Are Christians afraid to speaking against homosexual agenda?

[Mannyfit75]

**PART III: THREATS TO MARRIAGE

How would allowing homosexual marriage threaten heterosexual marriage?

One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces. Human nature being what it is, if the meaning of marriage is weakened, it will be psychologically easier for even more people to divorce. Look at what happened when “no-fault” divorce was legalized. The divorce rate skyrocketed.35 If the nature of marriage is further undermined in the minds of couples then when things get rocky, more couples will be tempted not to work through their problems and get happy again but rather to divorce and find someone else.

That is a bad idea, because most marriage therapists agree that divorce generally “doesn’t work.” Divorce doesn’t solve the problems that caused the first marriage to break up. Divorced people bring the same problems to their new marriages that broke up their old ones. That’s why second and later marriages are statistically far more likely to end in divorce than first marriages are.36 Also, a large majority of couples who contemplate divorce but stay together describe themselves as “happily married” five years later.37 So staying together “works” better than divorce.

Why would same-sex marriage increase the divorce rate?

Feelings of love are only part of what holds a couple together. When things get tough, as they do from time to time in every marriage, external factors help hold the spouses together-external factors such as concern about their kids or about the attitudes of society, including their friends, relatives, co-workers, or church. The exploding divorce rate we have seen since “no-fault” destroyed much of the stigma of divorce shows how important external factors are in keeping couples together.

Wouldn’t couples who need these external aids to stay together be better off divorced?

Usually not. As I mentioned, the overwhelming majority of couples who contemplate divorce, yet for some reason stay together, find themselves happily married five years later and glad they didn’t divorce. They are grateful for the external factors that helped keep them together when things were tough. Also, the “happy divorce” myth has been debunked completely. While it is true that health correlates positively with happiness in marriage,38 people in difficult marriages are statistically happier and healthier than divorced people.39 Divorce makes most things worse.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

**
How did no-fault divorce weaken the factors that hold couples together? Is that what increased the divorce rate so much in the '70s and '80s?

That is certainly part of it. No-fault laws coincided with a message from Hollywood that marriage is a mere convenience, an institution that exists only for personal happiness and pleasure, something that could be discarded or traded in for a snappier model. Books and movies taught the same message. But it did not work. Far from it.

As mentioned earlier, Dr. Morowitz at Yale found that divorce had the same impact on longevity as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day-for both men and women. There also are many other health and longevity impacts, such as unmarried people getting sick more often, staying in the hospital longer, and so on. Divorce has a very negative impact on the couple, but its impact is even worse on their children.

What are the effects of divorce on children?

The children of happy marriages are statistically much healthier, physically and mentally, than the children of divorced parents or the children of single parents who were never married. This is not to say that all children of divorced or single parents are doomed to be physically or emotionally impaired. There are many exceptions to statistical generalizations. Rather, the evidence shows that being born into a happy marriage gives the average child great statistical advantages in health, happiness, future longevity, and career success over children born into less fortunate circumstances.40

Even being born into an unhappy marriage is generally better than growing up in a broken home. The '70s myth that “a happy divorce is better for children than an unhappy marriage” has been proven false overwhelmingly. Even married parents who fight often have happier and healthier children than divorced parents.41 That may sound surprising, but social scientists have found that kids don’t care much about the quality of Mom and Dad’s emotional life; they just want Mom and Dad to be there, and if one of them (usually Dad) goes, his departure never stops hurting, and it never stops generating painful consequences.42 “Staying together for the children” makes sense. Children whose parents divorce get less education, are less successful in their adult careers, and are far more prone to drugs, illicit pregnancy, and getting divorced themselves when they grow up. Children of divorce are even more likely to be injured accidentally than the children of intact marriages, and they die at a younger age.43

Remarriage generally does not improve the lot of the children of divorce. Children in “blended” families are dozens of times more likely to be the victims of physical violence or sexual abuse than children who live with both natural parents,44 and they are far less healthy, happy, and successful in the long run.45 To make matters even worse, statistics show that 76 percent of second marriages break up within five years, as do 87 percent of third and 93 percent of fourth marriages-all of which expose the involved children to further turbulence and desertion.46

Social science is very clear: Marriage brings health, happiness, wealth, and length of days to husband, wife, and children. It is marriage itself that makes the difference, not any pre-existing personal advantages of people who marry. Children benefit from marriage even more than parents do.

