and IRREVOCABLE act of their OWN CONSENT. For the baptized, this bond is sealed by the Holy Spirit and, once consummated, becomes absolutely indissoluble. Thus, the Church does not so much teach that divorce is wrong but that divorce--in the sense of ending a valid marriage--is IMPOSSIBLE, regardless of the civil status of a marriage.

Entered by man and woman. The COMPLEMENTARITY of the sexes is essential to marriage. There is such widespread confusion today about the nature of marriage that some would wish to extend a legal " right " to marry two persons of the same sex. But the very nature of marriage makes such a proposition impossible.Â

At the design of the Creator. God is the Author of marriage. He inscribed the call to marriage in our very being by creating us male and female. Marriage is governed by His laws, faithfully transmitted by his Bride, the Church. For marriage to be what it's intended to be, it must conform to these laws. Human beings, therefore, are not free to change the meaning and purposes of marriage.

For the purpose of their own good. " It is not good that the man should be alone " (Gen 2:18). Thus, it's for their own good, for their benefit, enrichment, and ultimately their salvation, that a man and woman join their lives in the covenant of marriage. Marriage is the most basic (but not the only) expression of the vocation to love that all men and women have as persons made in God's image.

And the procreation and education of children. The fathers of Vatican II declared: " By their very nature, the institute of marriage itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children and find in them their ultimate crown. " Children are NOT ADDED ON to marriage and conjugal love, but spring from the very heart of the spouses' mutual self-giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. Intentional exclusion of children, then, contradicts the very nature and purpose of marriage.

Covenant. Marriage is not only a contract between a man and a woman, but a SACRED COVENANT. God created marriage to image and participate in his own covenant with his people. Thus, the marital covenant calls spouse to share in the free, total, faithful, fruitful love of God. Contrary to trends in thought, the Church's recent emphasis on marriage as a covenant does not exclude marriage is also a contract. It's true that a covenant goes beyond the rights and responsibilities guaranteed by some contracts and provides a stronger, more sacred framework for marriage, but canon law still purposely uses both terms to describe marriage.

The dignity of a sacrament. By virtues of their baptisms, the marriage of Christian spouses is an efficacious sign of the union between Christ and the Church, and as such is a means of grace. The marriage between two unbaptized persons, or of one unbaptized person and one baptized person, is considered by the Church a " good and natural " marriage.

27 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â I'm Methodist, not Catholic. I should not be forced to live by Catholic laws or beliefs.

25 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Leonie O'Shea StruttonÂ So what about those who are not Christian, are they not afforded the same rights?

25 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ What is a sacrament? it " is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace. " A sacrament is where heaven and earth " kiss, " where God and humanity become one in the flesh. God is invisible. Sacraments allow us to see Him under the veil of visible things. God is intangible. Sacraments allow us to touch him. God is incommunicable. Sacraments are our communion with him.

25 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Mark StruttonÂ What is Marriage? If your remove the Fairy myths of ALL religions, what is it? Talk FACTS not DOCTRINE.

25 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â The only sacraments in the UMC are baptism & communion.

24 minutes agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

O'ConnorÂ Sacraments are efficacious signs, which means they truly communicate what they symbolize. The love of husband and wife is not merely a symbol of the love of Christ and the Church. For the baptized, it's a REAL participation in it.

23 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â I'm not Catholic and there is no reason for Catholic religious beliefs to dictate how I live my life.

23 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Mark StruttonÂ What about the people who are not IN your little group?

23 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

StilleÂ I agree with you,Â O'Connor, on the definition of marriage. But that is why I believe the government has no place in marriage, and should provide only civil unions of legal purposes. I don't think we can hold the entire mostly non-Catholic country to Catholic standards of morality. People must choose to live their lives according to Church teaching. We can't make them.

22 minutes agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Dana Karstensen-Â I don't expect Catholics, atheists, baptists, Wiccans to follow United Methodist doctrine nor do I think it is right to force them to do so...

21 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â Amen, .

20 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ Why redefine marriage and take away my identity? If people want to have gay relationships, fine, go ahead, but don't take my sacrament away, don't try to destroy my religion.

13 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Mark StruttonÂ I bet that is how the Church felt when we figured out that the world is round and that we orbit the sun.

12 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â Marriage has been redefined numerous times during the time of Christianity & by Christians. Two men getting married in a Unitarian church has nothing to do with you or Catholicism.

12 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ Yes. by redefining marriage, you are taking away my religious liberty. You are taking away what makes marriage special.aa

11 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ it's no longer marriage if it's between two people of the same sex.

10 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ by the doctrine of my faith.

10 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ If you're Methodist, do you follow the Bible>

9 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ â€Ž?

9 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â My marriage is not so fragile that other people's marriages affect it. YOUR faith is not MY faith.

8 minutes agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Leonie O'Shea StruttonÂ And those are your beliefs on what Marriage meansÂ , to which you are entitled and no one is questioning that, but the point in this post is not to question YOUR faith, it is about people rights and under the laws of this country you must be legally " MARRIED " in order to have the same basic rights. Why are you entitled to those rights over my sister, my Friends, my cousin.....

8 minutes agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Mark StruttonÂ I bet that is how alot of people felt when Blacks were given the right to Vote

7 minutes agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Kacey FarrellÂ We're not talking about your faith , you are. We're talking about the government and CIVIL rights.

7 minutes agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Dana Karstensen-Â What I do or don't do is none of your concern, which seems to be a problem with people being more concerned about other people's personal lives than their own. I do follow the Bible.Â http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=+22%3A36-40 & version=NIV

6 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Kacey FarrellÂ You're in such a little bubble, it's absolutely astonishing to me.

6 minutes agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

Leonie O'Shea StruttonÂ â€Ž " Why redefine marriage and take away my identity? If people want to have gay relationships, fine, go ahead, but don't take my sacrament away, don't try to destroy my religion. " Surly based in your own words you are taking away the sacrament of those who don't follow your beliefs?

4 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â Now, if you feel like derailing this discussion and try to show that I'm not as good of a Christian as you are, feel free. I don't get offended nor do I care. My faith is between me & God. I know how God wants me to treat other people. I also know that other people's opinions of me have absolutely no bearing on my relationship with God.

4 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

Mark StruttonÂ That is a healthy way to handle your faith Dana. I respect it and appreciate it.

2 minutes agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Aldred <nr@...> wrote:

Â

I think the point I'd make is that this is part of a long process of reducing, demeaning what marriage is. Â Divorce was one of the first steps in that process. Â And couples who repeatedly marry and divorce are not, really, married: theyÂ eitherÂ have a lack of intention to permanentÂ marriage, or they have some sort of inability to make the convenant, so it's invalid (and indeed at present technically invalid under English law, even - I can'tÂ answerÂ for the US situation -Â althoughÂ I doubt anyone would make a case of it). Â Â

Aldred

On 10 May 2012 22:07, & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

, How would I respond to those who would those who talk about people who get married and divorce and remarry then divorce and continue on that cycle? Can we not call it marriage to anyone not in the Catholic faith? I don't think that argument would hold up.

- On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Aldred <nr@...> wrote:

Â

, one question I would ask in that situation is why your FB friends feel it necessary to take away your Â identity. Â Sure, ifÂ peopleÂ wantÂ to have gay relationships, let them have them: it's theirÂ choice, and as adults they are entitled to their choice andÂ whateverÂ the consequences may be are their problem. Â But in redefining marriage asÂ somethingÂ very muchÂ less that you have, they are demeaning your relationship. Â If they want a relationship which is not procreative, or notÂ faithful, or not a lifelong self-gift, then call itÂ somethingÂ else. Â

There's a blog post I ran across here: Â Â http://pewfodder.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/goodmarriage/Â which expresses some of this, and I basically agree with that blogger. Â When (and I'm afraid it is when, not if) they redefineÂ marriageÂ in this country, I'll no longer conform to that definition of marriage. Â I've actually already asked my employer what they intend to do about it,Â sinceÂ it will be (illegal) discrimination on grounds of religion not to provide me with anÂ alternativeÂ term to 'marriage' on any form they ask me to complete (they've notÂ answeredÂ yet, but as time goes by I'll keep asking...).Â

And, yes, I'd unfriend that person on FB. Â But I'd make the point that I'm doing so because of their attack on my status first; and that they are depriving me of a liberty. Â Â

Aldred

On 10 May 2012 21:26, & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

L**********3 hours agoÂ nearÂ ChesapeakeÂ Â·Â

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

LikeÂ Â·Â Â Â·Â Unfollow Post

M*****Â I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

3 hours agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

L*****Â Newt Gingrich?2 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

D*****Â Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

2 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

M*****Â I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said " blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies " . HAH!

