Learn the arguments on gay marriage

Reno, on right

Reno, on right

The Institute for American Values, founded in 1987, built a solid social conservative reputation until June, 2012, when its president, David Blankenhorn, droopped his opposition to gay marriage. Rusty Reno, editor and successor of Father John Neuhaus of First Things magazine, was invited to debate Blankenhorn on March 25. See the debate here.

Blankenhorn says he changed his mind for two main reasons: first, because of fairness- that its is an injustice to deprive homosexuals access to marriage; and second, because he hopes to enlist pro-gay-marriage figures like Paul Singer, a GOP donor, to support measures that would help the institution of marriage.

Blankenhorn, left

Blankenhorn, left

Reno, on the video, said he sees homosexual marriage as an exclamation point to the sexual revolution and the subjectivity underlying it. Plus he doubts that homosexual activists truly want the strictures that would strengthen marriage. Ending no-fault divorce, for example. “I’ll trade an end to no-fault divorce for gay marriage.”

To see the YouTube of the debate, click here.

For those less interested in public policy and more in the moral arguments, see the October 5 debate on same-sex marriage by John Corvino and John-Mark Miravalle

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Comments

comments

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. Abeca Christian says:

    more garbage thinkers…..

  2. Trading one sin for another sin is ridiculous.
    Divorce (with re-marriage), and Same-sex marriage (sodomy and other sexual acts) are two separate types of Mortal Sins.
    Mortal Sins without repentance and the firm purpose of amendment to sin no more send Souls to Hell for eternity.
    Those who do their own Will rather than God’s Will – won’t get to Heaven. – per Jesus Mt 7:21-23.

  3. No matter what type of CANCER (sin) one has – it must be removed from the body – lest the body die of disease.

  4. MARYBETH says:

    Federal and State government should NOT give tax breaks to those who are married.
    Tax breaks should be only given to married couples WITH CHILDREN when one of the partners stays home to take care of their own children.
    Children are the future of our Country, which includes taking care of Senior citizens in their old age. Children are expensive for the poor and average wage earners. Helping married persons without children live a higher life style should not be the goal of the taxpayers and their elected public servants.

    • What tax breaks for married people are we talking about? In recent years I thought we had a problem with the marriage penalty tax. You do not get deductions for dependents that you do not have. The tax structure was much fairer for families years ago.

    • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

      Marybeth,

      You don’t seem to understand that government policies intentionally created the sick situation where more than one parent has to work in order to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. The government does Satan’s biddings.

      God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
      Kenneth M. Fisher

  5. “If your eye causes you to sin”, meaning if what you see causes you to sin, “then pluck it out”: Jesus is telling us that any mental construct or sentiment that is a cause for sin needs to be thrown out. This proves that no matter the temptation, one can get rid of it. So, the PA school has no leg to stand on. Doesn’t matter if there is a gay gene or not … whatever causes one to sin must be plucked out. Thus the idea of a gay gene must be plucked out. If it were impossible, then Jesus would not be demanding it; “all things are possible with God”, says St Paul.

  6. Dr. Judy Meissner says:

    David Blankenhorn demonstrates an unforgivable ignorance of what Marriage is. He has fallen for the ideology of those seeking to impose on society the macabre “celebration” of biologically aberrant, morally deviant sexual behavior, or aberrosexualism.

    What is Marriage?

    Definitions do not exist to discriminate against anyone, but to organize the mind and give words meaning and sense.

    Wanting to call “marriage” to something other than the union between a man and a woman, is like wanting to call “man” to an individual other than a male or wanting to call “woman” to an individual other than a female. It speaks volumes of a person’s mental sanity that they would want to call a spoon a “helicopter”, or call a bus, toilet paper.

    Marriage IS a man and a woman formally coming together to start a family, just as “calf” is the offspring of a bull and a cow, or “chick” is the offspring of a rooster and a hen. To violate the definition of Marriage, or any other word for that matter, is absolutely insane. It is an assault on reason; it’s disrespectful of the concept and of the people involved. It is an absurdity that, if accepted, obligatorily imposes the acceptance of every other absurdity anyone would want to impose on us.

    A relationship between two men or two women cannot be “Marriage” because it lacks the rational, biological and anthropological elements of Marriage; elements upon which the very definition and legal recognition of Marriage is based. Two men or two women are not able to procreate, cannot start a family, cannot guarantee the survival of the human species, nor do they provide a correct expression of gender identity and sexual behavior.

    How does aberrosexual (biologically aberrant, morally deviant sexual behavior) phony “marriage” injure society?

    Violating the definition of Marriage kills its meaning, attacks the family and society, and undermines the common good in a many ways. FIRST, because it violates Man’s right to accurate, coherent, and truthful language. SECOND, because it undemocratically imposes on all of us an insane and absurd concept of Marriage that opens the door to all other absurdities, like parents marrying their own children, family members marrying other family members, adults marrying children, or men marrying several men or several women, or vice versa. THIRD, because it attempts to normalize, legitimize and justify sexual behavior that is aberrant, illegitimate and unjustifiable. FOURTH, because it empowers extremists to impose in our schools and colleges, against our will, curriculum, textbooks and other educational resources that force our children and young people to view biologically aberrant, morally deviant sexual behavior as “correct.”

    • Exactly! Dr. Meissiner. You deserve your title. Finally someone with a doctorate who has his or her head on straight. Sad to say, so many do not. Some of our past United States Surgeon Generals were excellent, but some did not know their heads from their feet.

    • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

      I am a bachelor living with two male roomates, both of them are devout Christians. I also know a devout Catholic man who is Same Sex attracted and has a roommate of the same bent, as far as I know both are celibate and in God’s good Graces. There is no reason that two men of Same Sex Attraction can not live together for companionship, not sex, reasons and be in the State of Sanctifying Grace.

      That is not what the so called Gays want, they want to destroy marriage by destroying the benefits of marriage. The sooner we accept that fact and work to counter it, the better off we will all be.

      Viva Cristo Rey!

      God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
      Kenneth M. Fisher

      • Anonymous says:

        Kenneth. Sorry I don’t understand. You live with 2 other same sex attracted men yet you do not see this as a near occasion to sin. Can you explain how this is true for your household and not for other similar households?

        • Anonymous says:

          That is not what he said. California is an expensive place to live. Lots of people get roommates and there is no sex or sexual interest between them. Everything isn’t dirty.

    • Dr. Judy’s argument is very interesting and instructive.

      Let’s get right to the meat by addressing her four reasons why “gay marriage” undermines the common good.

      First: “because it violates Man’s right to accurate, coherent and truthful language.” This argument is interesting because it presumes there is some kind of unchanging meaning of words. Languages with fixed meanings are called dead languages—and word meanings remain fixed for a very simple reason: no one is using them.

      I find it hard to believe that Dr. Judy is truly upset at changing meaning of words outside of her disgust for homosexuals. If she truly cared about “accurate, coherent and truthful” language she would have been demonstrating outside the offices of every iconic internet company screaming about how they were perverting the language. For example, it would upset her how Microsoft demolished the “true meaning” of words like “desktop” by applying them to something other than a physical desk. Other words which have completely transformed meanings in the last 15 years include “download, upload, tweet, twitter, poke, wipe, file, open and many many more.

      I guess homos weren’t involved with those word changes so they obviously aren’t a problem. As for “accuracy” if you insist that homosexual relationships are fundamentally different than heterosexual relationships, gosh you could use “gay marriage” and”traditional marriage”—though I suppose to meet your “accuracy” standard it would require some indication of disgust or perversion with respect to homosexual relationships. You are perfectly free to call it homo fake marriage—just open your mouth and say the words—but others are also free to look down on you for using that term.

      Second: “because it undemocratically imposes on all of us an insane and absurd concept of Marriage that opens the door to other absurdities…”

      WOW, just wow. This is an artfully dense cluster of logical fallacies. First, lets address the issue of “undemocratically”. Since Dr. Judy is such a stickler for correct definitions of words, perhaps she should do a little scholarly research into the terms “democracy” and “republic”—maybe she could look them up on Wikipedia.