Couldn’t a same-sex couple adopt, just like a childless heterosexual couple, and commit themselves to each other exclusively, permanently, and unconditionally? In such a case, would it be fair to exclude them from marriage?

Even if it were possible for homosexuals to commit themselves to each other in the ways described, their relationships would still lack the orientation to procreation, the openness to life, that marriage is all about. This of itself means that any unions between homosexuals are not marriages, regardless of what people may wish to call them.

Further, if you wish to extend marriage to same-sex couples, you must look at the scientific evidence regarding the ability of male or female homosexuals to sustain such healthy relationships. This is unquestionably a sensitive subject, but it is important to the legalization debate. If homosexual “marriage” were to be legalized, and homosexuals were later found to be unable to create exclusive, permanent, unconditional marriages, their failure would reinforce the idea that marriage lacks these qualities and is just a matter of private happiness to be discarded on whim. That would be a great step backward for society, for it would increase divorce and all its associated pathology and create yet another impediment to the happiness and fulfillment of millions of people.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

**PART IV: HOMOSEXUAL “MARRIAGE”

Why isn’t it enough for marriage if two people have feelings for each other?

Marriage is about more than just the feelings of two people. Feelings are important, but they aren’t the whole of it. We all know that feelings change and that any marriage has its ups and downs. A good marriage has more ups than downs, a bad one more downs than ups, but emotions change from one day to the next. Sometimes they’re very loving, and sometimes they’re very negative.

Marriage does involve very personal feelings, but this does not mean that it is merely a private matter. Whether it succeeds or fails, a marriage has a huge impact on the couple, their children, those around them, and the entire society. As an institution, marriage is the business of everyone in society. It takes more than emotion to hold a marriage together, as we have seen.

What does the scientific evidence show about homosexuality?

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence.

Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54

Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals’ propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.58

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.59

The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call "bourgeois respectability."60 But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, “fidelity” does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity.61 In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their “marriages” will have little meaning.

Sullivan argues that marriage civilizes men, but anthropology would counter that marriage to women civilizes men. Male humans, homosexual or heterosexual, are more interested in random sex with strangers than women are.62 Men need to be civilized, to be taught the joys of committed sex, and that lesson is taught by marriage to women, not by other men who need to learn it themselves. The apparent instability of lesbian relationships suggests that lesbians understand that lesson less well than heterosexual women do. Exclusivity will not happen, and without exclusivity, marriage does not exist.

Without exclusivity, permanent and unconditional relationships will not happen, either. By definition, a relationship that allows for “cruising” will be shallow and mutually exploitative, just as sex with strangers is shallow and mutually exploitative. So far, same-sex marriage is 0 for 3: likely to be neither exclusive nor unconditional nor permanent.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

**Can homosexual unions be life-giving?

Homosexual sex is not procreative and thus not live-giving in the most literal and important sense of the term. Further, the health statistics are clear. Any sexual behaviors that cut longevity almost in half before the AIDS virus came on the scene are death-dealing, not life-giving. The longevity and disease numbers speak for themselves. So do the psychiatric and drug abuse numbers. Likewise, promiscuity statistics suggest that homosexual activity is not providing much fulfillment to its practitioners. If it were, they would not feel the need for sex with armies of strangers. The statistics make it very clear that homosexual behavior is not enhancing anyone’s inner well-being; in that sense, too, it is anything but life-giving.

What about situations in which homosexuals adopt children or use artificial insemination?

There is almost no good data to answer this question. We know that children raised in families containing one non-biological parent are dozens of times more likely to be abused than children raised by both biological parents.63 In some studies, children raised by homosexual partners seem to suffer from sex-role confusion.64 Studies by Cameron and Cameron have shown a high incidence of incest between minor children and homosexual parents of both sexes.65 These investigators suggest that homosexual parents may be more likely to abuse their children sexually than heterosexual parents, so although the point is not definitively proven, the available evidence is worrisome.

