What 10 Priests Say About Gay Marriage

[LisaA]

I don’t think you are. Fr Junipero is taking the focus off the symptoms of the problem and asking what are we doing wrong. His answer is “Family”. I would go further and say there is also a lack of community and too much individualism.

Please understand that when Fr Peter Junipero refers to us doing a better job living our faith within our own family, he means the Natural Family, mother and father married for life, bearing and raising children. He does not refer to Suzy and Bob who are co-habitating or Bill and Joe who claim to be “married.” His point is that had we lived as God intended and not helped tear down Natural Marriage, we might not be facing the complete destruction of the term.

Well here is an obvious one, homosexuals cannot be married by the state in some countries. And therefore cannot experience the same legal benefits that heterosexuals have because of state marriage. Emphasis on legal benefits because thats all gay marriage is about.

That may be true for you personally but it is absolutely NOT TRUE with respect to what I call the gay agenda. For example our state originally enacted a Constitutional Amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. In order to give same sex couples the IDENTICAL legal rights, our legislature enacted a very detailed “Domestic Partner” statute that provided IDENTICAL legal rights and obligations.

That wasn’t enough. The gay activists demanded it be called “marriage.” Thus our AG decided that he would simply ignore the Constitution of our state and deem same sex couples as “married.”

This is mirrored in many other states. The language providing for equal rights and responsibilities and status is not sufficient. The gay activist cohort wants to normalize homosexuality and call it what it is not. As Fr said the idea that two of the same sex can contract a marriage is preposterous. They can have a loving devoted relationship and certainly they engage in sexual practices. But their relationship cannot be called a marriage and retain any actual meaning of the word. It just becomes what the parties want it to be.

The term is necessarily relative unless you live in a theocracy. State marriage involves more than simply reproductive organs and is subject to change as society changes.

But this gets back to society and the state’s interest in marriage. The state has ZERO interest in your romantic attachments or your sex life. The state has an interest in marriage because for millenia it has been about protecting the children that naturally and usually result therefrom. Further in the past when women were not self supporting, the state’s interest was in having physical and financial protection for the wife.

Gay activists want this term used because they want the illusion their relationship is equivalent and that the state has an equally valid interest in their sex life. It does not. Homosexual relations cannot result in the birth of a child. Thus, no state interest.

How are they destroying religious liberties? Is the Catholic church being forced to marry gay people? I don’t think so. Perhaps you are just offended by any legal system that does not adhere to Catholic moral beliefs about human sexuality and otherwise. The problem is, a catholic legal system will never prevail in anything but a Catholic theocracy where everybody is Catholic.

The destruction of religious liberties is in demanding that service providers and property owners participate in a sexual relationship their faith does not support. Further if you do not think the gay activists are going to demand the Church and other religious organizations “marry” them in the future, you are kidding yourself. This is already occurring in Europe and currently other charitable organizations have been sued demanding accommodation for homosexuals.

As to my being ‘offended’ by a legal system that does not adhere to Catholic moral beliefs, how absurd. I do not expect non-Catholics to follow the precepts of the Church. I don’t expect you to come to Mass, fast on certain Holy Days, or engage in other Catholic practices. You mistake religious practice for religious freedom. The former is up to you. The latter is enshrined in our Constitution and I expect it to be upheld.

 

[ChainBreaker]

That may be true for you personally

True for me?

 

[LisaA]

True for me?

That for you advocating gay “marriage” is only about legal benefits. I maintain that it is clear legal benefits are merely one of the many agenda items.

 

[ChainBreaker]

For example our state originally enacted a Constitutional Amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. In order to give same sex couples the IDENTICAL legal rights, our legislature enacted a very detailed “Domestic Partner” statute that provided IDENTICAL legal rights and obligations.

That wasn’t enough. The gay activists demanded it be called “marriage.” Thus our AG decided that he would simply ignore the Constitution of our state and deem same sex couples as “married.”

State Marriage is State Marriage. Why would they call it something else? They can’t favor religious feelings over everyone else, which is precisely why it was changed to marriage. As for the Constitution are you saying that it cannot be amended to support changes in human relations? By what standard do you argue this, because if you are talking about a religious standard its not going to fly in court.

This is mirrored in many other states. The language providing for equal rights and responsibilities and status is not sufficient. The gay activist cohort wants to normalize homosexuality and call it what it is not.

They may want to normalize homosexuality, but the changes occurring in America is consistent with a legal system that does not favor one culture over another. In fact it doesn’t make sense to expect the legal system to favor any culture whether its in regards to sexuality or marriage accept in regards to the security of society; and i don’t see how one can successfully argue objectively without bias that homosexuality is a security issue, even though it may make you feel personally insecure.