      We live in a representative republic, hence almost EVERY action taken by any government body is inherently “undemocratic”. If Dr. Judy decided to read some basic poly-sci, she might run across an obscure book called “Democracy in America” by Alexis De Tocqueville . She might learn about how the constitution grants citizens certain fundamental rights that cannot be infringed by even majority will—thus preventing the “tyranny of the majority”.

      While our courts have made many questionable con law decisions, an action being “undemocratic” is not inherently untoward in the American system of government.

      As for “insane and absurd concept of marriage”. I’m sure the learned Dr. Judy is very familiar with the logical fallacy called the ad hominem. Hurling insults is not argument. I just wonder why she chooses to do so while calling it reason. Also, claiming that gay marriage “attacks family and society” because it’s “insane and absurd” is also a circular argument (e.g X is wrong because X is wrong). I wonder why Dr. Judy chooses to use nested logical fallacies. here.

      Next she uses the “slippery slope argument” leading to a parade of horribles. The “dangers” of adults marrying children is not affected by gay marriage since that rests not on the definition of marriage, but on the legal concept of capacity. Basically, children lack the capacity to agree to marriage, and gay marriage in no way affects the concept of capacity.

      The group marriage arguments I do not consider very persuasive since, again, those concepts don’t legally relate to the sexual identity of people who contract for marriage. Polyamorus marriage is prohibited for basic public policy reasons that have to do with a limited number of people “hogging” marriage partners. In a very real sense, that could impinge upon the fundamental right to “pursue happiness, if there are not enough marriage partners to “go around” for people at the bottom of the social ladder.

      As for the idea that gay marriage would make incestuous marriage more likely, the truth is the exact opposite. By seeking to legally recognize gay relationships under the rubric of “marriage” gays are restricting themselves from entering into incestuous marriages. Incest is prohibited among heterosexuals for the very valid reasons that progeny would receive reinforced bad recessive genes—leading to many genetically defective children. By being considered in the same legal standards as traditional marriage rather than seeking a separate legal identity, gays will be restricted by this public policy. I cannot imagine that a government who has now taken a massive role in health care will want to encourage the birth of more disabled children for which they will have to pay.

      Third: more nested ad hominems combined with circular reasoning.

      Fourth: “allows extremists to impose in our schools and colleges…” Uhhh, college education is voluntary. There is no legal requirement for students to enter higher ed—and they have numerous choices if they wish to pursue this goal, including many private religious universities.

      The only valid argument you have here regards primary and secondary public education, which IS required by law. I do agree that the state is using public education to socially engineer opinions in school age children—and seizing our tax dollars to finance this compelled indoctrination infringes upon our constitutional rights. The government has grabbed too much power here.

      However, you again use ad hominems like “biologically aberrant” and “morally deviant”. I also must point out that the entirety of human civilization is “biologically aberrant” in the sense that we are living nothing like our species is evolved to interact with our environment.

      Biologically, we are a hunting/gathering species that is also migratory. Instead, we now farm and live in a fixed space, while individuals become specialized—causing a functional social segmentation that we only see in bees, wasps and ants. Thus, we now live in population densities that are in no way in biologically natural to our species. This has profound affects on human society—including creating a ruling hierarchy to ccordinate the different specialized groups in society into a large-scale social survival machine.

      [note: bees wasps and ants have socially segmented groups that are genetically distinct from one another, unlike humans. Also, the worker classes in these insect species are not part of the mating group and thus, have different inclusive fitness interests than their human counterparts. There are, however, many interesting parallels between how these insect societies are structured and humans. Many of these similarities are driven by the functional segmentation within the species—which is VERY unusual in the animal world].

      I must confess, Dr. Judy, I am curious as to what academic discipline this kind of logically defective argumentation is functional.

      .

      • Mark from PA says:

        JonJ, you raised some very interesting points there. Your comments about the changing meaning of words was quite interesting to me. It makes me think of the reaction that some people have to the word gay. However, it occurs to me that it isn’t really the word “gay” that some people dislike, it is actually the people that they dislike. Some people may wish to use other words to refer to gay people but have feelings of anger that they can’t use the words that they would like to use for fear of making themselves look bad in the eyes of others.

        • Canisius says:

          You are right about that one PA, I dislike what the gay mafia has done to the Church and the Culture

          • The Lavender Mafia, aka Gay Mafia ,aka Homosexual Mafia – trying to shove their sinful lifestyles down everyone’s throat.
            If they were interested in “live and let live” as they say, they would quietly go about their own business in the privacy of their own homes, rather than force the changing of society to accept sodomy.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          PA its the whole “gay” agenda…that word is an agenda word….you are all living that lie…thinking there is such a thing but now there is because the agenda took that word and created an agenda…..maybe your focus should be on the actual sins that it promotes not trying to figure us out….we are only discerning what the Holy Ghost has blessed us with.

      • OK JonJ, So where do you stand? Your critical diatribe is wanting without a reasoned position.

        • Gravey,

          1) I do not see how the Catholic Church can condone gay marriage within catholic theology.

          2) I think the Catholic Church does not treat gays correctly according to its own professed doctrine. The Church too readily supports legal exclusions, has tacitly encouraged employers to fire gay employees, and told social organizations that its OK to summarily exclude gays simply based on orientation and not on behaviors. The CCC says one thing, and actual Church policy is quite different.

          3) I do not see how the federal government can deny gay marriage as a matter of US law. Citizens are free to order their lives as they choose unless it conflicts with a valid state purpose.

          From the arguments I’ve heard so far, I think they fail to meet this test. I can be persuaded on this point, but I will have to hear a substantially better argument. I cannot think of such a legal argument myself. I do understand the Catholic church says that a faithful catholic cannot rule in favor of gay marriage.

          4) The religious freedom of the Catholic Church and Catholic institutions should be protected—along with other religions. That means Catholic Churches should not be penalized for operating consistently with the catholic faith or preaching the catholic faith. This is a tough issue b/c government power has grown very extensive and there will be many conflicts here. They need to be disentangled. Not easy.

          • gravey says:

            JonJ,
            I am interested is exactly how the Catholic Church ” does not treat gays correctly according to its own professed doctrine.” Your comments regarding the Church “supporting legal exclusions” and ” summarily exclude gays simply based on orientation and not on behaviors” are in need of some support.

            My question to proponents of gay marriage is why should gay marriage be allowed? What is the foundational basis for allowing such a thing? The “equal protection” argument is wanting: 1) laws necessarily deny behaviors, access, perceived rights, etc.; 2) any decision is relative and may change with the next generation; and 3) does not address what is good, right or the truth. The ouns is on the proponents of gay marriage to make the argument. I have yet to hear a moral, legal, social, historical, scientific or philosophical argument to support such a fundamental change. It is they who have not met the test.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Gravey – You may have not heard the legal arguments about why same sex marriage violates the equal protection clauses, but they are out there. In piles of briefs before district, circuit, and supreme courts. And courts have decided that keeping LGBT people from being licensed to marry is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. I’m sorry you haven’t heard the legal arguments, but let he who have ears hear!

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            exceptionally well stated. let’s discuss!

      • Proud Rhodesian says:

        Bees and wasps only mate with other bees and wasp’s that are of the “opposite” sex…buddhapest, your argument’s are even easier to debunk then they were in the past…a smidgen of logic and zoological awareness, would reveal that your argument is a vain attempt to confuse biological instinct, that was formed over eons of geologic time…with anthropomorphic activity that is an outgrowth of the mores and norms of society… that are influenced by culture, education, and most importantly our religious beliefs. These beliefs we have as Catholics are in direct conflict with the disordered sexual appetite and activity… in a group of individual’s, who delight in perversion’s so depraved, that even animals shrink from them…the animal kingdom is innocent…man on the other hand…

        • Abeca Christian says:

          Proud Phodesian you are correct. I like how you are honest and blunt about it. You have an honest style and I get you….you are straight forward. God bless you!

