Comments on: Catholics take out ads in "battle for America's soul"

By: Augusto

Augusto — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:26:07 +0000

I'm really surprised that the TFP only focuses on homosexuality and hasn't embraced the bible's advocacy for slavery and stonings for crimes instead of prisons. There are many components in the bible that are conveniently ignored but suddenly homosexuality is a target – can it be because that is the only remaining group in the United States against whom discrimination is still legal?

The Republican Party, as so firmly supported by the Catholic church, must be so befuddled over the conflict from that civil war mistake abolishing American slavery when they now see they must be on the leading edge of fighting *for* discrimination against loving gay couples.

The other thing that confuses me is, given the claim that marriage is only for straight people to procreate, why do they allow the marriage of infertile couples. That is a puzzling conflict.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Del

Del — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:36:38 +0000

It is a welcome step for human rights

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Del

Del — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:35:30 +0000

I found it intersting to go to their website (linked in the article) and their poll, "What do you think about the California Supreme Court decision, forcing the legalization of same-sex “marriage?”

Right now, 80% of respondents chose "It is a welcome step for human rights."

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Zeke

Zeke — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:51:05 +0000

The advertising director of the LA Times went on to say that he would NOT have accepted an advertisement submitted by a racist, anti-semitic or anti-Catholic group. He didn't explain why he feels that accepting a two page homophobic ad from a homophobic group is different.

There's probably a good reason why he didn't explain; there's no good explanation that wouldn't show him to be disingenuous, biased and without credibility.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:12:29 +0000

apYrs, so the RC church says…"cannot fulfil the primary purpose of marriage,"which is to give birth and raise children."

Well, my advice to the RC church and others who oppose marriage equality to demand fertility tests of both intended parties who wish to marry. If one fails, they should be barred from marrying. Similarly, if a straight couple wants to marry but intends not to have children, they should suffer the same fate.

The C of E would be in agreement with the RC church stand of course, lets not lose sight of that. That's why we have no right to marry in the UK for those of us who want it. Thank goodness Spain had the guts to stand up to the state Roman cult, unprecedented anywhere as did Belgium and to a lesser extent Holland.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: apYrs

apYrs — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:10:50 +0000

so we can expect teh church to pre-emptively annul marriages where children cannot be produced?!

Typical RC facisctic interference in the democratic process of a secular state.

(Report comment to the moderator)