Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[Elizabeth502]

I see nothing wrong with having the mother, in a homosexual situation, being the sole parent legally. To say that her “partner” is the other parent is demonstrably untrue, since her “partner” could not conceive with her. This would go for homosexual adoption as well. There is no reason why the state should recognize homosexuals as having legal standing in matters aside of mutual concern. If two people wish to consent to a contract which binds them legally, this is fine. But it is not in the state’s power to assign a minor third party to this situation, since this is clearly not in the child’s interest, and the state cannot make it so.

I see no reason why the court should not recognize a legal contract . The presumption in my assertion is that since marriage licenses have been abolished, the contracts which replace them legally will also replace them in the eyes of the court. If a man and woman have a marriage contract of their own creation which binds them, this couple would be the parents on a birth certificate. The fact that marriage licenses no longer exist would not make them any less married. The only time this would not apply is with homosexuals, which, while bound to each other contract-wise, cannot be made into parents, since this can never be done, statist attempts to the contrary not withstanding. The state cannot make what never was. The recognition of some legal benefits by the state does not automatically equate others. For example, one may be legally permitted to work here, but not be able to vote.

While it is true the Church gives records of the sacrament itself, it does not define in those records what the benefits associated with marriage are. The state does that with licenses. I am suggesting a legal contract written by the Church to define the benefits and duties of the enjoined state from the Catholic perspective, instead of a prefab secular license.

I hope this helps make things somewhat clearer, since it is so complex an issue.

Eve, I want to thank you – and some of the other good posters here, too – for your contributions to this level of civil discourse. It is only in this dispassionate approach to a passionate issue that legally logical (including Constitutional) rights (and non-rights) can be understood, and legitimate opportunities applied. You bring up some important points, and at the moment I cannot say that I have an argument against them.

You have also provided a possible framework for separate roles of civil and religious, which limits neither. For there to be a permanent and non-mutually-offensive common ground on this issue, these kinds of neutral and mutual understandings must take place.

 

[StephenFrancis]

I am going to share some excerpts from a letter I wrote to my sister and brother, after a rather lively discussion about this very topic at a recent family reunion. I happen to be same sex attracted, and have chosen by God’s grace to follow the Church teaching on sexuality in this area. Oddly, they were happy for me when I “came out” many years ago, fairly okay with me when I returned to the Church 3 years ago, but are still somewhat disturbed and “saddened” regarding my decision to remain celibate! I am not that sad about it myself, as the walk with Jesus in the daily Eucharist is well worth it.

That said, here are my thoughts about the issue in a nutshell–also my own faith journey is chronicled on the Catholic Answers website in the online THIS ROCK magazine of September, 2008 for some further perspective. The link for that page is catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0809dr.asp. Please check it out.

Dear ____,

I have to admit that I was somewhat rattled yesterday during our discussion regarding my choice to return to the Roman Catholic Church and my own celibacy issues. I somewhat felt that I was the recipient of an intervention of some kind, and that was not a good feeling! I think we all agree that none of us owe each other explanations on why we believe as we do, but I want to share anyway, so please bear with me. Maybe it will help.

Having said that, I realize that my own evolution of faith over the years is understandably puzzling and troublesome to others (not just family, but a few friends too) at times and I am going to do my very best to put my thoughts and beliefs into clear words here. I do not ask anyone to agree with me totally, but I do hope it to be understood that I am not blindly following my faith out of some misguided or confused zeal or naiveté. Hopefully I am beyond that and you believe better about me than that. I think you do.

I did not choose celibacy because I am having trouble finding dates, have gone blind, need Viagra, or no longer have homosexual inclinations—and by the way I still get hit on sometimes! When I returned to the Catholic Church 3 years ago it was not because I felt pressured or forced to do so. It came as a result of searching for truth in the best manner I knew how, and in the process of that search I came to believe that the Church was truly the best place for me. And I went there with joy. Do I miss romantic companionship at times? I would not be human if I didn’t. Am I better off spiritually and emotionally than during all of the 15 years I was in the GLBT world? I personally think so. I honestly have a sense of purpose and peace that was decidedly missing during my years of “freedom.” The Church has not denied me anything really.