        • Proud Rhodesian, you don’t even get why I brought bees and wasps into the argument. It takes a heck of a lot more than your condescending “smidgen of logic and zoological awareness”.

          Bees, wasps and ants fight something that resemble human wars. That’s why I was interested in them, because human wars also seem to be against the combatant’s biological interests. Typically, human wars only benefit the elite ruling classes, while the soldiers bear the risks. Some wars have much better aligned interests between the “management elites” and the footsloggers that pay it’s price. I was more interested in how the soldiers got roped into hopeless attacks: like the Charge of the Light Brigade or some of the “over the top” attacks of WWI.

          Yet, warfare is a common human behavior. This is it’s comparison point with homosexuality. In that homosexuality is an effective genetic lethal that is somehow maintained in society despite it not being biologically advantageous to those that display the behavior.

          The biological behavior underpinnings behind warfare are way beyond the scope of a post on CCD. But, I think behaviors that lead to warfare get maintained in the human genome because the benefits of working within a hierarchical group are so beneficial they overwhelm the negative selection pressure from wars in which the foot-soldiers are misled by their ruling class into fighting against their biological interests.

          Where the bees, wasps and ants are interesting is they show what rough social structures are necessary for a species to fight wars.

          1) you need high population densities 2) sophisticated communication abilities and 3) a society segmented into mostly exclusive functional groups where each group cannot survive on its own 4) a “management” class that coordinates the actions of the functional groups into a social survival machine.

          Of the four, only sophisticated communication abilities is “natural” to human beings in basic hunting/gathering societies (which is how man lived for a hundred of thousands of years before the recent sliver of time that encompasses “civilization”). The other three were built upon the invention of farming. Man developed farming to the point where the food excess allowed humans to live in much higher population densities than ever before—and drove the functional specialization into “jobs” that are often completely abstracted from obtaining food from the environment.

          Leaders in tribal groups don’t really have divergent interests from the rest of the tribe: instead they are the dominant individuals in the group. Thus, the territorial conflicts fought by tribes have a completely different biological character than the “wars” our societies often fight. Tribes don’t flight conflicts like Vietnam where the Military Industrial Complex reap rewards from the arms buildup, while the rest of society gets damaged.

          Thus, we can say that modern societies frequently display “biologically aberrant” behaviors. Indeed, all of human civilization is probably “biologically aberrant”.

          I believe this is also the broad cause of homosexuality—to the extent its a learned behavior rather than genetically driven. I strongly suspect that hunting/gathering societies show far less homosexuality than we do. The biggest reason is that people in these kind of societies paired off very close to sexually maturing.

          In our society, we sexually mature well before we’re economically viable because there’s a huge learning curve to most jobs. Thus, with a large gap between marriage and sexual maturity, that offers a lot of opportunity for “anomalous” sexual imprinting. Why it happens to some individuals I don’t think anyone fully understands. But, I think its mostly driven by the “unnatural” social structure created by human civilization vs. a hunting/gathering society.

          Note also this isn’t really a “God” problem. Hunting gathering societies typically had what we would consider a rudimentary (shamanistic) understanding of religion.

          Of course, to prove or disprove much of this theory would require controlled experiments that are completely unethical. They’d require A LOT more than “a smidgen of logic and zoological knowledge”.

    • I just love it when some compare every human being to the lower animals or insects. I guess that is because some act like lower animals and insects having their worse traits and tell you they cannot help themselves. It reminds me of when the Lord Jesus said, “Do not give the children’s food to the dogs,” or “Do not cast your pearls before swine for they will turn again and rend you.” It seems there has been quite a bit of rending done here. It certainly took up a lot of space too.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Anne T you make a good point there.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          There are different directions that reasoning can go…. I only hope that all lead to God. God’s holy will….

      • It took up a lot of space due to the exceptionally dense quantity of bad reasoning.

        As for the jab at me about comparing humans to “lower” animals–if you had any interest in the topic I would say that seeing parallels to what many consider sophisticated human behaviors in vastly more primitive organisms teaches us something about humans.

        However, I know you don’t really care about that and just want to take a potshot at me by implying that I have an animalistic mind. No matter how you try to disguise ad hominems, they are still painfully clear.

        • JonJ, you and others would garner more support if you would quote the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, and the Code of Canon Law.
          Your study of insects is of little interest.

  7. You – and so many, presumed well meaning, others – do a complete disservice to those who would uphold marriage by adapting the language of so called “gay” (what is gay about that lifestyle? – and the ruination of a perfectly good English word) advocates who want to determine what the languaging will be. To call this heretofore unheard of arrangement between two people of the same sex a “marriage” is to capitulate and basically give the other side the ball, the trophy and the prize winners banquet. Foolish. When will we learn. Let us, at the very least, used the words “so called” when referring to this debacle, this abomination.

    • Just call it “marriage”. That’s even easier.

      • Peter: Marriage is the only institution that unites children with their mother and father, hence no same-sex relationship can be considered marriage. In trying to redefine marriage, the entire institution of marriage is being altered to become a social contract, not as it is intended, the only institution that unites children with their mother and father. God Love You.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          why then do we call marriages between opposite sex couples marriages if they have no intention or ability to have children? And also, MD, how do you propose uniting gay parents with their children if you won’t call them marriages?

          • YFC, you are correct to question calling marriage between heterosexual couples marriage if they “have no intention” to have children. I believe to have a sacramental marriage a couple has to be open to having children. This is why practicing contraception is a mortal sin.

          • Your Fellow Catholic: You are changing the topic. Marriage is at risk of being redefined, and by redefining marriage we will lose the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads. When talking about uniting children with gay people, you are talking about a adoption and changing the subject. As I stated, not every marriage has children, but every child has a mom and dad, and marriage is the ONLY institution that can unite kids with their mother and father. The consequence of redefining marriage is the destruction of the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads and the state does not have the right to destroy marriage. God Love You

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Dear MD, I hope you can find this reply because there was no reply button to your post.

            I think you raise a good question. The situation I propose to you is not an uncommon one: that of a father of a child, who then discovers that he is gay. he goes on to raise the child with a man that he loves and is committed to for life.. Should not that child be united to her biological father through marriage? Or should her parents be legal strangers to the child. Do you believe that children should be given the best possibility of thriving, or do you think the child should suffer because you oppose marriage for her parents?

          • YFC, it is impossible for gay men to love; the closest they can come to it is lust. e. coli does not know that it is e. coli, nor do sodomites know that they are sodomites.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          peter it’s easier …really…I guess it is easier also to go to hell…

        • Your Fellow Catholic: The debate is not making the best out of a situation (i.e. adoption, single parenting, etc.), the debate is about whether the state has the right to remove the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads. We have to view this from the perspective of what is best for the child. It is the right of the child to know and to be loved by his/her mother and father. If a man leaves his wife, whether for a man or woman, he is not thinking about the welfare of the child, but his own desires. When a man and woman unite in marriage, they become inseparable to one another and are inseparable to their children for a child has one mother and one father and has the right to know and be loved by his/her mother and father. God Love You.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            MD, if we fail to face realities, we are doomed to punish those who have to live in the real world. Gay people are not going to divorce their partners and enter into straight marriages just to raise their children. It’s just not realistic. So then we get to the question that you and I agree is the central one: what is best for the child. The realistic choices are these: enable the parents raising the child to marry, thus protecting the child, or not enabling the parents to marry, thus punishing the child for no fault of her own. Those are the choices. The state cannot go in and order the gay father to find a mother just for the sake of his kid. It’s just not anywhere within the scope of reality. If you deny her actual parents, the parents who make breakfast for every morning and tuck her in at night, if you deny her parents the license to marry, then you harm the child. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Does the state have the right to license them to marry? Well, yes, I think it does. At least 10 states plus DC do it already. A couple of handfuls of countries in Europe and North and South America do too. So to answer your question, YES, the state has the right to issue licenses to parents who want to protect their children.

