Gay marriage : who cares?

[kenofken]

The natural moral law cannot be breached without bad consequences.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091503.html
**Wednesday September 15, 2010
Perkins: ‘We must Love People Enough’ to Combat Homosexuality
By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)** - Conservatives’ principled opposition to same-sex “marriage” is based, not on “homophobia” or any animus against homosexual persons, but on a genuine love for homosexual individuals that propels leaders to teach the truth about homosexuality and the damage it causes, said Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins last week.

“Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, realize we must love people enough to be willing to speak the truth – and the truth is that we cannot redefine marriage without opening the door to all manner of moral and social evil,” Perkins said in an address to the Faith and Freedom Conference in the nation’s capital Friday.

Perkins continued: “I do not oppose homosexual marriage because I think it would threaten my marriage. I oppose it because it threatens the institution of marriage and, as a result, our nation itself.” While men and women are “biologically, psychologically, and emotionally” complementary, he said, statistics confirm that the homosexual relationship is far from the family-friendly model homosexual lobbyists often paint it to be.

“Data show that the great majority of married homosexuals have multiple sexual partners. One recent study of homosexual couples found that each member of such couples averages eight additional sexual partners per year. Do I really need to say that this is not a good environment for children?” Perkins asked.

The leader also noted other studies that suggest “children raised in homosexual homes are much more likely to be exposed to violence than those raised by a mom and a dad.”

For example, a 1994 study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examining conflict and violence in lesbian relationships found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to the study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. A 2001 survey in the Journal of the Family Research Institute found that gay men were 25 times more likely than married men to be domestically attacked.

Hmmm, a guy who wants to oppress another class of people proclaims he’s the good guy and really just means to do it out of tough love? Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Alabama, circa 1965. They guys who fought school integration and interracial marriage said they too were just acting to do what was best for families. They even said the upsetting the natural order of things would harm black kids and that they were really just looking out for their interests too. Mixing the races would just set them up for failure and disappointment and violence. I would have serious doubts about Mr. Perkins “data” given that it was collected with a pre-determined agenda and probably wouldn’t pass muster with any serious statistician or social scientist.

Then we have this other problem I’ve mentioned at intervals of inconsistency. At least a million or two married couples in this country have multiple sex partners (they’re called swingers), not counting the 40% or so of other couples who will have infidelity going on at some point in their marriage. I wonder why Mr. Perkins can’t see his way clear to outlaw THOSE marriages. Maybe households with hetero mulitple partner sex isn’t so bad for kids.

Then we have data showing that 90% of women couples living together in close quarter raised their voice to each other at least once over the course of a year. Well. That IS shocking! As to the 31% incidence of physical abuse, it’s very much in line with the rates experienced by women with male partners.

The last morsel of statistics, the assertion that gay men are 25 times more likely to be attacked than straight men is also problematic for several reasons. One, it’s widely understood in the research community that hetero men greatly under-report incidents of domestic violence against them. Honestly, how many straight guys do you know, even in this progressive age of ours, who would admit their wife gives them a flogging at regular intervals?

Finally, ANY data put out by the Family Research Institute is suspect. It was created and run by a guy who was expelled by the American Pyschological Association. Other professional groups have come out and stated that they consider much of his work to misrepresent the science. Calling something a “research institute” and publishing a slick journal does not mean you’re doing good science. Real scientists use generally accepted methodology, investigate questions, and let the chips fall where they may. This institute exists for the sole purpose of discrediting homosexuality, and so filters, massages and spins data to achieve that pre-determined conclusion.

 

[kenofken]

The natural moral law cannot be breached without bad consequences.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091503.html
**Wednesday September 15, 2010
Perkins: ‘We must Love People Enough’ to Combat Homosexuality
By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)** - Conservatives’ principled opposition to same-sex “marriage” is based, not on “homophobia” or any animus against homosexual persons, but on a genuine love for homosexual individuals that propels leaders to teach the truth about homosexuality and the damage it causes, said Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins last week.

“Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, realize we must love people enough to be willing to speak the truth – and the truth is that we cannot redefine marriage without opening the door to all manner of moral and social evil,” Perkins said in an address to the Faith and Freedom Conference in the nation’s capital Friday.

Perkins continued: “I do not oppose homosexual marriage because I think it would threaten my marriage. I oppose it because it threatens the institution of marriage and, as a result, our nation itself.” While men and women are “biologically, psychologically, and emotionally” complementary, he said, statistics confirm that the homosexual relationship is far from the family-friendly model homosexual lobbyists often paint it to be.

