Home » Uncategorized » PROP 8 VS SCOTUS



Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,680 other followers


  • RT @arochoju: "This humble Capuchin friar astonished the world with his whole life dedicated to prayer and patient listening to his brother… 3 hours ago
  • RT @Cindy_Wooden: Saying it acted only out of discretion, not to censure Pope Benedict, Vatican Secretariat for Communication finally relea… 3 hours ago
  • @NatureNews Maybe because science contradicts their claims. 5 hours ago
  • RT @EdwardPentin: #Vatican has now released the full contents of Benedict XVI's letter to +Vigano, saying there was no intention to censor… 5 hours ago
  • RT @austeni: Anti-abortion declaration by Buenos Aires slum priests gives a much-needed example of the integral Gospel of Life. https://t.c… 5 hours ago

Blog Stats

  • 87,427 hits
March 2013
« Feb   Apr »

Today the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States) is hearing the case for and against so-called “gay marriage.”  This is an important issue in American and in human society as a whole. 

The undoing of society can take place with much ease and with the “blessing” of the court.  It is a scary moment indeed. 

The family is the cell of society.  Without the family, society will collapse.  Families have changed throughout time do to different circumstances; however, the natural core family unit is that of mother, father and child.  A father is of course the male and the mother is the female. 

I have to make this clear because in today’s world, errors such as “gender theory” attempt to erase gender in the human species.  We somehow “decide” whether we are male or female despite having the genotype dictating sex via the chromosomes XX and XY.  XX for female and XY for male. Some might mention other variations and claim that “male” and “female” are not the only genders; however, they forget to mention that these are genetic abnormalities.  

History shows that societies that have accommodated homosexuality did not last long.    

I will update this post as more information comes though.



  1. Carnun says:

    “History shows that societies that have accommodated homosexuality did not last long.” – care to give examples*?

    *And don’t forget to show a complete causal link between the two. Coincidence, if even that, won’t do.

    • Sacerdotus says:

      Greece, Rome are examples.

      • Carnun says:

        And where is the causal link between homosexuality those empires ‘not lasting long’? These examples were great empires and world powers – their ‘downfall’ only coming about because of other world powers and vast social change. Plus, they each lasted many hundreds of years, and as empires go, they were among the largest and most powerful.

        Try again.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        As Roman society accepted homosexuality as a norm, its moral fabric began to deteriorate. Once this happens, the family is weakened and without families no society can exist. This eventually led to the Catholic Church replacing Rome as the dominant empire. To date, the Catholic Church has lasted over 2,000 years without armies or any weapons. I invite you to study the history of Rome and see the causal link when homosexuality ran rampant and the fall of the empire.

      • Carnun says:

        I invite you to study the history of Rome too. It’s frankly silly that you put the decline of an entire empire down to false Catholic notions that homosexuality is in any way hostile to ‘the family’, there was much more at play than you assert.

        Start here, then some actual books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

      • Sacerdotus says:

        Have you heard of the “ripple effect?”

      • Carnun says:

        Yes. Have you heard of ‘evidence’?

      • Sacerdotus says:

        Yes, that is why I gave an example. Pay attention.

      • Carnun says:

        I am paying attention. You produced a baseless speculative assertion, not solid evidence.

        Anecdotes and personal opinions are not good enough.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        If you consider Greek and Roman history mere assertion and anecdote, then what will convince you? First rid yourself of the mental filters.

      • Carnun says:

        No, I consider your personal take on Greek and Roman history mere anecdote and assertion.

        Evidence will convince me, not just extraordinary claims that you know the single factor responsible for the dismantling of entire empires over many centuries (and with the ‘factor’ itself just so happening to be something you are pre-programmed to oppose).

        My only mental filters are bullshit detectors, and right now they’re screaming at me.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        Well an in depth study of history will show you that these ancient civilizations collapsed due to a break down in society.

      • Carnun says:

        Needless to say, I don’t agree. For one, a truly in-depth study of the Bible will show anyone humble enough just how much of a man-made, contradictory, immoral mess it is – and if you really practised the level of literary study you preached you’d see this, and we’d not be having this ‘discussion’.

        What I mean is, ‘in-depth’, in this case, certainly does not mean ‘in-depth’ – it means cherry-picking to fit with previous biases.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        Until you remove the filter of presentism, you will fall for all kinds of fallacious interpretations of not only the Bible, but history in general.

      • Carnun says:

        I fail to see how coming at the texts for what they are – books – acts as a “filter of presentism”, but I have a feeling you disagree.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        Do you know what presentism is and mental filters?

      • Carnun says:

        Yes. But it couldn’t hurt for you to clarify what you mean by them.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        What exactly don’t you get from the terms?

      • Carnun says:

        You either don’t understand what I’m saying, or are purposefully dodging the question.

        To accommodate for the possibility of the first one: I know what the terms mean, but I do not know what you think they mean. That is what I wish to know. Can I have your definition of them please?

      • Sacerdotus says:

        No, I do not. Unfortunately you do not present coherent statements so I am left to decipher what exactly it is that you’re trying to convey. Presentism is interpreting the past via knowledge, experiences of the present. A mental filter is what we use to block out information that we may find uncomfortable or do not want to process.

      • Carnun says:

        Ha. Don’t I “present coherent statements”? That made me giggle…

        Anyway, I’m glad you took the time to laboriously decipher my last comment and give me a straight answer – it’s really reinforced a presumption I was toying with about you (namely that you’re a massive hypocrite).

        Your take on history is a very good example of interpreting the past through your own biased, opinionated take on the present, and, well, being a Catholic, mental filters are a trick of the trade, no?

      • Sacerdotus says:

        Back your talk up with examples.

      • Carnun says:

        Oh, the irony.

        “Your take on history is a very good example of interpreting the past through your own biased, opinionated take on the present” speaks for itself, and your specific ‘mental filter’ is your faith. Speak to the many ex-believers of various religions, and you’ll find that many of them got to where they are through a realisation of this (perhaps unknowing) intellectual dishonesty.

        Put simply, without mental filters in place, it’s impossible to square off a Catholic world-view (or any other specific religious faith) with the evidence of reality.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        All I have been presenting to you IS reality. Where have I quoted Catholicism?

      • Carnun says:

        Your reality. Not reality’s.

        You haven’t. But your homophobia has it’s roots in your Catholicism. (Or you were drawn to it as a means of ‘rationalising’ your homophobia, I don’t know.)

      • Carnun says:

        Forgive me: *their (perhaps unknowing) intellectual dishonesty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: