See which of your representatives is attacking marriage

[Charlemagne_II]

Please stop promoting the mythology that neither the scientific community as a whole accepts, nor the Catholic Church teaches. No one is “born” gay. This has been covered on numerous threads on CAF that you should probably acquaint yourself with.

Elizabeth, I have started a new thread here that may interest you.

“Why do so many Catholics defy the bishops?”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7758398#post7758398

 

[John21652]

Forgive me for jumping over so much righting about sodomy, but did anyone else notice that the original link does not accurately represent Catholic teaching?

When Rome discusses this issue in a Doctrinal Note on participation in political life, it describes it thus:

“Analogously [to abortion], the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.”

The word “family” is highlighted in the original text, which makes it a pretty broad statement (ex. we object to deportation as an instrinsic evil because it attacks the human family). But even if we ignore that, it is still broader than gay marriage. It would be incoherent to vote to ‘defend marriage’ (in the Catholic sense) for a politician who is, say, divorced or openly cohabitating, which a fair number of the ‘support’ indivdiuals who I pulled up are.

When then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about the Church’s position on same sex unions he conceded that it is, in fact, discrimination. But that such discrimination is licit provided that it is in accordance to justice. That means we must uniformly uphold and defend the teaching, lest we actually undermine and invalidate it. In other words, we cannot pat ourselves on the back for attempting to address the activities of a small segment of the pupulation while ignoring the attack on the Sacrament of Marriage from a heterosexual community with a 50% divorce rate.

It would be most felicitous of you, if, when you cite doctrinal notes, to provide links to said doctrinal notes for the proper erudition of your readers.

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope benedict makes it perfectly clear that the basic unit of society is a marriage between a man and a woman. He says, in support of Humanae Vitae that the Church -

emphasizes both the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexuality, thereby locating at the foundation of society the married couple, man and woman, who accept one another mutually, in distinction and in complementarity: a couple, therefore, that is open to life

Yes, there is a wider human family, which needs to be considered in the context any polis and within even a global context. However, the unequivocal message is the union of man and woman to form the basic unit of a strong and coherent society. He links life ethics with social ethics. He goes on to specifically state that moral and cultural relativism divides societies. History tells us the same.

Throughout Caritas in Veritate Benedict quotes St. Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians. The first is famous among Catholics and non Catholics alike, for it gives a wonderful definition of what Love is. Benedict puts this into the context of absolute truth. Of course, we all know what St. Paul had to say about who will and who wont get to Heaven and why! Your mention of the ‘attacks’ on the Sacrament of Marriage is a pertinent one. If only people would read St. Paul’s Letter and if only they were a lot more discriminating in their lives, then the ‘moral fibre’ that Pope benedict in Caritas in veritate would strenghten the institution of marriage.

 

[Taoist]

John, that’s a very good argument for encouraging traditional marriage, but you don’t mention how gay marriage will harm the couple in a traditional marriage. I posted earlier how the Supreme Court will ask this question to an anti-gay marriage litigant and there needs to be a direct answer to it, and is why gay marriage supporters are winning in court. Gays are convincing courts how they are individually harmed by being denied marriage rights, but traditional marriage supporters aren’t. You need to make your case personal. What do you, or the Church, have?

 

[John21652]

That’s a very good argument, InSearchofGrace, unfortunately because it is too broad in its scope of defining harm it also is another reason gay marriage is winning in the courts. Specifically, in writing for the majority in a recent Supreme Court ruling , justice Kennedy explains why:
In presenting a case against gay marriage one must show how gay marriage will harm YOU, personally. In your mention above of the pope’s admission that denying gay marriage is discriminatory for broad social reasons without going into specifics how it will harm individuals, then, in the minds of the Supreme Court justices, that argument is not good enough to justify specifically discriminating against a gay individual. The US Constitution is based mostly on individual rights, and that is how the anti-gay marriage side needs to argue their side in court.

The atheist, Michael Newdow, brought a case against reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it mentions “God” and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court because he didn’t have proper standing, meaning he was not the one who had to say the pledge and therefore was not being harmed by it. The justices are quite consistent in making sure the litigants have standing.

Now, what is an argument that gay marriage will directly and adversely affect you, personally? How is granting gay couples the right to marry encroaching on a right of yours, and which right is that?