“Data show that the great majority of married homosexuals have multiple sexual partners. One recent study of homosexual couples found that each member of such couples averages eight additional sexual partners per year. Do I really need to say that this is not a good environment for children?” Perkins asked.

The leader also noted other studies that suggest “children raised in homosexual homes are much more likely to be exposed to violence than those raised by a mom and a dad.”

For example, a 1994 study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examining conflict and violence in lesbian relationships found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to the study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. A 2001 survey in the Journal of the Family Research Institute found that gay men were 25 times more likely than married men to be domestically attacked.

Hmmm, a guy who wants to oppress another class of people proclaims he’s the good guy and really just means to do it out of tough love? Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Alabama, circa 1965. They guys who fought school integration and interracial marriage said they too were just acting to do what was best for families. They even said the upsetting the natural order of things would harm black kids and that they were really just looking out for their interests too. Mixing the races would just set them up for failure and disappointment and violence. I would have serious doubts about Mr. Perkins “data” given that it was collected with a pre-determined agenda and probably wouldn’t pass muster with any serious statistician or social scientist.

Then we have this other problem I’ve mentioned at intervals of inconsistency. At least a million or two married couples in this country have multiple sex partners (they’re called swingers), not counting the 40% or so of other couples who will have infidelity going on at some point in their marriage. I wonder why Mr. Perkins can’t see his way clear to outlaw THOSE marriages. Maybe households with hetero mulitple partner sex isn’t so bad for kids.

Then we have data showing that 90% of women couples living together in close quarter raised their voice to each other at least once over the course of a year. Well. That IS shocking! As to the 31% incidence of physical abuse, it’s very much in line with the rates experienced by women with male partners.

The last morsel of statistics, the assertion that gay men are 25 times more likely to be attacked than straight men is also problematic for several reasons. One, it’s widely understood in the research community that hetero men greatly under-report incidents of domestic violence against them. Honestly, how many straight guys do you know, even in this progressive age of ours, who would admit their wife gives them a flogging at regular intervals?

Finally, ANY data put out by the Family Research Institute is suspect. It was created and run by a guy who was expelled by the American Pyschological Association. Other professional groups have come out and stated that they consider much of his work to misrepresent the science. Calling something a “research institute” and publishing a slick journal does not mean you’re doing good science. Real scientists use generally accepted methodology, investigate questions, and let the chips fall where they may. This institute exists for the sole purpose of discrediting homosexuality, and so filters, massages and spins data to achieve that pre-determined conclusion.

 

[CradleCath]

If you are arguing against gay marriage from natural law, which most of you appear to be, you should be as eager to enact laws that defend the institution from hetero violations of that law as well as homosexual ones. The fact that no one here seems willing to do so and in fact ridicules the very notion tells me that you’re not arguing from a position of sincerity.

Your questions re. enacting laws against hetero violations of Natural Law was answered in post 587. The fact that you continue to ask the same questions & decline to reply to that answer, says to me that you’re out of reasons (excuses, really) to further the cause of gay marriage.

But I don’t think the overwhelming majority of you would support even a “non-marriage” form of marriage like civil unions for gays.

I cannot support anything that I consider a sin & that goes for abortion, civil unions for gays, no-fault divorce laws, polygamy, & multiple marriages. However, I would not fight against civil unions for gays. That is unacceptable to me, but I would compromise simply because my Grandchildren would not be exposed to the name of “marriage” in the context of disordered sex.

The idea that it can all just be handled now by a few lawyer’s documents is patently false. Those documents, at best, address only a portion of the legal issues, due to a raft of federal tax and pension laws which do not recognize them. There is the additional problem that such documents are not given the same presumption of validity that a marriage is. Getting things done in the real world with those documents is a nightmare for many people.** What would take a married straight couple three minutes to accomplish requires hours of faxing and presenting and explaining documents that may be ignored, or challened or misunderstood by hospital personennel, lenders, you name it./B]**

And you think that these problems are not faced in the heterosexual married world. I spent one hour on the phone last Mon. (most of it on hold) with Medicare & had to RETURN to the hospital, for the 3rd time, to have documents faxed once again to my primary insurance co. & to Medicare. The “incident” that prompted these calls happened on Dec. 26, 2009. I am covered by both Medicare & my primary ins., they have assured me of this, HOWEVER, the hospital hasn’t received a dime of the the $15,000. owed to them.