          • Your Fellow Catholic: You are changing the topic from marriage to adoption again. Where did the child come from? A man and woman. If a man is married to a woman per your scenario and “discovers he is gay” as you suggested, in leaving the mother, he is depriving the child of his/her mother. Redefining marriage is eliminating the only institution that has the ability to unite kids with their moms and dads. The true deprivation of the child is in denying a child knowing his/her mother and/or father. Your example described a man who was married to a woman and left his wife for a man bringing his kid(s). Doing this is not in the child’s best interest and denies the child of being raised by his/her mother. The issue is not about gays, not about adoption, but about marriage and the ONLY institution that unites kids with their moms and dads.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            MD, I’m not sure why you keep saying that giving marriage licenses to same sex couples raising children somehow eliminating the institution of marriage. Maybe this would be the case if there were a limited number of licenses to go around. There is no such limit. If people want to marry to unite kids with their moms and dads, they can still do so.

            But more importantly MD, you still won’t tell us how you would protect the child being raised by same sex parents. It’s too late to suggest that the biological parents should just get married. It just isn’t within the realm of reality. So how are you going to protect that child?

          • Your Fellow Catholic: Please understand, I am talking about redefining marriage. You brought up 2 points that one supports redefining marriage and the other is irrelevant to the topic. The only way two people of the same sex can qualify for a license to marry is if marriage is redefined. As I stated, marriage is the ONLY institution that unites with their moms and dads and anything other than that requires a redefinition of the institution of marriage. Second, you keep bringing up adoption which is not the topic being discussed at the moment and a separate issue. The question at hand is, do we need an institution that unites kids with their moms and dads? What you are not admitting is you are not proposing participation in marriage as the way you phrase your question, but phrase your question to hide the fact that you propose the change the entire meaning of marriage from the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads to a social contract between two adults. Please answer my above question, do we need an institution that unites kids with their moms and dads? God Love You

          • Your Fellow Catholic: Please address the issues at hand and refrain from using bait and switch tactics to divert attention from redefining marriage to adoption. The issue is whether or not marriage should be redefined and I have asked you if it is necessary for an institution that unites kids with their moms and dads to which I am waiting for a reply. Do you understand that for two people of the same sex to acquire a marriage license, marriage has to be redefined? Do you understand that in redefining marriage, the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads is eliminated? Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, i.e. a mother and father. Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and children born from their union. In redefining marriage, we are not creating a new alternative to coexist with marriage, but changing the meaning of marriage and thus eliminating the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads. In changing the words defining marriage, the institution itself becomes changed. God Love You.

          • Your Fellow Catholic: Your silence speaks volumes.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            MD God bless you, we miss you…..stay…

        • Corollary to marriage being the only thing that unites children with their mother and father: Children cannot unite with two same sex “parents”. The child will be ever more confused at the false personas put on by these false “parents”, one of the pretending to be a sex that they are not. Extreme delusion production with children as the target should easily fall under the laws against child neglect and abuse, ie a man pretending to be a woman or a woman pretending to be a man. Why don’t they pull out the child protection or the Bill of Rights Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment especially of children?

      • “that’s even easier”? peter to quote our Savior. “the road to hell is wide and EASY and many choose it” I take this to me that “easy” is an indication of danger ahead. peter, for the sake of your soul, take the narrow road. I don’t recall reading anywhere in the Gospels where Jesus stated that sexual intimacy was a right everyone has. If we are to follow Jesus, then our birthright is the cross.

  8. The State has an interest in preserving its own existence. Therefore, the State owes couples who procreate a special status – because this allows for the continued existence of the State. If couples do not create, call it a Union until they procreate. All religious views concerning marriage would remain un-changed.

  9. Mark from PA says:

    Kaves 1, so are you saying that if people over 50 get married, it should just called a union and not a marriage?

    • Yes – in terms of what the state calls it.

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        That’s interesting. What does the Church say about these heterosexual marriage-less “unions”?

        • Sandra says:

          Marriage-less unions = sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman are Mortal sins.
          CCC: ” 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”

          Your Fellow Catholic – never teach children through example of his or her biological parents that Mortal Sin is an acceptable way to live.

          • Sandra says:

            When in doubt, always do ‘God’s Will’ regarding sexual activity.
            It does not matter whether a person has same-sex attraction or heterosexual attraction. ‘God’s Will’ must come first.

            Always follow the teachings of the Church which is in the Bible and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”. Then all the other scenarios will never be of any concern.

        • kaves1 says:

          The current pope,while bishop in Argentina, suggested support for same sex unions as the less of two evils. The alternative being calling in marriage. So I would not preclude this as being against Church teaching using the ‘lesser of two evils” idea that the current pope suggested.

    • Mark From PA: If a couple over 50 marries, it is a valid marriage because a man and woman have the ability to procreate, even if there is “something wrong with the plumbing.” That may be a crude way of putting it, but given the fact that the most important element of procreation is a man and woman becoming one flesh in the sexual act, the act of procreation is occurring, even if it does not result in new life. Hope this helps. God Love You.

      • Mark from PA says:

        MD, yes I agree that older people who are married have valid marriages. For example you could have a couple in their 60’s, the woman has had an ovario-hysterectomy and the man is impotent. If they were both Catholics and supported their parishes, they were surely be able to have a church wedding. This couple would not have the ability to procreate and wouldn’t really become one flesh but they would be validly married.

  10. Proud Rhodesian says:

    On matters of “faith and morals” the catholic must always turn to Holy Mother Church…the supreme court, takes a back seat on this issue…PERIOD!

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Dear Proudful Rhodesian: Yes, this is why birth control is illegal in the United States, divorce and remarriage is illegal, no stores are open on the Lord’s Day, and everyone is required to go to Mass on Sunday or else they are sent to jail.

      • Proud Rhodesian says:

        Jail will be the least of your worries lad…if you continue to stump for this perverse and disordered lifestyle…you know it, and I know it…most importantly God knows it…

      • Faith in God and the state’s legal traditions are not the same thing, YFC. I gave you the heads up previously, that religion and secular law are two different orders of being … you don’t get it. Your mind is severely clouded, a condition in which you yet seem to be able to robotically function in some utilitarian manner. You’ll lose your ability to function gradually more and more until you’re down with disease or stammering and muttering after just receiving your eternal judgment.

  11. Proud Rhodesian says:

    It is clear as baccarat crystal…same sex marriage is wrong…period. The Church will never endorse this perversion that mock’s the sacred union God has given to mankind…this is a biblical prohibition that goes back to the Old Testament and is clarified, to erase any ambiguity on the Church’s teaching, regarding faith and morals…those who say otherwise are in direct conflict with Holy mother Church and are advocating a behavior and lifestyle that is sacrilegious and can lead to eternal punishment…all the clever rhetoric in the world will not alter this reality…

  12. Abeca Christian says:

    “To defend his purity, Saint Francis of Assisi rolled in the snow, Saint Benedict threw himself into a thornbush, Saint Bernard plunged into an icy pond . . . You . . . what have you done?”
    –St. Josemaria Escriva

    • Abeca Christian says:

      I wish more would defend their purity or at least protect the purity of our youth….the gay agenda is even seeking to destroy that. They are growing even more selfish with their adopting children hunger. Poor innocent children. God have mercy.

  13. Abeca Christian says:

    What lovely wisdom we can learn from our infant church and still till today, truth is freedom and love. Real love!

