"Catholic bishops bless gay marriage rollback | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com"
The two bishops of the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle, in a letter to the faithful, say they will deploy parishes to collect signatures for Referendum 74, a measure for the November ballot designed to roll back same-sex marriage in Washington.
...the bishops specifically deny that refusing marriage to same-sex couples equates to discrimination — an argument made by Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Catholic, in arguing for marriage equality.
"Treating different things differently is not unjust discrimination," the bishops claim.Â "Marriage can only be between a man and a woman because of its unique ends, purpose and place in society.Â The word 'marriage' isn't simply a label that can be attached to different types of relationships.
"Instead 'marriage' reflects a deep reality — the reality of the unique, fruitful, lifelong union that is only possible between a man and a woman. There is nothing else like it, and it can't be defined or made into something that it isn't."
However, this is the last line in the article: "As I read the Gospels, there is a great deal of talk about the poor, and none about homosexuality."
Here's my reply, which I posted on that article in the Facebook comments section:
"As I read the Gospels, there is a great deal of talk about the poor, and none about homosexuality."
Really? How long are you going to keep repeating that ignorant, twisting statement?
"And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." (Mar 7:20-23)
Does that sound like a man (Jesus) who was saying to go ahead and be a sodomite to you? It sure doesn't to me.
I realize some people try to sugarcoat the term "fornications" (porneia) but it really did encompass sex out of wedlock even back then. Homosexuals were not married then.
So, you don't see homosexuality actually mentioned by that term. Do you see anywhere that Jesus said it was okay? No, you don't.
You may also read in the New Testament where those who were closest to him held a council on the subject of circumcision (a matter of Mosaic law). Show me the equivalent council back then over the subject of homosexuality (also a matter of Mosaic law). You can't do it. It's not there. The whole issue about Jesus's position on the subject is a marketing invention mostly pushed over the last several decades.
You can't possibly imagine that homosexuality wouldn't have been as big a controversy as circumcision.
The fact of the matter remains that sodomy, the main homosexual act, is disordered behavior. There's nothing anyone can say or do to alter it.
Homosexuals and their supporters can rail against those who state that fact. They can call them names. They can accuse them of hypocrisy, even without knowing the first thing about the person. They can duck, dodge, change the subject, and do all manner of things to attempt to deflect the fact, but it won't change it. Calling truth-tellers "homophobes" (a nonsense term) won't change it. Saying that those who speak out against the falsehood that is homosexuality are closet homosexuals won't change it. Cognitive dissonance isn't going to work.
Asking me why it's my business won't work. Children are being lied to by the pro-homosexuality movement. They are being harmed by those lies.
Asking what harm it does, as if it doesn't do any, won't work. The whole lifestyle is fraught with problems over and above those experienced in honest, monogamous, heterosexual marriages. Those problems do not come from prejudice against homosexuality. In nations where it is "affirmed and accepted," the same problems continue.
Where is the homosexual gene? It appears to have been thoroughly debunked. Regardless, change is definitely possible, else Jesus would not have called anyone to repent.
Homosexuals may call themselves married, but that won't alter the fact that the behavior is disordered.
Claiming that not all homosexuals engage in sodomy won't help them. A "less disordered" homosexual behavior is still disordered vis-a-vis an honest, monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
Claiming that female homosexuals experience fewer problems than do heterosexuals won't help either. The stats for female homosexuals in general are not good relative to heterosexuals.
Saying that some or even many heterosexuals engage in unhealthy behavior won't change the facts. If heterosexuals are engaging in unhealthy behavior, they should stop, just as the homosexuals should stop.
What people need to do is find out what causes homosexuality.
You should watch "Dr. Nicolosi Explains Reparative Therapy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GcDl5y_ID0
He takes a bit to get on a roll, and some of it is redundant; but it's well worth watching. He's not coercing anyone that I can tell.
I'm only asking for people to speak the truth. I'm positive that the American Psychological Association (APA) has played fast and loose with the facts. Their former president, mentioned by Nicolosi in the video as the one who motioned that homosexuality no longer be said to be a disorder (disease), has come right out himself and said it. http://youtu.be/BPgq1c4TYi4 and http://youtu.be/RuyCT9ygT-4
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)