Children raised by both biological parents are significantly healthier, happier and better adjusted emotionally than kids raised by single parents of either sex. They are less likely to live in poverty or engage in violent crime or sexual promiscuity and more likely to be successful in school, career, and marriage.66 Same-sex couples, by definition, would have at least one non-biological parent.

There seem to be good reasons that children need both biological parents. The sexes are different. Because gender is a real phenomenon, it should come as no surprise that men and women parent differently. Men and women bring different, complementary skills to childrearing. Men are more likely to play expansively with their children than to do mundane care taking; women tend to be more practical. Mothers tend to be more responsive to their child’s immediate needs, while fathers tend to be more firm, more oriented to abstract standards of justice (right and wrong).67 Kids need both.

Mothers tend to emphasize the emotional security of their children, while fathers tend to stress competition and risk taking. Mothers tend to seek the immediate well-being of the child, while fathers tend to foster long-term autonomy and independence.68 Children need both parents, because they learn different lessons from each. Neither fathers nor mothers are expendable. The presence of a father is critical to a male child’s learning self-control and appropriate male behavior, especially learning to respect women. Similarly, the presence of a father is vital for a female child’s self-respect and eventual development of a healthy adult sexuality.69 Children need mothers just as much. The presence of both parents seems to be necessary for ideally balanced emotional and mental development.

Put in technical psychological jargon, the social science evidence suggests that women teach children communion (in English, that means the drive toward inclusion, connectedness, and relationship) and that men teach children agency (the drive toward independence, individuality, and self-fulfillment). Further, children of both sexes appear to learn self-control and responsibility primarily from their father.70 They fail to learn them when he’s not involved in their lives. Our national epidemic of fatherlessness has spawned an epidemic of antisocial children.

Marriage, for all these reasons, is a major public health issue and not just a private affair. Marriages that are exclusive, permanent, unconditional, and life-giving contribute much to public health and longevity; marriages that fail any of these criteria and end in divorce create an enormous social, emotional, and health care burden for the couple, their children, and society.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

**

What do homosexual activists hope to gain from legalizing same-sex marriage?

Motives probably vary, depending on the activist. Many are seeking public approval of homosexuality. They want societal acceptance. Others may be seeking absolution for a guilty conscience. Some probably want society to say that what they are doing is morally right. But you don’t have to be a theologian, nor even religious, to understand that any form of behavior that cuts a person’s longevity in half and comes with a lengthy list of venereal diseases is simply not right. You don’t have to be the pope to see that. A thoughtful atheist can discover easily a completely secular natural morality that says: This behavior kills people. People should live. But homosexual behavior kills homosexuals. That’s not right. Homosexuals need to live just like everyone else.

The statistics make it very clear that homosexuals are not at peace with themselves. No one who is at peace seeks sex with hundreds of strangers. That is bizarre behavior. Something is dreadfully wrong with the psychology of people who seek random sex-a fact we see confirmed by their suicide, drug, and antisocial behavior statistics.

Legalization of same-sex marriage will not bring absolution nor deliver inner peace. Homosexuals will continue to suffer from the problems their “lifestyle” creates, even if every state legislature and both houses of Congress were to pass bills extolling homosexual behavior and privileging their relationships over those of heterosexuals. Active homosexuals will continue seeking something that they will never find through the things they do with strangers. They will still be tragically unhappy people. Such behavior will never offer the basis for marriage nor satisfy their relationship needs as persons. Homosexuals need compassion, but since they will not benefit by homosexual “marriage,” there is no reason for society to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. In fact, recognition of this intrinsically disordered behavior can have only bad effects on society.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

**What do homosexual activists hope to gain from legalizing same-sex marriage?

Motives probably vary, depending on the activist. Many are seeking public approval of homosexuality. They want societal acceptance. Others may be seeking absolution for a guilty conscience. Some probably want society to say that what they are doing is morally right. But you don’t have to be a theologian, nor even religious, to understand that any form of behavior that cuts a person’s longevity in half and comes with a lengthy list of venereal diseases is simply not right. You don’t have to be the pope to see that. A thoughtful atheist can discover easily a completely secular natural morality that says: This behavior kills people. People should live. But homosexual behavior kills homosexuals. That’s not right. Homosexuals need to live just like everyone else.

