Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Same-sex marriage

July 13, 2013

Dear editor: Father John Neff’s article about the welfare of children of gay parents is just too much....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(52)

garypayton

Jul-15-13 1:01 PM

The Roman Catholic Church, based on it's long history of protecting pedophiles and total disregard for the victims of sexual abuse, has no legitimate moral standing on the issue of same sex marriage. For a gentleman sworn to celibacy in God's service, Fr. Neff sure spends a lot of time thinking about sex. The best defense is a good offence. Hide pedophiles, but jump on the soapbox declaring gay people as monsters who don't deserve to be treated like human beings. BTW, Fr. Neff LOVES his letters to the editor.

(I had to throw his name in one more time just cause he likes it so much.)

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rancor

Jul-15-13 1:24 PM

Dubedit, you don't at all find it a little hypocritical to attack the character (dolt, ass, venal, etc) in the same breath that you accuse him of doing the same?

"who cannot win arguments on their merits and so must attack the character of those who disagree with him"

Our service members have inherently earned the honor to be seriously considered, the church and its constituents have not only earned no such honor, but, have repeatedly betrayed the trust that too many place in it.

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProudCountyResident

Jul-15-13 1:32 PM

If I may, Fr. Neff did not invoke the Catholic Church as his standing to condemn gay marriage as unequal to traditional marriage. I believe that his viewpoint is taken from the Bible and the teachings of the Creator. Do the views of an organization of which one is a member dictate the veracity of the statements, or should they be taken on face value with the backing given?

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Jul-15-13 2:09 PM

Fr. Neff has no authority, legal or religious, to "condemn" gay marriage. He self-identifies as a priest, so I consider his to be an official position not a personal opinion. Mind YOUR flock first Father.

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BrookP

Jul-15-13 5:29 PM

Since Mr. Neff's original article is buried in this website, I'll respond here. In case you haven't notice for, say, the past 100 years, marriage IS now focused on the happiness of the couple, from the writer's own words. We have gotten by arranged marriages and coupling just for survival purposes. There is no reason for the state to disallow a consenting adult from choosing another consenting adult to love and marry to create a loving family. Marriage is a legal contract between two people and the state. This in no way creates "enshrining into law the idea that sexual love is the sole criterion for marriage." Frankly, that was just a unintelligent statement. People don't get married for purely sexual reasons. Oh, and Mr. Neff, the Catholic church shouldn't have to be a model of reform. It should have been a LEADER of child protection from the very beginning!!

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FatherJohn

Jul-15-13 10:32 PM

Re: Mr. Taydus letter, I do not embrace the history of sexual abuse of my organization any more than veterans embrace the sexual harassment and abuse of women in the Armed Forces. Columnists write articles to express their opinions not just to get their name in the paper. If I wrote only to see my name would not be worth my motives being questioned or my integrity attacked. Again my article was written from a secular, civil perspective. The burden of proof lies on those to show how gay marriage would benefit society. What has happened to civil discourse?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reasonrules

Jul-16-13 6:45 AM

Your attack on Mr. Taydus is inexcusable. Some of you think you know Mr. Neff. He uses his religion as a mask and talks out both sides of his mouth. Mr. Neff, because he is a so calledd priest thinks he has the answers in his god's name. He is a false prophet of his god.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hassie64

Jul-16-13 9:08 AM

It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that Fr. Neff chose to frame his arguments against SSM in secular terms. The fact is, marriage, in the Catholic understanding, is not simply a contract between citizens and the state. It is a sacrament, bestowed, not by the priest, but by the man and woman on each other. Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. The actual state of marriage in our culture is, without a doubt, suffering. But individuals disregard for the meaning and purpose of marriage in no way nullifies its reality, any more than child abuse nullifies the truth of parenting, or murder nullifies the meaning of life. There are objective, eternal truths, and no amount of attack can change them, no matter how poorly they may be realized by any of us. The Church is a hospital for sinners, which includes us all.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hassie64

Jul-16-13 9:14 AM

And Jesus said, "Wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and narrow the gate that leads to life."

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Jul-16-13 11:49 AM

First of all, you didn't write an "article," you wrote a letter to the editor of a single newspaper. Your letter was not written from a secular, civil perspective when you attach your job title to it. I don't think letter to the editor qualify as "ministry." I wonder why the WTO prints your letters at all. You should have to buy advertising space for your message like any other business.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rancor

Jul-16-13 11:52 AM

"The burden of proof lies on those to show how gay marriage would benefit society. "

No sir. No. This is wrong. This is America where rights are freely granted UNLESS they infringe on somebody's rights. The burden lies on you to prove that gay marriage is infringing on your rights. Otherwise, you are simply attempting to legislate your morality which then becomes a theocracy... which history has proven causes oppression and war-mongering.

hassie64: The words I would like to emphasize in your argument are "in the Catholic understanding" -- I will fight tooth and nail anyone who attempts to force their religious beliefs on me. Christianity has not cornered the market on morality, they do not dictate what is right and wrong and the certainly should not legislate it.

And Dumbledore said, "Humans have a knack for choosing precisely the things that are worst for them."

