Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[edwest2]

I’m pretty sure the fact that homosexuals can marry now isn’t going to cut down on the numbers of heterosexuals reproducing. And you can’t make sure they are raised by the 2 people responsible for bringing them into this world. Plenty of people have not been.

That’s a diversion. The issue is the Church will continue to repeat the truth about marriage.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

No but the mental damage that these “couples” bring upon the children they harm (gov allowed adoption, or worse means) will damage society.

What the Church tells us:

"As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

Ed

 

[FollowChrist34]

Personally, I don’t see what’s wrong with polygamy, at least not from a religious point of view. Not only does it exist in Islam, but it’s all over the Old Testament. Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah (Samuel’s father), David and Solomon all had more than one wife. Solomon had 700 wives. There is no evidence from the Old Testament that God found anything wrong with polygamy.

There is homosexuality practiced in Sodom; does God approve? He is a little less ambiguous there I would argue, wouldn’t you? The Bible is a little rough on gays…and what about Islam and homosexuality?

Why should we accept God’s word on polygamy but not homosexuality?

As for polygamy, it has indeed existed in Christianity in pockets throughout history and does appear in the Bible. It is allowed in the Old Testament by God, not condoned or commanded, and eventually disappears. Mainstream Christianity has consistently rejected it, without exception. I think a good parallel here is slavery, which is also allowed by God in the Old Testament, is it not?

Monogamous relationships between men and women have best served the needs of humanity as far back as we go:

The experience of the race, particularly in its movement toward and its progress in civilization, has approved monogamy for the simple reason that monogamy is in harmony with the essential and immutable elements of human nature. Taking the word natural in its full sense, we may unhesitatingly affirm that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. While promiscuity responds to certain elemental passions and temporarily satisfies certain superficial wants, it contradicts the parental instinct, the welfare of children and of the race, and the overpowering forces of jealousy and individual preference in both men and women. While polyandry satisfied in some measure the temporary and exceptional wants arising from scarcity of food or scarcity of women, it finds an insuperable barrier in male jealousy, in the male sense of proprietorship, and is directly opposed to the welfare of the wife, and fatal to the fecundity of the race. While polygamy has prevailed among so many peoples and over so long a period of history as to suggest that it is in some sense natural, and while it does seem to furnish a means of satisfying the stronger and more frequently recurring desires of the male, it conflicts with the numerical equality of the sexes, with the jealousy, sense of proprietorship, equality, dignity and general welfare of the wife, and with the best interests of the offspring.

newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

 

[Lion_IRC]

No, I recall very well that you claim that even modern day Native Americans are ‘uncivilised savages’, I just don’t agree that this justifies dismissing their religion or culture.

Nice to see an atheist standing up for religion and the culture of religious societies.

Now DrTaffy, is it OK for the democratic majority in countries with Judeo-Christian (or Islamic) cultural values, to enact laws that favor gender-balanced marriage and nuclear families?

 

[edwest2]

The genetic claim is a total canard. Animal breeders routinely use in breeding or line breeding to cement certain characteristics. You can look at a four generation pedigree and see only two or three unique individuals. Currently there are only five major sire lines in horse racing and with cattle, sheep and other livestock the inbreeding is even closer. A father siring children from his daughter, brothers and sisters having children together is certainly not going to result in an explosion of genetic defects. Further many of them are simple recessives so completely unrelated persons carrying the gene can have a child with a very serious genetic disease.

It’s a social taboo, not a genetic taboo.

Prohibition against incest long predated knowledge of genetics and in fact was ignored in certain societies where brothers and sisters routinely married and certainly a study of history indicates many family alliances formed through marriages of cousins or other close relatives. However you see the prohibition in many other societies, not because of defects but because a sexual element breeds jealousy and violence. Families only survived by maintaining strong ties and cooperation.

As to ‘instinctive’ aversion to incest…really? Where does that arise? I suggest it’s taught as often brothers and sisters experiment and “play doctor” which is of course universally discouraged. And the instinctive aversion to homosexual acts is simply superstition and hocus pocus?

Since incest has been practiced among related people in the past, and certain effects were observed, we now go to the present.

"The Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (WISC) was used to measure the verbal IQ (VIQ), performance IQ (PIQ) and full scale IQ (FSIQ). Family pedigrees were drawn to access the family history and children’s inbred status in terms of coefficient of inbreeding (F).