2 hours agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 4

M*****Â So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds.2 hours agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ you really want me to de-friend you because we have different morals?

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â Like

L*****Â Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another!59 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

D******Â If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy.36 minutes agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

M*******Â This is going around my newsfeed today:Â http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriagÂ :)

25 minutes agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

O'ConnorÂ Â Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues come between our friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against. I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

14 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

D******Â I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

8 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

D****Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here. We should never have redefined marriage.

6 minutes agoÂ Â·Â Like

J*****Â Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

3 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

D*****Â A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples and plenty of Christians supported that because " it was in the Bible. " I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

2 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 3

Da*****-Br****Â - its carpet munched not monger.2 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

D*****-B*****Â Munched = muncher2 hours agoÂ Â·Â Like

K******Â , it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone can think that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

2 hours agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 5

B*****Â LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

about an hour agoÂ viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

E******Â I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home, your place of worship and your private organizations.Â That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)Â

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible, limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible idea (Inquisition!).

" God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. " , 1644

about an hour agoÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 3

May 10, 2012

What's the problem?Sent from my iPhoneOn May 10, 2012, at 6:26 PM, " & Dan O'C." <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

Here's the latest:

Leonie O'Shea Strutton9 hours ago near Chesapeake Â·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like Â·

Jenna s, Bekah Magness , Stille and 34 others like this.

Mackin Redrow I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

9 hours ago via mobile Â· Like Â· 1

Liz Kennedy Wiechert Newt Gingrich?

9 hours ago Â· Like Â· 1

Dana Karstensen- Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

8 hours ago Â· Like

May 10, 2012

How do I respond to this: " Maybe I'm just dumb, because I fail to see how civil marriage and the sacrament of marriage are connected? I do have a degree in Christian theology, and I have read the systematic theologies of Augustine and Aquinas so I have a very clear working knowledge of the sacraments and their importance. And I still don't get it. Isn't the sacrament completely separate from the civil part? Because you can be married in a civil ceremony and not in the eyes of the church - it happens all the time with Catholics who are divorced and can't be remarried in the Church. You have your marriage license that allows you to file taxes jointly, share custody of your children, have health insurance together, inherit, make medical decision, be next of kin, etc. The gov't doesn't care what you believe - it is a civil contract with defined by civil parameters and interpreted and enforced by civil courts. On the other hand a sacramental marriage is something completely different (outside and separate from the law and civil authority.) It is defined by a religious authority and interpreted and enforced by a religious system. And isn't that a good thing? The church out of the civil code and the civil authorities out of the church?

If someone having a marriage that is outside the Catholic definition of a sacramental marriage is considered an infringement on the religious liberty of Catholics, then my husband and I shouldn't be married - we're atheists. And neither should any Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Budhists, etc. or anyone contracepting. Because by definition, we are NOT truly married at all. And are in fact destroying " real " marriage. "

-

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Dominic Pedulla <pedullad@...> wrote:

What's the problem?Sent from my iPhoneOn May 10, 2012, at 6:26 PM, " & Dan O'C. " <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

Here's the latest:

Leonie O'Shea Strutton9 hours ago near Chesapeake ·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like ·

Jenna s, Bekah Magness , Stille and 34 others like this.

Mackin Redrow I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

Liz Kennedy Wiechert Newt Gingrich?

9 hours ago · Like · 1

Dana Karstensen- Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

8 hours ago · Like

May 10, 2012

Human marriage is also ordered to family building. Same sex “marriage” by definition excludes childbearing….marriage is not primarily for the spouses, but as a protecting site for raising children, without whom there will be no future. Hanna Klaus From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of & Dan O'C.Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:10 PM Subject: Re: I'm at it again on FB - and feel like I'm over my head again - trying to help with the New Evangelization, but feel like I'm up the creek without a paddle How do I respond to this: " Maybe I'm just dumb, because I fail to see how civil marriage and the sacrament of marriage are connected? I do have a degree in Christian theology, and I have read the systematic theologies of Augustine and Aquinas so I have a very clear working knowledge of the sacraments and their importance. And I still don't get it. Isn't the sacrament completely separate from the civil part? Because you can be married in a civil ceremony and not in the eyes of the church - it happens all the time with Catholics who are divorced and can't be remarried in the Church. You have your marriage license that allows you to file taxes jointly, share custody of your children, have health insurance together, inherit, make medical decision, be next of kin, etc. The gov't doesn't care what you believe - it is a civil contract with defined by civil parameters and interpreted and enforced by civil courts. On the other hand a sacramental marriage is something completely different (outside and separate from the law and civil authority.) It is defined by a religious authority and interpreted and enforced by a religious system. And isn't that a good thing? The church out of the civil code and the civil authorities out of the church? If someone having a marriage that is outside the Catholic definition of a sacramental marriage is considered an infringement on the religious liberty of Catholics, then my husband and I shouldn't be married - we're atheists. And neither should any Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Budhists, etc. or anyone contracepting. Because by definition, we are NOT truly married at all. And are in fact destroying " real " marriage. " - On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Dominic Pedulla <pedullad@...> wrote: What's the problem?Sent from my iPhoneOn May 10, 2012, at 6:26 PM, " & Dan O'C. " <oconnor1124@...> wrote: Here's the latest:Leonie O'Shea Strutton9 hours ago near Chesapeake · · If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!Like · [Comment]Jenna s, Bekah Magness , Stille and 34 others like this.o Mackin Redrow I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1Liz Kennedy Wiechert Newt Gingrich?9 hours ago · Like · 1Dana Karstensen- Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...8 hours ago · Like

May 10, 2012

,Your comments about Pres. Clinton " it's only about sex " is defeated, among other issues, in this article from today's only The American Spectator:http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/10/will-democrats-move-charlotte/ The gay agenda is very clear.

Peggy BartleyOn Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM, , <fdennehy@...> wrote:

Dear Mrs O’Connor,

The comments are telling. Shows the triumph of the modernist heresy.

These comments sound reasonable. They are not all logical, and would not have internal consistency if challenged.

(Ex: yes, we DO have a right and obligation to determine how others in our society behave and live – that’s how we keep child predators away from our children.)

And there is much confusion about what is religious and how it relates to the law. Almost all of our laws are biblically based but that does not make them religious; that’s where the moral underpinnings came from. If one removes that as the foundation, then

any law can be enacted or discarded. And when the biblical moral underpinnings are removed (Nazi Germany 1933 and after, the whole communist world), that is exactly what we do see – any law, and righteous indignation by the same folks making the oppositional

comments below.

See

Slouching Toward Gomorrah, by judge Bork.

However, BECAUSE the arguments are not logical or rational, they are able to be defeated, and others watching from the sidelines will notice and be influenced.

The string of negative energy in the postings would make any meek or borderline folks hold back.

Ex: 1990s, Pres Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearing being discussed in my office. I was trying to ignore it. I was busy with charts, no time for foolishness.

The group: “It’s all about sex; leave the man’s sex life alone; they’re just hypocrites after him; it’s all about sex.” I turned, sighed, replied to the group, “No, it’s not about sex. It’s an impeachment trial for perjury. He lied under oath, and that’s

a crime. He also lied directly to each of us on TV. The trial is about perjury.” The group spun on a dime, suddenly in anger at the President who would lie. Amazing to behold.

That’s why somebody has to speak the truth. Thank God for the great renewal in Catholic colleges (Christendom, Franciscan, Aquinas, Ave , and others)

– young people are being taught to know and articulate the truth. Some in the crowd will get it pretty quickly. And please tell your husband “thank you” for his service in keeping the bad guys away.

From: [mailto: ]

On Behalf Of & Dan O'C.

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:26 PM

Subject: I'm at it again on FB - and feel like I'm over my head again - trying to help with the New Evangelization, but feel like I'm up the creek without a paddle

L**********

3 hours ago near Chesapeake ·

·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance

rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like · [Comment] · Unfollow Post

o

M***** I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't.

SMH...

3 hours

ago via mobile · Like · 1

L***** Newt Gingrich?

2 hours

ago · Like · 1

D***** Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

2 hours

ago · Like

M***** I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said " blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies " . HAH!