The statistics make it very clear that homosexuals are not at peace with themselves. No one who is at peace seeks sex with hundreds of strangers. That is bizarre behavior. Something is dreadfully wrong with the psychology of people who seek random sex-a fact we see confirmed by their suicide, drug, and antisocial behavior statistics.

Legalization of same-sex marriage will not bring absolution nor deliver inner peace. Homosexuals will continue to suffer from the problems their “lifestyle” creates, even if every state legislature and both houses of Congress were to pass bills extolling homosexual behavior and privileging their relationships over those of heterosexuals. Active homosexuals will continue seeking something that they will never find through the things they do with strangers. They will still be tragically unhappy people. Such behavior will never offer the basis for marriage nor satisfy their relationship needs as persons. Homosexuals need compassion, but since they will not benefit by homosexual “marriage,” there is no reason for society to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. In fact, recognition of this intrinsically disordered behavior can have only bad effects on society.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

**If same-sex couples won’t reap the health and emotional benefits of marriage, why do they keep asking for legalization?

The reason probably is not economic, though many same-sex marriage advocates appeal to the economic benefits of marriage. A clever lawyer can create partnerships to confer most of the economic advantages of marriage. Durable powers of attorney, surrogate decisions, wills, and inheritance-any of these can be tailored to cover homosexual relationships without the need for marriage. There must be other reasons.

Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute offers a possible explanation. In the September 2000 edition of Commentary, he quotes radical homosexuals who state that their goal is not personally to be married, nor to achieve domestic equality with heterosexuals, nor even to attain social respectability, but rather to empty the institution of marriage of its meaning.71 Kurtz quotes their writings, which make clear they want to “destroy bourgeois marriage.” After all, if two men or two women can marry, then why not more than two? If marriage is just an expression of temporary, private emotional states, and not a social institution with real meaning connected to biological realities, why stop with same-sex couples? There are already more than two hundred sites on the Internet advocating “polyamorism”-sexual relations between whole groups of men, or groups of men and women, or groups of women.72 And if groups can marry, then why not humans and animals? Why not a nerd and his computer? Brother and sister? Mother and son? A boy and his dog?

Once you go beyond the demonstrable needs of human relationship, and beyond the limits that protect the welfare of spouses, children, and society, then there is literally no limit to the possible combinations. Nor the possible damage to the common good.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

**Where do all these considerations leave the courts?

There seems to be a race between the courts and legislatures to define marriage. Court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage have led to campaigns to nullify those decisions by passing constitutional amendments to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Three states-Alaska, Hawaii, and Nebraska-already have amended their state constitutions to define marriage as requiring one man and one woman. Numerous other challenges to the status quo have arisen in Canada and Europe, all of which are in varying stages of litigation.

The American constitutional tradition has been described as “ordered freedom.” We have many rights, but the expression of any right is limited when it threatens harm to others. Free speech, for example, is almost unlimited, but no one is free to libel or slander someone else, nor to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. There has never been an unlimited right to marry in this country. States have provided minimum age requirements and have insisted that both persons be unmarried, that one be male and one female, that they not be too closely related, and that adequate public notice and records be kept.

Marriage is not an unlimited right. It exists in a social context. Its success or failure has public health and financial impacts. Legalization of same-sex marriage would detach marriage from reality. It would deprive marriage not just of “bourgeois respectability,” but of any objective meaning whatsoever. It would open the door to group marriage, polygamy, bestiality, and whatever other permutations the imagination can invent.

Why should we care? Because the survival and prosperity of our society rests on the institution of marriage. As we have seen, healthy citizens are far more likely to be produced by intact marriages than by broken ones. Same-sex marriage would empty marriage of its meaning, make heterosexual marriages even more disposable, and undermine the health of our nation.

