Gay Marriage & Being a Good Catholic

[Robert_in_SD]

Can I see some credible evidence for this “persecution”? Oh, and don’t bother with the Ocean Grove case, that’s already been debunked as a religious persecution matter by far better legal minds than those here. (I was studying law in NJ when that case was filed). As for businesses that refuse business to gay people, I wasn’t aware that any of those cases had been adjudicated yet. Filed does not mean won. The few I’ve read about we’re losers, the same services could easily be obtained elsewhere so no damage was done to the couples-publicity achieved which was the whole point anyway.

There’s the case about the Vermont Inn, that was settled in favor of the lesbian couple that was denied the “right” to use the premises for their wedding reception, over the religious objection of the Inn’s owners. That’s a win, although not a formal adjudication. Theres’ also the case of the lebian couple that sued the KofC hall after it refused to provide a location for a lesbian wedding reception. That was an adjudication on the merits, I believe. Further evidence is the story out of New York of the Costco employee who was fired because he was a member of the KofC and objected to lesbian marriage on moral and religious grounds. That’s evidence of persecution. In Canada, there are pastors that have been brought up on human rights violations charges for preaching, from the pulpit, that homosexual marriage is wrong. That’s easily discovered by a google search as well.

Seeker1961:

Gay marriage is already legal in enough places for people to see quite plainly that it hasn’t done any of the horrible things people predicted it would do. Gay couples aren’t marching into St Pat’s demanding that the Archbishop bless their unions, heterosexual marriages haven’t spontaneously combusted…life has simply gone on. It’s simply not a challenge to people’s everyday lives. People who were against it are still against it and always will be and if people don’t like that, well, that’s just too bad isn’t it? Nobody ever promised believers or non-believers a life free of people disagreeing with them.

You are simply wrong here. It will continue the deterioration of the family, and will continue the deterioration of freedom of religion. It becomes a challenge to one’s personal belief, when one is confronted with the issue and forced to state their Catholic position. There is real reason for concern, despite your light-hearted dismissal of the issue.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Seeker1961]

You are simply wrong here. It will continue the deterioration of the family, and will continue the deterioration of freedom of religion. It becomes a challenge to one’s personal belief, when one is confronted with the issue and forced to state their Catholic position. There is real reason for concern, despite your light-hearted dismissal of the issue.

The deterioration of which you speak seems to be limited to the fact that others choose to live in a way that you do not agree with. Until you find yourself an island populated by only those who share your beliefs, you’re going to run into others who don’t share them and you may be forced to state your Catholic position. Isn’t that the point anyway? That we are noticeably different from the world? I can only hope that my choice is a witness to my friends, and the fact that I’m happier than I have ever been makes them think about the reason why. I would happily state the reason daily if it would lead even one to make the choice I’ve made.

Btw-the cases you cited in Vermont and the KofC were examples of those who wish to make money by offering services to the public, until they were faced with members of the public that they did not approve of. In both cases, staying in business with the public was preferable, so settlements were handed out. Both sides won-they both got publicity with their respective contingents and both sides use the cases to fire up the base, if you will. I’ve not read the Costco one, but I’d like to. That sounds like a loser for Costco if the only reason they fired him was his objection to gay marriage. They can ask him not to be a disruptive influence at work, but they can’t fire him because of his beliefs. Do you have a reference handy? If not I’ll go digging on my own.

Canada does not have the same legal system as we do, so I can’t really get into that one. I was talking about US cases.

 

[Faithdancer]

These and all the other sentiments in your post are in direct opposition to statements from the USCCB and the Vatican itself on how Catholics, not secularists, are to view both homosexual “unions” in the civic arena as well as (faux) homosexual “marriage.” It is not possible to be in communion with Rome regarding the integrated Catholic doctrine of marriage/sexuality/gender/family and declare verbal or practical support for SS “M.” That is the Church’s perspective on this irresponsible contemporary experiment and the associated scandalous cheerleading, by some Catholics, surrounding it. That is not some random personal judgment by me or anyone else on this forum.

You are so right Elizabeth, and it’s all right there in the Catechism. That is to say, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which some who call themselves Catholic apparently feel is irrelevant, to be ignored when it contradicts their own confused sense of “social justice:” (1601) “The matrimonial covenant, by which **a man and a woman **establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

Further, (2089) Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."

