The Marketing of Gay “Marriage”

Author’s preface: I am a gay man who is opposed to same-sex marriage. Readers can view my speech on this topic given earlier this year at the Celebration of Marriage Rally here and read my essay “I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage.”

A recent article in the Daily Beast, “Pennsylvania. Oregon. Is Gay Marriage Unstoppable?” began with the observation that “The cascade of same-sex marriage rulings is now a torrent, each more quotable and image-ready than the last.” The piece ended with this conclusion:

It’s no coincidence that the Oregon and Pennsylvania opinions both began with the stirring stories of the plaintiffs, long term gay couples denied the right to marry. On the surface, those stories are extraneous detail. But on close inspection, they are why the marriage tide won’t be turned.

The author points out that it is images and stories that have driven recent pro-same-sex marriage rulings by state judiciaries—not the Supreme Court’s 2013 Windsor decision. The real story is this: it’s all about marketing and the cultivation of perceptions, coupled with intimidating tactics.

How did we get to the point where high-profile jurists ignore the will of the people clearly established through ballot initiatives, as well as legal precedent set by the Supreme Court? How has judicial decision-making become so influenced by subjectivity, images, clever marketing strategies, and perceptions carefully crafted by special interest groups?

Thoroughly Tiresome, by Design
To understand this cultural evolution, we must look back a quarter century to the publication of a book which, at the time, went mostly unnoticed. Published in 1989, After the Ball (subtitled, How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s), presented a comprehensive plan to establish the normalcy of gays and lesbians and to secure broader acceptance and rights.

The manifesto was laid out by a pair of Harvard graduates. Marshall Kirk (’80) was a researcher in neuropsychiatry. Hunter Madsen (’85) studied politics and went on to work on Madison Avenue, becoming an expert in public persuasion tactics and social marketing. The marketing strategy that Kirk and Madsen contrived is a resounding success. In many ways, what we now see occurring is attributable to their prescience.

Here is a rapid-fire litany of excerpts that provides an outline of their plan. To anyone who has paid attention to what has been going on in our culture over the last few decades, this will sound very familiar:

We have in mind a strategy … calculated and powerful … manipulative … It’s time to learn from Madison Avenue, to roll out the big guns. Gays must launch a large-scale campaign—we’ve called it the waging peace campaign—to reach straights through the mainstream media. We’re talking about propaganda …

You can forget about trying right up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think it is just another thing—meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders—then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.

Application of the keep-talking principle can get people to the shoulder-shrug stage. The free and frequent discussion of gay rights by a variety of persons in a variety of places gives the impression that homosexuality is commonplace.

Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject and that a sizable bloc—the most modern up-to-date citizens—accept or even practice homosexuality…. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome….

[G]ays can undermine the moral authority of … churches over less fervent adherents by portraying such institutions as antiquated backwaters badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. [This] has already worked well in America against churches on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work for gays….

Two different messages about the gay victim are worth communicating. First the public should be persuaded the gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did say their height, skin color, talents or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay—even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.)….

And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness. Second they should be portrayed as victims of prejudice. Straights don’t fully realize the suffering they bring upon gays….

In all candor, we’re convinced that the whole of our scheme will work as intended … It is up to you, fearless reader, to act.

Madsen and Kirk’s scheme has worked brilliantly. We are bombarded with evidence of their success in the news every day.

Mainstreaming Implausible, Formerly Novel Ideas
The notion that there is something unconstitutional, if not anti-human, about rejecting genderless marriage has seized the imagination of those who hold power. Let’s be clear: the idea of same-sex marriage did not win at the ballot box in November 2012, or at the US Supreme Court last June, or among certain jurists and legislators since then. The marketing strategy developed by leftist social psychologists did, and it continues to do so.

Let’s also be clear: The American people have not fallen in love with the notion of same-sex marriage—not by a long shot. So how did the radical left gain the upper hand in the same-sex marriage debate? A technique identified by Cass Sunstein and Timur Kuran explains the simple, effective process: Availability Cascades.

An AVAILABILITY CASCADE is a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception increasing plausibility through its rising availability in public discourse. The driving mechanism involves a combination of informational and reputational motives: Individuals endorse the perception partly by learning from the apparent beliefs of others and partly by distorting their public responses in the interest of maintaining social acceptance. Availability entrepreneurs—activists who manipulate the content of public discourse—strive to trigger availability cascades likely to advance their agendas.

In other words, thinking that once was confined to small fringe groups rapidly gains social acceptance—even dominance—because individuals fear that if they don’t publicly support it, they will appear unsophisticated and behind the times, making them social outcasts in their places of work, schools, neighborhoods, churches, or even in their own families. Their critical thinking is pushed aside by their instinct for self-preservation.

Political Correctness
No tactic of the powers opposing Judeo-Christian mores has proven more effective than political correctness. Why? Non-adherents are threatened with social isolation and anaclitic depression. Thus, the peer pressure that dominates middle schools, high schools, and college campuses retains all its horrifying power to intimidate American adults, causing multitudes to suppress free inquiry and redirect their behaviors.

Information and opinion cascades (also described by Sunstein and Kuran) promulgated by the left are meant to overwhelm and intimidate. They cause otherwise freethinking individuals to engage in preference falsification (publicly denying one’s true thoughts and values to maintain a positive social standing).

The media play an enormous role in creating information and opinion cascades by controlling the narrative, determining the flow of both information and opinion. In this way, the left has been wildly successful in the manufacture of consent (as described by Walter Lippmann), leading people to conclude falsely that implausible notions, such as same-sex marriage, are inevitable.

Same-Sex Marriage’s Achilles Heel
But the processes that have led to the surprising success of the radical left are also its Achilles heel. Consent that is manufactured is not real. Proponents of same-sex marriage haven’t won in the arena of ideas—they have won through manipulation.

The moral high ground the radical left seems to enjoy is extremely fragile, because its popular support has been fabricated. The left’s only hope of retaining this support is to continue to suppress free speech and religion. They cannot risk the proclamation of truth—whether it be the truth of the Gospel, the truth of natural law, or even simple common sense.

But the ground won by the radical left can be regained. If we are as disciplined and focused as the proponents of same-sex marriage, we can not only retake this ground, we can also pave new inroads. We must not despair; we should regroup and prepare to wage the battle in a new and different way.

Mainstream Media? Work around Them.
Mainstream media are bewitched by political correctness, which makes our task extremely difficult, but not impossible. The media will never stray from the politically correct narrative, no matter how implausible or ludicrous that narrative may be. So we should, for the most part, simply choose to ignore them, brush them aside, and expect nothing but roadblocks from them.

That’s why at this stage in the game, speaking freely one-on-one, in small groups, or within congregations, parishes, and civic organizations is more important than ever. Anything that is said by opponents of the radical left agenda gets twisted in the public square by media collaborators. So, the public square should not be our primary place of conducting business. Our work will continue in our homes and carpools, at lunch tables and on barstools, and in churches and community meeting rooms.

In a sense, we are like those in the not-so-distant past who opposed the tyranny of totalitarian states, who were unable to broadcast their beliefs, but found a way to build large, local networks of relationships that would ultimately lead to the collapse of totalitarianism. We must be creative. People have found success working under much harsher, more tyrannical conditions than those confronting us now.

What Can You Do?
The only way to fight the powerful marketing and intimidation behind same-sex marriage is for each of us to bravely stand up in our local communities, confronting the bullying, silencing tactics of out-of-touch judges, legislators, corporate cronies, and media collaborators.

Stand up for social positions that you know in your gut to be true. Don’t allow yourself to be silenced by political correctness. Stand up for marriage. Stand up for life. Stand up for the right of children to be born and to have both a mom and a dad. You have truth on your side. You are right, and they are wrong, so do not be afraid.

Men and women must rise up to supplant the career politicians and media types who now dominate the national narrative. We can no longer remain silent. We need solid legislators, journalists, and activists to step up to the plate and start filling positions at every level of government—local, state, and national—and filling the blogosphere, the airwaves, and the opinion pages with authentically pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-liberty views. We need to wrest the narrative away from the radical left.

Do not be afraid to speak up. Don’t make the mistake of remaining quiet until you are certain you have a winning argument. Simply speak truthfully and let others know your beliefs. The truth will prevail, if each of us will only open our mouths and proclaim it.

If I may echo Madsen and Kirk: “It is up to you, fearless reader, to act.”

Editor’s note: This essay first appeared June 9, 2014 on Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute and is reprinted with permission. This article is adapted from several pieces previously published at American Thinker.