What stand should informed people take on same-sex marriage?

Our society is at a turning point. Are we going to undo the mistakes of the past thirty years that have given us an epidemic of divorce, fatherlessness, drugs, and violent and promiscuous children? Or are we going to continue the legitimization of same-sex unions by giving them the same status as heterosexual marriages?

The choice is an easy one. Marriage should be exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Marriages like that lead to health, happiness, prosperity, long life, and social peace. And the evidence is there to prove it. Homosexuals will not be able to create marriages like that, even if their “marriages” become legal. Statistics reveal that the lives of homosexuals are anything but gay. A more accurate description would paraphrase Thomas Hobbes’s vision of life apart from civilization: nasty, lonely, and short.

The loneliness and short lives are not due to the fact that same-sex marriage is illegal. They are inherent in the nature of the homosexual lifestyle itself. Homosexuality doesn’t satisfy; sexually satisfied people don’t seek random sex with hundreds of strangers. Gay activists who seek absolution from society will not find it, even if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Courts and legislatures cannot create clean consciences.

But legalization of homosexual marriage would empty marriage of its meaning. And that will tend to weaken marriage even further, which will further increase the divorce rate and maximize divorce-related misery.

The institution of marriage is precious. It enhances the health, longevity, and well-being of married couples. It increases the health, vocational success, and emotional well-being of children. In providing all these benefits, heterosexual marriage contributes to the happiness and prosperity of society. Marriage must, therefore, remain limited to one man and one woman who strive to keep their marriage exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Nothing less will ever meet the needs of the human person, because nothing less satisfies.

Because it is intrinsically disordered, we must not recognize homosexual activity as legitimate, and we must not give public approval to homosexual marriage because of the harm that will do to the institution of marriage and because of the social harm that will result from emptying marriage of its meaning. Perhaps the most serious social harm would be to children: the children of divorce and the children of same-sex couples, who will suffer all the ills we have discussed.

Society has a lot to lose from legalizing homosexual marriage. And homosexuals have nothing to gain.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

My own Conclusions: Marriage cannot be redefined. This legalization of gay marriages will onyl open doors to other marriages which is state in the article. If gays can marry, why not brothers and sisters? Or brother and brother and sister and sister?

 

[Maso]

Homosexual agenda…just what is that?

It is to sodomize your children and grandchildren with impunity.

 

[Realist]

Who says the teachings of Jesus Christ’s Church is wrong? Do you have that authority? Are you above God? You who are a finite creature who’s understanding in the universe is very limited. As far as I am concern God establish a Church to give us moral understanding on how human beings ought to behave according to the precepts he made in accordance with the Ten Commandments. Since the beginning, God creae us male and female, he did not created “Adam to be another another man.”

I believe homosexual marriage personally as beyond lusts. I believe it is “special rights” mainly for monetary benefits. Society have no right to redefine marriage. Many man often use the excuse, “I love my partner I should have the right to marry whomsever I please.”

Really? Now, if homosexuals are allowed to marry, why not allow cousins who are closely related to marry? Or how about brothers and sisters? Or a man who loves his pets. Should we allow them to marry too? Believe me, there are a lot of people who think love.

I recall a former homosexual David MacDonald who uncle said to him once, “I am bisexual. I love men and boys.” Should we allow him to marry boys?

Since humanity came into this world millions of years ago, societies have always marriage as between a man and a woman. You can go to the Amazon jungle and see tribes who’s culture have a family consisting of mother and father, their childrens, their grandparents.

Another thing, we might as well, legalized polygamy.

I’m not even going to touch the stuff about Jesus Christ’s Church. I’m not a believer. You are a believer. Those are the places we’re working from.

As such, I found your quoting of the church’s position enlightening. I didn’t read everything you posted, because, whoa, what a wall of text, but what I did read made sense when I put myself into the mindset of a believer. Basically, the church (well, not the Church itself, but its human representatives) seems to be saying that Catholics must not tolerate homosexual relationships. And to that end, they should not, in any way, aid in the legal recognition of any such union. Catholics, the passage says, should also consider lobbying Congress.