The Holy Sacrament of Marriage as between one man and one woman is a truth which must be believed with “divine and catholic faith.” 'Nuff said.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The deterioration of which you speak seems to be limited to the fact that others choose to live in a way that you do not agree with.

No. The deterioration of religious freedom currently is seen in cases of those who are faced with persecution because they object to the re-ordering of marriage on religious grounds.

Seeker1961:

Until you find yourself an island populated by only those who share your beliefs, you’re going to run into others who don’t share them and you may be forced to state your Catholic position. Isn’t that the point anyway? That we are noticeably different from the world? I can only hope that my choice is a witness to my friends, and the fact that I’m happier than I have ever been makes them think about the reason why. I would happily state the reason daily if it would lead even one to make the choice I’ve made.

Please note that my objection is not to individuals and their chosen lifestyle. It is not motivated by hatred or fear. It is motivated by a desire for truth. My objection is to the redefinition of the institution of marriage. It has nothing to do whith how I feel (or don’t feel) about people who are homosexual.

Seeker1961:

Btw-the cases you cited in Vermont and the KofC were examples of those who wish to make money by offering services to the public, until they were faced with members of the public that they did not approve of.

You don’t know how the individuals felt about the couples in question. If they were like me, their objection would not be based on personal characteristics, but instead upon an objection to the institution that the couple wanted to celebrate (a “marriage” that in both our opinions does not really exist)

Seeker1961:

In both cases, staying in business with the public was preferable, so settlements were handed out. Both sides won-they both got publicity with their respective contingents and both sides use the cases to fire up the base, if you will.

Not everybody is looking for publicity. The couple who owned the Inn were forced to pay from their bottom line, and they really had no interest in publicizing the dispute. There certainly are others who will use the case to fire up their “base,” but I don’t think you could say by any stretch that the case was a “win” for religious conscience.

Seeker1961:

I’ve not read the Costco one, but I’d like to. That sounds like a loser for Costco if the only reason they fired him was his objection to gay marriage. They can ask him not to be a disruptive influence at work, but they can’t fire him because of his beliefs. Do you have a reference handy? If not I’ll go digging on my own.

You can Google the story. It’s not too hard to find. Here’s one story.

Seeker1961:

Canada does not have the same legal system as we do, so I can’t really get into that one. I was talking about US cases.

OK. But the same thing has been going on in Canada for some time now, with gay marriage being the law of the land. It’s more of a restriction on freedom of religion in that Country, where Canadians do not have an equivalent to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. It may be considered a human rights violation just to say that homosexual conduct is a sin.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Seeker1961]

No. The deterioration of religious freedom currently is seen in cases of those who are faced with persecution because they object to the re-ordering of marriage on religious grounds.

Please note that my objection is not to individuals and their chosen lifestyle. It is not motivated by hatred or fear. It is motivated by a desire for truth. My objection is to the redefinition of the institution of marriage. It has nothing to do whith how I feel (or don’t feel) about people who are homosexual.

You don’t know how the individuals felt about the couples in question. If they were like me, their objection would not be based on personal characteristics, but instead upon an objection to the institution that the couple wanted to celebrate (a “marriage” that in both our opinions does not really exist)

Not everybody is looking for publicity. The couple who owned the Inn were forced to pay from their bottom line, and they really had no interest in publicizing the dispute. There certainly are others who will use the case to fire up their “base,” but I don’t think you could say by any stretch that the case was a “win” for religious conscience.

You can Google the story. It’s not too hard to find. Here’s one story.

OK. But the same thing has been going on in Canada for some time now, with gay marriage being the law of the land. It’s more of a restriction on freedom of religion in that Country, where Canadians do not have an equivalent to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. It may be considered a human rights violation just to say that homosexual conduct is a sin.

Peace,
Robert

I understand the need to split the hairs on disapproving of the individuals and disapproval of the marriage itself, but in a business situation like the ones described in these cases, there really isn’t a difference. The refusal of service is the causal factor for the case, it has nothing to do with personal feelings about the individuals. I’m sure they’re all really decent people, they just disagree on what a business providing service to the public means.

As far as the publicity factor, neither side may have been looking for publicity in reality. The women may have simply wanted a nice bed and breakfast to visit, never expecting that they would be refused when their union was perfectly legal. They actually both could have been used by those on each side of the debate.

I actually did Google the Costco case, but came up with a bunch of gender discrimination cases, but not that one. Again, Canada and the laws are quite a bit different there.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I understand the need to split the hairs on disapproving of the individuals and disapproval of the marriage itself, but in a business situation like the ones described in these cases, there really isn’t a difference. The refusal of service is the causal factor for the case, it has nothing to do with personal feelings about the individuals. I’m sure they’re all really decent people, they just disagree on what a business providing service to the public means.

Hair-splitting is what lawyers get paid to do. The point I was trying to make is that it’s not about hating the people. It’s about loving the people, and hating the sin. I suppose a very real problem here is that the “gay” community defines itself by the act that many people view as “sin.” But it’s bad for to jump from the fact that one opposes the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions, to the conclusion that it’s because one has hatred in his or her heart for any other person or group. That’s the sort of false conclusion that shuts down dialogue.

Seeker1961:

I actually did Google the Costco case, but came up with a bunch of gender discrimination cases, but not that one. Again, Canada and the laws are quite a bit different there.

The Costco case was a U.S. case, in which the KofC member who told the lesbian couple that they could not have their reception at the KofC hall was fired from his job at Costco, because he was perceived as being hateful, intolerant, and homophobic. Apparently, his immediate supervisor and many of his work colleagues were also self-identified as “gay.” I think this is a clear example of someone suffering loss because of his religious beliefs. News of the story certainly will chill others from speaking about their religious convictions regarding gay marriage, for fear of similar reprisals.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Seeker1961]

Hair-splitting is what lawyers get paid to do. The point I was trying to make is that it’s not about hating the people. It’s about loving the people, and hating the sin. I suppose a very real problem here is that the “gay” community defines itself by the act that many people view as “sin.” But it’s bad for to jump from the fact that one opposes the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions, to the conclusion that it’s because one has hatred in his or her heart for any other person or group. That’s the sort of false conclusion that shuts down dialogue.

The Costco case was a U.S. case, in which the KofC member who told the lesbian couple that they could not have their reception at the KofC hall was fired from his job at Costco, because he was perceived as being hateful, intolerant, and homophobic. Apparently, his immediate supervisor and many of his work colleagues were also self-identified as “gay.” I think this is a clear example of someone suffering loss because of his religious beliefs. News of the story certainly will chill others from speaking about their religious convictions regarding gay marriage, for fear of similar reprisals.

Peace,
Robert

The article in LifeSite sbout Costco you linked indicated British Columbia…I just checked again to make sure I hadn’t read it wrong. It was a BC Knights of Columbus and Human Resources Canada is quoted in the article. Unless LifeSite’s article is completely inaccurate, the case is Canadian.

 

[HaveCourage]

Secular reason for opposing “Gay mariage”:

First understand that the pursuit of same-sex relationships by persons with same sex attractions is a further step to what they perceive as a means towards fulfillment in their person. However, this journey towards fulfillment is influenced (dare I say partially defined) by the identity we choose to embrace. For example, you have a person like me who chooses to identify by my relationship with God above all else, while still being honest about the existence of my sexual attractions. How I perceive my role/position/journey through life will be a lot different than if I CHOOSE to embrace the identity of being “gay”, in which case, my sexuality would be the anchor of my journey towards fulfillment.

Both identities reveal the truth of the existence of same-sex attractions. However, one orders God to be greater than sexuality (by virtue of the identity being centered on God), while the other identity orders sexuality to be greater than God (by virtue of the identity being centered on sexuality). It is as simple as that.

Any orthodox Catholic will not participate in ANY form of activity that serves to affirm a person into choosing to embrace an identity that places God (our infinite Creator) to be BELOW our sexuality (which is but a part of finite creation). If we do, we are committing to the falsehood that that which is infinite is less than that which is finite.