Doug Mainwaring

By

Doug Mainwaring is co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots and a marriage and children's rights activist.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    The Catholic poet, Alexander Pope expressed the same idea, with the terse elegance of 18th century wit:

    Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
    As to be hated needs but to be seen;
    Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
    We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

    From “An Essay on Man” (1734) Book 2

  • mikidiki

    Does the fact that an admittedly gay man objects to gay marriage give his views greater credence that those of a straight person? Does the author believe in civil partnerships? What makes him gay? We need to be told. Otherwise this article is akin to a rant at a political rally and not a refutation of the whole concept of gay relationships.

    • Guest

      Huh? The author’s position stands on its own merits. Your questions have zero relationship to the issues at hand.

    • Asmondius

      You must have taken a wrong turn – this is not People Magazine.

    • fredx2

      Nonsense. Of course his views have more credence – he is affected directly and knows the inside of the gay community, and where people are misleading etc.

      • Tiger

        If he knew the inside of the gay community, then he would know nobody gives a hoot about the book he was talking about. It was quickly rejected and forgotten by that community. The only community that still cares about it is that of people who want a gay version of the Protocols of Zion.

        • April Spring

          Tiger.

          Good news today! The whole world is not insane and promoting a destructive agenda like you are.

          Read and weep Tiger!

          News Flash:
          Human rights court: Europe cannot be forced to redefine marriage.

          http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/human-rights-court-europe-cannot-be-forced-to-redefine-marriage-24798/

          • Tiger

            What agenda am I promoting?

            The agenda of not claiming a book that nobody’s ever read is secretly hugely popular among “Those People”?

            But while we’re talking about news, what’s your take on the Ex-Gay Ministry leader getting arrested on 8 felony counts of criminal sexual misconduct with two young men?

            http://www.startribune.com/local/177906901.html?refer=y

            That inspire confidence in your snake-oil cures for something even the Catholic Church acknowledges will often be a lifelong struggle even for many devout Catholics?

            • April Spring

              Guess what? Tiger. He ain’t ‘Ex-Gay’ if he is still molesting young men. HE IS GAY!

              AND THIS IS WHAT HE DID:

              (Why don’t you learn how to read)

              “One of the men told investigators that Muehlhauser “blessed” him by cupping his genitals outside of his clothing several times and that Muehlhauser asked the man to masturbate in front of him for “spiritual strength.” Muehlhauser would also fondle the man at times. Their encounters occurred over a period of nearly two years.”

              You are one sick puppy that DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO READ!

              • Tiger

                Hey lady, that was the guy in charge of one of your much-vaunted “gay treatments.” The ones where half the clients are minors sent there by parents who believed your hysterical nonsense about “cures.”
                Gay people think people like him are psychotic frauds.

                He’s *your* star quarterback, not ours.

  • Guest

    Thank you for your great essay. My only wish is that Bishops and Cardinals read it and accept it.

    • Aldo Elmnight

      Most of them are homosexuals themselves.

  • Funbud

    Oh lord,this guy again. He couldn’t cut it as a gay man so he went running back to his wife. God help the poor lady, she took him back. And now he makes his living apparently as a professional whiner and malcontent. This is the most credible voice you can come up with to speak on this issue?

    Color me unimpressed.

    • Guest

      The “gay” propagandists are here right on cue.

    • Asmondius

      Thanks for underlining some of the points he made. Significant that you attack the person and not the thought.

      Blab away on religious blogs all you like – it is a fool’s errand.

    • Aldo Elmnight

      You are working for evil.

    • DE-173

      A lot of us couldn’t “cut it” as “gay”. Hooray for us.

    • fredx2

      Interesting. Catty comments – just as the gay stereotype would have it.

    • ForChristAlone

      So there are four of you in there…we demand that you tells us your name. You’re name is not quite yet Legion.

  • Watosh

    What this article really points out is not so much that same-sex marriage should not be recognized, but how the secular world can manipulate people into accepting whatever the secular world wants them to believe. This shows exactly how it is done, and it will work for other secular issues and it will work for undermining the Church even further than it has been today. The image makers and public relations types and propagandists now have free rein in this secular democracy to bend the public to whatever liberal causes they wish to back. A few short years ago, DOMA was passed overwhelmingly by Congress, most states had laws restricting marriage to a man and a women, Biden and Obama even said they were not in favor of same sex marriage then. And now, in just a few short years the public’s long standing and strongly held belief that same sex marriage was wrong has been completely reversed. This is testifies to the power wielded by a small faction that controls our news. These people are the real rulers of our country. In the past they have been successful in getting the public to support ill advised foreign adventures. Remember every major metropolitan newspaper welcomed our invasion of Iraq. Once you get the bandwagon rolling in America, people will mindlessly leap on it. Look at the number of people that are tattooed today. Monkey see, monkey do. America is the home of the mass man.

    • Guest

      The masses are…well you know the rest. We do not form our consciences correctly. We form them through TV/movies, friends, feelings, and that is about it.

      So, we can and should place blame on the propagandists but we must also blame ourselves. We lead unexamined lives. Truth is simply a matter of feelings to the great majority of folks including those who fancy themselves “enlightened” and “educated”.

      Can the Church help us? So far, based on the past 40 years of history apparently not so much.

      • DE-173

        We form them through TV/movies, friends, feelings, and that is about it.

    • fredx2

      Individuality by conformity, you might say.

      • Watosh

        Exactly

  • RC

    As a gay man myself I have witnessed this transformation of thought…and not happily. While attending College in the 80’s I was ostracized because I was Gay (it was a very Conservative University). The Gay world does not understand my opposition to their agenda which says on one hand “let us live our life in peace” yet on the other “we want to do whatever we want, where we want, when we want, with who we want; get over it and just accept it.” I am a devout Catholic, still Gay, but living very happily within the Guidelines of my Faith as a Single Man (yes it is possible). I oppose Gay Marriage and have always opposed Gay Marriage. The one thing this Advertising Campaign has not addressed and will never address is that Marriage is a Sacrament from God. Once people get over the shock of my being Catholic and still Gay, I then have the opportunity to tell them why I am opposed to Gay Marriage. Madison Avenue started with one voice at a time and built the message of today. We must use their tactic of one voice at a time….and build our message of hope and salvation for tomorrow.

    • DE-173

      The first step to this is to refuse to use the term “gay”. Gay carries connotations of normalcy, immutability, and other attributes that your post contradicts.

      • john

        that may be true but I sense he uses it as it has become an accepted term and so convey his gist most simply and quickly in a one paragraph internet post then mudding the waters trying to find most “appropriate” terminology.

        • DE-173

          “same-sex attracted” distills the matter to it’s essentials.

          • RC

            “same-sex attracted” is a term devised by those who are seeking acceptance of the broader society. Gay over time has developed a negative connotation, so a new more “positive” “politically correct” term was devised. It seems that many think that if a new term is devised which is deemed less threatening or more pleasing, it will help move along their agenda. It seems that this may be true.

            • DE-173

              “gay’ is evasive and it hasn’t been negative since Will and Grace.

            • April Spring

              How about a new term: “Same-sex addiction.”
              How many people are brave enough to use this term?

              • Tiger

                Well, aside from being factually inaccurate, it implies that there’s a reliable treatment available.

                • ForChristAlone

                  I am sure a 12 step program could be instituted for this addiction

                  • Tiger

                    I’m sure it’s been tried hundreds, if not thousands of times already, in fact.

                    Yet no program to date has had a success rate above the margin of error at actually eliminating same-sex attraction.

          • Tiger

            That’s what gay means.

            Seriously. Anyone who’s not deliberately equivocating means “same-sex attracted” when they say “gay.”

            So all you’re doing is adding extra syllables and saying the same thing.

            • DE-173

              No, it doesn’t. Read the original post and stop being tedious.

              Gay used to mean light-hearted, it was appropriated to be a vacant and deceptive term for individuals with a homosexual inclination.

              • Tiger

                “Silly” used to mean “stupid” and now it means “funny.”
                Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.

                Also, if you’re going to focus on the history of words, might as well learn about it. Even in the 17th century, “gay” had already taken on a meaning other than “carefree.” A meaning that’s since fallen even further from common use than “happy.” Then picked up a meaning essentially equivalent to “bachelor.”

                But regardless, if you want to complain about the term being used to talk about people with same-sex attraction, you’ll need to take a time machine back to the 1930s.

                • DE-173

                  You can’t be this dense.

                  • Tiger

                    What? Gay has meant the same thing since my grandparents were children, but you’re acting like activists *just* changed what it means.

                    But your entire argument is a distraction anyway, since you’re still deliberately equivocating what you know they mean when they say it regardless of your opinion of how good a word for that meaning it is.

                    • DE-173

                      OK, you are that dense.

