Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Capitalize "Catholic Church"?
When people say the "Catholic Church", should the two words be capitalized? Yes. Very often in the media, I see people write "The Catholic church", but I would argue this is incorrect. "Catholic Church" is a single entity and it is a proper name. Catholic is not an adjective describing one particular church. Rather, the whole term signifies one entity.
The only time "Catholic church" could be legitimately used is in reference to a solitary church building. For example, "The Catholic church down the street". I think sometimes this error is made out of ignorance, but other times I think it is a subtle jab at the Church, a way of diminishing it somehow. You'll notice I wrote "the Church", because again, it is referring to a specific entity, a proper noun.
If you know a lot about grammar, and would like to challenge what I've written here, feel free. This is not iron-clad, but I think I am correct.
The only time "Catholic church" could be legitimately used is in reference to a solitary church building. For example, "The Catholic church down the street". I think sometimes this error is made out of ignorance, but other times I think it is a subtle jab at the Church, a way of diminishing it somehow. You'll notice I wrote "the Church", because again, it is referring to a specific entity, a proper noun.
If you know a lot about grammar, and would like to challenge what I've written here, feel free. This is not iron-clad, but I think I am correct.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
George Stroumboulopoulos is WRONG about gay marriage
Tonight, May 10, 2011, for a second night in a row, George Stroumboulopoulos began his eponymous show by promoting gay marriage. He could hardly contain his enthusiasm for Sean Avery`s public service announcement in favour of homosexual marriage.
Well tonight, an NHL players agent Todd Reynolds, vice-president of Uptown Sports, rebuked Avery by saying:
George was furious. He went on a tirade about equality and how Reynolds in fact is a bigot. He said he is fine with freedom of speech but some people are just plain wrong! George wondered aloud where this players agent got his moral code. "The Bible?", asked George. He then went on about how the Church is not in charge of marriage, the legal system is, and who, asks George, is the legal system? Well, we are of course!
First of all, George is absolutely an unequivocally wrong about gay marriage. Secondly, his show is becoming a real drag when every episode he's either promoting gay marriage or bashing religion. He has very little class.
So let's get into it. Kids have a natural right to be raised by their parents. The state believes this right to be so strong that it creates unions which are strong and long-lasting. The main purpose of marriage is for any potential children. It's not because the state is somehow recognizing that two people love each other.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with gay rights or treating gays fairly or equally because the state really doesn't give a darn how anyone feels about anyone else. Two people who don't even love each other are legally allowed to marry.
Nowadays everyone is so concerned about their own personal rights that it must trump any other rights, even those of children. Children are mere accessories to fit people's lifestyles.
Marriage has a definition. People need to stop and think about that. Well, if it has a definition, what is it? My definition is the union of a man and a woman which is inherently procreative.
So, what would the new defintion change to? Perhaps two people who want to get married. Any two people. Well, this would have to include father-daughter marriages if they are consenting adults, or sibling marriages. We have to keep religion and morals out of the equation of course, so no one would be allowed to object to either of these scenarios.
But why limit it to two individuals. Why not polygamy? Maybe 5 people, 10? The sky's the limit. Once morality is gone from the equation, as well as rights of children, as well as any form of basic definition, polygamy is not only possibly legal, it MUST become legal.
So then every type of union would have to be recognized as valid. By doing so, marriage would lose all meaning. The state would have no need to recognize such unions since anything goes. It would be of absolutely no benefit to the state to recognize any and every relationship.
As I said, the state recognizes certain unions are marriages because it is best for the children. Of course, that's far from anyone's mind, especially George Stroumboulopoulos. To them it's all about gay rights. No one ever says it is a matter of children's rights.
Any children in a gay family don't have either a maternal or paternal influence as the case may be. That puts children at risk. If gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage then it is equally legitimate for a child to be raised by a parent and a same-sex partner as it is for a child to be raised by his biological parents.
There are other reasons too. Gay marriages are inherently infertile. They can never produce a child. Therefore immoral activities like IVF, embryo destruction, and other such methods must be used satisfy the desires of these couples.
Once again, people are terrible at distinction. Gay marriage proponents would have us believe that gay marriage is somehow about human rights. It isn't. It's about destroying traditional marriage.
It also has other negative effects. For example, EVERYONE is forced to not only allow but accept gay marriage. Dissent is not tolerated. Adoption agencies, run by religious groups, are FORCED to shut down because they will not adopt to gay couples. Therefore thousands of children do not go to good homes. OH WELL. At least the gay agenda is being catered to.
Or how about religious organizations being FORCED to rent out their halls and venues for gay couples and gay marriages, even though it violates their morals.
The list goes on.
Don't be fooled. The issue of gay marriage affects everyone. People are not allowed to even have a differing point of view on the matter. They must conform to a new morality which emerged less than 20 years ago. Those who don't are punished.
George Stroumboulopoulos STOP using your show as a platform to spew your hatred of morality and religious institutions. You advocate freedom, yet you cannot bare to have anyone express an opinion which differs from your own. Imagine if there was a show bashing non-religious people or opposing gay marriage. It would be hauled before the stupidly-named human rights tribunal before someone could pronounce your last name.
