Same Sex Marriage: The Anonymous Power at Work

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

One of my favorite quotes from Pope Benedict XVI deals with Judas’ betrayal of Jesus. Benedict states:

“Judas is neither a master of evil nor the figure of a demoniacal power of darkness but rather a sycophant who bows down before the anonymous power of changing moods and current fashion. But it is precisely this anonymous power that crucified Jesus, for it was anonymous voices that cried, ‘Away with him! Crucify him!’”

Think that one over. It’s profound.

Judas was a mere sycophant to what Pope Benedict dubbed “the anonymous power.” What was this power? It was the power of “changing moods and current fashion.” That’s a hugely influential power, one that you can’t always get a handle on, but it’s there, and with a great influence, a tremendous persuasive power upon the crowd, the culture.

It was indeed that same anonymous power, manifest in the form of anonymous voices, which yelled at Jesus, “Away with him! Crucify him.” We know not their voices, or faces. But we know they handed Christ over.

Mere days earlier, the same people had been hailing Christ with hosannahs, begging him to heal them, watching in awe as he did miracles, welcoming him into their homes and towns. And just like that, they turned on him. “Away with him! Crucify him.”

There are so many issues over the years where I’ve seen this anonymous power at work in our culture. And few strike me currently quite like the sudden fanatical push for gay marriage. It has come from nowhere. In mere years, the entirety of the Democratic Party and its leadership has switched from affirming traditional marriage to demanding homosexual marriage. America’s president and youth are overwhelmingly on board. Polls have flipped in their favor. It’s a cultural tsunami. On TV and Twitter and Facebook and the web, it’s an overwhelming obsession.

And who’s pushing it? Well, it’s anonymous.

It’s hard to get a handle on, but it’s there. Beware. Our culture, countless Americans, are mere sycophants to the anonymous power of changing moods and current fashion. Gay marriage is the latest example.


Cover image credit: Rob Banks

Dr. Paul Kengor


Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • klossg

    If anonymous is gay men with lots of money who set this in motion a while back then … I buy it. The culture will shift … Truth will not. Lets love ’em because they are children of God, gone astray. Truth will set them free … with lots of love.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    Anonymous is the general culture. As more and more homosexuals loose the chains of cultural shame that have forced most of them to remain closeted; and more and more families have the conversation and realization that their sons; their daughters; their uncles and aunts; their co-workers and fellow students are just as worthy humans as the rest of humanity – then it just makes sense for all of us rational people to want the same happiness for them (to find and grow old with that special someone – “to honor and cherish until death do they part”) as the rest of humanity just take for granted far too often.

  • Of course homosexuals are just as worthy humans as the rest of humanity, as PDx_Str8 says. It is a shame that they bear the cross of same sex attraction, and they should be loved and encouraged to bear it as we are to bear any other affliction. But like all of us, they are enjoined to remain chaste unless called to marriage with someone appropriate, of the opposite sex.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    Same sex attraction works exactly the same way as opposite sex attraction. One is experienced by about 5-10% of the population; the other about 90-95% of the population. Same sex attraction is no more a cross to bear than opposite sex attraction is. You set up a completely irrational and unjust situation to deny a certain percentage of the population from ever experiencing sexuality (if they bother to listen to you) – that is: The only proper sexual expression is within a marriage (‘defined’ by you as only existing between a man and a woman); same sex attracted (or is it ‘inflicted’ in your world view) people should never marry those whom they are sexually attracted to; therefore same sex attracted individuals either must ‘conform’ to our vision of what is good for them (and deny who they know themselves to be) or remain chaste for the rest of their lives. What a cynical view of life (IMHO)

  • Or, perhaps it’s just a natural evolution onto a higher plane of spirituality within the human experience.

  • Daniel

    Far be it from me to disagree with our recent Holy Father Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, but if this is not the power of Satan manifesting itself in this world (again) then I don’t know what is

  • This article is a good example of why people who oppose same-sex marriage keep losing ground (literally, given our state-by-state progress).

    The article has it exactly wrong — this change is not due to “anonymous” forces, but to people with names. Friends, neighbors, colleagues who are gay, who have faces, who have names: straight people know and love these gay folk. They see how they love and support their partners.

    They end up supporting same-sex marriage precisely because they can name people they love to whom it desperately matters.

    Anonymity and invisibility — in the form the gay closet — are what opponents of same-sex marriage rely on. Anonymity and invisibility are what the rest of us are trying to end.

  • What’s a shame is that the “cross” you speak of is placed there by those who call themselves followers of Christ. My love for my partner is not my cross. Your reaction to it — your determination to have that reaction codified into law — is my cross.

  • Actually it was couples in Hawaii who first set this in motion, over the objections of the gay men with lots of money. And they had names.

  • I’m quite willing to believe that (a) this is not the power of Satan manifesting itself in this world, and (b) you don’t know what is.

  • There is no “anonymous” mystery here. Public sentiment is tipping because, once we come out to our friends, families, churches and communities, the fear and stereotypes fall away. People see the harm that rejection and inequality cause us and want to make things better.

  • Bill Ronner

    Only 2% of the American population is homosexual but surveys of young people indicate that they believe the number is more like 25%. Colleges, the media, liberal churches and cowardly politicians have created a mirage that is difficult to see through. At the Red hook Middle School in Dutchess County New York, the “Health” teacher had all 14 year old girls in his class give a lesbian kiss to another girl. The outrage amongst the parents was deafening but the teacher and administrators barely heard a sound. Why? As a society we are afraid of the smallest but very vocal special interest group in American History. Free speech except………..

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    Not sure where you pulled the 2% figure you mention. It is certain that in the past, the % of reported homosexual individuals was under-reported (we can dicker about how much) by the stigma and other social pressures to “keep in the closet”. What % does a population need to reach in order to be eligible for civil rights? 5%? 10%? More? (It is interesting that an extremely low % of our population have ‘elected’ to avail themselves of the civil right of inter-racial marriage – but that right was granted anyway.
    I appreciate the few examples you can bring up about how teachers might be over-reaching to compensate for the decades of denigration same sex attracted teens have endured. Perhaps you might want to draw attention at the incredible number of same sex attracted teens that are bullied at school (even to the point of having the school district schedule a ‘special’ prom just for them and other social ‘rejects’). Perhaps you might want to focus on the countless of teens thrown out of their special ‘mommy & daddy’ homes because they are a disgrace to their special ‘mommy & daddy’. Perhaps you might want to pay attention to the suicides of our teens, driven to despair by people who share your contempt for them.
    Just a thought, no?

  • klossg

    I am not sure why legal precedent in Hawaii should make the Catholic Church move. We all know Hawaii isn’t Rome. And actually what came before any of this and set it all in motion was contraception being accepted at Lambeth (1930). (note: not the church of Rome but of England). The beauty of love and responsibility was ripped at the seam and has since been torn apart and “espoused” in a Christian belief system. This is at the root of all of our confusion. The definition of marital love and family is distorted. But in the Catholic church, it isn’t so, even if many of its followers do not practice what their Church and the Holy Spirit has continued to teach.

  • klossg

    Christ carried a cross. I carry many a cross in my life: loss of work , illness, …. On my best days I offer it up, but I do fail at times. Many times we don’t get to choose our crosses. Our crosses choose us. If you do not see same sex attraction as a cross, that is fine but please do not beat a Catholic up for thinking it might be. It’s just wrong. And trying to guilt Vicki into thinking she and her Church are haters of same sex attracted individuals because they offer “love” and “encourage”ment to those who have it, is not as sweet as you might hope it sounds.

    If you do not feel the law is just, then do not take it out on Catholics, take it out on the law. Sounds like you and your partner may already be on that path. If you can get the law changed it doesn’t mean that the law will be just or true. Just that the law is changed. To me as a Catholic, the law would not be just. But, then again there are few completely just laws. We all suffer under bad laws. Some of the immigration laws are terrible. Some of the gun laws are terrible. Some of the tax laws are terrible. And many more … make it more equal. But please don’t make Catholics feel they can’t love or encourage what they feel is right, true, good and beautiful.

  • Dust in the Wind

    In a Godless world the logic of your argument is solid. But you choose not to see its outrageous end. What about bisexuals, pedophiles, necrophilia, beastiality, and every other form of disordered attraction. Where do you get the authority to judge anyone let alone Condemn? If it is simply the rule of law well then welcome to hell. We all become slaves of men and there whims. As a Catholic my understanding of the universe, the world, what and who I am comes from the bible. Which clearly states the act of homosexuality as devoid of God. You are free to disagree as a atheist but you are not free to disagree as a Cathoilc. The magisterium of the Church is the teaching authority of the Church. The Church is not a democracy and its moral teachings can’t be voted on.

    However there are many so called Christian churches tailor made for people who think they are capable of encapsulating God into their distorted perceptions of reality. And free will gives us the ability to choose.

    As for the Cross which they carry, that I can sympathize with. Because in this sexually inundated world…the crosses of which we speak are made all the heavier even for a heterosexual. We push the drug and then mock the ones who fall prey. I dare propose their so called cross would not be quite so heavy if our culture wasn’t in some way taunting us. Maybe this would better characterize this ” anonymous voice”

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    You are free to follow your tenants (and to avoid the pit by not pursuing same sex relationships – although I trust that isn’t too difficult for you).
    What I find difficult to comprehend is in a public discourse, many mention in the same breath topics such as the consensual interaction of two adults (homosexuality and bi-sexuality) with the exploitation of children and animals (neither of which can consent) and the desecration of the dead. This is uncalled for and does not further the public discourse (and is intellectually dishonest). It is the rule of law we are talking about here. Are you saying that atheistic homosexuals are then free to marry?

    Rest assured, your G-d will judge them in the afterlife – it is not your job to judge them in the here and now.
    In the real world, there are real responsibilities and relationships (and yes benefits) based on man’s law that marriage bestows to any couple who witnesses before a judge and family to take one another “under death do us part”. The commitment that same sex attracted couples can know is no less (and greater than some) than opposite sex attracted couples know.
    In addition, there are children being raised by this couples, and those children deserve not to be raised out of wedlock.

  • JefZeph

    It’s almost comical that you end your post with “In my humble opinion.”. There is no humility whatsoever in your opinion. You unleash your venom on Vicki (“You set up…”, “defined by you…”, “in your world view”), when you really mean the Church. You emphatically state that you are right, and the 2000 year old Church, established by Christ Himself, which the gates of hell shall not prevail against, is wrong. Humble opinion indeed.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter


    Nice ad hominem btw.

    Do I feel that I am right and the 2000 yo Church is wrong?
    This is my opinion on what “the” Church recommends as social policy (P) and what we have seen as the consequences (C) of those policies (and my apologies in advance if I mus-represent any of “the” Churches social policies):
    P: Teach abstinence only to our children. No sex before marriage.
    P: Limit information of and availability to contraception
    P: Eliminate safe abortion for the poor
    C: More children growing up ignorant of sex (especially protected sex); more children having unprotected sex; more teenage (unwanted) pregnancies; more women (girls, actually) dropping out of high school due to pregnancies and never returning; higher demand for abortion; higher number of babies born to undereducated single mothers; higher rate of STDs; more teenagers getting married “as soon as they can” so that they can start having “the good (married) type of sex.

    P: Have as many children as possible (Quiver full)
    C: Each child born into a family depletes the available resources and attention parents can give to each child. 2 or 3 (or even 4) evenly spaced out isn’t a problem…6 or 7 or 8 closely spaced together? That doesn’t usually equate to a good quality of life. And, studies show, the more children a mother has, the higher likelihood of the later ones being same sex attracted.

    Of those who “wait until they are married”, studies have shown that divorce rates lower as people get married later – that the life experiences of a 28 yo (with a decade of living on one’s own for 10 years) prepare one for a committed relationship much better than 2 kids out of high school.

    Yet, for all I hear of “its about the children”, these policies seem to encourage higher unwanted pregnancies; pregnancies where either the demand for abortion increase and / or the children born of those pregnancies enter into unstable; poverty stricken partnerships (in the cases where the father doesn’t up and run away) that are not the type that would indicate a good outcome for the child(ren).

  • No, the Health Teacher at Red Hook Middle School in Dutchess County New York did not have all the 14 year old girls in his class give a lesbian kiss to another girl. Some of the girls briefly roleplayed being lesbians during a class, no kissing occured. But hey, don’t let the truth get in the way of a good wild exaggeration.

  • This isn’t about Catholics having a right to their beliefs. It isn’t the government’s role to enforce Catholic dogma. The writer of this article is talking about public support for marriage equality, not the beliefs of Catholics.

  • klossg

    I do not oppose same sex marriage due to distaste or lack of knowledge of family or friends who have same sex attraction issues. (Many people felt I might have this issue as I developed. I struggled with it for a while early on.) I oppose it for the same reason I oppose opposite sex marriage that fails to grasp the truth of Christ’s love for his Church. Marriage is like unto Christ’s relationship with his Church. Christ gave up his entire life for his Church. He died for it on a tree. (he could have easily lived for many years beyond 33 if he took up a different “cross”). We must try to emulate this. Not because it is convenient or legal or accepted, but because Christ has shown us the way. Christ’s love on the cross was … free, total, faithful and life giving love (the Church was born out of Christ’s love on the cross). This is our holy communion in the Catholic Church.

    Our bodies tell a story of holy communion, a man’s body doesn’t make sense by itself. A woman’s body doesn’t make sense by itself. (~Christoper West).

  • This isn’t about the Catholic Church. Did you read the article? The author was writing about the general increase in public support for marriage equality. It didn’t come about because of some shadowy conspiracy of rich anonymous gay men. HRC and many other activist organizations were actually against pushing for marriage equality at first. It happened because real couples who were experiencing unequal treatment decided to stand up for their rights. And it has grown so huge so fast again not because of some shadowy “anonymous” but because real gay people have put a human face on it. You are quite welcome to your Catholic dogma. Attempting to have the government enforce your religious dogma is another matter entirely.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter


    Exaggeration? Which fact did I ‘exaggerate’?

    Google “Constance McMillen fake prom” to learn how an entire community (unconstitutionally) ganged up on a young girl to deny her from attending the school prom with the date of her choice.

    Google “teenage suicide” and “teen gay homelessness” to learn how dire the situation is for “at risk” children.

    I do acknowledge that there might be a (very) few instances of teachers over-reaching – but are you denying that same sex attracted teens are not bullied on a daily basis – sometimes not only at school but also by the parents that brought these kids into this world?

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    Sorry – too early (not enough coffee) – didn’t read correctly. My apologies.

  • We’ve all been there 🙂

  • See below- re: how it isn’t the government’s responsibility to enforce Catholic religious dogma.

  • Richard III

    It IS their responsibility to enforce the common good, though. And same-sex marriage is NOT good for anybody. It’s a lie, it increases the health risks of people with SSA, and it further devalues true, heterosexual, monogamous, fertile marriage.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter


    Marriage is for the common good – SS or OS.
    When people are married to each other, they support each other, thus greatly reducing the need for the state (or government) to support the individual. A fine example of this is when the spouse encourages the other to seek early medical care and not let things linger.

    SS couples are raising children and those children deserve married parents.

    Marriage SS or OS reduces the health risks by encouraging monogamy. In addition, if one was *truly* concerned about health risks of people (both OSA and SSA), one would advocate that everyone employ safe sex practices and not try to prevent a minority of our citizens the civil right to marry the person of their choice.

    No, allowing SS couples to marry no more “devalues” “fertile” marriage any more than allowing infertile couples to marry. It is a very poor marriage that is threatened by what the couple next door does.

    Marriage does not require pro-creation. Pro-creation does not require marriage.

    Our society will greatly benefit from allowing same sex couples to marry.

    What does “devalue” the institution of marriage is people rushing into marriage without per-marital counseling; people rushing into marriage because they have been told that there can not be sex without marriage; TV shows like “the Bachelor”; pop stars having 53 hour marriages; other pop stars getting married as a TV stunt; parents not instilling in their own children the family values of respect and commitment.

    Stop trying to scapegoat the homosexual community to make up for societies inability to raise children properly.

  • Richard- if you feel your marriage is “devalued” by same sex couples getting married, then chances are your marriage has serious problems that have nothing to do with what other people are getting up to.

  • That just silly. Richard is talking about a societal value, not a personal value, as is quite evident from is post.
    SS “marriage” devalues societies value of marriage, just as contraception, divorce and cohabitation do.
    We are paying for the prevalence of divorce and cohabitation in the collapsing demographics of western countries, the increased psychological problems of children from broken marriages and single parenthood. Any bright spots from adults who managed to overcome these environmental factors of their up bringing are the exception to the demographic trends which can clearly be seen from authentic, repeatable scientific research.
    The collapse which will result from this latest lunacy will be quite evident, once it’s too late to do anything about it.

  • I reject your underlying premise that there is such a thing as a homosexual person. There are merely people who are psychologically disordered who commit themselves to self-destructive homosexual acts. This does not speak to their worth as human beings, but rather to their brokenness, just as the adulterer or anyone with a sexual related psychological trauma. The fact that the problem is wide spread, like the addiction to pornography, is a result of the morally decrepit environment. Happiness is a false criteria to invoke. Addicts are happy when they get their fix. Thieves are happy when they are not caught. Happiness alone is not a criteria for the establishment of policy.

  • People fail to see the harm that is the result of disordered behavior.

  • Terry- and how, precisely, does it do that? Connect the dots for us.

  • You are of course free to reject whatever you want, but we also don’t make policy based on your incorrect opinions about psychological disorders.

  • Correct- no one can point to any actual harm.

  • flower_mom

    Can a man love a man? Sure. Does that love has to be expressed in a sexual way that apes heterosexual unions? No. Therein lies the problem. The act, not the persons. Of course heterosexuals love these persons. We also love drunks, and drug users, and adulterers, but that doesn’t mean we condone their actions. Homosexual sexual acts put individual’s health at risk — the #1 group of new HIV+ persons is still homosexual men (source: CDC). How does that disease spread? Certainly not through chaste behavior.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter


    Every act a homosexual pair perform are done in far greater frequency by opposite sex couples.

    As stated above – if you were *truly* concerned about an individual’s health you would advocate for safe sex practices, not preventing a person from marrying who he considers his “soul mate” simply due to the sex of the partner.

    It is also intellectually corrupt to imply that consensual love between two consenting adults is on a par with alcohol and drug abuse and infidelity.

    How do STD (and unwanted pregnancy) spread? By having unprotected sex – whether you are same sex or opposite sexed attracted. (Well, not so much pregnancy for same sex attracted couples).

    And where on the marriage license does it express what sexual positions the couple plan on using or if they intend to have sex at all? There is no way the Menendez brothers will ever have sexual relations with their spouses, but they both were still issued a marriage license.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    Thank you DE – that makes 11 states and counting.

  • JefZeph

    You can call it an ad hominem, I would call it an observation.

    Your first (P) is misrepresented, but I’ll get back to that in a minute.

    First, I find the logic of abstinence being the cause of your first (C) to be preposterous. Not having sex causes more sex, pregnancies, abortion and STDs? That is so patently absurd, I should stop now and write you off as a lunatic. Instead, I will assume that your misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches has lead you to this outrageous conclusion.

    I don’t know what other churches teach, I can only speak as a Catholic. The Church does not teach abstinence per se. What She does teach, is the sacredness of the sex act. Sex is held in the highest regard, treated with the utmost respect and considered Holy. To remain Holy and Sacred, it must be restricted to taking place within the confines of a valid marriage. The dignity and well being of, and respect for the other person in the relationship is of the utmost importance. In this light, abstinence, for those outside a valid marriage, happens to be a natural necessity as a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

    As to your second (P), the correlation between the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception and the consequences you outline in your first (C) should be clear to anyone with even a modicum of sense or wisdom. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae predicted all of this in 1968, and still no one listens.

    To say your third (P) could in any way cause (C) is possibly the most ludicrous of all, and not worthy of further comment.

    I’m not sure of the point of your fourth (P), but I can say as a single father, raising four young boys alone certainly has its challenges. Resources are indeed lacking, and I’m sure our quality of life wouldn’t be considered particularly high by the current American standard. But they are well cared for, well fed, well adjusted, well behaved, happy boys. Quality of life is subjective, and if you asked me which one I would give up to improve it, what do you think my answer would be?

  • PDx_Str8_supporter


    First off, my sincere admiration to you for raising 4 children. I will not pry to inquire what happened to the mother of these children, but whatever the circumstances it can’t be easy.

    No, I am not asking for you to select a child to stop caring for – I am just pointing out that before planning out one’s family, one should consider what is in the best interest of each child brought into this world.

    There is a *huge* difference to teaching abstinence as a thing to aspire to and expecting a 15 or 16 year old with raging hormones to pay attention to those lessons in the heat of the moment. All too often a curricula will focus on the abstinence only message and completely ignore any lessons on safe sex practices. In those instances, teenagers (who *will* have sex) will often not even consider protective measures resulting in higher rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. There have been studies that have shown a decrease in pregnancies (and abortions) when contraception has been made available (St. Louis – Peiper).

    There is also the correlation that the highest rates of single mother pregnancies in the US correspond to the areas where abstinence only education is prevalent.

    As far as making safe abortions legal and available will reduce the number of unwanted children being brought into this world.

    Don’t get me wrong here. I am not a huge fan of abortion; I would much rather conception only happen to a couple when they are ready, willing and able to raise children. I am not a huge fan of conceiving children that need to be adopted either (for the same reason). But, we seem to live in an age where parents cannot recognize that teenagers will have sex and it is important to teach them about commitment, responsible pro-creation and the importance to make sure you have enough life experience to understand what it is you and your life partner want out of life.

    But, I am for the rights of a woman and her doctor to make their own choice (I know that is a hard bold line for some people). Women who want an abortion will get an abortion, and if the only options available to them are unsafe, that puts her at risk.

  • catholicexchange

    Why are you not “a huge fan of abortion”?

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    Because unwanted conception is 99% preventable; and the process puts everyone involved through a whole lot of stress.

  • JefZeph

    Thanks for your kind remark.

  • Richard III

    The problem with so many of the “safe sex” measures available out there is that they are not all that safe. Condoms do block sperm, but they don’t block all STDs.

    Contraception in all forms increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, reduces her sex drive, makes her more irritable, causes her to gain weight, and can make conceiving later more difficult. Also, some contraceptives are abortifacients, killing the baby shortly after his or her conception, without the mother even knowing he or she was ever there. Finally, no currently available contraceptive is 100% effective. A woman can still get pregnant, and the baby lives, but may suffer health problems as a result of the mother’s contraceptive use.

    When a woman chooses abortion, she chooses to kill and cause great pain to a fully fledged human being. Babies’ hearts form and start beating at around 18 days, and their nerves form not long after that. If the baby doesn’t die from suction, strangulation, decapitation, disembowelment, or poisoning inside the womb, he or she (BTW girls are aborted much more often than boys, and often simply because they’re girls), he or she will be left unattended, given a lethal injection, or decapitated outside of the womb.

    And not all women who have abortions chose to do so freely. Some cave in from peer pressure and others are forced by family, so-called “friends”, or the government (like in China).

    Chastity/abstinence really is the only completely safe and fair way to go. It is not always fun or easy, especially in our hypersexualized culture, but it is always worth it. Abstinence ensures that no children will be born out of wedlock, greatly reduces the likelihood of abortion, minimizes if not totally eradicates STDs, and makes for a stronger, longer-lasting, and more loving and happy marriage than would have been had otherwise.

  • Richard III

    STDs and out-of-wedlock pregnancies and births are caused and spread by adultery, which is sex outside of marriage. Homosexual adultery does not cause pregnancy, but it does increase the risk of STDs and is unnatural. The heterosexual sex act is natural and therefore produces babies, but outside of marriage, it is a grave sin.

    Homosexual and heterosexual adulterers alike are both guilty here. The heteros started it with contraception, no-fault divorce, and casual sex. The growing acceptance of sodomy is a product of that initial slide into decadence. Heterosexuals need to start learning to save sex for marriage and to respect life, and homosexuals need to learn how to deal with their disordered desires and learn not to give in to them. They don’t have to marry someone of the opposite sex necessarily, but they must learn to be chaste too.

  • Richard III

    The Catholic Church actually gives and encourages the giving of full information on sex, contraception, and abortion. It is the duty of Catholic parents to teach their children the true nature and meaning of sex, and the immorality and dangers of contraception and abortion.

    “Safe abortion” for the poor is pushed, not by the abortion industry’s love for the unfortunate, but by their dislike of “inferior” people. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger complained loudly about the numbers of “unnecessary” poor children being born and called poor people as a whole “a dead weight of human waste”.

    And sure, the more kids you have, the more tight finances will be, but to say that the greater the number of kids, the less love and attention the parents can give each kid is simply ridiculous. You might as well argue that nobody should have more than 1 or 2 friends because they couldn’t possibly love or care about any more than that. There is no natural limit to love. Love is only limited by voluntary hatred or selfishness.

  • Richard III

    Just because something has a lot of public support doesn’t mean it’s right or just. As Dr. Kengor points out, the public has no mind of its own. It just goes with the flow of the fashions and fancies. Yesterday, traditional marriage was en vogue, today it’s gay marriage, tomorrow could be pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, or even traditional marriage again.

    The Catholic Church differs from the crowd in that it has always stuck to its principles, no matter how unpopular they were or are. That’s why it has lasted 2000+ years. No other church, country, culture, movement, or idea has that kind of track record. Nothing else has stayed unchanged and steadfast for so long.

  • You don’t even realize that you actually just made a case for encouraging marriage for gay couples, do you?

  • Richard III

    If that’s so, why has it taken so long? Traditional, heterosexual marriage has been around longer than any other institution. If homosexual marriage is equally natural and valid, why isn’t it as old, and why have countless societies throughout the ages, including several non-Christian ones, strongly condemned it, while at the same time celebrating and highly honoring heterosexual marriage?

  • Richard III

    Thanks for your support, Mr. Carlino. 🙂

  • Richard III

    I do not feel that heterosexual marriage is devalued by homosexual marriage. I KNOW that it is from the skyrocketing acceptance of gay marriage, 50% divorce rates, sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births, increasing use of contraception and abortion, and more and more people cohabitating and and having sex outside of marriage. Heterosexual adulterers are plenty to blame too, but homosexual adulterers and false marriages aren’t helping either.

    And by the way, I’m as single as a B-side and still a virgin.

  • catholicexchange

    But the question wasn’t “why are you not a huge fan of unwanted conception”, but “why are you not a huge fan of abortion”?

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    Abstinence is an ideal – doesn’t work well in real life. In addition, it leads to it’s own problems. Because young teens are so anxious to “get it on”, they get married far too early and this statistically makes divorce a likely-hood. It becomes even worse when the emotional / sexual / intellectual incompatibilities are discovered after a few years and a few kids down the road. When people experience who they are sexually (and nothing in life is 100% safe – it is all a risk / reward proposition) and who they are compatible with, this will yield to better long term relationships.

    The best medical opinion I have heard is that the nerves to feel pain are not even present (or hooked up) until 22-24 weeks into the pregnancy, and the ability to form conscious thought (having enough brain matter hooked up) occurs after that.

    Regardless of stories of women forced into abortions based on peer pressure; or a couple deciding to abort because the fetus is not viable or whatever the life story that lead the couple to make this extremely tough decision – that is a decision (at least in the first 2 trimesters) that is best made by the woman and her doctor.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    I am not a fan of abortion because there are better ways to not get pregnant in the first place. And I answered “the process puts everyone involved through a whole lot of stress.” I imagine that for the woman (never having been a woman, nor being pregnant and needing to make that choice), it is sometimes a very difficult choice to make. I would be delighted (speaking of ideal universes) where every conception was planned and welcomed and abortion was only considered in the case of the life of the mother or the termination of an nonviable fetus. But, we live in a world where mistakes do happen, that the woman who gets pregnant realizes that she can’t care for the baby (especially prenatally), and society demands that she carry the baby full term (and perhaps put it up for adoption, although the same society that is closing down the clinics in KS and ND and … are the same society that then turns their back on her once the baby is born. You are placing an unfair burden on the woman without supplying a full social safety net (both prenatally and when the baby is born and grows up).

  • catholicexchange

    Your point about stress is certainly right on. Studies have shown that the fetus undergoes tremendous stress as it is being exterminated. And the stress levels of even women who were certain of their decisions to have abortions at the time remain high for decades afterward, other studies reveal. I only mention this in the hopes that you will come to the logical conclusion that your statements, while carefully worded to appear moderate and rational, are really just cold expressions of your morbid belief that some people’s lives are of no value.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    Hmm (lets turn back the clock to 1965):

    Traditional, homo-race marriage has been around longer than any other institution. If mixed-race marriage is equally natural and valid, why isn’t it as old, and why have countless (states) strongly condemned it while at the same time celebrating and highly honoring same-race marriage.

    It is truly amazing the strides that have been made in the last few years on the understanding of homosexuality. Up until 1975 it was considered a mental disorder. In the 2000 and 2004 elections (and part of the mid-year elections), the Republican party used fear of it as a political club to get the faithful in the ballot box, pulling the lever for George and the down ticket. Since 2000, though, we have seen a trickle of countries and states recognize that homosexual can form committed relationships just as valid as “traditional” marriage. Other that a “blip” when CA went for before they went against, the curve in the US is almost hyperbolic. Consider that 16.5% of the US now live in states that one can pick up a marriage license (in fact, any same sex couple can get married, if they go to NY). That number will increase to 30% if the SCOTUS punts on Prop 8. Every single one of those couples will have full federal benefits if the SCOTUS strikes down DOMA, Section 3 (which most observers think there are 5 (or more) votes for it – probably on Federalist over-reach and not, as many hope on upping the classification to suspected class for sexual orientation). If that happens, it won’t be an argument over a label (like we had in RI and DE), but an argument with teeth – what legitimate reason is there to deny similarly situated couples the right to these federal benefits simply on the basis of the sex of the chosen partner?

    People are looking at IL and MN wondering who will be the 12th (and possibly the 13th) state. It is curious the similarities between the miscegenation law map and the current anti-marriage equality maps. With France all but done, and England a wait-and-see and SA starting to pick up speed (Brazil looks like it is going for the piecemeal solution like the US), I think we have reach the tipping point in this debate.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    There really is no middle ground in this argument. 🙂 I did acknowledge that this is a hard line that some refuse to cross; even to the point of where the sperm hits the egg. A person once told me, you can look at an acorn and look at an oak tree and tell the difference. One might not be able to tell the exact time a seed becomes the tree, but on either end of that spectrum there is plenty of time to look at the acorn and say, yup, that’s still a seed or look at the sapling and say that’s a tree. We have diametrically differing opinions on this matter, I recognize that.

  • catholicexchange

    There is no fundamental distinction between an acorn and an oak tree–they are 2 different phases of the same living thing, and if you destroy the acorn, it will never be an oak tree. In the same way, a fetus and a more mature human are not two different creatures–your basic biology book explains that these are phases in the life cycle of the exact same human being. If you accept that a human being has no right to life at one particular phase, then there is no logical reason to protect any other phase, be it post-birth, early childhood, adulthood, etc.

  • klossg

    Elizabeth, as you can tell from my posts … I do not, nor do I think anyone, should put any weight on what a government does that is not moral or acceptable to them. I think that misses the point on how to live life. If we put our hopes on government, we are bound to live a sad life. You should have hope in something better than you. Government will fail. Christ will not.
    Now, that being said … please and I repeat … do not bash my Catholic beliefs (or any of those of the people on this board) for the sake of getting the governmental respect you deserve. As a Catholic, you have my respect and love. Regardless of what the government says or does, I will love you. Just don’t tell me that marriage is not a sacrament or that it is a legal entity used for social gain. You can tell others, if that is what they want to hear. Marriage to them is not something as meaningful or beautiful. It is just a paper based, legalistic contract. Use that thing all you want. If this is all it is, then it is not worth defending.
    But, I know marriage is so much more than that. I know that Christ performed his first miracle at a wedding celebration. He kept the party going with wine. Marriage as St. Paul says is like Christ’s love for his Church. This is beautiful and everlasting. Keep your hands off it. And don’t bash it for your own ends. Take it to the government. If a Catholic defends marriage, it is not because he/she sees it as a legal issue. It is because they see it as a sacramental issue.

  • Richard- And what, precisely, does acceptance of gay marriage have to do with anything else you mentioned? You’re committing the classic fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. One might as well say all of that was caused by the South turning Republican.

  • klossg

    Yes, I read the article.
    Did you see where the article was posted? It is CatholicExchange.

    I didn’t say it was “shadowy.” I didn’t say it was a “conspiracy.” I was clarifying where things got their start in this current wave of popularity of opinion that ssm is no different than marriage as it has been for the past hundreds of years. By your comments … one might think there was something to this being a “shadowy conspiracy” of gay men. I for one see no “shadows” or “conspiracy”, just gay men with money. Is that so bad? I wanted to bring the article out of the closet and away from the edges. We all know where this started and the excellent marketing it is based on.

    General support can come about due to means other than the Catholic Church. Those do not bother me. It is my Catholic beliefs that I defend. If you need to extinguish those, then we have a problem. Or if you need to squelch my right to publicly express my beliefs, then we have a problem.
    I will continue to support my Catholic faith. It seems to be becoming obvious you will stop at nothing to support your issue and that includes bashing my faith and my right to hold my beliefs here on CatholicExchange no less.

  • Klossg- where did I say I put my hope in government for salvation? Governments are supposed to provide equal treatment under the law. This is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. If the Catholic church wants to provide sacramental marriage only to opposite sex couples, more power to them. But it is not the government’s business to circumscribe civil marriage according to Catholic dogma. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

  • Richard- The Catholic church hasn’t changed? In what bizarre alternate universe is that true? You’ve never heard of Vatican II? You do know that priestly celibacy wasn’t an original doctrine, don’t you? And that the church has apologized for its treatment of Galileo and its teaching of collective Jewish guilt for the death of Christ?
    Gay marriage is based on the principle of equal rights. Pedophilia, zoophilia, and necrophilia are not. I suppose our society *could* abandon the principle of equal rights, but I don’t think that’s likely to happen any time soon. Not to mention that no one seems to be able to connect the dots on how exactly expanding rights to gay couples would lead us to do so.

  • Pdx_str8_supporter

    Do you only extend this ‘right to life’ to only humans and not all of G-ds creatures? Or does that ‘dominion over all creatures absolve you of that moral question?

    In my philosophy, a living, breathing cow who can definitely feel pain and know pleasure has much more rights to life than an 8 cell ball frozen in time that may or may not be implanted and grow up to be a living being. Yet many fight hard for the rights of that ‘seed’ and have no second thought to the pain inflicted on that cow that they contributed to its death when they bite into their Big Mac.

