- that such an attitude has no consequences for the freedom of Catholics and Christians; - that there is no essential connection between "gay marriage" and the restriction of Church rights; that it does not affect the freedom of Christians; that it is only a few misguided "activists" who are assaulting the freedom of thought and belief, and not the whole tendency of the legislation; This was the main point of my comment, rather than an assumption hidden between the lines. I honestly do not see this connection. I'm prepared to admit I was wrong about this if you prove to me that it exists.
- that it is not intended to restrict and challenge the Church, to deny its values and implicitly challenge its action in the world; and this in spite of the fact that the only common feature of, in particular, mr.Zapatero's confused and incompetent governmental action is anti-Catholicism; If by "in the world" you mean in the outside world, as opposed to inside Church matters, then no, I do not assume this. I see that it does challenge the actions of the Church in the world.
- That it is not built on a pack of lies (as in Mr.Zapatero's government taking the Kinsey Report seriously); I made no assumption about this.
- That the bishop of Calgary was teaching Church doctrine rather than, as he was obviously doing, retailing a viewpoing on law and the application of law that was until recently common to all legislatures, and if anything more severe in non-Catholic ones (such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia); - That he had no right to evoke such a legal view; No, I did not assume this. I understood that he was evoking a legal view. What I said is that he was the one trying to restrict the freedom of others and not the one whose freedom was in danger.
- That the unfettered freedom of homosesuals to act as they please has no consequences for the rest of society; No. I don't believe that anyone has the right to "act as they please", and I don't see how you could have seen that in my comment or even between the lines. I believe that everyone should have the freedom to act as they please as long as it doesn't affect the freedom of others.
- that there is such a thing as "gay marriage"; True, I do assume that.
- that it is not an imitation of the real thing; No. I think it is an imitation of heterosexual marriage, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
- that marriage in general is about sexual relationships; I don't understand how you could have read that in my comment.
- that the nature of marriage can be changed to suit the political convenience of a bunch of crooks in Ottawa or of some ignorant, provincial morons in Madrid. Yes, I do assume that the nature of marriage can be changed. Not because of the crooks and morons, but because of changes in society.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 06:20 pm (UTC)- that such an attitude has no consequences for the freedom of Catholics and Christians;
- that there is no essential connection between "gay marriage" and the restriction of Church rights; that it does not affect the freedom of Christians; that it is only a few misguided "activists" who are assaulting the freedom of thought and belief, and not the whole tendency of the legislation;
This was the main point of my comment, rather than an assumption hidden between the lines. I honestly do not see this connection. I'm prepared to admit I was wrong about this if you prove to me that it exists.
- that it is not intended to restrict and challenge the Church, to deny its values and implicitly challenge its action in the world; and this in spite of the fact that the only common feature of, in particular, mr.Zapatero's confused and incompetent governmental action is anti-Catholicism;
If by "in the world" you mean in the outside world, as opposed to inside Church matters, then no, I do not assume this. I see that it does challenge the actions of the Church in the world.
- That it is not built on a pack of lies (as in Mr.Zapatero's government taking the Kinsey Report seriously);
I made no assumption about this.
- That the bishop of Calgary was teaching Church doctrine rather than, as he was obviously doing, retailing a viewpoing on law and the application of law that was until recently common to all legislatures, and if anything more severe in non-Catholic ones (such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia);
- That he had no right to evoke such a legal view;
No, I did not assume this. I understood that he was evoking a legal view. What I said is that he was the one trying to restrict the freedom of others and not the one whose freedom was in danger.
- That the unfettered freedom of homosesuals to act as they please has no consequences for the rest of society;
No. I don't believe that anyone has the right to "act as they please", and I don't see how you could have seen that in my comment or even between the lines. I believe that everyone should have the freedom to act as they please as long as it doesn't affect the freedom of others.
- that there is such a thing as "gay marriage";
True, I do assume that.
- that it is not an imitation of the real thing;
No. I think it is an imitation of heterosexual marriage, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
- that marriage in general is about sexual relationships;
I don't understand how you could have read that in my comment.
- that the nature of marriage can be changed to suit the political convenience of a bunch of crooks in Ottawa or of some ignorant, provincial morons in Madrid.
Yes, I do assume that the nature of marriage can be changed. Not because of the crooks and morons, but because of changes in society.