2 hours

ago via mobile · Like · 4

M***** So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds.

2 hours

ago via mobile · Like

[submit]

O'Connor you really want me to de-friend you

because we have different morals?

about an

hour ago · Like

L***** Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another!

59 minutes

ago · Like

D****** If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy.

36 minutes

ago · Like · 2

M******* This is going around my newsfeed today: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriag :)

25 minutes

ago · Like · 1

[submit]

O'Connor

Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people

with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's

ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues

come between our friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against.

I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

14 minutes

ago · Like

D****** I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

8 minutes

ago · Like

D****Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here.

We should never have redefined marriage.

6 minutes

ago · Like

J***** Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the

govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

3 hours ago · Like

D*****

A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests

don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples

and plenty of Christians supported that because " it was in the Bible. " I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

2 hours ago · Like · 3

Da*****-Br**** - its carpet munched not monger.

2 hours ago · Like

D*****-B***** Munched = muncher

2 hours ago · Like

K******

, it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in

fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured

out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever

arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone

can think that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to

the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've

found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

2 hours ago · Like · 5

B***** LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

about an hour ago via mobile · Like

E******

I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home,

your place of worship and your private organizations. That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible,

limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible

idea (Inquisition!).

" God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in

His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. " , 1644

about an hour ago · Like · 3

May 11, 2012

- check out this website for a wealth of well written resources to refer your fb hecklers to read. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/topics/marriage

You will be in my prayers.

Re: I'm at it again on FB - and feel like I'm over my head again - trying to help with the New Evangelization, but feel like I'm up the creek without a paddle

How do I respond to this:

"Maybe I'm just dumb, because I fail to see how civil marriage and the sacrament of marriage are connected? I do have a degree in Christian theology, and I have read the systematic theologies of Augustine and Aquinas so I have a very clear working knowledge of the sacraments and their importance. And I still don't get it. Isn't the sacrament completely separate from the civil part? Because you can be married in a civil ceremony and not in the eyes of the church - it happens all the time with Catholics who are divorced and can't be remarried in the Church. You have your marriage license that allows you to file taxes jointly, share custody of your children, have health insurance together, inherit, make medical decision, be next of kin, etc. The gov't doesn't care what you believe - it is a civil contract with defined by civil parameters and interpreted and enforced by civil courts. On the other hand a sacramental marriage is something completely different (outside and separate from the law and civil authority.) It is defined by a religious authority and interpreted and enforced by a religious system. And isn't that a good thing? The church out of the civil code and the civil authorities out of the church? If someone having a marriage that is outside the Catholic definition of a sacramental marriage is considered an infringement on the religious liberty of Catholics, then my husband and I shouldn't be married - we're atheists. And neither should any Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Budhists, etc. or anyone contracepting. Because by definition, we are NOT truly married at all. And are in fact destroying "real" marriage."-

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Dominic Pedulla <pedullad@...> wrote:

What's the problem?Sent from my iPhone

On May 10, 2012, at 6:26 PM, " & Dan O'C." <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

Here's the latest:

Leonie O'Shea Strutton9 hours ago near Chesapeake ·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like ·

Jenna s, Bekah Magness , Stille and 34 others like this.

Mackin Redrow I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

Liz Kennedy Wiechert Newt Gingrich?

9 hours ago · Like · 1

Dana Karstensen- Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

8 hours ago · Like

May 11, 2012

Well, yes, that one is a bit dumb. The extensive knowledge she claimed doesn't extend to knowing that a Catholic marriage requires a legal marriage. (But then she does say 'Christian theology " , and there's some funny stuff masquerading as Christian!).

And she's either dumb or disingenuous if she can't see the difference between people of different faiths (and those sad people with none) entering into the same sort of marriage, and on the other hand redefining marriage so that it demeans it for those who take it most seriously.

Yes, people who are contracepting are damaging marriage. Yes, people who drop in and out of marriage are damaging marriage. As the blog I referred to says, this process of breaking down marriage rather than building it up started a long time ago. Chesterton write about it over a century ago!

There is a difference, though, between individual couples doing things wrong, and thus damaging marriage by carelessness or error, and the State deciding to launch a direct attack on its fundamental meaning. If some husbands abuse their wives, for instance, that's damaging to marriage; to legislate specifically to allow abuse to be regarded as normal in marriage would be completely wrong at a different level.

Problem is, you're arguing with people who have largely given up on reason (otherwise they wouldn't be atheist: atheism requires a denial of cause and effect, which is a fundamental part of reason)!

Aldred

On 11 May 2012 03:10, & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

How do I respond to this: " Maybe I'm just dumb, because I fail to see how civil marriage and the sacrament of marriage are connected? I do have a degree in Christian theology, and I have read the systematic theologies of Augustine and Aquinas so I have a very clear working knowledge of the sacraments and their importance. And I still don't get it. Isn't the sacrament completely separate from the civil part? Because you can be married in a civil ceremony and not in the eyes of the church - it happens all the time with Catholics who are divorced and can't be remarried in the Church. You have your marriage license that allows you to file taxes jointly, share custody of your children, have health insurance together, inherit, make medical decision, be next of kin, etc. The gov't doesn't care what you believe - it is a civil contract with defined by civil parameters and interpreted and enforced by civil courts. On the other hand a sacramental marriage is something completely different (outside and separate from the law and civil authority.) It is defined by a religious authority and interpreted and enforced by a religious system. And isn't that a good thing? The church out of the civil code and the civil authorities out of the church?

If someone having a marriage that is outside the Catholic definition of a sacramental marriage is considered an infringement on the religious liberty of Catholics, then my husband and I shouldn't be married - we're atheists. And neither should any Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Budhists, etc. or anyone contracepting. Because by definition, we are NOT truly married at all. And are in fact destroying " real " marriage. "

-

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Dominic Pedulla <pedullad@...> wrote:

What's the problem?Sent from my iPhoneOn May 10, 2012, at 6:26 PM, " & Dan O'C. " <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

Here's the latest:

Leonie O'Shea Strutton9 hours ago near Chesapeake ·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like ·

Jenna s, Bekah Magness , Stille and 34 others like this.

Mackin Redrow I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

Liz Kennedy Wiechert Newt Gingrich?

9 hours ago · Like · 1

Dana Karstensen- Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

8 hours ago · Like

May 11, 2012

, a few quick things ...

- The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that only a sacramental marriage is a real/valid marriage – rather, the Church’s teaching is that for baptized Christians, only a sacramental marriage is a real marriage – for others, even a civil marriage, so long as it involves real consent (implying basic knowledge and freedom) and so on to fidelity and openness to procreation and so on (the things that are at the core of the meaning of all marriage), is a real marriage.

- Any marriage is something that involves not only the relationship between the man and woman, but also the relationship between the couple on the one hand and society on the other. Thus marriage is a social and even political “institution.” This is so especially because marriage is the kind of relationship that can, in principle, lead to procreation – certainly the social and even political/legal sphere has an interest in recognizing and helping in their own proper way to safeguard any relationship in which new members of society might come into existence and be raised. Thus the CCC teaches that there is a duty on the part of the civil authorities to recognize marriage. Just because a marriage is (also) a sacramental marriage – and thus subject to the Church’s teaching regarding what that means and requires – doesn’t mean that it isn’t also a social/political institution – deserving and needing recognition/help on that level too.

- The government doesn’t and probably shouldn’t (at least in the context of a society like ours) care whether your marriage is a sacramental one. But the gov’t should care – more than it does – about whether a couple are really serious about the stuff that goes with the basic meaning of marriage (even non-sacramental marriage) – like fidelity (vs. our divorce laws) and openness to procreation (whereas Catholic canon law says that a marriage is null if a couple mean entirely to exclude procreation, civil law doesn’t ... and of course gov’t recognition of “gay marriage” would go even further in separating marriage from procreation ... and the fact that the gov’t already doesn’t care as much as it should about such things doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be very socially harmful for the gov’t to retreat even further from doing so).

Hope that helps a bit (though I’m skeptical that your Fb interlocutors are really open to hearing/considering any of it) – am going to be mostly occupied for the next few days with end-of-semester duties – commencement and faculty meetings.

From: & Dan O'C.

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:10 PM

Subject: Re: I'm at it again on FB - and feel like I'm over my head again - trying to help with the New Evangelization, but feel like I'm up the creek without a paddle

How do I respond to this:

"Maybe I'm just dumb, because I fail to see how civil marriage and the sacrament of marriage are connected? I do have a degree in Christian theology, and I have read the systematic theologies of Augustine and Aquinas so I have a very clear working knowledge of the sacraments and their importance. And I still don't get it. Isn't the sacrament completely separate from the civil part? Because you can be married in a civil ceremony and not in the eyes of the church - it happens all the time with Catholics who are divorced and can't be remarried in the Church. You have your marriage license that allows you to file taxes jointly, share custody of your children, have health insurance together, inherit, make medical decision, be next of kin, etc. The gov't doesn't care what you believe - it is a civil contract with defined by civil parameters and interpreted and enforced by civil courts. On the other hand a sacramental marriage is something completely different (outside and separate from the law and civil authority.) It is defined by a religious authority and interpreted and enforced by a religious system. And isn't that a good thing? The church out of the civil code and the civil authorities out of the church? If someone having a marriage that is outside the Catholic definition of a sacramental marriage is considered an infringement on the religious liberty of Catholics, then my husband and I shouldn't be married - we're atheists. And neither should any Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Budhists, etc. or anyone contracepting. Because by definition, we are NOT truly married at all. And are in fact destroying "real" marriage."-

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Dominic Pedulla <pedullad@...> wrote:

What's the problem?Sent from my iPhone

On May 10, 2012, at 6:26 PM, " & Dan O'C." <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

Here's the latest:

Leonie O'Shea Strutton9 hours ago near Chesapeake ·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like ·

Jenna s, Bekah Magness , Stille and 34 others like this.

Mackin Redrow I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH... 9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

Liz Kennedy Wiechert Newt Gingrich? 9 hours ago · Like · 1

Dana Karstensen- Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows... 8 hours ago · Like

May 11, 2012

"Chastity is the means by which it is possible to negotiate a way through all of these problems... II frequently makes reference to the idea of "the integrity of the gift." The word "integrity" here is not used in a loose sense, to mean, "reasonably reliable"...It has, as its root, the concept of INTEGRATION. The integrity of the gift of self in the sexual act comes out of the integration of sexuality into the wholeness of the person...The practice of chasity demonstrates that one actually possess what one promises to give" (Melinda Selmys: Sexual Authenticity: An Intimate Reflection on Homosexuality and Catholicism/www.osv.com) How can one give their maleness to another male? The act is frustrated and is a dead end on to itself...a false

promise. Also, same sex "marriage" is an illusion. It is the rare homosexual couple which stays together for "life". Wish I could find the article which I read which examined a series of gay partners followed over many years --the number of partners numbered into the hundreds. (research? ) So same sex monogamy is a myth. Finally, when you are giving this kind of union the government-sanctioned ability to adopt or beget children, it becomes very dangerous for the children involved. Incidence of substance abuse, mental illness are all higher with homosexuals. A look at studies of homosexuals in the 1990s confirms "same-sex attracted youth are fraught with emotional problems and suicidal thoughts, that they feel constantly oppressed and bullied by their heterosexual peers, and that they are, on the whole, disturbed victims in

need of kindly maternal care from heterosexual social-worker nannies"...(Sexual Authenticity, referring to researcher and psychologist Ritch Savin- in his book, The New Gay Teenager). Blessings, rebecca (p.s. will look at the brochure this weekend - kids sick last night sorry!) Dr. Peck, MD, CCD, ABFM, Marquette NFP InstructorPecks Family Practice, PLC1688 W Granada Blvd, Ste 2AOrmond Beach, FL 32174(386) 677-2018 fax: (386) 676-0737 cell: (386) 212-9777 From: & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 7:26 PM Subject: Re: I'm at it again on FB - and feel like I'm over my head again - trying to help with the New Evangelization, but feel like I'm up the creek without a paddle

Here's the latest:

Leonie O'Shea Strutton 9 hours ago near Chesapeake Â·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like Â·

Jenna s, Bekah Magness , Stille and 34 others like this.

Mackin Redrow I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

9 hours ago via mobile Â· Like Â· 1

Liz Kennedy Wiechert Newt Gingrich?

9 hours ago Â· Like Â· 1

Dana Karstensen- Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

8 hours ago Â· Like

Meghan Broussard Simecek I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said "blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies". HAH!

8 hours ago via mobile Â· Like Â· 8

Mindal Donner Seelye So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds.

8 hours ago via mobile Â· Like

O'Connor you really want me to de-friend you because we have different morals?

7 hours ago Â· Like

Leonie O'Shea Strutton Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another!

7 hours ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy.

6 hours ago Â· Like Â· 5

Meghan Broussard Simecek This is going around my newsfeed today: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriag :)

6 hours ago Â· Like Â· 3

O'Connor Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues come between our

friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against. I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

6 hours ago Â· Like Â· 2

Dana Karstensen- I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

6 hours ago Â· Like Â· 5

Dana Karstensen- Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here. We should never have redefined marriage.

6 hours ago Â· Like Â· 1

Jeff Irwin Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

6 hours ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples and plenty of Christians supported that because "it was in the Bible." I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

5 hours ago Â· Like Â· 6

Dana Karstensen- Jeff - its carpet munched not monger.

5 hours ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- Munched = muncher

5 hours ago Â· Like

Kacey Farrell , it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health

insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone can think that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

5 hours ago Â· Like Â· 8

Bekah Magness LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

4 hours ago via mobile Â· Like Â· 2

Lupton Pease I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home, your place of worship and your private organizations. That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible, limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible idea (Inquisition!).

"God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls." , 1644

4 hours ago Â· Like Â· 3

O'Connor yes, we DO have a right and obligation to determine how others in our society behave and live â€“ thatâ€™s how we keep child predators away from our children.

2 hours ago Â· Like

O'Connor There is much confusion about what is religious and how it relates to the law. Almost all of our laws are biblically based but that does not make them religious; thatâ€™s where the moral underpinnings came from. If one removes that as the foundation, then any law can be enacted or discarded. And when the biblical moral underpinnings are removed (Nazi Germany 1933 and after, the whole communist world), that is exactly what we do see.

2 hours ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- What do child predators have to do with same sex marriage?

2 hours ago Â· Like Â· 3

Dana Karstensen- â€Ž***crickets***

2 hours ago Â· Like Â· 2

Leonie O'Shea Strutton I want to make sure I understand your argument O'Connor, people who are LGBT are child predators that we need to protect out children from???? If that is NOT your point then I am not sure why you would feel the need to bring this up!

about an hour ago Â· Like Â· 1

Jenna s Oh.my.GAWD. Did you just say what I think you said ??? 0.o

about an hour ago via mobile Â· Like

O'Connor WOAH! there - sorry, I got a phone call and my kids woke up from a nap. NO

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor I did NOT just say that.

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor way to take things OUT of context

about an hour ago Â· Like

Jenna s Ok. Phew.

about an hour ago via mobile Â· Like

Jenna s Now: clarify maybe?

about an hour ago via mobile Â· Like

O'Connor Kacey says: I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!....

So,what I'm saying is that there NEED to be moral absolutes. Otherwise it's okay to be a childpredator

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor And I was also responding to 's comment as well

about an hour ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- I agree about moral absolutes. Protect children? Absolutely. Denying consenting adults the legal right to marry? Absolutely not. I don't think individual churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages but as long as the government calls it marriage, collects $25 for the license, & grants certain rights & privileges to the union, it is a civil right that should not be subject to discrimination.

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor Why not just call it something other than marriage - why not be happy with a Civil Union?

about an hour ago Â· Like

Leonie O'Shea Strutton because you are not afforded the same exact rights

about an hour ago Â· Like Â· 1

Dana Karstensen- The united states government calls it marriage, that's why. If the government would get out of the marriage business & call it a civil union for everybody, fine. Let the churches, priestesses, etc decide who they will "marry." my marriage would be valid in God's eyes with or without the permission slip I had to pay the government to receive.

about an hour ago Â· Unlike Â· 2

Kacey Farrell , there is no "taking out of context" going on here. We are talking about CIVIL rights, not protecting criminals. I can't even believe you went there, honestly.

about an hour ago Â· Like Â· 1

Kacey Farrell Your clarification....not so clarifying.