                    • Tiger

                      Ah, argument by insult. The weakest, most useless form of argument in the history of disagreements.

                    • April Spring

                      DE is right, you are dense.
                      Yeah, two guys jacking off in the ass is the new “normal” for a twisted person like you.

                    • Tiger

                      What are you even talking about?

                      I was talking about equivocation on the term “gay” in which Mr. Philadelphia Experiment here was intentionally trying to insert claims into someone else’s statements since it’s easier to argue with the fake ones than what the people actually mean.

                      Sex acts weren’t even part of the discussion. Get your head out of the gutter.

                    • DE-173

                      No, glossing over what occurs -which is a counterfeit of sex with a vacant euphemism is the discussion.

                    • Tiger

                      There’s no sex, counterfeit or otherwise in “gay” because
                      It.
                      Is.
                      Referring.
                      Only.
                      To.
                      Same.
                      Sex.
                      Attraction.

                      Try to make strawman arguments all you like, but the facts remain the same.

                    • DE-173

                      Wow, you are confused.

      • fredx2

        Not necessarily – look at the common usage “That’s so gay”

      • In polite society we call people as they choose to be called.

        • slainte

          One should speak truth…a virtue that polite society often refuses to tolerate.

          • DE-173

            What is called “polite society” is often the law of the jungle or two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner.

        • DE-173

          Hitler wanted to be called Feuhrer.

          • RuariJM

            Godwin!

            As “Fuehrer” simply means “leader” or “director”, I’m not entirely sure of the point you seek to make?

            • DE-173

              I’m sorry you don’t understand, but if you think about it, you’ll figure it out.

        • ForChristAlone

          Not if it’s untrue and unnatural. Don’t impose your idiocy on the rest of the 99%

        • Polite society is decidedly uncivilized and intolerant.

        • entonces_99

          Really? Then I and my people wish to be called “Exalted” (and we insist on the capital E).

      • Tiger

        What alternative would you suggest?

        • DE-173

          Anything but a vacant euphemism.

          • Tiger

            Any particular preference? Presenting an alternative generally makes for a more compelling argument than not.

            • Barry Penobscott

              The original “homosexual” works. Controlling the language is a successful tactic. The “right to choose” has replaced “kill my baby”, and “progressive” has replaced “liberal”.

    • DE-173

      All social insurrections follow the same metastastic pattern. First, it’s odious, then odd, then option, annd finally obligatory. We are at Stage IV.

    • fredx2

      Based on your experience what percentage of gay men would be open to the idea of living as you do? I have heard one gay man – Wesley Hill – say that he believes that about half would be open to the idea.

      • Please. Out of the 5% or so of the population that is gay, a handful of devout Catholics choose to be chaste. That’s their decision and I won’t judge them for it. However, the number is statistically irrelevant.

        • DE-173

          “That’s their decision and I won’t judge them for it. ”
          When one lacks authority or capacity, such a deferral means nothing.

        • Objectivetruth

          The Truth is something to be mocked, attacked, and ignored by you, isn’t it?

        • The_Monk

          You have inflated the size of the gay community by a factor of 2. It seems you have learned the lesson of the book well….

        • ForChristAlone

          5%? Another fiction you’re living with.

        • Asmondius

          New Flash – recent study by CDC says less than 3%.

          That’s why they need the ever-lengthening chain of alphabet soup to keep the cause alive.

          • Tiger

            So… still three times more numerous than Native Americans, is what you’re saying.
            Or about two for every three people of Asian descent.

            Be careful about trying to disenfranchise people by what percent of the population they are, as you might slip on some unintended problems with that logic.

    • Paul McGuire

      Marriage is a Sacrament from God in many different churches. In some Christian denominations, they believe that God blesses same-sex marriages as well as opposite-sex marriages. The question of whether or not marriage is a sacrament is one to be had with individual churches not something to present to the courts making these decisions. The majority of couples are fighting for their right to form civil marriages and are not likely to seek blessing in a church. Blessing in a church is not a prerequisite for opposite-sex marriages any more than it is for same-sex marriages.

      • Correct. The Church should confine its advocacy to its adherents. The Church has no business trying to impose its teachings on everyone else. If it wants to play politics that changes their tax status. Most Catholics support marriage equality. Most Catholics also use contraceptives.

        The Church could have saved many millions of dollars (or fed countless poor people). If Mainwaring (who is a 5-watt bulb) is opposed to same-sex marriage then he should not have one.

        • slainte

          The Catholic Church is every member of the mystical body of Christ whose rights of Freedom of Conscience and Religion must be exercisable in the public square as well as the four walls of the Church.

        • DE-173

          If Mainwaring (who is a 5-watt bulb)

          You should aspire to burn that bright.

        • Objectivetruth

          But you follow the Father of Lies. Therefore, you are a liar and your lifestyle is a lie. There is nothing credible about what you say.

        • John200

          “Correct”…?

          No, it’s more drollerie from the trollerie that sent you boys forth. Now you are here to learn. But you have to listen first. Based on the evidence to date, the obvious conclusion is:

          You can’t.

        • The_Monk

          You are arguing the negative – the reality is the gay community is foisting its (lack of) morality on Christians. There is no ground for equality between marriage and “gay marriage” – natural law has seen to that. Hopefully you are not as self-deluded as your comment indicates.
          Peace…

        • Amatorem Veritatis

          The Church advocates for the Truth. And not just to adherents in case you are a bit detached from the Gospel and the idea of evangelism. And the Church proposes, not imposes. Please can the bumper sticker talking points. You are free to disagree with any…or all Church teaching you wish, with only one potential risk. If the Church is right…if it proclaims the Truth…then you will be wrong for a very , very long time. Marriage equality? Moral equality? Truth equality? Relativism is a disease of intellectually adolescents.

        • michael susce

          Correct. In recent times, Pope Pius was criticized for not speaking out against the Nazis and the Holocaust. Thankfully, you see the wisdom in not having the Church get involved in politics and imposing their views on others. Also, two Jewish authors credit the Pope with saving nearly a million Jews. The Pope should not have forced his beliefs on others and played politics by saving all those Jews and going against the Nazi government. You, sir, are so wise and compassionate. As our Cardinal in New York said, “Bravo”.
          “The Church should confine its advocacy to its adherents”. Until the government decides that the Church’s advocacy goes against government policy. So basically, the government is the new church and imposes its teachings on all Catholics.
          Your philosophy is basically, everyone or group can participate in the democratic process and impose their beliefs on everyone except those who are Catholic.

          • DE-173

            “In recent times, Pope Pius was criticized for not speaking out against the Nazis and the Holocaust.”

            But HE DID. Hitler just didn’t see Papal letters as something that could stop Panzers.

            • Asmondius

              “How many divisions does rhe Pope have?”

              – Josef Stalin

        • ForChristAlone

          That’s about the stupidiest comment you’ve ever made. If the Church believes that salvation i.e. eternal happiness with God comes through Christ and is mediated by the Church, the Church would be perverse not to try to convince others of the need to work out one’s own salvation through the only means available. But faith can NEVER be imposed as you allege the Church does because faith is a GIFT. You can never force someone to accept a gift. You ought to make the salvation of your soul the focus of your life rather than your genitals. Then go about working out your salvation with fear and trembling.

          • Lance Highland

            Have you ever read Paul? The Church doesn’t make rules.

            • ForChristAlone

              You must have skipped your last scheduled dose of medication…take your meds and then return with something creditable

              • Doggy DoDo

                Hey Mr. Catholic,

                Men don’t get to make up things that are not in the Bible.

                • ForChristAlone

                  double the dose next time

                  • U.S.M.C. Liberal

                    Try reading the Bible instead of relying on the word from old cranky men.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Now you’re going self-referential on me

                    • Objectivetruth

                      I guess you tear the pages in Matthew out of your bible giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom from Christ?

                • Objectivetruth

                  Hey Mr. liberal,

                  The canon of scripture (Bible) was formed by the Catholic Church.

                  • U.S.M.C. Liberal

                    Is that like in Revelation when John called that church the great whore.

                    • John200

                      God love you, you are lost in a thick fog. Nothing more need be said.

                      God love you.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Which of the 35,000 fake denominations do you belong to?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      I’m guessing Christ dropped by your place and gave you specifically the authority over His teachings? Of course….you can show me in scripture where YOU have that authority that YOUR personal interpretation of scripture is correct?

                      Or are you just an uneducated bigot in here to attack Christ’s only Church, the Catholic Church?

                    • Asmondius

                      Well, the Bible states that the penalty for homosexual behavior is death – how many death squads does your church operate?

                    • DirtyHarry1

                      I don’t recall that anyone was executed in the Bible for the abominable sin of homosexual behavior.