    “Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust…..Your punishments are for sins which men commit against themselves, because, although they sin against You, they do wrong in their own souls and their malice is self-betrayed. They corrupt and pervert their own nature, which You made and for which You shaped the rules, either by making wrong use of the things which You allow, or by becoming inflamed with passion to make unnatural use of things which You do not allow” (Rom. 1:26).
    –Saint Augustine of Hippo

    • Proud Rhodesian says:

      What a beautiful and contemplative statement, from a saint well worth reflecting on. Thank you for providing the reader’s with this quote from St. Augustine and St. Paul’s letter to the Romans…thank you Abecca. It seems pointless to even respond to these continued attempts to justify and/or validate this perverse and disordered lifestyle…I think I will refrain from it… YFC knows the truth of the matter and nothing he provides, nor Jon J, will alter this reality. This behavior is disgusting and vile. I knew a woman, in fact we had coffee a number of times, she lived in Century City and rented a room to a gay man, who occasionally had his boyfriend over, she thought she could handle it and would try to be a bit more progressive in her thinking. The first night his boyfriend spent the night and she heard these 2 gay men in the throe’s of “flagrante delicto”, crying out each other’s name was too much, she “ralphed” in the bathroom… these 2 guys, ” tossing each other’s salad” was more then she could handle…if you get my drift. She was unprepared with just how revolting this was to her feminine sensibility…she realized that she wasn’t as progressive as she thought…not even close.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Thank you Proud Rhodesian. In modern times our youth do not know of these wonderful quotes. Can you imagine even in countries like Cuba, communist, they probably may have never heard of these earlier quotes or teachings of truth.

        Only the truth will set us free, it may be difficult for some to hear or read but at least the truth is still present amongst us, waiting to be taken in, gently and firmly. I consider to be free only when I can live in the Truth. Even if I was kidnapped and locked up in a room for years with only one window but if I had the truth to help me endure, then I am free but if one is free to do what it wants to do and has no knowledge of the truth, then they are not free, even if they think they are.

      • Yes, there is thinking about the activities of gay men, and then there is suddenly and accidentally witnessing it. I had never seen it before, when one night I was walking up a street with some friends, and noticed two tall young men kissing against a parked car. If you have not witnessed this, then you probably do not know how poignant reflexive disgust and anger can be.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          Skai its so gross and unnatural when two people of the same sex make out. It feels like a door way to hell. As if my innocence was violated. That is how I personally feel about it. It just isn’t right!

  14. Abeca Christian says:

    This topic reminds me of this great saint:(this is the church, faith and the truth)

    “No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God….. Such passion for undue forms borders on madness. This vice disturbs the intellect, breaks an elevated and generous state of soul, drags great thoughts to petty ones, makes [men] pusillanimous and irascible, obstinate and hardened, servilely soft and incapable of anything. Furthermore, the will, being agitated by the insatiable drive for pleasure, no longer follows reason, but furor…. Someone who lived practicing the vice of sodomy will suffer more pains in Hell than any one else, because this is the worst sin that there is.”
    –Saint Bernardine of Siena

    • Wow, Abeca, what a great quote…I hope Maryanne reads this because it reinforces a point she was making in another post. It’s about more than just a sexual preference…it’s a personality disorder that needs addressing for the whole person. They could probably have a quick hormonal or biochemical cure right now, just as they do for other aberrations. Hmmm. Maybe not…don’t want to live in Brave New World. yikes!

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Thank you I agree Dana it is a great quote and one that confirms and empowers God’s faithful because this world tends to bring about much confusion and even good people have fallen prey to that confusion.

        I agree it is a disorder that needs to be addressed properly with love and compassion just like any other disorder I would say. Because it is complex and a complicated one, people just go with false compassion and since they don’t want to deal with that complication, it is easier for them to just let them continue with their false indoctrinations. It takes real love and courage to actually look it over not what this secular is now trying to do, which is encourage this disorder and not only that but it also is trying to impose it on even what is suppose to be a free country, freedom for us to form our own conscience and ability to reason freely but they don’t want that…they want acceptance more. How are we helping our brothers and sisters who struggle with same sex attractions when we can’t address it honestly. I must have missed Maryanne comments, I’ll try to go over them as well.

        • Mark from PA says:

          Abeca Christian, you think being gay is a disorder but the medical establishment doesn’t say that. Is telling someone that they have a disorder and telling them how horrible they are a sign of love and compassion? When you were in high school did you constantly throw it in the face of the gay students that they had a disorder? What reaction did you get? You ask, “How are we helping our brothers and sisters who struggle with same sex attractions when we can’t address it honestly?” Well, Abeca, you have certainly been honest about your dislike for gay people in your postings here. But in all honesty, most people don’t consider verbal abuse to be helping.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Aye PA…..it’s not what I think, it is what the church and holy scriptures teaches. The medical establishment use to consider it that way as well but due to many political pressures they given up on actually giving true therapy to those who sought it. Well PA I know the truth on this issue…I don’t really need you to try to persuade me into buying your deception…nope. Plus with my past experience with dealing with those with homosexual issues…I have seen enough to form my own personal real understanding. I have formed my conscience and ability to reason due to not what only the church, faith has taught us but with also my personal relationship with Jesus and the experiences I have had to have these facts….it’s enough for me to understand how much this society is wronging our fallen brothers and sisters.

            It is you who has issues with what the faith and infant church has to say…your complaint to me is actually geared towards the faith.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            PA Whatever hatred you have for those truths, then it is on you…..not on me…you have free will as do I and I choose the will of my Abba Father!!

            I don’t preach Abeca, I don’t say what pleases me but I aim to share the faith…your issue is with the faith and I am the messenger…you want to kill the messenger..Peace.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Dana I encourage you if you can to explore and seek out more saint quotes. There is so much wisdom and love in their quotes. The saints also struggled with sins but many chose Christ instead and died of themselves , so they would not be ruled by their sins and temptations.

      • Mark from PA says:

        Abeca Christian, when it comes to gay people you do preach Abeca. You just don’t realize it. I know that others here think like you do but I get tired of your “God hates fags” theology. Some people here would criticize Christ Himself if He stood up for gay people.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          But PA what you neglect to see, that it is not my invention of what is said…it is what the church has always taught on sin….including sodomy and such….so your beef is definitely not with me but with the church….

          • Abeca Christian says:

            You can argue with me all you want PA but the truth is still the truth ….

            here is more info on St. Augustine of Hippo PA: The Catholic Church considers Augustine’s teaching to be consistent with free will.[109] He often said that any can be saved if they wish.[109] While God knows who will be saved and who will not, with no possibility that one destined to be lost will be saved, this knowledge represents God’s perfect knowledge of how humans will freely choose their destinies

          • Abeca Christian says:

            God to confession especially those who are activist for the “gay” rights movement:

            ‘Go to confession to the Blessed Virgin, or to an angel; will they absolve you? No. Will they give you the Body and Blood of Our Lord? No. The Holy Virgin cannot make her Divine Son descend into the Host. You might have two hundred angels there, but they could not absolve you. A priest, however simple he may be, can do it; he can say to you, “Go in peace; I pardon you.” Oh, how great is a priest! The priest will not understand the greatness of his office till he is in Heaven. If he understood it on earth, he would die, not of fear, but of love. The other benefits of God would be of no avail to us without the priest. What would be the use of a house full of gold, if you had nobody to open you the door! The priest has the key of the heavenly treasures; it is he who opens the door; he is the steward of the good God, the distributor of His wealth. Without the priest, the Death and Passion of Our Lord would be of no avail. Look at the heathens: what has it availed them that Our Lord has died? Alas! they can have no share in the blessings of Redemption, while they have no priests to apply His Blood to their souls!’

            St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney, the Cure of Ars

          • Abeca Christian says:

            PA it’s not my preaching…..it is something that was said often but I only use my own words or even use the words of the very saints who spoke against such sins…..biblical too…nothing I say is new….perhaps the style for I am a product of these modern times but I seek to be molded by our Lord instead…

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Abeca, do you realize that you are the only one to respond to many of your posts, and in this case you did so 3 times in 2 days? I’m just curious – because you so often seem not only to be preaching your own religion, but it’s as if you are the only one in your congregation. At least I hope your collection plate is full.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            YFC is that what you can come up with…all this foolishness…no wonder you defend “gay” stuff….I’m not surprised by your comments…..please don’t waste my time with garbage talk…I’m more interested in what the faith teaches about these immoral subjects than what you have embraced as heretical theology. Your comments demonstrated how unintelligent they are……..look YFC it’s not like you don’t comment as much, there was another thread where your were there tons of times…..you just don’t like what I have to say because it offends you and your beliefs away from God. That is the real beef you have.