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor I'm not good at these debates. I'm no moral theologian and I haven't the eloquence of fighting this with my mommy brain. I know there is a right and a wrong. I have been on the wrong side - but the more I fight the more you're just going to tune me out and turn me off or label me as a crazy Christian/Catholic (since some people think Catholics aren't Christian, when in fact we are the original Christian). All I know is there are moral absolutes - and the "what goes for me, may not go for you" line of thinking is not logical and can lead to very murky and very dangerous waters for society.

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor oh, and this just in: we can't protect our children with our laws now:http://gawker.com/5909110/viewing-child-porn-online-officially-a+ok-in-new-york-state

Viewing Child Porn Online Officially A-OK in New York State

gawker.com

New York. A concrete jungle where dreams are made of/oh/up. There's nothing youcan't do. Including looking at child porn onlineâ€” the state has just ruled that that's legal, MSNBC reports. Here's exactly what Judge A.

about an hour ago Â· Like Â·

Mathiak Hey Leonie, check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBaDVGEtp-Y It's by a friend of mine on this same subject.

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor - that is just horrible and hateful

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor â€Ž

about an hour ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- What do child predators have to do with same sex marriage?

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor It was just an example of our laws and hurting society

about an hour ago Â· Like

Mathiak ...did you watch the whole video? They're ACTORS portraying REAL tweets by REAL people...possibly even people who call themselves Christians.

about an hour ago Â· Like Â· 1

O'Connor I know...it's terrible

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor It's not what the CATHOLIC church teaches

about an hour ago Â· Like

O'Connor It's totally horrible

about an hour ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- How, exactly, does same sex marriage equate to child predators in the realm of "hurting society?"

about an hour ago Â· Like

Kacey Farrell

, I feel the same way you do about the mommy brain thing, and I also don't have the ability to be articulate right now and am late with dinner. Grrrr. But I will say this...I think the most damaging thing to our society is someone thin...See More

about an hour ago Â· Like Â· 3

Mark Strutton

Ok I am speaking only for myself here when I say this: I am sick and tired of religious zealots directing laws in this country. Take your religious beliefs, keep them to yourself or shove them up your asses. I don't run around to religio...See More

59 minutes ago Â· Like

Mark Strutton Right on !!! http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

57 minutes ago Â· Like

O'Connor

To love and be loved as God loves--this is the deepest desire of the human heart. God put it there when He made us in His image. Nothing else with satisfy. Nothing else will fulfill. This is what we embody as male and female. Sex is so beautiful, so wonderful, so glorious, that it's meant to EXPRESS God's free, total, faithful, and fruitful love. This is MARRIAGE. Sex is meant to express wedding vows. It' where the words of the wedding vows become flesh. God gave us sexual desire itself to be the power to love as He loves, so we could participate in divine life and fulfill the very meaning of our being and existence. It's a far cry from the way sex plays itself out in the experience of real human beings. The historic abuse of women at the hands of men; the tragedy of rape and other heinous sex crimes, even against children; AIDS and a host of other sexually transmitted diseases; unwed mothers; "fatherless"

children; abortion; newborns found in dumpsters; adultery skyrocketing divorce rates; prostitution; a multibillion-porn industry; the general cloud of shame and guild that hangs over sexual matters is a different picture from what God intended. Disordered sexuality is the "Pandora box" that unleashes a host of societal evils: from the poverty of "fatherless" families, the staggering proliferation of STDs (some fatal, such as AIDS), increased violence among teens--all these can be traced to the breakdown of the sexual mores that hold the family intact as the fundamental cell of society. As sexual attitudes and behaviors go, so goes marriage. As marriage goes, so goes the family. As the family goes, so goes society. Human life, its dignity and its balance, depends at every moment of history and at every point on the globe on the proper ordering of love between the sexes. We will never build a civilization of love and a culture of life unless we first live

according to the truth of our sexuality. If the Church is obsessed with sex it's because she's "obsessed" with upholding the dignity and balance of human life and the plan of God for humanity that our sexuality is meant to reveal. -- West.

54 minutes ago Â· Like

Stille I'm in favor of abolishing government sanctioned marriage and providing legal civil unions for any 2 consenting adults. Churches can do marriage however they see fit. I believe in freedom, above all else. I do have my beliefs about marriage, but I believe that freedom is above my beliefs and forcing my beliefs on others will never win anything.

46 minutes ago Â· Unlike Â· 2

Dana Karstensen- Marriage was a lot more stable when women & children were considered property.

46 minutes ago Â· Like

Mark Strutton To love as an imaginary fairy dream does, to molest as a priest does, to cover up pedophiles as a corrupt organization does, to continue to think that war and genocide can be sanctioned by the Fairy King, to think that women are property, to continue to subjugate poor people all over the world.......Really you dont have a real leg to stand on here. I am talking FACTS NOT FAITH.

46 minutes ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- http://godisnotarepublican.net/for-every-christian-that-opposes-gay-rights/

42 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 1

Stille

Freedom, ultimately, is the Golden Rule. We Catholics do not want to pay for contraceptives (we don't want to outlaw them, but we have a moral opposition to PAYING for them). That should be our right, even though others disagree. People live their married lives in a way that is contradictory to Church teaching, maybe even use contraceptives. That is their right, too, or should be anyway. I have a strong belief in separation of Church and State, even though I happen to be a religious person myself, teach my children according to Church teaching, etc.

37 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 1

Mark Strutton

To those that get moral support by ancient stories and myths I COMPLETELY respect your right and ability to do that. Those of great faith can happily exist right along side of everything else because they keep their personal beliefs out of other peoples lives unless asked. What is going on now is nothing more than legislating YOUR religion on others. --For those who don't want to pay for contraception, guess what.....I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR WAR and Civilian Deaths, but I do. I don't want to pay for your churches religious tax exemption either, but I do. I don't want to pay for the FBI to monitor and censor free speech. I don't want to pay for a Monsanto to get food subsidies, but I do. As a member of society we have to pay for things we don't agree with. It is just the way Governments work. If you don't like it try to change it, but DON'T use religion to do it. Use facts and reason.

29 minutes ago Â· Like

O'Connor

What is marriage? Vatican II and canon law: "Marriage is the intimate, exclusive, indissoluble communion of life and love entered by man and woman at the design of the Creator for the purposes of their own good and the procreation and education of children; this covenant between baptized personas has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of sacrament."

Intimate communion of life and love. Marriage is the closest and most intimate of human friendships. It involves the sharing of the whole of a person's life with his/her spouse. .Marriages calls for mutual self-surrender so intimate and complete that the two spouses become "one," yet without losing their uniqueness as persons.

Exclusive. As a mutual gift of two persons to each other, this intimate union excludes such union with anyone else. It demands the TOTAL FIDELITY of the spouses. This exclusivity is essential for the good of the couple's children.

Indissoluble. Husband and wife are not joined by passing emotion or mere erotic inclination, which, selfishly pursued, fade quickly away. They're joined by God in an unbreakable bond of love through the firm and IRREVOCABLE act of their OWN CONSENT. For the baptized, this bond is sealed by the Holy Spirit and, once consummated, becomes absolutely indissoluble. Thus, the Church does not so much teach that divorce is wrong but that divorce--in the sense of ending a valid marriage--is IMPOSSIBLE, regardless of the civil status of a marriage.

Entered by man and woman. The COMPLEMENTARITY of the sexes is essential to marriage. There is such widespread confusion today about the nature of marriage that some would wish to extend a legal "right" to marry two persons of the same sex. But the very nature of marriage makes such a proposition impossible.

At the design of the Creator. God is the Author of marriage. He inscribed the call to marriage in our very being by creating us male and female. Marriage is governed by His laws, faithfully transmitted by his Bride, the Church. For marriage to be what it's intended to be, it must conform to these laws. Human beings, therefore, are not free to change the meaning and purposes of marriage.

For the purpose of their own good. "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen 2:18). Thus, it's for their own good, for their benefit, enrichment, and ultimately their salvation, that a man and woman join their lives in the covenant of marriage. Marriage is the most basic (but not the only) expression of the vocation to love that all men and women have as persons made in God's image.

And the procreation and education of children. The fathers of Vatican II declared: "By their very nature, the institute of marriage itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children and find in them their ultimate crown." Children are NOT ADDED ON to marriage and conjugal love, but spring from the very heart of the spouses' mutual self-giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. Intentional exclusion of children, then, contradicts the very nature and purpose of marriage.