Well tonight, an NHL players agent Todd Reynolds, vice-president of Uptown Sports, rebuked Avery by saying:
"Very sad to read Sean Avery's misguided support of same-gender 'marriage.' Legal or not, it will always be wrong,"
He tweeted again saying: "To clarify. This is not hatred or bigotry towards gays. It is not intolerance in any way shape or form. I believe we are all equal."
George was furious. He went on a tirade about equality and how Reynolds in fact is a bigot. He said he is fine with freedom of speech but some people are just plain wrong! George wondered aloud where this players agent got his moral code. "The Bible?", asked George. He then went on about how the Church is not in charge of marriage, the legal system is, and who, asks George, is the legal system? Well, we are of course!
First of all, George is absolutely an unequivocally wrong about gay marriage. Secondly, his show is becoming a real drag when every episode he's either promoting gay marriage or bashing religion. He has very little class.
So let's get into it. Kids have a natural right to be raised by their parents. The state believes this right to be so strong that it creates unions which are strong and long-lasting. The main purpose of marriage is for any potential children. It's not because the state is somehow recognizing that two people love each other.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with gay rights or treating gays fairly or equally because the state really doesn't give a darn how anyone feels about anyone else. Two people who don't even love each other are legally allowed to marry.
Nowadays everyone is so concerned about their own personal rights that it must trump any other rights, even those of children. Children are mere accessories to fit people's lifestyles.
Marriage has a definition. People need to stop and think about that. Well, if it has a definition, what is it? My definition is the union of a man and a woman which is inherently procreative.
So, what would the new defintion change to? Perhaps two people who want to get married. Any two people. Well, this would have to include father-daughter marriages if they are consenting adults, or sibling marriages. We have to keep religion and morals out of the equation of course, so no one would be allowed to object to either of these scenarios.
But why limit it to two individuals. Why not polygamy? Maybe 5 people, 10? The sky's the limit. Once morality is gone from the equation, as well as rights of children, as well as any form of basic definition, polygamy is not only possibly legal, it MUST become legal.
So then every type of union would have to be recognized as valid. By doing so, marriage would lose all meaning. The state would have no need to recognize such unions since anything goes. It would be of absolutely no benefit to the state to recognize any and every relationship.
As I said, the state recognizes certain unions are marriages because it is best for the children. Of course, that's far from anyone's mind, especially George Stroumboulopoulos. To them it's all about gay rights. No one ever says it is a matter of children's rights.
Any children in a gay family don't have either a maternal or paternal influence as the case may be. That puts children at risk. If gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage then it is equally legitimate for a child to be raised by a parent and a same-sex partner as it is for a child to be raised by his biological parents.
There are other reasons too. Gay marriages are inherently infertile. They can never produce a child. Therefore immoral activities like IVF, embryo destruction, and other such methods must be used satisfy the desires of these couples.
Once again, people are terrible at distinction. Gay marriage proponents would have us believe that gay marriage is somehow about human rights. It isn't. It's about destroying traditional marriage.
It also has other negative effects. For example, EVERYONE is forced to not only allow but accept gay marriage. Dissent is not tolerated. Adoption agencies, run by religious groups, are FORCED to shut down because they will not adopt to gay couples. Therefore thousands of children do not go to good homes. OH WELL. At least the gay agenda is being catered to.
Or how about religious organizations being FORCED to rent out their halls and venues for gay couples and gay marriages, even though it violates their morals.
The list goes on.
Don't be fooled. The issue of gay marriage affects everyone. People are not allowed to even have a differing point of view on the matter. They must conform to a new morality which emerged less than 20 years ago. Those who don't are punished.
George Stroumboulopoulos STOP using your show as a platform to spew your hatred of morality and religious institutions. You advocate freedom, yet you cannot bare to have anyone express an opinion which differs from your own. Imagine if there was a show bashing non-religious people or opposing gay marriage. It would be hauled before the stupidly-named human rights tribunal before someone could pronounce your last name.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
No appeal over anti-Catholic, pro-gay adoption San Francisco resolution: U.S. Supreme Court
Everyone keeps saying that gay marriage won't affect anyone else, so why care? Well, once again here is another example of gay marriage affects lots of people. Not only are Catholic organizations forbidden from adopting to only heterosexual couples, the city can pass an official resolution condemning the Church for not doing so, and get away with it with impunity. Don't try to say gay marriage doesn't affect others.
Article here
Article here
Monday, May 09, 2011
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Kresta In The Afternoon: Just-war scholars: Killing of bin Laden justified
Kresta In The Afternoon: Just-war scholars: Killing of bin Laden justified: "by JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND The term “just-war doctrine” never surfaced in President Obama’s announcement Sunday night that U.S. forces had k..."
Is It Morally Okay to Rejoice in Osama bin Laden's Death?
This is a video by Fr. Frank Pavone. He seems to come from a similar point of view as me. You can read my article on this issue here.
Quebec Cardinal could be next pope: analyst
This is very exciting news. I saw Cardinal Ouellet speaking at the Eucharistic Congress in 2008.
Article here.
Article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)