One belief espoused both by Catholic and Orthodox Churches that is not generally taught by Protestants is that there is both Sacred Scripture (the Holy Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the oral interpretation of how that truth is meant to be lived, not always in written form, but based on the earliest possible interpretations of Scripture and other teachings handed down from the Apostles). Protestants generally believe in “Sola Scriptura," or the Bible alone as the guide for faith and morals, and that each individual is free to interpret it as they see fit. Catholics believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but also that the teachings of the Magisterium (meaning the Pope and the bishops in union with him only when making official pronouncements as such) are also the Word of God. That includes Sacred Tradition as well as the Bible and how they are to be interpreted in each day and age. And some of the specifics may differ from generation to generation, but much of it does not. That bears an explanation.

What gets a bit confusing with the above terminology is that there is a Sacred Tradition and also just plain human tradition based on culture and human advances in science, and other variable factors. Meaning—teachings that are current customs of the Church, such as eating meat on Friday, celibacy for the priesthood, whether the Mass is offered in Latin or English, and various disciplinary practices such as that, are changeable with the times—and should indeed be. Those are simply “traditions," and every denomination or religious group has some. Within Catholicism, those “small t” traditions are binding only for as long as the Church determines that they are necessary—hence, when we were children growing up one week it was considered a serious or mortal sin to eat meat on Friday and the very next week it was no longer considered to be so at all, although still each Friday (and many do not realize this) we are asked to either not eat meat or to do either some type of penance or extra good work, in honor of the Lord’s death on the cross and for the salvation of others. The particulars changed but not the principle behind it.

On the other hand, the Sacraments (such as baptism, marriage, the Eucharist, and the like) fall into the category of Sacred Tradition. Teachings in that category would be the doctrine of the Trinity, a teaching that is not actually in the Bible itself word for word but which is implied over and over. Also within it are teachings which numerous Church Councils determined to be part of the “Deposit of Faith,” such as the various Creeds and Church dogmas, in addition to decisions based on later Church Councils such as Vatican I and II.

 

[StephenFrancis]

MY LETTER CONTINUES:

Here is where Sacred Tradition ties in to my search regarding GLBT issues. There has never been a time in 2000 years of Church history, Catholic or Protestant, when homosexual relationships were ever officially placed on the same level as male/female marriages. There have always been individuals who believed otherwise, but the Church as a whole has never endorsed or approved those relationships. And, as an aside, since Christianity is a direct outgrowth of Judaism, that particular “tradition” actually goes much further back (several thousand years in fact) to the very earliest Old Testament times and no provision for same gender sexual relationships during either the Old or New Testament times has ever been commonly accepted by either ancient Israel or the Church.
And it is not a matter of discrimination—or at least does not need to be. I personally think that enforceable laws could be set in place in ways that allow for those who do not follow Catholic or other more conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs in the area of marriage to still own property jointly, visit loved ones in the hospital, have tax credits, and the like. Or perhaps those protections could be done in a totally different way altogether such as having no differentiations between single and married individuals, no matter what their relationships may happen to be. There are varied and numerous ways to protect the interests of both church and state which have yet to be tried, and could at least (prayerfully) begin to bring together those on either side of the issue.