Covenant. Marriage is not only a contract between a man and a woman, but a SACRED COVENANT. God created marriage to image and participate in his own covenant with his people. Thus, the marital covenant calls spouse to share in the free, total, faithful, fruitful love of God. Contrary to trends in thought, the Church's recent emphasis on marriage as a covenant does not exclude marriage is also a contract. It's true that a covenant goes beyond the rights and responsibilities guaranteed by some contracts and provides a stronger, more sacred framework for marriage, but canon law still purposely uses both terms to describe marriage.

The dignity of a sacrament. By virtues of their baptisms, the marriage of Christian spouses is an efficacious sign of the union between Christ and the Church, and as such is a means of grace. The marriage between two unbaptized persons, or of one unbaptized person and one baptized person, is considered by the Church a "good and natural" marriage.

27 minutes ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- I'm Methodist, not Catholic. I should not be forced to live by Catholic laws or beliefs.

25 minutes ago Â· Like

Leonie O'Shea Strutton So what about those who are not Christian, are they not afforded the same rights?

25 minutes ago Â· Like

O'Connor What is a sacrament? it "is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace." A sacrament is where heaven and earth "kiss," where God and humanity become one in the flesh. God is invisible. Sacraments allow us to see Him under the veil of visible things. God is intangible. Sacraments allow us to touch him. God is incommunicable. Sacraments are our communion with him.

25 minutes ago Â· Like

Mark Strutton What is Marriage? If your remove the Fairy myths of ALL religions, what is it? Talk FACTS not DOCTRINE.

25 minutes ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- The only sacraments in the UMC are baptism & communion.

24 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 1

O'Connor Sacraments are efficacious signs, which means they truly communicate what they symbolize. The love of husband and wife is not merely a symbol of the love of Christ and the Church. For the baptized, it's a REAL participation in it.

23 minutes ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- I'm not Catholic and there is no reason for Catholic religious beliefs to dictate how I live my life.

23 minutes ago Â· Like

Mark Strutton What about the people who are not IN your little group?

23 minutes ago Â· Like

Stille I agree with you, O'Connor, on the definition of marriage. But that is why I believe the government has no place in marriage, and should provide only civil unions of legal purposes. I don't think we can hold the entire mostly non-Catholic country to Catholic standards of morality. People must choose to live their lives according to Church teaching. We can't make them.

22 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 1

Dana Karstensen- I don't expect Catholics, atheists, baptists, Wiccans to follow United Methodist doctrine nor do I think it is right to force them to do so...

21 minutes ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- Amen, .

20 minutes ago Â· Like

O'Connor Why redefine marriage and take away my identity? If people want to have gay relationships, fine, go ahead, but don't take my sacrament away, don't try to destroy my religion.

13 minutes ago Â· Like

Mark Strutton I bet that is how the Church felt when we figured out that the world is round and that we orbit the sun.

12 minutes ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- Marriage has been redefined numerous times during the time of Christianity & by Christians. Two men getting married in a Unitarian church has nothing to do with you or Catholicism.

12 minutes ago Â· Like

O'Connor Yes. by redefining marriage, you are taking away my religious liberty. You are taking away what makes marriage special.aa

11 minutes ago Â· Like

O'Connor it's no longer marriage if it's between two people of the same sex.

10 minutes ago Â· Like

O'Connor by the doctrine of my faith.

10 minutes ago Â· Like

O'Connor If you're Methodist, do you follow the Bible>

9 minutes ago Â· Like

O'Connor â€Ž?

9 minutes ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- My marriage is not so fragile that other people's marriages affect it. YOUR faith is not MY faith.

8 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 1

Leonie O'Shea Strutton And those are your beliefs on what Marriage means , to which you are entitled and no one is questioning that, but the point in this post is not to question YOUR faith, it is about people rights and under the laws of this country you must be legally "MARRIED" in order to have the same basic rights. Why are you entitled to those rights over my sister, my Friends, my cousin.....

8 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 2

Mark Strutton I bet that is how alot of people felt when Blacks were given the right to Vote

7 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 1

Kacey Farrell We're not talking about your faith , you are. We're talking about the government and CIVIL rights.

7 minutes ago via mobile Â· Like Â· 1

Dana Karstensen- What I do or don't do is none of your concern, which seems to be a problem with people being more concerned about other people's personal lives than their own. I do follow the Bible. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=+22%3A36-40 & version=NIV

6 minutes ago Â· Like

Kacey Farrell You're in such a little bubble, it's absolutely astonishing to me.

6 minutes ago via mobile Â· Like

Leonie O'Shea Strutton â€Ž"Why redefine marriage and take away my identity? If people want to have gay relationships, fine, go ahead, but don't take my sacrament away, don't try to destroy my religion." Surly based in your own words you are taking away the sacrament of those who don't follow your beliefs?

4 minutes ago Â· Like

Dana Karstensen- Now, if you feel like derailing this discussion and try to show that I'm not as good of a Christian as you are, feel free. I don't get offended nor do I care. My faith is between me & God. I know how God wants me to treat other people. I also know that other people's opinions of me have absolutely no bearing on my relationship with God.

4 minutes ago Â· Like

Mark Strutton That is a healthy way to handle your faith Dana. I respect it and appreciate it.

2 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 1

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Aldred <nr@...> wrote:

I think the point I'd make is that this is part of a long process of reducing, demeaning what marriage is. Divorce was one of the first steps in that process. And couples who repeatedly marry and divorce are not, really, married: they either have a lack of intention to permanent marriage, or they have some sort of inability to make the convenant, so it's invalid (and indeed at present technically invalid under English law, even - I can't answer for the US situation - although I doubt anyone would make a case of it).

Aldred

On 10 May 2012 22:07, & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

, How would I respond to those who would those who talk about people who get married and divorce and remarry then divorce and continue on that cycle? Can we not call it marriage to anyone not in the Catholic faith? I don't think that argument would hold up.

- On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Aldred <nr@...> wrote:

, one question I would ask in that situation is why your FB friends feel it necessary to take away your identity. Sure, if people want to have gay relationships, let them have them: it's their choice, and as adults they are entitled to their choice and whatever the consequences may be are their problem. But in redefining marriage as something very much less that you have, they are demeaning your relationship. If they want a relationship which is not procreative, or not faithful, or not a lifelong self-gift, then call it something else.

There's a blog post I ran across here: http://pewfodder.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/goodmarriage/ which expresses some of this, and I basically agree with that blogger. When (and I'm afraid it is when, not if) they redefine marriage in this country, I'll no longer conform to that definition of marriage. I've actually already asked my employer what they intend to do about it, since it will be (illegal) discrimination on grounds of religion not to provide me with an alternative term to 'marriage' on any form they ask me to complete (they've not answered yet, but as time goes by I'll keep asking...).

And, yes, I'd unfriend that person on FB. But I'd make the point that I'm doing so because of their attack on my status first; and that they are depriving me of a liberty.

Aldred

On 10 May 2012 21:26, & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...> wrote:

L********** 3 hours ago near Chesapeake Â·

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

Like Â· Â· Unfollow Post

M***** I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

3 hours ago via mobile Â· Like Â· 1

L***** Newt Gingrich? 2 hours ago Â· Like Â· 1

D***** Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

2 hours ago Â· Like

M***** I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said "blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies". HAH!

2 hours ago via mobile Â· Like Â· 4

M***** So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds. 2 hours ago via mobile Â· Like

O'Connor you really want me to de-friend you because we have different morals?

about an hour ago Â· Like

L***** Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another! 59 minutes ago Â· Like

D****** If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy. 36 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 2

M******* This is going around my newsfeed today: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriag :)

25 minutes ago Â· Like Â· 1

O'Connor Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues come between our friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not

de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against. I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

14 minutes ago Â· Like

D****** I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

8 minutes ago Â· Like

D****Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here. We should never have redefined marriage.

6 minutes ago Â· Like

J***** Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

3 hours ago Â· Like

D***** A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples and plenty of Christians supported that because "it was in the Bible." I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

2 hours ago Â· Like Â· 3

Da*****-Br**** - its carpet munched not monger. 2 hours ago Â· Like

D*****-B***** Munched = muncher 2 hours ago Â· Like

K****** , it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone can think

that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

2 hours ago Â· Like Â· 5

B***** LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

about an hour ago via mobile Â· Like

E****** I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home, your place of worship and your private organizations. That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible, limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible idea (Inquisition!).