                    • Asmondius

                      Perhaps a word to the wise was sufficient. I don’t recall reading about Pride Parades there.

                    • U.S.M.C. Liberal

                      Does your church enforce Levitical Law? On the very same page the abominations include eating shrimp, mixing thread, and eating fat.

                      But if you actually read the Bible, you’d know that. Men in Rome don’t have the authority to make up things.

                    • Asmondius

                      ‘Does your church enforce Levitical Law?’
                      That was actually my question to you.

                      Incidentally, the items you mention are not ‘on the same page’.

                • Objectivetruth

                  And men don’t get to start “churches” in Christ’s name unless given the authority directly from Christ Himself. That’s to safeguard Christ’s words and teachings from being erroneously used by arrogant, ignorant bigots like yourself who falsely interpret scripture because of your hateful heart.

            • Objectivetruth

              Do you realize that your faux Protestant denomination has no authority to interpret Paul’s writings? And that you’re probably reading and interpreting him erroneously?

              • U.S.M.C. Liberal

                Ya right. Catholics don’t even follow scripture. Make up things as you go.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Yes…..I am right. And you are wrong. What heretic, arrogant blowhard started your “church” and I’m guessing it wasn’t an apostle of Christ?

                • Asmondius

                  Guess who compiled that Bible you’re thumpin’?

        • April Spring

          Freaky, people like you don’t stop with the: “let us have our ‘jacking off in the ass’ marriage.” People like you want to come into the classrooms and teach sexual experimentation and all sort of perversions to the children. If you stay in your own twisted little corner, then good, but you don’t. You just want to spread your mental illness, and diseases every where and we can’t have that.

          Two guys jacking off in the ass and let’s call it a marriage is a sick abomination.

          That is the very definition of insanity!

        • Asmondius

          How many poor people could the homosexual advocacy groups have fed?

          People do not live by bread alone – living in a cesspool does not faciliate an appetite.

      • The_Monk

        Your argument does not hold water. Fewer than ten years ago, the gay movement was saying it only wanted acceptance, not marriage.

        The cold reality is that the objective of the gay movement is the total deconstruction of the order of natural law. Within a couple of years we will be seeing gays suing churches for blessings….

      • Amatorem Veritatis

        Here, let me correct that for you…”Marriage is a sacrament(al) in many different churches” There…that can now be accepted as fact. Marriage is only a Sacrament in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Secondly, you offer an easily dismissed straw-man argument which has no real relevance. The question of the Sacramental nature of marriage is not currently being litigated (or debated), only the definition of the bio-sexual nature of marriage. Natural law always trumps the subjective civil law. And homosexual marriage, as well as all similar disordered variations are not recognized in that court.

      • ForChristAlone

        You have no idea what you’re talking about Paul. Go back and ask these “Churches” about “their sacraments” and they tell you that they have no sacraments. If they say they do, ask them to tell you what a sacrament is. Then compare what they say to what the Catechism says. You will see immediately that you are using the same word to express two wholly different realities.

        • Paul McGuire

          Sure my use of the term Sacrament might be incorrect. However, it is true that a number of Christian churches celebrate same-sex marriages as holy or blessed by God regardless of whether they call it a Sacrament. To talk as if The Catholic Church’s teachings are the only valid teachings on the planet is to demean the beliefs of those in other denominations who believe differently.

          • ForChristAlone

            “as if The Catholic Church’s teachings are the only valid teachings on the planet ”
            Paul I hate to disabuse you of your illusions, but in fact, when it comes to matters of salvation, the Catholic Church has the only valid teachings. All others are simply shadows of the fullness of truth.

            • Objectivetruth

              Amen…..

          • Objectivetruth

            35,000 denominations all claiming their divergent and conflicting beliefs on Christ’s teachings to be valid. NONE of them given the authority from Christ Himself to teach on His behalf. If I claimed that it was the Easter bunny that walked out of the tomb three days post Christ’s crucifixion than Jesus Himself then you can’t demean my denominations beliefs under your relativistic logic, can you?

            C’mon Paul…..stop trotting this crapola out…..

          • Objectivetruth

            “However, it is true that a number of Christian churches celebrate same-sex marriages as holy or blessed by God regardless of whether they call it a Sacrament.”

            Which means that a number of Christian “churches” are teaching in error leading their flock over the cliff.

          • ForChristAlone

            And Satanists have Black Masses which to them are holy…wholly evil.

          • Asmondius

            ‘To talk as if The Catholic Church’s teachings are the only valid teachings on the planet is to demean the beliefs of those in other denominations who believe differently.’
            Then it follows that you are demeaning the beliefs of those who hold that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

            • Paul McGuire

              I don’t demean anyone’s beliefs here. I just want to get people to consider that there are other ways to view the world. Life is never as cut and dry as the Catholic Church wants to present it. Pope Francis wants Catholics of the world to respect people of other religions, whether liberal Christian denominations, Jews, or Muslims. It seems that many commenting on here have a hard time accepting that.

              • Asmondius

                Since homosexuality is not a race, a gender, a philosophical concept, or a religion, I’m not quite sure why the Pope’s comments would be relevant here. He certainly is not advocating bringing a wolf into the fold simply because it consumed some other flock’s sheep. His action of directing the removal of a priest disobedient in this regard made that clear.

                It is specifically because ‘life is not always cut and dry’ that Christ left us the Church. Moral relativism only leads to horror.

      • April Spring

        You guys are suffering from same-sex addiction, why don’t you seek help?
        Poor little you, just like an alcoholic who won’t admit that he has a drinking problem. Guess what? I’ve never seen an ex-Chinese person, but I have seen an ex-gay walking and talking on planet earth.
        Live in reality Paul.

        • Tiger

          Yep, you’ll definitely change hearts and minds talking like that. Lots of gay people will see the light if you can just rant at them long enough.

          • ForChristAlone

            It’s the truth. In this past Tuesday’s Gospel, Jesus compared the people of Capernaum to Sodomites whom he said were better off than they because they at least did not get to hear the truth spoken to them by the One who is Truth personified. Was Jesus over the top?

            • Tiger

              I can write bible passages on a baseball bat and hit someone with it. That would certainly not count as preaching though.
              It is possible for the medium to entirely invalidate the message.

              Didn’t your parents teach you that there’s a right way and a wrong way to tell people things?

              • Paul McGuire

                Precisely. When word finally reached my aunt in Oklahoma (who still attends Latin mass) of my marriage (we hadn’t told her before the marriage) she was straightforward with me. I didn’t have her spend a long time trying to change my mind like some of my relatives (who thought that debating scripture would make me change my mind). Instead her response was something along the lines of “I know you know the teachings of the Catholic Church so this decision is between you and God.”

                I am well aware of the positions of many on here who think I am taking the path that is contrary to God. I also have taken my own path of understanding through prayer and come to the conclusion that God wants me to take the path I am on now. No amount of repeating to me that “I must not have prayed correctly” is going to change that. I have a problem with the structure of religion based upon a set of negatives. You shall not do X, you shall not do X etc. I instead focus on a religion of positives because there is plenty in the bible about how to treat others and how to be a humble person.

                If those attacking me are right and only the Catholic Church is remotely correct than it would follow that all other Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious who aren’t Catholic are going to hell. I just can’t fathom a reality in which that would make sense and it seems Pope Francis can’t either. There is more to life than putting down others for inadequacies. I try to avoid putting down the people commenting on here because I respect their beliefs in what they speak.

                • Objectivetruth

                  You’re only here to promote your gay lifestyle, and attack/undermine the Catholic Church. Stop playing us for fools.

                  • Tiger

                    Like I said up above, if he’s here to troll, he would be doing it by getting you to say things that make you look less credible.
                    And I have to say, if he is doing that, you’re all cooperating with his goal quite well.

                • MarcAlcan

                  I am well aware of the positions of many on here who think I am taking the path that is contrary to God.

                  It’s not a case of we think. But a case of we know.

                  I also have taken my own path of understanding through prayer and come to the conclusion that God wants me to take the path I am on now.

                  David Koresh also believed he was taking the path that God wanted him to be on. So did Jim Jones.

                  If those attacking me are right and only the Catholic Church is remotely correct than it would follow that all other Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious who aren’t Catholic are going to hell.

                  Stupid statement. Yes, the Catholic Church is correct and no the Church never ever claimed that everyone else is going to hell.

                  just can’t fathom a reality in which that would make sense and it seems Pope Francis can’t either.

                  Did he indeed? How about when Pope Francis said that gay marriage is of the devil?

              • Objectivetruth

                Don’t be so naive. Paul’s only purpose in here is to promote his gay lifestyle and attack the Catholic Church.

                • Tiger

                  I’m not talking about him, bud.

                  You are doing your own message a disservice, the way you’re “sharing” it at people.

          • Objectivetruth

            The gay trolls that come on this website have absolutely no intention of changing their hearts towards Christ’s true teachings. They have shown time and time again on Crisis that they are not here open mindedly to pursuit the Truths of Christ, but only to attack Christ. They have absolutely no intention of turning from their sinful lifestyle. They would rather troll on here to mock and attack Jesus Christ, not to repent and follow Him.

            Should we pray for them? Yes. But they know what the Church teaches, and they hate what the Church teaches.

            • Tiger

              If they’re actually trolls, they aren’t even trying to be “sales reps” or to “attack Jesus” or anything like that.

              Their objective would be to rile you all up into behaving like virulently angry reactionaries and using that as evidence that their opposition are a pack of hooting maniacs motivated purely by animus and just using the teachings of the Church to rationalize their behavior.

            • Paul McGuire

              I’ve said many times before, I don’t come to Crisis every week to see if anyone has written an article that needs correcting. I have an app that shows me new articles in a variety of categories and many of the articles written about gay marriage on here show up in my gay marriage feed where I keep up with court rulings.

              Call it trolling all you want but I am speaking the truth as I know it just as you and others are speaking the truth as you know it. Responding to someone with condemnations and attacks isn’t going to change any minds. Telling me that I am a heretic and going to hell isn’t going to change my mind anymore than me calling anyone here a bigot or ignorant is going to change theirs.

              • Objectivetruth

                If you were here to discuss topics such as the death penalty, legalizing marijuana, higher taxation, the World Cup, then there would be a basis of discussion. But you are trying to discuss or defend something (gay lifestyle/sodomy) that has always been considered a grave and mortal sin, extremely immoral. So I read your posts and say “what is he doing here? Is he trying to find some type of compromise, middle ground with Catholics on homosexual acts and lifestyle?” I mean…..quite seriously……we consider your gay lifestyle 100% wrong, immoral, sinful. And that’s never going to change.

                So what are you looking for? Some type of partial approval of your lifestyle? Full approval of your lifestyle? Sorry Paul….it’s not going to happen! You’re probably not a bad bloke….love your mother, give to the poor. But your gay lifestyle (and the defense there of) is a grave and mortal sin. No one believes this because we’re stubborn, ignorant, or bigoted. It’s a law of nature and a teaching of Christ

                • Objectivetruth

                  (Cont) so seriously, Paul…..what is your goal in here??

        • Paul McGuire

          Yeah my pastor at Metropolitan Community Church tried that, twice. According to him it didn’t make him less gay, it just brought him closer to God. I wish people would stop promoting these damaging therapies. They don’t do anything other than cause harm, either by making someone go back into the closet and marry a woman, or causing a lot of self-loathing in an individual. Neither one of these results is a good or a Godly thing.

          • April Spring

            No, no one is forcing you to marry a girl. But first fix your own personal trauma, instead of promoting a destructive agenda that you know nothing about.

            So tell me, why are there ex-gays going around Youtube announcing that they are cured?
            These people are not liars they are showing their faces everywhere on Youtube. They are willing to risk humiliations to help gays get out of the deadly lifestyles.

            Healings from same-sex addiction do work, if the addicts will only abandon the sinful lifestyle and follow Jesus.

            You must abandon YOUR DRUG of choice: Sex with another man.

            • Tiger

              April, tell us what treatment program they went through that changed their attraction. And tell us what the rate of success at changing sexual orientation of those programs are.

              I know you won’t, but it won’t be because nobody wanted to know.

              • April Spring

                So I must tell you every single treatment programs that they went through??? Are you crazy??? Go to: courage.org and see if they will help you liberal. Again why would these people (ex-gay) face humiliations by posting themselves on Youtube if they were not cured.

                Hey, different therapies for different folks, lunatic!

                • Tiger

                  No, just name ONE program that consistently changes same-sex attraction.

                  Just one.

                  Name just a single, solitary one and show it’s success rate at changing same-sex attraction.

                  If you know so many, surely you can name just one.

                  • April Spring

                    Troll, go online or go to Youtube and ask the ex-gays yourself.
                    I am not your mommy, go do your own research, go brush your own teeth, do your own homework. ARE YOU A FIVE YEAR OLD?
                    ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE TRUTH?

                    Tell me, why are there ex-gays???????

      • RuariJM

        “The majority of couples are fighting for their right to form civil marriages and are not likely to seek blessing in a church”

        I take it you have not had the pleasure of the Drewitt-Barlows, Paul.

        • Paul McGuire

          Right so one guy decides to sue the Church of England doesn’t mean that he represents everyone. My husband and I were content to find a church that wanted to marry us. Forcing a church to celebrate your marriage just feels wrong.

          • RuariJM

            Mike Wetherley MP has proposed that churches that will not agree to conduct same-sex weddings should have their licences to conduct ANY weddings withdrawn.

            Maybe you don’t read Pink News, Paul.

            • Paul McGuire

              I can’t speak for every country but at least in the US the First Amendment should protect churches from being forced to conduct same-sex weddings that are against their beliefs.

              • Art Deco

                I can’t speak for every country but at least in the US the First
                Amendment should protect churches from being forced to conduct same-sex
                weddings that are against their beliefs.

                We are currently living in a world where appellate judges offer with a straight face the argument that a constitutional provision enacted in 1868 to annul post-bellum black codes requires county clerks to issue marriage licenses to pairs of dudes.

                Our legal profession is a cesspool of frauds. Those black letters are just decoration.

              • RuariJM

                Are you following the cases currently before SCOTUS, including the Utah judgement?

                Some judges’ interpretation of the First would appear to differ from yours, I venture!

                • Paul McGuire

                  The First Amendment isn’t an issue in the cases currently before the courts. No case currently involves anyone trying to challenge a church denying their ability to get married.

                  • RuariJM

                    I will take your word for it.

                    However, I think it’s only a matter of time. Look at what is happening north of the 49th; “administrative measures” (typical Trot manoeuvre) are being used against churches and anyone else with objections of conscience. And it doesn’t matter if the challenged actions are not against the law or perfectly in keeping with the law.

                    I can also refer you to Denmark, which has an ‘established’ church. It is now instructed to conduct gay marriages.

    • clintoncps

      Dear RC,

      As your brother in Christ, I ask you to consider something: if we are all born under the curse of original sin — if we are all born THAT way — but in Christ we reject the old man and become New Creations, then why would we want to hold on to any labels that reflect worldly ideals and inclinations toward sin?

      Please think about this: Will the Lord welcome you into Heaven because you have observed the letter of the law (by refraining from homosexual practice) while you nevertheless insist on self-identifying as “gay”? Does such insistence honour the Lord who makes all things new? Or will the Lord welcome you because he has created in you a clean heart — a heart that refuses to cling to any sexualized label or mask; a heart that does not cherish any false persona that sets itself against God’s creation of man “in His own image”; a heart that is willing to lay down every shackle, every obsession, every weakness at the foot of the Cross and surrender it to the divine Healer?

      Can you allow God to re-imagine you?

      As a former sex addict, I can honestly say that we will never see ourselves as we truly are until every mask, every costume, and every pretense is freely relinquished to the Lord. Our sexual fixations and fetishes do not proceed from the Lord; we must not, therefore, impute to God the things of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Trust that you are not a “gay man”, but that you are a man, just like me, who has an array of weaknesses and temptations — some more, some less — to struggle against in your pilgrimage toward Heaven. Please don’t increase your burden by insisting that “God can’t” make you see your true identity beyond the deceptive terms of sexual self-classification and resignation.

      My dear brother, true freedom begins not when we confess the sins we commit, but when we see ourselves as God sees us: sinners in need complete healing, even of our imaginations, our fantasies, and our most intimate and carefully-cultivated self-images.

      In the love and truth of Christ and the Holy Family,

      Clinton

    • ForChristAlone

      Wouldn’t it be more accurate to describe yourself as a man with same sex attraction?

    • jcsmitty

      I don’t know if Courage is a 12-step program like Alcoholics Anonymous, but I can picture someone standing up and saying, “Hi, my name is X, and I have same sex attraction!” That you are carrying your cross, one day at a time, much as someone with any unnatural disorder in any of a number of other inclinations, is admirable.
      I’m not sure your self-labeling as “gay” is particularly helpful, even though participants in an AAA meeting, for example, might say, “Hi, I’m x, and I’m an alcoholic.”

      Maybe someone else can help explain what I’m not able to articulate.

