Let's STOP gay marriage now!

[gianfranco]

What is truly remarkable to me is the doublespeak of which Easter Joy spoke in post #202. War is peace, truth is false, lies are true. It is as if I am living in Orwell’s world, and in a way I am.

To make same sex ‘marriage’ equal to real marriage is simply a fiction. They have nothing in common. Real marriage requires complementarity of the sexes; it is a conjugal union ordered to the procreation of children, and the joining of children to their mothers and fathers in families. Same sex marriage is not like that. It can never be conjugal, can never be sexually complementary, can never be procreative, can never generate children. It can only treat them as commodities.

Same sex unions didn’t begin the destruction of marriage, but it took full advantage of the destruction which was already begun by contraception and the sexual revolution. Adultery, fornication, cohabitation—these are all sins against marriage, but same sex marriage turns the institution completely on its head, overturning all of civilizational history. For what?

I think Orwell would agree that we are in such a world.

Yes, marriage is about the unfolding and passing of the generations- which gay unions preclude. They are sterile and were probably meant to serve some much different purpose: Why they even want to ape heterosexuality is beyond me.

You are right on the mark when you say gay marriage took full advantage of the decline and destruction. For what? To stand history on its head and to be called “normal” in every way. That is their goal. “I am as normal and natural as you: I can marry, raise kids, etc.” But at what cost?

 

[Julianna]

Adoption is not ideal. It is a necessary evil: Children are in the world whose parents cannot care for them. Thus do couples save them by adopting them.

Conversely, as EasterJoy says so aptly, gay couples get together more and more often in these times with the idea of*** deliberately creating children to be born out of wedlock, separated from the mother or father. ***

Your first sentence is beyond ridiculous. I am thankful it is just your opinion.

 

[Lion_IRC]

“Humanism presses in upon us, constantly challenging our very life-style. So we must not fail to practice its opposite—the biblical position.” ~ Francis Schaeffer

The SSM / LGBTQ lobby won’t stop at achieving the mere “tolerance” of luke-warm Christians who look the other way thinking it won’t affect them.

They will use the same undemocratic judicial activism methods to compel Christianity into submission and silence in the public square.

Soon it will be illegal “hate speech” to publicly express any religious position that infers homosexual acts are immoral.

It is already illegal in many places for Christians to exercise free speech rights and act according to their conscientious objections.

IOW - they can freely express their sexuality, but we can’t freely express our spirituality!

 

[gianfranco]

Your first sentence is beyond ridiculous. I am thankful it is just your opinion.

I am likewise glad that this is only your opinion. Do you know there are many adopted people, and mothers who have given children up for adoption, who wish to make adoption illegal? Is adoption ideal, to your thinking? How do you know that I don’t speak from experience?

 

[gianfranco]

“Humanism presses in upon us, constantly challenging our very life-style. So we must not fail to practice its opposite—the biblical position.” ~ Francis Schaeffer

The SSM / LGBTQ lobby won’t stop at achieving the mere “tolerance” of luke-warm Christians who look the other way thinking it won’t affect them.

They will use the same undemocratic judicial activism methods to compel Christianity into submission and silence in the public square.

Soon it will be illegal “hate speech” to publicly express any religious position that infers homosexual acts are immoral.

It is already illegal in many places for Christians to exercise free speech rights and act according to their conscientious objections.

IOW - they can freely express their sexuality, but we can’t freely express our spirituality!

You said it, brother. And all in the name of “tolerance”. I think Paglia called it way back in the '90s when she referred to “Gay Stalinism”.

 

[Julianna]

I am likewise glad that this is only your opinion. Do you know there are many adopted people, and mothers who have given children up for adoption, who wish to make adoption illegal? Is adoption ideal, to your thinking? How do you know that I don’t speak from experience?

Adoption is the best option for those who are not ready to be parents. My daughter was not ready to parent. The guy was a druggie and abandoned her. Adoption was the best option. Her friends and the guy told her to get an abortion…so yes adoption was the “ideal”. It was an open adoption. The agency is a Christian agency and does not place (the words give up are no longer used)…children with gay couples or singles. I do speak from experience.

 

[SuperLuigi]

This is why Christians are so often thought of as judgemental and unloving.