Part of me wants to be immediately offended by the clear intolerance (“not tolerate”), but I have to remind myself that Catholics believe in a god that doesn’t condone homosexual unions. And why on earth would Catholics defy their god? That would not be a reasonable position. I’m also not particularly offended by the actions the Church’s representatives recommend their members take. You don’t want to be part of a marriage ceremony? So be it. You want to let Congress know how you feel? That’s your right as an American.

I look forward to the day when all fifty states legalize gay marriage, but I know my Catholic friends and family do not. I just hope that their objection stems from their faith and not a misunderstanding about the nature of gay relationships. They do not equate to pedophilia or to bestiality or to incest. Such accusations are offensive, and it’s telling that only the Church’s members make these connections, whereas the Church itself does not.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’m not even going to touch the stuff about Jesus Christ’s Church. I’m not a believer. You are a believer. Those are the places we’re working from.

Your decision as a non-believer is your own doing. This topic pertains to Christians not non-believers. It is the duty of the Christian to preach against homosexual behavior especially when it involves redefining marriage.

As such, I found your quoting of the church’s position enlightening. I didn’t read everything you posted, because, whoa, what a wall of text, but what I did read made sense when I put myself into the mindset of a believer. Basically, the church (well, not the Church itself, but its human representatives) seems to be saying that Catholics must not tolerate homosexual relationships. And to that end, they should not, in any way, aid in the legal recognition of any such union. Catholics, the passage says, should also consider lobbying Congress.

Catholics cannot tolerate homosexual behavior, or relationships period. The state might issue marriage license to homosexual couples but the Church will never recognized them because they are invalid and marriage was not made for homosexuals. It is strictly a heterosexual institution. Homosexual just need to leave the life of chastity or no sex at all. If Saint Paul can do it, so can homosexuals.

Part of me wants to be immediately offended by the clear intolerance (“not tolerate”), but I have to remind myself that Catholics believe in a god that doesn’t condone homosexual unions. And why on earth would Catholics defy their god? That would not be a reasonable position. I’m also not particularly offended by the actions the Church’s representatives recommend their members take. You don’t want to be part of a marriage ceremony? So be it. You want to let Congress know how you feel? That’s your right as an American.

I have and I have sign a petition to protect Marriage. I am a member of a Non-profit organization known as National Organization for Marriage. As far as you being offended, well. The Founder of My Church, Jesus Christ offended the world and died for it as a result. He was put on the cross, put to death, and thank God, the Father, he rose Jesus from the dead. Jesus Christ, resurrected in full glory, and he spend 40 days with his Apostles after his resurrection and ascended into heaven and is now sitting on Right Hand of God, the Father. If I offend you too bad because homosexual behavior is an immoral evil. It is disgusting like all the other sexual sins like pedophilia, incest, rape, fornication, masturbation, adultery.

I look forward to the day when all fifty states legalize gay marriage, but I know my Catholic friends and family do not. I just hope that their objection stems from their faith and not a misunderstanding about the nature of gay relationships. They do not equate to pedophilia or to bestiality or to incest. Such accusations are offensive, and it’s telling that only the Church’s members make these connections, whereas the Church itself does not.

That might happen and it might not happen because there are Christians who affirm that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Even if the all 50 states allow it, the Catholic Church will never recognized it.

The objection is strictly from what Jesus Christ has taught and have pass down to his Apostles, and their successors.

As far as pedophilia goes. Homosexuality is the same level. All sexual immorality, adultery, homosexuality, fornication, masturbation, incest, rape, and yes, pedophilia is condemned by the Catholic Church. Indeed, there has been priests who have committed the perverted act of pedophilia, the CC have always condemned it. The trend in the the abuses involve priests and local bishops. However, this thread is not about the sex abuse scandal. There is thread that discusses that and you browse the forum for it.