You have not gotten with a bull’s roar of rebutting SearchInGrace’s argument. You have totally avoided the issue of the public interest and you have totally ignored the objective tests that the Supreme Court will use in the determination of gay rights. You cite the case of Michael Newdow and then totally contradict yourself in your last paragraph when you state that InSearchOfGrace will have to show how she will be harmed. According to your warped logic, every citizen who opposes gay marriage will have to line up outside the Court to explain their own hurt. Ha, that’s too funny. Particularly as the House of Reps is about to wade into the debate. Furthermore, you take a quantum leap in logic when you mention the Pope’s admission that to oppose gay marriage is discrimination “for broad social reasons” to writing about individual harm. Honestly, if you were Aristotle’s pupil even he would reach for the hemlock.

 

[YankeeRC]

Why do gays need the traditional institution of marriage? Isn’t this issue about benefits and property rights? Why not seek to change and amend those laws rather that attack traditional marriage and parenting?

 

[John21652]

Why do gays need the traditional institution of marriage? Isn’t this issue about benefits and property rights? Why not seek to change and amend those laws rather that attack traditional marriage and parenting?

Because they want to be “equal”. They think that by making same sex marriage the equal of heterosexual marriage they will feel equal. In effect, they are seeking to be ‘more equal’, because homosexual marriage can never be the equal of heterosexual marriage and they need special laws to protect their status. . They really want power.

 

[JFarrish]

This is not Church teaching.

Actually, it is. See CCC 2478. I am supposed to try to understand the point of view of those I believe to be in dissent and only then correct them in love and charity.

Please familiarize yourself with what your Church says on the issue, including what your U.S. Bishops say on the matter… It is one of your Church’s Five Non-Negotiables.

You are confusing a document from the laity with instructions from Rome. What Rome has to say is found here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

See #4. There are 11 items highlighted (emphasis in the original). Identified as “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”. The entire list is clearly important because it is referenced in Sacramentum Caritatis (no surprising, since then Cardinal Ratzinger prepared the doctrinal note). The document you seem to be referring to was reviewed by the USCCB and rejected for parish use.

Deportation of illegal immigrants is not related to traditional marriage. Post on the other thread your thoughts on deportation.

I’m sorry, I must defer to Rome. See the Doctrinal Note above. The subject of gay unions is rasied thus:

“Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.” #4, emphasis in original

I have consistently and repeatedly argued that the teaching should be followed in full. In this, I am taking guidance from Rome. From the same section of the document:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.” #4

If you have not taken the time to study Church teaching on the human family, the word emphasized in the instructions from Rome, then you may not be aware that they are a connected teaching. See the Pastoral Constituion of the Church:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

See #27 and #28. This is, by the way, dogmatic teaching. It might be politically and/or emotionally expedient to split them, but as Rome argues in the quote above, it is “incoherent” to do so and a possible “detriment” to the faith to fragment and isolate connected teachings.

Please stop promoting the mythology that neither the scientific community as a whole accepts, nor the Catholic Church teaches. No one is “born” gay. [snip] Nor does the Catholic Church, of which you are a member, teach that there is a “gay gene.”

Being covered in a thread on CAF is not really equivelent to either scientific review or solid theology. The evidence is not conclussive. Large numbers of children are born with the syndrome of autism. Statistically, as with homosexuality, there is a reasonably strong suggestion of a genetic component. However, no ‘autism’ gene has been found. That does not mean that either is or is not genetic, only that they are complex and, IF genetic, involve multiple genes and possibly environmental factors (which could include things like in vitro infections, etc.)

Since we do not have conclussive evidence either way it would be “mythology” to state, as you do, that no one is born gay. A disproportionate emotional response to a causal theory does not make your opinion reality.

Further, my suggestion that glandular responses in individuals who have great difficulty fitting in society at large is probably not something chosen and difficult to bear is hardly ‘un Catholic’. In fact, it seems remarkable that someone who puts such stock in CAF resources would believe that. From these forums:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134749

Notice the actual text of CCC 2357:

“Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”

The Church does not teach one way or the other. Homosexual urges are not, themselves, sinful. Certain homosexual acts are sinful because they are incompatible with the Catholic teaching of Chastity.

As CAF wisely notes in the link above, CCC 1935 applies to all:

“The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.”

Everyone is born with urges to sin. For some it may be homosexual urges. For others it might be an urge to ignore the Beatitudes and judge others for failing in particular sins that do not tempt them. Regardless, we all try and we all fail. These people are not agents of evil. They are my fellow children of God.