Why? Progressive activists organize like that all the time. Are they judgmental and unloving?

BTW—those two words = VERY cliche. :tsktsk:

 

[EasterJoy]

Thank you for clarifying that. I am not a Catholic, so I know very little about what is acceptable or not with regard to ART (Assisted Repro Tech). (I had an Italian father who was a Roman Catholic but was raised my my British Protestant mother.)

So would I be correct to assume that the Church would frown upon the 46 year old career woman who decides to go with donor egg( or surrogate and sperm donor) to have a child and raise it as an older single woman? This type of practice I believe is illegal in Germany (but of course legal in the US).

Age is not the issue and her career is not an issue. The moral permissibility of these things has nothing to do with whether the persons are old or young, rich or poor, ambitious or not. If she were to wait for marriage until she was 46, marry, and then get pregnant, more power to her! She is not morally bound to seek marriage while she is young and fertile, not any more than she is bound to seek marriage at all. She is, however, morally bound not to seek pregnancy outside of marriage or by the use of consort other than with her husband.

At issue is procreation outside of marriage and the marital act itself. A married couple may seek medical help such as help in achieving or identifying ovulation, help in raising sperm count, help in making the uterus hospitable to implantation and help for the woman’s body for maintaining the pregnancy to a healthy conclusion. Using another person’s gametes is not morally permissible. Achieving pregnancy by joining your own gametes (you hope) outside sexual intercourse and then reintroducing the ovum into the woman’s body is forbidden, as well. It is especially repugnant, however, to harvest parental contributions from those outside the marriage, as if these people were farm animals, with the intention to supplant the true and healthy parent with a substitute more to the other parent’s liking.

 

[gianfranco]

Adoption is the best option for those who are not ready to be parents. My daughter was not ready to parent. The guy was a druggie and abandoned her. Adoption was the best option. Her friends and the guy told her to get an abortion…so yes adoption was the “ideal”. It was an open adoption. The agency is a Christian agency and does not place (the words give up are no longer used)…children with gay couples or singles. I do speak from experience.

I apologize if I worded my post incorrectly. Of course adopting out is the ideal in a tragic case such as your young daughter’s. What I was thinking of is people who are forced to give a child up for adoption due to poverty (such as the celebrity adoptions). It doesn’t seem fair to me. I was also referring to prior times when young women were temporarily in trouble and forced to put a child up for adoption (seemed punitive and there ought to have been an effort to make it work). Open adoption with a Christian agency is of course the right thing to do - not abortion. Again, my apologies for writing off the cuff without thinking.

 

[gianfranco]

Age is not the issue and her career is not an issue. The moral permissibility of these things has nothing to do with whether the persons are old or young, rich or poor, ambitious or not. If she were to wait for marriage until she was 46, marry, and then get pregnant, more power to her! She is not morally bound to seek marriage while she is young and fertile, not any more than she is bound to seek marriage at all. She is, however, morally bound not to seek pregnancy outside of marriage or by the use of consort other than with her husband.

At issue is procreation outside of marriage and the marital act itself. A married couple may seek medical help such as help in achieving or identifying ovulation, help in raising sperm count, help in making the uterus hospitable to implantation and help for the woman’s body for maintaining the pregnancy to a healthy conclusion. Using another person’s gametes is not morally permissible. Achieving pregnancy by joining your own gametes (you hope) outside sexual intercourse and then reintroducing the ovum into the woman’s body is forbidden, as well. It is especially repugnant, however, to harvest parental contributions from those outside the marriage, as if these people were farm animals, with the intention to supplant the true and healthy parent with a substitute more to the other parent’s liking.

Thanks for this clarification. The above makes moral sense, but the neutrality toward the other case surprises me.
I personally believe that putting career first, waiting to get pregnant until one is older and prone to many more health difficulties during the pregnancy, labor, and after, and then raising a child under the care of a nanny is absolutely selfish and irresponsible. There is just such a case in my family, and it has worked out horribly. The mother regrets having the child and it is a constant power struggle. I am surprised that no one sees that the basic premise of such an endeavor was selfish and unrealistic to begin with. In the other case suggested in which a surrogate is used, it is even less defenseable.