As Fr said the idea that two of the same sex can contract a marriage is preposterous.

In respect to catholicism definitions of marriage it certainly is preposterous. As far as legal matters are concerned it makes sense.

They can have a loving devoted relationship and certainly they engage in sexual practices. But their relationship cannot be called a marriage and retain any actual meaning of the word. It just becomes what the parties want it to be.

If thats what state marriage has become then thats what it is.

But this gets back to society and the state’s interest in marriage. The state has ZERO interest in your romantic attachments or your sex life. The state has an interest in marriage because for millenia it has been about protecting the children that naturally and usually result therefrom. Further in the past when women were not self supporting, the state’s interest was in having physical and financial protection for the wife.

Well then this is a relative concern. State marriage was initially created to protect children. I see no legal basis however that because the initial reason implied heterosexual unions that therefore this cannot be amended to support homosexual unions for other reasons that does not necessarily involve children. Should we suspend a marriage certificate between heterosexual couples that can both support themselves and do not want children together? It does not happen in the real world does it.

The destruction of religious liberties is in demanding that service providers and property owners participate in a sexual relationship their faith does not support.

Is that really happening?.

Further if you do not think the gay activists are going to demand the Church and other religious organizations “marry” them in the future, you are kidding yourself. This is already occurring in Europe and currently other charitable organizations have been sued demanding accommodation for homosexuals.

Is the Catholic church being sued for not marrying gay couples? And i am interested to know why charitable organizations are being sued, because i have a feeling that a lot of people think that its okay to exclude people because they don’t agree with their lifestyle, and legally speaking i see no justifiable basis for that behavior and i don’t personally agree with homosexuality either.

As to my being ‘offended’ by a legal system that does not adhere to Catholic moral beliefs, how absurd. I do not expect non-Catholics to follow the precepts of the Church. I don’t expect you to come to Mass, fast on certain Holy Days, or engage in other Catholic practices. You mistake religious practice for religious freedom. The former is up to you. The latter is enshrined in our Constitution and I expect it to be upheld.

I think you mistake religious freedom for **legally enforced cultural dominance.
**

 

[LisaA]

State Marriage is State Marriage. Why would they call it something else? They can’t favor religious feelings over everyone else, which is precisely why it was changed to marriage. As for the Constitution are you saying that it cannot be amended to support changes in human relations? By what standard do you argue this, because if you are talking about a religious standard its not going to fly in court.

They may want to normalize homosexuality, but the changes occurring in America is consistent with a legal system that does not favor one culture over another. In fact it doesn’t make sense to expect the legal system to favor any culture whether its in regards to sexuality or marriage accept in regards to the security of society; and i don’t see how one can successfully argue objectively without bias that homosexuality is a security issue, even though it may make you feel personally insecure.

In respect to catholicism definitions of marriage it certainly is preposterous. As far as legal matters are concerned it makes sense.

If thats what state marriage has become then thats what it is.

Well then this is a relative concern. State marriage was initially created to protect children. I see no legal basis however that because the initial reason implied heterosexual unions that therefore this cannot be amended to support homosexual unions for other reasons that does not necessarily involve children. Should we suspend a marriage certificate between heterosexual couples that can both support themselves and do not want children together? It does not happen in the real world does it.

Is that really happening?.

Is the Catholic church being sued for not marrying gay couples? And i am interested to know why charitable organizations are being sued, because i have a feeling that a lot of people think that its okay to exclude people because they don’t agree with their lifestyle, and legally speaking i see no justifiable basis for that behavior and i don’t personally agree with homosexuality either.

I think you mistake religious freedom for **legally enforced cultural dominance.
**

No the answers were within my original post. The state has no interest in your sex life. No interest in “whom you love.” If you review state statutes there is no reference to either. Marriage was designed to foster stable and prosperous societies. Thus the state interest in that specific and unique relationship. There is nothing unique about sexual practices. There IS something unique about a male female relationship as it is the only one that can possibly result in children thus more stability, more prosperity and a continuation of society. That some people cannot or do not want children does not change the uniqueness of the male/female power to create another human being. Further with respect to adoption, the issue is that a man and woman, married to each other provide the most stable and secure enviornment for those children. Thus state interest in this unique relationship, not in homosexuals’ completely sterile sex life or romantic attractions. The irony about the argument is that gay activists CLAIM it’s all about marrying whom you “love” (i.e. are having sex with) but in fact no states require love as a criteria for marriage. It is in this case a secular structure but based on religious principles. Church marriages (ours for example) and religious wedding vows refer to mutual love, caring, and the bringing forth of children. State statutes do not.

