If you're referring to the "+1," it means I agree with what he said.

I'm not surprised at this. After all, Mary Cheney was raised in an extremely liberal, atheistic household, in which the gay agenda was mercilessly promoted, and which espoused the destructiion of traditional marriage:

CNN) – Mary Cheney, the daughter of Dick Cheney, married her longtime partner Heather Poe Friday, according to a statement from the former vice president's office.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/22/report-mary-cheney-marries-partner/?hpt=hp_t2

This is actually a point to really knock Cheney himself on. He's to the right of Attila the Hun on just about everything. But, because his daughter is gay, that's the one issue he takes a liberal stance on? It shoots a giant hole in his credibility and just gives ammo to the pro-gay agenda.

A politician who's a hypocrite? Say it ain't so .

But all kidding aside, you're right. Cheney looks terribly inconsistent here. Because as you said, the guy is basically to the right of Attila the Hun.

By ETHAN BRONNER updated 6/23/2012 3:52:15 AM ET 2012-06-23T07:52:15

David Blankenhorn, a national figure in the movement against same-sex marriage, has recanted his opposition, saying “the time has come for me to accept gay marriage and emphasize the good that it can do.”

Mr. Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, wrote an influential book that argued against same-sex marriage in 2007, called “The Future of Marriage,” and served as an expert witness against the constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which limited marriage to heterosexuals.

On Friday, he said in an opinion article for The New York Times, published online, and in an interview on NPR that his concerns about same-sex marriage remained, but that “the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47930211/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

Okay TIS and Babe, start typing:

Bisexuality is real, and most straight women are basically lesbians, according to a study by Cornell University. Their research measured the dilation of individuals’ pupils while watching porn to establish the subject's sexual preference. As you would expect, straight men’s pupils dilated more to images of women in states of arousal. Bisexual men responded to both, as did supposedly heterosexual women. "We can now finally argue that a flexible sexual desire is not simply restricted to women — some men have it, too, and it is reflected in their pupils," co-author, Ritch C. Savin-Williams concluded. Guess those "art films" had it right all along.

What an absolute crock of shit. Now I'm as open-minded as the next guy, and I support civil unions and courthouse marriages for gays. But this is ridiculous.

It's nothing but Far Left college campus propaganda. They won't be happy until they get it in writing that everyone is bisexual. If they were truly comfortable in their own skin, they wouldn't feel the need to make everyone else gay, too .

Silly, stupid and without basis.

The pupils are the windows to the soul ... and body parts.

I agree with you 100%, pizzaboy.

By the way, did anyone ever tell you how sexy you are when you're angry?

Just you, sweety .

Check his pupils! Check his pupils!

Ha ha ha ha LOL You guys are hilarious.


TIS

My pupils are in a frenzy!

Maybe the priest was too busy ogling the altar boy.

Unfortunately this woman did not know of her options at the time. The Roman Catholic Church does not like to admit it, but there are other Catholic denominations (i.e. the Ecumenical Catholic Church, the Liberal Catholic Church, the Old Catholic Church) with entirely valid sacraments and in some cases even open communion for all those who wish to partake of it. Most of them will also give the Sacrament of Matrimony to any couple regardless of gender, and in areas where this is not legal they will perform same-sex blessing ceremonies.

Those offshoots aren't recognized by the Vatican. In the eyes of Rome, they may as well be Scientologists.

Yes, they are independent of Rome, but the point I was trying to make is that there are other forms of Catholic worship outside of the most popular Roman Catholic denomination.

http://www.oldcatholic.org/roman_church_views.htm

Or, maybe more appropriately, some Protestant denomination. I mean, if they want to go off and do their own thing so they can give gay people Communion, that's one thing. But they can't call themselves Catholic.

[quote=dontomasso]Maybe the priest was too busy ogling the altar boy. [/quote

And it's just the new posters who spew hate! Here is a sign of a mature sophisticated adult!

You know, if you peruse Leviticus, Romans, etc. in the Bible you will find quite a few passages that inveigh against homosexual practices between or with men, but hardly any references to such between or with women.

The Bible's stance on homosexuality, whoever is involved, is obvious.

However inappropriately the priest may have handled the situation in front of a grieving family, the Church's stance is clear on this. The woman should not have been able to receive Communion. That said, I've been to plenty of weddings and funerals and I've seen plenty of people receive who, according to Church doctrine, should not. Not once have I ever seen a priest refuse someone.

So do you believe that any Catholic who isn't in the "state of grace" should be denied communion, or just gays?

Whether one believes in the administration of communion or not, Catholic Canon dictates when it should be administered and when it should not be. A priest who administers communion to a recipient whose state is not in compliance with the Canon participates in the Canon's violation and also bears the sin and consequences of that action.

This only applies if there is public knowledge or priest is certain. Priests don't have esp, so it's up to the recipient to have their heart right.

So if someone who isn't in the state of grace and quite comfortable with not being in the state of grace goes to a relative's burial ceremony, what's the proper thing to do? Not going forward to receive communion? Isn't that douchy?

Maybe the priest was distracted by the altar boy.

All this anger toward priests must come from somewhere? And as I said above your always accusing the "new members" of immature and conversations above thier heads! To talk down about an entire group of men when a small portion of that group has made them look bad is about as classless as it gets!

And nothing for nothing DT your always posting like your the smartest guy in the room with this self perceived great insight and critical thinking. And that's all well and good, however a post like this shows your deep hypocritical thinking and like I said it must come from something? To give all these other vagrants a pass and to dump on priests with your cheap shots every chance you get is telling!

That's exactly what you're supposed to do - not go to the altar to receive. However, in the past, when the priest was saying prayers at the funeral home the night before the mass, he would also offer a group absolution to those in attendance so that everyone could receive Communion at the mass the next day. I guess they don't do that anymore??