You continue to speak of the “real world”, yet seem to have no idea what that is like for anyone who doesn’t support your agenda.

 

[CradleCath]

If you are arguing against gay marriage from natural law, which most of you appear to be, you should be as eager to enact laws that defend the institution from hetero violations of that law as well as homosexual ones. The fact that no one here seems willing to do so and in fact ridicules the very notion tells me that you’re not arguing from a position of sincerity.

Your questions re. enacting laws against hetero violations of Natural Law was answered in post 587. The fact that you continue to ask the same questions & decline to reply to that answer, says to me that you’re out of reasons (excuses, really) to further the cause of gay marriage.

But I don’t think the overwhelming majority of you would support even a “non-marriage” form of marriage like civil unions for gays.

I cannot support anything that I consider a sin & that goes for abortion, civil unions for gays, no-fault divorce laws, polygamy, & multiple marriages. However, I would not fight against civil unions for gays. That is unacceptable to me, but I would compromise simply because my Grandchildren would not be exposed to the name of “marriage” in the context of disordered sex.

The idea that it can all just be handled now by a few lawyer’s documents is patently false. Those documents, at best, address only a portion of the legal issues, due to a raft of federal tax and pension laws which do not recognize them. There is the additional problem that such documents are not given the same presumption of validity that a marriage is. Getting things done in the real world with those documents is a nightmare for many people.** What would take a married straight couple three minutes to accomplish requires hours of faxing and presenting and explaining documents that may be ignored, or challened or misunderstood by hospital personennel, lenders, you name it./B]**

And you think that these problems are not faced in the heterosexual married world. I spent one hour on the phone last Mon. (most of it on hold) with Medicare & had to RETURN to the hospital, for the 3rd time, to have documents faxed once again to my primary insurance co. & to Medicare. The “incident” that prompted these calls happened on Dec. 26, 2009. I am covered by both Medicare & my primary ins., they have assured me of this, HOWEVER, the hospital hasn’t received a dime of the the $15,000. owed to them.

You continue to speak of the “real world”, yet seem to have no idea what that is like for anyone who doesn’t support your agenda. Dealing with hospitals, insurance companies, social security, banks…especially concering Money Market accounts & Annuities is a pain in the neck for EVERYBODY. I am a retired business woman & I owned my own business. My bank knows this, they received my deposits from that business for 25 years. I have a VIP checking account & have maintained a small savings account there for the same amount of time. My Social Security payment is automatically deposited in my checking account…so they know the amount of my income. However, since I retired & sold the business, I cannot get a loan without my husband’s info & signature. Discrimination against women…probably. More likely, it’s discrimination against “homemakers”, because that’s what I’m classified as since I’ve retired. However, it’s the way things are for EVERYONE, & I’m sure not going to whine about it. I tend to pick my fights carefully.

 

[CradleCath]

Thanks, John21652 for revealing the error of Utilitarianism in Peter Singer of Princeton: the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.
Jeremy Bentham and John Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue.
Today utilitarians often describe benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences.

Singer supports bestiality as long as it doesn’t harm the animal! But the late great Fr Stephen Torraco of EWTN saw this development very clearly, as the acceptance of abortion was used to justify contraception which allows “the moral justification of homosexual activity, genital activity with anyone or anything, in vitro fertilization, and cloning.” This is the natural result of denying the natural moral law which even the pagans could identify.

“…homosexuality is a disturbance, comparable to – although not identical with – a physical illness. Strictly speaking there is no “cancerous person,” “paralytic person,” “pedophile person,” or “transsexual person.” There is, rather, a “person with cancer,” or a “person with a homosexual problem.” In contrast, it is correct to speak of the “heterosexual person,” because every human person is, as a man or a woman, designed for the sexual encounter with the opposite sex – irrespective of the existence of a disturbance.”
*Dubious Psychology *by Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, a clinical psychologist with more than 30 years of practice in therapy with homosexuals. Catholic World Report, November 1997].

Abu;7132038] & John21652, It’s a JOY to read your messages. The two of you actually understand that Natural Law…imprinted on human beings by our Creator, is innate knowledge. We don’t have to be taught what is contrary to Natural Law & it’s not a matter of different religions. It just IS!! People who want to post on the PHILOSOPHY forum should make it their business to understand this.

Those who are having problems understanding Natural Law & it’s effects on the individual & society in general…can start with Aristotle…who is considered to be the “Father of Natural Law”, & move to Thomas Aquinas who further developed the concept. If they aren’t able to do this, I would ask why they post on the PHILOSOPHY forum.

 

[Portrait]

You are incorrect.

For I believe in (a) God, just that his nature is very different from the one your religion describes. That said, I think your babbling about how ‘Natural Law’ ‘naturally’ proves homosexuality is evil is codswallop.QUOTE]

Dear Seeker2010,

Cordial greetings.

Your above comment is indicative of a very biased and subjective viewpoint based upon your all too evident deeply established relativistic presuppositions and scepticism.

Natural moral law whilst unwritten is perceived by all men who have the faculty of reason. It uses basic common sense, prudence and justice. Thus it is owing to natural moral law that trials for war crimes can be conducted against any man who is a perpetrator of genocide and mass murder, irrespective of his religion or want of it. So, for example, a Nazi could not have fallen back on the defence that he did not recognize the authority of the Bible, because even the most evil of Nazis still had the use of reason, and *reason is what discovers the natural law *for each and every man. The lame excuse of obedience to orders or compliance with the civil law will not bear scrutiny either, for an immoral act violates the natural moral law even if it conforms to the local civil law. Apartheid is another example of where the legalised racial segregation in South Africa from 1948-1991 defied the natural moral law. In this instance the civil law endorsed, tolerated or promoted disgraceful injustices, precisely because the natural moral law was being infringed. The natural moral exists notwithstanding what sceptics, political parties and civil authorities, actuated by an agressive atheism and moral relativism, assert and legislate to the contrary.

Now to return specifically to the subject under review, natural moral law applies to homosexual deviant acts, because men, who are endowed with the faculty of reason, have a basic ethical intuition that certain aberrant sexual behaviours are wrong because they are a departure from nature. Thus, for example, men perceive that the natural sex partner of a human is another human and not an animal.

By parity of reasoning the same is likewise applicable to the case of homosexual conduct. The natural sex partner of a man is clearly a woman and, the reverse is also true, the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus men have a corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality as they do about bestiality and incest.

The brief against homosexual deviant acts, on the basis of natural moral law, is as manifestly compelling as the other examples that I have cited. Only those who are desperate to maintain a particular polemical position, viz the normalization of homosexual genital acts for themselves or others, would seriously challenge the natural law argument againnst homosexual behaviour. Indeed such warped thinking could only be accorded any credence and intellectual respectability in a age where morally relativistic secular orthodoxy is the dominant ideaology.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Back again by special invitation.

americansfortruth.com/news/david-barton-america-has-long-regarded-homosexuality-as-incompatible-with-military-service.html

Selected quotes from David Barton’s essay:

"* William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws — the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders.

"In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:

"What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . .

"I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; “peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum” (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: “ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei” (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).

“Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, “dismemberment” of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:*”

From the founders, whether Christian or not (Jefferson was not a churchgoer), we see a repulsion for homosexual acts. This has been so throughout the history of the world. Suddenly, in the first decade of the 20th century, homosexual acts are not only no longer unnatural, but also prelude to marital rights? I don’t see how that case can be made other than by those who perversely intend to violate nature.

If there is no such thing as natural law, and if therefore homosexual acts are not against nature, then why shouldn’t sex acts with consenting animals also be honored by enacting laws to protect such behavior? More to the point, if such acts with animals are to be protected by law, why not also provide in the law for marriage with the animal of one’s choice?

Does anybody doubt that this logic, ending where it has to end, is downright insane?

Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave. :bigyikes:

 

[Portrait]

You are incorrect.

For I believe in (a) God, just that his nature is very different from the one your religion describes. That said, I think your babbling about how ‘Natural Law’ ‘naturally’ proves homosexuality is evil is codswallop.

Dear Seeker2010,

Cordial greetings.

Your remarks above are indicative, if I may say, of a biased and subjective mindset based upon deeply relativistic presuppositions and undisguised scepticism.

Natural moral law is perceived by all men who are endowed with faculty of reason. It uses basic common sense, prudence and justice. It is because of natural moral law that trials for war crimes can be conducted against any man who is a perpetrator of genocide or mass murder, irrespective of his religion or want of it. Thus a Nazi, for example, could not have hidden behind the defence that he did not acknowledge the authority of the Bible, because even the most evil of Nazis retained the use of their reason, and *reason is what discovers the *natural moral law for each and every man. Moreover, the lame excuse that it was obedience to orders or compliance with the civil law will not bear up to scrutiny either; an immoral act violates the natural moral law even if it conforms to the local civil law. Apartheid is another instance of where the legalized racial segregation in South Africa from1948-1991
defied the natural moral law. In this case the civil law endorsed, tolerated and promoted disgraceful injustices, precisely because the natural moral law was being infringed. The natural moral law exists notwithstanding what sceptics, political parties and civil authorities, often actuated by an aggressive atheism and relativism, assert and legislate to the contrary.

Now to return to the topic now under review, natural moral law is applicable to the case of homosexual deviant acts because men, endowed with the faculty of reason, have a basic ethical intuition that certain aberrant sexual conduct is wrong because it is against the course of nature. Thus men instinctively perceive that the natural sex partner of a human being is another human being, and not an animal.

By parity of reasoning the same is applicable to the case of homosexual deviant acts; the natural sex partner of a man is incontrovertibly a woman and the reverse is also true, viz, the natural sex partner of a woman is incontovertibly a man. Thus men have a corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality as they do respecting bestiality and incest.

The brief against homosexual aberrant acts is as compelling and convincing as the other examples that I have cited. Only those who for polemical reasons are desperate to maintain a particular postion (e.g. the normalization of homosexual genital acts for themselves or others) would seriously challenge this as it is a matter of basic common sense and empirical observation. Indeed, only a society where a morally relativistic secular orthodoxy is the dominant ideology, would seek to normalize and promote the acceptability of manifestly unnatural homosexual behaviour.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[kenofken]

to my primary insurance co. & to Medicare. The “incident” that prompted these calls happened on Dec. 26, 2009. I am covered by both Medicare & my primary ins., they have assured me of this, HOWEVER, the hospital hasn’t received a dime of the the $15,000. owed to them.

You continue to speak of the “real world”, yet seem to have no idea what that is like for anyone who doesn’t support your agenda.

I re-read your answer in post 587. It’s not an answer that gets at the question of moral consistency I pose. All you said is that the Church opposes things like divorce. True enough. You also state that the church and its supporters have been unsuccessful in trying to mold civil law to enforce that belief. True also. But deeply held convictions in natural law and God’s will can’t just be written off by saying “well, we lost that battle and it’s the liberals fault.”

IF those laws really mean anything at all, you are obligated to at least make a consistent effort to have them upheld. To not do so is to say that you only have to uphold natural law where it is politically or personally expedient to do so. THAT lands you squarely in the camp of relativism and utilitarianism. There is no “door number 3” on this point.

If you truly can grant yourselves moral permission to bow out of any fight where pop culture has you outflanked at the moment, there’s really no reason for the Pope or bishops to press any of the issues they do. Of course they can and do take principled stands every day on issues where they have little to no chance of prevailing. They only appear to surrender principle in those areas they don’t have a personal taste for fighting in - ie the divorce and remmarriage issue.

This business of ignoring natural law violations by hetero people and enforcing them zealously with gay people is a 2,000 pound elephant in the room. Everyone with a shred of sense can see, hear and smell this metaphorical elephant. The only “explanations” I’m getting from the natural law crowd is a a bald-face denial that it’s an elephant, and various juggling acts to try to turn the crowd’s attention anywhere else but the truth.

Unless someone can really own up to and explain this elephant of an inconsistency, the inevitable conclusion we must draw is that natural law and the Church’s moral laws regarding sex and marriage are really only just advisory guidelines if you’re someone who is “basically all right” -ie if you have the correct anatomy. They’re only immovable, hell and brimstone laws if you’re gay.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kenofken

Unless someone can really own up to and explain this elephant of an inconsistency, the inevitable conclusion we must draw is that natural law and the Church’s moral laws regarding sex and marriage are really only just advisory guidelines if you’re someone who is “basically all right” -ie if you have the correct anatomy. They’re only immovable, hell and brimstone laws if you’re gay.

When waging military wars, it is sometimes necessary to focus much attention on a particular battle that can still be won, as opposed to spreading resources so thin that no battle can be won.

The Church’s war against abortion and divorce laws has already been lost. That is not to say the Church still does not actively oppose those assaults on civilization. The gay marriage issue is a battle that can still be won, all the more so because public sentiment has, from time immemorial, abhorred sodomy as a profound and unnatural evil. It was as evil for the ancient Greeks (read Plato) as it is for modern Christians.

youtube.com/watch?v=aHk9JoXoBMY&p=2C9C369EE404666F&playnext=1&index=2

Your persistent charge that the Church is not sincere because it does not at this moment express the same fighting spirit against abortion and divorce laws as it once did will not wash. The Church is very sincere in all its battles, and when the time comes to fight in the open again for the unborn or for the family, don’t worry, it will be there with both fists pumping.

Education is the main weapon to use at this juncture. Educating not only Catholics, but also those outside the Church, as we try to do at Catholic Answers, for example. Only when common sense is restored will things change. At present, in case you haven’t noticed, there is not much common sense left in the world.

Look at how our own federal government is trying to micromanage everything and has become the very thing the Founders feared most … government removed from the people and lodged in tyrannical thrones of power.

 

[Portrait]

What kenofken and I are wonderring is not why you think gay marriage is immoral. What we wonder is what possible reason you could have for wanting to make gay marriage illegal if you don’t want to make laws about these other moral concerns related to mariage?

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings again and hope all is well.

Marriage is the fundamental bedrock of society and hence its sacredness must be protected from any grotesque and blasphemous parody. So called “gay marriages” are a perversion of the Sacrament of Marriage and must accordingly be denounced in the strongest terms. It is for this reason that Catholics would seek to make them unlawful, for they would in time undermine the whole fabric of society and give free reign to morally depraved conduct.

Societies which follow Christian tenets are generally happy, robust and thriving; societies which follow the tenets of secular orthodoxy and moral relativism, and its attendant materialism, break down into a morass of despair, immorality and cease to produce themselves.

However, the real issue at stake in this debate surely goes to the great existential and philosphical split of our times; between those who believe in the spiritual and those who do not, and those who believe in an objective morality and those who think right and wrong are relative, negotiable and arbitrary. This godless secular orthodoxy is now, alas, the dominant ideology in the Western World and this is the reason why we are having this very discussion at the present time.

True, the Catholic Church has been deeply flawed and it has done wrong. Nevertheless, this flawed vessel carries profound, precious and eternal truths; the Pope does little more than restate the basic moral beliefs held in common by all civilised nations for the past thousand years, including rejection of homosexual liasons and genital acts. This is why the Church is despised and rejected, because it disrupts the mirage of a secular utopia.

So what are the fruits of secular orthodoxy and moral relativistic thinking? Well here in the UK, where I live and move and have my being, we have half of all marriages broken, about 200,000 abortions every year, children engaging in carnal relations, violent drunkeness, rampant criminality, unprecedented adolecent insubordination and the abandonment of shared heritage, values and community. A very unhappy picture. Indeed, I would be so bold as to say that in modern Britain, the only Western instituion that robustly blocks the path to the total collapse of basic moral principles, which many still hold very dear, is the Catholic Church.

Now to return to homosexual “marriages”. Clearly such unions are a travesty for they tacitly assume that the liason, of which the physical bond is an integral part, is intrinsically good and wholesome and as procreative sexual intercourse within heterosexual marrige is. This assumption is fundamentally misguided.

First, it involves the distortion of the doctrines of creation an sin, claiming that the homosexual condition is good and to be celebrated since homosexuals are made that way.

Second, it rejects the idea that homosexual inclinations are a spiritual disorder, one more sign and fruit of Original Sin.

Third, if such a “marriage” is to be conducted within a church then it will *ispo facto *involve the delusion of looking to God - actually asking Him to sanctify sin by blessing what he regards as detestable. This is irresposible, irreverent and indeed blasphemous and utterly unacceptable.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[mtoddm]

Were it as obvious as you’d like to think, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Sorry.

It is indeed obvious - however, I understand that if one is blind (or has one’s eyes tightly shut), one may truly not see the most obviouos things.

I tried to lay out in the most logical and sensible manner the solid basis for the rejection of homosexual acts and the attempts to make legitimate so-called “same-sex marriage”-

Sometimes I convince myself that if but the light of clear reason were allowed to shine in its most simple form, without being mixed with anger or trite phrases or self-righteousness, then it would pierce the sorrowful darkness surrounding the eyes of so many -

However, I know truly that the healing of the blind belongs to Our Lord alone - argumentations serve generally to polarize, not convince -

So my prayers are with you, and all of the “pro-homosexuals” posting here -

may we all see things more clearly in the light of Christ -

—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[Abu]

Portrait
True, the Catholic Church has been deeply flawed

Clarification. Some of Her members, not in Her dogma and doctrine.
The Church is “held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, art 39). Her holiness is reflected also in those who are faithful to the point of becoming saints.

 

[Abu]

The only bulwark against the evils in society is God in His natural moral law and in Christ’s Church – the evidence is clear:
As Bishop John Steinbock of Fresno, California has reminded us “Let us never mistake human law as the law of God.”
dioceseoffresno.org/letters/index.html
The good Bishop emphasises the true nature of marriage as designed by God.
A “true” marriage is a unique relationship between one man and one woman and it is designed to procreate life and form a family, for the good of the children and of society. This is of divine origin and not of human origin.
We are seeing the result of society separating the gift of sex from bringing forth life, which can infect all of us. More and more people in our society now justify not simply homosexual relationships, but living together without marriage, fornication, sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, prostitution, contraception, quick and easy divorce.
All of these lead us to seeing children as secondary, and self-love becoming more important than self-giving love, which leads to a narcissistic society, with people never really growing up.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Abu

*All of these lead us to seeing children as secondary, and self-love becoming more important than self-giving love, which leads to a narcissistic society, with people never really growing up. *

AMEN.

 

[kenofken]

kenofken

Unless someone can really own up to and explain this elephant of an inconsistency, the inevitable conclusion we must draw is that natural law and the Church’s moral laws regarding sex and marriage are really only just advisory guidelines if you’re someone who is “basically all right” -ie if you have the correct anatomy. They’re only immovable, hell and brimstone laws if you’re gay.

When waging military wars, it is sometimes necessary to focus much attention on a particular battle that can still be won, as opposed to spreading resources so thin that no battle can be won.

The Church’s war against abortion and divorce laws has already been lost. That is not to say the Church still does not actively oppose those assaults on civilization. The gay marriage issue is a battle that can still be won, all the more so because public sentiment has, from time immemorial, abhorred sodomy as a profound and unnatural evil. It was as evil for the ancient Greeks (read Plato) as it is for modern Christians.

youtube.com/watch?v=aHk9JoXoBMY&p=2C9C369EE404666F&playnext=1&index=2

Your persistent charge that the Church is not sincere because it does not at this moment express the same fighting spirit against abortion and divorce laws as it once did will not wash. The Church is very sincere in all its battles, and when the time comes to fight in the open again for the unborn or for the family, don’t worry, it will be there with both fists pumping.

Education is the main weapon to use at this juncture. Educating not only Catholics, but also those outside the Church, as we try to do at Catholic Answers, for example. Only when common sense is restored will things change. At present, in case you haven’t noticed, there is not much common sense left in the world.

Look at how our own federal government is trying to micromanage everything and has become the very thing the Founders feared most … government removed from the people and lodged in tyrannical thrones of power.

What you say here is very politically astute and very smart strategic thinking, but it’s also 100% pure utilitarianism, untainted by even a trace of moral absolutism. Whether a cause appears “winnable” should have no bearing to someone who truly believes in natural law. Abortion is not a “winnable” war in the forseeable future, yet I don’t see the church giving up on that front. I do see you all giving up on the divorce and hetero sodomy issues for the simple reason that you don’t have the backbone to hold yourselves to the same moral standards you would impose on a minority.

 

[kenofken]

The only bulwark against the evils in society is God in His natural moral law and in Christ’s Church – the evidence is clear:
As Bishop John Steinbock of Fresno, California has reminded us “Let us never mistake human law as the law of God.”
dioceseoffresno.org/letters/index.html
The good Bishop emphasises the true nature of marriage as designed by God.
A “true” marriage is a unique relationship between one man and one woman and it is designed to procreate life and form a family, for the good of the children and of society. This is of divine origin and not of human origin.
We are seeing the result of society separating the gift of sex from bringing forth life, which can infect all of us. More and more people in our society now justify not simply homosexual relationships, but living together without marriage, fornication, sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, prostitution, contraception, quick and easy divorce.
All of these lead us to seeing children as secondary, and self-love becoming more important than self-giving love, which leads to a narcissistic society, with people never really growing up.

