Gay marriage : who cares?

[edwest2]

The topic is more precisely whether gay marriage must be outlawed by civil authorities because it appears to be a unique moral threat to the purpose of marriage. It is my belief that the move to ban gay marriage is not based on any fundamental deep-seated concern about the sanctity of marriage, but rather personal distaste/homophobia of gays.

When I point out the obvious present threat to marriage (a non-gay one), I’m told that mass-scale divorce and adultery and obvious destructive effects on children are, you know, not that bad. We have government endorsing a lifestyle which is about promiscuity and disposable comittments. It has so damaged and undermined the reputation of the institution, in fact, that growing numbers of young people are simply cohabitating. But that’s not really a threat to marriage or a fundamental change to what it’s about, I’m told, apparently because the participants who are destryoying the institution are all anatomically correct. I used to have to walk all the way over to the liberals camp to find moral reasoning (and moral relativism) like that.

If divorce isn’t part of the topic, it’s because we’ve remade God in our own image, chosen which mortal sins we’re going to acknowledge and given ourselves the authority to wage a righteous war against only those sins (and people), who we really didn’t like much anyway.

The “we” you are referring to are not what should be focused on. The Church decides, based on natural law and divine revelation. Catholics should learn, understand and follow Church teaching.

Gay marriage is a brand new phenomenon. And it’s not like gays ever had the right to marry. This right, as they call it, was never taken away because they did not have it in the first place.

Homophobia is a nonsense word. I have worked with gay people and dated a bisexual young lady after she gave her life to Christ. That word does not aplly to me or anyone I know. I have no unreasoning fear of homosexual persons.

I watched over a 40 year period, the slow, gradual destruction of the family and the assault on moral norms in the West. This was carefully planned to lead to this day, so supporters of LGBT rights could say: “Look at you. Hypocrites. Cohabitating and doing all sorts of sinful things. How dare you focus on gays?”

I watched the Intellectuals and radicals and anarchists yelling something but here’s what they actually meant:

“WE want bookstores that exclusively sell pornographic materials. We want topless bars and strip clubs for our own enjoyment. You will allow this because we want it. We will teach you to have sex outside of marriage. We will publish Swinger magazines. We will put out X-rated movies and we will fight for our “right” to do all this because we want you to be exposed to the kind of immoral, immodest and pornographic culture we like.”

And whenever Christians complained? Shut up! Mind your own business! Leave us alone!

And all those kids traumatized by divorce after No-Fault Divorce appeared? Nobody officially recognized it until the year 2000 when an official study admitted: Gosh. Kids were traumatized by divorce. Go to your movie library and look up all the movies that made divorce a good thing. And what about the TV show Coach in 1989? More great timing as 1950s icon Shelley Fabares constantly told her unmarried boyfriend, “We’re adults. We can do whatever we want.” Whenever he expressed reservations about their unmarried state.

40 years of propaganda. 40 years of poisoning the Christian family, and other families. Today, on TV, two people have meaningless ‘just sex.’ Those behind this knew we would not handle going from I Love Lucy to Two and a Half Men overnight. They knew that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Gay people cite all the same purposes for their marriages as all the multiple and varied purposes as heterosexual couples cite as the purposes of their marriages such as finally becoming a whole self by uniting with another or having found the other half of their soul or raising a family or creating an economic institution and lots and lots of other purposes. Thankfully, our government does not try to tell us what purposes we ought to have for any of our personal relationships.

On a Catholic forum, this is the Catholic answer: the primary purpose of marriage is bringing children into the world.

Your argument runs counter to the ‘get the government out of the marriage business’ statement I often see. Apparently, the government is evil and intrusive unless it supports what you want. You can’t have it both ways.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ERose]

On a previous thread, I generated a series of arguments that I personally believe are viable arguments against gay marriage that are not religious arguments. Anyway here you go:

1. The Slippery Slope Argument is that if same sex marriage is allowed based on the 14th amendment (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) then all forms of marriage that can be conceived must be allowed as well. Examples: all forms polygamy, human/animal, incestuous couples, etc. So from this standpoint where does it end? Some gay rights defenders on this forum have expressed that these other types of marriages are damaging while the same-sex form of marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. Also these same defenders say that this is not the case in court rulings because the arguments used in court exclusively refer to same-sex marriage as in the case of Judge Walker’s ruling.
   Yet Judge Walker’s ruling on Prop8 was based upon other cases that had nothing to do with same-sex marriage so this argument doesn’t work:

Turner v Safely (allowing prisoners to marry without needing consent from warden)
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur (Unfair treatment of pregnant teachers)
Loving v Virginia (ruling on inter-racial marriages)
Griswold v Connecticut (ruling on the use of contraceptives)

The primary argument, proposed in courts for same-sex marriage, is based primarily on the equal protection clause. If same-sex marriage is legalized then any other un-traditional marriage group can use the ruling for and the arguments used by the same-sex groups. If you need proof of this just look north to our sister country Canada, who legalized gay marriage in 2005. Canada is now considering legalizing polygamy. The Green Party just recently voted it down a few weeks ago but I doubt the battle is over. Argument used by the polygamist? Gay marriage.

polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2010/08/canada-greens-may-push-to-decriminalize.html

2.) By social definition of Marriage, same-sex marriages are not compatable. When evaluating the primary function and purpose of marriage, it is easy to conclude that the only reason why marriage exists in the first place is for procreation, establishing a stable environment to raise children, and regulate sexual behavior. All other purposes of marriage are secondary including mutual love between the couple. We all know that it requires a man and a woman to procreate, or in modern times sperm and an egg with a carrier. Of course, sperm come exclusively from males and eggs come exclusively from females. So no matter how you shake it; it requires a man and a woman.

Same-sex couplings are ALWAYS infertile and for a same-sex couple to have a child it ALWAYS requires a 3rd party to be involved. Thus, a child of a same-sex couple at best possesses the DNA of only one of the parents. Therefore, in a best-case scenario a same-sex family with children will always have one stepparent.

There are studies that show the best environment to raise children is a family with both biological parents involved in the rearing of the children.

blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/CDEV0009-3920~74~1~524%5C524.pdf

clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf

ryananddebi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Stacey-J2001.pdf

Even though in opposite-sex marriages there are a percentage of marriages where the children do have a stepparent, it is still a percentage where in same-sex couplings it is always the case.

The second article above points out that research shows that children raised in same-sex marriages are very similar statistically as those whose parents are divorced. It also pointed out that children of divorced parents do not have the same advantages of children in a normal marriage.

3.) It has also been mentioned on this forum that this isn’t a valid argument because there are marriages allowed where one or both of the members is either unable or unwilling to have children. Three points here. 1.) For those parents that are unwilling, biologically they are still open to having a child either by accident or by latter changing their minds. 2.) For those that are unable to have children, I do not think anyone would like to have the government digging into the privacy of the individuals to determine fertility. I do believe that this would encroach upon a few privacy laws in this country. Therefore, the government has either intentionally or unintentionally used the one man and one woman requirement for marriage to minimize this possibility without dealing with the privacy issues. 3.) Concerning the heterosexual couples that are either unwilling or unable, they comprise a certain percentage of all heterosexual couples; while in same-sex relationships, it is always the case that they cannot on their own bear children.

 

[ERose]

Continued…

4.) It can be argued from a natural law view in two ways: pro-creation and by extinction. The primary natural function of sex is for pro-creation not pleasure. Even though we are designed to deprive pleasure from sexual intercourse, which I believe the evolutionist on this board would say that this trait was necessary to make sexual intercourse desirable and to induce sexual behavior to propagate the species. Thus biologically, the primary function of sex is pro-creation. Since same-sex sex cannot procreate, it is an insufficient form of sexual intercourse with its primary purpose being pleasure. Marriages built upon pleasure alone do not last that long (this is my assumption).

5.) Same-sex couples cannot procreate without a 3rd party, so same-sex couples cannot carry on the human race alone. Therefore, the gay community requires heterosexual couplings to produce gay men and women since gay men and women cannot naturally produce other gay men and women. This is one of the better arguments against a “gay” gene. How is a “gay” gene passed down the line?

Judge Walker, in his ruling, and others have proposed that there is no significant evidence to show that heterosexual marriages are better than same-sex marriages. I would have to disagree and research either directly or indirectly supports this.