Further, I cannot help that I feel more pity for them than threat. As I clearly stated above, I ACCEPT the Church’s teaching on the human family. But I refuse to accept the premise that insisting on justice, pity, and moral consistancy is somehow inferrior Catholicism to over simplified Church teachings and obvious venom.

 

[Taoist]

You have totally avoided the issue of the public interest and you have totally ignored the objective tests that the Supreme Court will use in the determination of gay rights.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled one must be personally harmed by an injustice done by the state in order to have standing; I thought I made this clear. Broadly declaring gay marriage a detriment to the whole of society, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, is not a good enough reason to win a case. Again, this is why anti-gay marriage litigants lose in court. How many times do you have to lose using the same unsuccessful arguments before you figure out a new one based on the guidelines the courts have repeatedly and consistently stated? I’m trying to help you make a stronger case against gay marriage. Sure, I’m unabashedly pro-gay marriage, but I’m not here to change your mind, I’m here to help you make your case stronger.

You cite the case of Michael Newdow and then totally contradict yourself in your last paragraph when you state that InSearchOfGrace will have to show how she will be harmed. According to your warped logic, every citizen who opposes gay marriage will have to line up outside the Court to explain their own hurt. Ha, that’s too funny.

Jumpin’ mother of Jesus on a pogo stick. . . Newdow lost his case for the same reason anti-gay marriage people are losing theirs - both did not have proper standing to bring the case, namely, one may not argue a case that does not have an immediate personal effect on oneself. Newdow lost because he may not speak for his daughter, and anti-gay marriage folks lose because they may not speak for the whole of society. There is no contradiction in my point. InSearchofGrace MUST show how she (I’m taking a liberty in the gender, forgive me if I’m wrong) will be harmed; that is the rule in determining standing. Yeah, it’s a technicality, but one big enough to lose a case. Of course, you’re welcome to ignore this rule, but at the definite peril of losing your case, and afterwards lick your wounds with the consolation that the courts are seated with unrepentant atheists, homosexuals, and ignoramuses, but those sour grapes won’t absolve you of not following the rules of the court.

Furthermore, you take a quantum leap in logic when you mention the Pope’s admission that to oppose gay marriage is discrimination “for broad social reasons” to writing about individual harm.

See my point above. Frankly, I prefer the anti-gay marriage crowd use the same losing arguments because it helps my gay family and friends be loud and proud of who they are. So please, ignore my advice to improve your legal arguments for their sake that they may put this issue behind them and quietly, honestly, and without fear or guilt get on with their loving lives.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

That’s a very good argument, InSearchofGrace, unfortunately because it is too broad in its scope of defining harm it also is another reason gay marriage is winning in the courts. …

How Does Gay Marriage Harm My Marriage?

One might as well ask, “How does my printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?” Or to use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement? A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage. One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick.

Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable.

The above paragraphs are not my original words, but I agree with the message completely.

By the way, the news link you provided is about Judge Kennedy’s pivotal role in the decision of whether a group of taxpayers in AZ had legal standing to challenge the state program because some money flows to religious schools. Not so, according to the majority ruling any injury to the state’s tax coffers is merely speculative.

*Kennedy makes clear that any legal standing for taxpayers on church-state issues should be based on specific injury, not theoretical causation. *The same reasoning could easily apply to the various federal court cases on the health care mandate now working their way up to the Supreme Court.

Now you are using this reading of the tea leaves for a far different matter, as a basis to ask us in this forum, how same-sex marriage would harm traditional marriage supporters such as myself.

Yes, it was Judge Kennedy who authored the majority opinion in the Loving v Texas case, striking the sodomy law, handing a victory for gay rights. That does not mean gay ‘marriage’ supporters such as you should find reason to get giddy about any little sign, no matter how disconnected and unrelated Judge Kennedy’s position is to the same-sex marriage showdown in the Supreme Court, as everybody seems to be predicting.

It is a faulty and gratuitous connection that you make between Judge Kennedy’s opinion regarding AZ taxpayer money going to religious schools from the line you lifted on causation (specific injury v theoretical injury to the taxpayer) and specific harm of same-sex ‘marriage’ to traditional marriage.

You could have just directly asked what specific harm does gay ‘marriage’ cause to individuals and traditional marriage without using irrelevant case law.

Anyway, civilization flourished because of traditional marriages. Can you argue the same had gay ‘marriage’ been normative?