If he really feels that strongly about all of these things, why doesn’t he have the stones to do anything about most of them? The Church has raised and moved millions of dollars to fight the “homosexual relationships” part of this problem, but the bishop and his colleagues and followers only seem to have wagging fingers for the other 90% of the problem…

 

[Abu]

For Kenofken, I repeat: the only bulwark against the evils in society is God in His natural moral law and Christ’s Church. How myopic that Her support for pro-life causes, for Natural Birth Regulation, somatic stem cell research and cures, and all sound science which Her insistence on reason and faith has built, have all been deliberately concealed by such posters.

That is precisely why She has been in the forefront against contraception always and everywhere taught, re-emphasised (by Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 1930) after the capitulation by Anglicans in 1930 which has resulted in the evils of the abortion mentality, homomania, and will never approve of remarriage for the validly married nor for any of the other grave evils condemned in Her Scriptures.

Seeker2010
People are already what they are…Allowing those who are gay to wed will not change that

Marriage is as understood from time immemorial – between a man and a woman – no one can change that, so there can be no such thing as homosexual or lesbian “marriage”. A true marriage is for the good of the children through their formation by a father and a mother.

The disordered condition has been found, by those who wish to correct it, to respond well to reparative therapy.
Studies show that homosexuals experience considerably higher levels of mental illness and substance abuse than heterosexuals. A detailed review of the research has shown that “no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology.”36
Note:
36. James E. Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip M. Sutton, “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality,” *Journal of Human Sexuality *Vol. 1, p. 93 (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, 2009).

“There is a whole way of thinking and feeling that occurs long before the inclination to genital acts with persons of the same sex arises in the heart…the disorder itself is rooted in unhealthy emotions.” [Fr John A Harvey, *The Truth About Homosexuality, Ignatius, 1996, p 154-5. Also Elizabeth Moberly’s Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic, and Gerald van Aardweg’s Homosexuality and Hope, for an analysis of such emotions].

The chapter on *Women With Homosexual Orientation *gives many testimonies to the efficacy of reparative therapy and indicates that it is easier for many women to overcome their problem than men. The Truth About Homosexuality, Fr John A Harvey O.S.F.S., Ignatius, 1996].

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kenofken

*What you say here is very politically astute and very smart strategic thinking, but it’s also 100% pure utilitarianism, untainted by even a trace of moral absolutism. Whether a cause appears “winnable” should have no bearing to someone who truly believes in natural law. Abortion is not a “winnable” war in the forseeable future, yet I don’t see the church giving up on that front. I do see you all giving up on the divorce and hetero sodomy issues for the simple reason that you don’t have the backbone to hold yourselves to the same moral standards you would impose on a minority. *

It would appear that your arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage have dried up. Why are you changing the subject? The title of this thread is Gay Marriage: Who Cares? It is not Is the Catholic Church Sincere and Consistent?

Do you plan to answer any of the points I made in post 625? Specifically this one?

If there is no such thing as natural law, and if therefore homosexual acts are not against nature, then why shouldn’t sex acts with consenting animals also be honored by enacting laws to protect such behavior? More to the point, if such acts with animals are to be protected by law, why not also provide in the law for marriage with the animal of one’s choice?

Then, of course, there would have to be divorce laws pertaining to marriage with a beast. There would also have to be provisions for division of property, alimony entitlements, etc.

But then you are going to say, “You can’t marry a beast!” And I am going to say what you are saying about gay marriage:

Why not? Whatever turns you on, go for it! It’s perfectly natural, because there’s no such thing as natural law to get in the way.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kenofken

*What you say here is very politically astute and very smart strategic thinking, but it’s also 100% pure utilitarianism, untainted by even a trace of moral absolutism. *

Oh, there’s moral absolutism all right. It’s in the head and in the heart. But as I said with the military metaphor, you can’t always fight all the battles with equal fervor all the time. Any army that tried to do that would drop dead from exhaustion. So long as the head and the heart are pure, sooner or later the battle can be won. As in the case of the Supreme Court, we now have six Catholics sitting on it. Thus fortified, we are in a better position to fight the righteous causes. Time will tell.

But again, that is not the subject of this thread. Are you so low on ammunition that you have to keep changing the subject? Summon up your own moral absolutism and stick to your guns.