Again, I refer to Canada, which has been allowing gay marriages for 5 years now. In the below article proposed by the “queer” rights groups in Canada to the health department, evidence is supplied by gay groups outlining the issues that gay men and women endure due to their lifestyles. Even gaining the ability to marry has not “normalized” their lifestyle nor has it reduced the inherit dangers of their lifestyle. I will let you read it yourselves.

exacom.net/firstlibrary/Articles/Moral%20Issues/Homosexuality/Health%20consequences/HRC%20complaint.pdf

The most amazing statistic from this report is that the average lifespan of a gay man is 55 years. 55 YEARS. They also admit that it is due to the lifestyle choices of those in the gay community.

6.) When evaluating and living in healthy marriages, there seems to be one primary requirement and that is trust. I think that all would agree that the primary factors for a loss of trust in a marriage are due to: 1) infidelity, 2) physical/mental abuse and 3) financial secrets. Baring financial secrets the first two are serious issues in the gay community and the lifestyle they choose especially in men, which there seems to be a lot more statistics on men than women. Anyway here you go:

Infidelity: research has shown that particularly gay men (not as much data on lesbians it seems) that infidelity is very high and at least 50% as per the NY times are “open” relationships. nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html Also the following website has some very good statistics on it as well that are footnoted: frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Granted the many proponents of same-sex marriages will probably disregard this website as bias but in my opinion the best unbiased stats available is the breakdown of AIDS victims. Personally, I do not think that AIDS is a “gay” disease but rather a “promiscuity” disease, which I think that we all can agree. The CDC reports that: “MSM (men have sex with men) made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.” cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm If this information is correct, one can easily induce that gay men must have much more sexual encounters that straight men. Also, if you have read the report above concerning Canadian gay health grievances that in Canada where marriage is legal, they are still having a major problems in its gay community concerning AIDS.

Abuse: Studies have shown that in gay relationships physical and mental abuse is more likely between couples. As attested in the following study on the American Bar Association website:

• One survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite- sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

• 15.4% of same-sex cohabiting men reported being raped, physically assaulted and/or stalked by a male partner, but 10.8% reported such violence by a female partner.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm
So if trust is the primary factor of a healthy marriage from the information supplied one can reason that there will be fewer healthy marriages in the gay community.

 

[ERose]

Continued…

7.) The last argument I have is it proper to equate a lifestyle the same protections as race or ethnicity under the 14th amendment. From what I understand is that when interpreting one of the amendments in a court of law, the “original intent” of the amendment is taken into consideration. Obviously, this is the difference between “liberal” and “conservative” judges. Liberal judges interpret an amendment as they think it should be applied today, while conservative judges look at original intent. The original purpose of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment was to provide equal protection for all races and ethnicity. Thus the question is are “lifestyles” protected under the equal protection clause? One who interprets the amendment by its original intent would say no they are not.

Now people will try to argue that homosexuality (attraction to the same sex) isn’t a lifestyle. True, but living as an active gay is a lifestyle. Others will also say that being homosexual is not a choice. I think that can be debated since there has been no empirical proof of the “gay” gene. Even if there is a “gay” gene, the fact of the matter is that an individual must CHOOSE to live that lifestyle. They are not forced genetically or biologically to have sex with anyone. They may be tempted sexually, but still they are not in any way forced to live that lifestyle. In other words, it is a choice.

Others would like to equate homosexuality with being Black or some other racial group, and as such hitch a ride on the civil rights movement. Others would like to refer to gays as a minority just like Blacks, Hispanics, etc. The major fallacy with this argument is that Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Native Americans, etc. cannot wake up one day and cease to be what they are. I am of mixed heritage white & Indian. I was born with this heritage and I will die with this heritage. No matter how much I want to be other than that, there is nothing I can do about it. In other words, race and ethnicity are NOT choices.

The same cannot be said of gays. One is not born gay. At some point in their life he/she becomes gay. There are even those who at some point in their life cease being gay and become heterosexuals again. And there are those who live most of their lives as a happy heterosexual and then at one point or another choose to join the gay lifestyle. Thus they are not comparable.