            Gay activists are offended that finally someone is posting quotes from earlier church doctors who spoke against homosexual lifestyles and sodomy is a bad word for all activists. They want to normalize sodomy as another form of normal sex, It’s not! It goes against the natural law…..I only gained this wisdom and knowledge of these things because I do seek the truth and I have NO AGENDA to advocate!

            Now on a softer side: Hey I am product of these modern times……the indoctrination was even pushed on me later on in my teen years, I could of easily been on your team by having false compassion or what have you, I am imperfect too but I really crave for heaven YFC and then craved if for others too…it feels empty knowing that many struggle to want heaven too. It’s the faith…we must live the faith, we must seek to share it tirelessly….and then some more as Mum Teresa preached.

            YFC I am not upset at what you threw at me, actually my heart melts for you right now. That you would feel this way….YFC but you are on a Catholic website….have you forgotten and if you feel preached at then don’t read…these subjects do fire us up because we can’t stand what its doing to our society and our goal to gain sanctifying grace.

            YFC God bless you….Jesus is my life, my salvation and my everything….He is not my religion but He is for everyone. He died for you and for me. Even today, when He holds me and His precious hands and feet are showing his wounds for me…..I don’t want to let Him down ever. Read the life’s of the saints and feel Him closer to you. Right now I am re-reading again an Introduction to the devout life by St. Francis de Sales. Without sounding preaching to you, I recommend that book because it is a book I am reading now again. God bless you….hang in there…..You are not alone…

    • Catherine says:

      Abeca Christian,

      Thank you for your beautiful posts. Those ARE three wise and charitable reminders from St. Josemaria Escriva, St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Bernadine of Siena.

      Defenders of sinful lifestyles and mortal sin will ignore or twist the meaning of those merciful warnings at their own continued peril. A few days ago I saw an interview on TV with Oprah interviewing a man named Nate Berkus who is an interior designer for Oprah and who is open about his homosexuality. Nate Berkus told everyone that he learned very young how to develop ” great skill sets that make you be dishonest” because of hiding his homosexuality. Yes Abeca, that is exactly what he said. He was being truthful when he told the audience that he learned how to skillfully be dishonest with others. What Nate Berkus does not realize or understand at this time is that he has also learned how to still be dishonest with himself because society seems to also be embracing the dishonest lie that homosexuality is just another norm to be embraced. Sodom and Gomorrah completely embraced that same lie and this is why God completely destroyed them both.

      Many such as Nate have never been constructively or charitably taught that homosexual acts are clearly offensive to God. Thank you Abeca for consistently defending Church teaching with your own charity coupled with the truth filled wisdom of the saints.

      Abeca, We have see this same patterns of dishonesty in many posts on CCD where homosexuals have made up their own false religion that is not at all based on the teachings of the Catholic Church. These obstinate souls are slavishly serving a false god called the religion of homosexuality which serves their personal passions instead of serving Almighty God with humility and obedience. Homosexual acts are a sin against nature itself. There is a saying, “God forgives *repentant* sinners always. Man forgives sometimes but nature never forgives.” Homosexual acts are an abomination in the sight of God and nature itself. These sinful acts are as similar in their destructiveness as the addicting forces of drugs such as heroin and cocaine which can also alter the natural chemistry of the brain, hence the lying or dishonest capability that rationalizes the cruel addiction or sin. Homosexuals who commit unnatural acts are just as addicted only their addiction is committing habitual homosexual acts. They have even lied to themselves by telling others that the welfare of children is their greatest concern. Children were NEVER the main concern. That is a another lie. Children were used as mechanisms to facilitate the lie. The false idol of homosexuality is the main concern. Skillful dishonesty has caused the suffering of many children. It is commendable to not want disadvantaged children or children with disabilities to be left unadopted but that does not justify these children being taught that unnatural unions are equal to God’s natural union between a woman and a man. Homosexual adoption and same sex marriage are a false redefining of God’s intended plan in the structure of society. God’s children have become the innocent victims and social pawns being used in their cruel mission to rationalize and promote the acceptance of unnatural laws and acts.. Abeca, This terrible misusage of innocent children makes what those great saints warned us about even worse. On top of all of those warnings these same individuals ignore Christ’s own words about scandalizing his little one’s.

      Man plans and God laughs. God will not be mocked no matter how much the cruel lie seems to be working for those who lie to themselves as well as others.

      Nate Berkus told the tragic story of what happened when he was vacationing in Thailand when the great tsunami hit and he and his homosexual partner were pulled out to sea at around 40 mph. They were pulled past the floating bodies of dead people right towards a floating telephone pole. At 40 mph they knew they would surely be killed if they hit this telephone pole head on. All of the sudden from out of nowhere a mattress floated right up against the telephone pole and they could not believe that they were saved from hitting it with full force. Nate said that they could not believe the timing of that mattress floating in protecting them or where it came from. Oprah said, “You know where that came from!” Oprah sounded like she was referring to God’s protection. There is that same societal misusage of God when pulling out His name when it suits an agenda while obstinately ignoring his Natural Laws. Yes that was extremely merciful of God to allow that mattress to block them from being instantly killed but Oprah and Nate fail to see the real urgency in repenting when given the precious opportunity. Nate continued to tell the story that he and his partner were both clinging to the mattress wrapped around the telephone pole for a few brief moments thinking that they were alright when all of the sudden this extremely powerful force of water started to pull them back into the opposite direction and his last memory was his homosexual partner trying to grip Nate’s undergaments in order not to be swept apart. Well Abeca, his partner was swept out to sea and his body has never been found. Abeca, Those brief merciful moments that were given to both of these men when they hit the softer padding of the mattress were not spent telling God that they were sorry. They both never realized that they would never see each other on this earth again. One was called to immediately face God and the other is left to tell the story.

      Abeca are we not seeing the same type of skill sets of dishonesty on CCD to others and to oneself from the promoters and defenders of unnatural acts? Your quotes from those great saints are no different than the timing of that mattress that arrived to give these two men split second time to reflect on their lives. That is so kind of you Abeca to take the time to consistently remove the spiritually deadly rose colored glasses that many are addicted to wearing. Nate Berkus and his partner did not see the brief opportunity that they were being given to repent because HABITUAL SIN BLINDS. . The world and Oprah will tell this surviving man that this is merely some type of terrible romantic tragedy instead of informing him like those saint’s quotes that it is the ultimate tragedy to lose one’s eternal life.

      “My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me: and thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children.” Douay Rheims Catholic Bible.

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        Dear Catherine:

        I hate to tell you this, but it wasn’t gay people who used children as the principle concern over the question of marriage. It was your own Magghie Gallagher of NOM, as quoted many times my MD who says, earlier in this discussion “Marriage is the only institution that unites children with their mother and father, hence no same-sex relationship can be considered marriage”.

        If this is the official position of the National Organization for Marriage, the catholic organization at the forefront of limiting the freedom to marry, then it is fair for gay people like me to rebut the notion. And so, I went on to demonstrate, above, that the biological mother of a child might at some point, due to the death of her husband, or because she subsequently realizes she is gay, or because she might have had the child through modern technologies. Whatever the path to her situation, her situation is this: she is raising her own biological child with the woman she loves and is committed to for life. So if marriage is the only institution that unites a child with his biological parents, and presumably it does so to protect that child, then how indeed do you posit the state ought to protect that child and keep him united to his mother if you deny them the institution of marriage?

        So since you and MD and everyone else has ignored my question about how to fend for that child, let me go on and answer it myself: Either the state ought to create a NEW institution to keep a child attached to its parents, or, even better and simpler, give it access to marriage licenses – thus preserving the ONLY INSTITUTION that unites children to their parents, which is what NOM argues in the first place. MD and NOM want parents connected to their children through marriage. Except if those parents happen to be of the same sex.