In another forum, I noticed the sex abuse is connected to allowing “openly homosexual men” into the seminary. I had an audio CD called "Good bye, Good Men, which have interviews of seminarians who witness seminarians openly living up their homosexuality. These men were not loyal to the teachings of the Church. There were good Catholic seminarian who spoke out against it, and the “orthodox” seminarian were kick off the seminarians.

The connection of the sex abuse scandal is link entirely to welcoming homosexual seminarians in the Catholic Church. Tim Staples have witness this and so did Fr. Corapi who attended the seminary in those days.

When Catholics who do not affirm Catholic Church teachings become priests. They will morely to commit sinful acts that are 'criminal."

Second, I trust Jesus Christ teachings on morality. The sex abuse scandal have made me angry against the leaders of the Church, and as a Catholic man, who have is celibate and a virgin for 34 yrs, and discerning the priesthood, the scandal proves that priests are human beings who sin. They should be punished for what they did. With that, there is also a time for healing and forgiveness and mercy, because Jesus Christ calls for repentence.

Pedophilia have no place in the Church and in my opinion, it brings great dis-service to Sacrament of Holy Orders. I have this entire world to blame for its sexual decay and immoral corruption since the sexual revolution. The sexual revelation of the 1960s brought nothing but the destruction of families in our society. Homosexual Marriage is just another part of this sexual corruption and it isn’t just homosexual marriage but other sexual immoralities.

 

[Mannyfit75]

They do not equate to pedophilia or to bestiality or to incest. Such accusations are offensive

They are the same level because these behaviors are sexual in nature and outside the natural law. Someone who suffers incest might disagree with you that his feelings of his close relative is no different than two homosexual lovers who professes the same thing. Why do you want to deny them the same “right” of marriage, that homosexual seek now. They call for equal marriage? I would assumed that includes those individuals as well.

The Catholic Church have affirm in its teachings that pedophilia, bestiality, incest, homosexuality, masturbation, fornication, adultery, are all immoral and grave sin. These evil acts are an offense to God.

If society redefines marriage as not being with a man or woman, then what? What prevents society from allowing marriage between close relatives who commits the sin of incest?

Would you redefine Marriage as the follow to justify homosexual marriage.

Suppose the Federal Government Redefine Marriage. It would probably read something like this.

The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between two human beings regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion, bloodline, and gender.

Now if that law were to become the “Law of the Land.” It will legalized marriage between all people. Suppose some segment might interpret this law as. Hey, I marry auntie cause I love her too."

This opens doors for a whole lot of other issues. You redefine marriage you will change society. Since the beginning of civilization, marriage is always been a between a man and a woman. Marriage have never been challenge until this century.

 

[Realist]

Manny, I wasn’t trying to be combative. The majority of my post was devoted to me trying to suss out the point of your severely long entries into this discussion. I think for the most part that I can understand the Catholic objection to gay marriage. I don’t think the objection stands outside the context of your faith, but within such context, objection seems to be the reasonable choice.

You’ll notice I also didn’t bring up the pedophilia scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church. I wanted to be respectful to Catholics, such as many on this board and a large swath of my family, who have had their faiths unfairly stigmatized by the actions of deviant clergy members. I consider that a real shame. However, and this is all I’ll say on the matter, the Church absolutely needs to condemn those clergymen, and do so with action as well as words. No more transfers. No more hiding. These people are not doing your church any good, and there is no defense for what they’ve done and continue to do.

I hope you can understand why in the secular world–and I would imagine this holds true for many faithful, as well–pedophilia is drastically different than homosexuality. One is abuse, while the other is consensual. But you still have a right to make the argument you are making, and good for you for getting involved in non-profits. I hope you won’t take it too personally when state governments allow gay marriage. After all, as you say, they won’t be church sanctioned marriages, so–just like my own soon-to-be non-church sanctioned marriage (I’m getting married in two months!)–they won’t be “real” marriages in your eyes. Just as you speak out for your values, I intend to speak out about mine. During out ceremony, we will mention our hope that one day soon all loving couples who wish to make a death-do-us-part commitment can do so under the US government. I hope you can try to understand my position the way I’ve tried to understand yours.