I understand that to many LGBT people it feels very insulting not to refer to their relationship as a “marriage”, and I am actually pretty sympathetic to that view point, having had friends in that situation and, not many years ago, believing it would be “only fair” for myself too. However one of the several reasons that I now see it differently is that, in countries such as Canada and elsewhere, it has triggered a slippery slope. A number of ministers and bishops, for example, simply by preaching that homosexuality is sinful from their own pulpits, have been taken before the Canadian tribunals and forbidden to even speak on the issue or else face charges. A number of Canadian Christian radio broadcasts have been forbidden to mention the topic as well, calling it “hate speech.” These have not necessarily been Fred Phelps types either (a radically anti-gay Baptist minister who is well known for his hateful protests), but simply leaders who belong to the Roman Catholic Faith and other Christian groups which historically have taught that homosexual activity (not the orientation) is sinful. Incidents such as those do justice to neither side in my view.

Speaking of naïve, I think it would be such to think that this could not happen here too. Already groups such as Soul Force, an activist group made up primarily of evangelical Christians who are GLBT, travel regularly to Christian colleges with former students such as at North Central University here in the Twin Cities, where I myself once attended, and have accused them of “religious abuse” solely because they dismissed a student for having an active sexual relationship with another of his own gender. When I was a student there years ago, it was considered sinful to have even an alcoholic drink, much less any type of sexual activity outside of marriage, and I am fairly sure they would still dismiss a student whether gay or straight who was in an ongoing sexual relationship without being married. And, as a private Christian college, that is and should be their prerogative. But as groups such as Soul Force become more powerful, and they are becoming so, accusations such as this are likely to become more and more common. How much better to just separate this whole thing out from religion in the first place, while making sure that religious groups retain the liberty to speak what they believe is the truth as they understand it. That is my fear with calling it “gay marriage” and essentially attempting to recondition society to accept it as such. Most people view marriage as a religious institution, and feel threatened when something is called marriage that historically has never been so. And I for the record saw that danger before ever returning to the Catholic Church, and had already begun to distance myself from some of the more militant LBGT groups I was once part of as a result.

 

[StephenFrancis]

MY LETTER CONCLUDES:

I know it is a tricky balance, but the old adage of “loving the sinner while hating the sin” is to me the safest approach. Tricky though, because many Christians use that as an excuse to hate gay people and that of course is seriously wrong. Tricky too, since those from a more secular perspective sometimes use it as a reason to force a fairly radical gay agenda on the rest of society. I think either approach is unbalanced, and just continues or exacerbates the hatred or near hatred on both sides of this teetering fence for each other, essentially wounding or even killing other creative solutions that each side could conceivably live with if they just listened to one another with open hearts.

Having been part of both groups (fairly conservative Christianity and being GLBT), I have certainly had my share of internal conflicts working this through. In my Protestant years, it is absolutely true that, going strictly by verses from the Bible that directly mention homosexuality, I did not think a strong enough case could be made to definitively oppose living that lifestyle. What I never considered however in those studies was the concept of Sacred Tradition, and the belief that the Church, who actually had given us the Bible in the first place, also has been given the authority to interpret it, and has always done so with the idea of marriage being a sacramental union between one man and one woman. Obviously that view is in opposition to the culture we live in, and counter to what I believed for many years even after my own very sincere study of Sacred Scripture in a vacuum. But it is what I now believe to be true.

So what about gays and the Church? There needs to be far more dialogue to be sure. There must be a genuinely welcoming atmosphere and some allowance for those who have not come to the same conclusions I have after years of both struggle and study. I certainly can judge no one who disagrees with me. And in both cases just mentioned, most of Christianity, including Catholicism, has done a rather lousy job of reaching out to those in alternative lifestyles. That needs to change. However, I do not think it has to be done by referring to something as marriage that has never been historically considered as such by the Church. Loving all people, welcoming them to Mass or church services, and yet teaching from the pulpit what is official historic Catholic/Christian teaching is the only intellectually honest approach I know to have. And I realize not everyone will not be satisfied with that answer, but I do not see another better one on the horizon.

Yours in the Lord Jesus,
Richard G Evans

 

[greggy53]

Take a look here:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

The Church certainly recognized valid, natural marriages.