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProudCountyResident

Jul-16-13 1:39 PM

Again.......the original suit had nothing to do with people loving each other, living together, or even presenting themselves as a couple. It is based on the passing of assets in a tax favored manner. It was not a grand gesture of human rights.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Jul-16-13 2:31 PM

PCR, How a government enumerates rights is often found in fairly mundane issues, like seating assignments on buses, the ability to vote, enrollment in public schools, and yes when eligibility for certain government programs and policies are based on marriage or some civil union, even tax regulations. These sort of things are covered in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Jul-16-13 2:41 PM

What may not seem a grand gesture to you is certainly a grand gesture to those who would like to be treated as equal members of this society, just as the removal of "white only" signs over restrooms was certainly a grand gesture for Black Americans.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Jul-17-13 11:55 AM

Very well said, hassie64. From the comments posted here in favor of immorality, it is quite clear that we are indeed living in the last days. Even if God chooses to have Christ tarry a while longer, our earthly society WILL continue to collapse, absent His love. Non-believers will continue to deny TRUTH, write (and change) their own rules to fit what's comfortable to them, and opt for an eternity of tormenting damnation in lieu of embracing God. Nothing we say here will sway them. Summed up best in Daniel 12:10b, "But none of the wicked shall understand [that the End of the Age is upon them]." All this said without excusing the wrongs of the Catholic, and other churches. God be the judge, not me. All praise to YOU, Father.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-17-13 12:42 PM

Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff! Venkman: Exactly. Stanz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! Winston Zeddmore: The dead rising from the grave! Venkman: Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

Beware the Stay Puft marshmallow man!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProudCountyResident

Jul-17-13 1:31 PM

Tax abatements, write offs, and such are created to bolster the economy. CBO has shown where a traditional marriage contributes more to the economy than any other relationships. Therefore, allowing a traditional marriage additional tax relief is a way of bolstering the economy.

This is a reward for adding to the economy, it is not a right. If it were, than why do military members get to write off significant portions of their pay when deployed, but a contractor that is paid from a domestic bank for time overseas has to pay the full rate?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-17-13 2:53 PM

PCR, then by that logic, people below the poverty level should pay more taxes because they contribute less to the economy, and the super rich should pay nothing. I was going to point out the fractured nature of the progression, but that's the Republican fiscal platform!

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sisyphus

Jul-17-13 3:22 PM

ProudCountyResident is correct. This argument is not about religion -- people have been getting "married" for may centuries without state recognition -- this argument is about economics. Gays and lesbians aren't looking for us to recognize their "marriage", they are trying to obtain the same legal rights and economic benefits bestowed upon heterosexual married couples. The devil is in the details. Is it a fraud for two men, two women or a man and woman to get married not out of love but out of desire for economic gain? For that matter, if "marriage" is extended beyond the traditional definition of a man and woman, why can't three roommates, two men and a woman, get married as a tax strategy and then get a cheap quickie divorce when one or more needs to move? There is no logical argument against Polygamy once you open these doors.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-17-13 3:34 PM

Sisyphus: Then, using your argument, the solution should be that the benefits and programs for which there is a marriage requirement should either be ended or the marriage requirement removed in order to establish equality. That seems to be your logic. If this is not a religious or moral argument, why do so many people opposed to the legalization of same-sex unions quote scripture? I don't see Catholic priests weighing in on the tax code in other situations.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sisyphus

Jul-17-13 3:43 PM

By the way, 25or624, I fail to understand your statement that gays and lesbians weren't being treated as equal members of society. They couldn't check a particular box on a tax return, but that is most certainly NOT a right. I happen to be single right now; does that mean that I am being discriminated against because I don't get the same tax treatment as a married couple? And GaryPayton, your rants against Father Neff are shameful. I don't know Father Neff, and I am not Catholic, but Father Neff, like everyone else in this country, has a right to his individual opinion and has a right to express that opinion. He has as much "authority" as you to express his personal opinions. I don't happen to agree with Father Neff, but attacking him personally is reprehensible.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-17-13 3:47 PM

I would agree that it is a fraud for anyone to be married for the sole purpose of economic gain, including one man and one woman. In that respect, I would argue that the same-sex couples I know who have been in long-term committed relationships despite the lack of those tax benefits you mention have relationships even stronger that some heterosexual couples I know who DO receive those benefits.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sisyphus

Jul-17-13 3:51 PM

Quiensabe: In my opinion, the "religious" approach is nothing but a sham created by the gay and lesbian crowd to detract from their true agenda, which is an economic agenda. There has been little discourse about how much this "equality" is going to cost us. And you are correct about our logic except for one thing. No one ever guaranteed you that all people would be treated equally under the tax code or in many other ways. Why should blind people get a special tax deduction? Why do woman and minority owned businesses get preferred treatment in government contracts? It's not about equal, it's about money. The tax code is used as a tool to encourage some behavior and discourage other behavior, i.e. marriage good - tax break; gas guzzler bad - tax increase; giving to charity good - tax break; cigarettes bad - huge tax burden. I don't agree with it, but we are most certainly not equal when it comes to taxes and special benefits.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sisyphus

Jul-17-13 3:52 PM

I meant "my logic" and I should be careful to say that I think the "religious strategy" by gays and lesbians was brilliant. I am not opposed to gay marriage, I am opposed to dishonest arguments.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-17-13 4:12 PM

Really? I believe the religious arguments are pretty one-sided. And, for Fr. Neff to contend that his commentary is secular is simply ridiculous, though I don't resent him saying it as garypayton does. Stonewall is pretty sure the world is coming to and end (via the Book of Daniel), and hassie has her eye on the gates of*****(Matthew 7:13).

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 52 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web