    I love my dog and would do anything to protect him, but I have no moral qualms in ending his life (as have done before and will willingly do again) when the illness that is under controll but will one day overtake him finally takes hold and reduces his quality of life to one not worth living.

  • Yes, the author posted an article on CatholicExchange about how the opinions of society at large has shifted on this issue. Society at large includes more than just the Catholic church. And this isn’t an article about Catholic sacremental marriage, it’s about government-licensed civil marriage.
    Clearly you don’t know where this started. If you bother to read up on the actual history of this movement, you will discover that there was no excellent marketing nor any collection of gay men with money (that’s the cue for you to protest that you never said it was a “collection”). It started with a small group of everyday ordinary gay couples in Hawaii who decided they didn’t want their relationships being given second class status any more. The wealthy gay men with money didn’t support them, they were against them because they were afraid of provoking a backlash on other gay rights issues. Wealthy gay men (and women) didn’t come on board until relatively late in the game.
    And once again, no one is attacking your right to your Catholic beliefs. The issue is having the government enforce those beliefs on people who don’t happen to share them. Why is this such a difficult concept?

  • klossg

    Elizabeth, Richard is defending sacramental marriage. Seems you are nit-picking the fact that human beings without grace tend to sin and therefore they should be allowed to sin without any recourse to Christ and his Church. Your response degrades the discussion and proves that you are not looking for a conversation but two completely different yelling matches which you are partaking in only to crush the Catholic Church and her followers. You do not hear Richard’s defense of sacramental marriage. You only take away what you want out of it. Standing back it is just funny. Being involved in it though, it is just sad.
    Richard’s point, as is mine, is that people should move away from sin because there is something better, through Christ’s grace. Yours is people are going to sin and will not be stopped by anything, not even grace, and in same-sex sex at least there is no procreation involved. (As a Catholic this expresses hopelessness and darkness.) Christ offers love, mercy and truth. Somethings may be difficult and not the way of one’s human nature, but Christ is there to help carry the yoke. He is there to help carry the cross. In fact he did. God bless you on your journey.

  • klossg

    Who said you put your hope in salvation in the government?

  • klossg

    I agree with you. Civil unions were provided. What is the beef with Catholics holding that marriage is sacramental and should not be involved. Isn’t that enough? If so, then why come onto CatholicExchange and bash Catholic beliefs about sacramental marriage? We can both leave it here and agree that neither of us has an issue … To which I say, God bless you and keep you.

  • klossg

    Vatican II didn’t change the teachings of the church on marriage or any other basic teaching. If it did? How so?

  • klossg

    Collective Jewish guilt teaching? Christ died for our sins. My sins! He died to redeem me. He was born a Jew. He lived and worshiped as a Jew. I am old. I never was taught that the Jews killed Jesus. If people confuse that as Catholic teaching, it has to be straightened out. But that doesn’t mean it was ever an official Catholic teaching. Just that it needs to be clarified as never being a teaching.

  • klossg

    Galileo … my goodness Elizabeth. He was not punished by the church for his scientific proposal but for the way he taught about it and the way he went after the church in delivering the proposal. Really the church supports science …

  • catholicexchange

    You expect us to believe that you maintain some deep respect for God by deleting that “o”, yet you don’t respect Him enough to obey one of His simplest, most basic commandments to protect innocent human life.
    And your personal philosophy is deeply flawed. If I were at this moment placed under sedation and therefore not capable of feeling pain or pleasure, then under your philosophy I could be killed. A cow would have more of a right to life then me, by your standards.

  • Richard III

    Gay marriage is one of the many outgrowths of the sexual revolution. First, there was divorce which in the last century became much more easy to obtain than ever before, allowing 1 or both spouses to break up their families for any or no reason. Then, there was the pill and other contraceptives becoming more available and less looked down upon, allowing people to be unchaste with much less risk of conceiving an illegitimate child and being busted. The twin monsters of divorce and contraception have continued to grow and spawned more widespread infidelity, more broken homes, abortion in limited circumstances, then abortion for any reason at any time, infanticide, higher cases of rape and other sex abuses, myriads of STDs never before seen and some of which still have no known cure, and last but not least, increasing practice and support of sodomy and homosexual marriage. Once 1 taboo gets lifted, all other related taboos are removed soon afterwards. As soon as sex before traditional marriage gets accepted as a recreational activity like baseball or stamp-collecting, it’s not long before sex after marriage with a non-spouse, multiple marriages without previous spouses dying, sex with a person of the same gender or with a child, animal, dead person, inanimate object, or oneself becomes acceptable too. If you don’t draw a line and stay behind it, you find yourself first stepping across it then ultimately running further and further from it at breakneck speed.

  • Richard III

    Yeah, the Church wasn’t mad at Galileo for proving that the earth orbits the sun. They were mad at him for jumping to that conclusion with NOT ENOUGH proof. Galileo was argumentative and boastful. He liked to argue, and he liked to be right, and he often insulted people who disagreed with him. All the Church did was sentence him to house arrest in a big, fancy Italian villa because it was stretched thin trying to deal with all the Protestant chaos.

    While we’re on the subject, Copernicus was a Church canon, and the Pope at the time actually encouraged him to publish his heliocentric theory. Copernicus declined not because he was afraid of the Church beating him up, but because he was afraid of the universities beating him up. It seems that universities, then as now, don’t take kindly to their cherished beliefs being challenged.

  • Richard III

    Exactly. The Catholic Church NEVER changes its doctrines. It just changes certain teachings or tenants that are not fundamental doctrines. For example, the Church cannot abolish the Mass or do away with such parts as the Consecration, readings, Penitential Rite, and Final Blessing, but it can change the wordings of the prayers, determine the absence or presence of hymns, and determine the language the Mass is celebrated in.

  • Klossg- once again, the gay marriage debate is not over church sacrements. It is over civil marriage, so your entire post is kind of pointless. And no, my point is not that people are going to sin. I don’t happen to agree with you that 2 people of the same sex having sex is a sin in and of itself, any more than 2 people of the opposite sex having sex is a sin in and of itself. But regardless of yours or mine or anyone else’s views, it is not the government’s business to enforce anyone’s beliefs about sin.

  • Richard III

    The reason abstinence isn’t working is because not enough people are being taught it soon enough. Like I said above, parents have a responsibility to their children to teach them the beauty and safety of waiting until marriage to engage in sex and to warn them of the dangers of sex outside of marriage.

    For really great information on chastity, the sacredness of sex, and the dignity and beauty of the male and female human body, I would highly recommend that you read and refer others you know to any of the several books written by Jason and/or Crystalina Evert. Some titles are “Pure Love”, “Pure Manhood”, “Pure Womanhood”, and “Theology of His/Her Body”.

  • First let me say it takes a very special kind of person to see women having greater control over their reproduction as monstrous, but you’re as entitled to your opinions as anyone. But the idea that if we accept one reform we will therefore accept anything is ludicrous. That’s like saying that since we accepted integration it’s only a matter of time before black people establish a tyrannical dictatorship and execute all the white people. Same sex marriage is based on the principle of equal rights, none of the other things you mentioned are. Pedophiles have been advocating greater acceptance for themselves for decades now, and yet they haven’t gotten anywhere. That is because it’s easy to see a clear reason not to accept an adult having sex with a child. At the end of the day, the only reasons people advocate against gay rights are either the desire to force their religious beliefs on others, or because “Gays!! EWWWWWWW!!!” Which is why their efforts are not sustainable over the long term.

  • Klossg- civil unions are not civil marriage. We get civil marriage. The Catholic church gets to define and perform sacramental marriage however it wants. That is the end game here. Everyone wins.

  • Richard III

    Thank you, Klossg.

  • Richard and Klossg- you really can’t see what’s wrong with what you wrote about Galileo, can you? Where exactly did the Catholic church get off deciding how Galileo can advocate for his ideas? You’ve both just admitted you’re perfectly okay with the Catholic church interfering in someone’s right to free speech. This is the actual crux of the argument here. The Catholic church, or any other religious institution for that matter, has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS taking on itself the powers of the state and enforcing any kind of criminal sanctions on anyone. Mixing civil and religious authority has always been a recipe for tyranny, as your own posts are testament to. The church has no business deciding which science is or isn’t acceptable or whether someone is becoming too “argumentative and boastful.” (Unless that person is actually doing it on church property, in which case they are within their rights to demand the person leave, but no more.)

    You also both dodged the point- which is that the Church did in fact apologize for its treatment of Galileo and for holding Jews collectively accountable for Jesus’ death, so the claim that Church teachings have never changed is demonstrably false.

  • Richard III

    Even if a state does not enforce strictly Catholic beliefs, it MUST enforce Natural Law, and base its laws upon the Natural Law. Natural Law is the standard of morals that is written in the hearts of all mankind, and the Catholic Church’s commandments are simply extensions of this Law. No non-Christian society ever completely followed the natural law, but most frowned upon murder, stealing, lying, adultery, and cruelty, or at least upon what they considered to be these vices.

    Most of America’s founding fathers weren’t Catholic, but they were nearly all Christian, and they drafted the Declaration of Independence and Constitution on Christian principles. They would all be horrified to see their hard work ignored or misconstrued to legalize stealing (the income tax and federal reserve system), murder (contraception, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and unjust war), and adultery (no-fault divorce, homosexual marriage).

  • Richard- Please show me the provision in the Constitution that states the government MUST enforce “Natural Law.” Then show me precisely where it is written in “Natural Law” that gay couples shouldn’t have marriage rights. Unless you can do both of those things, your argument is invalid.

  • Richard III

    Another reason abstinence isn’t working is because people aren’t trying it. They see chemicals and latex as easier ways out and consequently either give up on abstinence or don’t even bother with it in the first place. Prior to the sexual revolution, people’s only access to “safe sex” methods was in seedy parts of town or from apothecary/witch doctor shops. For the most part, they either abstained until marriage or committed adultery and had to live with the consequences of shame and illegitimate children. Condoms and contraceptives encourage promiscuity because they help the adulterers cover up their actions.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter


    First off, I find it the height of arrogance that you assume that when I use G-d, I am talking about your conception of G-d or I agree with any of your interpretation of His word.

    Second, I don’t know where you got the idea that my philosophy would in any way condone the killing of any being that had previously experienced life, was rendered unconscious due to any agency and would presumably return to consciousness after that event was over from the statement that I had no problem with throwing away the unused 8 cell blastocycsts after a successful IVF procedure – or I valued a living cow over that of those cells in a test tube.

    Having said that, I had no moral problems with sitting by my father’s side as the doctors first stole his consciousness (at least I assume and hope that he was rendered unconscious) and then killed him with ever increasing doses of morphine after he was so far gone from the cancer in his lungs that he couldn’t bear to be alive anymore. This type of killing of human life goes on every day in hospitals and hospices all over the world and I have no problems with it.

    You avoided my original question, though – why is it that a collection of 8 human cells is worth caring about more than the active and willing participation of the process of torture and mass killing of actual living creatures that goes on every day so that one can have his bacon in the morning, fried chicken in the afternoon and hamburger in the evening?

    And, by the way, I learned that there is an accepted medical practice called “24 weeks” that provided guidance for neo-natal care providers to decide whether to proceed with extra-ordinary measures to save a pre-natal child. And this guidance is for mothers who want to save their child. There is a fascinating Radio Lab podcast called “23 weeks, 6 days” that I think you and a lot of other people would find extremely interesting. Don’t worry, I am not trying to “Trojan horse” a pro-abortion message here – it is extremely well worth the effort to find and listen to it.

  • PDx_Str8_supporter

    There was an interesting study done of Red Families vs Blue Families, and the results may surprise you….

    ’nuff said :D.