Well I don’t know what your definition of a “natural Marriage” is. I never heard that term before, but the Church does not accept living in sin. I would have to confirm your quote from tthe cannon.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well I don’t know what your definition of a “natural Marriage” is…

It is really simple image a man and woman come to RCIA to consider being catholic. They are 30ish, married in their minds (civil, protestant, Islam, Jewish, etc marriage). If they pursue the conversion they would fill out a form which covers many issues related to past sacraments, and logistics. So if neither was married before their current marriage is considered a Natural Marriage. If they both receive the sacraments of baptism, reconciliation, first Eucharist, and confirmation, their marriage is then considered a sacramental marriage. The key is to understanding this is; they were not catholic so they were not under canon law when they married. Now if Bill & Ted are the next couple in the same situation the church will inform them their “marriage” is not valid within the catholic church because neither can perform the female function, and marital relations are restricted to a man-woman pair. Similarly if one of the male-female pair was married before the first attempt at a Natural Marriage has to be explored as valid or invalid (in the catholic format) until found as an invalid attempt the first marriage stands and the pair cannot receive sacraments as a married couple.

Hope that explains it

 

[ladybri77]

You are right. We must speak up when natural law is being violated and sin is being legalized. I urge my fellow Catholics to vote against gay marriage. Gays should be entitled to protection from law enforcement, but they should not force their beliefs on children. In Massachussets, right now, little kids are being forced by State run schools to read a gay story book.

Gay people should never be harassed or belittled.

Ed,

I am a lesbian and a Catholic. However you do have something I agree with gays shouldn’t be harassed or belittled but we are, people don’t accept it our sexuality. And how gays need protection from the law enforcement, however we won’t be protected by the law. In 2006 two teenage boys in Iran or may it was Iraq they were executed for being gay. People believe homosexuality is un-natural if a woman loves a woman or a man loving another man. The Matthew Shepard Act was passed a bill that makes discrimination against sexual orientation a crime. Have you ever heard of the bill? It was named after a young kid, Matthew Shepard, 21 years old was tied to a fence and beaten almost to the point of death he passed away five days later in the hospital. He was murdered because he was gay and this happened in 1998, I was only 8 years old and I had never heard of Matthew until just recently. I don’t have a problem with schools having children read a gay story book. And I am sure they are not forced into reading them.
I think it is good that children read a gay story book. It might teach them not to hate gays and to love them even if they are different. As for gay marriage I support it. Gay marriage should be legalized because it is violating our freedom in this country. At a point interracial marriage was illegal now is it is legal. There isn’t any difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage, except in gay marriage it is same sex marriage even people of different races are doing same sex marriage… Society has to change the way it views the gay community. Being gay doesn’t make you less than a straight person however in America that seems to be true. You should watch Brokeback Mountain it might turn your life around and how you view the gay community.

Loving lesbian,

Amy

There is a stark difference between race and sexual preference. You are comparing apples and oranges when you refer it to being one and the same. I know people think they were “born” gay, but this is simply not true in most cases. I have done much research and have talked to people and read many testimonies of people who have come out of the lifestyle, and they and the many studies done seem to lean toward brokenness within the individual which exists because of some kind of emotional, sexual, physical abuse and/or absent fathers either emotionally absent, overbearing, alcoholism and/or emotionally absent mothers or those who put all their “needs” on their children making them their caretaker, etc. All this has a psychological effect on the children.

Then, there are those who have felt this way all their lives which in that case may have had something happen in the womb like an overabundance of the opposite sex hormone flooding their brain in their development. We don’t know about this yet as none of it has ever been proven scientifically. Some studies have been done which were not definitive.

In my case, I sought mother love out because she was very critical of me, and me being sensitive needed much affirmation from my adopted mother and probably when given up at birth from biological mother that I didn’t feel loved and didn’t get that message that I was worthwhile. So, I sought out other women emotionally to validate me and later got into some sexual relationships thinking that would fill me, but it never did. I think many women do this. I thank God I knew Him, and found that His ways, relying on Him and letting Him fill the void of the love I was looking for are really the best ways. I still struggle with wrong beliefs about myself, but I’m learning how to change them.