John and Carl have gave you arguments to the effect that individual wants dressed as ‘rights’ do not trump public interest and that same sex ‘marriage’ does not lead to the common good. You were not satisfied and I doubt you will be even if the arguments are re-iterated by me.

But, how about these harmful effects to me and mine should same-sex marriage become a reality in the state where I live and the rest of the country, whether by defeat of DOMA in the house or by constitutional amendment.

1. Having to pay for increased health risks. Oh, I realize even without ‘marriage,’ gays had always been having unnatural same sex, and will still have same sex until whenever. But to institute it, to give same-sex marriage equal status with traditional marriage changes the landscape. I don’t see that what’s happening to Canada since it legalized gay ‘marriage’ in 2005 as a public good. Read this complaint by the LGBT population, HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT Against the Government of Canada:Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.
2. My two children will be living in a degraded culture, and that’s how I see their future with institutionalized, legalized gay ‘marriage.’ Gay ‘marriage’ will further erode morals, which is the glue of society, by removing the social and moral stigma of such unions, leading to more homosexuals and bisexuals choosing the lifestyle. I care for the future of my children, and the children they will have. I care for their souls.

What’s next after same-sex ‘marriage’? Is it far-fetched that polygamy and polyamory will be the next social experiments and advocacy for same, like same-sex ‘marriage’ is being advocated now by a noisy minority? Polygamy and polyamory are gaining popularity and political standing in countries where same-sex marriage are legal. If you doubt this, just look to our neighbor to the north again. The More, the Merrier?

We cannot regard harm of same-sex ‘marriage’ to others, to society, in a narrow sense, as though it can only be real if it affects someone’s health, life, or finances.

I may be walking, breathing and physically carrying on if ever same-sex ‘marriage’ is forced on society by activist judges and courts. If so, gays can claim victory but they would just have stolen the term ‘marriage’ to apply to their unnatural relations. Same-sex ‘marriage’ will still be a pretend marriage to me, to us, to the rest of society.

Further, I submit to you that the in just what I provided above, multiplied and exploding in many unchartered directions, especially affecting children and the future of society, there’s no telling if it will be the kind of world in which you would want to live in.

C.S. Lewis said, the poison of subjectivism and moral relativism will end our specie and damn our souls.
,

 

[nordskoven]

Look, isn’t it cultural predation to keep usurping those elements that are not radically connected to homosexuality? Isn’t the “rainbow” symbol a rip-off of God’s covenant symbol? So too is the rip-off of marriage. Marriage has never been an element of gay culture, even in nations ruled by homosexuals–excepting Nero’s marriage to the slave boy that resembled the wife he kicked to death. Gay activists rejected “mere” domestic partnerships that could have ostensibly benefited non-sexual unions, as two single mothers uniting to form a thrifty household. They want marriage. This is cultural cross-dressing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**This is cultural cross-dressing. **

 

[buffalo]

That’s a very good argument, InSearchofGrace, unfortunately because it is too broad in its scope of defining harm it also is another reason gay marriage is winning in the courts. Specifically, in writing for the majority in a recent Supreme Court ruling , justice Kennedy explains why:
In presenting a case against gay marriage one must show how gay marriage will harm YOU, personally. In your mention above of the pope’s admission that denying gay marriage is discriminatory for broad social reasons without going into specifics how it will harm individuals, then, in the minds of the Supreme Court justices, that argument is not good enough to justify specifically discriminating against a gay individual. The US Constitution is based mostly on individual rights, and that is how the anti-gay marriage side needs to argue their side in court.

The atheist, Michael Newdow, brought a case against reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it mentions “God” and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court because he didn’t have proper standing, meaning he was not the one who had to say the pledge and therefore was not being harmed by it. The justices are quite consistent in making sure the litigants have standing.

Now, what is an argument that gay marriage will directly and adversely affect you, personally? How is granting gay couples the right to marry encroaching on a right of yours, and which right is that?

It will harm children who have a right to a mother and a father.

 

[catharina]

This is not Church teaching. Please familiarize yourself with what your Church says on the issue, including what your U.S. Bishops say on the matter, as to what harm it does cause society, and as to how practicing Catholics are obliged to oppose the adoption of gay “marriage” in society. It is one of your Church’s Five Non-Negotiables.

Again, you have a lot of reading to do

There’s another thread with the title of Deportation. You have posted there. Please stay on-topic. Deportation of illegal immigrants is not related to traditional marriage. Post on the other thread your thoughts on deportation.