When we affirm persons into same-sex relationships (marriage or not), we are affirming them in their further pursuit of fruition whilst embracing a sexually-centered identity.
That’s what it all boils down to - whatever we do that serves to permit a person to come to frution while embracing a sexually-centered identity, also serves to affirm them into an identity where God is placed below sexuality. If this were not the case, then there would be no objection to the suggestion that persons such as myself - persons who experience same-sex attractions - can CHOOSE to identify as beloved children of God, who are fully honest with themselves about the existence of our sexual attractions.

You see, I am completely honest with myself in that identity, YET, the reality that I can choose this, and choose to pursue fruition as a person via my relationship with God above all else, is a very offensive truth to many people.
The good thing is that any reasonable person I hope would wonder why that opposition exists. From what I can tell, the opposition to my choice to embrace the identity of being a beloved child of God, is rooted not in other people’s concern that I be honest with myself, but rather their concern that I embrace a sexually-centered identity and live proud in doing so.

So, to move on to the secular approach:
Sexuality is a part of personhood. Personhood is not a part of sexuality.
Ergo, personhood is greater than sexuality.
Identifying as a person with same-sex attractions is very different than identifying as a same-sex attracted person, or a “gay” person. Same elements, different substance. Come on you know what I mean - there is a reason the government forced Kraft to change the name of their Kraft Dinner from Cheese and Macaroni to Macaroni and cheese lol.
Not to trvialize it, but it is the same idea - personhood is the fullness of who we are (up to the point of the divine authorship of our souls), while sexuality is a part of our personhood.
Therefore, with regards to same-sex marriage, the question becomes the same as above - why would anyone strive to afirm another person into embracing a reductionist label centered on only a PART of their being, as opposed to embracing an identity that is centered on the fullness of their being (in the eyes of a secularist).

When we affirm person to embrace a sexually-centered identity, we place sexuality above personhood - we order sexuality to be greater than personhood. However, sexuality is not greater than personhood, as sexuality is only a part of personhood. To believe otherwise is to believe and embrace a falsehood. To therefore affirm persons into relationships by which they come to fruition in sexually-centered identites (same-sex relationships and marriage), we affirm them into becoming more engaged in a life that is anchored on the falsehood that sexuality is greater than personhood.

For as long as a person identifies according to their sexuality (which is a part of personhood) as opposed to their personhood itself, they embed within their beings the falsehood that sexuality is greater than personhood. If we choose to affirm persons in this way, then we are affirming their decision to embrace that falsehood. Therefore, we become a party to this embedding of falsehood within their beings, and thus are guilty of the crime of knowingly inhibiting a greater degree of truth.

The thing is, for as long as we embrace falsehoods, we will not be able to experience the fullness of joy. So, please consider this when you are deciding whether or not to affirm persons into choosing to identify as “gay” (or any other sexually-centered identity).

That’s the short story.

PS: Sorry about grammer mistakes, i am quickly writing this before work.
God bless you all.

 

[Mary_Fleurdelis]

For me, I know that being a Catholic means that I also have to evangelize and make the world a better place for the greater glory of God. Same-sex marriage legislation puts the government on the side advocating for same-sex marriage. Insurances and tax codes suddenly become a lot more complicated. Custody laws become shaky. The government absolutely has an interest in traditional marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years…two people are bound together and have offspring. Without this, the government has more illegitimate children to take care of and less children being taken care of by their biological parents.

Laws do influence morals (take a look at abortion). It is also a lie to tolerate civil same-sex marriage because it is never going to be a true marriage, religiously or civilly. We’re talking a major Natural Law violation. Also, in many other countries that have civil unions or same-sex marriage (Canada, Denmark) legislation is already imposing SSM views on religions and schools. Christians in those countries are more accepting of homosexual behavior.

Homosexual acts are a grave sin against God. Sin turns us from God and causes chaos internally, within families, and within society. Do we really want to turn a blind eye to that?