Homosexual just need to leave the life of chastity

I agree

 

[denver_faithful]

I don’t have time to read the entire thread, but I would like to clear something up if it hasn’t already been cleared up.

It is misleading to say that penetration of the anus/mouth during intercourse is itself a sin.

The Church–in her infinite wisdom–teaches that anal and oral sex as well as mutual masturbation are acceptable as a part of foreplay, but must be oriented to vaginal intercourse and the possibility of procreation.

Sorry for the explicit nature of this post. I just wanted to make myself clear.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t have time to read the entire thread, but I would like to clear something up if it hasn’t already been cleared up.

It is misleading to say that penetration of the anus/mouth during intercourse is itself a sin.

The Church–in her infinite wisdom–teaches that anal and oral sex as well as mutual masturbation are acceptable as a part of foreplay, but must be oriented to vaginal intercourse and the possibility of procreation.

Sorry for the explicit nature of this post. I just wanted to make myself clear.

Quote me a Church document that allows that and I assumed you mean married couples.

As far as mutual masturbation. That is against the teaching of the Church.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t have time to read the entire thread, but I would like to clear something up if it hasn’t already been cleared up.

It is misleading to say that penetration of the anus/mouth during intercourse is itself a sin.

The Church–in her infinite wisdom–teaches that anal and oral sex as well as mutual masturbation are acceptable as a part of foreplay, but must be oriented to vaginal intercourse and the possibility of procreation.

Sorry for the explicit nature of this post. I just wanted to make myself clear.

You know by this declaration, you might mislead Catholics to commit sin because you are not specific as to who are permitted to commit oral sex and anal sex. The Church have always taught that intercourse is for the procreation of children.

The Catechism is clear about sexual intimacy between husband and wife:

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."142

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.143

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.145
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Conjugal fidelity

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."146 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.147 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."148

2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.

St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.149
The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life"150 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."151 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."152

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.155
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."156

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:158

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159
2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny."160

2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.161 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.

Source of these quotes are from the Vatican Website:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Denver, it seems that you need to look at what the Church actually teaches.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, I wasn’t trying to be combative. The majority of my post was devoted to me trying to suss out the point of your severely long entries into this discussion. I think for the most part that I can understand the Catholic objection to gay marriage. I don’t think the objection stands outside the context of your faith, but within such context, objection seems to be the reasonable choice.

You’ll notice I also didn’t bring up the pedophilia scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church. I wanted to be respectful to Catholics, such as many on this board and a large swath of my family, who have had their faiths unfairly stigmatized by the actions of deviant clergy members. I consider that a real shame. However, and this is all I’ll say on the matter, the Church absolutely needs to condemn those clergymen, and do so with action as well as words. No more transfers. No more hiding. These people are not doing your church any good, and there is no defense for what they’ve done and continue to do.

I hope you can understand why in the secular world–and I would imagine this holds true for many faithful, as well–pedophilia is drastically different than homosexuality. One is abuse, while the other is consensual. But you still have a right to make the argument you are making, and good for you for getting involved in non-profits. I hope you won’t take it too personally when state governments allow gay marriage. After all, as you say, they won’t be church sanctioned marriages, so–just like my own soon-to-be non-church sanctioned marriage (I’m getting married in two months!)–they won’t be “real” marriages in your eyes. Just as you speak out for your values, I intend to speak out about mine. During out ceremony, we will mention our hope that one day soon all loving couples who wish to make a death-do-us-part commitment can do so under the US government. I hope you can try to understand my position the way I’ve tried to understand yours.

I agree

Reality,

I will remain against homosexual marriage because that is not what God made us to be. “Male and Female he created them.” He didn’t made us any other way.

 

[denver_faithful]

You know by this declaration, you might mislead Catholics to commit sin because you are not specific as to who are permitted to commit oral sex and anal sex. The Church have always taught that intercourse is for the procreation of children.

I do no such thing. A Catholic who does not know that sex outside of marriage is immoral will not have his understanding affected for the worse by my post. Any thinking Catholic would have understood my statement to apply to the sexual act within marriage as you so rightly assumed.