 

[frobert]

They are sterile and were probably meant to serve some much different purpose: Why they even want to ape heterosexuality is beyond me.

What is offensive is not the CC reasoning on same sex acts, which can be disputed, but the total misunderstanding by individuals like yourself of basic human needs and desires to people with SSA. To think that people want to ape heterosexuality and to say that it is beyond you is showing and saying that you are incapable of understanding how anyone can have a different world view than yours and that of the CC. It is that attitude that the courts–the place where it counts–have rejected over and over. If SSM is adopted throughout the US I believe it is that attitude and misunderstanding that is the single most important reason. In effect it is helping SSM activists.

 

[Memaw]

Ill let the Vicar of Christ respond to this"

*“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God,” wrote Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis)in a letter sent to the monasteries of Buenos Aires. “We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.” *

*The Argentinean people will have to confront, in the coming weeks, a situation whose result could gravely injure the family. We are speaking of a bill regarding marriage between people of the same sex," a bill that calls into question “the identity, and the survival of the family: father, mother, and children.” *

But we’re not talking about the civil perspective of marriage. We’re talking about the age old commitment of a man and woman before God to love and honor him together and raise children to honor him also. Part of the problem with the so called same-sex marriage push is the denigration of marriage into nothing more than a civil contract between two people who want to have sex and protect their assets. How utterly demeaning and what a mockery this makes of marriage

It has everything to do with children, sex and living together. To try to separate these for marriage that means the institution to nothing more than a legally recognize coupling of two people.

Correct. Our this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the institution of marriage should be diminished to accommodate homosexual behavior

Another example of people pulling random, out of context, quotes from scripture and making profound theological pronouncements based upon their personal interpretation thereof.

AMEN God Bless, Memaw

 

[Julianna]

I apologize if I worded my post incorrectly. Of course adopting out is the ideal in a tragic case such as your young daughter’s. What I was thinking of is people who are forced to give a child up for adoption due to poverty (such as the celebrity adoptions). It doesn’t seem fair to me. I was also referring to prior times when young women were temporarily in trouble and forced to put a child up for adoption (seemed punitive and there ought to have been an effort to make it work). Open adoption with a Christian agency is of course the right thing to do - not abortion. Again, my apologies for writing off the cuff without thinking.

Thank you. Poverty may be a reason to “place a child” for adoption. …however no one should be “forced”. It is about what is best for the child. My daughter gave the child life and by placing the child for adoption and choosing the parents herself. …she gave the child “quality” of life. She knew in her heart she could not give the child the quality of life he/she deserves.

 

[gianfranco]

What is offensive is not the CC reasoning on same sex acts, which can be disputed, but the total misunderstanding by individuals like yourself of basic human needs and desires to people with SSA. To think that people want to ape heterosexuality and to say that it is beyond you is showing and saying that you are incapable of understanding how anyone can have a different world view than yours and that of the CC. It is that attitude that the courts–the place where it counts–have rejected over and over. If SSM is adopted throughout the US I believe it is that attitude and misunderstanding that is the single most important reason. In effect it is helping SSM activists.

I’m sorry if I come across as unfeeling. Perhaps my attitude is all afoul. I am certainly willing to be enlightened. I am not Catholic, and I am not opposed to attempting to understand the feelings of others.

 

[gianfranco]

Thank you. Poverty may be a reason to “place a child” for adoption. …however no one should be “forced”. It is about what is best for the child. My daughter gave the child life and by placing the child for adoption and choosing the parents herself. …she gave the child “quality” of life. She knew in her heart she could not give the child the quality of life he/she deserves.

You are most welcome, and it sounds to me as if your daughter did the right thing for the right reasons.

 

[Kithrus]

I know I’m about to draw some ire here but you guys are all going in the wrong direction. Leave he LGBT community alone.

Now hold on I can hear the army of angry clicking/typing already.

The problem is the issue is about rights. We need to make it less about rights more about the structural integrity of families. This means your going to have to be patient and let society see for themselves in sense.

Throwing a bishop under the bus to prove the church is what? The same as ever? While we are down a bishop locked in a human rights tribunal.

There’s a reason the current pope isn’t saying much. It’s called picking your battles.

Right now the battle is winning back catholic respect and the laws to protect our faith.