 

[elster]

Medical research has shown without a doubt not only in humans but also in many species of mammals there are differences in the brains of homo sexuals and lesbians through MRI’s. These MRI’s show a pronounced difference between gays and heterosexuals. Since the Bible is a pretty dubious source of moral education as pointed out by experts such John Dominic Crossen and Joseph Campbell . I think its time for responsible leadership in the church that does not trip and fall before valid scientific research. I myself grew up with another male child that was a catholic and definitely a homosexual from the time we could remember. We were both alter boys and went to catholic school. There was no doubt in anyones mind that he was definitely gay from birth. Now in all the hoop la, is this a cruel trick of god, the devil, or of mankind ? You decide. I already know. What is the significance of a hermaphrodite. What about some girls and women who are born with unusually large clitoris that looks just like a penis ?

For the record I straight. My mother discouraged me from playing with the fore mentioned boy. Long before I understood what it was all about my mother called my friend a sissy. I was not even in kindergarten when she said that.

 

[Tarses]

I know this is a tough issue for many people and is certainly one I struggled with over the years. However, the wisdom of the Church is in its truth. You can see the results of how secularists define marriage all around us (where according to them it’s simply about two people who love each other) – out-of-control and rising divorce rates, broken families, children that are after-thoughts, single-mothers left to raise children alone, etc. Now they want to add more people to their definition?!

The theological arguments from the Church against so-called “gay marriage” are plentiful and easy to find. Sometimes the secular arguments are less easy to find. In case it’s helpful, a really good article was written a few years ago that really nails it and can be found here.

Peace,
Tarses

 

[Cedwards]

How would Jesus govern? What law would he pass? Would he force his views on another religion or society? Or, would Jesus take the Joe Biden route and make abortion legal, even though he “personally” held a different view? It seems absurd.

Jesus knows what is best and would rule accordingly. Those who are not confident in right and wrong are the ones who cop out by hedging their position. For example, God made his feelings toward homosexuality very clear at Sodom & Gamorrah. Would Jesus, therefore, legitimize the same sin now by making it legal? Civil unions? Fine. I understand that politics is the art of compromise. But unless you are a full-time compromiser, have some backbone and walk your talk! Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman for life.

The non-Christian world is pushing their views on us. Unless we hold fast to the truth, we will continue to see government require Catholic hospitals to provide abortions and churches to hire practicing homosexuals. Quit apologizing for what you know is right!

“It is the duty of nations as well as men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the LORD.” Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day, Washington, D.C., March 30, 1863

 

[Faithdancer]

Since the Bible is a pretty dubious source of moral education as pointed out by experts such John Dominic Crossen and Joseph Campbell

Au contraire, for Christians the Bible is the only source of material for moral education that is required. The writings of Campbell and Crossan are contrary to Catholic teachings- to put it mildly.

 

[RiverTam51]

For example, God made his feelings toward homosexuality very clear at Sodom & Gamorrah.

As an agnostic, I do not find reason to attach divine meaning to the bible. Nor am I an expert in biblical interpretation. But in my reading of the S&G story, it seemed that God was more concerned that the angels were threatened with rape, than that the angels happened to be in a male form when threatened. Maybe it is just my modern-day morality, but this seemed rather obvious to me.
Which interpretation do the Catholics here agree with?

 

[Elizabeth502]

experts such John Dominic Crossen .

:dts:

Yeah, an “expert.” (Where’s the cough smiley?)

Although I believe it’s Crossan with an “a.” God rest his soul, poor tortured thing. (A biblical scholar he was not, let alone an “expert.”)

 

[Elizabeth502]

As an agnostic, I do not find reason to attach divine meaning to the bible. Nor am I an expert in biblical interpretation. But in my reading of the S&G story, it seemed that God was more concerned that the angels were threatened with rape, than that the angels happened to be in a male form when threatened. Maybe it is just my modern-day morality, but this seemed rather obvious to me.
Which interpretation do the Catholics here agree with?

It has nothing to do with “agreeing with,” because faithful Catholics do not approach scripture as “private interpeters” who are dependent (swayed) by a supposed consensus. Scripture is not a free-for-all do-it-yourself text, but a collection of many ancient texts, some of which had multiple authors but a unified message. In any case, the authentic interpretation of S&G has been outlined – among many other places – on the Catholic Answers website itself. Authentic has to do with understanding of all the various tools in which to understand the message(s) with expertise, having been informed about the foundations of the history, cultural understandings (language has meaning only within the culture), the literary forms being read, the tradition in which people received oral teachings, the allusions Jesus used, and much more.