"Results

“We found significant decline in child cognitive abilities due to inbreeding and high frequency of mental retardation among offspring from inbred families. The mean differences (95% C.I.) were reported for the VIQ, being −22.00 (−24.82, −19.17), PIQ −26.92 (−29.96, −23.87) and FSIQ −24.47 (−27.35, −21.59) for inbred as compared to non-inbred children (p>0.001). The higher risk of being mentally retarded was found to be more obvious among inbred categories corresponding to the degree of inbreeding and the same accounts least for non-inbred children (p<0.0001). We observed an increase in the difference in mean values for VIQ, PIQ and FSIQ with the increase of inbreeding coefficient and these were found to be statistically significant (p<0.05). The regression analysis showed a fitness decline (depression) for VIQ (R2 = 0.436), PIQ (R2 = 0.468) and FSIQ (R2 = 0.464) with increasing inbreeding coefficients (p<0.01).”

Next study:

“Consanguineous marriage was highly significant in autosomal recessive diseases (78.8%). It was detected in 93.4% of cases of sensorineural deafness, 89.4% of cases of Phenylketonuria, 78.1% of epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica patients, 70% of cases of mucopolysaccaridosis, and 69.8% of neurodegenerative disease cases…”

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’m pretty sure that legally eviscerating marriage of any marital meaning will lead to a decrease in marriage as well as a decrease in procreation. An underpopulation crisis is already inevitable. Destroying marriage will only exacerbate it.

You are right, Jim. First, the contraceptive mentality had to be sold, next abortion, now gay marriage, followed by other versions.

nytimes.com/2014/04/05/opinion/sunday/bye-bye-baby.html?_r=0

ed

 

[edwest2]

Personally, I don’t see what’s wrong with polygamy, at least not from a religious point of view. Not only does it exist in Islam, but it’s all over the Old Testament. Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah (Samuel’s father), David and Solomon all had more than one wife. Solomon had 700 wives. There is no evidence from the Old Testament that God found anything wrong with polygamy.

Jesus abolished that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

And I never made such assertion. In fact we have often pointed out that support for polygymy or plural marriage has a long history and in fact is practiced among certain religions even today. There has never been religious support for homosexual relationships however. If your point is that marriage has not always been one man and one woman, don’t forget it has always held a male/female component even if incesctuous, polygymous or other odd construct.

Same sex “marriage” is a fabricated right with no basis in theology or biology. While as you said one could make the religious case for polygymy (and it is currently being advanced through the courts) no such religious case can be made for same sex “marriage.” However in redefining marriage to include same sex partners it makes any objections to incestuous marriages or plural marriages completely subjective. It seems like the height of hypocrisy to hear advocates for SSM howling with indignation that their redefinition of marriage would lead to these other forms but it’s quite obvious that indeed it does.

That is correct.

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

Ed

 

[SuperLuigi]

DrTaffy;12706994]Because a certain group of people have spent a vast amount of effort and money to oppress a smaller minority than them?

From what I’ve seen, it’s pro-gay “marriage” groups that vastly outspend their opponents.

The oppression comes from growing government, which is precisely what so-called gay “marriage” does. :yup:

And I don’t like seeing nice people being bullied because of other peoples’ prejudices?

I don’t see any bullying from anyone on here, and disagreeing with so-called gay “marriage” is not prejudice.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is an article in the NY Times today on a SS interfaith (Jewish - Catholic) couple who “…both take Communion at Dignity/Boston…”
nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/same-sex-interfaith-couples-face-a-roadblock-to-marriage-in-judaism.html?_r=0

 

[SuperLuigi]

You are right, Jim. First, the contraceptive mentality had to be sold, next abortion, now gay marriage, followed by other versions.

nytimes.com/2014/04/05/opinion/sunday/bye-bye-baby.html?_r=0

ed

Here’s what I’ve heard:

1. A woman marrying herself
2. A person marrying a robot
3. A teenage girl marrying her father
4. Mental health specialists in Canada want pedophilia to be a sexual orientation
5. Polygamy in Utah and the UK

And the two consenting adults crowd is??? And those pledged to defend against this nonsense are ???

Did people really think it would stop and end with everyone’s favorite gay couples riding off into the sunset in eternal bliss?

If you really look at how the entitlement mentality goes, none of this is surprising.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Since incest has been practiced among related people in the past, and certain effects were observed, we now go to the present.

"The Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (WISC) was used to measure the verbal IQ (VIQ), performance IQ (PIQ) and full scale IQ (FSIQ). Family pedigrees were drawn to access the family history and children’s inbred status in terms of coefficient of inbreeding (F).

"Results

“We found significant decline in child cognitive abilities due to inbreeding and high frequency of mental retardation among offspring from inbred families. The mean differences (95% C.I.) were reported for the VIQ, being −22.00 (−24.82, −19.17), PIQ −26.92 (−29.96, −23.87) and FSIQ −24.47 (−27.35, −21.59) for inbred as compared to non-inbred children (p>0.001). The higher risk of being mentally retarded was found to be more obvious among inbred categories corresponding to the degree of inbreeding and the same accounts least for non-inbred children (p<0.0001). We observed an increase in the difference in mean values for VIQ, PIQ and FSIQ with the increase of inbreeding coefficient and these were found to be statistically significant (p<0.05). The regression analysis showed a fitness decline (depression) for VIQ (R2 = 0.436), PIQ (R2 = 0.468) and FSIQ (R2 = 0.464) with increasing inbreeding coefficients (p<0.01).”

Next study:

“Consanguineous marriage was highly significant in autosomal recessive diseases (78.8%). It was detected in 93.4% of cases of sensorineural deafness, 89.4% of cases of Phenylketonuria, 78.1% of epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica patients, 70% of cases of mucopolysaccaridosis, and 69.8% of neurodegenerative disease cases…”

Ed

I think it will eventually be proven that children raised in homosexual parenting will be at distinct disadvantages due to an unwholesome childhood experience.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That would be one of those slippery slope fears that haven’t materialized.

See Post # 607

 

[edwest2]

From what I’ve seen, it’s pro-gay “marriage” groups that vastly outspend their opponents.

The oppression comes from growing government, which is precisely what so-called gay “marriage” does. :yup:

I don’t see any bullying from anyone on here, and disagreeing with so-called gay “marriage” is not prejudice.

Based on my own study, gay marriage groups first targeted voters. When that did not work out, the next step was to convince and get support from judges and politicians. A far smaller target to concentrate on. Government did not grow in the process but in the case of the President, after “evolving” his view of gay marriage, more donations began to pour in.

I think gay marriage has been very clearly defined. Disagreeing with it is not prejudice.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Here’s what I’ve heard:

1. A woman marrying herself
2. A person marrying a robot
3. A teenage girl marrying her father
4. Mental health specialists in Canada want pedophilia to be a sexual orientation
5. Polygamy in Utah and the UK

And the two consenting adults crowd is??? And those pledged to defend against this nonsense are ???

Did people really think it would stop and end with everyone’s favorite gay couples riding off into the sunset in eternal bliss?

If you really look at how the entitlement mentality goes, none of this is surprising.

“two consenting adults” is one of the biggest lies out there. Let’s support what marriage actually is, regardless of how often people try to promote their other sexual preferences.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

I’ve been following the story about a gay couple in Lewistown, Montana who have been together for more than 30 years and then after they got married in a civil ceremony last year, a new priest in their parish demanded that they separate and get divorced. I never thought I’d read about the Church making such a demand of anyone. Here’s the beginning of a follow up article on what is happening with them that I found from last November that is kind of interesting:

BILLINGS – Tom Wojtowick can’t quite bring himself to break his ties with St. Leo the Great Catholic Church in Lewistown.

Three months ago, Wojtowick and his partner, Paul Huff, were dismissed from their volunteer posts at St. Leo’s and prohibited from receiving the Eucharist. They had been active members of the parish for 11 years.

The action came after the Rev. Samuel Spiering, newly arrived administrator at the parish, learned the pair had married in a civil ceremony in Seattle in 2013. The action is opposed by the Catholic Church, which holds that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Wojtowick and Huff, both active in the community, own a small ranch together outside of Lewistown. Spiering called for the two men, who had been together for more than 30 years, to separate and divorce.

Wojtowick and Huff were willing to write a restoration statement that, in part, would support the concept of marriage in the Catholic faith as between a man and a woman. But they refused the more drastic action of permanent separation.

Huff has left St. Leo and attends St. James Episcopal Church. A number of other former parishioners departed St. Leo’s for the Episcopal church, Wojtowick said.

Wojtowick attends half the Mass at St. Leo’s on Saturday nights, leaving after the homily, before the Eucharist is served. On Sundays, he often joins Huff at St. James, where he is frequently asked to play piano.

Huff has said that he won’t return to St. Leo’s unless the ban is reversed. Others wonder why Wojtowick hasn’t taken that step.

“A lot of people said, ‘Why don’t you just give up on it?’” he said in a telephone interview. “Boy, it’s hard. I invested so much time there, worked with hundreds of people.”

His family also has been part of the parish for seven generations, dating back to the early 1900s. Both Wojtowick and Huff are lifelong Catholics.

Not everyone at St. Leo’s disagreed with Spiering’s actions. Wojtowick admits that there is some tension tied to his presence at the parish, with all of the conflict that sprang from the priest’s decision.

“I obviously feel excluded by some folks, but I also feel included by others,” Wojtowick said. “So there is a dynamic there.”