I know that these are not all of the arguments against same-sex marriage out there and this is not an exhaustive list of arguments to say the least but these are the one I think personally are viable to the debate.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*Childless couples should know that you oppose them on the same basis that you oppose gay marriage and that you think their marriages are empty. *

Where did I say that I oppose childless marriage? My own marriage was chidless. Do I oppose myself? What I meant to say (perhaps I didn’t say it clearly enough) was that a childless marriage is empty of the joy that children bring, and all the more so for those who might have had children and come to realize, too late, that they missed the greatest experience in life.

That is what a gay marriage might be like. But that is the fate they chose for themselves. They don’t get to make up for the great mistake of their life by mucking up the life of a heterosexual child they want to adopt.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The hisorical and traditional purpose of marriage has always been to “create a stable environment for bearing and raising children.” This is the only reason why marriage even exists. Take this out of the picture and marriage becomes obsolete.

That isn’t quite true. There are two reasons for marriage and the sexual relations within marriage - the first is having children, the second is to strengthen the bond between husband and wife and to show their love for each other.

If the second reason did not exist, then married couples beyond child-bearing age would not be able to enjoy sexual relations.

And I do realize that by stating this I am probably going to get a response saying that homosexual couples can strengthen the bond between uh, spouse and spouse and to show their love for each other. But I did say “husband and wife” and by this I mean specifically man and woman. Man cannot conceive a child with another man and neither can a woman with another woman, so homosexual relations do not allow for marriage even if they can meet the second criterion somewhat, because they cannot meet the first criterion.

 

[kenofken]

The “we” you are referring to are not what should be focused on. The Church decides, based on natural law and divine revelation. Catholics should learn, understand and follow Church teaching.

Gay marriage is a brand new phenomenon. And it’s not like gays ever had the right to marry. This right, as they call it, was never taken away because they did not have it in the first place.

Homophobia is a nonsense word. I have worked with gay people and dated a bisexual young lady after she gave her life to Christ. That word does not aplly to me or anyone I know. I have no unreasoning fear of homosexual persons.

I watched over a 40 year period, the slow, gradual destruction of the family and the assault on moral norms in the West. This was carefully planned to lead to this day, so supporters of LGBT rights could say: “Look at you. Hypocrites. Cohabitating and doing all sorts of sinful things. How dare you focus on gays?”

I watched the Intellectuals and radicals and anarchists yelling something but here’s what they actually meant:

“WE want bookstores that exclusively sell pornographic materials. We want topless bars and strip clubs for our own enjoyment. You will allow this because we want it. We will teach you to have sex outside of marriage. We will publish Swinger magazines. We will put out X-rated movies and we will fight for our “right” to do all this because we want you to be exposed to the kind of immoral, immodest and pornographic culture we like.”

And whenever Christians complained? Shut up! Mind your own business! Leave us alone!

And all those kids traumatized by divorce after No-Fault Divorce appeared? Nobody officially recognized it until the year 2000 when an official study admitted: Gosh. Kids were traumatized by divorce. Go to your movie library and look up all the movies that made divorce a good thing. And what about the TV show Coach in 1989? More great timing as 1950s icon Shelley Fabares constantly told her unmarried boyfriend, “We’re adults. We can do whatever we want.” Whenever he expressed reservations about their unmarried state.

40 years of propaganda. 40 years of poisoning the Christian family, and other families. Today, on TV, two people have meaningless ‘just sex.’ Those behind this knew we would not handle going from I Love Lucy to Two and a Half Men overnight. They knew that.

God bless,
Ed

Your lament about the decay of society and its reasons may warrant a separate thread in and of themselves, but they do not begin to address the argument I make. They are, rather, an attempt to make it go away in a cloud of smoke.

In my last several posts, I attempted, for the sake of argument, to accept the Catholic moral reasoning for Prop 8 on its face and then evaluate the movement’s actions against its words. What I’m saying is that I’m using YOUR accounting rules for an audit, and the numbers, as it were, still do not add up. Your rulebook says that what civil government does (or does not) allow regards marriage amounts to a “sanctioning” or “endorsement” of the lifestyles of the parties involved. Ok, I’m on board so far.