Again the state’s reference to marriage reflects the state’s interest, not religious feelings. Tell me why the state has any interest in Bob and Joe getting “married” particularly if all of the legal rights can result from other regulated partnerships?

It sounds like you have capitulated…it’s not about legal rights is it? It’s about normalizing homosexuality and pushing an agenda.

At this point the Catholic Church has (to my knowledge) not been sued for not performing a marriage. Catholic institutions HAVE been sued for not “accommodating” homosexual relationships or recognizing homosexual “marriage.” But in all fairness this is not simply homosexuals who are demanding the Church capitulate on her teaching but also heterosexuals who cohabit, have children out of wedlock, commit adultery. The Church is consistent but gay activists are relative.

As to your final point, you apparently do not understand the term of religious freedom. Gays and Lesbians are not being excluded…there is no Gaydar machine at the church steps preventing them from entering the church or for that matter a bakery or a B&B. The difference is where gay activists demand service providers PARTICIPATE in gay activities, celebrations, provide services that are against their religion.

I am waiting for the latest iteration on this theme. Although gay activists have sued bake shops and photography studios operated by Christians who live their faith in the workplace as well as on Sunday morning, they are now trying to force Muslim service providers to provide services that are against their faith’s teaching. This should be interesting. Unfortunately the courts seem far more concerned about preserving Muslims’ religious freedom than that of Christians and Jews.

 

[JimG]

“It seems clear that no humane person, and certainly no Catholic, can accept the new view of sex if he understands what is at stake.”

From this article, which had some interesting reflections about sex and same sex marriage.

 

[LisaA]

“It seems clear that no humane person, and certainly no Catholic, can accept the new view of sex if he understands what is at stake.”

From this article, which had some interesting reflections about sex and same sex marriage.

Agree with your statement. I could not access the article. Could you repost or check the link? Thank you

 

[ChainBreaker]

No the answers were within my original post. The state has no interest in your sex life. No interest in “whom you love.” If you review state statutes there is no reference to either. Marriage was designed to foster stable and prosperous societies. Thus the state interest in that specif

Well, people who take on the gay identity are a part of society, and in some cases a very important part insofar as the economy is concerned and providing jobs for people. Therefore It seems to me allowing gay marriage is very much a part of fostering a stable and prosperous society for everyone; but obviously what you think a stable and prosperous society is and how the legal system operates and expresses its agenda in that regard is obviously two different things. And thats the problem; your bias has no relevance anymore in terms of defining what a stable and prosperous society actually is.

 

[ChainBreaker]

The irony about the argument is that gay activists CLAIM it’s all about marrying whom you “love” (i.e. are having sex with) but in fact no states require love as a criteria for marriage.

Which should tell you that state marriage has nothing to do with what marriage is traditionally been about (Love) and everything to do with security. The state does not require you to be Christian or Muslim or a part of some specific cultural or ethical background either. The criteria for state marriage isn’t written in stone because it is not a moral requirement. State marriage and catholic marriage is not the same thing.

 

[ChainBreaker]

As to your final point, you apparently do not understand the term of religious freedom. Gays and Lesbians are not being excluded…there is no Gaydar machine at the church steps preventing them from entering the church or for that matter a bakery or a B&B. The difference is where gay activists demand service providers PARTICIPATE in gay activities, celebrations, provide services that are against their religion.

I am waiting for the latest iteration on this theme. Although gay activists have sued bake shops and photography studios operated by Christians who live their faith in the workplace as well as on Sunday morning, they are now trying to force Muslim service providers to provide services that are against their faith’s teaching. This should be interesting. Unfortunately the courts seem far more concerned about preserving Muslims’ religious freedom than that of Christians and Jews.

You mean activities that happen to have a gay theme. The Problem is, Homosexuality is a legal identity and so if you are providing a service to the public you don’t have a right to exclude those who represent that identity. Would you deny them food and water because they are going to use it for a Gay gathering? It doesn’t make sense morally or legally, and in the interest of including all legal identities in a stable and prosperous society it doesn’t make sense for the state to support your ridiculous claim that by serving a gay customer your religious freedom is being undermined.Tell me, is it a sin to work in places where they sell condoms? **Unless you can prove that serving a gay customer is a mortal sin **i really don’t see the problem other than that some people are more concerned with their disgust with homosexuality than they are with running and minding their own business; and now they are foolish enough to get themselves sued.