  • anon

    So many “young adults” today support SSM and think of us parents as old-fashioned for not understanding; they leave the church thinking they have the moral high ground. But along with what the author writes about sharing our beliefs in private settings, parents of children can shield them from media extensively, quit the cable, supervise children, and make a point to spend time with them together as a family, and whenever possible with both mom and dad together hanging out with the kids. We forget these necessary basics of the domestic church, which lets the kids experience the different love of father and mother, of masculine and feminine, and take these memories with them when they leave the nest. We need to work on our marriages!
    Secondly, I think a huge issue no one wants to talk about is that of sexual satisfaction, which is held up today as the holy grail of life. Young adults think that they will find that Perfect Mate who will sweep them off their feet and provide them with perfect sexual satisfaction for the rest of their lives… as the movies/media/porn industries portray perfectly happy people having great sex all the time. We need to teach the next generation what is unrealistic with this goal, rather than ignore it because it’s too uncomfortable to talk about.

  • Nasicacato

    Great article Doug! More and more of this is coming to light and I think that our arguments against SSM can only be strengthened if we are able to demonstrate that most of SSM’s supporters have been played. No one likes to be a tool. As background on the power of marketing, may I recommend watching the documentary “The Century of the Self”. Google it, you can find it on several places on the web. Eye opening stuff.
    Of course none of this is worth anything if we don’t speak up.

  • Richard Bastien

    Thank you to Doug Mainwaring for this excellent essay. However, there is one important element that is ignored: the acceptance of same-sex marriage was made possible by the spread of the contraceptive mentality in Western society. Contraception involves a separation of the love-sharing and life-giving ends of the conjugal act: it assumes that sex can be solely recreational. One who adheres to the contraceptive mentality deprives himself of any rational grounds for opposing homosexuality. If contraception were not commonplace, the culture of marriage wouldn’t be in its current state of disarray, and proponents of same-sex marriage wouldn’t stand a chance.

    • DE-173

      “the acceptance of same-sex marriage was made possible by the spread of the contraceptive mentality in Western society”

      It’s also made possible by the idea that the state DEFINES, rather than merely RECOGNIZES marriage-and that idea is the intellectual progeny of Henry Tudor and Martin Luther. Ideas have consequences and Evil has a long time horizon.

      Luther was very explicit in his assertion that marriage was the proper custodian of marriage and here we stand. Now what, Martin?

      • John200

        I got a feeling Luther doesn’t eat much at all. Sort of lost the taste when the first 3000-degree dish was presented to him, and it turned out to be a filet from his own sad carcass.

        But he sure would go for a glass of water. Not 3000 degrees, please.

    • Guest

      Contraception did not just pop up. It gained acceptance because it is a symptom of a greater problem. Long before “the pill” people were contracepting.

    • HenryBowers

      What do you mean by “separation” of ends? If they weren’t already separated, you wouldn’t have a name for each of them. And instead of love-sharing, wouldn’t a stronger description be self-sharing? For one of the intrinsic evils of contraception is that it purports to enjoy someone’s physical good in opposition to their personal good. This dualistic act, however, is always under our immediate control, while reproduction is not; reproduction is stochastic and something we can at best only attempt or positively contravene. So I think those ends are always separate.

  • Aldo Elmnight

    Homosexual culture is Satanic.

  • publiusnj

    I recently came across a URL for a U-Tube designed to mock the idea of “straight pride parades.” The auteur mocked the idea as utterly unnecessary because every day people walking along the street are straight pride parades. He seemed to be mocking the idea, but HE IS RIGHT. Every society that has ever existed–except the short-lived Shakers, I suppose–is a tribute to Straight Pride because only “opposite sex” couplings result in reproduction. Gays at most can create “ersatz approximations of reproduction” only by abandoning the “thalamos” and adding in lawyers, surrogacy accommodators, surrogates or sperm contributors and the all important but otherwise missing, opposite sex genetic material.

    Until the late 20th Century, the radical experiment of “gay marriage” could not even have been attempted because it would have run into the reality that gay sex doesn’t replicate. Now, despite judicial fiat, Mad Avenue campaigns, surrogacy laws and creative adoption lawyers and gynecologists, gays still find themselves involved in couplings (male or female) that can reproduce only if opposite sex genetic material is imported from outside the judicially constructed Rube Goldberg contraption called “gay marriage.” Thus, marriage and its corollaries–adultery laws and the presumption of legitimacy–which protected men from the possibility of raising somebody else’s child and women from being left hanging without support if they copulated with a man is now being applied to copulations that have nothing to do with the unchanged facts of life.

    Gays point to other “purposes” of marriage such as the income tax laws, estate taxes and hospital visitation rights, but none of them antedated marriage (believe it or not marriage was around long before the 16th Amendment was passed). Perhaps the biggest “Hail Mary pass” the gay marriage movement makes is the claim that marriage is designed by the State to promote the happiness of loving couples by encouraging life-long commitments. The same state that has been engaged in a half century long campaign of ever looser divorce laws has never articulated any legitimate interest in encouraging committed life-long relationships among gays and there is no reason related to the birds and the bees that would make “gay marriages” necessary.

  • Sooner or later this abnormal, unnatural and devious Sex experiment of having the same sex genitals rubbing against each other to produce what they think it’s “pleasure” will fade away and will be boring.

    They try to find excuses. They call it “love” of course.

    You have to put a “happy” face on it to be accepted, to draw attention and to get sympathy.

    But they will wake up to realize that they accomplished NOTHING, not on the physical level, not on the practical level as far as the real world is concerned. Women can’t have kids, men have their butts sored and die from AIDS.

    Take the example of Europe: It is declining in population because of contraception, having more and more homosexual relations will further decline the entire population and of course their number.

    One day, they will wake up, but it will be too late.

    What is based only on pleasure or a conception of it NEVER lasts.

    • It never lasts? I was with my late partner for over 30 years. During that time many of our straight friends were working on second or third marriages. The notion that gays have anything to do with population is preposterous. We’re not having sex with the opposite sex and it’s not optional. Bringing AIDS into the discussion is an argument from ignorance.

      • John200

        Bringing AIDS into the discussion is accurate and brilliant.

        As for ignorance, well, yeah, you seem to qualify as an example. Here you inform us that you spent 30 years without sex, choosing instead a grotesque counterfeit.

        A great pity, that. And you have to live with it.

      • Yes it will never last. What is wrong never lasts. You will learn.
        The rest of your response is a bunch of nonsense, not worthy a reply.

        Again, you will learn.

      • ForChristAlone

        You know in your heart that this relationship was perverse if it was sexualized.

      • DE-173

        “I was with my late partner for over 30 years.”

        You sound like a teenage girl. Like, this is my boyfriend and we’ve “been together” for three years.

        • ForChristAlone

          Or the usual nonsense: “We’re ‘engaged'”

        • Asmondius

          Well, in essence that is what homosexuality is – an immature projection of what a human relationship is.

      • Asmondius

        The statistical relationship between homosexual males and HIV is a reality, not ignorance.

      • April Spring

        You know young adults are here to read articles but YOUR SATANIC MOUTH just like to lead them into hell. You are an ignorant troll, get an education:

        “An estimated 90% of MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse…The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 TIMES MORE RISK for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.” -WebMD.com

  • Carolyn

    Wow, great article. Being a Catholic in the greater Seattle area and supporting traditional marriage has certainly put me on the outs with many social groups. I do feel like it’s high school again, and trying to please all the social groups with various beliefs has made me very unhappy. I returned to the truth, God’s truth, but that has alienated me from people that I though were my friends. I’ve learned that pleasing God is my focus, not pleasing people.

    • Carolyn

      Forgot to mention that I just read this morning about a poll that states that barely 2% of Americans consider themselves gay. The sad part to me is that the majority of Americans are now divided on an issue (gay marriage) that affects a very small percentage of our society. Every human should be loved as God loves us, every human should be forgiven their sins if they ask God in humility. So many people have been brainwashed to support something that can never really be true marriage.

  • Paul McGuire

    Your article would make sense if you weren’t also focusing so much on the judges’ decisions. Marketing and all that you describe works well to convince the public. Judges make rulings based on legal arguments and prior decisions. Judge after judge has been striking down these bans because the reasoning is more legally sound on the side of those fighting against the state marriage bans.

    Issues of constitutional rights aren’t decided based on the will of the people. They are decided based on the rights of the group before the court asking to be recognized. These decisions don’t go against any clear Supreme Court rulings to the contrary. If they did, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal wouldn’t have upheld the decision in the Utah case.

    • Guest

      Really? It seems the judges make these rulings based on personal bias, pop culture pressure, relativism, and mere opinion.

      I idea that judges are immune from these factors is absurd.