Your rules also specify that you have a moral obligation to prevent government from sanctioning any type of marriage/lifestyle which is immoral by Catholic/Christian teaching. Very well. Your rules also quite clearly spell out adultery, even the hetero kind, as a big no-no in any circumstance. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, your rules say that morality is non-negotiable. There’s no wiggle room, no lawyers dodge, no “yes, but…” allowed. Your God ordained it, you follow it, end of story.

So with all this in mind, we establish that yes, gay marriage is something which you MUST advocate a government ban for. It also establishes that hetero divorce/remarrige/adultury is a threat to marriage of equal moral magnitude and much greater demographic magnitude. YOUR OWN RULES say that you must be pressuring government to enact a similar ban or legislative solution as you propose for gay marriage.

YET, I see and hear nothing but a lot of hemming and hawing on this point. Diatribes about how pornographers and liberals and gays are wrecking society. A lot of the “yes, but” equivocation of moral relativism and utilitarianism. A lot of moving the pea around under the shells and no real answer for the obvious disconnect in logic we have. That tells me that either you all don’t really believe in your own rulebook, or, more likely, that the crusade against gay marriage has everything to do with personal dislike of gays and nothing to do with any objective, unwavering moral imperative.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kenofken

*YET, I see and hear nothing but a lot of hemming and hawing on this point. Diatribes about how pornographers and liberals and gays are wrecking society. A lot of the “yes, but” equivocation of moral relativism and utilitarianism. A lot of moving the pea around under the shells and no real answer for the obvious disconnect in logic we have. That tells me that either you all don’t really believe in your own rulebook, or, more likely, that the crusade against gay marriage has everything to do with personal dislike of gays and nothing to do with any objective, unwavering moral imperative. *

You are reading into what he said something I could not read in it.

Society has since the dawn of time defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It is an honorable institution, and no society in history has ever defiled it by the farce of allowing men to marry men, and women to marry women. Society has no obligation to be amused by the farce and take it seriously. This has nothing to do with hating the sinner, but rather with honoring the institution. As usual, godless people have to be very busy turning the world upside down, but godly people have no mandate to go along. This matter will ultimately be decided by vote anyway. Even if cockeyed judges want to reverse the course of history and push us all back into the jungle, the matter can only be decided by a plurality of votes at the level of the Supreme Court (where there are now six Catholics).

As Thomas Jefferson said, “It is rare that the public sentiment decides immorally or unwisely, and the individual who differs from it ought to distrust and examine well his own opinions.” The opinion of mankind on this issue has been universal since the creation of the human race. Examine well your own opinion and kindly stop attributing the reasons of others to personal hatred of gays.

 

[Light1111]

OP, I too have wondered why we concern ourselves with gay marriage. As far as other global concerns, it seems that there are others that rank much higher, in terms of who is getting hurt.

I know the Church does not concede the possibility that one is born homosexual (though science states that this is the case), but consider this: in recent years, biologists have noted increasing rates of homosexuality in giraffes. It’s come to the point that they are attempting to artificially inseminate females, as the captive females and males are no longer interested in one another. Now how do giraffes wind up gay – certainly they are not being influenced by the media?

My brother is a homosexual and has suffered such grave injury to his sense of self, to his state of being, to his comfort as a citizen, by others who have hurled insults at him. I witnessed his childhood and I can attest to the fact that he was “born gay.” I do not mean to limit this discussion to stereotypes, but he fell into quite a few (admittedly, not all homosexuals do). He insisted on playing with dolls, dressing up in pink clothes and playing “Lady,” and showed no interest in the types of activities boys like, and this is from his toddler-hood onward. Speaking to him now, in his adulthood, I have asked him what his childhood experience was like. I learned from him that first of all, he knew from a very, very young age that he was gay (he estimates age 3), and second, he was teased mercilessly, and this hurt him greatly. He states that he has had no history of being attracted to females whatsoever. Now I witnessed all this and I know the readers of this forum have not, but having him as a brother makes me feel quite certain that a person can be born gay. He is a unique person and I am lucky to have him in my life.

I know Jesus does not approve of us judging others. But for some reason, in recent years, many Christian folks have developed the opinion that it is all right to judge gay people. I just don’t think it’s our place to judge others, and only God knows how He views their actions.

Thank you to all for such thoughtful posts, and peace to each of you.