"God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls." , 1644

about an hour ago Â· Like Â· 3

May 11, 2012

Â I think this relates to what you are saying:Â Â http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0001.html

This gave me some insight into the persons struggling with SSA.Â Our common ground is chastity.PennyOn Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Bame <rbamer2@...> wrote:

Â

" Chastity is the means by which it is possible to negotiate a way through all of these problems... II frequently makes reference to the idea of " the integrity of the gift. " The word " integrity " here is not used in a loose sense, to mean, " reasonably reliable " ...It has, as its root, the concept of INTEGRATION. The integrity of the gift of self in the sexual act comes out of the integration of sexuality into the wholeness of the person...The practice of chasity demonstrates that one actually possess what one promises to give " (Melinda Selmys: Sexual Authenticity: An Intimate Reflection on Homosexuality and Catholicism/www.osv.com)

Â How can one give their maleness to another male? The act is frustrated and is a dead end on to itself...a false

promise.Â Also, same sex " marriage " is an illusion.Â It is the rare homosexual couple which stays together for " life " .Â Wish I could find the article which I read which examined a series of gay partners followed over many years --the number of partners numbered Â into the hundreds. (research? ) So same sex monogamy is a myth.

Â Finally, when you are giving this kind of union the government-sanctioned ability to adopt or beget children, it becomes very dangerous for the children involved. Incidence of substance abuse, mental illnessÂ are all higher with homosexuals. A look at studies of homosexuals in the 1990s confirms " same-sex attracted youth are fraught with emotional problems and suicidal thoughts, that they feel constantly oppressed and bullied by their heterosexual peers, and that they are, on the whole, disturbed victims in

need of kindly maternal care from heterosexual social-worker nannies " ...(Sexual Authenticity, referring to researcher and psychologist Ritch Savin- in his book, The New Gay Teenager). Â

Â Blessings, rebecca (p.s. willÂ look at the brochure this weekend - kids sick lastÂ night sorry!)Â Â Dr. Peck, MD, CCD, ABFM, Marquette NFP Instructor

Pecks Family Practice, PLC1688 W Granada Blvd, Ste 2AOrmond Beach, FLÂ 32174

(386) 677-2018Â fax: (386) 676-0737 cell: (386) 212-9777

From: & Dan O'C. <oconnor1124@...>

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 7:26 PM

Subject: Re: I'm at it again on FB - and feel like I'm over my head again - trying to help with the New Evangelization, but feel like I'm up the creek without a paddle

Â

Here's the latest:

Leonie O'Shea Strutton 9 hours ago Â nearÂ ChesapeakeÂ Â·Â

If you have a problem with any civil rights issues that regard the LGBT community please defriend me. I believe in gay marriage, gay parenting, insurance rights and coverage for gay couples and the list goes on. I don't tolerate bigotry. Thanks. And Shame shame on North Carolina!

LikeÂ Â·Â

Jenna s,Â Bekah Magness ,Â StilleÂ andÂ 34 othersÂ like this.

Mackin RedrowÂ I don't understand how some straight people can get marrried & divorced 5+ times, like Liz , but gay couples who are in loving, committed, long term relationships can't. SMH...

9 hours ago Â viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Liz Kennedy WiechertÂ Newt Gingrich?

9 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Dana Karstensen-Â Yup yup. Plenty of straight politicians have done a whole helluva lot to destroy the sanctity of marriage with their own actions & disrespect for marital vows...

8 hours ago Â Â·Â Like

Meghan Broussard SimecekÂ I saw a HILARIOUS sign the other day that said " blame straight people. They're the ones that keep making gay babies " . HAH!

8 hours ago Â viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 8

Mindal Donner SeelyeÂ So agreed. It's just awful. People need to open their minds.

8 hours ago Â viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ you really want me to de-friend you because we have different morals?

7 hours ago Â Â·Â Like

Leonie O'Shea StruttonÂ Different morals is one thing being a bigot is quite another!

7 hours ago Â Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage...don't get married to someone of the same sex. Boom. Easy.

6 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 5

Meghan Broussard SimecekÂ This is going around my newsfeed today:Â http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriagÂ :)

6 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 3

O'ConnorÂ Wow - I don't think I'm a bigot. As a Catholic, I believe marriage is a covenantal relationship, and between one man and one woman. I don't think we should discriminate against people with same-sex attractions. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes. I'm very sorry. I also do not believe people should get married, divorced and re-married again (unless the marriage wasn't valid in the first place). The meaning of the marital act lies in it's ability to be unitive and procreative. Fertility is a holy time. There is a mystical, sacred nature of the act. I believe children should be born with dignity to a mother and a father - naturally (not made in a lab/test tube/with a syringe). But if these issues come between our

friendship, you can de-friend me. I will not de-friend you. I believe that every human being is made in the image-and-likeness of God, the creator. I believe that every human being deserves respect and should not be discriminated against. I do not believe that we have the power or the right to change Marriage. I think they can have civil unions to get them insurance rights & coverage, but marriage is unitive and procreative, and therefore can only be between a man and a woman.

6 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Dana Karstensen-Â I feel really sorry for heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who choose to not have children. Their marriages have no meaning. How awful for them!

6 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 5

Dana Karstensen-Â Also, marriage has been redefined many times. Why limit it to one man and one woman when it was originally one man & many women...most of them children? Let's keep it real here. We should never have redefined marriage.

6 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Jeff IrwinÂ Leav it it up to the church. If the church wants to marry two swordfighters or two carpetmongers.......let them be married. Doesn't affect me at all. Only say the govt should have in marriage is when it pertains to a Justice of the Peace marriage. They can bar them but shouldn't control the church.

6 hours ago Â Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â A big issue is that the government requires marriage licenses. They need to find a new way to get their $25. I agree the churches should decide for their own church. If Catholic priests don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine. However, if the government is going to stay involved & keep calling it marriage, they have to quit being discriminatory. Marriage used to also only be legal between same race couples and plenty of Christians supported that because " it was in the Bible. " I guess that's another instance where we redefined marriage. It seems like we do this an awful lot...

5 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 6

Dana Karstensen-Â Jeff - its carpet munched not monger.

5 hours ago Â Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â Munched = muncher

5 hours ago Â Â·Â Like

Kacey FarrellÂ , it's wonderful that you believe these things, and I think I can speak for Leonie that she absolutely respects you believing those things for yourself. You don't believe in fertility advances? Well thank goodness you've been blessed with two gorgeous children. I have way too many friends that haven't, and they get on their knees daily and thank god for the doctors and researchers that have figured out ways for them to have their own biological babies. You don't believe in gay marriage? Thank goodness you have a wonderful hubby to come home to everyday, who can be there in an emergency room and make medical decisions for you if god forbid the need ever arose. Who I'm guessing is the provider of your health

insurance and life insurance, since I think you are a SAHM? (forgive me if this is incorrect). And I mean all of this sincerely, I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I just don't understand how anyone can think that they know the right way for another person to live their life. This absolutely blows my mind. I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!

5 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 8

Bekah Magness Â LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR RESPONSE. and Kacey THAT is why I think youre awesome. Big fb hug and high five to you.

4 hours ago Â viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Lupton PeaseÂ I think it's fine to believe pretty much anything a person wants and say so. As loudly as one wants. Teach your children those values and beliefs. Practice them in public, your home, your place of worship and your private organizations. That's the American way after all. (And the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't alter this one single bit.)Â

What I don't think is very American or moral is to think that those beliefs should be legislated and forced onto everyone else. If one's God is eternal, infallible and all powerful, then one certainly doesn't need a mortal, fallible, limited institution like civil government to validate and legislate those belief to every single other citizen who does have the (God given???) free will to choose their own path. A look at history reveals that using civil law to enact religious law is a terrible idea (Inquisition!).Â

" God requires not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. " , 1644

4 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 3

O'ConnorÂ yes, we DO have a right and obligation to determine how others in our society behave and live â€“ thatâ€™s how we keep child predators away from our children.

2 hours ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ There is much confusion about what is religious and how it relates to the law. Almost all of our laws are biblically based but that does not make them religious; thatâ€™s where the moral underpinnings came from. If one removes that as the foundation, then any law can be enacted or discarded. And when the biblical moral underpinnings are removed (Nazi Germany 1933 and after, the whole communist world), that is exactly what we do see.

2 hours ago Â Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â What do child predators have to do with same sex marriage?