      • Paul McGuire

        Judges aren’t immune from these factors. I would agree to that. But then even The Supreme Court justices have many times written cases based on what they want to see happen rather than what the law actually says. District court judges aren’t going to write an opinion that isn’t supported by case law because they don’t want to be overturned by the appellate courts anymore than any other judge. It is precisely because the case law is there that these cases have all been decided as fast as they have.

    • fredx2

      This would be true if the constitutional analysis of these judges was persuasive. Much of their reasoning simply ignores counter arguments, or miscasts the arguments that were presented to the court, or accepts at face value the shoddy studies that have been done.

      Any good lawyer who looks at these opinions instantly realizes the hallmarks of a hack judicial job.

      1) First, there is overblown rhetoric, the sort that is political in nature, not judicial. When you hear a judge shouting to the rooftops about he is righting some great wrong, or enlarging our minds, he usually is a goofball. Real, careful judges almost never speak this way. There is no need to do so if the law is with you. However, if you are upsetting the law, it pays to make as much smoke as possible so that people don’t see how shoddy the reasoning is. So you rally the troops rather than reason with us. Emotion replaces careful analysis of the constitution..
      2) At least two of the judges were themselves gay – Vaughn Walker and McManus. They should have recused themselves, since they stand to be able to get married as a result of their rulings.
      3) Large obvious holes in their reasoning. Judge McManus implicitly recognized that as a result of his decision, polygamy and any other arrangement would become constitutionally mandated as well. So, rather than deal with that issue honestly and judicially, he retreated behind overblown rhetoric to say something like “Some will say that this all leads to a slippery slope. But why not just look to the sky, my brothers, and imagine the best about mankind?”
      Patently ridiculous, and an abdication of the role of the federal judge.

      • Guest

        Exactly correct!!!!

      • Paul McGuire

        I’ve read the majority of the decisions from the federal district court judges and I found them to be persuasive. The reasons given from the supporters of the marriage bans have been the same since the Prop 8 case in California. These reasons just don’t stand up to scrutiny when suggesting that they are a proper basis for excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage. Most judges have applied some sort of heightened form of scrutiny. Windsor itself seems to support a sort of rational basis plus in all cases affecting people based on sexual-orientation. Blame The Supreme Court for failing to present a clear decision in Windsor not the judges for interpreting it in one of the conceivable ways it can be applied.

      • Please. The same conclusions have been reached 21(?) times in federal courts. Judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats as well as judges in red states.

        Based upon your post it would appear that you have not actually read any of these decisions. The one from the Mormon Republican hand-picked by Senators Lee and Hatch would be a good starting point.

        • Paul McGuire

          Precisely. Some of these judges striking down the bans were appointed by Republican presidents and supported by Republican politicians for approval originally. They understand the need to base their decision on proper case law just as much as any other judge.

          • Objectivetruth

            But Paul……why don’t you repent from your sinful lifestyle and come back in to the Truths and peace of Christ found in His Catholic Church?

            • Paul McGuire

              Because I believe in the permanence of my marriage and would not be welcomed to the Catholic Church with my husband joining me. We are now regular members of Metropolitan Community Church and embrace its progressive stances on a number of issues. I still consider myself a follower of Christ, just I don’t need to do that within the confines of the Catholic Church.

              • Objectivetruth

                No…..you have declared “non serviam” and have told Christ, no, I will not follow you.

              • Objectivetruth

                “Husband?” You’re a guy……how can you have a husband? Only married women (wives) can have husbands.

                • John200

                  He can’t have a husband. Just delusions and fantasies; then mental, physical, and moral breakdown; later, a period of sober reflection; followed by, one hopes, repentance.

                  But maybe not. Some of these boys simply will not learn until it is too late to help themselves.

                • April Spring

                  Because Paul is delusional.

              • ForChristAlone

                It is impossible for you to have a husband. And besides, your excommunication from the Catholic Church will always leave you unsettled despite how you protest otherwise. You see, Truth cannot be fully eradicated from your conscience – not matter how hard you try.

              • Objectivetruth

                “We are now regular members of Metropolitan Community Church and embrace its progressive stances on a number of issues.”

                35,001 heretical communities and counting……all making the arrogant relativistic claim that Christ’s Truths and teachings are malleable and should be changed to fit ones sinful desires and lifestyle.

              • April Spring

                “follower of Christ”????? Do you have any integrity?

                Do you even read the Bible?

                Or do you mean KRISHNA the Hindu christ?

                You are funny, you want Jesus to conform to your sins but you won’t conform to His laws.

                A follower of Jesus who don’t read Jesus’ teachings is LIAR:

                “The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” – 1Timothy 1:10

                Then you are just a fake, clown follower type – “oooohh look at me I’m spiritual.” You are delusional.

              • April Spring

                “I now pronounce you man and husband…man you may now kiss your husband.”
                This freak show is scary.
                This is a serious demonic mental illness.

    • Watosh

      Robert R. Reilly demolishes the argument that “the reasoning is more legally sound on the side of those fighting against state marriage bans” in his excellent, well researched and documented book “Making Gay Okay.” The reasons given by judges in these cases are shown to be specious and unsupported. But you will never see the media give us this information. I mean Mr. Reilly cites case after case and demonstrates the faulty logic used to justify the striking down of state laws. He shows there is no legal precedents for the judges opinions. It is there in black and white. Read the book, and then see if you can point out where Mr. Reilly is in error in what he states.

      • Reilly is not an attorney. He is also, by the way, an anti-Muslim bigot.

        • Objectivetruth

          People like Reilley who speak the Truths of Christ petrify you like a crucifix terrifying a vampire.

        • Watosh

          since most members of our miserable, corrupt Congress are attorneys, I take that as a compliment to Mr. Reilly.

      • Paul McGuire

        I don’t need to read a book on the subject. I’ve read the actual briefs filed by some of the opponents in the actual cases before the courts. And each of those briefs is lacking in credible arguments. Don’t blame the opponents of the bans because the attorneys being brought in to support the bans don’t know how to properly present their case before the courts.

        In Utah, the whole reason that the case was not originally stayed (aside from the judge who didn’t want to grant one) was that no stay was requested at the time of the original hearing. Apparently the attorneys for Utah were so confident in their case that they didn’t bother to request a stay in the event that they lost.

        The attorneys supporting the bans in other states haven’t done much better jobs either. If you would read the actual decisions in some of these cases, most recently the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal you would see the legal arguments actually being used. Instead, you are surrounded by an echo chamber in which it is constantly repeated that there is no legal argument to support striking down these bans. If you would read the decisions you would understand what laws and cases they are based upon.

        • Watosh

          That the attorneys supporting the ban haven’t done a good job in presenting arguments may well be true. I haven’t read the briefs filed, but I have heard a number of outraged, well meaning but limited types make less than convincing arguments for maintaining the ban, so it wouldn’t surprise me that they made weak arguments. Sort of like those fundamentalists who evolutionists like to argue against regarding evolution. They are punching bags for clever evolutionists who are not anxious to go against intelligent and knowledgeable scientists who have serious doubts about evolution. Evolutionists know they make fundamentalists look silly and prevail in any debate with them over evolution. They sure can. The point I was making was not that the arguments made before the courts by those wanting to maintain the state laws on marriage were convincing, but that there ARE convincing arguments such as Mr. Reilly made in response to the legal findings by the courts in all the various cases leading up to the present situation. At the same time I am aware that in the secular courts that consider that the will of the people is the source of legality, and that is guided entirely by the idea of equality and liberty and by our very liberal secular Constitution, there will be an insuperable bias for liberal arguments. And when the judge who decided Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage in California was invalid, was an openly homosexual who wanted to marry his lover, why i doubt that any argument no matter how persuasive legally would have changed his decision. All I am saying is that there exist some very excellent arguments against the recent decisions that have moved the homosexual agenda forward, and if you or anyone wanted to view these arguments, they would be available in Mr. Reilly’s excellent treatise.

          • Paul McGuire

            Fair enough. I haven’t read the book so I won’t comment on his arguments. When it comes to another decision by The US Supreme Court there will be plenty of time for any group that is interested to present arguments in an attempt to do a better job than the parties have already done. Though, having read some of the briefs filed with The US Supreme Court in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases, I don’t expect the new ones will be any better.

    • Asmondius

      Or rights come from God, not from Man.
      That is the basis for our system of government.

  • fredx2

    The fact remains, children raised by two gay men will never know what it is to have a mother

    • So what? There are lots of single parents. Some of them raise terrific kids. One of those is President of the United States.