        • Anonymous says:

          YFC, sorry for butting in here. The biological mother of a child, if she loses her husband, should raise her child by herself or if she finds another husband who will be good for her child, with him. If a married women subsequently realizes that she is gay, she should not leave her husband. It is not in the child’s interest or in the Lord’s will for her to do so. She should not have a child through modern technologies. But OK let’s say she did not know all that and somehow she ended up with a woman partner. That woman partner is not the parent of the child. What to do? A lot depends on the child. If possible, the mother should not live (and not You Know) with the woman. She should separate. If the child is already attached to that person, a relationship should continue but the two women should live as friends. The women may have made a commitment to each other, but both should understand that the needs of the child should come first. The state, by not permitting same sex marriage protects the child. The birth certificate unites the child with his parents. Marriage (ideally) keeps the biological or adoptive parents united with each other. This is the best situation for the child. Now, we all know, in the real world, people do not seek the Will of God and the good of others before themselves, Situations occur that put children at a disadvantage and keep them them having what God has willed for them. It is a failure of the parent. The state cannot make up for what a parent refuses to give a child. In cases of abuse and neglect they try to provide a safer environment but they cannot replace what the child has lost.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Anonymous, thanks for your answer, and I hardly consider it butting in.

            I imagine that the child who loses a parent because they split up, because supposedly that is the will of God, will have a tough time understanding that answer. It might be tougher for the now-single Mom to earn a living, take the kid to school, stay home with them when they get sick, etc etc. There’s probably a good chance that they will be poverty stricken, that the kid will not have the advantages of things like summer camp and good schools, or even have the money to go to college at all. But if you say it is the Will of God that these two loving parents should separate for the good of the child, well then it must be a good thing.

          • Anonymous says:

            You did not understand my post. The couple should do what is in the best interest of the child. When heterosexual couples split, the child does not lose the parent (hopefully, although there are cases of abandonment and of parents who start a new family and neglect the children from their previous marriage.) If it is financially or emotionally or psychologically a poor idea for the couple to live separately, then the home arrangement should reflect the chastity of the parents. If a couple splits and the non-parent then moves on and ignores the kids, then they weren’t interested in the children and why would want them around your kids? I think of heterosexual single mothers who try on a series of men hoping to find a good father. ( And often the biological father is not interested.) Things like this can really mess with a kid’s head and make them feel unlovable. Children rarely inform their parents how their decisions harmed them until the late teen to mid twenties “You ruined my life” meltdown. And that can happen for many reasons including having a parent who adheres to Biblical standards in a secular world.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          YFC here is a holy scripture that should help:

          ‘The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary to one another.

          And they that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh, with its vices and concupiscences.’

          Galatians 5:17,24

        • Abeca Christian says:

          YFC if you hate to tell Catherine, then why do it…don’t tell her then, we wouldn’t want you to be uncomfortable…..yikes

      • Mark from PA says:

        Yes, Catherine, it is sad that people feel that they must be dishonest. But I must sadly say that the Church encourages this. The Church teaches that homosexual persons should not be discriminated against. But when it comes to openly gay people, the Church has a habit of looking the other way when some Catholics justify their discrimination against gays. Many young people keep their orientation secret for fear of being made fun of, bullied, called names, mistreated and so on. So they are being dishonest for their own protection. Also if people live in San Francisco, Los Angeles or places with large gay communities they tend to be more open. People that live in small towns and rural areas often remain silent. Look how Abeca used the term “same sex attracted”? I have never heard this term spoken where I live, I find it mildly insulting and I would never use it in reference to myself. But I do suppose it is better than Proud Rhodesian’s saying “homosexual men are perverts…plain and simple.” Is it any wonder that people are dishonest. If I met this man on the street I would keep my thoughts to myself for my own self-protection. I have done it in the past.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          PA how could you feel that way? This is an injustice, your words are because the church/faith leads us to Christ..His salvation. Are you sure it’s not just another of your theology garbage activism for gay lifestyles? Because I ‘ll tell you why? You seem to encourage and advocate gay rights, that is an agenda not part of Christ’s plan, and since you are going against the church on that, it tells me that no matter what the salvation plan in which Christ came to give the world, is not part of the gay agenda and it’s not one you seem to advocate. Lets say you don’t agree with it being a disorder…OK then at least agree with them embracing church teachings that encourages them to be chaste.

      • You faithful Ladies of the Lord are simply totally excellent bloggers.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          God bless you Skai…. : )

        • Catherine says:

          Skai,

          Thank you dear brother in Christ! What a very sweet post! I do appreciate and value your thoughts. I also recognize how much you love God and have a very fervent desire to defend what is good and pleasing to God. I am grateful to God for your wonderful zeal and for your consistent courage. I know Abeca does too! God bless you Skai! : )

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Catherine I agree…God bless you both!

            ‘The only true riches are those that make us rich in virtue. Therefore, if you want to be rich, beloved, love true riches. If you aspire to the heights of real honor, strive to reach the kingdom of Heaven. If you value rank and renown, hasten to be enrolled in the heavenly court of the Angels.’

            Pope St. Gregory the Great

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Catherine Oprah has some cult affect on many, its very sad. God took mercy on Nate Berkus perhaps someone was praying for his conversion and hopefully there will still be hope for him…it’s a pity on his partner…he didn’t have that opportunity.

        Catherine there are also a few homosexual men who are not promoting the gay agenda, they suffer but are a few now because I think that many are now more agenda driven to impose acceptance and dissolve God and His truths. They are rebellious against God and people of faith. Everyone hurts, not only the homosexual but also their families who care do too. It hurts society more too because they are enforcing acceptance by even forcing it on our kids.

        It’s a real spiritual battle. It’s a complex issue….it’s a big mess that only God can heal and that would be one person at a time. From what I gather. God bless you. Thank for your kind words. I pray for our brothers and sisters who struggle with this disorder but I disapprove of the ones who are prideful and refuse to seek the Lord, I disapprove of the ones who are promoting their lifestyle…they are the ones misleading and misguiding more souls daily. It’s really sad.

  15. Proud Rhodesian says:

    Homosexuality is not an outgrowth of a “personality disorder”…although many “gays” have personality disorders as do straight people…homosexual men are perverts…plain and simple, they spread a myriad of std’s in the community, least of which is HIV…they indulge is sexual deviance and perversion…most horrific of which is “sodomy”… this is a form of sexual paraphilia…a sexual anomaly if you will…the priest’s who molested young men in the archdiocese were almost exclusively “gay”…they admit under oath and during treatment modality that, “yes they are gay”… imagine being a man, who delights in “savaging” another man’s evacuation hole…shocking, positively shocking…it’s disgusting yes…they need much prayer

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Dear Proudful:

      It seems you have a hared time taking your mind from thinking of shocking and disgusting things. I’m so sorry for that cross you must bear.

      But can I please ask you a wholly independent question, which is what the state ought to do to protect the children being raised by same sex couples? A couple of us are tossing around this idea, and we don’t seem to have reached any conclusions. I’d love to hear how you would protect these children?

      • Anonymous says:

        YFC, I have seen you post that question before and I never answered because I don’t know what you mean. Protect them from what?

        • Proud Rhodesian says:

          The child would need to be protected from 2 adults, who would “scandalize” and corrupt a young child’s sensibility, into accepting and becoming tolerant of a lifestyle that they would otherwise find repugnant!…This lifestyle is contradictory to a lifestyle whereby, the child would view 2 parents a man and wife, loving and raising him. He would then model his own life, and pattern it after the mother and father, male and female that raised him!…not those who take pleasure in “savaging” the “digestive plumbing” of other MEN!

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Sorry anonymous, I just saw your question. I got distracted by the lively discussion of evacuation holes that seems to possess the minds of some of our fellow CCD readers.

          Protect from what, indeed: Protect them from laws that, without the benefit of marriage licenses, treat them as legal strangers. There was, for example, the case of the lesbian family in miami for a family cruise. One of the mom’s suddenly became gravely ill, and within a few days died. However, the hospital would not allow the children to visit their dieing mother, because they were legal strangers to each other. These kids forever live with the knowledge that they spent days unable to be their with their mother in her last hours. They were unable to comfort her, they were unable to be told one last time how precious they are in the eyes of their mother.