2 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 3

Dana Karstensen-Â â€Ž***crickets***

2 hours ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Leonie O'Shea StruttonÂ I want to make sure I understand your argumentÂ O'Connor, people who are LGBT are child predators that we need to protect out children from???? If that is NOT your point then I am not sure why you would feel the need to bring this up!

about an hour ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Jenna sÂ Oh.my.GAWD. Did you just say what I think you said ??? 0.o

about an hour ago Â viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ WOAH! there - sorry, I got a phone call and my kids woke up from a nap. NO

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ I did NOT just say that.

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ way to take things OUT of context

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

Jenna sÂ Ok. Phew.

about an hour ago Â viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

Jenna sÂ Now: clarify maybe?

about an hour ago Â viaÂ mobileÂ Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ Kacey says: I do not believe in your god, but I am a good person with good morals and I believe in allowing every person that walks this earth to have access to the same rights as you, period. How can you possibly tell me the absolute right answer to what marriage is, what fertility is? Your answer is not THE answer. I accept that is the right answer for you, and I embrace that and say hey, yay, I'm thrilled you've found the path that is right for you. But it's not mine, and that's okay too!....

So,what I'm saying is that there NEED to be moral absolutes. Otherwise it's okay to be a childpredator

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ And I was also responding to 's comment as well

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â I agree about moral absolutes. Protect children? Absolutely. Denying consenting adults the legal right to marry? Absolutely not. I don't think individual churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages but as long as the government calls it marriage, collects $25 for the license, & grants certain rights & privileges to the union, it is a civil right that should not be subject to discrimination.

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ Why not just call it something other than marriage - why not be happy with a Civil Union?

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

Leonie O'Shea StruttonÂ because you are not afforded the same exact rights

about an hour ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Dana Karstensen-Â The united states government calls it marriage, that's why. If the government would get out of the marriage business & call it a civil union for everybody, fine. Let the churches, priestesses, etc decide who they will " marry. " my marriage would be valid in God's eyes with or without the permission slip I had to pay the government to receive.

about an hour ago Â Â·Â UnlikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Kacey FarrellÂ , there is no " taking out of context " going on here. We are talking about CIVIL rights, not protecting criminals. I can't even believe you went there, honestly.

about an hour ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Kacey FarrellÂ Your clarification....not so clarifying.

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ I'm not good at these debates. I'm no moral theologian and I haven't the eloquence of fighting this with my mommy brain. I know there is a right and a wrong. I have been on the wrong side - but the more I fight the more you're just going to tune me out and turn me off or label me as a crazy Christian/Catholic (since some people think Catholics aren't Christian, when in fact we are the original Christian). All I know is there are moral absolutes - and the " what goes for me, may not go for you " line of thinking is not logical and can lead to very murky and very dangerous waters for society.

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ oh, and this just in: we can't protect our children with our laws now:http://gawker.com/5909110/viewing-child-porn-online-officially-a+ok-in-new-york-state

Viewing Child Porn Online Officially A-OK in New York State

gawker.com

New York. A concrete jungle where dreams are made of/oh/up. There's nothing youcan't do. Including looking at child porn onlineâ€” the state has just ruled that that's legal, MSNBC reports. Here's exactly what Judge A.

about an hour ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â

MathiakÂ Hey Leonie, check this outÂ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBaDVGEtp-YÂ It's by a friend of mine on this same subject.

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ - that is just horrible and hateful

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ â€Ž

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â What do child predators have to do with same sex marriage?

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ It was just an example of our laws and hurting society

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

MathiakÂ ...did you watch the whole video? They're ACTORS portraying REAL tweets by REAL people...possibly even people who call themselves Christians.

about an hour ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

O'ConnorÂ I know...it's terrible

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ It's not what the CATHOLIC church teaches

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ It's totally horrible

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â How, exactly, does same sex marriage equate to child predators in the realm of " hurting society? "

about an hour ago Â Â·Â Like

Kacey FarrellÂ

, I feel the same way you do about the mommy brain thing, and I also don't have the ability to be articulate right now and am late with dinner. Grrrr. But I will say this...I think the most damaging thing to our society is someone thin...See More

about an hour ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 3

Mark StruttonÂ

Ok I am speaking only for myself here when I say this: I am sick and tired of religious zealots directing laws in this country. Take your religious beliefs, keep them to yourself or shove them up your asses. I don't run around to religio...See More

59 minutes ago Â Â·Â Like

Mark StruttonÂ Right on !!!Â http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

57 minutes ago Â Â·Â Like

O'ConnorÂ

To love and be loved as God loves--this is the deepest desire of the human heart. God put it there when He made us in His image. Nothing else with satisfy. Nothing else will fulfill. This is what we embody as male and female. Sex is so beautiful, so wonderful, so glorious, that it's meant to EXPRESS God's free, total, faithful, and fruitful love. This is MARRIAGE. Sex is meant to express wedding vows. It' where the words of the wedding vows become flesh. God gave us sexual desire itself to be the power to love as He loves, so we could participate in divine life and fulfill the very meaning of our being and existence. It's a far cry from the way sex plays itself out in the experience of real human beings. The historic abuse of women at the hands of men; the tragedy of rape and other heinous sex crimes, even against children; AIDS and a host of other sexually transmitted diseases; unwed mothers; " fatherless "

children; abortion; newborns found in dumpsters; adultery skyrocketing divorce rates; prostitution; a multibillion-porn industry; the general cloud of shame and guild that hangs over sexual matters is a different picture from what God intended. Disordered sexuality is the " Pandora box " that unleashes a host of societal evils: from the poverty of " fatherless " families, the staggering proliferation of STDs (some fatal, such as AIDS), increased violence among teens--all these can be traced to the breakdown of the sexual mores that hold the family intact as the fundamental cell of society. As sexual attitudes and behaviors go, so goes marriage. As marriage goes, so goes the family. As the family goes, so goes society. Human life, its dignity and its balance, depends at every moment of history and at every point on the globe on the proper ordering of love between the sexes. We will never build a civilization of love and a culture of life unless we first live

according to the truth of our sexuality. If the Church is obsessed with sex it's because she's " obsessed " with upholding the dignity and balance of human life and the plan of God for humanity that our sexuality is meant to reveal. -- West.

54 minutes ago Â Â·Â Like

StilleÂ I'm in favor of abolishing government sanctioned marriage and providing legal civil unions for any 2 consenting adults. Churches can do marriage however they see fit. I believe in freedom, above all else. I do have my beliefs about marriage, but I believe that freedom is above my beliefs and forcing my beliefs on others will never win anything.

46 minutes ago Â Â·Â UnlikeÂ Â·Â Â 2

Dana Karstensen-Â Marriage was a lot more stable when women & children were considered property.

46 minutes ago Â Â·Â Like

Mark StruttonÂ To love as an imaginary fairy dream does, to molest as a priest does, to cover up pedophiles as a corrupt organization does, to continue to think that war and genocide can be sanctioned by the Fairy King, to think that women are property, to continue to subjugate poor people all over the world.......Really you dont have a real leg to stand on here. I am talking FACTS NOT FAITH.

46 minutes ago Â Â·Â Like

Dana Karstensen-Â http://godisnotarepublican.net/for-every-christian-that-opposes-gay-rights/

42 minutes ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

StilleÂ

Freedom, ultimately, is the Golden Rule. We Catholics do not want to pay for contraceptives (we don't want to outlaw them, but we have a moral opposition to PAYING for them). That should be our right, even though others disagree. PeopleÂ live their married lives in a way that is contradictory to Church teaching, maybe even use contraceptives. That is their right, too, or should be anyway. I have a strong belief in separation of Church and State, even though I happen to be a religious person myself, teach my children according to Church teaching, etc.

37 minutes ago Â Â·Â LikeÂ Â·Â Â 1

Mark StruttonÂ

To those that get moral support by ancient stories and myths I COMPLETELY respect your right and ability to do that. Those of great faith can happily exist right along side of everything else because they keep their personal beliefs out ofÂ other peoples lives unless asked. What is going on now is nothing more than legislating YOUR religion on others. --For those who don't want to pay for contraception, guess what.....I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR WAR and Civilian Deaths, but I do. I don't want to pay for your churches religious tax exemption either, but I do. I don't want to pay for the FBI to monitor and censor free speech. I don't want to pay for a Monsanto to get food subsidies, but I do. As a member of society we have to pay for things we don't agree with. It is just the way Governments work. If you don't like it try to change it, but DON'T use religion to do it. Use facts and reason.

29 minutes ago Â Â·Â Like