  • catholicexchange

    A better example of the height of arrogance is someone who is so self-righteous that they insist on gumming up a combox with endless multi-paragraph comments for days on end with no intention of ever conceding any good point that another soul ever makes. May God bless you and give you peace.

  • Richard III

    Where did I gag over gays? I believe what the Catholic Church believes, which is that men and women with same-sex attraction should be loved, respected, helped, and prayed for. Like the Church, I also believe that SSA itself is not a sin, but all homosexual acts are gravely sinful and should not be encouraged by legalizing homosexual marriage or by any other means. To encourage sin is not to show love, it is to pander to a person’s weaknesses and to be an agent in their possible eternal suffering.

    All people experience temptation, and all must learn to avoid if they can or fight it if they can’t. People with SSA are no exception. They must learn to live chastely, and the Catholic Church has several outreach programs like Courage to help them do that.

    Abortion and contraception are not reproductive control, they are weapons of mass destruction. 55 million American children have been slaughtered by abortion, and we’ll never know how many have been killed by contraceptives. Advocating abortion and contraception for women to have greater control over their reproductive systems is like advocating torture chambers and cruel and unusual capital punishment to enable a tyrant to have greater control over his country/people.

  • Frank Lozera

    Richard: You write that same-sex marriages “increases the health risks of people with SSA.” Don’t you have that exactly backwards?

    I’ll answer that question for you. Yes, you have it exactly backwards.

    It’s promiscuity that increases the health risks of people with SSA, not monogamous marriage. Marriage lowers or, more likely, eliminates those risks.

  • Frank Lozera

    Richard, I see that you have fallen back on religious arguments. But opponents of SSM are steadily losing ground because (1) their religious-based arguments lack universal appeal (even among Catholics), and (2) their secular, pragmatic arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny.

    When you talk about homosexual acts as “sinful,” you lose most of your audience, unless they are conservative Catholics like yourself. Even most Catholics in this country don’t seem to buy that kind of language any more. Support for SSM is at about 53% among American Catholics. Rhode Island, which just legalized SSM, is the most Catholic state in the Union.

    Furthermore, people are not buying your parade of horrors and your slippery-slope arguments. Elizabeth Dresser is exactly right in her analysis of your comment. Even people who cannot identify the flaws in such argumentation may sense that they are flawed.

    At the end of the day, all you can do is appeal to your own faith, which you have a perfect right to do. But many of us do not share it. Why should I “live chastely?” I’m not broken, and I don’t need the “Courage” program to fix me. I like myself just the way I am and want to enjoy the promises of freedom and equality just as you do.

  • Frank Lozera

    Terry sees SSM as one more problem. I see it as a solution to many of society’s ills. The past forty years of progress in GLBT rights in this country and abroad has been enormously healthy for everyone involved. The Closet was a festering sore, as anyone who has seen gay-themed movies of the 50’s-70’s will know. Anti-discrimination laws and pro-gay corporate policies have brought gays and lesbians to the table, vastly improving their lives and those of their children. Civil unions and legalized SSM have given recognition and societal support to couples who are willing to commit to each other.

    I don’t understand how anyone would want to roll all that backwards.

  • Frank Lozera

    Terry, you are again expressing a very particular religious view that has virtually no support among medical professionals. You are of course free to hold such views, but I should think you’d be embarrassed to put them up on the Internet with your name attached to them. They are simply mythical. All the major health and social welfare associations in this country have stated unequivocally that homosexuality is NOT a disorder. The World Health Organization has done the same. The hold-outs seem to be the Catholic Church, which has absolutely no expertise in mental health, and the various Evangelical and Mormon churches, which have none either.

    Comparing homosexuals to addicts and thieves is just ridiculous. What if I were to suggest that heterosexuals are like addicts and thieves because of the 2600 rapes that have occurred in the U.S. Military forces in the last nine months? What if I pointed to the fact that one-third of the world’s women have been physically abused by men? Drawing such conclusions about entire categories of people is one of the clearest signs of bigotry that there is.

  • Frank Lozera

    Vicki, my same-sex attraction is not a “cross” to bear. It needn’t be a cross for anyone. Furthermore, I have absolutely no interest in remaining chaste. I intend to enjoy my sexual nature while I can. I love being with my partner. I just feel sorry for gay Catholics who are struggling with messages like the one you’re sending out. They are missing out on one of the best things about being alive. Love and sexuality are gifts that should not be refused, because the offer eventually expires.

  • N Martinez

    Actually, your post is a good example of those who are fooling themselves. “Gay marriage” is a fad. It is disguised as a “civil right.” It has tricked the American public into believing that somehow, if we deny homosexuals to “marry” then we are bad Americans. On a good day, we are “bigoted.” On a bad day, we are taken to court. The gay Mafia, along with the current amoral administration and its ilk, have successfully pressed this issue for the last 4 years to a point where normal is no longer normal. What did the Nazi Party do? Tell a lie long enough and people will believe. And, yes, “anonymity and invisibility” is exactly what you are trying to end only to realize, in the end, that the gay lifestyle will bring a tragic end to your life, the life of the person you supposedly “love,” and to society as a whole.

  • Richard- you continue to make my point for me. All your arguments boil down to your desire to have the government enforce Catholic dogma, which is simply not its role. How many times does that need to be repeated?

  • N Martinez- your empty assertions will surely reverse the march of equality! Just keep at it. Bonus points for invoking Nazis.

  • Frank Lozera

    Klossg, there is a massive amount of evidence that the Catholic Church was anti-Semitic for nearly two millennia. It’s impossible to review that history for you in the mere space of a comment, but I’ll just mention one “smoking gun” among thousands: “Civiltà cattolica,” the official, authoritative, and critically important Vatican publication, published an article in 1893 called, “Jewish Morality.” This article was typical of many, and it said,

    “[The Jewish nation] does not work, but traffics in the property and the work of others; it does not produce, but lives and grows fat with the products of the arts and industry of the nations that give it refuge. It is the giant octopus that with its oversized tentacles envelops everything. It has its stomach in the banks … and its suction cups everywhere: in contracts and monopolies, … in postal services and telegraph companies, in shipping and in the railroads, in the town treasuries and in state finance. It represents the kingdom of capital … the aristocracy of gold … It reigns unopposed.”

    In 1871, Pius IX declared that by rejecting Christianity, Jews had become “dogs” and that “we have today in Rome unfortunately too many of these dogs, and we hear them barking in all the streets, and going around molesting people everywhere.”

  • Frank Lozera

    So Klossg, Galileo was threatened with burning at the stake and was eventually placed under house arrest (by the Church, no less!) for “the way he taught about” heliocentricism? That in itself is outrageous. They essentially tried him because he persisted in maintaining that the earth revolved around the sun, which was considered heretical at the time. Let’s not forget that Giordano Bruno had been burned at the stake just 15 years later, so threats of execution by fire were to be taken seriously.

    When you say that “really the Church supports science,” you are of course ignoring the fact that the Church’s teaching about homosexuality is diametrically opposed to scientific understanding of it.

  • Frank Lozera

    “All the Church did” was to threaten Galileo with the same fate that had befallen Giordano Bruno just 15 years earlier: Burning at the stake. And for being “argumentative and boastful,” they placed him under house arrest for the remainder of his life?

  • catholicexchange

    Elizabeth, preserving traditional marriage is not some isolated “Catholic” thing, since it predates the Catholic Church by many centuries and on into the mists of time–that is why a majority of Americans of various religions, races, and creeds oppose it; because it is almost universally offensive. One non-religious reason it is offensive lies in the fact that our country has already bred generations of people who are dysfunctional, violent, depressed and drug-addicted precisely because they were not able to enjoy the gift of a committed mother and father in their lives. Yet you want to advocate for damaging even more young people by depriving them of a father in a lesbian couple’s family, or of a mother in a male homosexual couple’s family? This is an example of what people are quite rightfully concerned about. At the very least you could concede that good people can oppose same sex marriage for reasons like this, instead of assuming that people who disagree with you are nothing other than hateful bigots.

  • catholicexchange

    Hello Frank,

    First, Galileo was not tried “because he persisted in maintaining that the earth revolved around the sun”, but because he attempted to authoritatively interpret Scripture, a right which no single layperson can claim–that’s what got him in hot water. The Church has never claimed to be infallible about matters of science; it leaves scientific matters to science (and the prevailing scientific opinion of the day, by the way, was that the sun revolved around the earth, because that is what many scientific observations seemed to suggest, not because “the Church taught it”).

    Secondly, and regardless of any of this, I think the entire discussion has gone wildly off the mark. I ask that everyone please keep things more directly relevant to the article. God bless.

  • catholicexchange

    Hello Frank,

    First, Galileo was not tried “because he persisted in maintaining that the earth revolved around the sun”, but because he attempted to authoritatively interpret Scripture, a right which no single layperson can claim–that’s what got him in hot water. The Church has never claimed to be infallible about matters of science; it leaves scientific matters to science (and the prevailing scientific opinion of the day, by the way, was that the sun revolved around the earth, because that is what many scientific observations seemed to suggest, not because “the Church taught it”).

    Secondly, and regardless of any of this, I think the entire discussion has gone wildly off the mark. I ask that everyone please keep things more directly relevant to the article. God bless.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Frank, putting aside your unsupported claim that the view of homosexuality as a psychological disorder “has virtually no support among medical professionals”, what was the scientific reason given that “All the major health and social welfare associations in this country have stated unequivocally that homosexuality is NOT a disorder.” when prior to that all of them were in agreement that it was?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Frank, while the assumption seems reasonable, that is because it looks at the issue from the perspective of traditional views on marriage – are you not aware that homosexuals have openly acknowledged that monogamy is not generally considered a desirable or necessary characteristic of their view of “marriage”? Have you looked at the research on this point in the studies that have been done in countries where same-sex “marriages” have been legalized? Google it – Clearly it makes NO significant difference in reducing promiscuity or STD’s among homosexuals.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Right – because you have your fingers in your ears & keep yelling “lalalala – bigot – lalala – homophobe – lalala – I can’t hear you – lalala…”.

    Put your desire to be right & your prejudices against others you dislike aside at least long enough to look at the research – all the research not just that which comes from the sources telling you what you want to hear.

    There are so many examples – for starters, even homosexual activist groups acknowledge that the incidence of STD’s – esp. the untreatable forms that are developing – among homosexuals is a much more serious problem in that population. What happens when society puts its stamp of approval on a behavior? It gets more of that behavior. We already can’t afford the AIDS & STD cases we’re trying to deal with now; the economic impact would be disastrous.

    The hedonistic behavior & sexual confusion it encourages in young people is incalculable at this point, & yet we are being told that we should open pandora’s box because since we cannot see what’s in it, there must be nothing there! How foolish is that?

    What’s the harm? Tell you what – before we totally redesign the structure of society from the beginning of time, why don’t you provide us with objective evidence that there is NO harm in it. You can’t because it has already caused & is causing & will cause harm to a growing number of people.

    People are being deprived of their Constitutional rights to free speech & the free practice of their religion (no, not just Christianity, but most of the major religions and no trivial number of atheists & agnostics) while homosexuals become a new protected class of citizens who can insult, harrass & even persecute citizens who disagree with them with impunity.

    Furthermore, we are being forced to allow our children to be indoctrinated to the homosexual agenda at school that tells our children that their religion is wrong & their parents are bigots.