          Protection also includes protection from poverty, protection from dieing without the benefits of the unlimited spousal deduction, protection from governments that don’t recognize the family and therefore do not give it the proper tax benefits, and protection even from having the children taken away from them by family members who don’t recognize the relationship. Protection from every harm that marriage protects kids of straight marriages. Think about it. Kids are far worse off when they grow up in families that are not united in law.

          • Anonymous says:

            As to your first point, that may have been some time ago, maybe a situation where the patient was in ICU or something. In all the cases I have been involved in, anybody could visit whether a relative or not and they can stay as long as they want. You may need to get special permission for children under 14, though. It used to be different. Times have changed. If this occurs today, most hospitals have patient advocates. As for monatary issues upon death, there are trusts and wills that should be set up. Your post points out issues that can happen when a person pursues a self-willed life. In God’s good order, a man and a woman marry; they produce offspring. They stay together faithfully until death. Even when following the Lord’s way, there are many trials and heartaches. When you leave the path of the Lord, you multiply your troubles.

      • The olde “assumed close” YFC? You presume that same sex couples shall always be accepted by society, and then base a question on it, thus manipulating the reader. What a schmuck you are … stop trying to deceive everyone.

    • Mark from PA says:

      Abeca Christian and Proud Rhodesian, it seems that you may both be under the mistaken impression that gay men have a sexual attraction to all other men or that they want to have sex with any man that crosses their path. This is far from the truth. Many gay men don’t really want to have sex with anyone or only want to with one person in a committed relationship. It is somewhat creepy that both of you seem to spend a lot of time thinking about what gay people do. Perhaps it would be better not to think about it so much as we are all called to chastity.

      • Proud Rhodesian says:

        No you are “creepy”…spending inordinate amount’s of time attempting to defend this perversion…all to no avail…your efforts would be better spent in prayer and the recitation of the rosary…not defending a lifestyle that has been “condemned” by the Church

      • Abeca Christian says:

        PA your “it seems like” assumption is completely wrong….no that is not it. Try again….

      • Mark from PA – if you would quit writing about homosexuals (except as Church teaching in the Bible and the CCC), there would be no need for everyone else to have to keep correcting you.

        • Mark from PA – go to the Vatican web site, and search:
          “LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
          ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS”.
          It includes: ” 15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.”
          It also states that homosexual activity is a “MORAL Disorder”.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            This is a rather selective quotation from the Letter. Why do you only quote the parts that condemn gay people? Why don’t you quote the parts that condemn straight people?

    • “evacuation hole”! Rhodesian, your rhetoric is one crack up … wilder than English … guess it’s South African? I mean wry wit is wry wit, but this is hilarious wit.

      • Few years ago there was a pervert South African archbishop named Cawcut, who was outed as a severe homosexual practicioner. There is something about South African “dialect” that is more “organic” than Englan’s English, or Australian English. Maybe one day South Africa will furnish the world with a note worthy novelist.

  16. Proud Rhodesian says:

    YFC…look up the word incongruity, in your “merriam webster”…the word defines your strange obsessive need to champion this revolting and disordered lifestyle…in-of all places , A CATHOLIC WEBPAGE! Your tiresome rhetoric is not only redundant and tedious…it is sinful…yes, SINFUL! You are on a CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN WEBSITE advocating a lifestyle that has been condemned! Have a moment of clarity lad…I will continue to remember you in my prayers, especially after Compline…you do know what Compline is?

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Guide us waking o lord,
      and guard us sleeping,
      that awake we may wake with Christ,
      and asleep we may rest in peace.

      Any questions oh proud Rodesian?

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        Dear dear Proudfull Rhodesian:’

        The compline is a very important prayer to me. I’ve prayed it even before I became a Catholic. And I hope you understand, we prayed the Compline prayers over my partner’s father as he died:

        Guide us waking Oh Lord, and Guard us Sleeping.
        That awake we may watch with Christ, and
        Asleep we may watch with Christ.
        Lord now let your servant go in peace!
        your word has been fulfilled!
        My own eyes have seen the salvation
        that you have prepared in the sight of all your people
        Israel!

      • Abeca Christian says:

        YFC you accuse him of being prideful …wow. The prideful who advocate “gay” lifestyles are far more prideful for their sins cry out to the heavens for vengeance!

        ‘They [Saints Catherine and Margaret] love that which our Lord loves, and hate that which God hates.’~~St. Joan of Arc

  17. Abeca Christian says:

    ‘. . . There are very many who cannot enter heaven unless they abandon all things.’

    Pope St. Gregory the Great

  18. Abeca Christian says:

    ‘We should not dispute stubbornly with anyone; rather we should patiently give our reasons with the purpose of declaring the truth lest our neighbor remain in error, and not that we should have the upper hand.’~~~~St. Ignatius of Loyola

  19. Anyone who does not heed the word of God is a fool.
    St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1, verses 26-3: [26] “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    Douay-Rheims Holy Bible footnote: [26] “God delivered them up: Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins”.
    [31]” Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them”.
    It could not be any clearer for homosexuals to stop their sins, amend their lives, repent and do penance, and sympathizers for homosexuals to stop their sins, repent and do penance per verse [32]. Why would anyone with a good heart and mind who wishes to go to Heaven for eternity, instead wish to offend God so greviously and go to hell for eternity as a consequence of their evil homosexual desires, thoughts, and acts?
    And in the Douay-Rheims Holy Roman Catholic Bible, Old Testament, The book of Leviticus Chapter 20 versus 13 – 15: “[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill.”

    Any one not understand what offends God? Anyone still need an explanation? Or is it just love of self, definance of God and preferring to offend Him all the more? Fools.

    • There are some posters who think they know more than Holy Scripture and the CCC. Their sins are prideful, and they commit the mortal sin of Scandal by approving of sexual Mortal Sin in the public media.

      Holy Scripture: Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10.
      CCC: 2357, 2358, 2359.

      “ In this Year of Faith let us ask ourselves if we have actually taken a few steps to get to know Christ and the truths of faith more, by reading and meditating on the Scriptures, studying the Catechism, steadily approaching the Sacraments. ” – Pope Francis 5/13/2013

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        It’s too bad that you only read the parts of the CCC and the Gospels that suit your slant on the faith. Please read the whole thing.

  20. GayButNotAberro says:

    What Newspeak Terms Should I Avoid?

    Never underestimate the power of words. They are extremely powerful weapons. They can obscure or clarify an issue; subconsciously convey images, create assumptions, conjure the mind, provoke emotions, or predispose public opinion.

    Aberrosexualists ideologues have crafted their slick propaganda around this core terminology or Newspeak with extremely successful results.

    Through their consistent, insistent and persistent use of this Newspeak, aberrosexualists worldwide have by and large succeeded in creating a perception that aberrosexualism is somehow “normal,” “healthy,” and “sane.”

    Here are several key ideological words or phrases you never want to use:

    GAY – A misleading, ideological propaganda term used to soft-sell aberrosexualism (aka homosexualism). “Gay” is not just grammatically incorrect and deceptive; it’s also very degrading and offensive to every normal, truly gay person. CORRECT WORD: aberrosexual (or homosexual).

    GAY COMMUNITY – There is absolutely no such thing as a “gay community.” Would you say the adulterer community? Or the shoplifter community? This phrase was crafted to legitimize and mainstream aberrosexualism. CORRECT PHRASE: aberrosexual (or homosexual) population.

    GAY LIFESTYLE – There is absolutely no such thing as a “gay lifestyle.” This phrase was crafted to legitimize and mainstream aberrosexualism. Would you say the adulterer lifestyle? Or the shoplifter lifestyle? CORRECT PHRASE: Aberrosexual behavior, conduct, or practices.

    GAY COUPLE – Equates a couple of aberrosexuals (aka homosexuals) to a normal, orthosexual couple. This phrase was crafted to legitimize and mainstream aberrosexualism. CORRECT PHRASE: A couple of aberrosexuals.

    GAY MARRIAGE – There is absolutely no such thing as “gay marriage.” CORRECT PHRASE: Counterfeit, sham or phony “marriage.”

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.