About "gay marriage"

[fpb]

The Canadian government is, without a doubt, the most corrupt and dishonest of all current governments in major industrial countries: and bear in mind that when you are competing against Bush, Berlusconi, Chirac, and Blair, that is one Hell of a title to have. But as an Italian citizen in my forties, I thought I had seen the height of corruption and dishonesty in the Craxi age - and Paul Martin's bunch of bandits have the late Mr.Craxi totally whomped. For one thing, there is the purchase of representatives. I had heard of such things going on in the Pakistani Parliament - till they passed a law forbidding members of Parliament from changing parties - but it had never even occurred to me that it might happen in a non-banana-republic state, and certainly no Italian politician had ever offered another money or inducements to switch parties. But Paul Martin's bandits have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, doing precisely that, at least once, and the evidence is overwhelming that they did it at least another time. Compared to this, which makes a mockery of elected government, even their notorious financial scandals become a comparatively minor matter.

Paul Martin and his party of gangsters should have been in jail long ago. Instead, they govern a major Western country - something they have in common with Chirac and Berlusconi, who both rose to the highest office of State as an alternative to going to jail. They are supported by a corrupt Press and by an utterly degraded CBC - a corporation that makes the BBC look like a model of objectivity and openness. And it is from this lofty moral perch that they have imposed "gay marriage" upon the country.

Comments

[agatha-s.livejournal.com]

I'm a little amused by the fact that your list of false assumptions in my comment is longer than the comment itself, and you say that there is more! But I do not assume some of these things, and I'm pretty sure that my words shouldn't have led you to believe that I do.

- That there is some kind of universal validity to so-called gay marriage;
I'll pass on this one, because I'm not sure what you mean by universal validity.

- That the Catholic view of the sexes is singular to the Catholic Church and irrelevant to anyone else;
- that the Catholic view of the sexes has nothing to say (e.g. in its assumption of the complementarity of the sexes and of the need of both to total humanity) to anyone who is not Catholic;
I do not assume this. It might be in the interest of other people to learn about this view and to accept it. But I do believe, very strongly, that they shouldn't be obligated to do so.

- and that therefore you can refuse to listen to any challenge from us or find an answer; you just have to say that that is the Catholic viewpoint and you have immediately invalided it;
No. Not invalidated it, just pointed out that non-Catholics are free to think otherwise.
If I really had this kind of contempt for the Catholic viewpoint I wouldn't have started this conversation with you. I really am interested in what you have to say.

- that such an attitude does not deprive Catholics of any right to be heard by anyone who is not a Catholic;
What is the "right to be heard"? If it's the same thing as freedom of speech, I don't think Catholics are deprived of it by an attitude such as mine.