At the end of the day, if you think that you are working or providing the kind of service that will cause you to sin then you have a right to leave that line of business. Nobodies being forced to do anything. It seems your religious freedom is intact.

Gay people are here to stay, whether we like it or not.

 

[LisaA]

Well, people who take on the gay identity are a part of society, and in some cases a very important part insofar as the economy is concerned and providing jobs for people. Therefore It seems to me allowing gay marriage is very much a part of fostering a stable and prosperous society for everyone; but obviously what you think a stable and prosperous society is and how the legal system operates and expresses its agenda in that regard is obviously two different things. And thats the problem; your bias has no relevance anymore in terms of defining what a stable and prosperous society actually is.

You are expressing your opinion, nothing more. Again, what possible interest does the state have in your sex life? What possible interest does the state have in “who I love” or live with or share a bank account with or name in my will? Gays and Lesbians can be productive citizens without “marriage.” It is simply that they hope that by redefining the term, they will make their sexual activity more acceptable. And while they have long had the opportunity for a church wedding and recognition by certain religious organizations, they continue to couch their demands for state recognition in romantic or religious platitudes. Again the state does not care about your sex life. It will never create a child and a future citizen.

As Fr Peter Junipero noted, those of the same sex who claim their relationship is a marriage are simply making this up out of whole cloth. There is no biological, theological, sociological, traditional or even historical basis for this claim. It’s only a matter that they want what they want. Caligula I believe wanted to marry a horse. While he and the horse may have “loved” each other and may have engaged in some sort of sexual activity, is this a marriage? If not why not? Isn’t it all about “the one you love?”

While gays and gay relationships have been present in many societies, even relatively formalized in some such as ancient Greece, there has never been a society that found a reason to call gay partnerships marriage…because marriage has always been built around the bearing and raising of children.

As to your final statement, once again you have provided your opinion only. If you have any compelling evidence that calling gay/Lesbian sexual partnerships “marriage” and how this benefits society (not the parties themselves) please pass it along.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Unfortunately the courts seem far more concerned about preserving Muslims’ religious freedom than that of Christians and Jews.

So now even the Muslims have got one up on the Christians insofar as religious freedom is concerned.

Maybe we should make the gay people where a pink badge so we can identify them before they kiss in a public restaurant.

Who’s that i hear marching towards us? The National Socialist Party.

 

[ChainBreaker]

You are expressing your opinion, nothing more.

The same to you.

 

[ChainBreaker]

If you have any compelling evidence that calling gay/Lesbian sexual partnerships “marriage” and how this benefits society (not the parties themselves) please pass it along.

Well, people who take on the gay identity are a part of society, and in some cases a very important part insofar as the economy is concerned and providing jobs for people. Therefore It seems to me allowing gay marriage is very much a part of fostering a stable and prosperous society for everyone; but obviously what you think a stable and prosperous society is and how the legal system operates and expresses its agenda in that regard is obviously two different things. And thats the problem; your bias has no relevance anymore in terms of defining what a stable and prosperous society actually is.

 

[JimG]

Agree with your statement. I could not access the article. Could you repost or check the link? Thank you

The link worked for me, but here is the same article from a different source. It appeared in Catholic World Report, then was reprinted in Crisis Magazine.

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3550/normality_is_not_hatred.aspx

 

[LisaA]

The same to you.

No, my viewpoint is based on biology, thousands of years of history, sociology, and law. It sounds as if you think that for thousands of years all of those many varied societies that considered marriage a unique relationship that required a male and female component with the natural result, children…well all of them were wrong but in the last 20 years a group of gay activists have somehow decided in the absence of any evidence that “marriage” means whatever they want it to mean. Same sex couples may have a strong friendship and an exciting sex life but in reality they will never have the necessary biological equipment to either use their bodies as they were designed much less produce children. Their sexual activity produces nothing but perhaps some transient stimulation and society has no vested interest in encouraging, supporting or documenting it.

 

[LisaA]

The link worked for me, but here is the same article from a different source. It appeared in Catholic World Report, then was reprinted in Crisis Magazine.

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3550/normality_is_not_hatred.aspx

Great article. Particularly thought this summed up the whole gay “marriage” meme:

Under such circumstances sex becomes a destructive rather than creative principle, and marriage a purely personal connection between two people for whatever purposes they find appealing

This too:
Under such circumstances children no longer have settled patterns of normal attitudes and behavior to grow into. Each must make up his own, taking his cues from peer pressure, pop culture, the strongest impulse, or the cleverest seducer. The body loses meaning, so young people become alienated from it, and express their alienation through tattoos, piercings, eating disorders, physical self-harm, and promiscuity…

Particularly with respect to the above, this is applicable to all of the forces that have worked to destroy Natural Marriage, one man, one woman for life biologically, emotionally and physically bonded to their children. Once any of these elements is missing, the results are detrimental.