I wish you the best. Still praying for you.

In His Love,
Ladybri

 

[StephenFrancis]

The only difference in understanding that I have would be concerning baptism. If neither, or even one, of the parties is not baptized, then I am not of the understanding that the marriage would stand. Same with civil ceremonies. Again I am not positive of this but that was my understanding from when I went through RCIA. The Catholic Church accepts marriage from other Christian faiths, to be sure, as long as one of the parties was not baptized Catholic or is divorced, but if a person is not married validly in the first place does the marriage always stand? Just asking–in my own case I was a former Catholic, married to a Protestant, and divorced by the time I was in RCIA for confirmation. My marriage was declared null automatically due to lack of canonical form, and the priest (I thought but may not have heard correctly) said that same thing would apply if the parties were unbaptized too. Then again I was too busy worrying about my own situation to check that part out clearly, but thought he said that anyway! God bless.

 

[StephenFrancis]

I would differ from our sister in Christ, Amy, regarding having books read in schools about gays and lesbians, at least for elementary age children, as this is one of the very concerns parents have who do not choose to teach this to their children as an alternative lifestyle. As I shared in my own faith journey on this same thread, I come from a same sex attraction background. I do not have the slightest idea if I was born that way or if it was part of my environmental upbringing. Truthfully that is a side issue anyway. We are all (whether LGBT or straight) wounded in many ways and it does not matter how the wounds got there, However I think it is clear from nature that we were not originally made to become sexually intimate with those of our own gender.

Having said that, our CCC states that there should not be even as much as a SIGN of unjust discrimination against those carrying the cross of SSA. When I hear people make statements such as one on this thread who said that God “hates us” who come from that background, even with the clarification that it isn’t technically “hate” but that He “likes us least,” I can only hope he would re-read his own words and see how it sounds to those of us struggling with SSA issues. We are not second class Christians or Catholics, nor is homosexuality the worst sin. Hate is. And Matthew Shepard was a victim of that hate, advanced by a society that takes much pride in calling itself “Christian.”

I no longer am sexually active nor looking to be, however I believe, also as the CCC states, believe we need to uphold the dignity and respect of each person, and that especially includes those struggling with homosexuality. And I don’t give a little rat’s rear how it got there, whether nature or nurture (or lack thereof). How we deal with our struggles is what God looks at.

 

[greggy53]

It is really simple image a man and woman come to RCIA to consider being catholic. They are 30ish, married in their minds (civil, protestant, Islam, Jewish, etc marriage). If they pursue the conversion they would fill out a form which covers many issues related to past sacraments, and logistics. So if neither was married before their current marriage is considered a Natural Marriage. If they both receive the sacraments of baptism, reconciliation, first Eucharist, and confirmation, their marriage is then considered a sacramental marriage. The key is to understanding this is; they were not catholic so they were not under canon law when they married. Now if Bill & Ted are the next couple in the same situation the church will inform them their “marriage” is not valid within the catholic church because neither can perform the female function, and marital relations are restricted to a man-woman pair. Similarly if one of the male-female pair was married before the first attempt at a Natural Marriage has to be explored as valid or invalid (in the catholic format) until found as an invalid attempt the first marriage stands and the pair cannot receive sacraments as a married couple.