    Does none of that seem harmful to you?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Elizabeth, Galileo was a Catholic who was teaching other Catholics – govt & education as you know them did not exist at that point in time so it is absurd to attempt to judge the event by your modern sensibilities.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    It is no more the govt’s responsibility to enforce Catholic dogma than it is their responsibility to attempt to abrogate it or to enforce homosexual activists’ dogma…

  • QuoVadisAnima- perhaps you are unaware of this, but STDs are spread by promiscuity, not magically created by gay sex. Marriage lowers promiscuity. It is impossible to prove a negative, and since you are the one making the claim that there is harm, the burden is on you to back up your claim. Otherwise the police would be perfectly justified in throwing you in jail without charges until you could “prove” you had never broken any law. No one has been denied their Constitutional right to free speech, and religious freedom does not exempt you from treating people equally under the law. So no, I’m afraid you still haven’t been able to point to any actual harm.

  • catholicexchange- the arguments people are making here are based on their desire to force others to live according to Catholic dogma. They have made this explicitly clear by their multiple references to sacramental marriage. People of other religions also want to ban same sex marriage due to their desire to have the government enforce their religious beliefs, but if you still think they’re a majority, you just haven’t been paying attention. Also, you are being extremely disingenuous in blaming single parenthood for society’s ills and then pulling a bait and switch in comparing single parents to gay couples. Children raised by gay couples turn out just as well as those raised by straight couples, even that ridiculous Regnerus study said so. I never said everyone who agrees with me is a hateful bigot. Plenty of people have disagreed with gay rights because of sincere yet irrational fears about gay people spreading disease or harming children, but that’s just a variation on “Gays!! EWWWWWWW!!” that people are rapidly getting over now that more and more straight people are getting to know gay people.

  • QuoVadisAnima- Yes, back then church and state were not separate and as a result religious authorities acted in a tyrannical manner. Now they don’t. One can excuse what happened back then by saying they didn’t know a better way, but the point is that we now do have a better way. And that the Catholic church did in fact apologize and change its ways on that and several other practices and doctrines.

  • QuoVadisAnima- because they finally studied gay people outside the hospital setting and found they were indistinguishable from straights on mental health evaluations. Do a google search on Evelyn Hooker.

  • QuoVadisAnima- but homosexuals are not attempting to enforce dogma on anyone. No one wishes to force anyone to get gay married or outlaw marriage between opposite sex couples. Our arguments are based on freedom and equal rights. Yours are not.

  • Richard III

    Homosexuals don’t “spread” diseases like AIDS anymore than heterosexuals do. AIDS and nearly all other STDs are caused by viruses, not bacteria, and they are not “spread” they way bacteria-caused diseases are. You can catch flu, chicken pox, measles, etc. by getting too close to a sick person, not washing your hands, or touching stuff that’s infected. You can’t get AIDS that way. Viral STDs are contracted and spread by intercourse, touching genital regions, or being born to or receiving blood from someone who has an STD. As long as your not having sex with a homosexual or otherwise touching each other’s private parts, you won’t get sick from him or her.

    My fellow faithful Catholics and I oppose homosexual marriage because it’s not marriage and it further endangers the physical and spiritual health of our homosexual brothers and sisters, whom we love and want to help get to Heaven. We do not want them to get AIDS or go to Hell. (And no, it’s not just unrepentant sodomites who go to Hell. Anyone who dies in unrepentant mortal sin (heterosexual adultery, apostasy, blasphemy, murder, etc. loses God’s friendship forever and suffers in Hell for eternity)

  • Richard III

    You’re right that no one has outlawed traditional marriage or forced anybody to marry someone of the same sex. But the homosexual lobby is very vocal and sometimes quite belligerent in getting people to recognize and support their agenda. Florists, photographers, bakers, and caterers have been brought to court or lost their jobs for refusing to assist at homosexual weddings, no matter how politely they declined. Catholic adoption agencies have had to shut down to avoid compromising their beliefs. People who’ve overcome their SSA have been criticized, insulted, and downright maltreated by the QLGBT lobby for being “traitors”. They don’t want just “rights”, they demand that everyone support them and are willing to do anything to coerce that support if necessary, and they have little respect for the equal rights of the ex-homosexuals and of anyone else who’s brave enough to stand up to them.

  • Richard III

    Yes, STDs are spread by promiscuity, and unfortunately, most homosexuals are promiscuous. Even those who day stick with just one partner for life have a greater chance of developing an STD than a monogamous straight married couple because homosexual sex is unnatural, and anything one does to one’s body that one’s body is not meant to do, a tragic injury disease, or even death is a common result. Men can’t marry men and women can’t marry women any more than the south poles or north poles of magnets can stick together. This analogy is best illustrated on the atomic level. Protons can’t fuse with each other and electrons can’t either in nature, but when forced to in a lab, they create the destructive forces of atomic bombs. 2 men or 2 women forcing their bodies to have intercourse messes up their reproductive and immune systems, can cause painful disease and death, and indirectly hurts their friends and families.

  • Richard III

    The Natural Law is in all of the original amendments. All men instinctually desire freedom of religion and speech, the right to bear arms, the right to private property, and the right to be protected from overarching government. The founding fathers put those amendments in and required the US government to follow the Constitution because they knew that while individual citizens love the Natural Law, governments don’t because it lessens their influence and power. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the litmus test for authority figures. If they stick with them, they’re fair and just and respect the rights of us citizens and the Natural Law. If they don’t, they’re after more and more money and power and won’t hesitate to trample our rights if any stand in the way. Obama and his henchmen are destroying our Constitution to justify forcing us to accept homosexual marriage, make everyone pay for abortion and contraception, justify their outrageous lack of a budget, take our guns, and silence all opposing voices.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    You are quite mistaken – telling Christians that they must enable or participate in same sex weddings & homosexual indoctrination in the public schools is a total deprivation of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom & rights. There are no Constitutional rights regarding marriage but homosexuals are still demanding the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us. Why should this tiny minority of a minority (& one that has publicly admitted that their intention is to deconstruct marriage) be allowed to force that majority to live according to their ideology?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    You are attempting to conflate so many different things here that it is nearly impossible to disentangle the mess you have made of history as well as how the Church functions.

    Short version: Pope JPII apologized for the treatment that Galileo received at the hands of some people in the Church – he did not say that the Church was wrong and that was NOT a change in doctrine or teaching.

    Infallibility in doctrine is not the same as governance or the ability of any individual in the Church to commit sin – not even the Pope to whom the charism of infallibility belongs.

    It is a safe guess you are not a Catholic, yes?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    The fact that you are unable to address my point without a laughable effort to twist it into an argument ad absurdem certainly calls into question the sincerity of your efforts here.

    It is a documented fact that promiscuity among homosexuals is significantly higher than among heterosexuals. It is also a well documented fact that in countries where same sex “marriage” has been legalized, it has had NO measurable impact on decreasing promiscuity among that population. Research within the homosexual community has clearly & definitively found that the vast majority of homosexuals do not view monogamy as a worthwhile characteristic of an ongoing relationship.

    Meanwhile, telling people whose religious belief is that the practice of homosexuality is an offense to God that they must provide services &/or facillitate the efforts of homosexuals to “offend” absolutely IS forcing them to go against their religious beliefs. Would you demand that a kosher caterer must supply a bacon buffet for a customer because the customer is not Jewish & therefore the caterer is discriminating against other religions by not doing so?

  • Guest
  • QuoVadisAnima

    Real science does not cling to the work of one scientist as being definitive – it requires multiple replicatable and replicated studies. Evelyn Hooker’s work does not qualify as legitimate science on multiple counts –

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Guess who is now saying this:
    “Well, these people cannot help who they’re attracted to, and should be free to love and find happiness with the person of their choice.”

    I’ll give you a hint – it’s NOT about homosexual behavior. It has been said (& much ridiculed by homosexual activists) that the above argument can be used to justify any and all deviant sexual behavior. Nevertheless, polygamists have already begun filing lawsuits on the same premise used by homosexuals. But here is another disordered relative of the slippery slope you people keep denying:
    As someone commented there: They’ve lowered the age for emergency contraception Plan B from 17 to 15 in only 2 years. It will be available down to 10 as time will tell. It fits into their agenda to introduce adult sex with children legally. The APA (American Psychiatric Association 8/19/2011) has met to begin discussions on de-stigmatizing pedophilia. Sex education has already been preparing the children through sex-ed in schools at younger ages. That’s why children are sexualized in film, TV and fashion, to get us used to the idea. That’s the goal and it’s getting their very fast.
    God save our young.

    So why are we supposed to trust the homosexual activists’ reassurances? How is it that the other sexually disordered folks are able to use the exact same arguments? Why are you discriminating against their “right to marry” whomever they want? And why are we supposed to trust the APA’s judgment after they threw away decades of accumulated research for Evelyn Hooker and now they are taking the same path toward making pederasty & pedophilia just another sexual inclination rather than a disorder?

  • Frank Lozera

    QVA: You’re quoting an article from Lifesite News to discredit Evelyn Hooker?

    The scientific consensus always trumps single studies. The scientific consensus about homosexuality is clear and has been expressed by every single relevant mental health association in this country, as well as the American Sociological Association and the AMA. The World Health Organization’s position is that “homosexuality is not a disorder.”

  • Frank Lozera

    QVA, your position seems to be that the Church is never “wrong” about anything. Do you mean that if the Church did something, it must have been right? Are you saying that I cannot show you an action of the Church that you would consider to be wrong?

  • catholicexchange

    The Regnerus study found the various behavioral categories of children raised by homosexual couples to be “suboptimal”–but, then, if that study is “ridiculous” as you put it, then why would you use it to back up your claim? In fact, the Regnerus study is excellent–you resent it because it doesn’t arrive at the conclusions you want. Also, simply stating that I’m being “extremely disingenuous” isn’t actually a valid response to the argument I made that children raised without a mother or father statistically fare badly. Do you have a good argument against it that isn’t just name-calling?

  • Michelle Marie Allen

    ” why is it that a collection of 8 human cells is worth caring about more…”

    ” to save a pre-natal child…”

    These two choices of the definition of an unborn child by you speak for themselves.

    Now the question is : Are you confused or what when referencing them in your response ?

    Sounds like so to me. Or did you forget that 8 “human” cells and a pre-natal “child” are one and the same ?

    A human is a human…no matter how much you wish to compare the value of that life to bovine.

    I certainly will not think of ole “Bessie” when I enjoy my dinner tonight and you appear to not think about little “Johnny or Suzy” when they are only 8 cells old.

  • Richard III

    The Pope and the Magesterium are infallible when they exercise their God-given authority in matters of faith. They are not infallible in politics, organic gardening, checkers, etc.

    Yes, there have been, are, and always will be problems in the Church, but those are human errors, not Church errors. There’s always going to be lazy lay people, scandalous priests, and liberal bishops, but there will also always be devout lay people, priests on fire with the Gospel, and strong, courageous bishops who will shepherd their dioceses with love and authority.

    Any evil action in the Church you could possibly point to is not the fault of God or the Catholic Church, but of weak and bad people within the Church. The solution for such evils? Prayer, admonition, repentance, frequent reception of the sacraments, spiritual discipline, and appropriate physical discipline if necessary. Giving up on the Church is never the answer. Martin Luther learned that the hard way.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Then you are reading more into what I wrote than was there. Most likely because you misunderstand what it means for the Church to be doctrinally infallible…

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Ah, so we discredit what was said because we don’t wish to credit the source from which we heard it? Get over your phobia & look at the substance instead of the source. Most of the info I have read regarding homosexual promiscuity & STD rates comes from sources produced by LGBT activists.

    The scientific consensus ONLY trumps when the scientific consensus is based on science – or do you also wish to argue for the Ptolemaic system, spontaneous generation & against Semmelweis’ Etiology of Childbed Fever? So manifest your SCIENTIFIC consensus – who else replicated the work of Evelyn Hooker?

  • Richard- in other words, you can’t do either. Sorry, but empty assertions just don’t cut it.