Till then leave the LGBT alone.

 

[gianfranco]

I know I’m about to draw some ire here but you guys are all going in the wrong direction. Leave he LGBT community alone.

Now hold on I can hear the army of angry clicking/typing already.

The problem is the issue is about rights. We need to make it less about rights more about the structural integrity of families. This means your going to have to be patient and let society see for themselves in sense.

Throwing a bishop under the bus to prove the church is what? The same as ever? While we are down a bishop locked in a human rights tribunal.

There’s a reason the current pope isn’t saying much. It’s called picking your battles.

Right now the battle is winning back catholic respect and the laws to protect our faith.

Till then leave the LGBT alone.

I hope the LGBTs are not being attacked here, but only the proposal to redefine marriage permanently in the US.

What Bishop is locked in a tribunal? (Not being snarky - I really don’t know.)

I think some are afraid that by the time all is sorted out, traditional marriage will have expired in the US ( as a legal and cultural concept, under the Supreme Court). This is why it is being discussed now.

 

[EasterJoy]

I know I’m about to draw some ire here but you guys are all going in the wrong direction. Leave he LGBT community alone.

Now hold on I can hear the army of angry clicking/typing already.

The problem is the issue is about rights. We need to make it less about rights more about the structural integrity of families. This means your going to have to be patient and let society see for themselves in sense.

Throwing a bishop under the bus to prove the church is what? The same as ever? While we are down a bishop locked in a human rights tribunal.

There’s a reason the current pope isn’t saying much. It’s called picking your battles.

Right now the battle is winning back catholic respect and the laws to protect our faith.

Till then leave the LGBT alone.

What is offensive is not the CC reasoning on same sex acts, which can be disputed, but the total misunderstanding by individuals like yourself of basic human needs and desires to people with SSA. To think that people want to ape heterosexuality and to say that it is beyond you is showing and saying that you are incapable of understanding how anyone can have a different world view than yours and that of the CC. It is that attitude that the courts–the place where it counts–have rejected over and over. If SSM is adopted throughout the US I believe it is that attitude and misunderstanding that is the single most important reason. In effect it is helping SSM activists.

One more time: The view that heterosexual and homosexual couples have intrinsically different relationships did not originate with the Catholic Church. It is not a view held solely by Catholics. It is not a view that requires religious belief as a foundation. Some homosexuals even say the same thing! Look for essays by homosexuals opposing homosexual marriage. They do exist. They tend to put things in a rather more “blunt” way than I would and have some different reasons than I have, but they are out there.

If I don’t want to allow you to change laws of the land to suit what you want for your group, that does not mean I have anything against you personally or your group as a whole. I can even be a member of your group, disagree with you, and not be accused of harboring some secret self-hatred! I can disagree with what homosexual activists want and not be homophobic or have secret homosexual urges that I am in denial about. I can disagree with you and oppose you in the political square without picking on you or needing a lecture to “leave you alone.”

Honestly, do I think homosexuals have it out for the Catholic Church because they’re pushing for same-sex marriage? No, I don’t. I think they are wrong-headed about what marriage is and I don’t accept their premises or their conclusions, but I don’t think most of them are insincere or out to get anybody or out to destroy anything, any more than I think that 99% of the destruction to the environment has been done by people out to destroy Mother Earth. I also don’t think that people who aren’t willing to give business people everything they want and all the freedoms they think they ought to have are “out to destroy the economy.”

If people in a democracy cannot disagree deeply without the disagreement being evidence of animosity, how can democracy survive?

 

[frobert]

One more time: The view that heterosexual and homosexual couples have intrinsically different relationships did not originate with the Catholic Church.

You are either responding to someone else’s post or perhaps you completely misunderstand what I wrote. I did not say that there were no differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. There most assuredly are differences.

 

[gianfranco]

You are either responding to someone else’s post or perhaps you completely misunderstand what I wrote. I did not say that there were no differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. There most assuredly are differences.

Your original comment was directed at me, and actually made me feel rather defensive(I tend to acquiesce when accused of bigotry or insensitivity).

But by gays insisting on marriage instead of civil unions, and using assisted reproductive tech. to have children, they open the door to the conclusion they are somewhat in imitation of heterosexuality, it would appear to me.