Hope that explains it

If they were living together prior to their conversion outside of wedlock or civil contract any priest worth his salt would have told them they cannot live together in sin, and until their wedding day they must live separately, and be celibate. They would also have to repent their adultery in confession. If both are baptized Christians, and married by some other means, civil, or protestant then the marriage may be considered valid. I never heard of a “Natural marriage” If natural marriage means just living together then it is just a fancy term for adultery. Marriage is the spiritual and physical union of a man and woman.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
On valid marriage:
“Whereas the marriage of a baptized person with an infidel is null and void, the marriage of a Catholic with a baptized non-Catholic is the object of a prohibitory impediment, mixed religion (mixta religio); it is therefore a relative impediment. For the dispensation in case of mixed marriages and the conditions attached to it see MIXED MARRIAGES.”
On Impediments to marriage:
“Only perpetual antecedent impotency is a cause of nullity; nowadays it is seldom necessary to examine too closely into this matter, as all cases arising from it are treated as far as possible under the form of dispensations of non-consummated marriages.”

 

[ladybri77]

And I don’t give a little rat’s rear how it got there, whether nature or nurture (or lack thereof). How we deal with our struggles is what God looks at.

True, it’s how we deal with our struggles that is what He looks at. I was just pointing out that race is much different from sexual orientation. However, there is much truth in what I said above. Some people try to justify their actions by saying they were “born” with it and use that to try to justify legalization of marriage in the U.S.! If people would only be open to the truth of these issues instead of trying to argue that they are born with it, it would clarify many things and give understanding to the ignorant which would perhaps pave the way to more compassion of gays and affect the passing of immoral laws.

“…that they may know the Truth, and the Truth shall set them free”. Jesus is the Truth and His word isTruth.

 

[StephenFrancis]

Yes I agree with you. I have heard that argument used (or misused) in that way also, and I believe you are very correct that it is an invalid one. However I don’t think it is yet absolutely scientifically provable either way, and all I am saying is, no matter, we still need to follow Christ and the Church no matter what science ultimately tells us in the final analysis. Alcoholism for example has some genetic components, yet the Church still commands us not to overdo (meaning total abstinence from the sauce if it leads us to drunkeness).

One other angle that I have used when discussing this with my Jewish (by blood) nephew, whose dad is Israeli. I asked him if he was Jewish, and he of course would say yes. However I have asked does he PRACTICE Judaism, and, as a self proclaimed agnostic, his answer (while eating a ham sandwich!) is NO. So is he Jewish or not? By nature, yes, but by participation in the Jewish faith, no. In the same way, I may be homosexual, at least by inclination, but what I do with it is what God counts. Somewhat like your racial analogy.

Anyway apologies to that rat lol!!!

 

[ladybri77]

By nature, yes, but by participation in the Jewish faith, no. In the same way, I may be homosexual, at least by inclination, but what I do with it is what God counts. Somewhat like your racial analogy.

Right!!

 

[ladybri77]

Knowing why I feel the way I do, though, helps me to understand it and shows me what I need to work on.

Understanding and knowledge paves the way for resolution with prayer being the underlying foundation. BL

 

[StephenFrancis]

I hear you. BTW did you happen to read my rather lengthy stuff I posted last night? I also posted a link to my own story, which was in the September issue of THIS ROCK, and it is posted on this same site under the THIS ROCK tab (pretty clever eh hehe!). Check it out if you have time. Yes God is a God of mercy. Blessings to you!

 

[ladybri77]

I hear you. BTW did you happen to read my rather lengthy stuff I posted last night? I also posted a link to my own story, which was in the September issue of THIS ROCK, and it is posted on this same site under the THIS ROCK tab (pretty clever eh hehe!). Check it out if you have time. Yes God is a God of mercy. Blessings to you!

Yes, was planning on reading it later, it should be interesting.

 

[edwest2]

First of all, if anyone takes the time to read anything the Church has published regarding ‘gay marriage,’ then there should be no debate. It is a clear violation of natural law and biology. It is also a violation against God’s law.

I struggle with opposite sex attraction. Living a celibate life is difficult but I am called to it. It is a cross I bear daily. I have the option to marry if I meet someone. The Bible tells me that a wife is a gift from God.