  • QuoVadisAnima0 the fact that your refuse to acknowledge that I did indeed address your point calls into question the sincerity of your efforts here. There’s a difference between documenting facts and asserting something. When confronted with evidence of promiscuity among heterosexuals, the religious right claims it is a cultural issue that can be changed, yet at the same time you insist that promiscuity among homosexuals is an unalterable trait, while simultaneously insisting that homosexuality itself is an alterable trait. Pretzel logic much? (And since monogamy is definitely valued among lesbians, I assume you have no problem with lesbian marriage?) Most bizarrely, even if your empty assertions were true, they still wouldn’t back up your point. I hate to break it to you, but gay people are still going to have sex with or without legally recognized marriage.
    You’re making the exact same argument about “religious belief” that the segregationists made. Segregationists too had a sincere religious belief that race-mixing was a sinful behavior that they did not wish to condone. Your argument didn’t work back then and it doesn’t work now. Businesses as public accomodations serve the public. And there is a rather large difference between a business having to treat all their customers equally and trying to force a business to offer a different service.

  • Richard- I don’t think you quite grasp the concept of what an STD is. They are not magically created by gay sex, no matter what your beliefs about natural or unnatural are. And if you think men can’t marry men and women can’t marry women no matter what, please communicate this to NOM so they can call off their anti marriage campaign. After all, there’s no sense wasting so much time and money fighting something that can never come to pass anyway, right?

  • Catholicexchange- sorry but I’ve read the Regnerus study. Only two kids in it were actually raised by same sex couples, and they turned out just as well as the kids raised by their intact biological parents. The others he lumped together as anyone having a gay parent in any circumstances whatsoever, and then compared them to kids raised by their intact biological parents. That’s what we call “cheating.” If you’re going to include kids raised in broken homes where one parent was gay, the proper comparison group is kids raised in broken homes where both parents were straight. At least, that’s the proper comparison group if you actually want to do valid science and not just create talking points for anti-gay activists, and the emails between Regnerus and NOM which have been released now show that was indeed his motivation. All the studies that have actually studied kids raised by gay couples vs. kids raised by straight couples show that kids raised by gay couples turn out just fine. I’m sorry if that fact is not conducive to your political agenda, but it is a fact.

  • QuoVadisAnima0 ah, so we just claim that any changes made by the church can’t count as “doctrine.” How very convenient.

  • QuoVadisAnima- Contrary to what some hysterical right wing hack site would have you believe, the APA did not have a conference on 8/19/2011 to talk about normalizing pedophilia. A pedophile advocate group called B4U-Act held a conference to talk about the APA (even Lifesitenews admitted this in its reporting). Pedophiles have the same free speech rights to talk about or advocate whatever they want that the rest of us have. That’s my point. They talk and they advocate, and they don’t get anywhere. One would think if you are against a 15 year old having sex you’d be even more against pregnancy for 15 year olds, but maybe not. And yes, polygamists have taken inspiration from the Gay Rights movement. So what? The Gay Rights movement took inspiration from the Civil Rights movement before them. By your “logic” we should go back to segregation to root all this out at its source. If the only arguments anyone can muster against legally recognized polygamy are religion or “EWWWWWWW” then the days of laws against polygamy are indeed numbered. Fortunately, I don’t think that’s the case. I’m not a legal expert, but it seems to me that allowing marriages of a potentially unlimited number of husbands and wives would create a massive tangled legal mess of conflicting rights and responsibilities and it would be easy to argue that this puts an undue burden on the government.

  • QuoVadisAnima- really? You trash Evelyn Hooker and then talk about not wanting to credit the source? Really? And yes, her results have been replicated several times; Freedman in 1971 and Gonsiorek in 1982 among many others. It is indeed the scientific consensus.

  • marion (mm)

    My dear Catholic brothers and sisters,

    To protect the secular, pre-political institution of marriage between one man and one woman as the sine qua non for the rearing of future generations of Americans is a righteous and praiseworthy undertaking for all who shoulder it. And if the secularists don’t like it, they, too, possess the political freedoms we all enjoy to work to oppose us. Of course, the methods of those who want same-sex marriage have included overturning the will of the American people as expressed through lawfully held referenda; Secularist judges have with a wave of their robed arm done away with government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the majority of whom have opposed raising same-sex relationships to the same plane upon which traditional marriage has been enshrined. Note well, however, that when secularist judges trample upon the will of the majority of the American people, to the secularist mind, that’s fair and legitimate. There is no question that they are imposing their views on Christians and on other people of faith. That’s not what matters to the secularist; the important thing is they win . full stop.

    Why should Catholics force their views on other Americans? For the same reasons secularists will stop at nothing to impose theirs. Somebody’s going to win this round, folks. Let us no longer be naive. Will the winners be those who call evil good, and good evil, and plan to fine, sue, and eventually silence all those who disagree with them? Or will good and truth win?

    It has to be one or the other. It can’t be both.

    It’s up to you. And if someone asks by what right I impose my view on them, I would ask them to pose that question to the tens of thousands of Catholics living in China, Viettnam and NOrth Korea, where the Catholic faith is forbidden to have any role in public life. Ask these Catholics by what right they have been punished and silenced for their faith by secularist forces who don’t happen to like what the Church has to say. And listen carefully to the answer: it’ll be coming soon to a theater near you, folks, unless we dig in and get ‘er done, and win this thing.

  • Richard III

    Perhaps that’s why Muslim men can’t have more than 4 wives unless they’re sultans.

  • Richard III


  • catholicexchange

    There were 3000 respondents, randomly selected and including a variety of respondents. These included 175 who said their mothers had same sex relationships and 73 who said their fathers had same sex relationships. These respondents were in the “suboptimal” categories mentioned.

    “All the studies” definitely do not show what you claim–to make such a statement only shows how biased you really are.There are various studies, with differing results. Frankly, there is not enough data available to say definitively one way or the other, using statistics. There are, however, very good arguments against the concept of children being raised by homosexuals, arguments like the ones I’ve mentioned and which you don’t seem inclined to address. In fact, some of the arguments are from homosexuals themselves, including those raised by one or more homosexual parents. Or do they not matter to you, since they don’t believe what you want them to believe?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Well, actually, if you check a dictionary…

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Where did I ever deny that promiscuity exists in the heterosexual population? Nor did I insist that it was an unalterable trait. Nor did I mention anything about the alterability or lack thereof for homosexual attraction. Perhaps you are trying to argue with too many people at once & have lost track of who is saying what? That would explain a lot of your answers.

    I also am not arguing that homosexual acts should be made illegal or anything along those lines. So if we can get past you arguing things with me that I am not even saying, we might actually end up communicating.

    My points are that the govt should NOT redefine marriage for everyone to suit the ideology of a tiny demographic (esp. one whose admitted purpose is actually their desire to render traditional marriage & family structure meaningless anyway), that putting any sort of govt approval on an unhealthy behavior encourages more of that behavior when it is already costing society substantially & that giving people special rights based on how they have sex is depriving others of their Constitutional rights to free speech & the free practice of their religion.

    As for the liberal assertion that businesses & their employees are not allowed to practice their religious beliefs at work – consider these questions: Do you feel that a black caterer should have to accept a job providing food & service at a KKK rally? Should a Muslim videographer be required to accept a job hiring them to record a play that insults Mohammed? What about a hall owner who happens to be lesbian & an LGBT activist working to pass pro-LGBT legislation being required to allow an activist group working AGAINST the LGBT agenda to rent that hall for a rally to stop passage of that pro-LGBT legislation coming up on the ballot?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    No, it was not a “right wing hack site”. You are so busy grasping at quick arguments to reject what you are being told that you are not even paying attention to what is being said. It was a comment made by a person following an article & they did not say that its stated purpose was to normalize pedophilia but that such was its intended purpose to BEGIN the process of normalizing pedophilia as this is the exact same course that homosexuality followed.

    You have expended a lot of verbiage here to avoid addressing the actual point – which is that all of these groups that have heretofore been considered sexual deviants or as having sexual disorders are using the exact same argument to attempt to legitimize them that homosexual activists are using & that you have repeatedly denied could be used as such. So, Pandora, where do we draw the line & on what basis? Are pedophilia, necrophilia, incest & bestiality only wrong because our society is phobic & once we “evolve” past that then they are okay?

    P.S. A brother & sister are currently attempting to marry on the basis that they cannot have children therefore it’s none of society’s business because “Well, these people cannot help who they’re attracted to, and should be free to love and find happiness with the person of their choice.” So, I already know what the activists say, but what do you think?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    No, what happened was that I posted information criticizing Evelyn Hooker’s work & you attacked the print source rather than addressing the actual criticisms – that was my point about sticking with substance.

    What is interesting as I give a cursory look at the work of these researchers is that they were not looking at the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sexual disorder but at the question of whether or not it is a mental health disorder. If you want to discuss whether or not people beset with same sex attraction are mentally disturbed, then okay, yeah, the scientific consensus is probably going to support that position. But who is arguing that?

    I have an unhealthy attraction to far too many things, but I can probably still manage to pass a Rorshach. Does that somehow mean that those behaviors are no longer disordered, but now healthy and beneficial for me if only people would stop with their negative comments about my actions?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Even APA has acknowledged there is no scientific consensus on the issues that I have been talking about, & interestingly, Friedman is mentioned as a source supporting the “bio-psycho-social model” of homosexual development

    Another perspective on the “scientific” consensus regarding the mental health of people with same sex attraction (After you recover from your brain explosion that it is from NARTH, take a look at the substance – the research is consistent with others that have been done in homophilic Sweden)

    And this is what passes for scientific objectivity? The validity of one’s conclusions is only as good – as reliable – as its ability to endure AFTER all other possibilities have been factored in &/or are eliminated.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    (My reply of yesterday seems to not have been retained so I will respond to this again – my apologies if it ends up doubled)

    Elizabeth, words have meaning & our use of the word doctrine is confirmed by a quick perusal of Merriam-Webster. You can show changes in disciplines, governance & sins by individual members of the Church (even a few popes), but none of those is considered doctrine – by the commonly accepted definition.

  • QuoVadisAnima- no, I did not attack the print source. Read more carefully. But since you brought it up, your print source asserted that Hooker’s research had been debunked but did not actually show that it had. Much like how you assert that homosexuality is a sexual disorder but can’t actually show that it is.

  • QuoVadisAnima- yes, social stigma causes mental stress. This is uncontroversial. What is your point?

  • Catholicexchange- That you chose to talk about his data collection rather than address my point about his faulty data analysis tells me you know I’m right but can’t bring yourself to admit it. It’s okay, prejudices are hard to get over. Give yourself time. And the only “very good arguments” you brought up were the claim that it’s “offensive” and your false claims about parenting, so I’m unclear on what you think it is I’m not inclined to address. Ironically, even if your claim about parenting was true, which it is not, it would still be a red herring. We don’t require parenting fitness tests to get a marriage license. A drug addicted mother can have her kids taken away by CPS and go get a marriage license the next day, as long as she is marrying a man. And yes, some kids raised by gay parents had a lousy upbringing, I hope this doesn’t come as too big of a shock to you, but some kids raised by straight parents also had a lousy upbringing. The plural of anecdote is not data.