 

[edwest2]

OP, I too have wondered why we concern ourselves with gay marriage. As far as other global concerns, it seems that there are others that rank much higher, in terms of who is getting hurt.

I know the Church does not concede the possibility that one is born homosexual (though science states that this is the case), but consider this: in recent years, biologists have noted increasing rates of homosexuality in giraffes. It’s come to the point that they are attempting to artificially inseminate females, as the captive females and males are no longer interested in one another. Now how do giraffes wind up gay – certainly they are not being influenced by the media?

My brother is a homosexual and has suffered such grave injury to his sense of self, to his state of being, to his comfort as a citizen, by others who have hurled insults at him. I witnessed his childhood and I can attest to the fact that he was “born gay.” I do not mean to limit this discussion to stereotypes, but he fell into quite a few (admittedly, not all homosexuals do). He insisted on playing with dolls, dressing up in pink clothes and playing “Lady,” and showed no interest in the types of activities boys like, and this is from his toddler-hood onward. Speaking to him now, in his adulthood, I have asked him what his childhood experience was like. I learned from him that first of all, he knew from a very, very young age that he was gay (he estimates age 3), and second, he was teased mercilessly, and this hurt him greatly. He states that he has had no history of being attracted to females whatsoever. Now I witnessed all this and I know the readers of this forum have not, but having him as a brother makes me feel quite certain that a person can be born gay. He is a unique person and I am lucky to have him in my life.

I know Jesus does not approve of us judging others. But for some reason, in recent years, many Christian folks have developed the opinion that it is all right to judge gay people. I just don’t think it’s our place to judge others, and only God knows how He views their actions.

Thank you to all for such thoughtful posts, and peace to each of you.

This thread is not about homosexuals per se, it is about “gay marriage.” Do you understand that? That is the “some reason” you refer to.

It is also about the law. There was no gay marriage in the history of the United States. You, your brother and everybody reading this need no permission from Catholics or anyone to do what you want. OK? When I walk into the voting booth and see ‘gay marriage’ on the ballot, I ask myself: why is this here?

The voters in California turned it down twice, but it obviously didn’t matter.

You say that Christians want to judge gay people. If I stop going to Church, no priest is going to be pounding on my door, demanding I attend Mass. What gay advocates don’t say is that gay advocates pushed for what they call marriage. That is a change to a fundamental, bedrock institution. It cannot be ignored. The Church allows me, you, anybody, to do what we want, so don’t talk about judging as if right and wrong do not exist.

Here is what a self-described gay comedian said on TV: “Catholics say it’s OK to be gay as long as you don’t practice it. Well I think it’s OK to be Catholic as long as you don’t practice it.” That is where both sides are right now.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Light1111]

Please forgive me for offending you.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Light

Your brother’s case is sad. The people who taunt him are not behaving like Christians. And some of them might be Christian in name only.

But legitimizing gay marriage is not the solution to your brother’s problem. Getting married is only going to increase the chances that people will torment him and his partner even more.

Gays live together as it is. They sleep together. But the act of sodomy is an offense to nature and all right thinking people. It has always been so. The demand to regularize it with a marriage license, if granted, is not going to change a thing.

The truth is what it is. He should make the best of his life, and we should all wish him the best, but he should not destroy it with suicidal behavior in the bedroom.

Thank you for talking about him. I and other Catholics reading about him will pray for him.

God bless you too, because you are sharing the weight of his suffering.

 

[kenofken]

kenofken

YET, I see and hear nothing but a lot of hemming and hawing on this point. Diatribes about how pornographers and liberals and gays are wrecking society. A lot of the “yes, but” equivocation of moral relativism and utilitarianism. A lot of moving the pea around under the shells and no real answer for the obvious disconnect in logic we have. That tells me that either you all don’t really believe in your own rulebook, or, more likely, that the crusade against gay marriage has everything to do with personal dislike of gays and nothing to do with any objective, unwavering moral imperative.

You are reading into what he said something I could not read in it.

Society has since the dawn of time defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It is an honorable institution, and no society in history has ever defiled it by the farce of allowing men to marry men, and women to marry women. Society has no obligation to be amused by the farce and take it seriously. This has nothing to do with hating the sinner, but rather with honoring the institution. As usual, godless people have to be very busy turning the world upside down, but godly people have no mandate to go along. This matter will ultimately be decided by vote anyway. Even if cockeyed judges want to reverse the course of history and push us all back into the jungle, the matter can only be decided by a plurality of votes at the level of the Supreme Court (where there are now six Catholics).