Homosexuality was removed from a list of disorders in 1973 and not for scientific reasons according to this man who says he was there. It was done by pressure from gay activists.

narth.com/docs/freedom.html

narth.com/docs/hom101.html

Currently, gay people are acting incredibly insulted if their union is not called marriage. Apparently, it is not about getting all the same rights as married people but being considered 100% equal to a heterosexual married couple.

Plans have already been made to have other sexual orientations get their rights. This includes polygamists, pedophiles and ‘zoos,’ the people who abuse animals. It is clear that sex is the motivating factor. Even incest is being legalized in Europe. Honestly, can’t people see where all of this is going?

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

The sexual revolution of the late 1960s was about sex. In the 1970s, Adult Bookstores and topless bars. In the 1980s, porn on cable. In the 1990s, adult language and partial nudity on ABC and then the internet allows for global porn. Comedians who can’t stop saying f*** and talking about graphic sexual situations. If you don’t have a clue by now…

For Catholics, this means turn off the TV, stop going to the latest young couple living together and fornicating movie, get rid of the porn and return to the Church. On the issue of gay marriage, read and understand the clear Churh teaching, vote against it, and make certain that little kids in 1st grade are not forced to read gay storybooks. Not because of some fear but because their level of mental and emotional development is not where it needs to be to fully understand it.

There is no other perspective. People can, and have, done whatever they wanted behind closed doors. This is part of a social engineering project to get Christians to accept any mix or match sexual arrangement and call it marriage.

God forbid.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ladybri77]

"In this explosive book, Dr. Socarides, an early and persistent advocate of civil rights for homosexuals, dares to relate how gay politics has sold society on the notion that same-sex sex is “a normal variation, like left-handedness.”

Dr. Socarides knows that homosexuality is not a normal variation. Nor are gays “born that way” – another idea that has been created by pseudo-science and accepted as truth by the media and the courts and academe. He knows that the seeds of his patients’ homosexual orientation were planted in their earliest years, usually before the age of three, and their appropriate gender-defined self identity impaired as the result of early family relationships." Charles Socarides, MD

 

[ladybri77]

First of all, if anyone takes the time to read anything the Church has published regarding ‘gay marriage,’ then there should be no debate. It is a clear violation of natural law and biology. It is also a violation against God’s law.

I struggle with opposite sex attraction. Living a celibate life is difficult but I am called to it. It is a cross I bear daily. I have the option to marry if I meet someone. The Bible tells me that a wife is a gift from God.

Homosexuality was removed from a list of disorders in 1973 and not for scientific reasons according to this man who says he was there. It was done by pressure from gay activists.

narth.com/docs/freedom.html

narth.com/docs/hom101.html

Currently, gay people are acting incredibly insulted if their union is not called marriage. Apparently, it is not about getting all the same rights as married people but being considered 100% equal to a heterosexual married couple.

Plans have already been made to have other sexual orientations get their rights. This includes polygamists, pedophiles and ‘zoos,’ the people who abuse animals. It is clear that sex is the motivating factor. Even incest is being legalized in Europe. Honestly, can’t people see where all of this is going?

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

The sexual revolution of the late 1960s was about sex. In the 1970s, Adult Bookstores and topless bars. In the 1980s, porn on cable. In the 1990s, adult language and partial nudity on ABC and then the internet allows for global porn. Comedians who can’t stop saying f*** and talking about graphic sexual situations. If you don’t have a clue by now…

For Catholics, this means turn off the TV, stop going to the latest young couple living together and fornicating movie, get rid of the porn and return to the Church. On the issue of gay marriage, read and understand the clear Churh teaching, vote against it, and make certain that little kids in 1st grade are not forced to read gay storybooks. Not because of some fear but because their level of mental and emotional development is not where it needs to be to fully understand it.

There is no other perspective. People can, and have, done whatever they wanted behind closed doors. This is part of a social engineering project to get Christians to accept any mix or match sexual arrangement and call it marriage.

God forbid.

Peace,
Ed

Thanks for the great links, Ed.

 

[edwest2]

You’re welcome.

Ed