Please stop promoting the mythology that neither the scientific community as a whole accepts, nor the Catholic Church teaches. No one is “born” gay. This has been covered on numerous threads on CAF that you should probably acquaint yourself with. Sexuality is fluid at birth, not determined. It is complex, not determined. It is multi-layered, not single-layered. No “gay gene” has been credibly discovered and accepted in scientific circles. Nor does the Catholic Church, of which you are a member, teach that there is a “gay gene.”

Great post, elizabeth.
Thank you.

 

[YankeeRC]

Jumpin’ mother of Jesus on a pogo stick. . . .

Please refrain from making irreverent and sacrilegious comments about our Blessed Mother on a Catholic forum.
That offends me more than praising sodomy

 

[Elizabeth502]

Great post, elizabeth.
Thank you.

Thank you, catharina. (And you’re welcome.)

This poster is trying to establish that he is supposedly “more” in communion with Rome than other posters on moral issues. (He makes the same claim in the Social Justice thread about Deportation.) It’s all of a piece here.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Please refrain from making irreverent and sacrilegious comments about our Blessed Mother on a Catholic forum.
That offends me more than praising sodomy

Is it not disgusting? It deeply offends me as well. This is a poster who proudly declared he is a third generation Jesuit high school educated and an M.A. in History from a Jesuit university. See his post here.

So, even if he is no longer a Catholic, he knows that this would be highly disrespectful to Catholics, especially to put it in a post in a Catholic site.
,

 

[Taoist]

I’m glad to see everyone ignore the rules of standing, possibly because you don’t understand what they are, because arguing from the position of protecting society and children at large is why your side consistently loses these cases, as my reference to Kennedy’s point in the Arizona case was meant to do.

I’m happy to see you refuse to make an argument of how gay marriage will personally harm you, especially when you may draw from six states and ten countries where it is already legal to demonstrate how it has already harmed you, personally. This is good for gay marriage, because it means you will lose the case every time you present it, as you have every time it comes before a judge.

The only way to definitely stop gay marriage in the US is to add a new amendment to the US Constitution, and your elected representatives know it, that’s why they pay lip service to you to get elected but nothing ever comes of their promised efforts.

 

[JFarrish]

So, even if he is no longer a Catholic, he knows that this would be highly disrespectful to Catholics, especially to put it in a post in a Catholic site.

If he was baptised in the proper form, he is still Catholic. He may have seperated himself from the body of the faithful, but the mark remains on his soul and he is still our charge and concern.

The pope has noted that the parable of the Prodigal son could rightly be called the story of two sons and that we are all generally in the both roles at different times in our life. So we should heed the lessons given to both.

When we feel strongly about a very specific aspect of a Church teaching it is easy to forget that there are almost always connected moral issues involved and that others can feel emotional about them, perhaps to the point of improper behavior towards their fellow child of God, which, BTW, this poster still is no matter how offended anyone may feel.

Consider this article, which several people have sent me today:

huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/what-it-says-about-us-whe_b_671373.html?ref=fb&src=sp

There are evil and tragic acts involved. If we become myopic, isolating and elevating specific elements of church teaching, then we can easily be perceived as being indifferent to acts like the above. Every human person is born with a moral conscience. It is his/her own connection to God. (CCC 1776)

It must be followed, but can be in serious error (CCC 1790).

When a person acts out because of pangs to his/her moral conscience, we should respond with love and compassion, even when correcting (CCC 2478).

 

[JFarrish]

I’m glad to see everyone ignore the rules of standing… This is good for gay marriage, because it means you will lose the case every time you present it, as you have every time it comes before a judge.

FWIW, I have tried to respond to your points with honesty and empathy. I am sorry if it has appeared that I have not been reading or directly responding to what you said. That has certainly not been my intention.

Just a couple of points. First, the objective isn’t ‘winning’. Consider Daniel 3. Basically, a king makes a statue of gold and threatens to throw three nice Jewish boys to a fiery death if they won’t bow down to it. Taunting them, he asks if their God (our God, the God of Abraham) can save them.The answer is, yes, of course he can save us. But then comes the crux:

“But even if he will not, know, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the golden statue which you set up.” - Daniel 3:18

But… The point is not winning, the point is dutifully serving God. If we are not rewarded in this life, then we will be rewarded in the next.

