Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Pelly on June 27, 2013, 03:02:27 PM

Title: Oh no...
Post by: Pelly on June 27, 2013, 03:02:27 PM
It seems like that DOMA is repealed.
This is bad news for those living in America. What comes next?
Title: Oh no...
Post by: Matto on June 27, 2013, 03:26:30 PM
Quote from: Pelly
What comes next?

Legalized pedophilia.
Title: Oh no...
Post by: d15 on June 27, 2013, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Pelly
What comes next?

Legalized pedophilia.


That may be down the road, but I think legalized polygamy is next.
Title: Oh no...
Post by: Frances on June 27, 2013, 09:06:58 PM
1.  A Constitutional Amendment legalizing "gαy" marriage.
2.  Polygamy
3.  Forced abortion and sterilization
4.  Polyandry
5. Group marriages of all genders
6.  Pedophilia including "marriages"
7.  Beastiality including "marriages"


Title: Oh no...
Post by: Tiffany on June 27, 2013, 10:00:34 PM
Polygamy won't be legal here. The whole FLDS case was done to force the men into admitting bigamy.
Title: Oh no...
Post by: poche on June 30, 2013, 03:14:03 AM
Here is ome on the overturning of DOMA;

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed an appeal of California’s Proposition 8 on grounds of standing. But what does this mean? What are the implications of the court decisions? Here’s the good, the bad and the ugly from today’s rulings:

The Good:
The court did not claim to have discovered a fundamental “right” to marry. If it had done so, it could have imposed a redefinition of marriage on the entire country, forcing widespread recognition of “gαy marriage.” Instead, the court chose to issue a more limited ruling, saying in its DOMA decision that the states are free to define marriage as they see fit, but if they choose to recognize same-sex “marriage,” the federal government must acknowledge these “marriages” alongside the marriages of one man and one woman. States are still free to hold a view of marriage as one man, one woman if they choose to do so. This is a silver lining on a court decision that could have been absolutely devastating.

The Bad:
Overturning DOMA means that the federal government will recognize “gαy marriage” in the states that allow it. This will affect more than 1,000 regulations and legal provisions, and could have a sweeping impact on both the legal and cultural understanding of what marriage is. And by dismissing Prop 8, the court is allowing a lower ruling to stand, paving the way for “gαy marriage” in California. In addition, since the federal government must acknowledge all state-recognized marriages, there will be increased pressure on the states to redefine marriage.

The Ugly:
The majority opinion in DOMA makes the claim that those who support the law do so in order to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean” and “humiliate” gαy individuals. This is very bad news for those who defend marriage not out of animus or hatred but because they believe that marriage is rooted in divine and natural law and is not ours to redefine. As Justice Scalia explained in a scathing dissent, the court today has declared those who oppose a redefinition of marriage to be “enemies of the human race.” Supporters of marriage as it has been understood by virtually every society throughout human history need to be prepared for social persecution, since even the nation’s high court now assumes that defending marriage is based on hatred and bigotry rather than a natural understanding of the sacred purpose of human sɛҳuąƖity. Defenders of marriage may find that their rights to voice their beliefs and live according to them are quickly eroding after this court decision.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/understanding-the-gαy-marriage-ruling/
Title: Oh no...
Post by: alaric on June 30, 2013, 09:24:26 AM
Quote from: Tiffany
Polygamy won't be legal here. The whole FLDS case was done to force the men into admitting bigamy.
Nah, we just have Adultery.

I like the way women are so critical of men having multiple wives, yet they have no problem with a country full of whores bedding down and breeding with muliple men creating a nation of bastards that would make the worst thrid world craphole blush with embarrassment.

Yea, men lying with men no problem, but multiple wives. heaven forbid! :rolleyes:

(Actually heaven didn't forbid, read you O.T.)
Title: Oh no...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 30, 2013, 11:31:47 AM
Quote from: alaric
Nah, we just have Adultery.

I like the way women are so critical of men having multiple wives, yet they have no problem with a country full of whores bedding down and breeding with muliple men creating a nation of bastards that would make the worst thrid world craphole blush with embarrassment.

Yea, men lying with men no problem, but multiple wives. heaven forbid! :rolleyes:

(Actually heaven didn't forbid, read you O.T.)


alaric for the record I am one of the strongest critics of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, but from a Christian standpoint marriage is between one man and one woman so we must reject the Muslim value of polygamy.

Make no mistake however in Europe right now Arabs, Africans, and Turks are taking over in hordes.

Title: Oh no...
Post by: parentsfortruth on June 30, 2013, 01:40:53 PM
You know what'll come next? A flood of immigrants. A bunch of people that want US citizenship... maybe businessmen that "marry" a guy, and bring him over here so he can get benefits too. They won't really even be interested in each other, it'll be a business transaction.

Essentially though, this has been left up to the states to decide. The Supreme Court didn't give gαys a right to marry. Only gave the residents of states that extend gαy marriage to gαys the right to receive benefits for their "partner."

As far as the California case, the Californians that were supposed to be defending their law, didn't, and a third party group stepped in. The Supreme Court said, "No you can't do that, only the state can plead the case." They didn't decide either way on that case, just that the people bringing forward the suit didn't have a basis, and only the state could be the plaintiff.

So really they didn't decide anything, other than the states that already have "gαy marriage" must have the federal government extend their benefits to their partners.