But he calls what happened a huge loss for him and for Huff.

helenair.com/news/local/gay-lewistown-couple-remains-in-limbo-with-catholic-church/article_9d67ef21-4c8f-557b-b55b-fec600f00681.html

 

[FollowChrist34]

Here’s what I’ve heard:

1. A woman marrying herself
2. A person marrying a robot
3. A teenage girl marrying her father
4. Mental health specialists in Canada want pedophilia to be a sexual orientation
5. Polygamy in Utah and the UK

And the two consenting adults crowd is??? And those pledged to defend against this nonsense are ???

Did people really think it would stop and end with everyone’s favorite gay couples riding off into the sunset in eternal bliss?

If you really look at how the entitlement mentality goes, none of this is surprising.

It is the triumph of sickness over health. A culture basically committing suicide.

I’ve enjoyed this thread and think it is one of the more interesting, challenging ones we have had in awhile. There is no argument for gay marriage; it really is just disorder. I always feel better after I know something like that, rather than just hope I am right. I don’t want to be discriminatory, and I am not, nor am I being uncharitable. But there is a lot of sickness out there…I guess Islam can take the reins from here… I think we are about done.

 

[LisaA]

I’ve been following the story about a gay couple in Lewistown, Montana who have been together for more than 30 years and then after they got married in a civil ceremony last year, a new priest in their parish demanded that they separate and get divorced. I never thought I’d read about the Church making such a demand of anyone. Here’s the beginning of a follow up article on what is happening with them that I found from last November that is kind of interesting:

helenair.com/news/local/gay-lewistown-couple-remains-in-limbo-with-catholic-church/article_9d67ef21-4c8f-557b-b55b-fec600f00681.html

So what’s your point? The the priest asked these parishioners to either live their faith or they would no longer be able to participate as EMHC. You might be surprised to know that priests also tell cohabitating couples to separate (or marry and if they are divorced to obtain annulments). Our Church recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman. Their marriage isn’t recognized and participating in gay “marriage” is a grave sin. Hence they are not able to distribute the Body and Blood of Christ. Unlike some churches we take this very seriously.

Did the priest tell the men they could no longer attend Mass, enter the church, or contact the other parishioners? It sounds like he was simply providing the proper guidance to members of his flock gone astray.

 

[Thorolfr]

Hence they are not able to distribute the Body and Blood of Christ. Unlike some churches we take this very seriously.

Did the priest tell the men they could no longer attend Mass, enter the church, or contact the other parishioners? It sounds like he was simply providing the proper guidance to members of his flock gone astray.

As far as I know, they weren’t distributing the Body and Blood. They were singing in the choir and playing the piano and he said that they could no longer do so. Also, they had been members of this congregation for 11 years and it was well known that they were gay, but the previous priest had not demanded that they separate. According to the article, “Closer to home, he heard from a priest in Montana who told him that if the couple had been in his parish, he would not have subjected them to censure.”

 

[Thorolfr]

You are right, Jim. First, the contraceptive mentality had to be sold, next abortion, now gay marriage, followed by other versions.

nytimes.com/2014/04/05/opinion/sunday/bye-bye-baby.html?_r=0

ed

This New York Times article is actually pretty interesting:

These dark prophecies have a long history, and they are as misguided as they are unoriginal. Theodore Roosevelt warned of Anglo-Saxon “race suicide” and, during the Depression, books like “Twilight of Parenthood” (1934) caught the Western public’s imagination. After the powerful (and largely unanticipated) baby boom in the West, the chorus of calamity resumed. Dire Malthusian projections of mass starvation resulting from population growth outstripping the food supply — fear-mongering briefly revived after the end of the baby boom by Paul R. Ehrlich’s 1968 book, “The Population Bomb” — were discredited. But the march of fear continued, with evocatively titled books like “The Birth Dearth” (1987) and “The Empty Cradle” (2004).

Why do commentators, like Chicken Little, treat this worldwide trend as a disaster, even collective suicide? It could be because declines in fertility rates stir anxieties about power: national, military and economic, as well as sexual. Margaret Atwood’s 1985 dystopian classic “The Handmaid’s Tale,” and the Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón’s 2006 film “Children of Men,” based on the P. D. James novel, are among the more artful expressions of this anxiety.

In reality, slower population growth creates enormous possibilities for human flourishing. In an era of irreversible climate change and the lingering threat from nuclear weapons, it is simply not the case that population equals power, as so many leaders have believed throughout history. Lower fertility isn’t entirely a function of rising prosperity and secularism; it is nearly universal.

The new hand-wringing stems from a gross misunderstanding of the glacial nature of population change.