  • QuoVadisAnima- I never said you denied that promiscuity exists among heterosexuals or that gay sex should be illegal. It’s rather ironic that you should take me to task for claiming you said things you never said, when I didn’t actually say you did, no? Learn to read more carefully. I said that the religious right treats promiscuity in heterosexuals as an alterable cultural trait, but treats promiscuity in homosexuals as an unalterable trait. Unless you consider yourself to be the entire religious right, then I wasn’t talking about you specifically.
    As to your attempts at actual points- 1) Marriage is not being redefined for straight people. It’s the same as it’s always been. You can move to Massachusets right now and have yourself as “traditional” a marriage as you please. The only way your claim could possibly make sense would be if you actually believe that straight people get married in order to feel superior to gay people, and I doubt you’re silly enough to believe that. (Note- I didn’t say this was what you actually believed, in fact I said I don’t think you believe it. Try to keep that in mind when composing any response.) 2) Government policy isn’t supposed to be based on your subjective opinions on what is “unhealthy.” and 3) equal rights are not “special” and no one is being deprived of their Constitutional rights to free speech or to practice their religion. Again, you could go to Massachusets tomorrow, find a conservative church willing to let you preach, and belt out a thunder-and-brimstone condemnation of the gays at the top of your lungs all you want. No one is going to stop you. And once again, we’ve already settled that business owners aren’t allowed to discriminate just because they have religious reasons for wanting to do so. Lunch counter owners don’t get to refuse to serve black people just because they think the Bible forbids race mixing. And I kind of doubt the KKK would want a black guy touching their food anyway.

  • QuoVadisAnima- again, you’re ignoring my point. Pedophiles have the right to get together and advocate for whatever they want. If we want free speech, we have to let them have it too. It’s not exactly news that pedophiles would like to BEGIN the process of normalizing pedophilia. Nor is it clear how that is somehow gay activists’ fault. And no, I never denied that other groups could try to use the same arguments that the gay rights movement has used. What I said is that pedophiles aren’t going to get anywhere with those arguments because there is an actual, Constitutionally sound reason to keep adult/child sex illegal. We draw the line precisely where we have an actual, Constitutionally sound reason to draw it. Children have the right not to be harmed. Hence, pedophilia stays illegal. As you and everyone else has demonstrated, the only reasons people oppose gay rights are religious dogma and fear/distaste. And those are not Constitutionally sound reasons. As for your brother and sister example, I can think of several reasons the government would be justified in not allowing them- they can’t be 100% positive that the couple could never have children, and the psychological sciences all agree that there is no such thing as a sexual orientaiton purely to siblings, so they could not establish themselves as a class, among others.

  • Richard III

    Neither the editor nor anyone else here denied that there are kids with parents who are heterosexual and abusive. Those cases are tragic and all too common (even just 1 case would be too many), but those cases are the exceptions, not the rule for heterosexual parents.

    Certainly same-sex couples are no more guaranteed to be abusive than opposite-sex ones, but men just can’t be mothers and women just can’t be fathers. No matter how great, kind, and caring a homosexual couple is, a kid who grows up with 2 dads won’t know how to talk to or behave around women and a kid with 2 moms won’t know how to do the same with men.

  • QuoVadisAnima- According to Merriam Webster, changing the teaching on marriage, as the Catholic church did when they decided to make it a sacrament in the 16th century, does indeed qualify as a change in doctrine.

  • Yes, judicial review is an important safeguard in our Constitution. Of course, you forgot that it isn’t just judges “imposing their views” on the people. It’s also legislatures, And, if you were awake at all last November, you must have been super steamed when the people of three states “imposed their views” on the people of those states. However, it does remain a fact that no one is ever going to force you to get gay married or try to forbid you from marrying someone of the opposite sex, so nothing is actually being “imposed” on you other than a requirement to treat people equally under the law.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Hmm, overlooking much? Like the blatant failure to consider other possible reasons for depression & low self esteem?
    And how do you explain away the continued presence of “mental stress” researchers found when the social stigma is no longer there as in countries like Sweden?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    It was a news article, not a research review, but it certainly pointed out major flaws in her “scientific” research that biased the outcome.
    And you assert that homosexual behavior is not a disorder, and have yet to show that it is not – your uncritically preferred researchers simply looked at whether or not homosexual inclinations were pathologies. Since that’s not the argument at hand, then you still have yet to support your assertion that homosexual inclinations are normal rather than disordered sexual development.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    You keep saying what’s the harm & there is no harm, but every time I (as well as several others) have pointed out the scientific & sociological data that shows harm to society, and the legal & educational consequences that also cause harm, you counter by denying that any of those harms actually exist as such (while bashing your pet religious & phobic strawmen that have not in any credible way been evinced here). I am reminded of my youngest who still believes that even when he is caught red-handed, he can avoid the negative consequences by denying everything. Experience can be a tough teacher.

    What “Constitutionally sound reason” keeps NAMBLA from using your arguments to lower the age of consent? And if the brother-sister couple have no possibility of fecundity – perhaps due to old age, then for what reason should they be kept apart?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    What entry is that under? The Incarnation is the name that describes when God became incarnate in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That word is not found in the Bible. Neither is “Holy Trinity” or “Christmas” or a lot of other words that we developed over time to describe religious realities within Scripture. If we develop a name for something that already existed, that is not a change in that thing’s substance. And if we recognize that several things share certain characteristics & decide to group them together based on that recognition, that does not mean they become something new in the process. Furthermore, there are a number of historical references to the sacramentality of marriage prior to the 16th century –

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Ah, my apologies for assuming that when you were generalizing about the religious right, you were including me – but then I can’t help but wonder why bring it up at all if I didn’t & you weren’t?

    As for your attempts at rebuttals – 1) Tell that to the people who have lost money, businesses, jobs, etc for believing that they could not (& should not be forced to) participate in something that they believe offends God. Tell that to the parents whose children are being taught in public schools that their religious beliefs are wrong & their parents are bigots. 2) Nothing subjective about it (though common sense tells us that when we use parts of the body in ways that nature never intended, we’re bound to run into problems) – the objective data is well known – even LGBT sources acknowledge among themselves that the disease spreading behaviors are a problem. 3) Homosexuals have had exactly the same rights as everyone else. You keep harping on the race issue, but it’s not the same because skin color IS strictly a genetic characteristic that has no negative effect on any of the parameters of a healthy society, whereas people indulging in homosexual behavior are making choices that do have a negative impact on society (i.e. increasing the spread & virulence of STD’s while potentiating new public health diseases a la AIDS & all the other scientifically researched data that you wish to deny). Stop evading answering my hypothetical questions – and the KKK wants blacks back in servitude so your evasion is a fail anyway – or you will lose all credibility on your dismissive response to this point. 4) You have yet to explain why a tiny minority of people should be allowed to redefine marriage for the rest of society. If marriage is going to be defined as whatever anyone wants it to mean, it ceases to have any real meaning at all. Professor Judith Stacey explains that is precisely the plan…

  • All of Swedish society has no social stigma whatsoever against gay people? Since when? And the burden of proof is not on me to prove that homosexuality is not a disorder, any more than the burden of proof is on you to prove that you don’t belong in jail for the rest of your life. You can’t prove a negative.

  • PS- The guy you cite in the virtue online article has been caught deliberately misrepresenting research on gay parents. He cited a study of daughters of gay fathers having trust issues, yet left out the rather crucial fact that their gay fathers had been married to their mothers. (And if you need me to explain how finding out your dad has been in the closet and running around having affairs can create trust issues, you’re even more far gone than I thought)

  • Richard III and what evidence do you have to back up those assertions? Do you think kids of gay parents are somehow raised in a vaccuum where they never meet someone of the other sex? Do you think kids can’t learn anything from seeing how their same sex parents talk and behave to each other? Treating your partner with respect isn’t somehow delineated by gender.

  • QuoVadisAnima- 1) Segregationists who insisted on refusing to serve black people after civil rights laws were passed also risked losing their businesses. Do you have any actual examples of school officials telling kids that their religion is wrong and their parents are bigots? Not to mention that your answer still doesn’t show how marriage is being “redefined” for straight people. Also not to mention that people risk being punished for running afoul of antidiscrimination laws, which is a completely separate issue from marriage laws. Gay couples were having marriage ceremonies long before they began to be legally recognized, and a business owner could still get in trouble for refusing to serve them if the state had a nondiscrimination law. Stop trying to comflate the two. 2) By that logic, all of Africa should outlaw heterosexual marriage. The propensity to engage in high risk behavior has never been a criteria for issuing a marriage license, and as you keep insisting on ignoring, marriage reduces promiscuity. 3) And before Loving vs. Virginia, everyone had the same right to marry someone of their own race. Yes, you want to harp on genetics for some reason, but segregationists didn’t object to the biological existence of black people, they objected to what their sincere religious beliefs told them was the sinful behavior of race mixing. Also, once again, diseases are spread by promiscuity, not magically created by gay sex. I’m not sure why this point is so hard for you to grasp. If you view being hired to do a job for someone as inherently a condition of “servitude” that says something rather odd about you, and I didn’t evade at all. Public accomodations serve the public. This is settled law. 4) You have yet to show that marriage is being “redefined” for straight people. No one is being forced to gay marry and no one is trying to prevent straight couples from marrying. No one is trying to redefine marriage out of existence either, no matter what wild conspiracy theories you can come up with. Marriage equality has been the law in Massachusets for over a decade now, and marriage is doing just fine there. In fact by most measures they are the healthiest state for marriage in the country. How long are we supposed to hold our breaths waiting for your irrational fears to come true?

  • QuoVadisAnima- if you’re going to respond to my comments, is it too much to ask that you actually read them first? I just gave you a reason why NAMBLA trying to use gay rights arguments wouldn’t work. It’s right up there. You really need me to repeat it? Ok but please try to pay attention this time. Children have the right not to be harmed. There. See it? I also gave you another reason why incestuous couples would have a hard time overturning laws against incest. I’ll even give you a third- the government couldn’t make failing a fertility test a condition of getting married because that would represent an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, not to mention they would be creating separate and unequal classes of marriage. Also, I didn’t say anything about no harm in the comment you were responding to, but since you brought it up, yes, promiscuity, whether of the heterosexual or homosexual variety, can spread disease. What is your point? And it’s just silly of you to claim that no religion has ben invoked here, with everyone ranting about how the government shouldn’t recognize gay couples marriages because those marriages aren’t sacramental. Reading is your friend.

  • What entry? Um… it’s under “doctrine.” What did you think it would be under? According to Merriam Webster, a doctrine is a teaching, and when the church official declared marriage a sacrament in the 16th century, they changed their teaching, aka doctrine, on marriage. (and it doesn’t matter if there were references prior, it didn’t become official until then and making it official is a change in doctrine, whether you like it or not)

  • Richard III

    Sure, a kid with 2 dads will see women sometimes, and a kid with 2 moms will occasionally see men, but neither case will be an everyday occurrence, so the children will still be denied the full experience kids with 1 mom and 1 dad receive (hopefully) each and every day.

    And yes, a kid can learn a lot about men from 2 dads and a lot about women from 2 moms, but 2x the knowledge of 1 gender won’t make up for insufficient knowledge about the other.

  • Richard III

    Forgive my frankness, but homosexual sex IS ALWAYS PROMISCUOUS; even sticking with just 1 same-sex partner for life is promiscuous because 2 people of the same gender can never enter into a married union and all sexual acts outside of a married union are promiscuous. And of course STDs are not created by magic. They are created by unnatural sex acts both homo and heterosexual. Our bodies were not meant to have intercourse with multiple opposite-sex partners, with any number of same-sex partners, or with any number of dead, non-human or inanimate partners.

    STDs, like all diseases, are the result of 1 or more parts of the body malfunctioning and/or becoming infected, in this case the reproductive system. The myriads of STDs we’re mired in today are the results of people behaving promiscuously in the wake of the sexual revolution. Prior to the ’60’s, there were only 2 known STDs in the world. There’s at least 100 now, and if both homo and heterosexuals don’t start living more chastely soon, there’s only going to be more and more new diseases and more and more people getting sick and dying.

  • catholicexchange

    A “change in doctrine,” by anyone’s standards, means “transforming from one thing into a different thing.” So if, for instance, everybody in a society agrees that killing the innocent is wrong, and then later they make an official law to reflect that belief, has their teaching changed?