Thank you for sharing such a great resource on this subject.

 

[ChainBreaker]

No, my viewpoint is based on biology, thousands of years of history, sociology, and law. It sounds as if you think that for thousands of years all of those many varied societies that considered marriage a unique relationship that required a male and female component with the natural result, children…well all of them were wrong

Its not a matter of being wrong or right. I don’t believe in Gay marriage as a moral act. In fact metaphysically speaking it’s logically impossible for Gays to be married; the very act is meaningless. Marriage is more than just words in a legal document.

But thats not the point.

Whether its right or wrong, the state does not have a legal justification to deny them that right because as i said homosexuality is a legal identity and thus Gay marriage was inevitable… People who take on the gay identity are a part of society, and in some cases a very important part insofar as the economy is concerned and providing jobs for people. Therefore It seems to me allowing gay marriage is very much a part of fostering a stable and prosperous society for everyone; but obviously what you think a stable and prosperous society is and how the legal system operates and expresses its agenda in that regard is obviously two different things. And thats the problem; your bias has no legal relevance anymore in terms of defining what a stable and prosperous society actually is.

 

[LisaA]

Its not a matter of being wrong or right. I don’t believe in Gay marriage as a moral act. In fact metaphysically speaking it’s logically impossible for Gays to be married; the very act is meaningless. Marriage is more than just words in a legal document.

But thats not the point.

Whether its right or wrong, the state does not have a legal justification to deny them that right because as i said homosexuality is a legal identity and thus Gay marriage was inevitable… People who take on the gay identity are a part of society, and in some cases a very important part insofar as the economy is concerned and providing jobs for people. Therefore It seems to me allowing gay marriage is very much a part of fostering a stable and prosperous society for everyone; but obviously what you think a stable and prosperous society is and how the legal system operates and expresses its agenda in that regard is obviously two different things. And thats the problem; your bias has no legal relevance anymore in terms of defining what a stable and prosperous society actually is.

Homosexuality refers to a sexual practice. It is transitory, changeable, and circumstantial. For a specific criteria to be considered protected it must be immutable, permanent and unchangeable. Homosexuality is none of these. As you said, people “take on” the gay identity. That’s like my taking on the “Catholic” identity. I was not born Catholic, I chose to be Catholic. I could also choose not to be Catholic. The object of your sexual desire is not inherent.

The state does have the right to decide which parties are eligible to enter specific contracts. So not everyone has the right to marry anyone whom they please. I cannot marry someone too young, already married, unable to contract due to mental incapacity. The claim that Bill is denied some inherent right because he can’t marry Joe is as ludicrous as saying I’m denied the right to marry my 10 year old great nephew.

Again what possible interest does the state have in promoting or certifying your sex life?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Whether its right or wrong, the state does not have a legal justification to deny them that right because as i said homosexuality is a legal identity

Sure it does! If you’re talking about the USA, marriage is not a Constitutional right for anyone–GLBTQ or straight.

But we’re not talking about identity, we’re talking about homosexual BEHAVIOR. Behaviors are not identities.

and thus Gay marriage was inevitable…

What about gay divorce? Is that inevitable, too? I mean, do people really think that it would all end with their favorite gay couples riding off into the sunset in eternal bliss?

And how long will it last? It must be noted that gay rights activists won’t even bother to ruffle the feathers of Islam or minority-majority congregations. I guess the buck for “equal rights” stops when liberal voting bases risk fracturing, eh?

People who take on the gay identity are a part of society, and in some cases a very important part insofar as the economy is concerned and providing jobs for people.

If you want to provide jobs, let the free market work.

Therefore It seems to me allowing gay marriage is very much a part of fostering a stable and prosperous society for everyone;but obviously what you think a stable and prosperous society is and how the legal system operates and expresses its agenda in that regard is obviously two different things. And thats the problem; your bias has no legal relevance anymore in terms of defining what a stable and prosperous society actually is.

A stable and prosperous society is one that can continue on without government dependence and can raise healthy children in its own values, which ideally are based on natural law and Catholic teaching.

The untainted evidence shows that gay relationships are not stable and not good environments for children.

Just how long do you think a state can survive promoting policies against its own good?

If gay relationships are so great anyways, why do they need all of these parades and special recognition and attention? Why is it so terribly important for them to get flowers and cakes from straight white Christian businesses?