As Thomas Jefferson said, “It is rare that the public sentiment decides immorally or unwisely, and the individual who differs from it ought to distrust and examine well his own opinions.” The opinion of mankind on this issue has been universal since the creation of the human race. Examine well your own opinion and kindly stop attributing the reasons of others to personal hatred of gays.

The motivation of Prop *8 may or may not be hatred of gays, but it is patently obvious to me that is is NOT rooted in a reasoned and reasonable interpretation of Catholic theology. Not when people blithely dismiss or shrilly condemn the same degree of objective evil based solely on the gender of the people perpetrating the evil.

I also don’t put too much stock in Tom Jefferson’s notion of inerrant public opinion. The acceptance of slavery and the divine right of kings was also “universal” since the creation of the human race.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kenofken

*I also don’t put too much stock in Tom Jefferson’s notion of inerrant public opinion. The acceptance of slavery and the divine right of kings was also “universal” since the creation of the human race. *

Well, you misread the quote. :tsktsk:

“It is rare that the public sentiment decides immorally or unwisely, and the individual who differs from it ought to distrust and examine well his own opinions.”

Likewise, slavery was never universally accepted, and certainly was not much liked by the slaves. The divine right of kings also was not always and everywhere accepted. Heard of Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic?

Whereas you cannot document a single culture in which the marriage rite was approved for homosexuals; and in virtually all cultures, though practiced by some, it was scorned by the many as unnatural and shameful. And most of these cultures were neither Jewish nor Catholic. So I think Jefferson’s point is upheld.

Not that Jefferson was always right or that he is offered as an authority. But he certainly deserves to be heard.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Please forgive me for offending you.

Oh wow, Light, don’t worry about offending that poster. Your brother’s story just broke my heart. It’s OK to go off-topic a little. You (and your brother) are obviously hurting and/or have been hurt and I have no doubt that some of the people who hurt them are Catholics.

Sometimes I really don’t understand why things are as they are in the world; why a loving God would permit a baby to be born gay, why people who can’t understand are just so cruel - laughing and mocking and hurting. This has been bothering me all day but it kind of came to a head while reading your post. There is so much suffering that could be avoided if we just learned to really love each other - the way Jesus told us to.

Your brother is on a very difficult journey. I wish I could say that I understand his pain, but I don’t. The only thing I understand is that I cannot be with the person I love and promised my heart to in front of God and witnesses and I will never be with him again, unless God somehow lets us be together in heaven. I do understand the pain and loneliness of being alone, especially when it seems that everyone around me is in a relationship and happy.

What I can’t understand is being laughed at for who I am. I’m left alone. I don’t think I could take being mocked and laughed at. I had my share at school but I’m sure it was nothing compared to what your brother went through.

Please don’t take what I’m going to say now in a negative way. Some people can’t get married. I can’t and I have offered my celibacy up to God as a prayer. It has been this way for about ten years now. It’s difficult because every person wants to be with another person in that intimate way. As humans we need to touch and be touched and to comfort and be comforted.

Your brother and you are in my prayers. He is blessed to have you as his brother because you adamantly come to his defense and you obviously love him very much. If only all of us were so blessed!!

I have a sister who loves me like that. She tells me not to worry because everything will be OK when we pass on and are with God in heaven. It helps me a lot to hear that. It comforts me.

I guess I don’t have anything else to say. I’m not very good at this.

God bless both you and your brother!!

 

[Light1111]

Dear Soldier,

Thank you for your kind and comforting words. I will pray for you also. I am so sorry you have suffered as you have. I do feel that suffering is unjust and that it hurts God as well. God speed to you, and you’ll have a life-long prayer partner now.

 

[Veronica7978]

OP, I too have wondered why we concern ourselves with gay marriage. As far as other global concerns, it seems that there are others that rank much higher, in terms of who is getting hurt.