You are right, we life in a pluralistic society and our Constituion is designed to protect hte individual. So, restricting rights to specific individuals is an uphill battle, even with 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court. But we are to do what is right, not what is expedient.

Second point, you have done a good job of placing a matter of faith in the context of secular law, but would you consider trying a thought exercise to see if we can increase your empathy for the Catholic position?

First, let me reiterate the teaching exactly as the Church expresses it in the context of voting and political action, which is the context here:

“Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.” CDF 2002, emphasis in original

The emphasis is on family and the sentence recognizes multiple threats.

We hold great importance on the family. We think it is the basic building block of a stable and just society. Our Church is structure is compared to a family in the epistles of St. Paul, and we even envision God in the form of a Holy Trinity. We want stable families, so we can have stable communities, and in those communities we compliment each other and better do the work God places on us.

We do not have God’s capacity, we each have human limits. But we do not all have the same limits. That is why we believe in a community of faith, to combine our strengths, instead of the more individual relationship with God of many other Christian denominations.

Now, consider this:

nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/City-Gives-Condoms-to-11-Year-Olds-119769714.html

There are lots of reasons to get worked up and upset, but under it all is a sobering reality that very young children are now sexually active in large numbers.

Most people would agree that this is not a change that should be taken likely. There are health concerns, emotional concerns, the list goes on and on. It would be easy to get caught up in the problem and response almost no one wants young children to contract STDs, be emotionally scarred, or be confronted with the responsibility of parenthood when they are, literally, neurologically unable to understand it.

What Catholics want is to address what we believe to be core problems. There are almost certainly lots of factors behind this change in behavior, like the celebration of sex that permeates our society. But we believe that one of the best ways to minimize it is stronger families.

For us, it is a simple formula. If you have a family where dads don’t leave and no parent has to work two jobs just to give their children basic necessities, children will be properly nutured and you will have a lot fewer of them engaging in reckless sexual behavior.

Supporting that family has to happen on a lot of fronts. You have to convey to society at large the need for what we call ‘socially just economic development’. You can’t tear families apart with forced migration and deportation. You have to convey that marriages aren’t like shoes you discard on a whim and broken families have consequences on children. And, you have to make it clear that love and companionship are not on the same level as the structure that brings new life into the world and prepares it for its proper role in the broader family of man.

Now, re-read the instructions from Rome I quoted above. Do they seem as harsh to you?

And, step back from the personal sparring here. Everyone likes to dig in, no one likes to ‘lose’. But we each have a moral conscience. Step back now and listen to it. Does some part of you agree that when 11 year olds are having sex because they are short on nuturing while mom is working two shifts and dad is off with a trophy wife society has moved in a direction where the weakest and most vulnerable of us is being poorly served?

If the answer is yes, can you completely blame us for attempting to promote a different family model, even if you think that some of our efforts and misguided or even unfair?

Again, I’m sorry if you have felt that your posts are not being taken seriously. I have certainly tried. And thank you for taking the time to at least try the thought exercise above.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Taoist

**The only way to definitely stop gay marriage in the US is to add a new amendment to the US Constitution, and your elected representatives know it, that’s why they pay lip service to you to get elected but nothing ever comes of their promised efforts. **

Don’t count on that lasting forever. There is a Supreme court, and that Court has been known to reverse lower Court rulings, and at present there are six Catholics and two Jews on the Supreme Court out of nine. No radically liberal Protestants at all.

As the Three Musketeers said, “All for one, and one for all!”

What hurts society as a whole is a detriment to each individual in society. As the morals of a society grow increasing permissive and corrupt, every individual become prey to that corruption. The blood lust of the Romans was not satisfied until the gladiators slew each other with grandiose spectacle. Doubtless the people who owned the gladiators thought they had a right to own them and a right to make them fight to the death. The Roman state agreed and licensed these perverse owners of gladiators to make their men fight to the death. The gladiators had no recourse, since there was no Roman Constitution that denied such perversion of the natural law.

The American Constitution was designed to protect the majority from the unlawful dominance of a perverse minority. But in America today that perverse minority wants to impose its will on the majority. In some cases, where it is aided and abetted by perverse judges, it has succeeded to a degree. It will not succeed forever. Christianity overcame the practice of gladiatorial combat by the 4th century, and likewise overcame the practice of killing the elderly and those born with defects. Today I believe it will in due time overcome the State honoring and supporting the bottom-feeding advocates of sodomy.