And the Gospels themselves are not stand-alone texts. They refer back to Kings, to the Prophets, to Psalms, to Deuteronomy, to Genesis, and to contemporary practices and politics which Jesus was well aware of. A 21st century First World viewpoint is an utterly flawed tool. Naturally I’m not saying that you are doing so! However, many, on this site and off, do in fact try to do so, deceiving themselves and failing in the process.

I know that if you refer to the S&G discussion on the C.A. homepage, you will find the answer to your question. There are other credible sources, but that’s a good place to start. (I have found it myself there.) Good luck.

 

[Jamesgart]

We may all find out after we die that God was not against gay marriage! Nobody actually knows, it is just what they believe to be true.

 

[CopticChristian]

We may all find out after we die that God was not against gay marriage! Nobody actually knows, it is just what they believe to be true.

James,

You have some unusual beliefs.

You believe that the cause of homosexuality and transgender has been scientifically proven.

You believe that evolution is fact.

You state that nobody knows what God is for or against, yet you designate yourself Catholic. Do you not believe that the teahcings of the Church are from God, as the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known, founded by Christ, who is God?

 

[wisedom]

Hi, All,

I was a member of this Forum years ago but seem to have forgotten my previous account’s information, so I made a new one. This is my first post with my new account, and I guess I’ll just jump right in…

The “right” of persons of the same sex to get legally married to each other is, of course, a cause célèbre right now in the United States and much of the Western world. As Catholics, obviously we do not believe that a sacramental marriage can exist but between one man and one woman. Legal marriage, i.e. marriage defined by the state, however, is of course a different animal - it reflects the Christian understanding of marriage in some ways, but not in others. For instance, one can dissolve his or her legal marriage through a divorce, whereas according to perennial Christian doctrine “divorce” is impossible - valid marriages last until the death of one of the spouses.

In any case, here is what I am concerned about: we often here from the Church’s bishops (a holy and humble group of men, increasingly, of whom we should all be proud) that we must oppose efforts to legalize gay marriage. My question is: is it truly a Catholic’s duty, is a Catholic truly not living in accord with the Church’s teachings, if he faithfully holds to the Catholic Faith in believing that a marriage in the eyes of God could only ever be between a man and a woman, but who does not necessarily believe that the state can legitimately deny to same sex partners their desire for a (legal/civil) marriage?

Although I certainly don’t subscribe to the view that a legal marriage to a person of the same sex is a Constitutional “right” as we hear so often by the gay marriage lobby, neither can I find a foolproof reason why, if the majority of a state’s citizens (by state I mean each of the 50 states, not the federal State) decide to vote in favor for it, why we must oppose that. Often it seems that the Church’s bishops imply or even explicitly state that we, as good Catholics, must vote against these measures, whereas to the best of my knowledge, there is no Catholic doctrine that says “You must vote to make laws of the nation reflect exactly the Church’s doctrines” - all I am aware of is that there is a Catholic doctrine that says “marriage, in God’s eyes, is only between a man and a woman” - something I certainly agree with.

I think the bishops mean well, and they mean to stem the tide of sexual depravity gripping our nation, but at the same time I think it’s quite dangerous to try and make something appear as if it’s part of the Church’s immutable dogma when it is not.

Can someone help here? Tell me where I’m going wrong, or if I’m going wrong?

RC

the clergy have no right or duty to dictate that the laity must not follow the dictates of their own conscience!

 

[Elizabeth502]

We may all find out after we die that God was not against gay marriage! Nobody actually knows, it is just what they believe to be true.

Apparently we’re not going to “all find out” any such thing.

Several mystics have had visions of Hell, in which were included unrepentant practitioners of homosexuality, sacrilege, and abortion – among other offenses.

Your statement bears no consistency with the Mosaic moral code which Jesus Himself embraced and affirmed. A “marriage” is, among other things, an affirmation of a particular behavior. If a behavior is condemned, any resultant formalization of that behavior is even more morally condemnable, not less so. Thus, both the State, and various religions condemn other forms of behavior such as incestuous unions; therefore (Logic 101) the institutionalization of such behavior is merely a continuum along that condemnation.