I know the Church does not concede the possibility that one is born homosexual (though science states that this is the case), but consider this: in recent years, biologists have noted increasing rates of homosexuality in giraffes. It’s come to the point that they are attempting to artificially inseminate females, as the captive females and males are no longer interested in one another. Now how do giraffes wind up gay – certainly they are not being influenced by the media?

My brother is a homosexual and has suffered such grave injury to his sense of self, to his state of being, to his comfort as a citizen, by others who have hurled insults at him. I witnessed his childhood and I can attest to the fact that he was “born gay.” I do not mean to limit this discussion to stereotypes, but he fell into quite a few (admittedly, not all homosexuals do). He insisted on playing with dolls, dressing up in pink clothes and playing “Lady,” and showed no interest in the types of activities boys like, and this is from his toddler-hood onward. Speaking to him now, in his adulthood, I have asked him what his childhood experience was like. I learned from him that first of all, he knew from a very, very young age that he was gay (he estimates age 3), and second, he was teased mercilessly, and this hurt him greatly. He states that he has had no history of being attracted to females whatsoever. Now I witnessed all this and I know the readers of this forum have not, but having him as a brother makes me feel quite certain that a person can be born gay. He is a unique person and I am lucky to have him in my life.

I know Jesus does not approve of us judging others. But for some reason, in recent years, many Christian folks have developed the opinion that it is all right to judge gay people. I just don’t think it’s our place to judge others, and only God knows how He views their actions.

Thank you to all for such thoughtful posts, and peace to each of you.

It’s not alright to judge gay people. The church clearly teaches we are to love them. I’m sorry your brother has had such a bad experience. It is obvious that gays are born that way and we ask then, why would God make them that way and then say “don’t be that way.” It doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve struggled with this a lot. I was able to reconcile this by thinking of it as a secular thing; but the truth is, I don’t feel that way in my heart. I think God loves them and they can be His as well as any other who serves God, especially because they suffer.

Perhaps in the Old Testament, when homosexual acts were condemned, it was to say that it is a sin when a heterosexual man acts on lust and lays down with their own, but not including a gay man who is obviously different genetically than a man. It would be a sin for a straight man to engage in homosexual acts.

Further, Christ never condemned gay marriage. Christ never mentioned gays and I would think that because he didn’t, it wasn’t important for Him. He spoke of adultery and the like. In the NT condemning homosexual acts is only mentioned a few times and in those cases, the translation is not gays or feminine men, but rather male prostitutes who serve older men. I think this is a matter the Catholic Church will someday take another look into this. The Catholic Church states it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts, but not to be gay. Being gay is not a sin. Take my words as merely my thoughts on this matter, as currently, it is a sin in the Catholic Church to engage in those acts, but this doesn’t appear to me to be one of those deal breakers from the 10 commandments.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Veronica

*Perhaps in the Old Testament, when homosexual acts were condemned, it was to say that it is a sin when a heterosexual man acts on lust and lays down with their own, but not including a gay man who is obviously different genetically than a man. It would be a sin for a straight man to engage in homosexual acts. *

I’m wondering where you got this notion. There is no “perhaps” allowed. A sin is a sin. It does not apply to one group, but not another. Also, the evidence is not at all conclusive that all gays are born that way. When gay marriage is finally approved by the government, as I expect it will be, you will see millions of naturally heterosexual babies being adopted by gay parents. The truth will then come out, that most of those babies will follow the model set by their gay parents, whose genes they certainly did not inherit. Married gay men, because they really don’t like women, will adopt only boys. What they will do with those boys … I don’t even want to think about it. Certainly some of our Catholic clergy have given us reason to fear the worst.

 

[Leela]

Veronica

Perhaps in the Old Testament, when homosexual acts were condemned, it was to say that it is a sin when a heterosexual man acts on lust and lays down with their own, but not including a gay man who is obviously different genetically than a man. It would be a sin for a straight man to engage in homosexual acts.

I’m wondering where you got this notion. There is no “perhaps” allowed. A sin is a sin. It does not apply to one group, but not another.

The Old Testament is full of things that used to be considered sins but are no longer thought of as sinful (e.g. picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week no longer carries the penalty of death). It also approves and commands acts that we now see as gravely immoral (e.g. we no longer think that we have a duty to kill homosexuals and adulterers and people who boil a lamb in its mother’s milk).