3 Things People Don’t Know About Same Sex Marriage

marriage puzzleI’ve been debating gay “marriage” advocates for a couple of years now, and the patterns and points of debate when one is in the trenches are fairly predictable, but I’ve noticed that some common themes seen in those trenches are not found in the carefully managed narratives presented by the media. Three things the general public may not know:
1. Countless Americans have switched sides due to peer pressure, bullying, and a fear of being seen as “mean”.
The press and the gay rights lobby would have us believe that the public has swung to embrace gay “marriage” on the merits. But the truth is that many have given in out of fear, not conviction. Let’s face it: Bullying works. The pressure for total acceptance is intense, and it looks like this: “You don’t support gay marriage? You are a bigot, and your hatred of your gay neighbors is impeding the civil rights movement of our generation. Your ignorance and lack of compassion place you on the wrong side of history, and future generations will hold you in contempt.”
Few know enough about redefinition-of-marriage issues to challenge gay advocates’ talking points with confidence, and few have the nerve to put themselves out there for ridicule. Part of the opponents’ strategy is to make folks feel isolated in their beliefs, fringe members of an obsolete, unenlightened system that will soon be cast off. Even practicing Catholics who know better are led to throw up their hands and say, “Well, what’s the harm anyway?” It’s part of our weak and fallen human nature to give up an unpopular position and join the safety of the crowd.
2. Those pushing for gay “marriage” have failed to define “marriage”.
Online marriage debates can stretch on interminably, yet with the subject undefined. Gay activists get oddly dismissive when asked for a definition of marriage itself, and when pressed, produce awkward and nebulous answers.
Just last week a debate opponent defined marriage as “a legal institution with legal rights and legal responsibilities”. Well now, we know that cannot be. After all, a police department, an incorporated business, and even Congress fit that definition. Can any of these reasonably be called “marriage”?
Another common definition provided is “a bond between two people”. But that is equally vague and problematic: Could it mean my grandma and me? My daughter and her daddy? My son’s t-ball mates? A surgeon and his patient? Neighbors meeting for tea? The variety of bonds that fit the bill is endless, and so the definition is not workable.
Americans hear that gay folks want and deserve marriage, but neither the media nor the gay activists care to (or can) define it coherently.
3. Those who decry the slippery slope argument often confirm the slippery slope.
Experiencing this was shocking to me the first time it happened, but over the past couple of years I’ve come to expect it. Those in favor of redefining marriage get reflexively defensive when questioned about whose rights to “marriage equality” will come next. After all, it’s a fact that polygamists, zoophiles, and man-boy lovers are modeling their own moral (and future legal) arguments after the gay “marriage” movement. When I bring up this fact, I usually get this type of response: “Ha ha! There you go with the ridiculous slippery slope argument! You are nuts and inflammatory, and it will never happen. You are a fool and must be desperate! Ooooo, the sky is falling!!” (Too often accompanied by curses and vulgarities.)
But a funny thing happens later on down in the conversation, when I continue to calmly press them. The same people who mock me for bringing up the “slippery slope” will ultimately admit that “it doesn’t matter” and they “don’t care” if polygamy is legalized or if two sisters marry or if Aunt Frannie wants to marry her dog. And it’s clear that they aren’t kidding. They really don’t care. I actually commend them for their integrity at that point, as allowing for all sorts of unions is consistent with their stated goal of “marriage equality, regardless of whom we love.” (So far, thankfully, no one I’ve debated has openly okayed pedophile marriage, citing “consent” laws — which they naively assume will hold forever.)
While we don’t hear about these three issues in any approved narrative of this cultural battle, it’s important that we Catholics understand them. We must not be intimidated by bullies (are we to please God or men?), we must realize that the gay marriage advocates cannot even define the very institution that they wish to fundamentally change, and we must understand that the slippery slope argument is indeed valid here.
Catholics shouldn’t desire to be “on the right side of history”, we should desire to be on the right side of Truth. And although courage is hard to muster in the face of a cultural sledgehammer built on misinformation, it is the very virtue — along with charity — most needed today.
image credit: shutterstock.com


Leila Miller is a wife and mother of eight children who has a penchant for writing and a passion for teaching the Catholic Faith in simple ways. This summa cum laude Boston College graduate also loves to debate atheists, advocate for special needs orphans, and attempt the matchmaking of young Catholic singles (not necessarily in that order). All of the above is accomplished on her three blogs: Little Catholic Bubble, Orphan Report, and the invite-only Catholic Moms Matchmaking.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • jmm483

    Catechesis, catechesis, catechesis. We failed but at least in our Diocese we have picked the ball up and are beginning to run with it. I think the court will redefine marriage. It is up to us to do as you describe above. It is also up to large Catholic families like yours to exude the peace and joy that comes from being authentically Catholic. Yours and others like it are an anomaly and will capture others’ attention. Just as in the dark ages, the Church and her followers will save civilization unless the end comes first. Thank you for your article.

  • What I admire about your debate skills is your systematic use of searching questions. Whether you get answers of not, you leave people thinking.

  • Patrick

    Great Article, well articulated.

  • Our moral imperatives are based NOT on transient things, like political perspective, popularity, fashion or finance – they are based in INHERENT NATURES and those SCREAM the injustice and incompatibility of same-sex coupling. We have a TREASURE in the The Natural Law, if ONLY, we, as Catholics, will INVESTIGATE, EXPLORE, and INCLUCATE it. We need to consult authors like Peter Kreeft and Frank Shead for their analysis of the issue – these men are moral realists, Thomists, Natural Law Theorists and can seperate the “fluff” from the “stuff” on this issue as others. This is the expected outcome of an age of moral relativism, arising out of a culture of death. This is why Our Blessed Mother NEEDS to be the model for life – she abhores sterility for the sake of sterility. The Evil One would have us eliminate all that smacks in us of the image of the Divine, especially, the ability to reproduce. We CANNOT let him and his unenlightened infiltrate a sacrament meant to model the HOLY TRINITY. It is a disgrace and complete SHAME. PRAY, PRAY, PRAY that Our Blessed Mother will put an END to this non-sense, once for all.

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    “It’s part of our weak and fallen human nature to give up an unpopular position and join the safety of the crowd.”

    Case in point – look how fast the crowd went from “Hosanna!” to “Crucify him!” And even St. Peter fell prey to this.

  • TheresaEH

    Another question came to mind is “what rights or privilages can these individuals do getting MARRIED vs what they could not do as an unmarried person”?!?! The same sex marriage debate is now sounding to me like members of the gay communitee just want to have their actions “affirmed” by the government so they donot have to feel so guilty…….

  • TheresaEH

    p.s. so these individuals can feel less guilty by saying ” ssm was voted in by the supreme court so it must be good!!! Well guess what, the supreme court also voted in Jim Crow segregation laws, did that make it good”?

  • Guest

    I teach

  • gk

    Our current culture accepts contraception. It is seen as a good. It is seen as a need. Marriages are built on contraception. Since this is so, I truly believe there really is no logical argument against ss”m” or any other “marriage”. Our society let the horse out of the barn a long time ago. When our society rejects contraception, it will have a leg to stand on against ss”m”.

  • I don’t know. Maybe gay couples are interested in these legal benefits that come along with legal marriage.


    No, couldn’t be that…

  • John

    Another thing people don’t talk about is the proper terminology Gay “sounds” nicer than homosexual, also they don’t see the fact that “homosexual marriage” is simply legalizing the sins of sodomy, fornication and lust. How any “Christian” can support what the bible says is an “abomination” in God’s eyes, is beyond comprehension, especially those who call themselves “pastors” of churches.

  • RCC_Soldaten

    Soooo…it’s economics, interesting. When most heterosexual couples get married it is definitely not for economical reasons. Nothing economical about raising children. For them it is love and the need to procreate, which is why God made man and woman. Not man and man.

  • Excellent post, Leila! I had never really considered your first point. It’s inspired me to ask friends who support “same-sex marriage” this: “Assuming you haven’t *always* agreed with redefining marriage, exactly when did you change your mind and for what principled reason?”

  • Heterosexual couples can have love and procreation without marriage as well. They can even get a minister to bless the relationship without getting a legal marriage license.

    LEGAL marriage is not a sacrament. It is a legal institution that grants certain rights and privileges and yes, has a considerable economic impact.

    Gay marriage opponents deliberately muddy the water by confusing legal marriage with sacramental marriage. What happens between two people and a justice of the peace is not an institution of God, nor can the state change the sacrament of marriage or make any church marry anyone they don’t want to.

  • In France, gay couples already have all the legal benefits except state-funded “conception aids” like IVF. It has nothing to do with legal benefits and everything to do with power and control. Marriage has a defiition – if you have to destroy a thing to get it (in this case by redefining it) then NO one has it. That’s power and control.

  • Leila Miller

    James, marriage is pre-political, pre-legal. It has always been, of its very nature, heterosexual.

  • franis

    all of what you said here is true, however, as mentioned in the original article above, you still have not answered the questions, “what is marriage? Why should the government confer a legal status upon it?”

  • Leila Miller

    gk, you are absolutely right. I wrote about that previously in fact; check out the second point here:


  • Leila Miller

    JoAnna, whoa. I hadn’t thought of that specifically, you but you are right!

  • But what is before the courts and on the ballot boxes is the status of the political and legal institution of marriage. Specifically, who may enter into a contract of matrimony.

  • First of all, you’re right, we’re not talking about sacramental marriage, we’re talking about legal marriage. It’s not a legal institution, it’s a legal license. Second, the rights and privileges associated with it are because of the marriage’s potential ability to create children; the economic impact is to help ensure and encourage those types of relationships that will benefit the future of the society; without the potential ability to create children, there is no need for those rights and privileges or everyone, should receive those rights and privileges, no need for marriage licenses at all.

    The government did not create a new and separate marital institution by establishing marriage licenses, but rather it simply began recognizing those relationships that were already marriages as benefits to society, because of they’re unique ability to be the most efficient, cost-effective means of ensuring future generations of productive tax-payers.

    And maybe this will help in explaining why this is not simply a, “but they’re not rewriting sacramental marriage” case: In the state of IL, last year, Catholic Charities had to give up it’s long-standing contributions in adoption, because they refused to place children with same-sex couples (and we have civil unions, same-sex marriage is is currently being reviewed by the legislature). Catholic Charities even tried to compromise, agreeing to refer same-sex couples to other foster and adoption care agencies that would be more than willing to place children in their care, but they were denied at every level of court action. As a result, Catholic Charities no longer is able to participate in child adoption and foster care services.

  • franis

    GK, I completely agree with your point. But, the argument against homosexual marriage can be easily made without referencing contraception. What abortion and homosexual marriage have in common is their dismissal of science, specifically biology. There is no need to reference biblical morality here. The homosexual urge is just that; urge…an emotion. Once that urge is experienced the homosexual person still cannot avoid the question, “what is the function of my body, specifically my genitals/sex organs?” A basic understanding of biology brings to light the knowledge that their function, or better yet, the reason the human body has parts such as these is for procreation. It is at this point, that those who act on homosexual urges depart from science and reason. For the person who acts on homosexual urges says, “my emotions, my urges, supercede the scientific truth. My emotions, my urges, are correct, and science (the observation of the physical world) is wrong.” This line of reasoning is so destructive, because it challenges the basic means for our society live together. In order for our society to survive we must be able to agree on some basic truths. If our society can’t even recognize the basic truths of biology, then what, if any truths can we agree on. All law with turn on the emotions or urges of the plantiffs and defendants.

  • One obvious answer is procreation, which does not apply to same sex couples. But it doesn’t apply to infertile heterosexual couples either.

    A marriage with a 55 year old bride is as sterile as a marriage with two brides, yet the first is allowed by both Church and law. Nor are
    marriages that fail to produce or adopt children dissolved after a
    certain age. Therefore, the law must recognize marriage for reasons
    beyond just procreation.

    A second reason why the government promotes marriage is for social stability. Stable romantic interpersonal relationships create a stable society. We don’t want people living alone and dying alone. Nor do we want them bed-hopping and spreading diseases (and in the case of heterosexuals, children out of wedlock).

    But what does this have to do with gay marriage?

    Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that gay relationships are less stable than heterosexual relationships.

    So what?

    Gay people generally aren’t interested in marrying a member of the opposite sex. Heterosexual marriage is superior to same-sex marriage, but the choice for a gay person isn’t between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage. The choice is between same-sex marriage and no marriage. While celibacy may be the ideal, how many gay people actually live celibate lives? That’s what I thought.

    Yes, I am aware that gay people can marry a member of the opposite sex. Plenty have. These marriages often end in divorce, sometimes after a few children have come along. Divorce is not good for children or society. From a Catholic perspective, there is ample grounds for a decree of nullity for such a marriage.

  • franis

    james, answer the question. How is anyone supposed to know who can enter the contract of matrimony if you won’t tell us, “what marriage is, and why the government should confer legal status upon it.”

  • There are legitimate concerns about religious freedom and adoption, but these are largely separate issues.

    Religious freedom is under assault on many fronts that have nothing to do with whether gay couples can get a marriage license.

  • Victoria

    This is ridiculous. If two people love eachother and are commited who are YOU to get in their way? Equal rights for everyone. (Isn’t that what women have been lobbying for since the 60’s) Why neglect others ?

  • Marya

    Excellent post. I love the second point and fear the vague definition that they will have to come up with.

  • I just did. See above.

    If you would like a definition of a legal contract of marriage, I would say that it is a legal recognition of a domestic relationship between persons.

    Some relationships the government does not and should not recognize because the harm of doing so outweighs the good. This is why society does not recognize child marriage, polygamy, bigamous marriage, or incestuous marriage.

    The question about whether the government should recognize same-sex relationships, then is whether doing so does more harm than good. But there is no argument that shows recognizing gay relationships does more harm than good that isn’t an inherently religious one.

  • What makes you think that you aren’t married if the law recognizes gay marriage? That makes no sense.

  • Leila Miller

    James, the nature — the intrinsic nature — of heterosexual union is procreative. Whether or not there is infertility due to defect or age, the conjugal act is ordered toward procreation. It is, of its very nature, different from every other sexual pairing. The ability to consummate (perform the conjugal act) is necessary for valid marriage; even the civil authorities will annul a marriage based on non-consummation. How can a gay couple achieve the marital act? They physically cannot consummate a marriage. In no way can their pairings be called “marriage”. They need to come up with a new word for a new thing.

  • franis

    James, so what you are saying is that the purpose of marriage is two fold, the first is for procreation. Yet it doesn’t seem to matter if the couple is able to procreate in the first place, they still can enter into the contract of marriage. The second reason is for social stability, however, there is no penalty for breaking this part of the contract. So really, as marriage is defined here it is a contract that means and binds nothing. It can be entered into and dissolved without much consequence.
    For a rebuke of your “choice” argument see my post below on the homosexual dismissal of science.

  • That depends on the state. Generally, consummation is not required to have a valid legal marriage, but refusal to consummate is evidence of fraud in the marriage contract.

    As for the use of the word “marriage”, is this all the fight is over? Words?

  • franis

    my son (20 years old) and I love each other and are committed to each other. We are on our way to the courthouse in New York right now. I cannot wait to start our new lives together. “Talk about ridiculous.”

  • Victoria

    Marrying your son is a bit ridiculous. That was a weird point to make. All I am saying is let people live their lives and be happy.

  • Generally, there is no legal penalty for breaking a business contract, either. The party that breaks it is only liable to the other party for the loss they suffered. No more, no less.

    Second, I find it curious that you think divorce does not have many consequences…

  • franis

    They can live their lives and be happy as it is right now, they don’t need a silly license to do that. My point about marrying my son was just as ridiculous as the logic you used for defending homosexual marriage.

  • Excellent post. I would like to add… Do those that marry have more rights than those that choose not too? Or can you be a full citizen with full rights as a single person? This logic that we are in a civil rights argument is baseless in light of the fact that no citizens rights are being violated.

  • franis

    Divorce does have consequences, however, a woman who is married does not have any legal consequences for breaking the stable romantic relationship part of the marriage contract by sleeping around or giving birth to children from multiple fathers while still in a marriage contract.

    If homosexual couples want to enter into a business contract with each other so be it. Just don’t pretend that it is the same concept as marriage. Words mean distinctions (blue is not black, a horse is not a cow, first is not second, etc.)

  • Why do you think the government would create those benefits for marriage between a man and a woman? Oh, that’s right… family. Government understood that taking care of traditional families was the best way to grow and strengthen as a country.

  • Victoria

    Then why do you need a silly licence for your marriage? Why not give the same rights to homosexuals? What are you afraid of? That they will rise up and “make” everyone gay. They just want their love recognized and they want to be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

  • gk

    Yep. I agree completely with your second point. Clarity in argument and truth is easy to see. Thank you. God bless you for loving the truth and spending the time to continually profess it. My prayers are with you.

  • On the contrary, they’re not separate issues. Both marriage and adoption are about children and families.

  • franis

    People who chose to engage in homosexual acts can do so freely. They can even chose to raise children. However, what they are asking for is recognition. Which is another way of saying, they want to force those who think their acts to be disordered (whether scientifically disordered, or biblically disordered) into submission. This is about businesses being forced to hire and pay for relationships they find disordered. This is about tax payers funding this behavior. This is about schools being forced to teach children that this behavior is good and normal. This is about Americans not being able to judge each other and form a society around the behaviors of its citizens. I have no fear that “they will rise up and make everyone gay.” I do fear that I will be forced to accept and pretend that a behavior is good and normal, when all the science, logic, reason, and revealed truth proves that it is not.

  • Leila Miller

    Victoria, no one is getting in their way. People go off in pairs to live together all the time. I’ve never stopped them. But you conveniently ignore the very points of the post. For example, define “marriage” please. And, do you really want “equal rights for everyone” to marry anyone else? Or would you yourself put at least some restrictions on marriage?

  • Leila Miller

    Thank you, gk!

  • The government couldn’t care less whether or not my spouse and I love each other. The legal privileges and benefits afforded to married couples are done so because of the potential children that may occur in a relationship that contains a complete reproductive system (I didn’t say functional, I said complete) which has the potential to lead to children and future generations. The ONLY thing the government cares about is encouraging the most efficient, cost-effective means of ensuring future generations of productive tax-payers. Nothing more, nothing less.
    If having a complete reproductive system, and thereby potential children, is eliminated from marriage (which is what same-sex marriage does), then there is no need for rights, privileges, and benefits in the first place.

  • Tom Mulcahy

    We must address, ultimately, the Satanic dimension of gay marriage.
    We must come to grips with authentic Catholic teaching: the devil and
    his demonic legions are real. Pope Benedict XVI, while he was Cardinal,
    made this point in a powerful manner, saying:

    “Whatever the less discerning
    theologians may say, the devil, as far as Christian belief is concerned, is a
    puzzling but real, personal and not merely symbolical presence. He is a powerful reality (the ‘prince of this world,’ as he is called by
    the New Testament, which continually reminds us of his existence), a baneful
    superhuman freedom directed against God’s freedom. This is evident if we look
    realistically at history, with its abyss of ever-new atrocities which cannot be
    explained by reference to man alone. On his own, man has not the power to oppose
    Satan, but the devil is not second to God, and united with Jesus we can be
    certain of vanquishing him. Christ is ‘God Who is near to us,’ willing and able
    to liberate us: that is why the Gospel really is ‘Good News.’ And that is why we
    must go on proclaiming Christ in those realms of fear and unfreedom.”
    (from The Ratzinger Report, pages 138-139)

    Pope Paul VI, in 1972, in his address called “Confronting the Devil’s Power,”
    identified protection against the devil as one of the Church’s greatest
    needs. He said:

    “What are the Church’s greatest needs at
    the present time? Don’t be surprised at Our answer and don’t write it off as simplistic or
    even superstitious: one of the Church’s greatest needs is to be defended against the evil
    we call the Devil.”

    In that same address, under the
    heading, “Presence of diabolical action,” Pope Paul VI pointed to when
    we can assume the sinister action of the devil is at work, stating:

    “We have to be cautious about answering the first question, even though the signs of the
    Evil One seem to be very obvious at times.[23] We can presume that his sinister action is
    at work where the denial of God becomes radical, subtle and absurd; where lies become
    powerful and hypocritical in the face of evident truth; where love is smothered by cold,
    cruel selfishness; where Christ’s name is attacked with conscious, rebellious hatred,[24]
    where the spirit of the Gospel is watered down and rejected where despair is affirmed as
    the last word; and so forth.”

    now in our country there is a powerful and hypocritical lie being
    thrust upon us and our children which has all the markings of Satanic
    activity – applying the signs of such involvement mentioned by Pope
    Paul VI. The radical lie being forced upon us – which runs contrary to
    both the natural law and “anatomical reality” – is not only that
    homosexual acts are not sinful but, moreover, that gay marriage
    to be enshrined in our laws. The lie runs contrary to “evident truth”
    because everyone truly knows that marriage is between a man and a woman (duh!).
    How is it, then, that tremendous numbers of people in our country are
    being deceived – by a massive propaganda campaign – to endorse gay
    marriage? The Satanic perversion of calling something which is evil, good, is clearly at work here.

    Satan’s ultimate goal is to ruin souls. Catholics are duty-bound to
    protect the sanctity of marriage, and thus are duty-bound to vigorously
    oppose gay marriage. This is the situation that God has placed us in. We are called to combat

    P.S. The day is coming – in some ways it is already here
    – when, in this Brave New World, the Ministry of Education of the
    Federal Government will make it mandatory for third graders to complete a
    Gender Identity Questionnaire to determine if they are straight, gay,
    bisexual, or transexual, etc. In other words, the Federal Government,
    with its massive usurpation of education, will take over the moral
    formation (or deformation) of your children and grandchildren. The word
    diabolical literally means to divide, or to split, or to deteriorate,
    and when a child is forced to consider a multiplicity of choices as to
    his sexual identity, rest assured that massive gender identity confusion
    will result, which means profound harm to the minds of our children and

  • Equality Matters

    1. Sorry we “bullied” you into accepting the same people you’ve been bullying into the closet for hundreds of years.

    2. The definition of marriage is a legal union between consenting adults.

    3. Refer to the above definition of marriage and you’ll see why man-dog love and boy-dog love do not apply. I personally have no issue with polygamy and if multiple consenting adults want to get married, go for it. If two sisters want to marry, by all means, have at it.

  • American

    If you are looking for intellectually sophisticated arguments for gay marriage, you may want to switch who you are debating. Even I agree that those responses are weak. But then I don’t suppose you went out looking for an articulate, intelligent debate, anyway.

    Here is the simplest solution yet: At the government level, where it matters for reasons of inheritance, end of life, etc. the traditional combining of two lives between 2 consenting adults can be a ‘civil union’. A state definition of this (which precludes your point #3 of polygamy, zoology, and pedophilia because they are illegal) already exists. At the religious level, each church can individually define marriage as they like, as long as it is not illegal (polygamy, for example.) Simple, no? Separation of church and state is maintained, everybody gets what they want, and your ‘marriage’ can continue to have whatever holy, sacramental, attibutes you want it to have as it suits you.

    The most common religious argument for marriage not embracing any other form than one man and one woman would be great if the heterosexual divorce rate wasn’t running at 50+%….therefore negating the family stability argument and making it a very difficult argument. For the record, what appears to drive the divorce rate in this country is the combination of a good education leading to economic stability. If you want to stabilize families, your energy would be better spent educating people instead of fighting gay marriage. Ironically, in the U.S. both male and female homosexuals tend to be better educated than the heterosexual population, which predicts they will be more sucessful at marriage than the current “one man, one woman model of marriage”.

    BTW, you have a lot of nerve complaining about the possibility of Man-Boy relations being put up for ‘marriage’ given the state of the Catholic church which you profess as your faith. It is a bastion of illegal, immoral, and criminal acts of Man-Boy relations. Given the criminal nature of the acts that were hidden and the criminals that were protected by the Church, I’m amazed that more Church members don’t put their heads down in shame and get to work cleaning house….instead of trying to dictate everyone elses moral behavior.

  • Equality Matters

    Oh, you didn’t want real answers to your questions. Alrighty then.

  • Baptised Catholic

    This is a sad, sad article.

  • 1stAmendment

    Why are you deleting comments?

  • Elisabeth

    Thank you for this! As a member of the Church of Christ, I am glad that someone has pointed out these issues.


    All of the points are ridiculous but your point #2 is beyond. Are you that dense to think people cannot see the difference in relationships and bonds between two people who are in love with each other and a grandmother to her granddaughter or mom to her son. C’mon.

  • Charles Fears

    Jesus teaches on “You Shall Not

    Exodus 20: 14

    Thou shalt not commit

    Deuteronomy 5: 14

    Thou shalt not commit

    Maria Valtorta descibes
    what she saw and heard

    Jesus says to me:

    “Be patient, My dear soul,
    with regard to the double work. This is a period of endurance. You know how
    tired I was in My last days?! You see it. When walking I lean on John, on Peter,
    on Simon, also on Judas… Yes. And although miracles emanated from Me, even by
    simple contact with My clothes, I was not able to change that heart! Let Me lean
    on you, little John, to repeat the words which I spoke in the last days to those
    stubborn dull-minded people who heard the announcement of My torture without
    being affected by it. And let the Master preach for hours in the sad plain of
    the Clear Water. And I shall bless you twice: for your fatigue and for your pity. I count your efforts, I gather your tears. For your efforts on behalf of your brothers you will be rewarded
    as those who wear themselves out to make God known to men. The tears shed for My
    suffering during the last week will be rewarded with Jesus’ kiss. Write and may
    you be blessed.

    Jesus is standing on a
    kind of platform made with boards in one of the large rooms, the last one, and is speaking in a very loud voice, near the
    door, so that He may be heard by those in the room and also by those in the shed
    or on the threshing floor, which is flooded by the rain. The people standing
    there in their large dark coarse mantles, which are proof against water, look
    like so many lay brothers. The weakest people are in the room, the women under
    the shed, the strongest, mainly men, are in the yard, in the rain.

    Peter, barefooted and
    wearing only his short tunic and with a piece of cloth on his head, comes and
    goes, and is always in a good humour even if he has to paddle in water and take
    unexpected showers. John, Andrew and James are with him. They are cautiously
    transferring from the other room sick people and are guiding or supporting blind
    or lame people.

    Jesus is patiently waiting
    for them all to be settled. He is only sorry that the four disciples are wet
    like sponges dipped into a pail of water.

    “It is nothing! We are
    like pitched wood. Don’t worry. We are getting baptised again and the baptiser
    is God Himself.” replies Peter to Jesus’ commiserations.

    At last they are all
    settled and Peter thinks he can go and put on a dry tunic. And he goes away with
    the other three.

    But when he comes back
    again to the Master, he sees the large grey mantle of the veiled woman appear
    round the corner of the shed and he goes towards her without considering that to
    do so he must cross the yard diagonally in a heavy shower of rain which is
    getting heavier and heavier, while the water of the pools splashes up to his
    knees. He takes her by the elbow, without displacing her mantle, and pulls her
    towards the wall of the large room, out of the rain. He then places himself
    beside her, as stern and still as a sentry.

    Jesus sees him and He
    smiles bending His head to conceal the brightness of His smile. He starts

    “Those amongst you, who
    have been coming to Me regularly, must not say that I do not speak orderly, and
    that I skip some of the ten
    commandments. You hear. I see. You listen. I apply My speech to the
    pains and the sores that I see in you. I am the Doctor. A doctor calls first on
    those who are more seriously ill, on those who are closer to death. He then
    visits those who are not so dangerously ill. I do the same.”

    “Today I say to you: “Do
    not fornicate”.”

    “Do not look round
    endeavouring to read the word “lustful” on somebody’s face. Love one another.
    Would you love anyone who read that word on your face? No, you would not. Well,
    then, do not try to read it in the worried eyes of your neighbour or on his
    forehead that blushes and bows to the ground. And then… Oh! tell Me,
    especially you men. Which of you has not tasted this bread made with ashes and
    excrement, which is sexual satisfaction? And is lust only what carries you for
    one hour between the arms of a prostitute? Is lust not also the desecrated union
    with your wife, desecrated because it is ratified vice as it is reciprocal
    sensual satisfaction, which, however, evades its consequences?”

    “Marriage means
    procreation and its act means and must be fecundation. Otherwise it is
    immoral. You must not make a brothel of your nuptial beds. And that is what they
    become if they are soiled by lust and are not consecrated by maternity. The
    earth does not reject the seed. It receives it and makes a plant of it. The seed
    does not escape from the furrow after being laid there. But it takes root at
    once and it strives to grow and bear fruit, that is the vegetable creature born
    of the union between soil and seed. Man is the seed, woman is the soil, the
    fruit is the son. It is sinful to refuse to bear fruit and scatter strength in
    vice. It is prostitution performed on the nuptial bed, and in no way differs
    from the other prostitution, on the contrary it is aggravated by disobedience to
    the commandment that says: “Be one flesh and multiply by bearing children”.

    “Therefore, women
    deliberately barren, legal and honest wives in the eyes of the world, but not in
    the eyes of God, you can see that you may be considered prostitutes and you
    fornicate just the same even if only with your husbands, because you do not seek
    maternity but too often you are only after pleasure. And do you not consider
    that pleasure is a poison that contaminates every mouth that tastes it? It burns
    with a fire that seems to satisfy, instead it falls out of the fireplace and
    devours, more and more insatiable, leaving a sour taste of ash on the tongue as
    well as disgust, nausea and contempt both of oneself and of the partner in
    pleasure, because when a conscience revives, and it does revive between two
    heats, one can but feel such contempt of oneself, being lowered below the level
    of beasts.

    “You shall not fornicate”
    it is said. A great deal of the carnal actions of men are fornications. And I do
    not take into consideration the inconceivable obsessive union which Leviticus
    condemns with the following words: “Man: you must not lie with a man as with a
    woman” and “You must not lie with any animal, you would thereby become unclean.
    And woman will do likewise and will not offer herself to an animal, because it
    would be a foul thing”. But after mentioning the duty of husband and wife in
    marriage, which is no longer holy when it becomes barren through malice,
    I am going to speak of the true and proper fornication between man and
    woman performed out of reciprocal vice or for compensation in money or in

    “The human body is a
    magnificent temple that contains an altar. God should be on the altar. But God
    is not where there is corruption. Therefore an impure body has a desecrated
    altar without God. Like a drunken person who wallows in mire and in the
    regurgitations of his own drunkenness, man lowers himself in the brutality of
    fornication and becomes worse than the most impure worm and beast.”

    “Tell Me, if among you
    there is anyone who has perverted himself to the extent of dealing with his body
    as one deals in fodder or animals at the market, which benefit did he gain? Take
    your hearts in your hands, examine them, question them, listen to them, note
    their wounds, their pangs and then tell Me: was the fruit so sweet as to deserve
    such pain to a heart that was born pure and that you have compelled to live in
    an impure body, and to beat to give life and heat to lust, and to be worn out by
    vice? Tell Me: are you so perverted that you do not sob secretly, hearing the
    voice of a child calling: “mummy”, or thinking of your mothers, you women of
    pleasure who have run away from home or have been driven out of them, so that
    the rotten fruit may not contaminate with its oozing rottenness the other good
    ones? Thinking of your mothers who probably died broken-hearted, having to say:
    “I gave birth to disgrace”?

    “Do you not feel your
    hearts shudder with shame, when you meet an old solemn looking man because of
    his white hair and you consider that you have soiled your fathers’ heads with
    handfuls of mud and have exposed them to the scorn of their native country?”

    “Do you not feel your
    entrails writhe with regret when you see a happy wife or an innocent virgin and
    you have to say: “I have given up all that and I will never be like that

    you not feel your faces blush with shame when you meet the eyes of men looking
    at you lustfully or scornfully?

    Do you not realise how
    miserable you are when you are thirsty for the kiss of a child and you dare not
    say: “Give me it” because you have killed lives at their birth, you have
    rejected them as boring burdens and as a useless hindrance, detached from the
    tree that had borne them, and thrown out to make dung, and now those little
    lives shout at you: “murderers!”?

    “But, above all, are you
    not terrified of the Judge Who created you and is waiting for you to ask you:
    “What have you done of yourself? Did I, perhaps, give you life for that? How
    dare you come to My presence, you nest swarming with worms and putrefaction? You
    have had everything of what was your god: pleasure. Go to the place of
    eternal malediction”.”

    “Who is weeping? Nobody?
    Are you saying: nobody? And yet My soul is going to meet another soul that is
    weeping. Why is it going to meet her? To anathematize her because she is a
    prostitute? No. Because I feel sorry for her soul. I feel repulsion for all her
    filthy body, sweaty with wanton exertion. But her soul!”

    “Oh! Father! Father! Also
    for this soul I have taken flesh and I left Heaven to be her Redeemer and the
    Redeemer of many souls like hers! Why should I not pick up this stray sheep and
    take her to the fold, clean her, unite her to the flock, give her pastures and a
    love as perfect as only Mine can be, so different from the love that so far she
    called love, but instead was hatred, such a pitiful, complete, sweet love that
    she may no longer regret the past or may regret it only to say: “Too many days
    have I lost away from You, eternal Beauty. Who will give me back the time I
    lost? How can I enjoy in the short time which is left to me, what I would have
    enjoyed if I had always been pure?”

    “And yet, o soul oppressed
    by all the lust of the world, do not weep. Listen: you are a filthy rag. But you
    can become a flower once again. You are a dunghill. But you can become a
    flower-bed. You are an impure animal. But you can become an angel. Once you were
    an angel. And you used to dance on the flowery meadows, a rose amongst the
    roses, as fresh as they were, sweet-smelling with virginity. And you happily
    sang your childish songs, and then you would run to your mother, to your father
    and say to them: “You are my love”. And the invisible guardian who is at the
    side of each creature would smile at your blue-white soul… And then? Why? Why
    did you tear off your wings, those of a little innocent being? Why did you tread
    on the hearts of your father and mother to run after other unreliable hearts?
    Why did you compel your pure voice to utter false sensual words? Why did you
    break the stem of the rose and desecrate yourself?”

    “Repent, daughter of God.
    Repentance invigorates, purifies and elevates. Can man not forgive you? Not even
    your father could forgive you? But God can. Because the bounty of God is not to
    be compared to human goodness and His mercy is infinitely greater than human
    misery. Honour yourself by making your soul honourable through an honest life.
    Justify yourself with God committing no more sins against your soul. Obtain from
    God a new name. That is what matters. You are vicious. Become honest. Become the
    sacrifice and the martyr of your repentance. You knew how to make a martyr of
    your heart to give pleasure to your flesh. Now make a martyr of your flesh to
    give eternal peace to your heart.”

    “Go. You may all go away.
    Each with his burden and his thoughts, and meditate. God awaits everybody and
    rejects none of those who repent. May God grant you His light that you may know
    your souls. Go.”

    Many go away towards the
    village. Some go into the large room. Jesus goes towards the sick people and
    cures them.

    A group of men are talking in low voices in a corner: they
    are gesticulating and getting excited in discussing their various opinions. Some
    accuse Christ, some defend Him, some exhort both parties to a riper judgement.
    At the end, the most bitter ones, probably because they are fewer than the other
    two groups, take a middle course. They go to Peter, who is carrying away with
    Simon three stretchers of people cured miraculously, as they are now useless,
    and they assail him overbearingly in the large room which has become the
    guest-room for pilgrims. They say to him: Man of Galilee, listen to us.” Peter
    turns round and looks at them as if they were rare animals. He does not speak,
    but the expression of his face is wonderful. Simon casts a glance at the five
    furious men and then goes out, leaving them all in the lurch.

    One of the five resumes
    speaking: “I am Samuel, the scribe; this is Sadoc, another scribe; and this is
    Eleazar, a well known and mighty Judaean; and this is Callascebona, the famous
    elder; and, finally, this is Nahum. Do you understand? Nahum!. the tone of his
    voice is really bombastic.

    Peter bows lightly at each
    name, but at the last one his head stops half way and with the greatest
    indifference he says: “I don’t know. Never heard of it. And… I don’t
    understand anything.

    You rough fisherman! Bear
    in mind that he is Annas’ trustee!” “I don’t know Annas; or rather I know many
    women whose name is Anna. There is a swarm of them also in Capernaum. But I
    don’t know of which one he is the trustee..

    “He? Am I being addressed
    as “he”?”

    What do you want me to say
    to you? Ass or bird? When I went to school the teacher taught me to say “he”
    when speaking of a man, and, if I am not mistaken, you are a man.”

    The man becomes
    infuriated, as if he were tortured by the words. The other man, who spoke first,
    explains: Annas is Caiaphas’ father-in-law…”

    “Ah!… I see!!! Well?”

    “I am telling you that we
    are indignant!”

    “At what? At the weather?
    I am indignant too. I have changed my clothes three times and I have no more dry

    “Don’t be silly!”

    “Silly? It’s the truth. If
    you are not indignant at the weather, at what then? With the Romans?”

    “With your Master! With
    the false prophet!”

    “Hey! Dear Samuel! Be
    careful because if I wake up I am like the lake. From dead calm I become stormy
    in a moment. So watch how you speak…”

    Also the sons of Zebedee
    and of Alphaeus have come in together with the Iscariot and Simon and they
    gather round Peter who shouts louder and louder.

    “You shall not touch with
    your plebeian hands the great men of Zion!”

    “Oh! The handsome young
    gentlemen! And you shall not touch my Master otherwise you will be flying into
    the well at once and then you will really get purified, both internally and

    “I wish to draw the
    attention of the doctors of the Temple to the fact that this house is a private
    one,” says Simon calmly. And the Iscariot corroborates the situation saying:
    “And I can guarantee that the Master has always had the greatest respect for
    other people’s houses, and above all for the House of the Lord. Have the same
    respect for His.

    “Be quiet, you sly worm.”

    “Sly in what? You are
    disgusting and I came where there is no disgust. And God grant I have not been
    completely corrupted by being with you!”

    “Summing up: what do you
    want?” asks James of Alphaeus sharply.

    “And who are you?”

    “I am James of Alphaeus,
    and Alphaeus of James, and James of Matan, and Matan of Eleazar, and if you wish
    so, I will mention all my ancestors up to king David from whom I descend. And I
    am a cousin of the Messiah. So I ask you to speak to me, since I am of the royal
    family and a Judaean, if your arrogance feels disgust in speaking to an honest
    Israelite who knows God better than Gamaliel and Caiaphas. So, speak up.”

    “Your Master and relative
    gets prostitutes to follow Him. That veiled woman is one of them. I saw her
    while she was selling some gold. And I recognised her. She is Shammai’s lover
    and has run away from him. Which is a disgrace to him.”

    “To whom? To Shammai the
    rabbi? In that case she must be an old crock. And thus out of danger…” remarks
    the Iscariot teasingly.

    “Be quiet, you fool! To
    Shammai of Elchi, Herod’s favourite.”

    “Well now! It means that
    she is no longer particularly fond of the favourite. She has to go to bed with
    him. Not you.” “Why worry then?” Judas Iscariot is superlatively ironical.

    “Man, do you not think
    that you are dishonouring yourself by playing the spy?” asks Judas of Alphaeus.
    “And do you not consider that he dishonours himself who lowers himself to commit
    a sin, not he who endeavours to save a sinner? Why is my Master and brother
    dishonoured, if, when speaking, His voice reaches also the ears profaned by the
    slaver of lustful people in Zion?

    “His voice? Ah! Ah! Your
    Master and cousin is thirty years old and He is a greater hypocrite than the
    others. And you all sleep soundly at night…”

    “You vile reptile. Get out
    of here or I will strangle you,” shouts Peter, and James and John echo his
    words, whilst Simon simply says: “Shame on you! Yourhypocrisy is so
    great that it regurgitates and overflows and you slaver like a snail on a pure
    flower. Go out and become a man, because now you are but slaver.I
    recognise you, Samuel. Your heart is always the same. May God forgive you. Go
    away from my presence.”

    While the Iscariot and
    James of Alphaeus are holding Peter, who is seething with anger, Judas Thaddeus,
    who more than ever is now like his Cousin, having the same blue flashing look
    and stately expression, says in a thundering voice: He dishonours himself who
    dishonours an innocent person. God gave us sight and speech to accomplish holy
    deeds. A slanderer misuses and degrades them, employing them for evil deeds. I
    will not soil myself by a rude deed offensive to your white hair. But I will
    remind you that wicked people hate an upright man and a fool vents his spleen
    without considering that he betrays himself. Who lives in darkness mistakes a
    branch in bloom for a reptile. But who lives in light sees things as they are,
    and if they are denigrated, h defends them for justice’ sake. We live in light.
    We are the chaste, beautiful generation of the children of light, and our Leader
    is the Holy One Who knows neither woman nor sin. We follow Him and defend Him
    from His enemies, Whom He has taught us not to hate but to pray for. Old as you
    are, you may learn from a young man, who has become ripe because Wisdom is his
    teacher, not to be so quick in speaking and not good at all in doing good. Go.
    And inform those who sent you that God rests on His glory in this poor dwelling,
    not in the desecrated house which is on mount Moriah. Good- bye.

    The five men dare not
    reply and they go away.

    The disciples discuss
    whether they should tell Jesus Who is still with the people He has cured. They
    decide it is better to inform Him. They go to meet Him, they call Him and they
    tell Him.

    Jesus smiles peacefully
    and replies: Thank you for defending Me. . . but what can you do? One gives what
    one has.

    However, they are not
    entirely wrong. We have eyes to see and many people do see. She is always out
    there, like a dog. It does You no good.” say many of the disciples.

    “Leave her alone. She will
    not be the stone that will strike My head. And if she is saved… it is well
    worth being criticised for such a joy!”

    It all ends on that sweet



    To the posts about if they love each other why do they need a silly license or piece of paper to prove it then why do you? Even if you aren’t married imagine not even having the option because people don’t approve of your lifestyle. It is symbolic and everyone here know that. To deprive people of this goes against everything that is American.


    Why cannot I not disapprove of a post without signing in but I can approve without doing so. This seems biased. Shame.

  • kirk

    Mtxun- While I agree with the intent of your message, I find myself wondering why you need to capitalize so many words, as if the message would not be understood by the majority of readers without them. If it were just one or two, i would have been okay with that – but 18?? Please don’t take this as a put-down, but just something to think about. Thank you.

  • Jess

    What a horrific article. I appreciate and respect that we have our own (wildly) different opinions, but if you are going to write something as offensive as this, at least back it up with some solid evidence.

    You state that…Countless Americans have switched sides due to peer pressure, bullying, and a fear of being seen as “mean”.
    Do you have any evidence (numbers, data) to support such a claim? You’ve no doubt seen the numbers, the percentages of people, who have come out to support gay marriage. Do you really think that they support gay marriage because they’ve been bullied? I say careful making such blanket claims…with no evidence. This is absurd.

    You say…Gay activists get oddly dismissive when asked for a definition of marriage itself, and when pressed, produce awkward and nebulous answers. Really?? With how many have actually you spoken? Again, do you have any evidence to offer (other than a couple of anecdotal stories of people with whom you may or may not have spoken)?

    Slippery slope? No…it’s simple…let those who love marry one another. I think that your comments above are more on the slippery slope of people sharing opinion as if it’s fact. Now THAT is a scary slippery slope!

    Again, this is a topic which can bring out the worst in people, but I respect your opinions. I just wish that people wouldn’t cite opinion as fact. It’s simply not good practice.

    (Happily marred to Nicholas, stay-at-home mother to Oliver, proud supporter of equal rights for ALL)


    Leila why aren’t you commenting on the posts that disagree with you?

  • Leila Miller

    The “fight” is over the ontological truth of something. And why, do you suppose, has lack of consummation been important in civil marriage/divorce matters?

    I never said marriage is “all about sexual intercourse”, but it certainly is intrinsic to it, no?

  • I don’t really agree with #2. I’m a straight christian is support of marriage equality. To say that two people of the same sex can’t have the same degree of love as two different sex partners, I think is rediculous.

  • Leila Miller

    Are you not aware of different types of love? Eros love is not agape love, for example.

    And, if the definition someone gives for marriage is a “bond between two people”, then even you admit that is not a good definition, right? We should include “love” in the definition, in your view, correct? But, has “love” ever been a requirement of marriage? I don’t believe that “love” has ever been intrinsic in the definition of marriage, but I am willing to stand corrected if you can show me where. Thanks!

  • Jess

    I’m sorry. You tout yourself as an educated person…summa cum laude Boston College graduate who loves to debate atheists. Why then must you delete my educated comment? Oh, I have a M.S. in Education and am currently working on a PhD…from Indiana University. I’m smart, too. “Smart people” do not cite opinion as fact, as you have in this article. Did you realize that I am right? Is that why you deleted my comment??

    Don’t worry…just so happens that I copied my comment so that I could repost it if it was deleted. 🙂 I’d love to hear back from you re: my questions/comments.

    What a horrific article. I appreciate and respect that we have our own (wildly) different opinions, but if you are going to write something as offensive as this, at least back it up with some solid evidence.

    You state that…Countless Americans have switched sides due to peer pressure, bullying, and a fear of being seen as “mean”.
    Do you have any evidence (numbers, data) to support such a claim? You’ve no doubt seen the numbers, the percentages of people, who have come out to support gay marriage. Do you really think that they support gay marriage because they’ve been bullied? I say careful making such blanket claims…with no evidence. This is absurd.

    You say…Gay activists get oddly dismissive when asked for a definition of marriage itself, and when pressed, produce awkward and nebulous answers. Really?? With how many have actually you spoken? Again, do you have any evidence to offer (other than a couple of anecdotal stories of people with whom you may or may not have spoken)?

    Slippery slope? No…it’s simple…let those who love marry one another. I think that your comments above are more on the slippery slope of people sharing opinion as if it’s fact. Now THAT is a scary slippery slope!

    Again, this is a topic which can bring out the worst in people, but I respect your opinions. I just wish that people wouldn’t cite opinion as fact. It’s simply not good practice.

    (Happily marred to Nicholas, stay-at-home mother to Oliver, proud supporter of equal rights for ALL)

  • Jess

    She’s just deleting them.

  • Way to prove Point #1 correct!

  • 1) OMG people sinned! Stop the presses!

    2) So adult child and parent, roommates, elderly widows, business partners, coach and player, etc… etc… etc..?

    3) Then why is the government recognizing marriages to begin with. Why do all unions need legal recognition? Why do same-sex unions need legal recognition?

  • Victoria

    Marriage is the union of 2 consenting people who love each other. That is my definition. Yes, I agree there should be restrictions ex. Marrying off a 12 year old girl to a 70 year old man. That would be a restriction to marriage. It just hurts that in this day and age we are still debating this topic.

  • Victoria

    It is really very sad that you think that way and that you are teaching your children that this is ok. I knew 3 boys in school who killed themselves because their families did not recognize they were gay. I hope your son doesn’t turn out to be gay.

  • MrsSpooky

    I’m mostly with you, but not sure about that last bit. Should it be decreed that gays have the right to marry each other, it’s only a matter of time before someone files a lawsuit against a church for refusing to perform the ceremony. And don’t kid yourself, there ARE people who would do it. Even now, there are wedding planners and bakeries that refuse to cater to gay couples and they are being sued and bullied out the wazoo. It’s going to get worse, much worse.

  • You back up none of this with any facts. Just absolute ignorance. Continue being a bigot.

  • In the United States, such a lawsuit against a church would be laughed out or court. Catholic Churches routinely refuse to remarry divorced people and nobody questions the legal validity of these marriages.

    Many of these examples that gay marriage opponents bring up are from countries with very different laws about association and freedom of religion.

  • kcard82

    Leila hasn’t been alive for hundreds of years, so that doesn’t make sense.

  • kcard82

    Who are you to get in the way of their love? If that’s what makes them happy, then so be it.

  • RoodAwakening

    Even if same-sex “marriage” is made civilly legal, it will never be REAL marriage; it’s just a legalized lust relationship, no matter what it’s called. GOD established marriage, not the state–HE is the Definer…and He has already spoken on the subject, multiple times, as recorded in Sacred Scripture.

    When people truly love each other, above all else, they do not place their beloveds in danger of losing their salvation. So, those who indulge in sexual relationships outside of legitimate, opposite-sex marriage–as defined by God–do NOT, in fact, love. Rather, they really and truly HATE themselves and their partners, as is apparent by their doing what they can to send themselves and their partners to hell, should they die unrepentant!

  • Great article Leila. Keep up the good work. God Bless!

  • MarriageEquality2013

    1) I know that most of my friends and family are in support of marriage equality because they truly believe that all humans deserve the same rights. Not because they were bullied into thinking that way.

    2) Oh, but pedophilia is accepted in the Catholic religion. Cool.

    3) Bethany, same-sex unions deserve the same rights as hetero couples. Legal rights. It’s as simple as that.

  • You just backed up Leila’s point #1 with your name calling. By calling people like her ignorant and bigot, you hope to bully them into supporting gay marriage.

  • MarriageEquality2013

    You sure are stuck in a bubble.
    A hate bubble.

  • Real Catholic

    I don’t understand what makes people think GOD has defined marriage and that GOD has said that homosexuality is a sin and sex before marriage is bad.

    I am a Catholic, but much less ignorant and much more “in search of God” than my brotherly counterparts.

    If ANY of you have read the Bible, and I don’t mean the inaccurately translated versions that relay on eisegesis to push their own beliefs, no where does it mention homosexuality. Homosexuality was not even termed until MANY, MANY years later. Let alone sex before marriage.

    The only time Jesus EVER mentioned pre-marital sex is when the adulterer is to be stoned, to which he replies, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

  • I know several gay people who married friends of the opposite sex to “straighten” themselves out. Nearly all are divorced now.

    I used to live next door to a lesbian couple. Great neighbors. They couldn’t get legally married in our state, but they were a couple. I could care less if they were legally married or not, but it would have made a big difference to them.

    Do I know gay and lesbians in unhealthy, negative relationships? Absolutely. Are plenty of heterosexuals in unhealthy, negative relationships? Yep.

    Some people I know in same-sex relationships are flamingly gay. Others are bisexual and have both same and opposite sex attraction.

    I know several people who have left the Church over this issue, primarily due to a perceived lack of support when a family member comes out as gay.

    So, the answer to question 1, what changed my mind, it wasn’t about bullying, it was about having gay friends and gay neighbors.

    Big talk about “ontological truth” and “intrinsic nature” and quibbling over definitions (I have no dog in the “gay marriage” vs. “civil union” fight, BTW.) doesn’t hold a lot of weight compared to two people who love each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together, and want the law to recognize the relationship they have created.

  • Chrisitna

    Why *two* consenting adults?? What about polygamists? They are all consenting? Why can’t they marry? Who are you to tell them they can’t get married? Have you ever watched sister wives? These people love each other and just want equal rights for themeselves and their children!

  • 4loveOfJesus

    Thank you Leila. I have been labled as a “homophobe” at my place of employment because I’m a devout Catholic and against Gay marriage. They say I’m a hate mongerer. I’ve tried to tell them that as a Catholic I don’t hate gay people, I love them. I don’t approve of the “sin” of homosexuality, just like I don’t approve of the sin of adultery when a husband cheats on his wife, or vice versa. They still say I hate gay people… Yikes !

    I believe they will be like this until Jesus opens their minds to his teachings.

  • MarriageEquality2013

    I believe in equal human rights. Homosexuals are no less human than Heterosexuals.

  • franis

    Victoria, can you please explain to me why it is sad? Explain to me why, after thinking critically about the basic facts of biology, the logic, and the reason of the sexual urge it is illogical, it is a disorder, to engage in these acts. How is this any different than if I say I get angry very easily, and this guy on the street upset me and I struck him with my fist. I was “born with” a bad temper. You can’t expect me to harness my behavior. Just name the emotion or urge and you can think of an example where the behavior becomes unreasonable, illogical; Where the behavior exists only to satisfy the emotion or urge. There is no extrinsic value in that behavior. There is no reason for anyone other than the person or persons engaging in such behavior to recognize it as a good thing, much less a right.
    I objectively experience the sexual urge. I objectively observe the anatomy and physiology of the human body and I conclude that the engagement of this urge and of these organs exists for the production of children. This argument does not reference the bible, religion, ect. It is derived from science, logic, reason. I have no doubt that some people experience a sexual urge directed toward others of the same sex. I just wish they would be objective and logical about any behavior that flows from that urge.
    As to the 3 boys who committed suicide. It is an unfortunate choice they made. Please don’t blame their choice on their family.
    As to my sons, if they have homosexual urges, my explanation to them will be the same as my explanation to you. They will know that I love them, but I will always recognize their choice to engage in homosexual behavior as disordered.

  • MarriageEquality2013

    But it’s ok when your priests molest little boys, right?

  • franis

    nope. Still an abomination

  • Interestingly, there is not one word in the Bible against lesbianism. Romans 1:26 refers to unnatural heterosexual practices. (The Greek is surprisingly explicit.) All the other verses refer to two men and are just as explicit about exactly what is being prohibited. There were (and still are) very good health reasons for these prohibitions.

    Of course, Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura—the teaching authority of the Church extends beyond that which is covered in scripture. Nevertheless, the teachings are a matter of the Church’s understanding of the Natural Law, not divine revelation.

  • Does that include unborn human babies? Shouldn’t they have equal rights to life as you and I?

  • I am stating a fact. She is being a bigot. These are the same arguments made for segregation. You got me, I was bullied into supporting gay marriage. Still not actual facts to back up her opinions, which are severely misinformed.

  • Victoria

    Your argument is that the only reason for 2 people to be together is for reproduction? That if they dont have the right parts to put 2 and 2 together they shouldn’t be recognized? You are taking this argument and complicating the issue. Everyone has the right to be happy. Everyone has the right to be loved and it is not up to you or me to tell them what rights they should or shouldnt have. Marriage is a union of 2 people who are in love. Who cares if they cant reproduce? I bet they will love and support their children just the same as an straight couple if not more because they had to work so hard to have a child in the first place. Science and logic are not an argument when it comes to matters of the heart.

  • You are right. Catholic church allows divorce. Love isn’t necessary for marriage. You can’t marry, but we can divorce. Good message from a church that is losing its following day by day.

  • Marriage has NOTHING to do with equality. If we were arguing that gays can’t work because of their sexuality, then I’d agree with you, but marriage? Its like asking the Supreme Court to make Bar/Bat Mitvahs mandatory/legal etc. Marriage shouldn’t even be under government control anyway.

  • Philip

    No matter what changes legally or sociologically in the future, when someone tells me they are getting married, the mental image that will bring up is always going to be of a man and a woman. I would have no problem if (for linguistic clarity, if for no other reason) an alternative word was used to denote a same-sex union that is the legal equivalent of a traditional marriage. Call it ‘garriage’ (a portmanteau of ‘gay’ and ‘marriage’) for all I care.

  • I am in love with a married man. I wish with all my heart I could marry him, but most people, even YOUR advocates would never approve of my relationship or my love. Ultimately, I agree with you, it is has no place in the government.

  • Paul

    excellent article, excellent arguments. the best I’ve heard so far. thank you

  • franis

    you are correct, that science and logic have a difficult time evaluating emotions, or matters of the heart. Your claim that everyone has a right to be happy and loved are a bit more complex in that if you are referencing rights that the state owes you, it is a little difficult for the state to provide happiness and love. However, I do agree with the phrasing of the declaration of independence “pursuit of happiness.” In our society there are no barriers for homosexual couple to pursue love and happiness with each other. Your claim that you or I don’t have any say on what rights people should have is obsurd. That is precisely what a representative republic is supposed to do. We are supposed to make arguments in support of or against laws. I am making an argument based on science, logic, and reason. Truths that, hopefully, my fellow countrymen will agree with. The reference point I hear in most arguments is “love.” This is an abstract term. What you mean buy love and what I mean by love may be two completely different things. When you say love, I think of an emotion. Laws cannot be based on emotion/feelings. They need to be based on objectivity, reason, etc.

  • Again, I will point out, I’m not married, legally, because I love my husband or he loves me. The government couldn’t give a flying rat’s patootie about whether or not we love each other. All they care about is future generations of tax-payers.

  • You hit the nail on the head. They don’t want to feel guilty about the dirty abominations they are. Another clueless comment. This whole article and comment stream has shown me the reason you are against gay marriage is because you all know NOTHING about it or gays as people

  • Constitution said blacks are 3/5 of a person. Is the constitution bad?

  • They just want the same rights everyone else has. Plain and simple.

  • See. This is where you lose your argument. Nice try.

  • And for your info, those priests you detest were gay. And you wonder why people are hesitant to make “gay” marriage legal?

  • Nice job deleting my comments. Why, because you had no response?

  • It’s no more ok than your police officer, protestant pastor, school teacher, hockey coach, circus clown, or any other person from another denomination or vocation to molest little boys or girls. Go check the statistics, you’ll find there’s far, far, far, less incidents committed by the clergy than other institutions. As a child I’d be safer in a Catholic Church than on a field trip with my science teacher.

  • I also hope your son doesn’t turn out to be a pedophile, an ax murderer etc. It is irrelevant. Your child can turn out to be this or that. Do you think Hitler’s mother expected him to come out as one of the world’s most evil leaders?

    I know various people who committed suicide for various reasons. I had friends who came from very religious homes and upon going to college and being bullied for their beliefs, they couldn’t take it and they killed themselves. Yet, their cases don’t make it to the news.

    This is where you cross the line. When you start telling us that we have to teach our children this or that. I won’t tell you how to raise your children and I sure the hell hope you don’t tell me how to raise my children.

    So if you don’t want us to judge you then don’t judge us.

  • Victoria

    First of all I am Canadian ! We live in a society were all marriage whether between a man and women or 2 men is accepted. Homosexuals want the right to start a family, it is easier if they are legally married. They want to have a say if, god forbid, something happens to their partner and they are in hospital or dead. They need the legality behind it and that “silly” little certificate that you called it. It isnt “silly” to them

  • 1) They do have the same rights, nothing is preventing a gay man from marrying a woman, or a lesbian from marrying a man, the fact that they don’t want to is irrelevant. And if you don’t believe the bullying look at commenter Jess, AKA RoodAwakenings, and some other alias, who has posted several times the same drivel, practically yelling at everyone about how wrong we are and how much we hate all gays.

    2) First: the sex-abuse crisis in the Church, as shameful and tragic and disgusting as it is, doesn’t even come close to the sex abuse that happens within the public school systems. Second, most cases, something like 95% happened decades ago, and the Church has been working tirelessly to address the problems that led to this and remedy them. And third, the problem more often than not stemmed from homosexual priests making inappropriate advances toward teenage boys, a combination of hebephilia and ephebophilia, I believe it’s called, not pedophilia. None of these are accepted by the Catholic Church, and you know that, so quit trying to say things that simply aren’t true for shock value.

    3) Why do same sex-union deserve the same rights as hetero couples when the couples are inherently different, one has a complete reproductive system (I said complete, not necessarily functional) and one does not? When the legal benefits and privileges afforded to married couples are based on the potential consequences of that complete reproductive system, then why does a couple who does not have a complete reproductive system deserve those benefits and privileges? And if a complete reproductive system is not longer considered to be necessary for a marriage then wouldn’t that mean none of us really need any of those benefits and privileges?

  • No, our argument is is that this is ultimately about anal sex and weird sex and teaching our children that anal sex or weird sex is normal at a very young age. Marriage can also be a union of several people who are in love? Who are you tell people they cannot be married to the same man or same woman?

  • Victoria

    There was no judging, just a healthy debate that has spanned years and years and years. All the talk about homosexual marriage being wrong is a bit judgy in my books since you are now telling others how to live their lives.

  • Elio Paul

    Marriage is non-discriminatory, Anyone can get married. Also a right is not a behavior. The whole concept is basically illogical.

  • Victoria

    You are aware that heterosexual couple engage in anal sex and weird sex from time to time. It isnt just homosexuals.

  • Leila Miller

    Hi Marya!

    1. I never bullied anyone. But even if you were bullied, does that mean it’s okay to bully others? I thought we were trying for an anti-bullying society. I’d like to see that be the norm.

    2. Your definition is very, very broad and encompasses pretty much anything legal binding between adults, doesn’t it? How can it mean “marriage”? Marriage is certainly a subset of your definition, but it cannot be only that, correct? How would we distinguish “marriage” from other “legal unions between consenting adults” in your opinion?

    3. There are many who want to expand the definition even more than what is being attempted now. Someday they could win, if minds become open enough. And, your being okay with polygamy and marriage between sisters confirms my point for #3. Thanks for your honesty that there is indeed a slippery slope here.

  • Christina, I absolutely agree. I respect people who just have a different definition of marriage/love/relationships. They see nothing wrong with poly marriages or gay marriages, but many of the gay marriage types are just a bunch of brainwashed zombies. They keep saying “love is love”, but they are the same to quickly judge a man or woman having an affair with his wife and have no respect for people in polyamorous marriages and are actually quite disgusted and judgmental about them. I can respect if they think marriage should not have definition; I do not respect people who want to recreate a new morality and tell me that my definition of morality is wrong while theirs is correct.

  • That is not what she was saying. Read again.

  • Elio Paul

    What is American is the Rule of Law. The state sanctioning marriage puts force of contract behind it to involve the state on its dissolution (divorce) to ensure children are protected, the state’s next generation that will support it in a sane manner (hopefully).

  • Hence is why the government has no right to be doing marriages, but that is my opinion.

  • Again, but why should the law recognize that relationship? And why should the law recognize that relationship in the same it recognizes a marital relationship, when the relationships are inherently different? Will anyone please tell me why the government should recognize the love between two people? And more importantly, why the heck would you want them to?

  • Hoosier Pappa

    A fact check would reveal that there are as many cases of child molestation in California education institutions in a single year, than there have been reported the same of the Catholic Church in the last 60. The Catholic Church is an easy target for this when the media has relinquished the responsibility to report fairly and accurately. Hello.. NBC.. CBS.. ABC.. CNN…

  • How is polygamous and bigamous marriage harmful to society? See, your losing your argument again, if all parties involved are happy and agree, then why deny them a marriage license?

  • Leila Miller

    Victoria, marriage has never been about “wanting our love recognized”. The state has no vested interesting in affirming and recognizing the romantic feelings of adults. Why would it care about that? The state doesn’t care if I am feeling romantic towards my husband. The state only cares about marriage insofar as it serves to bond a father to his wife and to the children that naturally spring from such a union. Otherwise, why would the state care about who loves whom? Again, it begs the question: What is marriage?

  • So society doesn’t want people living alone? So what you are saying is that society looks down on bachelors and old maids. This is where I cannot wrap my head around your argument. What do you care if someone dies alone? What if that is exactly what they wanted?

  • Leila Miller

    We all have the same rights right now.

  • Victoria

    I agree bond a husband to wife, or a wife to wife or husband to husband and any children that come from that union. Homosexuals would like the legal rights that come with the legal union that the State recognizes as marriage. I think that is what the argument is about. Marriage, again is tough to define. It should be vague and it should be all encompassing regardless of if it is 2 women or 2 men. it definately has to do with taxes, home ownership, having the right to make decisions if your partner falls ill etc.

  • franis

    There are already legal mechanisms for power of attorney, trusts, deeds, advanced directives, wills, etc. Again this is not about enabling people who engage in homosexual acts the ability to function in society with dignity. This about the word marriage, and all that it entails. This is about those who want emotion to validate laws and not reason. This is about the state mandating that I give validity to the homosexual act, which as I have already laid out before is disordered on scientific and logical reasons. Should my country force this mandate upon me, I will gladly pay any fine, serve any jail time, loose any professional license. I will not abandon reason and logic.

  • Leila Miller

    James, I think you are being naive. If the federal law states that “discrimination” based on sexual orientation is illegal, in conjunction with federal laws recognizing gay “marriage”, then the Church, and Catholic photographers, bakers, printers, reception venues, etc., become legal “discriminators” if they follow their conscience and their religion on these issues; they will be forced to either accommodate that which their faith does not allow, or go out of business. It’s already happening. I am glad that you are openly speaking out against it! (At least I assume you are….??)

  • They are not legal rights, they are benefits and privileges afforded by the government to married couples for the purpose of either promoting and encouraging those unique relationships (1 man, 1 woman) that are the most efficient, cost effective way of ensuring the next generation of tax-payers or to stabilize and protect those unique relationships that are the most efficient, cost effective way of ensuring the next generation of tax-payers. If the relationship itself has nothing to do with the next generation of tax-payers, then there is no reason for the benefits and privileges in the first place. Nobody gets benefits and privileges from the government just for being in love with someone.

  • Leila Miller

    Marriage is not defined as “being in love”. It has certain intrinsic qualities that have always been part of its definition (i.e., heterosexual in nature, ordered toward procreation even if no children are produced, and requiring consummation). “Being in love” is not and never has been a requirement of marriage. So, you need a new word if that is what you are talking about.

  • Elio Paul

    Society must reverse course and quit with the sanctioning of homosexuality. You realize that behavior is about 10 times worse in regards to pedophilia than heterosexuality. Can we all agree that is a bad thing? The church was and always is under assault by its enemies, and modernism has made its inroads over the last century. It is simply a reflection of the society trying to change the church, with the recruitment of men with those proclivities.

  • This article was either written by the world’s worst debater, or it is evidence that there isn’t a decent logical argument that gays should not be allowed to get married, without violating the separation of church and state. This person tried to answer the question, “why should gays not be allowed to get married” simply by dancing around the question. Their response…

    1. Some proponents of gay marriage are bullies.
    2. Some of those who support gay marriage do not know what the definition of marriage in a legal sense should be.

    3. They will not accept the following argument against gay marriage… child molesters and animal rapists will make similar arguments in the future for marriages in those instances that 2 consenting homosexuals are making for their right to marriage now.

    Wow, I have to hand it to you, you should be a Supreme Court Justice with those logic and reasoning skills. Then again, what can be expected of the logic skills of someone who fell for transubstantiation.

  • Leila Miller

    American, are you agreeing then that we should not be calling these new things “marriage”, but instead “civil unions”? So, you agree that the word “marriage” should not be redefined to mean something it’s not? And with civil unions, you speak about certain things being “illegal” as if they always will be. Why do you assume those things (polygamy, zoophilia, etc.) will never be accepted one day in law, as we “progress” sexually? If you do your research, you will see that those groups are already watching the gay movement closely for when their own turn comes. Even the Ivy Leagues have academics who have started opening the door for acceptance of some unpopular sexual orientations. (Check Peter Singer’s views on bestiality, and the recent Yale seminar in which the students were conditioned to be more accepting of those who have an orientation towards animals. It’s only a matter of time before more “progressive” minds follow suit.)

    As far as divorce, I agree! I am a Catholic and of course I agree! Contraception, divorce, both have led to a breakdown of the meaning of marriage. However, the answer is to fix what is wrong, not to further water down the meaning and purpose of marriage.

    I know it’s fashionable for folks to bring up the priest scandal when Catholics talk about any sexual/moral issue. But remember, it is precisely because those priests (who were mostly homosexual, by the way) did not live according to the teachings of the Church that this unspeakable harm was done to children. By decrying the actions of the priests, you are confirming that Church teaching on sexual issues is correct. If only those priests had acted in accordance with their Catholic Faith and the moral law, no children would have ever been harmed.

    By the way, the rate of offense in the nation’s public schools is about 100 times (not percent, times) that of Catholic priests, who offend at about the same rate as the general population. Do you often tell public school teachers and administrators (who “pass the trash” so often in cover-up that it has a name) that they should be “hanging their heads in shame and getting to work cleaning up house” before they teach another thing? It is in schools (and families) where children have the highest risk of being abused. Maybe this AP story will help you see the problem there, which continues to this day, and I hope you will be properly and publicly outraged, and speak against the public school institution 100 times as loudly as you speak against the Catholic Church:


  • MarriageEquality2013

    Are they gay unborn human babies?

  • Leila Miller

    And in Canada, Catholic citizens are being further and further marginalized. Some provinces and territories now forbid the teaching of Catholic sexual morality in Catholic schools! Religious liberty, which is a fundamental human right that comes from our Creator and is to be protected by the state, is being usurped by the state in favor of “sexual rights” and a redefinition of marriage, neither of which can never legitimately trump religious liberty.

  • Leila Miller

    Well said, Francis. It is a fearful thing when emotions are the basis for our laws and not reason and logic. Those on both sides of the issue should be able to see the danger there.

  • Wes

    I think this post NEEDS more EMPHASIS…

  • They cannot be married.

  • And I think you are overreacting. The First Amendment is pretty strong.

    Not too long ago, the government tried to go after a Lutheran School for firing a teacher in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    The Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled for that the church/school had a constitutional right to choose its leaders and the ADA didn’t apply.


    Likewise, a church would have the same right to determine its sacraments and any anti-discrimination laws would not apply, either. Churches can still refuse to perform interfaith and interracial marriages, if they don’t want to.

  • MarriageEquality2013


  • I haven’t asked, but I’m pretty sure that my lesbian neighbors were not having anal sex.

    In fact, I doubt they were doing anything weirder than what most married couples do.

  • Leila Miller

    Bethany, it’s the answer I’m looking for, too. I can’t understand why folks think that it’s the state’s job to affirm their romantic relationships?

    As for big words like “ontological” or “intrinsic”, I apologize, but there is no other way to say it correctly. “What is the nature of a thing?” This is basic philosophy, and the basis of Western Civilization. Truth matters. We have to understand a thing’s nature, and use it accordingly. This is “right order” and where we have right order according the nature of things, human beings flourish. Where we have disordered thinking and actions, human beings tend not to flourish. Our culture does not flourish as we continue to un-definine marriage. Children especially are hurt. I rarely hear folks talk about what happens to the kids who are created for a couple who cannot have created them together, even with all parts functioning. Do they have no rights to have their mother and father? Look at what the secular journal, Slate, has honorably admitted about sperm donor kids, for example:


  • Hello!

    Thank you Leila for the article and for standing up for the truth.
    I just wanted to comment on those who say that the bible doesn’t condemn homosexualty etc. and also say that we are ignorant of scripture and that they come off as the “scholars” of Scripture. This really bugs me when I read or hear it because it is no true.
    I know the Bible does condemn it and so do you, Leila. The one’s that pretend that it is not condemned in the Bible are liers… either by not telling the truth about the bible or about their lack of reading and knowledge thereof. I’m guessing they just did a google search at best.
    I have read the passages that say it so clearly and simply, you would have to be the dullest person who has ever lived to not comprend it.
    I heard it said that the devil uses wordsmithing to propogate his errors.
    This whole issue of homosexual “marriage” is one of his masterpieces.
    He is seducing many but worst of all, people in governments are saying what
    Lucifer said at his rebillion… I will not serve… in other words… I decide what is right and wrong… I decide what is good and evil… I decide what is marriage… not God!
    I also heard that one thing that we have that the angels don’t, is the power to reproduce… to cooperate with God in creating a new human life.
    This makes satan and the other devils jealous and very angry. So by perverting this most precious gift from God is a direct affront to God Himself because God is intimately
    involved in the most sacred act of procreation.
    The devil wants to make humans steril. Remember, he is a murderer and a lier from the beginning as Our Lord told us.

    I hope and pray that people who support this blashemy called homosexual marriage will wake up and see the deception. They need our prayers and for us to have the courage to tell them the truth so that they may seek repentance and salvation.
    God love you!

  • MarriageEquality2013

    You probably appreciate the tax breaks that the LAW gives you from your marriage.

    AndI won’t even comment on the rest of that nonsense you are spewing.

  • Leila Miller

    Victoria, I have never seen where “love” is part of the definition of a legally or morally binding marriage? Where are you getting that as part of your definition?

  • Brian

    I think the first point is silly. Anyone who changes one of their core beliefs because they have a fear of being seen as “mean” must not have been very steadfast in that belief to begin with.

  • kelso

    Good thinking. One could argue similarly with pro-aborts. They cannot define what they mean by “fetus,” even though the very word, from the Latin, means offspring. The offspring of men are babies or children. Nor can they define “life” or “person.” In fact, this a major problem with specialized education. No one learns Aristotelian Logic, so they are unable to put concepts into genus and species, which is to define. One TV commentator just just referred to a pre-born baby as “this thing.” Ethics comes fourth in the Aristotelian hierarchy, after psychology, which is actually the “study of life.” Camille Paglia (and others) are at least honest when they admit (as she did in an interview with Solon magazine) that abortion is “the killing of a human person,” yet they still defend it as a “good” for unwanted pregnancies. They cannot, therefore, define “goodness” or “the good.”

  • Brian

    Hardly because they had “a fear of being seen as mean” though…

  • Leila Miller

    Actually, the Catholic Church is growing in numbers worldwide.

    What is the message you disapprove of? That marriage is a union between man and woman? Is that so odd? Everyone in the history of the world believed that as a given, no matter their religion or no religion until yesterday (historically speaking) when a few people decided to undo the definition.

    By the way, the Church acknowledges civil divorce, but does not “allow” it; it’s a civil matter. A Church annulment is not a divorce (even in civil court, they are different things; again, definitions and distinctions matter in discussions).

  • Victoria

    You asked what my definition is and that is it. I think love it a vital part. Everyone seems to be more concerned with the government only carrying about creating more tax payers and only allowing marriage ot be between 2 people who can reproduce. The fact of the matter is it that everyone who wants to get married should be allowed. No law should stop them and they should all get the same rights a privileges as an heterosexual couple. I didnt realize my only job as a women and wife was to reproduce, since men in a marriage are incapable.

  • Leila Miller

    Jessica, it’s what I see every day. Even the most hearty Catholic folks (who will never change their minds on this issue) are overwhelmed by the ferocity and ugliness of the other side. The name-calling, vulgarities, ad hominem attacks, viciousness and emotionalism of so many of our opponents is leading even the strong ones to take a breather. Yesterday on fb, oh my. Many Catholics I know could not take the attacks and the accusations, from people they love, all because they do not agree with redefining (undefining) marriage. In simple debates of reason, the names I have been called by gay rights folks is shocking even to me, and I thought I was past shocking. So ugly, so mean, and the hallmark is often a shrill mocking. Bullying the likes of which I’ve never seen in my life. For a movement that so decries bullying, they sure do more than their share of it.

    So, though my battle-worn friends will never back down, you can be sure that the weaker among Americans are not up to the fight. They give in. They simply cannot sustain the wrath that comes, nor do they have the will or nerve to stand up for what is not popular at the moment. Again, human nature. Most folks will go along with the crowd the minute it becomes uncomfortable. And bullies make things very, very uncomfortable.

    As for how many gay activists I’ve asked for a definition over the past two to three years? Probably hundreds. I debate on my blog and on facebook and via email every day. I’ve asked the question till I’m blue in the face. Why don’t you answer: What is marriage?

    As for the slippery slope comment: When has “love” been a part of the definition of marriage? I don’t have to be in love even now in America to have a valid marriage. Feelings of romantic love are wonderful and ideal, but they are not intrinsic to a marriage. No one checks to see if you are “in love” before granting a license to marry. With that in mind, please define marriage.

    As for your assertion that everyone who loves each other should be allowed to legally marry….You put no restrictions on that statement? Everyone? “Equal rights for ALL”? Respectfully, I don’t think you have thought that through, but if you have and still mean it, then yes, you exemplify that the slippery slope does exist on this issue.

  • DoNtJuDGeMeIMnOtAbOOk

    Please support “No Gay Divorce”…my neighbor divorced her wife because she can’t bear a child and I did not want this to happened to me.

  • Leila Miller

    This is what bullying is. I have said nothing hateful (can you cut and paste the “hate”?) and yet instead of debating me on the points, you make a comment like this.

    I am not a Protestant, but I like what Rick Warren has said on this:

    “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

  • Leila Miller

    I did not delete your comment. I have no control over this site. I was out for an hour or two visiting with a friend. I can’t sit by the computer every minute. Sorry about that. 🙂

    I think your comment did appear above, as I answered it just now, and then I scrolled down and saw this.

  • Leila Miller

    I was with a friend and her children for a couple of hours. I also have a three-year-old child at home. Sorry that I am not at your disposable at every minute. Thank you for your patience from here on in.

  • Leila Miller

    Because I am not glued to my computer. I have children, and I was with a friend for a couple of hours. Sorry you had to wait. Thanks in advance for your patience from now on.

  • Leila Miller

    I have deleted nothing. I debate folks every day and don’t delete anyone. Why would I delete you? I wonder if I will get an apology for that false accusation? That would be nice, but I won’t expect it.

  • Leila Miller

    I have not deleted a single comment. That is a false accusation from about three of you now.

  • Leila Miller

    I have not deleted a single comment. That false accusation has now come from about four of you. Will any of you apologize for it?

  • Leila Miller

    This is basically a hit-and-run comment. Was there a question or dialogue there?

  • When we’re speaking about government recognized marriage, then yes, we’re going to look at precisely what are the reasons for the government to be involved in any way, shape, or form, in marriage. Yes, love is important, love is actually an important aspect of any and all relationships we have, because love is working for the good of another, whether we feel like it or not. This should be an aspect of every relationship. And that’s just it, love is part of the RELATIONSHIP, but not every relationship is (or should be) a marriage. But when it comes to the government, and WHY they recognize marriages, it’s because they are concerned about the growth and continuation of a stable and productive society. They shouldn’t be interfering in our love lives.
    Not to mention it’s not about only allowing marriage to be between 2 people with a complete reproductive system, it’s about recognizing that THAT specific type of relationship, which has up until this point in history, always been known as marriage, is what will contribute, in a cost effective way to the growth and continuation of a stable society, and therefore should be encouraged and protected.

  • Leila Miller

    There is great fickleness and weakness in human nature. How do nations go from civilized to savage in a matter of years? It is human nature to go with the crowd. Yes, few folks have convictions that they will stay with when things get uncomfortable and scary. The saints are examples of those who will die rather than deny what is true and good.

  • Leila Miller

    Well, John, since my article was in no way “trying to answer the question, ‘why should gays not be allowed to get married'”, then I think I can safely say that it is you who does not know how to debate a point, as you cannot even identify what my piece was about. When I write something on the topic that you erroneously thought this one was about, I will let you know.

  • Leila Miller

    Jesus did not mention bestiality, pedophilia or genocide either. Does that mean he’s for those? And as a Catholic, you know that we are not sola scriptura.

    If you are a Christian, you might want to read this when thinking of marriage and what Jesus’ alleged “silence”:


  • Leila Miller

    The moral law is part of Divine Revelation. The Deposit of Faith is revelation.

  • Leila Miller

    I am against sin (sin is no good for the human person) and also against redefining words. If that makes me a bigot, so be it. But I think you cheapen the word bigot when you use it against people who simply disagree with you. Are you a bigot because you are against adultery? Or pedophilia? See, it gets silly.

  • Leila Miller

    Zach, marriage is not defined as “love” or measured by the capacity to love, so you are addressing something I did not address. If you read some of the above arguments/comments, you will see this discussed more thoroughly. Love has never been a requirement of marriage. (No marriage license asks if you are in love.) We are talking about definitions of marriage.

  • Leila Miller

    I guess time will tell, James.

  • Chad KS

    Leila, thank you for your comments, they were thought-provoking. My question is this: are your comments intended only for Catholics? I understand that yours is a Catholic blog, but as an atheist I am finding it hard to accept your points as reasonable independent of theism. Maybe I am not your target audience, but I too would like to understand arguments against homosexual marriage, or even polygamy, but from a secular point of view. I believe it is important that we legislate via secular language and motivations, because otherwise we would be less inclusive of those non-theists among us. I am not interested in arguing for any aspects of DOMA, especially Section 3, but I am genuinely interested in any broader arguments you might wish to offer. Just for example, your slippery slope argument isn’t threatening to me, because consent is a major barrier to legalization of zoophilia or pedophilia.

  • Leila Miller

    I will be stepping away from the comments for a while. Last time I walked away to visit with a friend for a couple hours, I was accused by multiple people of not answering questions and deleting comments (untrue). Hopefully, folks will understand I have a lot of children and can’t sit here every minute. Thanks for patience, and you can always reach me through my blog if you need a response and I miss a comment. God bless!

  • Loraine

    Why is incest prohibited? There is no really satisfactory answer to the question, but in the context of my talk today, the most appropriate explanation is simply that the prohibition stems from the fact that the roles people play in society should not be confused. My mother should not be my sister nor should my brother be my son. My father should not be my brother-in-law nor my sister my stepdaughter. A famous French poem from the sixteenth century says:

    Here lies the daughter, here lies the father,
    here lies the sister, here lies the brother,
    here lie husband and wife,
    and yet there are only two bodies

  • MarriageEquality2013

    I apologize for my strong words. I just feel very strongly about this topic. Love is love.
    How is a same-sex couple hurting you if they are legally married? And I’m not speaking about being married in the church. Just a legal contract between two men or two women allowing them the same legal rights as you and I. Where is the harm?

    And nothing in your article has answered that question.

  • Amy

    What do you have against gay marriage? I guess I don’t get it. How does it really affect you?

  • As a Catholic I have struggled with this for many years. My concern is twofold: 1) marriage ahas always helped prevent/ end promiscuity among heterosexuals, by keeping this institution away from homosexuals, proponents of DOMA are promoting a de facto culture of promiscuity and despair, and 2) Domestic violence: victims suffering from domestic violence in committed same-sex partnerships have also suffered discrimination on the part of the legal establishment because their cases are not as ‘important’ as those of abuse victims in marriages. Marriage would create legal precedence for equality in protection from abuse within said unions.

  • Blobee

    Thanks for bringing out the bullying aspects in the efforts
    to change public opinion. I also want to
    say I’ve experienced the same unwillingness to define marriage, or even to
    admit the reason for the existing marriage laws, by gay marriage advocates. I
    contend the marriage laws were enacted to protect women children because these
    were primarily economically dependent on the man in this union. The responders
    call me names, same ones you are called, but never address my point. I contend
    that the state (government) has no interest in a relationship that can never
    produce children, since the state’s primary interest in marriage is to ensure
    economic and social protection and responsibility for possible children and
    dependent women, though for women less so now since they are more economically
    self-sufficient. And family law has changed to reflect that. I point out the
    state has no interest in many kinds of relationships and so has no laws
    regarding them because there is no state interest. For instance, there are no
    general laws regarding responsibilities between friends, or siblings, or
    cousins, or even neighbors, even if they choose to reside together and share
    all things in common. So marriage must be unique in this regard and there needs
    to be an answer as to why the state feels a need to license it to begin with. I
    also have presented the slippery slope argument, suggesting a marriage between
    two sisters, say, could lead to passing of pensions, social security and
    inheritances without tax ad infinitum through generations by “marriage”
    to younger family members by each succeeding generation. I’m called names, but
    never given any kind of real answer to why this would not occur. Forget about
    even bringing up the moral reasons against gay “marriage” because those
    will be rejected out of hand, but to me they are even more important than the
    civil reasons against it. What a sad state of affairs.

  • MarriageEquality2013

    I don’t get it either.

  • LFMazz

    I have this constant problem that is yet to be solved by any proponent of same sex marriage. Apart from the excellent point which Leila raises, “What is marriage?”; there is another question which no person who asserts that gays are being denied some rights that heterosexuals obtain by virtue of marriage has been able to answer.

    What specific federal right is being denied homosexuals who are not allowed to be married in let’s say KY?

  • Blobee

    Survivor pensions and social security, as well as spousal inheritance without estate tax; in other words, it’s about the money.

  • Susan

    But marriage IS under government ‘control’ right now…The Defense of Marriage Act….that’s what we want to strike down.

  • Many engage in anal sex. Ever heard of a strap on? Or anal oral sex.

  • No. I am aware of it. I am very aware you are one of them and that many of your ilk are members of such creeps.

  • Susan

    They want hospital privileges when their spouse is sick, tax equality, and to be free from fear. What is so awful about that?

  • I don’t give a shit if your Canadian. Canada is full of hypocrisy. The Canadian Embassy protected my rapist and has allowed him to practice as a gynecologist even though he has a history of women reporting his sexual misconduct.

    Also, Canada struck down a case for polygamist to get married but gays can get married? Canada sounds like a hypocritical little British outpost if you ask me.

  • Susan

    So, should people who cannot procreate be denied marriage? Infertile couples? People older than 50? So if marriage is all about procreation, let’s make sure only fertile people get married. If that we the case, I would not have my whole family.

  • Susan

    but if a couple cannot procreate (due to age or infertility), then they should not be allowed to get married?

  • You are telling ME how to live my life. You are telling me that if I don’t engage in poopy sex then I am abnormal. You are denying the causes of suicide for other people and you are denying that no matter what environment you may raise your kid in they can grow up to be a variety of different things. It is irrelevant and you shouldn’t be bullying people into believing something that their conscience tells them otherwise. You also talk in the same nonsensical platitudes that other “pro-marriage” people use. I don’t even think you put any thought in your arguments because it is the exact same sentences repeated over and over again by your ilk.

  • But who are you to decide whether it is right or wrong? Just saying.

  • Oh, STFU, it was YOUR types who infested OUR church with YOUR gay sons and denied that homosexuality and pedophilia have ANY correlation. You told us we need to enter the 21st-century. You told us we should be more open and accepting. You told us that Fr. Gay Man is a great guy and a say while he is raping every teenage boy he sees up the bum and turning them gay. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COME ON HERE AND PREACH TO ME. DO NOT PEE ON MY LEG AND TELL ME ITS RAINING. Scumbag.

  • But there is a valid question as to whether the Church’s understandings of Natural Law are infallible.

    Go read Aquinas sometime. Aquinas was brilliant, but he was working with 13th century science. Where modern science has shown he is wrong, the Church has changed accordingly.

  • You seem to be the resident expert on anal sex on this thread.

    Methinks someone doth protest too much…

  • I cannot marry the man I am in love with because he is married? Will you fight for my rights?

  • But why just TWO people?

  • You are right. I hate using birth control. It makes me fat, bloated and my risk for stroke, bloodclots and breast cancer go up. Not to mention that it also messes with your sexual hormones. There have been actual studies on women who met a partner while on BC, married them and while taken of the pill they find they are not attracted to their spouse at all? Because it releases unnecessary hormones which causes your brain to falsely think you are attracted to Craig when in actuality, you are disgusted by his presence. I hate birth control.

  • Just curious. If you think love is love then do you also support polyamorous marriages? Because if you don’t then you are a hypocrite and have no idea what you are talking about.

  • The smallest violin in the world is playing for your grief.

  • How do you know he/she is married?

  • Yeah, after being forced to sit through 50 Shades of Gray, let’s just say I am a bit freaked out. Really? Who would want to have it in the butt, where poop comes from?

  • TheDisguiseOfMorality

    Since no man and woman marriage has ever had anal sex.

  • Once I read a book where this guy wrote a whole paragraph about licking his girlfriend’s anus. You might like to read it. It is called Kushiel’s Mercy. Gross.

  • Just read Kushiel’s Mercy.

  • Much less watch “Girls” on HBO. Lena Dunham’s character only engages in anal sex and then she wonders why all her ex boyfriends are gay? This is what YOUR children are watching all day and actually think they have a relation to it. Next thing you know your daughter will only be doing anal and then wonder why all the guys she ever dated or slept with turned out to be gay.

    PS: I am not Catholic, just grossed out.

  • And many of those couples are gay or bi.

  • Blobee

    We are not moral relativists who, like you, believe anything is all right as long as it (supposedly) doesn’t hurt anyone else. Catholics know even though gay “marriage” seems not to affect anyone else, in actuality it affects everyone else, lowering the moral standards of everyone and debasing the sanctity of the marriage vow. Life is supposed to beget life. Marriage is supposed to precede begetting of children as a means of establishing paternity to ensure economic support and to provide a stable environment and care for the children. The purpose of the sexual organs is primarily for the procreation of children. Sexual excitement is intended to bring together a man and women for the purpose of engaging in an act that will cause a new life. (I have often thought without sexual excitement, the human race would be in danger of extinction because I doubt men and women would have much to do with each other.) To use sexual excitement for entertainment is to subvert its purpose. To pretend this is nobody else’s business besides the couple in question is to say that the society has no interest in marriage, which we know is not true. The current marriage laws have no interest in checking the fertility of the individuals entering into the marriage or the intention to have children, because the presumption is that they are fertile, and screening for this would create an needless burden on the government.

  • Does it matter? Do you believe in the right to life for the unborn child?

  • Blobee

    Yes, and this is a horror too. Just because the same perversity is being practiced in heterosexual marriages only shows how far we have slid into the pigsty. My parents’ generation (in general) would NEVER have done this. Of course, there have always been those who did wrong, even in the privacy of their own bedrooms. You should read some of the Theology of the Body by John Paul II to understand what the Catholic Church teaches about the proper role of sex and marriage.

  • They have, but those people are gross and their marriage is creepy.

  • An actual quote from 50 Shades of Grey, this book is read by most women more than the Bible:

    Spanking, a butt plug, and more kinky f—ery.
    “‘Do you want me to spank you, Anastasia?’ Everything south of my waist tightens deliciously. I realize I’ve wanted this since he threatened me during lunch … He smacks me hard so I cry out, then sticks two fingers inside me. He withdraws them immediately, spreading the moisture up, over, and around my anus … ‘I have a small present for you here,’ Christian whispers. Holy crap. A butt plug … He cups my sex and his fingers gently caress my clitoris … He pushes the cold plug slowly into me … It’s heavy … and strange … There!” (115, 116, 117)

  • We know about how God defined marriage. You do not alter, change or add amendments to the word of God. As Catholics, , I would hope we NEVER “give in” to what this morally decayed society of today votes on or decrees. If it ain’t from God, according to His word, it just AIN;T. I , personally have to “work on” my major weaknesses of patience and anger. I have “come down” on these misinformed Catholic (or Christian) Bashers like a Drill Sergeant dresses down recruits during basic combat training! (26 years. Retired). This method does nothing but get my blood pressure sky-high, and often sends me to the Confessional. I will NEVER approve of any change to God’s definition of marriage, but I will tone down my objections and try to be more gentle in setting these idiots straight! Leila Miller, you have written an excellent article and your call for the virtue of charity is right on target! You’re a much better (or perhaps, more patient) Catholic than am I,, and I pray that society will do an about-face, and maybe then we can return to a more loving moral time.

  • Words are redefined all the time, just ask Webster’s. You don’t cry foul when that happens. I use it against people who are active bigots, denying humans rights they deserve. Against adultery? That doesn’t even make sense and doesn’t compare. Adultery is not a human being. Pedophilia is not a human. Get a clue. You can’t be a bigot against adultery. Not possible according to the definition. We wouldn’t want to go redefining things now, would we?

  • Leila Miller

    Peer pressure all the same. Human nature is to go along with the increasingly loud and angry crowd or else get marginalized, vilified, lose one’s livelihood or position, be seen as a fool. Most people do not have the courage or nerve to withstand the pressure of going against the zeitgeist.

  • Did we hurt your feelings?

  • Yes, EVERYONE in the world. Even though many countries have legalized gay marriage and are tolerant. Yet, you still go get divorces and nobody every complains about that! I know all this, I went to catholic HS and took many classes on the topic.

  • And that has what to do with gay marriage? The simple fact is gays cannot get married in the first place because people like you think we live in a theocracy.

  • That has what to do with anything?

  • Leila Miller

    Thank you for your apology. I appreciate it. Please remember, my article was not written to address that question, that is why you don’t see the answer to your question there. Here are some links to good articles which may answer your question, or at least lead you to consider another perspective:



  • And your “Preachers (if you are a Christian) don’t run off with the organ player now and then?. Your remark about Priests is too ridiculous to even comment on! (you are stereotyping) –and has nothing at all to do with the definition of marriage. If you have ANY normal religious beliefs, even someone as ignorant as you should know that NO ONE accepts the act of molestation.. You’re way out in left field! (Look up THAT definition!

  • Leila Miller

    Please don’t argue a straw man. Marriage is not “all about” procreation and no one said that. But yes, it is intrinsically ordered toward procreation, even if children do not result. That is the nature of the sex act, written into our own biology. The nature of a male/female union is unique among all relationships, because children — human beings — are born from it. It is not like any other union. And for the sake of the children that come (by the billions) from such unions, and who have a right to know their mother and father and be raised by them wherever possible, the state cares about making those (and only those) relationships permanent and stable. The state has no interest in the romantic feelings of adults, and has no reason to affirm gay relationships.

  • Leila Miller

    That’s porn. Also a sin against virtue.

  • You made all these broad generalizations and did not back them up with any facts. Same thing every catholic does in the gay marriage argument.

  • Leila Miller

    Any nation that has legalized gay “marriage” has only done so “yesterday” by historical standards. My points stands.

  • Hang in there, Hoosier! These Catholic-hating idiots don’t have a brain in their head (or their head is somewhere else). We have to “offer up” these accusations and untruths just like Catholics of old did. You’ve got–I should say, WE’VE got GOD in our corner!. I’m proud to be a Catholic!

  • New word unnecessary — old one still applicable; sodomy

  • Way to tell ’em, Satmara, way to tell ’em!!

  • Leila Miller

    Not at all. I teach my children to apologize when they have made a false accusation. It would be the decent thing for you to apologize. You seem to be almost proud of your falsehood, though. Why?

  • You’re RIGHT!!! They have the right to have a civil commitment to one another for as long as they both shall live!

  • Leila Miller

    Hi Chad! Interestingly, if you read what the zoophiles and pedophiles are saying, they believe that consent can be given by animals and children. If you email me via my blog, I can give you some of the articles that speak to that. Ages of consent are being lowered (International Planned Parenthood is pushing children’s sexual “rights” fast and furiously), and for animals, even though the zoophiles say they consent, do we really need consent when we don’t have to have consent to kill and eat the same animals, legally?

    As far as secular arguments, you really need the following book on your shelf, as it covers, brilliantly, all the points that can be covered:


  • You seriously make the assumption that gay people don’t care about incest and polygamy? How many sweeping generalizations will you make? Just cluelessness.

  • Leila Miller

    I thought I’d respond to the issue of “equality” since it’s in your screen name. Something to think about:

    “And so a complex and much more fundamental debate degrades into a political football that inspires narrow and misunderstood appeals to ‘equality.’ As if equality is some kind of universal good. It’s not. It’s just as unjust to treat unequal things equally as it is to treat equal things unequally.”

    The whole thing, here:


  • Yes, and countries abandoned slavery “yesterday” by historical standards.

  • Sure do! Live together, have a civil commitment of their love for one another and the right to obey GOD’S word about the definition of marriage,,,,….. Plain and simple!

  • You made many false accusations and arguments in your article. Are you going to apologize to the gay community?

  • Leila Miller

    ??? Jacob, he didn’t even get the topic of my article right. I don’t think he’s up to this debate. Sorry. And here is a fact: Gay people cannot biologically consummate a marriage. It’s no broad generalization, just reality. Another fact: “Love” is not a requirement of marriage, and is not intrinsic to its definition. That’s a fact, not a broad generalization.

  • Sure they are! They are willing to disobey the Word of God on the definition of marriage too.

  • Leila Miller

    James, nope. I am familiar with Aquinas. The moral law does not change, and morality is not changed simply because science advances. Morality and science are distinct. The Church is not charged with teaching science, but she is charged with teaching the moral law, which is unchanging.

  • It’s funny because we don’t live in a theocracy.

  • Trying to make your excellent point clear to these numbskulls is like trying to teach an armadillo to read!

  • They can’t biologically make a child, but last I checked it wasn’t a part of the definition of marriage.

  • Still nothing in response?

  • Leila Miller

    I am not “against” gay people, so I guess I am not a bigot. I am against sin, which is distinct from the person who commits it. We are more than the sum of our sins. We can separate people from their actions (love the sinner, hate the sin).

    Words are not usually redefined to mean a thing that they are not. If you can show me where that happens, I’d be interested. If red is redefined as blue, red does not cease to exist in its essence, even as it’s been “unnamed”.

    For some reason, your comment reminded me of this interesting article:


    And a question: In your opinion, was Obama a bigot before he “changed his mind” on gay “marriage” just a few short months ago? Did you call him a bigot then? Or, did you just assume he was lying about being a bigot for political expediency? (And is either one good in your eyes?)

    I just always wonder about being called a bigot on an issue that “fifteen minutes ago” none of us disagreed on — no matter political party, no matter creed, no matter age, no matter race, no matter state in life, none of us were fighting about this. Goodness, I recall that even gay folks were not demanding marriage even 15 to 20 years ago, and many still today know it’s not a matter of bigotry, it’s a matter of being ontologically impossible:


  • You do realize that God’s definition of marriage has included, Biblically speaking:

    One man and One woman (Gen. 2:24)

    One man, one woman, multiple concubines (Abraham, Gideon, Nahor, Jacob, Eliphaz, Gideon, Caleb, Manassah, Solomon, Belshazzar)

    One man, one woman, and that woman’s slaves. (Gen. 16)

    One man and multiple women. (Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Ashur, GIdeon, Elkanah, David, Solomon, REhaboam, Abijah, Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Joeholachin, Belshazzar)

    One man and his brothers widow (Genesis 38:6-10)

    A rapist and his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

    A male soldier and a prisoner of war (Numbers 31:1-18; Deuteronomy 21:11-14)

    And a male and female slave if so assigned by their owners (Exodus 21:4)

    Sooo…God’s definition seems fairly broad. I like the Polygany (one man + lots of women) version. Can I have that in the eyes of the church, since it’s ok in God’s book?



  • You are against their rights as human beings. They are redefined to add something or slightly change the definition. Gay marriage does not change the definition as drastically as the definition of red changing to blue. None of us were fighting about this? People have been fighting for this for a long time. There you go with your biggest generalization of all. Enjoy your theocracy!

  • G

    It has been clearly said that the Catholic church is the only institution that has been given the ability to fight evil. No other group has publicly stated this. It is also the only body to state that it is the one true church. Wouldn’t that open you to criticism, attacks and discrimination. Oh, and the sexual scandal is not a Catholic issue, it’s a people issue.

  • Amy

    That certainly clears it up. What would happen if our moral standards were lowered? What would happen if the sanctity of marriage was debased? What does that look like to you? Is it scary?

  • Roofoo

    wow you’re gross.

  • roofoo

    You’re gross too, shame on you.

  • Roofoo

    Way to be a hypocrite David. I thought being a good Catholic was all about loving thy neighbor. Guess you pick and chose what you believe.

  • Hellcat341231

    Satmara- I’m pretty sure the only thing that is gross is your naked body.

  • I agree with absolutely all of this. However, I should note, that your point that the sex scandal obviates the point you were attempting to make. If a sexual transgression that is immoral by any standard and illegal by the laws of nearly every country is not an issue for the Church, but an issue for it people, than by your own logic, sexual matters that are outside the bounds of catechesis become the sole purview of people. I.E., a purely legal matter.

    In other words, you’re declaring that homosexual rights are not a matter that requires addressing by the Church, as sexual evil that occurs is not an issue of the Church. You can’t have it both ways. Either the Church is having a sexual issue that requires addressing, as it addresses al sexual matters outside it’s confines, or it has no jurisdiction in sexual matters that occur internally or externally.

    And before you jump up and say that I’m being absolutist, remember that you made the point the the Church is an absolute moral authority first. It is no concern of mine what stance the Church holds in either case; I do, however, prefer to see consistency in the arguments of those who would deny me legal rights.



  • What’s gross? It’s the truth. Most of the priests accused and found guilty of abuse have been both homosexual and suffer not from pedophilia but from either hebephilia, or ephebophilia, which is an attraction to varying ages of teenagers.

  • It’s a complete reproductive system (not necessarily a functional one – whether due to age or infertility) that allows for the potential of children and therefore future generations.

  • Jann FH

    Hi Leila!

    You beat me to it~ I have said for about 8 years that I was going to start a group/website called “Catholic Yenta” but you are already doing it! How does a young man or woman, or a Catholic mom get an invite to Catholic Moms Matchmaker?

  • I “love” my neighbor bozo.. Did I say Gays didn’t have rights? ‘Fraid I didn’t. They just have no right to challenge the word of God. They don’t and neither do you. Hypocrite, I don’t think so. I’m just not afraid of “offending” people who apparently don’t love God’s word. I’m not perfect, pal, just honest. Have yourself a fine day!

  • “Shame on me?” Why don’t you pray for me, hot shot? If you ARE a God-fearing Christian, you will. I’m praying for people who are pulling society deeper in immorality! Sounds to me like you’re on their bandwagon. Good for you!. Stand up for what you believe in! Atta boy!

  • Mart196

    A marriage has the potential to produce fruit that is, a marriage of two people’s DNA, same sex couples can not produce children by themselves although they may have children they are not married to each other but the person that helped create the marriage of DNA to produce that child.

    At the end time the Antichrist will be loved by an ever growing wicked society and made leader of the world, teach your children, the fruit of your marriage about God so they avoid evil.

    The time is short and the Antichrist is gaining control of the world read this free book to understand:


  • You filthy punk! Hear of Karma? You’re going to drop your car keys down a sewer or get a flat tire on the Freeway….then you can look back and remember the “grossness” of your gutless statement to the female above your idiotic comment! ,,,,,”hellcat”–Afraid to use your own name? You are a piece of work!

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    This is Catholic teaching, actually. But marriage is not an inalienable human right — otherwise there could be no restrictions placed on it (that is, it would not be allowable to ban incestuous marriages, child marriage, polygamy, etc.).

    If this is indeed your stance, I hope you also stand for the right of all human beings to live from conception to natural death.

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    They already do. One unencumbered, consenting adult, whether heterosexual or homosexual, may marry one unencumbered, consenting adult of the opposite sex.

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    Interestingly enough, in states where gay people get full domestic partner benefits, they are still demanding marriage — even though marriage would not change their legal benefits in the slightest. Why is that, do you think?

  • JoAnna Wahlund
  • You are really something else. Where’d you come up with 3/5 of a person? Who said anything about Afro-Americans? Sounds like you just like to cause more grief to more people. By the way, if you don’t care for our Constitution, get the hell out!

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    Why should the state have any interest in legal recognition of “love”?

    Should the state also legally recognize the “love” of incestuous couples? If not, why not?

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    Are you pro-“choice” in any circumstance? If so, you are not a proud supporter of “equal rights for all.”

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    It’s evident you were educated in Catholic schools given your ignorance regarding Catholicism.

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    I think your handle is more sad.

  • “Soldaten” Sprechen Sie Deutsch? I was over there for 7 years–loved it… I like that name, “Soldier”……..oh yeah–It’s very difficult to argue with these people. They’re “rising up against society, something like back in the sixties. It’s like talking to a washing machine! Good luck! I’m done with ’em!

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    Leila did not make a single false accusation or argument in her article, and you have yet to prove that she did.

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    Actually, it’s the same person under different handles.

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    Why not try reading the article?

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    A definition which you have yet to offer other than some vague nonsense about “a bond between two adults” (which could refer to sisters, roommates, etc.)

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    I’ve yet to see you offer any facts.

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    Do you support abortion in any circumstance?

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    Do you support abortion in any circumstance? (BTW, apparently unlike you, Leila has a life and family outside of the Internet and they are a higher priority than answering your comments.)

  • I am talking about gays.

  • Constitution says blacks are 3/5 of a person. How do I not care for our constitution?

  • No, I wasn’t raised catholic, worked at a catholic church and went to catholic HS. I know nothing about the catholic faith. I wasn’t confirmed in it or anything.

  • I will point out one for now. She made a broad generalization that most in favor of gay marriage were bullied into it. False.

  • That’s alright, Bethany. He’s calling people “gross”–I don’t think he can think of much more to say……..he called me gross too. Ha ha!

  • I never offered that definition. You are making a broad generalization about my thoughts on the definition based off this misinformed article.

  • I said it many times. She offers way too many sweeping generalizations to be taken any bit seriously.


  • That has what do with gay marriage?

  • ‘Gay marriage will be used as an anchoring point in the law. Eventually, areas far removed from marriage will be affected.

  • Lauren

    I was raised catholic and still am, but I support gay marriage bc my religion shouldn’t impact anyone else’s life but my own. If they want to get the same benifts and what not, more power to them. I shouldn’t have a say in grown adults chooses, also t won’t change anything at all.

  • mercy

    the bullying is not limited to just school aged kids.. adults are slamming other adults if they have any pro-life value at all.. pray for this country is all i can say..

  • mercy

    amen… couldn’t have said it better

  • Laura R

    Wow, people like you actually exist. I have heard about you in theory, but I didn’t believe it could be true that such bigotry is still around. Shame on you.

  • 2468SeparateTheChurchAndState

    No, we do not have the same rights. It isn’t even only the principle that gays and lesbians cannot marry the person that they love in the eyes of the law. Under DOMA, we cannot share healthcare and other benefits that we have earned at our workplaces with our loved ones, costing couples thousands of dollars a month. When a homosexual dies, it is impossible for their spouse to claim their social security and life insurance. Gay military personnel have limited assurance that they won’t be restationed far away from their loved ones and families becuase the Federal government does not recognize these relationships under the law. Gay multi-national couples live with the fear of deportation becuase they do not have the same accelerated pathway to citizenship that straight couples do. Is this equal rights to you? Because to me it seems like the LGBT citizens of America simply cannot live their lives as freely and happily as straight citizens do.

  • lisa c

    Excellent reply Hoosier!

  • I am not Catholic, and do not believe what you believe. Why should your beliefs govern my life? My beliefs, among then, that we gays should be allowed to marry, do not infringe upon yours. Why skis yours get to infringe upon mine?

  • psst…i don’t think Karma is a Christian idea, dude.

  • Not enough. We also deserve the rights, responsibilites and privileges that come along with marriage.

  • Peter Nyikos

    Where’s your love of neighbor, Roofoo? You called David a hypocrite without any logical basis. I suppose you think hypocrisy is only bad when Catholics do it, or can be tarred as doing it.

  • Peter Nyikos

    And having struck it down, then what? Lobbying for bigamy for bisexuals? They are being discriminated against exactly as much as gays, no more and no less, for not being allowed to marry one member of each sex.

  • Peter Nyikos

    You have the rights and responsibilities already, because consensual homosexual acts are perfectly legal, and contracts of various kinds have been legal since time immemorial.

    You do demand — not deserve — the privileges. I’ve been saying this for fifteen years now, and it’s good to finally see a same-sex marriage advocate admit that they are after privileges–and it is the only thing they are really after, besides power.

  • Mark

    How the charity displayed between Christians here ?

    Says it all really.

    I am nor for or against Gay Marriage. No desire to marry anyone. But why do the heterosexual population scapegoat the LGBT folk for ruining marriage and bringing down society when they’ve done a perfect job themselves. Marriages falling apart for aeons, single abandoned children etc etc etc. Wake up hypocrites and smell the shit and the bases of those roses.

  • Peter Nyikos

    Single people taking care of aged parents would also like tax equality, but you aren’t in favor of incestuous marriages, are you?

    The other two things you bring up don’t hold water. Hospital privileges can be legally arranged, and the Gay Power movement has been so successful that people who oppose same-sex marriage are more in need of freedom from fear; for instance, photographers who refuse to photograph same-sex marriages, and ministers who refuse to officiate them after their denomination has caved in to Gay Power.

    In some countries, it is even a hate crime to say from the pulpit what the Church has traditionally taught. And in California, it has become a crime for parents to give their children with homosexual tendencies counseling to overcome their tendencies.

  • Peter Nyikos

    Your logic is flawed because there is no necessary connection between same-sex marriage and gayness–the very term “gay marriage” is a misnomer. There have always been “marriages of convenience” between opposite-sex couples who do not have sexual feelings towards each other, and they can be expected among same-sex couples also.

    The opposite side of the coin is true too: gays can live together and “affirm” their love for one another without having to get married. Millions of opposite-sex couples are doing just that.

  • MrsSpooky

    The only thing is, James – the Catholic Church is very well known for forbidding birth control, and yet the Church is being forced to pay for coverage for birth control. Church-owned hospitals and schools and other organizations that serve people from other faiths (or none at all) are not exempt from that coverage. A faithful Catholic business owner isn’t exempt. I wish I shared your optimism about the fate of lawsuits like this, but I’m afraid I don’t.

  • Peter Nyikos

    Victoria, you claimed that the idea of a man marrying his own son is ridiculous, but what if they feel they need the tax breaks that come with “married, filing jointly”?

    Or are you having second thoughts about this? now you say that “everyone who wants to get married should be allowed.” Polygamy too, then?

  • Blobee

    Let me ask you an extreme question to illustrate my answer: What if we are suddenly presented with the question of granting “rights’ to people to go naked in public? All the same arguments apply: ultimately a statement like yours, don’t impose your beliefs on me since I prefer to go about unclothed, would be made. How do you think the majority of us should respond? Should this “right” be granted?” Should we simply have to “deal with it” regardless of how wrong we think it is, and how it offends our sensibilities? What is the rationale for having public decency laws? If we say it is for the sake of our children and our desire to protect them from these who we consider immodest, would that hold sway? Would you like to go to the grocery store and have to see a number of people of all ages nude in the store with you? I know you might think this is a ridiculous idea, but the idea of gay “marriage” seemed ridiculous too as recently as 2003. Think about what kinds of other socially forbidden things you would be forced to accept once we make our laws based on this kind of morally relativistic (look it up) thinking. (BTW, some gays in San Francisco have already begun challenging the laws against public nudity there. Look that up too.)

  • Peter Nyikos

    Catholics are allowed to divorce — but they aren’t allowed to remarry in the Catholic Church if they were married in a Christian church. And if they do get remarried while the spouse is still alive, they are committing adultery. Jesus himself said that.

    If they didn’t teach you that in Catholic school, that school wasn’t worth much.

  • But why can’t they get married to show their love? Stop making excuses to dodge the point.

  • Blobee

    False about the healthcare, because of laws that require coverage for domestic partners. True about social security survivor benefits, but false about life insurance, because the insured designates the beneficiary. That is true married or not. I do not know about the military laws, but it seems they are changing those fast, and probably will accommodate civil unions under those. In terms of multi-national couples, I don’t see why one should have that privilege, since gays living together are no different than friends living together. The government should have no interest in your relationship, because the only reason the government gets involved with issuing marriage licenses in the first place is to protect the progeny of a couple. Remember, marriage laws were put on the books long before birth control came into the picture, and our society was very different. If a woman agreed to have sexual relations with a man, she was wise to demand legal protections (economic responsibility) from the man (in the form of marriage before the fact) for herself and the children that would normally be the result of those sexual relations. With the advent of birth control and women’s lib those needed protections are less important, and now with many married couples having only one child or remaining childless, gay people see an analogy to their situation and want all the economic and political benefits without ever naturally contributing to producing and raising members of future generations.

  • ML

    Gays bullying Christians? Insightful. We really must stop this epidemic of young Christians killing themselves after so much bullying and torturing by gay students.

  • Blobee

    No, shame on you that you are a bigot. It’s amazing. As a Catholic, I never troll the atheists web sites. Yet here you all are, so interested in the arguments against what you believe, but not presenting reasoned counter arguments, but rather bashing our beliefs without really taking time to understand them or see the problem from our point of view, and calling names. Exactly like stated in the article, you cannot show how you are right, so you bully and practice name calling. Guess it works on some people.

  • Kelly P.

    Excellent points! Thank you!

  • Blobee

    You need to delve into the error of “moral relativism.” You need to understand a just society always imposes standards on all members. Remember, right now we have public decency laws “imposed” on us. Don’t think you wouldn’t be upset to have to stand in line or ride the bus with naked people.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    They have the same right to marry as hetereosexuals. If they don’t like it, that is their problem. Right is right.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    Wake up and smell the coffee. Booms, asteroids, tsunamis, hurricanes, meteors, God i telling us something.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    I think this whole thing is funny. Man/woman marriage advocates are fighting to save people from hell and the other side is fighting to go there!

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    No. They want special rights.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    We did. And a mighty successful one at that. Until liberals came along.

  • I read that book, and the entire series. It’s by a woman, not a guy, and one who is a pretty staunch supporter of gay marriage. Yet curiously All of the primary relationships in her novels are heterosexual marriages. There are gay characters but most of their relationships are short lived. She also strangely affirms Catholic teaching about the relationship between sex and life, through a via negativa, as one of the more “demonic” villains is an avatar of the death god who rejects all sex acts that transmit life. Sometimes you can’t help but know what you know, even as you deny knowing it.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    That is not what is happening in Canada. There they are using the ‘rights’ camel’s nose to destroy churches.

  • ML

    Any group that takes moral guidance from a leader who systematically protects pedophiles may lack credibility in other areas of sexual morality. Just sayin’.

  • Blobee

    Certainly the law of unintended consequences is at work here, and we often don’t anticipate the awful results that could follow from this. But as an illustration, look at some of the consequences of the introduction of birth control pills and legalization of abortion and the subsequent lowered morality in terms of sexual relations outside of marriage. Reflect on the how those lowered standards affect couples in sexual relationships now and the difficulty of true intimacy and commitment. Reflect on the debasement of the human person when used simply for sexual release or entertainment, and not revered as you would expect in a sanctified marriage. (I know many a woman who are emotionally damaged from a series of failed monogamous sexual relationships. I know many a man who have lost all respect for women and treat them like dirty rags. I bet you do too.) Reflect on the number of deaths of conceived children by abortion as a form of birth control (55 million and counting), and the numbers of children never conceived in the first place that affects our future economics. (In Russia birth control and abortion have been so successful they are now paying people 10000 rubles to have a child because their society is below the replacement ratio.) Have we lost another Einstein, Mozart, Steve Jobs, the person who could have cured cancer? Reflect on the number of “single-parent” homes where the woman struggles raising children alone while trying to provide economic support too. It is astronomical compared to times prior to birth control, and growing. Look at the numbers of no father homes and the well documented affects of fatherless childhoods on both boys and girls (increased drop out rates, crime, poverty, drug addiction, early teen sexual relations and births compared with two parent stable homes). These were some of the wonderful outcomes of “sexual freedom.” And these are very, very real effects on us all. To further debase marriage by pretending it is about a couple’s happy life and money ignoring why the laws exist to begin with is to enter further into the sickness of our selfish culture.

  • Ya know,…you’re right, Dudess!

  • Blobee

    Leila – I too have debated this on many blogs and news sites and as I said in other places in these comments, have experienced what you have. Anyone who is honest who even casually reads the string of comments below a posting or a news article has to admit the harshness and vitriolic bullying of the gay advocates. We may lose yet another battle in these culture wars, but at least we did our part to warn others of the foolishness of what they are about to do. I suppose it will eventually become like living in a sewer.

  • Hey “Equality”….if you have the guts, which I don’t think you do…..make an appointment with a Catholic Priest. He’ll square your ass away!

  • Helena Burns

    Honey, this is brilliant. One of the best things ever on his subject. I have run into exact same attitudes aplenty!

  • JoAnna: People like “Equality” there, are just aggitators…not worth arguing with. Next thing you know incestuous marriages etc. will be their next goal. Thank God, I’m old and won’t be around when “all hell breaks loose” if these people arent headed off at the pass. God has already decided the “final” outcome of all this,and when Christ comes again, like Lucy, there’ll be alot of “splainin’ to do. Pray for these weak-minded people. They are our straying brothers and sisters!

  • vseddriver

    homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. There are many gay men married to women and having families. What you want is the right to marry who you want to marry regardless of gender. Well if gender is not an issue than neither should number or close blood relations. I should have the right to marry my elderly mother and get all the same benefits as a lesbian couple would get.

  • Leila Miller

    Actually, divorce is wrecking havoc on marriage. We complain about it a lot. It’s a tragedy. The few countries who legalized gay “marriage” did so yesterday, historically speaking. Saying something is marriage does not make it marriage.

  • Susan P. Fujita


  • Jain

    I strongly support the Churche’s stand on same sex marriage. It’s not only non-productive but also against nature. But the same principle should be applicable to celibacy also. Celibacy is also non-productive.

  • James H, London

    Way to go on your content-free rebuttal, dude!

  • Paul

    Typical fallback comment from every owned non-believer I’ve ever met.

  • Barbara

    Why hasn’t anyone defended the very function of the female person? It is the woman who is given pills and abortions to end that very function that allows society to go on. Yet when it comes to calling the union between the same sex a marriage, no one defends the females great gift to society. How giving same sex unions the applause that only the females body can provide. Allow same sex unions to be defined with the term marriage and then we no longer give the female anything to respect her body for except pleasure and maybe sadly in the future calling her the machine that produces those babies that are planned for and designed to keep society alive. Shame on us, we make huge issues of women’s rights to have contraception and abortions and be prostitutes but we forget their great and courageous function of bearing children to keep the world alive and growing. What will our female children become for society, convenient objects to pay to have children for others who by their body structure do not fit the structure to conceive by the act God so created the two different sexs to do. The female will no longer be equal but different but rather convient for the use by others.

  • Juergensen

    Child sex abusers are disproportionately homosexual (35% of child sex abusers but only 2% of the population).

    The sodomites won’t stop at “marriage” – they won’t stop until they get the Supreme Court to grant them “equal rights” to others’ children.

    This is the ultimate goal of the sodomite movement.

  • francine

    It’s not a marriage. It’s a secular relationship, but not a marriage no matter how much you wish it to be.

  • Victoria

    Excuse me ? that took it a bit too far. That was completely inappropriate. Your close minded views are what will take this society back generations. We will never advance as a people because of comments like that. “Love your fellow man” Show some respect. I hope you dont kiss your mother with that mouth

  • Victoria

    You seem to be a very angry person. I dont think this is so much about allows homosexuals to get married as it is about your anger over a horrible event in your life. As a Canadian I completely agree that your rapist should be locked up, thrown away the key and left to the general population.

  • Victoria

    Why not? Honestly, is there marriage hurting you? Is it causing you harm? Like someone else posted the Sister wives seem very happy. They arent hurting anyone, they love their children and they provide for them. I am having no second thoughts. Again, marrying your son is incest and that produces children with all sorts of birth defects so that makes no sense. There are tons of children out there who need a home and homosexuals and heterosexuals who can not produce children are providing loving and stable homes. Why deny them the right to raise a family?

  • PedroFromMejico

    Thank you. I have thought these same things but had never put the thoughts to words so clearly as you have done.

  • Dropofclearwqter

    It was a democracy that condemned Christ.

  • Dropofclearwqter

    It is not hyprocrisy to speak the truth. It is truly loving the neighbor when one strives to turn them from sin, and toward God, where the blood of Jesus can, by God’s grace, save the sinners soul.

  • Dropofclearwqter

    That’s right. The ‘priests’ entered the priesthood around the 1960’s when the church, trying to be ‘hip’, touted what should have been a vocation, as a career in the priesthood. And those who perpetrated these evil crimes against children, were targeting pubescent teens, so it wasn’t pedophilia (pre-pubescent), but hebephilia (age 11-14) or ephebophilia (teenager after age 14). These are the desired ages for most homosexuals. They like them young, and many old homo’s die alone, because they don’t like each other old. To me, this shows that most homosexual tendency is not about love, but about the carnal lust.

  • Dropofclearwqter

    Also, the church, up until now, did not screen for mental disorders and sexual preferences. The current scandal has been like a fist hitting us all, and especially the aging priesthood, who, in their wildest dreams, would never have foreseen this. Think back to your grandparents era. They never would have comprehended that such vile things could happen to innocent children. It is fortunate, yes, I said fortunate, that it has been exposed as early as possible, and that the church is attempting to oust this curse of the devil. Many, many, many other institutions who have been casting stones, will be laid bare too. Hollywood in particular. That bastion of sin which flouts homosexuality all over our televisions will have all it’s filth exposed, and it’ll be far worse, especially percentage wise, than anything perpetrated by the few catholic ‘priests’. The sins of the flesh are everywhere. Thank God for our plentiful celibate priests. They prove that man is not controlled by carnal desires, but by their example, serve a higher purpose. That is why the church must remain celibate. Desires of the flesh can be denied.

  • Aquinas believed masturbation was worse than rape. His reasoning was based on the flawed science of his day, which equated masturbation with abortion.

    There can be no conflict between faith and reason. If science tells us that the natural world is not what the Church has thought it to be, then how should the Church react?

  • That case is still working its way through the courts.

  • Dropofclearwqter

    So, when you get those ‘rights’, then what? You insist on a church wedding? Then what? You are denied because the priest cannot marry you. Then what? You sue the church, and even though you may not win, enough homosexual litigation, will destroy the church financially. Then what? There is no church? There is no opposition powerful enough to stand against immorality? Then where will you be? When the NWO takes you away and euthanizes you, then what? Who will you turn to when you your real ‘rights’, to be protected, are being stripped; The right to lIfe. But I tell you this, lies and liars will never prevail against the ‘Holy’ catholic church. Jesus has assured us of this. Christianity is on the rise in Russia once more despite being controlled by liars. Jesus’ laws will never die or go away. No matter who tries to pervert society, the truth of God will run counter to it, for all eternity. Glory be to God.

  • PedroFromMejico

    ME2013….You are making one of the typical problematic arguments. You say you are for “human rights” and apply that to mean support to the concept of people, regardless of description. engaging in a personal committed relationship and having society officially validate it.

    Two points to consider.

    One– every man, has the right to marry a woman and every woman has the right to marry a man. There are no restrictions. No discrimination. All is equal. And legally…officially….emotion is not a condition to marriage, nor is emotion a concern of the State. So “love” is not a concern of the State. There are plenty legally bound, “loveless” relationships, in politics, business and at home. Its sad, but not a legal issue. So your emotional plea has no legal importance. It is what it is. Your church is different. That is where you can find concern for your emotions.

    The second point is this….you are asking for “marriage” to be other than one man, one woman. And if officially, marriage is no longer limited to “one man, one woman” then, what does it become and what new limits shall be placed upon it, if any? How can any limits be placed upon marriage, if we are to follow your line of argument. You see….you can’t. A judge can’t. Suddenly, polygamy becomes legal. And if you argue away all religious moral codes…..bestiality also becomes legal. No animal is harmed by that. Millions of animals are killed for sport or as nuisances yet there is no outcry. And also prostitution becomes legal, because private relationships, regardless of emotion, regardless of exchange of money, regardless of commitment, cannot be limited. Right? There may even be situations where statutory rape is no longer considered a crime. Why? Because again….private consensual relationships are not the concern of the State. Right? Seriously, we allow teens to have sex with teens and we allow them to get abortions without parental knowledge….why the heck should we care if a 50 year old has sex with a 15 year old? Religious morals? Religious morals have no place in law…right? And from a non-religious point of view, the state has no right to interfere in the private consensual relationships of others. Right? So you see….there is a slippery slope. What are we to do….remove the discriminatory line you disagree with and simply draw it some place else? That doesn’t work. The line must be held where it is.

    Its not appropriate at all that judges become the moral safe keepers of society….but obviously we citizens are not doing the job ourselves. And if we are unwilling to do that job..and speak out more strongly for what we know is best and right….we best hope the judges will. But that is not going to last for long…unless we citizens stand up and fight.

  • PedroFromMejico

    Don’t forget locusts! (Madagascar)

  • The lawsuit would get laughed out of court AND the plaintiffs would probably have to pay legal fees for a frivolous suit.

    The law is VERY clear in the United States that Churches can marry or refuse to marry whomever they want. Churches can refuse to perform interracial marriages. Catholic Churches regularly refuse to remarry divorced persons.

    Next time, please LEARN something about the law before you repeat ignorant statements that some talking head was spouting on the radio.

    And yes, IAAL.

  • Contrary to what many Americans think, Canada is actually a completely different country with its own set of laws and a very different constitution.

    Canada does not have the same protections for religious freedom as the United States has. IIRC, the Canadian government does support the churches, and religious education, unlike the U.S.

  • March 28th: I’m glad you have the courage to stand for, not just your convictions, but for common sense…we were created, formed, male and female, to fit..male and female bodies complement each other because we were created for ‘union’ – and no matter what homosexual activists claim, they cannot claim that homosexual sex is ‘natural’ or that it is union…a key was formed to fit into a lock…common sense. period. God created men and women – He has already made the decision. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, that decision still stands with God. And those who would mock Him and declare that He was wrong, beware. I’ve read reports that the majority of homosexual men and women do not seek marriage and will not seek marriage…a tiny percentage of a small minority are bullying their way to the front of the line and demanding that their deviant behavior be made legal. Even if it is made legal – it will never be natural or according to the purpose for which God created man and woman.

  • March 28th: And don’t believe the polls. If it’s true that the majority of people now accept gay marriage then why was it defeated when put to the vote of the people in the majority of States? And when polls say that even a majority of Catholics approve of same sex marriage, they are not asking Church going Catholics – it’s all a sham to make those who stand against these deviant practices to believe they have been defeated…Mother Theresa of Calcutta used to say that if we would kill the baby in the womb what would we not do and she also said that a nation that kills its young cannot survive…

  • W2LJ

    Anderson’s law – when confronted with a Catholic issue you don’t like, don’t actually defend it – just bring up the priest scandal. Works every time – NOT!

  • God loves everyone. He loves murderers, drug dealers, priests that sin,and yes even homosexuals. If you think differently than this, you truly dont know God. As the bible says, judge not lest ye be judged…Let’s leave the judgement up to God.

  • chrissie

    Frankly, this article would be only slightly improved if it included the church’s definition of marriage. One thing that cannot be ignored…it takes a man and a woman with God’s grace to conceive a child. NO OTHER UNION, relationship, bond, love,….does that! That is the bottom line of the definition of marriage. Bless you for standing in there. I am weak.

  • Leila Miller

    How can the discipline of science weigh in on whether or not a willful act is sinful? The discussion of morality belongs to the disciplines of theology and philosophy, not science.

    Aquinas would be the first to say he was not acting as a scientist, but as a theologian and a philosopher. The Church does not teach science but leaves that to scientists. However, if a scientist oversteps the bounds of his field to make a moral judgement (i.e., “we declare that making human clones or creating chimeras is ethical”), the Church, as teacher, will clearly speak on it, informing the faithful that such acts transgress the moral law and are gravely sinful.

    You are absolutely right that there is no conflict between faith and reason. It is beyond the purview of science to claim to speak on morality. Science exists to tell us about the truths of the material world. The morality of acts does not fall under the purview of science.

  • Robert

    A country that stakes its future on lies will have none. Are we turning into Sodom & Gamora?

  • Robert

    No its not ok and the church has paid dearly for those who did such things. The church is also cleaning up after them and taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again. This is more than can be said for other entities that have done the same thing but you don’t hear about it because of the biased media. Of course homosexuals had nothing to do with it …. yah, right

  • Robert

    Easier to teach the armadillo

  • Leila Miller

    How long do you estimate that the nation has been battling each other about gay “marriage”? What is a “long time” (can you give me a time reference)? Yes, gay ‘marriage’ changes the definition radically, meaning at its root. It changes it to something its not. It becomes a different thing in its essence and nature. So, yes, it’s drastic.

    Why did you dodge the question about Obama? Was he a bigot last year? Was Hillary Clinton a bigot when she said in 2000: “Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.” And in 2003: “marriage … should be kept as it historically has been.”

    Were Obama and Hillary, up until two minutes ago, “against their rights as human beings”? Were they? Put the emotion down and just think this out, please. Or else show me where you publicly were crying out against their bigotry and their violation of human rights, for not wanting to redefine marriage.

    Why do you say that insisting that words mean something is a “theocracy”? Is it a theocracy to say that a circle cannot be redefined as a square? And, since the atheist regimes of this world (N.Korea, China, etc.) do not recognize gay “marriage”, should we chalk that up to “theocracy”?

  • Leila Miller

    Blobee, thank you. Yes, we have done what we can do. As Mother Teresa said, “The Lord does not ask us to be successful, only faithful.” This Holy Week, we pray. And we remember Jesus’ words:

    “Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

    Jesus never promised that any one nation or culture would survive, only that the Church would. Hopefully, all souls (yours, mine and theirs) will receive God’s infinite mercy. Blessed Triduum to you!

  • Leila Miller

    Oh! Well, I guess that explains a lot.

  • Robert

    Many of those priests were homosexuals who got into the church in the 60’s. Also how many of those cases were real and how many were trumped up to get money. Now the gays are trying to destroy marriage.

  • Leila Miller

    That begs the question: What is the definition of marriage?

    And, I never said that “biologically making a child” was a part of the definition of marriage, so that is a straw man you are arguing. I said that gay people cannot biologically consummate a marriage. Do you disagree?

  • Leila Miller

    I’ve written a lot here, so please help me out and cut and paste the “false accusations” that I have made against gay people so that I can know what “many” things you are talking about. Thanks for being more specific.

  • Leila Miller

    Actually, slavery still goes on to this day. And it always has. Slavery is nothing new at all, sadly. But the concept that a marriage can include two men or two women? That concept showed up yesterday. No one — no culture, race, creed or non-creed — has ever thought of it as being “marriage” before “yesterday” and it’s been non-controversial for all that time. How do you account for that?

  • Leila Miller

    Yes, true. And the concept of sodomy-based marriage is completely nonsensical. It has never existed as a concept. No one ever thought (gay or not) to confuse that with marriage.

  • Mary Ann

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi said that we must offer protection of the rights of homosexual, bi-sexual,transgendered citizens and pass laws that will give them the right to marry. Well, where is she when it comes to protecting the rights of the unborn? She spouts these toothy grinning words in her typical fashion. All the while she goes to Rome and receives Holy Communion., Where is her Cardinal, pastor who are to be excommunicating her? Hiding under their desks.

  • Mary

    Leila, this is Mary from your blog. Why do you keep responding to this guy? He is clearly unable to understand basic logic. You know I am on the fence on this issue, but he gives gay marriage proponents a bad image.

  • Stellar

    Okay so you’d never try to help a drug addict quit drugs or tell murderers to stop murdering? As Christians, we are responsible for our brothers. If we see someone sinning, we are to make an attempt to make them aware of it and provide support and love to help them stop. If we stand by and do nothing, our inaction may lead them down a path of destruction the reaches not only in this life, but in the next one as well. If you think that Jesus condones any sexual behavior outside the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman then you simply don’t know Jesus as presented in the Bible and through the Church. Instead, you are making him up as you go along, which ultimately is leading you to break the first commandment by worshiping a false god. Satan has done a great job creating that false Jesus and seducing so many into believing it. He prays on our own insecurities and lack of real love so that we will “accept” others at any cost. And this all during Holy Week. Bravo.

  • June1111

    “Mob mentality.”

    Terrifying. That’s why we need to continually pray for courage, even in the face of martyrdom (may not be such a far-off situation for some of us in the future).

  • June1111

    Definitely the fall-back to ANY religious argument. “Oh, yeah? Well… priests touch little boys!” So tiring…

  • June1111

    Hey, it’s Lent. I know we’re all fired up here but I’m sure Jesus wouldn’t have used that language or tone. Don’t give the trolls more ammo. Please say a quick prayer before you post. Come, Holy Spirit…

  • Louis

    I agree with Leila’s arguments. Unfortunately, gay marriage is symptomatic of a greater issue; a dying culture. There is no more buy in to our common culture. Instead, we have become selfish individualists who care more for what’s good for the our selves not realizing the impact our self-centeredness has on society. Sadly, any laws, traditions, and norms that have made our country the envy of the world are now viewed by society as repressive, intolerant, and bigoted. Ultimately, as the thread that has held this heterogeneous culture together continues to unravel, so to will our beloved country.

  • Leila Miller

    Hi Mary! So good to see you! Well, I guess just like on my Bubble blog, I mostly feel compelled to respond for the sake of the lurkers. Hoping people see the exchanges and realize something for themselves. That is my goal, so I soldier on, for as long as I can take it.

  • Peter Nyikos

    As one who has had the courage and nerve to go against the zeitgeist in some of the most formidable forums, let me say to you the words in Kipling’s _The Jungle Book_: We be of one blood, you and I!

    Seeing the enormous number of comments your article has touched off — 369 as of the time I started composing this — has helped me to understand the vast hostility I have provoked in such places as the Usenet newsgroups on abortion (talk.abortion, alt.abortion) and on talk.origins over the years. You have exposed the hollowness of the favorite tactics of the opposition, and that put them on full red alert like no polished essay on the subject could.

    Like you, I do a lot of thinking and posting “outside the box,” and that also infuriates these people, almost all of whom are incapable of it on hot-button issues like same-sex marriage. And so, even as I write this, they are trying to fit you into their comfortable stereotypes and failing, just as their kindred spirits have tried and failed against me all through the last two decades.

  • Peter Nyikos

    And how long will these laws remain? After all, the law universally said that marriage is between a man and a woman since the dawn of civilization, and look at how that law is being changed all over the world.

    By the way, your “please LEARN…” is pure arrogance, and the mark of a philistine.

  • Peter Nyikos

    It said something you are inaccurately describing, until about a century and a half ago, but even that was repealed by the 13th amendment almost a century and a half ago. Are you trying to give new meaning to the term “Wrong way Corrigan”?

  • Leila Miller

    Peter, thank you for being out there! Yes, we understand each other! Two decades? You are a hero!

  • Peter Nyikos

    I have good news for you. A gay person has come out against same sex marriage on “The Public Discourse,” reprinted here:

    The article makes many of the same points Leila Miller makes in her article and in her many comments. It is almost as if Leila herself had made the following comments:

    Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and
    unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will
    ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor
    “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.

    Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state
    are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on
    which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?

    The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that
    “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things
    are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s
    perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We
    should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.

    For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a
    seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its
    children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of
    all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously
    consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of
    self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.

    [end of excerpts]

  • What mouth? Oh, no you are going to judge me? Too bad if we go back a few generations, ever think maybe those times were better?

  • I know all about the author. It was a great series but some really gross parts too.

  • Aww, you mad?

  • Thank you Roofoo. But, I am probably talking with a person who is into all sorts of weird perversions.

  • I know its porn. I wanted to drive the point home that these weird perverse things have suddenly become everyday life for average housewives and young girls. Many normal women read these books and see nothing wrong with it. That is what is so disturbing.

  • About the culture we live in.

  • The point is is that you are a hypocrite,

  • And calling my naked body gross is not very “progressive” and “compassionate” of you, now go have your butt sex and leave me alone.

  • Blah blah blah. The same silly platitudes as always. Have you looked at yourself in the mirror, lately? Are your pupils dilated?

  • Nobody said anything about theocracy.

  • No it doesn’t. Try again.

  • As a people? They are a race now? Do they have their own country? I thought it was a sexual preference.

  • Leila Miller

    Satmara, I totally agree. You are exactly right.

  • Nathan

    Why the debate is about discrimination.

    The same sex marriage issue is about
    discrimination. I need to explain this more clearly – opponents have said that
    same sex marriage is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.
    Yes, they are right, it is not a fundamental right that is codified in the
    constitution nor is marriage in general. For married couples today, the USA recognizes
    a whole host of rights, protections and benefits. These include tax benefits,
    visitation rights, inheritance, veteran’s benefits for spouses, immigration
    benefits, filing for adoption, receiving family rates on insurance, living in “family
    only” zoned neighborhoods. The list goes on and on.

    DOMA and Prop 8 are not about giving same sex couples the right to do
    something. These laws are explicit in doing the opposite – They REMOVE all
    these rights, protections and benefits from someone because of sexual
    orientation. The word for that is discrimination plain and simple and discrimination
    is not to be tolerated.

    Why people should feel bad for being on the wrong side of the argument

    The first argument is that people are
    moving to the ‘other-side’ of the argument due to peer pressure, not due to a
    revelation. Well for those who have not had a revelation, I feel bad for you.
    You are discriminatory and hence on the wrong side. If people tell you that you
    are wrong because you are discriminating then you should feel bad. It’s that
    simple. So people who are against same sex marriage should open up your mind
    and realize that they are in the wrong and must change.

    For people who have changed their minds, it
    is because of the recognition that they were wrong. The bible is chock full of examples of people who did the wrong thing,realized their mistakes and changed. It is infact central to the idea of Christanity – recognize the mistake, ask for forgiveness and repent by changing your ways. There was a senator who voted for DOMA and now he supports equal rights for same sex couples because his son was gay. He realized
    how wrong he was and he changed.

    The slippery slope fallacy

    So what is the slippery slope fallacy?
    Simply put, it is arguing that an extreme example of something that has not
    happened as something that could happen (e.g. zoophilia) and using this example
    to oppose the current position.

    Also remember – DOMA and Prop 8 again are
    about REMOVING RIGHTS from. It explicitly states that same sex couples are not
    allowed the same benefits as couples of the opposite sex.

    A more appropriate slippery slope argument
    would be to say that what if the government does not recognize inter-faith
    marriages, or marriages between an Anglican and a Presbyterian? Another
    slippery slope argument is that if we start restricting same-sex marriage what
    is next? All marriage?

    I hope you can see why the slippery slope
    arguments are quite ridiculous. Also notice that I explained it without
    resorting to cursing or saying that dogs can get married to cats.

    Definition of marriage and why it matters

    Like I said, this debate is about removal of
    rights of people. DOMA and Prop 8 are trying to create classes of people that
    can and cannot do something. It is simply discrimination. Marriage is a very
    codified, law based system. In the US marriage is a very specific social contract.
    The state recognizes the social contract, in that if you break it (e.g. by
    cheating, getting a divorce etc), the state intervenes and uses its power to do
    things like divide assets. So we are not talking about some ambiguous idea here. Marriage is a recognized institution. DOMA and Prop 8 deny
    this institution based on sexual orientation. That is discrimination any way
    you cut it.

  • Thanks, Peter. Happy Easter!

  • Blobee

    What you don’t seem to address is why you think two people of the same sex living together without ever having the possibility of producing a child they both have contributed DNA to are entitled to the protections that were designed for people who do have that capacity, even if they don’t use it. Please, two men together and two women together are not and never will be equivalent to a man and woman couple – never. We must go back to tease out why marriage was licensed by the state to begin with, and determine whether two friends who live together and may or may not be having sex are “married” so they can receive benefits designed in days when men mainly provided the economic support and women bore children and maintained the home and cared for the children. This is not an entitlement, even if you claim your friendship is equivalent to marriage.

  • Never said that. Said you know nothing about gays as people. As human beings.

  • Umm…. Looks like it appears on the constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

    Try again.

  • God’s word means nothing towards whether they can be married legally in the US.

  • Please tell me how?

  • You made a point that literally makes no sense. Try again.

  • So one person does this and you assume it is a cultural thing. Are you just really that clueless?

  • I described it the right way. It was repealed, but the point remains.

  • Yes, we should make this country a theocracy! AMEN!

  • That concept has been around for a while. So in the 1850’s when it was just “yesterday” that anti-slavery movements had started, we shouldn’t have given blacks rights. Keep coming up with excuses for the fact you have no SECULAR ARGUMENT AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.

  • Still not a secular argument against gay marriage on here. We don’t live in a theocracy folks.

  • You said most people are bullied into supporting gay marriage and you made an incredibly broad generalization that they don’t care about incest or pedophilia.

  • YOU SAID THEY CAN’t BIOLOGICALLY CONSUMMATE A MARRIAGE. YES YOU DID! How can they not biologically if having children is not a part of the definition of marriage?

  • Are you really this clueless?

  • Over 30 years at least. Not as radically as blue changing to red. You make a very bad comparison. It adds gay marriage. That is not drastic. You are just making excuses more and more. Obama was not a bigot. Never made a comment on it. Yes, Hillary was a bigot. I have been crying out for this for a while. A circle redefining to mean a square is A RIDICULOUSLY BAD COMPARISON to gay marriage. Not even close. Is the US a christian nation now to you? Even though church is separate from state?

  • Explain to me how they are special? How are they different from what you have?

  • When did we ever have a theocracy? Please, because you are making yourself look really stupid.

  • Christopher O Landreneau

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.

  • Leila Miller

    Jacob, we are talking about what a thing is. The very nature of marriage is such that it cannot be homosexual, and requires the complementarity of male/female persons. Marriage is intrinsically heterosexual. It’s no more analogous to slavery/oppression than if I say that water is intrinsically wet, and that rock can never be water. I am not “against” rocks by saying it. It is not oppressive to say what something is. Every nation, creed, race, culture, socioeconomic group has agreed, throughout history, that marriage is male/female of its very nature. Right now, since only “yesterday”, some folks want to redefine marriage to mean something that doesn’t mean marriage.

    So it brings us again to:

    Define marriage.

    If you are truly interested in the secular arguments against gay “marriage” (and I don’t think you are truly interested), read this abstract from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:


    Many blessings for a fruitful Holy Week!

  • Leila Miller

    Jacob dodges the questions.

  • eschaton

    Peer pressure got me starting smolking when I was 13 YEARS old.Just say NO!

  • Leila Miller

    I will cut and paste my assertion regarding the first, which I stand by (as you can see, I never said “most”):

    1. Countless Americans have switched sides due to peer pressure, bullying, and a fear of being seen as “mean”.

    As for the second, I never once said that “they don’t care about pedophilia”. In fact I said the opposite:

    So far, thankfully, no one I’ve debated has openly okayed pedophile marriage, citing “consent” laws

    I already know you will not apologize for those false accusations, but everyone else can see for themselves.

    As for incest: I have said that many folks I have debated over the years go on to tell me that they really don’t care if two sisters get married. I am certain they would be against any incest involving children, but for consenting adults, many are okay with it.

    I first came across that attitude almost three years ago, with a young atheist professor named Gwen:


    Since then, I have seen the same thing, many times in my debates.

    Now, which “false accusations” did I make against the gay community for which I have to apologize?

  • Leila Miller

    Jacob, I will answer these questions, but first, could you tell me how old you are (even just approximately)? I want some context to discuss this with you.

  • Leila Miller

    Jacob, I cannot make sense of your question. Can you restate it?

    Let me try this: Are we both in agreement that two gay men or two lesbians cannot consummate a marriage? If you believe they can, how do they do it? I am sure you would agree with me that a man and a woman can engage in the conjugal act and consummate a marriage. Hopefully we can agree on basic biology and anatomy, right? (Forget conception for now, we are simply trying to establish a couple of facts first.)

  • Madeleine

    Perhaps we need to feel as passionate about heterosexual marriage. We Catholics also have caved on this matter as well.

  • Linda Maloy

    Nice try. Roofo. That old chestnut has been dragged out so many times it has tread marks on it. As Catholics we are called to love homosexuals, NOT to condone what they do. The whole “marriage” thing for gays is ridiculous because the laws already exists to give them full rights to the disposal of their property, allow them to live wherever they like, and love whomever they wish. I know gays (and love them a lot!) who also think the whole thing is stupid. Many of them have been together with their partner for many years and feel no need to tamper with it. While I don’t agree with what they do, they are human beings with personalities that mesh well with mine and we all know what good people we are. We don’t “pick and choose.” They are who they are and I am who I am. I’ll bet the ranch you aren’t 3o yet. Your arguments are too chliche’, juvenile, and poorly presented.

  • The broad and sweeping generalizations continue. Make up your own history based off your misinformed faith.

  • I am 20

  • Leila Miller

    Okay, Jacob. If you are not interested in a two-way dialogue (we respectfully ask and answer questions), then take care. If you ever want to dialogue privately, you can find my email link on my blog (www.littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com)

  • Leila Miller

    Thanks, that helps.

    Thirty years ago I was in high school, back in the days of M-TV and Madonna, going to a huge public school, then went off to college in New England, a liberal area, partied a lot, etc. I have been around the block in other words, and shortly after I got married (to a Jewish pro-choice liberal Democrat at the time), I wrote an editorial column for a major metropolitan newspaper on politics and social issues, etc. I can promise you, there was no serious talk at all about gay “marriage” becoming the issue of our day, even by gay activists who used to say that they “didn’t need a piece of paper” to validate their relationships. It was a very fringe issue, and when talk of “civil unions” came along, marriage itself still united Democrats and Republicans, as evidenced by Democrats falling all over themselves to reassure the world that they were pro- natural marriage, even signing the DOMA. I was there, alive and fully immersed in the political scene back then, and I am telling you the truth. And even if the issue was big back thirty years ago, or when you were born (it wasn’t), it still would be accurate to say that that is “yesterday” on the scene of human history.

    Many blessings!

  • Linda Maloy

    Tom, you pretty much hit the nail on the head! All these comments and written screaming at one another are about one thing and one thing only. It happens when formerly good people get involved in things they believe in that start out well, and devolve after the first hint of success into something else. They love that feeling of not only getting what they believe in, done, but they also made other people do what they wanted. They have taken a sufficiently deep toke off the hooka pipe containing the most addictive and powerful evil drug in the universe: POWER. after that first hit, nothing else will do! As with all true addicts, they will spend the rest of their lives trying to get that pipe to do its thing again.
    Witness they way the first environmentalists Nogot laws passed to clean up the streets, streams, and air. Now these same people are trying to toss out imminent domain, forcing the Supreme Court (you remember them, in the ’60’s they had their big hit “Stop! In The Name of The Law I Just Made Up!”) to hear cases argued that should have been thrown out as frivolous in the first court they came to. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to force New York City to buy the size soda drink HE thinks they should! PETA is trying to put McDonald’s out business (I don’t know what I would have done without their “Happy Meals when boys were little!) because they want everyone to do what they want them to! And we have a President who pretty much blatantly hates the Catholic Church because they won’t kowtow to what he wants them to do, even forcing them out of the noble work of finding babies for people who desperately want them. Plus the Church won’t change beliefs 2,000 years old (By Someone who actually

  • Blobee

    There are two parts to the marriage commitment. The first is the public ceremony in which vows are taken to make the marriage known. The second is a private act of consummation of the marriage. Consummation has always been understood to be coitus. No other sexual act done instead would have been acceptable. If the marriage was not consummated, it could be annulled as invalid. Homosexual couples by their very biology are not able to perform coitus, and so therefore cannot consummate a marriage. Even infertile older couples and those too old to procreate can perform coitus.

  • Ut

    The title of this article should be “3 claims I want to make, have no scientific evidence for, and will present in a safe place where everyone will agree with me”… but I guess that was a little long. I’d go point by point to explain why your incredibly vague arguments based entirely on stereotyping marriage equality advocates is off base, but I feel my energies would be wasted, sadly. All I’ll say is that I’m sorry you haven’t had the opportunity to know and cherish loving gay couples. For if you had, you’d witness a beautiful love which forms the foundation of a family — and then you’d get it.

  • Blobee

    You presume the author knows no gay couples, for which you have no proof. Ironic since you claim she is stereotyping, and then you stereotype her! Be that as it may, I don’t know if she knows any gay couples. I, on the other hand, have known many gay couples, (many!) some of whom had been together for many years (many years, over 30). But you know, although they were definitely partners and committed, when seeing them talking to or interacting with a heterosexual married couple, there was no comparison. Their relationship seemed to lack some kind of key component, some kind of unity that the heterosexual couple had that they did not. Which of them would admit it? None, I bet. But their love did not appear beautiful. It appeared selfish. My impression was they found homosexuality easier than trying to make a heterosexual relationship work. They copped out. That was just my impression.

  • TimsArmyWifey

    I don’t know about that, some people really do not want to be labeled as “haters”, “different” or “phobic” of anything ….

  • Mike

    Cant we all just get along ? Geeee!!!!

  • The natural world tells us the cause and results and nature of an act. Sometimes this is obvious, other times less so.

    As I mentioned before, Aquinas believed that “wasting seed” was equivalent to an abortion. Abortion is wrong, therefore, wasting seed is wrong. However, further study of the natural world tells us that this is not the case. The old reasoning is flawed and either the Church’s reasoning must be revised to match current knowledge of the natural world or the Church is making an argument from authority.

    If the Church is making an argument from authority, then they should be honest about it, and not claim it as Natural Law.

    The Church has changed its position on other matters, such as lending money at interest. This was once a sin, but increased knowledge of economics shows that there is such a thing as a just rate of interest, which compensates the lender for the time value of money and the risk of the loan. To say that lending money at interest is always immoral ignores this economic reality.

  • Leila Miller

    James, you fundamentally misunderstand.

    First, the concept of “wasting” anything is a moral judgment and has nothing at all to do with science. If I am understanding you correctly (and forgive me if I am not), you have confused a subjective judgment of something with science. If I tell my child he is “wasting” his food, that is not science. Aquinas, as a theologian and philosopher, was not doing science.

    Aquinas was a theologian, not the Magisterium of the Church. Theologians can posit and philosophize about the whys of Church teaching, and make them understandable or dive into the depths of those teachings, but they do not make infallible pronouncements on doctrine or morality. What is infallible is official Church teaching (via the Magisterium) on the moral law, which stands today as it has for 2,000 years: Masturbation is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Both of those were true in Aquinas’ time, and they are true today.

    Natural Law (the universal moral law) is exactly the same today as it was in Aquinas’ time. It was a sin to masturbate then, and it is still a sin today. It was a sin to abort a child then, and it is still a sin today. The Church has never and will never and can never change the moral law. She can only proclaim it.

    Science can observe the natural world, using empirical evidence of material things, and it can tell us about the mechanisms of biology, chemistry, etc., in both those actions (masturbation and abortion), but it cannot speak on their morality. That is outside of science’s purview.

    As for usury, you are mistaken as well. Usury is still immoral. You need more information on what is meant by usury and usurious actions, and you can start here:


    Blessings on this Good Friday!

  • What I am asking is by what reason does the Church declare these things wrong other than because they say so?

    Is this an arbitrary teaching or are there reasons behind it? If there are reasons behind it, then the Church must be able to defend them without resulting to matters of doctrine, such as infallibility.

  • No, you have fundamentally misunderstood me.

    The question I ask is by what reason does the Catholic Church declare homosexuality immoral?

    If it is a matter of the Natural Law, then Church should be able to show the reasons from the natural world without having to resort to matters of doctrine, such as infallibility.

    Why would a “natural person”, who has does not accept Catholic doctrine or the authority of the Catholic Church view homosexuality as immoral?

    If the reasons from the natural world aren’t there to support the proposition, then I don’t think the Catholic Church can expect non-Catholics to view it as part of the universal moral law. Binding on Catholics as a matter of faith, perhaps, but not on the world at large.

  • Leila, my replies aren’t showing up, so I will summarize here.

    You fundamentally misunderstand what I am saying.

    If the immorality of homosexual acts are a matter of Natural Law, then the Catholic Church should be able to show the harms from the natural world without resorting to doctrine, such as infallibility.

    As I have seen no evidence of such harms from the natural world, I must conclude that the Catholic teaching on the immorality of homosexual acts cannot be a matter of universal moral law (which is apparent to all men, regardless of divine revelation), but is simply a matter of Catholic doctrine and theology.

    If there IS evidence of such harms, then please present them.

    As for changes in the understanding of the natural moral law, is sex during menstruation moral or immoral? Aquinas’s view is quite different than that of the modern Church.


  • tania

    So if I don’t want to have children, should I just avoid marriage altogether?

  • tania

    So what youre saying is, if I do not have children, my marriage loses its ‘uniqueness’, would it only be as unique as a same-sex marriage?

  • Amanda

    I don’t believe that homosexuality is right. However, I am an American, and I am a soldier and I believe in and defend the same constitution that protects people from religious persecution (England, Catholics vs. Protestants, remember that?) Anyone can believe what they want, and worship whomever they choose, whether it’s the Egyptian Sun God, Thor, or Jesus. The constitution says that our bible does not choose the laws that are incorporated in our Country. We can still minister to those that have not accepted Jesus as their savior, but if we are going to use the Freedom of Speech that the constitution has afforded us, and know that the constitution protects us from being persecuted because we may not believe the same religion as, say, the president, we must also accept that other Americans are afforded the Separation of Church and State.

  • Leila Miller

    James, great question. The universal moral law is written on the hearts of every man. For example, if we really think about it, we know that the acts of placing the reproductive organs in the digestive tract are not in accord with our dignity as human beings. (Sorry to be graphic.) And we know in our hearts that it is wrong to steal, or to lie, or to kill innocents. These types of things are written on the human heart. And we can access these truths via reason alone. The moral law is not just a “church” (Christian) teaching, as exemplified by the fact that the orthodox of every major world religion teaches these truths. So, it’s universal, known on some level by all. I highly recommend the books by Professor J. Budziszewski, which give good overviews of Natural Law, and how we are to understand it.

    No arbitrary teachings at all. It all has to do with right order, human dignity and what makes us flourish. We speak of the virtues, which are universal, and which restore us to right order and dignity. We are made in the image and likeness of God, and so we have been given great, great dignity. Honestly, it’s quite beautiful, and it’s where we all can find great peace and interior joy, the kind that “the world cannot give”.

    As for infallibility, that is simply the charism by which we can know, without doubt, what is true (either morally or doctrinally). It is a gift that Jesus left, so that the Truth could be known to all. We all have concupiscence, and our tendency to sin and selfishness can cloud our judgment and dull our consciences and darken our intellect. Revelation, protected through the Church’s Magisterium, is a great gift for all of us from our loving God.

  • My problem is with the idea that “dignity” is an objective matter as opposed to a subjective one. Personal preferences do not make an objective moral law.

    Yes, certain sexual practices are universally unhealthy and harmful, and are wrong for these reasons. Any couple, gay or straight, can engage in them, and no couple, gay or straight, has to engage in them.

    If we are going to talk about specific acts, then is sex during menstruation objectively dignified or undignified? Compare Leviticus 18:19 and Aquinas to modern Church teaching on the matter.

    Why is an act undignified when a woman does it to another woman, but dignified (and practically necessary) when a man does it to his wife in preparation for intercourse? Does the intercourse retroactively make an undignified act dignified?

    And what of an unmarried man doing it to an unmarried woman? The problem here is not in the act, but the relationship of the partners.

    How can a mutually enjoyable act between two people who love each other be “undignified”? Contrary to a sacramental understanding of marriage, perhaps, but undignified for all?

    You may delete my other responses as redundant.

  • Leila Miller

    James, I wish I had more time today to talk about this, but please feel free to email me (look on my Little Catholic Bubble blog) if you want to get more in-depth.

    Our human dignity (and virtue itself) is objective, not subjective. There is no human dignity in making or watching porn, for example, and in our hearts we all know it (unless we have been so twisted and blinded by sin). The way we use human sexuality today (and use people) is like taking a Rembrandt and using it to line the bottom of a birdcage. No amount of “love” makes acts of sodomy virtuous. Read here from a friend of mine, who used to be a committed lesbian and found some distinctions:


    Basically, even our biology speaks to the purpose and nature of things. Look at a male and a female body. They don’t make sense without each other. Our bodies hold the answer (via reason) for what things are for. (Always ask, “What is the nature of a thing?”) And just because heterosexual couples can perform acts of sodomy (using the digestive tract as the receptacle for the reproductive function), doesn’t make it right. We all make choices, and have free will, and we all seek pleasure instead of goodness and truth, but deep down, we know.

    With fornication, the biology might be rightly ordered, but the will is not. Unmarried folks should not be engaging in the baby-making act (yes, that is the biological purpose of that act). All times, creeds, societies, races have understood this and have had marriage as their foundation (again, for the protection of the woman and the children especially). Homosexual acts, even when accepted in pagan societies, were never raised to the level of marriage.

    Please don’t confuse Levitical laws (changeable disciplines, not dogma) with the universal moral law. Again, I will be happy to discuss this all at leisure via email.

    I am glad this interests you, though, and you seem like a thoughtful person. This is a good article from a former atheist, on the use of human sexuality and why all this is so hard for us to see and understand today:


    Go to the section entitled, “It All Begins With Sex”.

    Many blessings!

  • Leila Miller

    Sorry, with that last answer I don’t think I responded to this:

    “Why is an act undignified when a woman does it to another woman, but dignified (and practically necessary) when a man does it to his wife in preparation for intercourse? Does the intercourse retroactively make an undignified act dignified?”

    Because foreplay is a means to an end (the end being full union), not an end in itself. All that two women can do is the equivalent of foreplay, or mutual masturbation. There is not life-giving union there, not even anatomically possible. Foreplay is not consummation or becoming “one flesh”.

  • tania

    You do realize that when reason and logic are the basis for all our laws, god will be nowhere in the equation right?

  • tania

    It sounds to me like you’re American. And if I lived in your shitty country I’d be as pissed as you too.

  • Ahhh, that unions must be life-giving and that couples become “one flesh” are matters of Catholic doctrine on the sacrament of marriage, not things that are “written on the human heart”.

    If it were that obvious, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

  • I didn’t see this until after I responded to the other comment.

    Everything you have presented is either based in Catholic doctrine or off topic.

    The first article is inherently Catholic. “Yet something said no. It was Christ calling my heart.”

    The second is about contraception. People fail to recognize the risk of “protected” sex, then “unexpectedly” end up pregnant. Homosexual acts cannot lead to unplanned pregnancy or abortion for obvious reasons.

  • I think we have talked this subject to death, but I do ask that you read Noah Millman’s critique of Natural Law, especially the next to last paragraph, which is about human sexuality.


  • Peter Nyikos

    Looks like you have a severe reading comprehension problem. Here is what it’s all about, straight from the Wikipedia article whose link you give:

    “three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives.

    Did you look at the term “”three fifths of all other persons” in the Constitution out of context?

    Next time, double check when someone says you are being inaccurate.

  • Peter Nyikos

    Let’s back up a bit here. Sterility is a serious enough matter that it was grounds for divorce in most states for over a century. And if one asks another before matrimony whether the other is sterile, the other is obligated to give an honest answer, otherwise the marriage is invalid.

    There is no sure test for sterility in the vast majority of people of childbearing age, and so it would obviously be impractical to bar people from getting married until it is known that they are not sterile. As for old people where the woman is obviously beyond childbearing age, that is a millennia-old tradition that comes under the heading, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

    Some might construe that tradition as society having gone part way down the slippery slope, but that is no argument for going further.

  • Peter Nyikos

    Why are you so sure there is no rational basis for belief in God?

  • Leila Miller

    Actually, no, Tania, since God is the author of logic and reason.

    Let me recommend a book to you:

    From Atheism to Catholicism: How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to Truth, by Dr. Kevin Vost (Mensa member and psychology professor). It’s just a primer, but very good.

    The New Atheists have little to no background in philosophy (which is the field that deals with logical thought, as opposed to science, which deals with the material world), and no understanding of theology (which is why they are constantly arguing straw men).

    Anyway, if you have an open mind and integrity, you will start to get to know your opponents’ arguments backwards and forwards. I don’t see evidence of that in your comment, because if you understood the difference between positive law (what you are advocating) and Natural Law-based laws (what our nation was founded on and which Martin Luther King, Jr. expounded on in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail), you would realize that positive law is based on the zeitgeist (which changes with the wind) and Natural Law is based in unchanging Truth. The latter is much more reasonable, and the former is much more fickle and emotional, based on folks’ “feelings” at that moment in society.


  • Leila Miller

    James, I showed you the article from my ex-lesbian friend because you spoke of dignity, and also about relationships. She made distinctions between different kinds of love.

    How is any of it off topic? Biology, truth, relationships, dignity. We have touched on all of it. It’s a huge topic, human sexuality. And it has order and dignity if we look.

    We are sooooo messed up sexually in this culture (just look at STD stats, look at 54 million baby corpses, look at young girls being used and cast off, with broken hearts that make them seek out more false love, look at the porn epidemic, etc.). I’m trying to say… look at the simple beauty of what the body is for, how it’s designed, and that there is a right order to things, both morally and biologically. And how misuse of that goes against our human dignity.

    Anyway, I can’t force you to believe anything. God gave us free will and we can either spend a life in pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty, or we don’t have to. I’ve lived both ways, and the latter is so much more amazing. It brings incredible peace. Blessings!

  • tania

    And in fact, James, that’s why many have changed their minds on this issue. It’s not because people are being ‘bullied’ into changing their minds, its because they’re waking up. So I don’t know where this woman is getting her ‘facts’ from, but they are incorrect.


  • tania

    Yes polygamy. Why does everyone who opposes same-sex marriage always use this as an argument? Do I care if you are polygamous? Nope. Marry 6 people, I don’t care. Marry your mother for that matter, as long as its consenting adults, I don’t give a rat’s who you marry.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    Some traditions (i.e., the Vedanta), believe that a supreme being plays some kind of role, for example, as the dispenser of the ‘fruits’ of karma[13]

    In Christianity it’s called: “Grace.”

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    But they CAN marry. Just because they want to ‘marry’ a person of the same sex, which is NOT what marriage is, and have the approval of the rest of us. They don’t approve of me. Why should I approve of them?

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    Marriage is not a right. We have plenty of restrictions on marriage. Incest, for example. If you want to argue because people “want” to do it so it should be a ‘right’, what about people who “want” to murder?

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    They already have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Just because they choose to not exercise that right we should throw out our whole culture? Give me a break.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    It was an informal theocracy with Judeo-Christianity understood as the basis for the law. Which is why the Ten Commandments were displayed in so many places. Which is why the layout of the capital is in the shape of a cross, which is why the supreme court building has statues of Moses.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    That is not what it says. It says that they would be counted as 3/5 for representation and tax distribution purposes. Wiki 3/5 compromise. This was a compromise between the free states and the slave states.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    SSM has NO chance of procreation. Heterosexual marriages, even if the participants cannot objectively procreate, there is always a chance.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    There are many health issues associated with SSM that are not widely publicized because it is non-PC.

    “The Health Risks of Gay SexJOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.

    As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and homosexual sex, it is my duty to discourage it.”

  • El_Tigre_Loco
  • Canada. (Not the United States.)

  • Neither one of us has “lived both ways”. Neither one of us is gay.

    As for marriages, some couples have found peace, but others have found frustration in trying to follow Catholic teaching on sexuality. It’s a difficult way to live and one that doesn’t make any sense without a Catholic view of marriage and sexuality.

  • Leila Miller

    I agree with your last sentence, and I agree that living out the virtues is very difficult. But just because something is difficult does not mean it’s not the right thing to do. In fact, society used to teach our children that we must always do the right thing, no matter the cost. And that self-restraint (itself a virtue) was a sign of maturity. We all have crosses to bear, and some are more difficult than others.

    And remember, what I am proposing was never simply “the Catholic view of marriage and sexuality”, but universal. The idea of completely, purposely divorcing the sexual faculty from procreation makes no reasonable sense. Just a teeny sampling of how it falls under the category of Natural Law (these folks were not Catholic, and would not have believed in the Marian doctrines [or even a changeable Church discipline like not eating meat on Fridays]):


    Anyway, I think I will have to give my leave now, but again, you are welcome to email me privately. Many thanks!

  • Yes, this discussion has gotten old.

    Where we disagree is with the universal nature of the teachings. I see it as completely reasonable for two people to do something that they both mutually enjoy—whatever that may be—if there is no harm to themselves or others.

    The Catholic teaching is indeed a cross to bear, there is no sense sugarcoating it. As Catholics, we sign up for that, but to the rest of the world, the cross is “a stumbling block for the Jews and folly to the Greeks”, as St. Paul wrote.

  • Michele Ayala

    Leila, I see you out there in the trenches. Excellent and accurate compilation of the reality of engaging homosexual activists and SSM Supporters. Be not afraid…stand firm and hold fast…you are indeed on the right side of truth!! Bravo Leila Miller. Well written!

  • Leila Miller

    But they are universal, even when rejected.

    And as a Catholic, we know that homosexual acts do harm gay folks themselves (their eternal souls are in jeopardy, and their bodies are at risk….even the LGBT medical societies speak of the increased risks for gay males especially) and others, including society and children (weakening the meaning of marriage, flaunting the meaning of sexuality, and as Pope Francis says, children raised in such unions are harmed by it — not to mention that gays and lesbians now purposely create children to not know their mother or their father). It also harms the Church:


    Yes, the Truth is a stumbling block, but it is Truth for everyone nonetheless, and we as Catholics pray that all will come to know the Truth, as that is what is best for their souls. True love means willing the good of the other, and wanting him/her to get to Heaven. Christ’s sacrifice meant nothing if not that. As a Catholic, you didn’t just “sign up” for yourself, you signed up to to preach that Truth to all, and make disciples of all nations. We are to evangelize and tell people the Truth. It takes courage, but it’s imperative and we will be judged on whether we did speak the Truth, in love.

    I will let you have the last word.


  • Michele Ayala

    Have you seen any Catholic approve of sexual abuse? Not a one I know approves of such a horrific crime. You present a red herring…”look the sky is falling” all the while knowing your standing on a sink hole. Pathetic.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    Yes, but Canada is about 10 years ahead of the US in this type of legislation and our experience is following theirs fairly well.

  • The fourth thing people don’t know is the lie gay activists like spreading that their push for “equality” is the same as the push for Civil Rights for African Americans in the 1960’s, and that their desire for marriage is no different than that of interracial couples during that time. First of all, most African Americans I know would disagree with this comparison. Gays in this country are not politically powerless. On the contrary, they are politically VERY powerful. Gays say they’re being discriminated against. But no one has yet shown that being gay is an immutable characteristic like race, age, sex, etc, that we do protect by law against discrimination. For decades in this country African Americans were denied basic civil rights, like the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to live where they want, the right to work to their fullest potential. Let’s face facts: this pitiful push for the acceptance of homosexuality just isn’t the same as the very real struggle of African Americans for basic Civil Rights.

    The other lie often promoted by gay activists is that young people are on their side. On the contrary, I know of many groups of young conservatives on college campuses that are fighting the gay agenda at their schools. It is true that young people are often exposed to liberal instructors and professors and sometimes have a hard time challenging them, but they often do so successfully. After all, young people want to be liked and, like their adult counterparts, often don’t know what to say in defense of what they know deep down to be true: that real marriage and real families with both a mom and a dad count.

  • Peter Nyikos

    After resisting the new use of the word “gay” for a long time, I finally decided it now belongs to he Gay Power movement, and its traditional meaning (as in the Flintstone’s song ending in “we’ll have a gay old time”) is headed for extinction.
    My attitude is now expressed by the words of Bagheera in The Jungle Book, with one little change. “Ye have fought for [the word], and it’s yours. Eat it, wolves.”

  • Awesome, Leila! I agree with everything you said here.

  • Peter Nyikos

    I’m calling your bluff. Go ahead with a point by point “analysis”. I doubt that you can come up with an argument that hasn’t already been given by your fellow propagandists whose very existence you deny by sayiing “where everyone will agree with me”.
    Your patently ridiculous “incredibly vague arguments” makes me confident that you will fold.

  • Peter Nyikos

    One of you “Ut”s is being satirical. Which one?

  • Peter Nyikos

    Well said, Leila. John Ventura uses a number of standard dirty debating tactics with which Gay Power propaganda (also abortion rights propaganda) is full. His number 3 ignores the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked about the same things in reaction to oral testimony. You can read about it here:

    The article is mostly about John’s kindred spirits at Johns Hopkins University petitioning to have Dr. Carson disinvited as commencement speaker because he dared to mention the same things in the same breath with same-sex marriage that you did.

  • Which is my point: You cannot talk about eternal souls without talking about God, and this is a matter that is beyond mere nature.

    Perhaps this is what we are supposed to get back to in the first place—the message of Christ, which transcends nature and secular politics.

    As Jesus said to Pilate: “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my
    kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants [would] be fighting to
    keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is
    not here.”

    Or as Pope Francis put it, “Without Christ crucified, the Church is no more than a pathetic NGO.”

    I have enjoyed this discussion, thanks.

  • Peter Nyikos

    Your imperative sentence is a dirty debating tactic known as “moving the goalposts.” I was responding to your comment about what you think, or pretend to think, motivates opposition to “gay marriage” and not the point you are introducing for the first time to me.
    Clean up your act and I’ll answer your new question.

  • Mary

    God created humans in His image, man and women. Each with different parts to carry out his plans for our lives and for the lives of the fruits of our sacred union. Marriage must remain sacred between one man and one woman.
    To those who critisize the Catholic church, please make VALID arguments based on church doctrine, NOT based on the sins of individuals within it.

    And David Lee, whoever you are, please just shut up. It’s ignorant small minded people like you who try to speak for our beloved church that make it sound like a convent from 1347, our church is Peacful and teaches us love and respect others no matter what. Blessed John Paul II paid his respects to a Muslim mosque, he did not spit upon it and hope “they’d drop their car keys” anywhere. I think it’s you That needs to visit a priest to know and practice what our church is about.

  • Dan

    What scares me is the moral direction the world is moving in. I also don’t care if I’m called a bigot. Better a bigot than an abomination.

  • I don’t buy any of this! First of all, I hardly think that expressing an opinion supporting gay marriage constitutes bullying. Just because lots of people hold the opinion doesn’t mean that they’re bullies. You may feel bullied, but develop some spine! Sometimes people will disagree with you and that’s OK.

    Second of all, you pick one definition of marriage out of context and point out that it is too vague. This doesn’t mean that people who are for gay marriage have no idea what marriage is (and therefore their opinion that gays should be permitted to marry) is invalid somehow?? And finally, your assertion that people who support gay marriage, when pushed, are truly for, or at least indifferent to, group marriage, incestuous unions or inter-species marriage is, frankly, absurd.
    You of course are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn’t mean mine constitutes aggression, ignorance or sloppy reasoning.

  • Richard III

    You’re both heroic and have obviously taken to heart Christ’s words that the world will hate you for the good that you do. Awesome job, Mr. Nyikos and Ms. Miller.

  • Richard III

    Oh, Yeah!

  • Richard III

    How can you speak to a woman that way?! It’s your disgusting and offensive statement that’s gross here.

  • Richard III

    Guess there’ll be no more making the Yuletide gay either now. :-/

  • Richard III

    No, because nobody is born gay. How any given person becomes it varies from person to person, but NOBODY is born homosexual.

  • Leila Miller

    Agreed, and when we care about people, it means we care about their ultimate destinies. But if they are not ready to talk about their souls, we can still talk about their dignity as human beings, and right order, the nature of a thing, the rights of children to know their biological mother and father, etc.. All Natural Law truths can be accessed by human reason. Everything on that plane is a step towards truth, and we meet people where they are, to bring them to that higher place where God intends to shower them with His love and glory. Blessed Easter! He is Risen, indeed He is Risen!

  • Richard III

    If you really don’t want kids, I’d say yes, don’t got married. If you marry, you have to be open to the very real possibility of conceiving, bearing, and raising at least 1 child.

  • Richard III

    S. I. C. K. !. i wonder if the 50 shades in the title refers to all the shades and gradations in the lunch lost by all the decent people unfortunate enough to come into contact with that filthy sludge. (somebody get me a bucket, quick. :-P)

  • Richard III

    All right, everybody (Satmara, Tania, and Victoria) calm down. Cuss words and insults aren’t going to help anything or anyone. Hypocrites and scoundrels abound everywhere, America, Canada, England, you name it. If we want them gone, we need to work together against them, not alienate one another by being offensive.

  • Richard III

    Good for you. I hate birth control too.

  • Richard III

    The Catholic Church does NOT allow divorce. It allows annulments, which are formal declarations that a marriage never happened or was invalid. An annulment cannot break up an existing, valid marriage (and neither can a divorce for that matter)

  • Richard III

    Mrs. Miller said lots, NOT most, NOT all, just lots.

  • Richard III

    Thank YOU for your patience, Mrs. Miller. If this were my article/site, I would not be dealing with all the stress anywhere near as well as you are.

  • Leila Miller

    Thank you kindly, Richard III! Blessed Easter to you! He is Risen, indeed He is Risen!

  • Richard III

    So Catholics aren’t allowed to impact others with their beliefs, but gays, muslims, atheists, etc. are?

  • Yes, because allowing gays to marry would be throwing out our whole culture. Ridiculous statement. Blowing it way out of proportion. Clueless.

  • Yes, definitely a theocracy because there isn’t a separation of church and state. Where are the ten commandments displayed?

  • You have not made a good non-religious argument against gay marriage. Nobody has. Which is why it will be legal. Clean up my act? This article pretends to think they know why people are for gay marriage. This woman is incredibly misinformed and warped by the church.

  • However, many catholics get divorces. They aren’t shunned last I checked.

  • Everything she says is a sweeping generalization. I have just learned to not take it seriously as she is a joke.

  • tania

    Agreed. The numbers have risen and not because of bullying. This is what people of faith do. They make claims like this, claims that are never based on fact. The catholic church’s numbers are not increasing, they are in fact, decreasing. AIDS cannot get through a condom, as the previous pope said.

  • tania

    And rapists and murderers are disproportionately male,, whats your point??

  • tania

    Instead of offering this to gay couples, why dont we just remove it for everyone? Imagine what would happen if this happened? Christians would be in an uproar, even though their relationships supposedly arent ‘all about the money’

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    In the Supreme Court Building. The aclu is working to change this, (anti Christian legal usurpers.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    True, but their ACTIONS are. In all the history of the world, people were born into one class or another. The USA is the only country that eliminated that. Now because some people choose to break the law, we suddenly find them claiming this lawbreaking as a civil right. If everything persons want is a ‘right’ and I want to murder people, isn’t that a right?

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.

  • Richard III

    If she’s a joke, then why aren’t you laughing?

  • Richard III

    Thank you, you’re welcome, and Happy Easter.

  • It isn’t a question of people holding a certain opinion, Martha. It is that their opinion is based on misinformation and lies – the three lies Leila mentioned and the two additional lies I included below. First, this isn’t about “marriage” at all. It is all about coercing and yes, bullying, the acceptance of homosexuality on all of us. What else can you call it when companies are sued and individuals are fired or placed on administrative leave because they express support for traditional marriage? Not only that, but companies that actually support traditional marriage are being forced into taking actions that violate their core beliefs, like eharmony having to create a gay dating site or go out of business. How sick is that? I call that aggression. I could give you dozens of examples, but you get the idea.

    Second, I have personally been the victim of this kind of bullying. Because I simply donated to the campaign to pass Prop 8 in California, my name was listed along with others on several (at least 10) gay activist websites as being a hater and a bigot, The site was set to be a top site in Google results for all our names so that employers or prospective employers would not hire us or promote us. The sites warned that if the companies we worked for didn’t take action against us or any company hired us, they would be boycotted until we were fired. I get it that that was an over-the-top, outrageous threat, but don’t think for a second it wouldn’t make some people think twice before they donated again to a cause they did and still do support. It’s enough to silence people if they are worried about losing their job. Don’t you dare call people spineless because they are concerned about their families. I’m not because I’m not in that position, but I can easily understand it.

    I could go on, but you get the idea. You can’t tell me that bullying and intimidation aren’t part of the tactic being used to impose gay “marriage” on this country. Look at what’s happening to military chaplains! I mean really, you can’t be that clueless, Martha.

  • Juergensen

    Women can hardly rape, can they? And it’s actually BLACK males who are disproportionately murderers. What’s your point?

  • 5 poor arguments (to me) against homosexuality & gay marriage:

    1) Homosexuality is unnatural.

    Then why has homosexuality been observed in thousands of species of animals? Why are there physical differences in the brain structure of heterosexual and homosexual people? Why is there a difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men? Why is it that, in homosexual men, neurons in the INAH3 are packed more closely together than in heterosexual men? Why do connections in the amygdalas of homosexual men resemble those of heterosexual women? Why do connections in the amygdala of homosexual women resemble those of heterosexual men? Did you know that the tiny inaudible sounds our ears make are different for lesbian ears than heterosexual ears? Did you know that there are physical differences in the brain structure of heterosexual and homosexual people? Did you know that gay men have a detestably different scent/body odor in their sweat than straight men in double-blind studies? What about the piling evidence that supports the gay gene and that children are born gay? If homosexuality is, in fact, “unnatural” then why are many unnatural things viewed as “good” and many “natural” things viewed as “bad”? Do you view homosexuality as a disease that can be “cured”?

    2) Homosexual couples cannot have children.

    Why isn’t reproduction a criteria for people being allowed to get married? Why are children not a necessary component of marriage? What about infertile heterosexual couples? Should heterosexual couples not be able to get married on the basis that they are unable to produce children? What about couples who do not even want children? Should couples not be able to get married on the basis that they do not want children? What about homosexual couples who use surrogates or become surrogates themselves? What about homosexual couples who use invitro fertilization? What about homosexual women who are impregnated by their rapist?

    3) Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman.

    If this is true, why was it not unheard of for people to marry more than one spouse hundreds of years ago? Why was polygamy common thousands and even hundreds of years ago? Wasn’t marriage originally a contract between the couples and the state? Hasn’t marriage evolved over the past thousands of years? Why say that there was anything “traditional” about marriage when that is historically untrue? Did you know that, “traditionally,” men were given more rights? Would you rather go back to a time where women had barely any rights to money, property or their own children during or after a marriage?

    4) Religion.

    Isn’t the proper, historical and religious term for religious marriages called “wedlock”? Wasn’t the word “marriage” NOT coined by religion? Weren’t there polygamous relationships in the bible? Don’t people who aren’t religiously affiliated able to get married? What does a persons religion have anything to do with marriage as a whole? What does another persons marriage or reasons for getting marriage have anything to do with you? If the bible is not a legal document, and it marriage was not coined by religion, then why should everyone adhere to those religious beliefs? Why should a secular society conform to your beliefs when they have no meaningful basis in a non-Catholic/Christian world?

    5) Homosexual relationships are harmful to children.

    How exactly are they more harmful? Would you rather a child go to a mental institution than to go to a family where they will be loved and cared for and raised by two men or two women? Would you go up to a child who is facing imminent institutionalization, and tell her that that’s nothing compared to having two mothers or fathers? Who cares if they shave her head, if she’ll never have a family, if she’ll lose her smile and her chance at a normal childhood? At least she won’t have gay parents, right? If you can’t pinpoint anything harmful or abusive, then on what basis do you have to call those relationships harmful or abusive? If you can’t explain anything outside the context of your faith, why should the rest of us take you seriously and listen to what you have to say when it comes to our own lifestyle and policy decisions?

  • Richard III

    That doesn’t mean it’s OK. Catholics CAN get civil divorces in extreme cases like abuse, but they can’t remarry until the other spouse dies. Divorce for any other reason or remarriage before the 1st spouse dies is a violation of the Church’s teachings, no matter how many people do it.

  • I was at the Rally for Traditional marriage in DC on March 26th and I asked five of the progay activists if they supported polygamy and everyone of them did! Half also supported chld -adult sex as a choice for those involved. I asked the ones who did not support the adult-child sexual relationships what the basis was for that and they couldn’t tell me. If gay sex is so natural and the moral equivalent of heterosexual unions why is it that 70-80% of the AIDs cases are in the gay community? They also support transgendered folks using the lockers and bathrooms of the opposite sex. This recently happened in Washington State where a transgendered male was parading around naked in the girls/woman’s locker room at Evergreen College pool. The media will never publicize this as it informds the public of the true gay agenda. Finally, a bakery owned by a Christian in Denver refused to provide a cake to a lesbian couple for their “wedding” ceremony so they are suing him. What about tolerance for one’s beliefs? The bottom line is that there is no tolerance for those who do not accept the gay agenda.

  • Why are 70-80% of the AIDs cases in the gay community if their behavior is equivalent to that of the heterosexual community. One of my neighbors died of AIDs at age 40 about 15 years ago. He came from a broken home and embraced the gay lifestyle and moved to San Francisco. At his funeral his friends came up and told his mother that there was nothing wrong with his lifestyle. His mother told my folks “I wish someone had told him there was something wrong with his lifestyle as he may be alive today.”

  • I talked to many gay activists at the recent rally in DC and everyone supported polygamy and none believed in God. I told them if there is no God then anything goes as it did in Nazi Germany.

  • tania

    Why wouldn’t you support polygamy? If 5 consenting adults want to get married, go for it. And of course you wouldn’t support adult child sex because statutory rape is statutory rape, just like it is for heterosexual couples. Please reply with the evidence that 70-80% of people living with AIDS belong to the gay community. In fact, the most new cases of AIDS come from mothers passing it to their children in childbirth. And of course I would support transgendered youths using the same locker rooms as their peers. A transgendered male parading around naked in the woman’s change room, would this not be the same as a MAN walking around naked in the changeroom? Do you sit there and stare at others in the changeroom? Do people stare at you? I didnt think so. So its no different than if a naked man or woman were to ‘parade’ around the opposite sex’s dressing room, we would still find that creepy. There is plenty tolerance for people who don’t support the ‘gay agenda’. If you dont believe in gay marriage, dont be gay and get married. Just like the rest of the planet doesnt go to a Christian church. But you cant prevent them going to a church of their choice, just like you dont want them preventing you from going to a church of your choice.

  • God does love evryone but that does not mean that everyone is going to heaven and there is no hell. The Lord was very clear in numerous places that many will choose hell by the choices they make here in life. See Matthew 24, the Final Judgment as an example. Our Lord constantly warned those He preached to that the Day of Judg,ment was coming for all of us. The Acts of the Apostles and the rest of the New Testament had some pretty harsh warnings for those who refuse to follow His Commendments. We are not supposed to judge the final destination of any individual soul but we are supposed to teach and correct our brothers and sisters on objective right and wrong in a charitable way.

  • I agree that the polls are deceiving and the majority don’t approve of gay marriage. But more importantly, I am reminded of a saying my folks taught me:”Right is right even if nobody is right; wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong.” My corrolary to that is that Jesus never said the majority are going to heaven and there is always room for one more soul in heaven or hell.

  • They have already demanded other people’s children as in places such as DC. They passed a law that adoption agencies must place children with gay and straight couples if they operate in DC. Rather than capitulate, Catholic Charities no longer does adoption in DC. So much for toleration.

  • Celibacy is not against nature as men or women freely choose to forgo marriage (and sex) for a higher purpose. Jesus had followers who were not married and the Church has allowed married clergy and celibate ones until about 1100. It then changed this to require all clergy to be celebate as it is not considered a faith and morals issue, but rather a discipline of the Church. The Pope could change it back if he thought it was appropriate but he cannot change the stand on something like abortion which is intrinsicly evil.

  • I agree with you about the culture failing even in the heterosexual community but that does not mean that everything should be legalized. Rome tried that in the days of Catigula and it didn’t quite work out.

  • Actually, in San Francisco they legalized public nudity some years ago and now are reconsidering as it has led to many of the things you point out.

  • If you don’t have any problem with a man parading around naked in a girl/women’s locker room then we are obviously on different planets morally and there is no sense continuing this discussion.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    Wow I’m amazed that supposedly intelligence people still used the animals do it argument. Animals are not self aware they do not identify who they are by what they do sexually. Animals don’t date, don’t go to church, and don’t fall in love.

    Animals also kill and eat their young and devour shit (ok homosexuals also eat feces)

    This isn’t hard the anus is for excreting waste which is full of harmful bacteria it is *not* a sexual organ.

  • happygael

    I was branded as a bigot because of what they call gay marriage, It is not marriage. If they legalixe gay marriage people should remember that ‘Law is not more important than right”.also remember that legalizing something that is wrong does not make it right.

  • Peter Nyikos

    El tigre wasn’t careful in his description of the slippery slope. Our concept of marriage is already far diluted from what Jesus told us, and same-sex marriage just moves us one step further towards the demise of our culture.

  • Peter Nyikos

    You haven’t cleaned up your act, you have dirtied it by lying that Leila Miller pretended to think she knows why people are for gay marriage, when her article says no such thing.

    You even went on to act as though this pretense of yours justified an otherwise unsupported claim that Leila Miller is “incredibly misinformed.”

    You probably don’t think of it as lying, merely as doing the Pee Wee Herman thing: “I know you are, but what am I?” by mirroring my words against me, right after I told you that you pretended to think you know why people are against same-sex marriage.

    But I was right and you are wrong. You persist in using the misnomer “gay marriage” after I corrected you on it. So I didn’t dodge your point at all–you have dodged my calling you on your propaganda.

    But I’ll answer you briefly even though you did not clean up your act.

    There have been plenty of non-religious arguments, including the state’s interest in families where one has a father and a mother, and the slippery slope argument, which will end up with married couples losing their privileges because the whole concept of marriage becomes essentially meaningless.

    But your “we are the wave of the future” taunt allows you to ignore all these arguments and many more. Zealot that you are, you will probably also dismiss the gay author of the following article as an “Uncle Tom” analogue.

  • G

    As someone who has argued with you and your minions about this topic on your blog, I have to laugh at these points, which once again, miss the mark by a fairly wide margin.

    1) Really? a logical and humane argument enters social discourse and you think it’s bullying? Ironically, bullying is what often occurs on your blog when 15-20 adamant Catholics throw out accusations and questions at gay advocates, then get miffed when an answer isn’t one you can understand.

    2) This is your best argument? After reading you blog time and time again, it seems to me Catholics are the Kings and Queens of re-defining meanings. Catholic “love” has a different meaning, you claim, “sex” can only be defined according to you, as heterosexual, despite the experiences of billions of other people. “Truth” is defined differently by you as well. In fact, Catholic terminology is rife with different meanings for concepts the rest of the world sees quite differently.

    3) You advertise your blog as a place of clarity and logic, so imagine the surprise and shock of gay advocates arguing with you when confronted with an illogical argument like, “do you support sisters and brothers getting married to each other?” Because that’s not a logical argument at all, nor are there millions of siblings worldwide trying to marry each other.

  • Peter Nyikos

    Sorry to be so late in replying. I have been extremely busy, with few long stretches of time that is needed for even getting this far down the comments.

    “All sorts of birth defects” is not a certainty, it isn’t even a high probability. Should we outlaw people from getting married if both carry recessive genes for several birth defects?

    There are enough traditional couples who are on long waiting lists to adopt. Giving same-sex couples the same privileges, and forcing Catholic adoption agencies to either violate their conscience or get out of the adoption business, will only make them wait longer.

    I’ll say one thing for you: you did not endorse every imaginable marriage the way tania did.

    But “it isn’t doing you any harm” is exactly the kind of thinking tania used, and she carried it to its logical conclusion. What neither of you seems to realize is that if civil marriage continues to be watered down, government might rescind many of the privileges that go with it or abolish it altogether.

  • Peter Nyikos

    Martha, you are knocking down a strawman when you write that you hardly think expressing an opinion constitutes bullying. That is not what Leila was talking about.

    The comment, “This doesn’t mean that people who are for gay marriage have no idea what marriage is” also misses her point about defining marriage. Besides, if you know what marriage is, why are you not telling us what it is? Are you afraid we may refute it, the way Leila has refuted several of them?

    And finally, Leila was relating her own personal experiences about what same-sex marriage proponents do when pushed. Calling that “absurd” or an “opinion” is no substitute for personal accounts of what you have experienced. The lack of such accounts by you completely invalidates your last sentence.

  • Peter Nyikos

    What you call rights are privileges that the state grants and has the power to take away, just as it can take away the privilege of civil marriage altogether.

    You seem to have missed all the comments about how gays can marry people of the opposite sex; not every marriage is based on sexual attraction. And not every case of sexual attraction deserves to be codified into marriage, especially not a sexual attraction to a married person’s spouse.

    Your arguments about the slippery slope are sophomoric. They do not take into account the realities our society is faced with. Proposition 8 wasn’t about taking away a right: it was about the people of a state trying to overturn an arbitrary decision by a tiny handful of court justices.

    A final thought for now: If same-sex marriage becomes universal in the USA, I predict that one of the first privileges to be abolished is the privilege of a foreign spouse of a citizen to immediately get permanent resident alien status. Most terrorists are men, and it is much easier for men in Muslim countries to get to know each other than it is for a man and a woman. It will only take so many terrorists entering into “marriages of convenience” to get free entry into the USA before this revoking of privilege comes to pass.

  • Peter Nyikos

    Your sarcasm seems to be promoting the idea that there is an “epidemic” of young gays killing themselves. The accounts I’ve read in the last five years about young people committing suicide as a result of bullying are, with one exception, about other forms of bullying. Given the slant of the mainstream media, that one exception is probably less typical than any of the other examples I’ve read about.

  • Richard III

    But if grown adults shouldn’t have a say in each other’s choices, why are so many militant gay marriage advocates forcing their beliefs down the throats of their opponents? If what you say is true, they aren’t playing fair.

  • Peter Nyikos

    A lot of this Old Testament practice was due to “the hardness of your hearts” whereby Moses allowed divorce. But, as Jesus said, “It was not so from the beginning” and he spelled out what marriage was supposed to be. So, unless you are a Jew, you cannot call anything except one man, one woman (Gen. 2:24) “God’s definition of marriage.”

    You give a misleading description of Exodus 21:4: there is no hint there that the marriage is involuntary.

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29, on the other hand, was more like a “shotgun marriage”, and in Exodus 22: 16-17 it is added that the father of the violated virgin can refuse to allow a marriage, but the seducer/rapist still has to pay money equivalent to the marriage present for virgins.

  • Mary

    I’ve seen the “bullying” thing with the college students I know. You ask them if they believe in gay marriage and they’re all “of course”. But mention that some classmate is gay for them, and they’re all “yuck”.

  • Mary

    Jeanette…I am really on the fence on this issue, but where do you get off saying something so crazy as homosexuals eat feces? What???/ There are deviant sexual activities across the board in heterosexual unions…so what is the point of saying something so silly? I know a few homosexuals, and I am pretty sure they would never do something like that.

  • Mary

    tania….the AIDS stat is not true in the U.S. Gay men and IV drug users OVERWHELMINGLY constitute the majority of new infections. Go to the CDC site and get your facts straight. I am on the fence on this issue…but many gay men are promiscuous…it is well known. Not all, and not really true for most lesbians, but it is still true.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    I suggest you look up rimming

  • Jeanette Victoria

    Homosexuals regularly use their tongues to stimulate the anuses of their partners, thusingesting biologically significant amounts of fecal matter. Look up Rimming

  • Jeanette Victoria

    That’s because what homosexuals do is yucky

  • Love Is Real

    He’s got good intentions. Love the sinner, hate the sin thing. There’s a line in there somewhere. Pro-gay advocates oftentimes just blot them out altogether.

  • Love Is Real

    Your words exactly, “no less human…synonymous to “not ordinary”, or “special”. So how come we’re behaving like we only know how to deal with the physical and not the spiritual? So then the purpose is just to live and thrive for the now and not hope for an eternity? Does that seem satisfactory and fulfilling to you? Now when you insert the word “right”, I think that would be a good topic if you were to define that one in a deeper sense. Contrary to how pro-gay people have failed to define marriage, couples who have kept the fire burning and lived according to their vows should serve as “witnesses” to the “IT CAN BE DONE” movement. No need to argue about rights. We all have them. We just sometimes neither know what they mean, their purpose or what to do with them.

  • Love Is Real

    Win some, lose some. But then again it’s for an everlasting cause. It’s for Him, not us. Must make the most out of time before it runs out. Keep up the good fight everyone. 🙂

  • Love Is Real

    nothing could be more true…..

  • There is a part of your article that intrigues me…

    “But a funny thing happens later on down in the conversation, when I continue to calmly press them. The same people who mock me for bringing up the “slippery slope” will ultimately admit that “it doesn’t matter” and they “don’t care” if polygamy is legalized or if two sisters marry or if Aunt Frannie wants to marry her dog. And it’s clear that they aren’t kidding. They really don’t care. I actually commend them for their integrity at that point, as allowing for all sorts of unions is consistent with their stated goal of “marriage equality, regardless of whom we love.” (So far, thankfully, no one I’ve debated has openly okayed pedophile marriage, citing “consent” laws — which they naively assume will hold forever.)”

    I have never thought of this and cannot say that I wouldn’t care when it comes to Incest or pedophile yet I am in an openly same sex relationship and I am 100% comfortable. In thinking of that part of what you wrote, how do we argue that? On the one hand we have religious beliefs and marriage defined by those beliefs that it should be between a man and a woman…and on the other hand, we argue who has the right to tell us who to love and who can join in this union. Then when you write that above, even I get to thinking about it. DOES marriage in fact NEED to be defined? And when it comes to the case of our children and protecting them? If my child and a grown person or sibling or relative claimed “LOVE” and used that as the ONLY reason needed to be together, what would we do then? Yet at the same time, I do not believe anyone has the right to say that it is not ok for me to love someone of the same sex. I have 4 children and 3 grandchildren and have never thought of what you wrote until now. Maybe there is a need to define “marriage” because marriage equality CAN NEVER mean that our children have a right to marry their relatives or siblings or that “pedophile marriage” is ok or their right!

  • Susan Quinn

    No it didn’t. It said blacks were COUNTED as 3/5 of a person for the sake of figuring out the # of representatives in Congress. This was a GOOD THING because BEFORE, they were considered as zeroes. Sheesh, learn a little basic American history that my kids learned in MIDDLE SCHOOL.

  • Total Believer

    For all those who believe in God, marriage will ALWAYS be between one man and one woman; that’s just the way it is. If you believe in God, then you believe that the Bible is God’s inerrant word, and it is to be followed “to the letter”, not picking and choosing what you like or don’t like. When Judgement Day comes, God isn’t going to be happy with those who have changed or even ‘tried’ to change HIS plan for marriage……as a matter of fact, I’d say that would be putting it mildly, and I wouldn’t want to be in such a person’s shoes… ever!!!!!

  • bluesuede

    Animals don’t have a soul that is created in the image and likeness of God, people do.

  • Kevin F.

    The new ordinal rejects the Apostolic Tradition of Holy Orders ordinations. It omits the words of Sacred Tradition which ordain a man “to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” and “to forgive sins.”

    By it own words, the new ordinal commissions laymen to be “facilitators of and presiders over community celebrations and collaborators with their Bishop.”

    The new ordinal perpetuates the FRAUD that these “laymen” are valid priests because they are called “Father” after their Newchurch lay commissioning ceremony. After receiving new-founded ordinals, a layman remains a layman.
    Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

  • Kevin F.


    “Most marriages do not please God”–Our Lady at Fatima.

    Love which is not agape-love is “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 Jn. 2:16). Such love destroys and sacrileges the Sacrament of Matrimony.

    Husbands are to agape-love their wives (Eph. 2:25). Wives (and children) are to agape-love God, which love demands that they properly submit to the husband /

    father as to the Lord Jesus (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3).

    If a woman does not want to submit, she should not marry. If a man does not want to (or can’t) agape-love his wife, he should not marry.

    WIVES OBEY (Col. 3:18)! HUSBANDS AGAPE-LOVE (Col. 3:19)!

    The husband is to be principled; that is, he is to prioritize obedience to God.

    The wife should also overwhelmingly desire to obey God; and, as it were, to obey God as incarnated or sacramentalized in her (freely chosen husband–to obey God directly and by submitting herself to her properly functioning husband.

    Eve failed to live sacramentally. She failed to obey her husband in the Lord. She took over his God-designated role. She enticed him to live for her and be obedient to her. She enticed him to love her before God. Eve ruled over her man.

    Mary undid Eve’s failure. Mary lived sacramentally.

    Read and assimilate the first chapter of the gospel of Christ according to St. John. Be positive to God’s Will for marriage. Be negative to man’s sacrilegious notion of this sacrament.

    “Most marriages do not please God.”– Our Lady of Fatima.

    (MATRIMONY THE SACRAMENT by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.)

  • Kevin F.

    Sodom and Gomorrah
    It seems that the Ebla tablets mention Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as, at least two other cities of the plain (Gn. 14). Furthermore, the Mari letters indicate that the power alignment described in Genesis (Gn. 14) existed only from about 2100 B.C. to 1700 B.C.

    Modern archaeological digs lead us to believe that the five cities of the plain were located at five wadies which empty into the Dead Sea. Excavation begun at two sites indicate a fiery destruction occurred around 2200 B.C. (Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov. 1980).

  • Kevin F

    Gay Parenting Conducive to Child Sexual Abuse

    November 7, 2012

    by Reality ( The newsletter of Real Women of Canada) November Edition

    (Edited by henrymakow.com)

    The Illuminati are using gays to undermine heterosexual marriage & family, a long-term goal of their Communist Manifesto. A recent study shows just how dangerous same-sex parenting is.

    Children raised by same-sex parents reported a 3-12 times higher incidence of sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents.

    A July 2012 scholarly, peer-reviewed study in the journal, Social Science Research, by Professor Mark Regnerus, of the University of Texas, Austin, found that:

    • Children of lesbian mothers are nearly 12 times as likely to say they were sexually touched by a parent or adult as those raised in intact, biological families.

    • 31% of those raised by lesbian mothers and 25 % raised by homosexual fathers were raped, compared to 8% of those raised in intact, biological families.

    • 90% of children raised in a normative household were heterosexual, whereas 61% raised by a lesbian parent

    and 71% raised by a homosexual father were not.

    Further, children raised by same-sex parents were:

    • Two to four times more likely to be on public assistance.

    • More than twice as likely to be unemployed.

    • Twice as likely to have contemplated suicide.

    • More likely to seek treatment for mental illness.

    • More likely to have engaged in unmarried sex.

    • At greater risk of poverty, substance abuse, and criminality.


    Homosexual advocates were furious about this study and as a result launched a withering attack.

    It was imperative for them to discredit this study and destroy Professor Regnerus’s credibility.

    Consequently, they charged him with scientific and scholarly misconduct, possible falsification of research, and deviating from ethical standards.

    Because of the viciousness of these attacks, the University convened a four-person faculty committee and hired an outside expert in “research integrity” to conduct an inquiry.

    The Committee concluded that none of the allegations against Professor Regnerus were substantiated, and that there was no scientific misconduct on his part.


    Children need stability in their lives while growing up. Professor Regnerus found that parents who had samesex relationships were the least likely to exhibit such stability.

    In this study, children raised by same-sex parents reported the highest incidence of living in foster care, with grandparents or living on their own before 18 years of age.

    In fact, less than 2% of those with a mother in a same-sex relationship reported being with her for all 18-years of their childhood and youth.

    The instability of same-sex partnerships is such that spending significant political, legal, social and economic capital to support such relationships cannot be justified. Nor, should children be used as tools and guinea pigs to further the dubious cause of same-sex marriage.

  • Kevin F

    The Rockefeller Foundation funded the birth control and “pro choice” (abortion) campaigns, the developments of the “pill” and other contraceptives, the promotion of the (homo) sexual revolution. All of these were intended to divorce sex from marriage and procreation and make sex the national pastime.

    Freemasonry, the church of Lucifer, is the true religion of the modern world. Our “culture” is essentially pagan, dedicated to money and sex. It is predicated on replacing God with man, hence “humanism,” the religion of man, sex and excrement.

    (Cruel Hoax Feminism & The New World Order by Henry Makow, PHD)

  • Kevin F

    “ALL MEN” not PC!:

    (The ABBOT & ME ON LITURGY by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.) o{]:¬)

    By 1997, custodians of the NOEL had realized there were MISTAKES in this passage. All MEN was no longer politically correct. Therefore, it was changed to the more politically correct ALL. Also, realizing that it was TOO close to being Catholic, the Novus Ordo revisionists dropped MYSTERIUM FIDEI (mystery of faith). To amend this, a response to its LET US PROCLAIM THE MYSTERY OF FAITH was invented. One of these responses INSULTS Christ Present, the Holy Sacrament, as it proclaims: “Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again.”


    “All men” was initially used, but because of “feminist political pressure” all men became the politically correct–“all.” Also, NOEL revisionists dropped the priest’s doing into “mysterium fidei,” making it instead, the PEOPLE’s Doing: “Let US proclaim the mystery of faith.”

    Futhermore, the “people celebrate Mass,” positively EXPRESSING this HERESY as they proclaim into being the “mystery of faith;” and, as each communicant BLASPHEMOUSLY proclaims HIMSELF “body of Christ” in HIS “Amen” (or “so be it”) at the reception of Communion. (“NEW MASS CONCLUSIVELY INVALID by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.



    He broke [HOC–not it] and gave to His disciples saying: Take and eat of HOC, for HOC is my body [broken for you].

    In like manner, after supper, taking also this goodly chalice into His holy and venerable hands, again GIVING thanks to Thee.

    Giving thanks, He blessed and gave to His disciples saying: Take and drink of this:

    for this is the chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant–the mystery of faith–which shall be shed for you and for MANY unto the forgiveness of sins.

  • gswf

    Of course it is not okay for anyone to do that! However, these incidences do not define the Church. As Scott mentions, statistics show that it happens everywhere (and least of all by clergy) – not that it is ever okay for it to happen anywhere.

    And – research that has been done shows that more than 63 per cent of molestation cases brought up against Catholic clergy have been false accusations.

  • Lola Mento

    God doesn’t hate you. Like my gma use to say. God doesn’t hate the sinner, in fact he loves you! He does however hates the sin! and he’s giving us a chance to repent as it reads in the scripture although some people want to change it to their benefit, is wrong. Is morally wrong, a condemnation sin and when he comes back, only HIM, not us, will be the judge. Read: Romans 14:13 1 Corinthians 6:9-20

  • Frank Lozera

    Lola, whether or not you hate what you call “my sin” is a matter of complete indifference to me. I would probably hate your sins as well, if I knew what they were.

    But I do object to any attempt to legislate against me on the basis of behaviors that cause no harm. “Sin” is a theological concept, not a secular one, and it doesn’t necessarily map to harm. In this case, it definitely doesn’t. So I would like not to have my freedoms constrained because certain Catholics believe I am sinful.

  • Lola Mento

    Actually this should be between you (the gay person) and God as stated in the Bible. Therefore it should be depending of what religious beliefs or church you belong to. The state should stay out of some parts but not overall as to granting the marriage status to applicants. The conditions will be mandatory as to identify yourself with your religious denomination and prove of that or you will subject to penalty. Other restrictions apply, just like applying for a fishing or driving or any licence. However the ‘marriage certificate’ is a religious act impose by God and written in the Bible. So many people don’t believe in God or the bible however they are willing to defend their positions simply because they want the benefits of marriage which is sanctified.Our church believes is abomination, other churches don’t. Take your pick, see you at the End of the Word where we all be judge. Not by me, but by God! Good Luck!

  • Public School Teacher

    I’d like to see the studies where you got those “facts.” Funny how you don’t actually cite anything, but simply claim them as facts.

    The Catholic Church is flawed, because it has been run by people, who are flawed. And one of those flaws is the breeding of hatred against homosexuals.

    I am born and raised Catholic. To this day, I am highly active in my own parish. But I do not condone the gay-bashing going on by many Catholics and other religious zealots today. I live according to Jesus’s message to love thy neighbor, even the gay ones! And they deserve the same legal rights that I enjoy.

  • Frank Lozera

    Thank you, PST. It is Catholics like you who give me great hope that change will come. Once again, the Church has set itself on the wrong course regarding a human rights issue. You and I both know that antisemitism was rife in the Church for millennia. That problem has still not been adequately addressed, though great progress has been made since World War II. But now, it is homosexuals who are getting the heat, and the Church is once again blind to its moral failure. History is repeating itself as the Church besmirches its own reputation over this issue.

  • James

    How would you define marriage? And why at all is it important that they textually define what marriage is, you and every other person in this debate know exactly what it is that people are trying to change. It’s the social stance that gay couples don’t have the same rights as straight couples which is trying to be changed, the fact that these people don’t have the same legal and social ability to proudly signify their love to the world. Christians, and in fact any religion, do not own marriage. If gay marriage is challenged by your religion then that’s fine, you have every right to not participate in it. You do not however, have the right to actively attempt to remove or post-pone a group of people’s rights.

    You have to face the fact that there is a slight possibility that your religion is not true – every religion does. If your religion outlaws one thing and endorses another, fine, but that is something that you keep within your religious community.

    I understand and agree that everyone has a right to their own comment on political issues (take gun control for an example) but in these instances the secularlist view is the way to go, it has no bias towards any religous views, just the rights of equality for everyone. One religion does not get a leg up over the other.

  • James

    I am straight and athiest and you are the type of Catholic I like. The one’s who follow their faith but also think for themselves and don’t automatically assume what they are being taught is morally correct but actively seek to endorse opinions which you believe are correct

  • Jon

    So many bigots on one website. Sad. History will see all of you for what you are: intolerant bigots.

  • loveisallyouneed

    I am Buddhist and homosexuality is NOT a hotly debated topic at all within my spirituality. In fact, the Dalai Lama supports it (as long as both partners agree and it is not harmful to anyone involved)! A long time ago, I used to follow Christian spirituality and one message that stuck with me is to LOVE one another, unconditionally. I am Buddhist now, but I still love Christians. I know that true Christians love Buddhists no matter what. And I know that true Christians love Gay and Straight people no matter what, too. And I know that when I walk down the isle to marry the person I love , it will not matter what gentiles I have under my dress or tuxedo, or what gentiles they have. I know that the ONLY TRUTH is LOVE. Do you agree?

  • catholicexchange

    I agree! Now the question becomes: what does it mean “to love”? Christianity teaches that “to love” means “putting the other first and doing what is best for them.” It does not mean “let the other behave anyway they like even if it is hurting them.” That wouldn’t be love. That would be indifference.