      • david

        ROTFLOL …. a Fine example you picked there 😀

      • slainte

        The “best interests of the child” must always supercede the personal choices and preferences of couples seeking to adopt.
        .
        Every child deserves a mother and a father; and nature affirms this unalterable truth,

      • Guest

        Single parents are not the same as two men pretending to me mom and dad.

      • winston.andersson

        What slainte said is completely right, it is all about what is in the “best interests of the child”. It is naturally better for a child to be raised by his two biological parents than by a single parent. This is also confirmed by the real fact that a divorce in any family is a very hard thing to live through for any child – it is indeed a tragedy if it’s not possible anymore for a child to be raised by both his parents. And it is precisely this possibility that is forced out of the future life of any child which a same-sex couple might want to adopt. So I’m afraid the argument you use (and that many others continue to use) is based on demagogy and not on nature, reason or compassion. It is common sense that a child should not be a same-sex couple’s caprice.

      • The_Monk

        DavidHart thinks, “There are lots of single parents. Some of them raise terrific kids. One of those is President of the United States.”

        Ummm…

        • slainte

          President Obama penned a book entitled “Dreams from My Father” which confirms the President’s curiosity and longing for an absentee father whose presence was missed by a young man growing into adulthood.
          .
          The President deserved to have his mother and father present for him during his childhood just as every child does.

          • Objectivetruth

            Obama’s lack of integrity, moral direction and leadership are a direct result of his not having a father of strong character in his life.

      • ForChristAlone

        You’re perverse and cruel…as in “so what”

      • Objectivetruth

        “So what?”

        The classic answer from someone that abhors truth and has no response when confronted with Truth.

      • DE-173

        Except he was raised by his grandparents-until his idiot grandfather decided that skin color was more important than blood, so he put young Barack in the care of Frank Marshall Davis.

        I’d rather my child just about anything other than a jerk like Obama.

        Were you this error prone in your CEO fantasy?

      • Art Deco

        There are lots of single parents. Some of them raise terrific kids. One of those is President of the United States.

        ‘Raise’? Barack Obama, Sr. spend a grand total of eight weeks in residence with his son over a period of 21 years (until he got himself killed in an alcohol-drenched car wreck). Ann Dunham relied on her mother, her father, and her 2d husband (until she discarded him) to clean up after her until she was at the very end of her young adult years, and that included subcontracting the whole job of rearing young Barry to her parents the latter half of his youth. The only period in which she qualified as a ‘single parent’ was a year spent living in Seattle (1961-62). The only period in which she actually had two children in residence extended over a year in 1970 and 1971. Lolo Soetero thought they should have more than one kid; she refused.

        He performed well in one very circumscribed academic setting, was a marketable commodity for David Plouffe to hawk, and has yet to make himself the meat-and-potatoes of some divorce lawyer. As an adolescent, he was baked. His most serious job was employment as a copy editor for a commercial company which produced corporate newsletters, a job he gave up to work as a professional public nuisance for some Alinskyite outfit in Chicago. He eschewed a clerkship upon completing law school, was hired by no firm for two years thereafter, never worked in a law office full-time and year round, and was never offered a partnership by the common and garden firm which hired him (not surprising as he was only there three years and of counsel thereafter). He was gifted a position as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School (putatively normal faculty hiring protocols were dispensed with), was assigned to teach boutique courses, and in 12 years on salary never published a single scholarly article (though he found time to write two memoirs).

        Such a political career. In his first race, his opponent was tossed off the ballot consequent to a legal challenge. In another campaign, he was shellacked by his primary opponent. In a third, two of his opponents suffered the humiliation of having their confidential divorce records turned over to reporters and editors who disgraced themselves by publishing them. After 10 years of fartin’ around in legislatures, he was a respected expert in ? area of policy. However, his consort did land a handsome position with the University of Chicago Hospitals while he was chairman of a subcommittee of interest to the health care sector and received a 100% raise when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Her most crucial position was eliminated when she moved to Washington.

        And such friends he has: Jeremiah Wright, the Dohrn / Ayers crew, and most special bud Tony Rezko.

        Did you catch how he was at the Million Man March in 1995 while his mother was in Honolulu expiring from cancer? Does it surprise you he did not care much about her? How ’bout that amusing incident from the 2008 campaign where, as Christopher Hitchens remarked, we got a rare glimpse of a man in the act of selling his grandmother (to extricate himself from Rev. Godddamnamerica while Eric Whittaker was working subrosa to pay the man off).

        And this most transparent administration in history has given you the likes of the Benghazi video fantasy, Lois Lerner taking the fifth, Douglas Shulman making dozens of trips to the White House to attend the annual Easter Egg Roll, and Joel Koskinen flipping everyone the bird over the IRS’ remarkable e-mail archiving system.

        Now he’s in the process of crashing the immigration system in a petulant hissy-fit over the House of Representatives exercising its prerogative to ignore presidential recommendations.

        Your idea of ‘terrific’ is this gassy, vain, and unscrupulous empty suit?

        • ForChristAlone

          wonderfully put but expect it to be ignored by the dolts

      • entonces_99

        When it comes to the current president, you seem to have confused “terrifying” with “terrific.”

      • Asmondius

        Most single parents are that way by circumstance, and the option for their children later obtaining a step parent is never completely closed.

        Homosexual couples who adopt deny a child a mother or a father forever – on purpose.

        • So the child is better off with no parents rather than two loving parents who happen to be the same sex? Yeah, I know. Ratzinger wrote it so it must be true. I wonder what his credentials in child development are.

          • Asmondius

            It is not an ‘either/or’ situation.

            An adoption by a pair of homosexuals simply excludes purposefully and forever the possibility of having a mother or father for the child, whereas the unadopted child still has that opportunity available.
            Love of the child means holding out for what is ultimately best for the child – right?

            Humans don’t just ‘happen’ to be male and female, by the way – we are that way for a purpose. Ask your mother if she is simply a stand-in for a man.

            • Tiger

              An unadopted child also faces dramatically higher risk of abuse and behavioral and developmental problems. Beyond even the risks of being raised by only one parent of (obviously) one sex.

              Even being adopted by a single adult who has no intention of ever marrying or even cohabitating is better for the child than being raised in foster care. That statistics are freely available for anyone who cares to look.

              • Asmondius

                Your contention is valid only if we could predict precisely what the future holds for each child.

                Since we cannot we should maintain the best standard, which is two parents of opposite sex.

          • Objectivetruth

            Distort and lie…..that is your tactical strategy. Your leader, the father of all lies, is very proud of you, wormwood.

      • April Spring

        Ha, hahahahahaa! Bo Bo’s (B. Obama) mommy got a new lover so she shipped him out to live with Grandma & Grandpa. Grandpa was too tired to chit chat with Bo Bo so what did Grandpa do? He gave Bo Bo a communist mentor. Hahahahahaha. Get an education David.

    • DE-173

      Or a father

  • clintoncps

    Dear Doug,

    In your article, you encourage your readers to “Stand up for social positions that you know in your gut to be true. Don’t allow yourself to be silenced by political correctness. Stand up for marriage. Stand up for life. Stand up for the right of children to be born and to have both a mom and a dad. You have truth on your side. You are right, and they are wrong, so do not be afraid.”

    This sounds great, but there is something missing: Why should I care if a child has a mother and a father? Or whether any and every sexual arrangement is legally defined as marriage? What is the compelling reason for me to speak out and fight over these things?

    I believe the answer is to be found in homosexuality itself. Since homosexuality was de-listed from the catalog of psychological disorders 40 years ago, any valid premise for rejecting homosexual behaviour has been undermined. If homosexuality is just another sexual orientation (rather than a manifestation of sexual dis-orientation), and is harmless (so it was thought), then how can society deny homosexual practitioners the right to conflate their identities with their sexual impulses and “be who they are”? How can society deny them the right to enjoy all the rights and privileges that go along with other forms of sexual and marital relationships? How can society deny them access to children?

    The grave error of accepting the premise that homosexuality can be good and beautiful has led us to the point where, on July 4th, in a prominent Toronto newspaper, and image of two male homosexual partners in a hospital delivery room appeared: the two men were naked from the waist up; one man was kissing the upper-chest and shoulder area of the other man, who was himself weeping tears of joy as he cradled a new-born baby boy in his arms: The baby boy, delivered by a surrogate mother, was now to be the son of these two men. Presented as a tearful and delusionally-sentimental image in a prominent newspaper, who could object?

    A rotten tree does not bring forth good fruit, and even some who have chosen to embrace a homosexualized self-image are beginning to recognize the de-construction of human self-awareness that is increasingly evident in the LGBTQ/homosexual “marriage” assault. This isn’t just clever manipulation; it is psychological trauma that can scald a person’s conscience to death. The core problem, then — the pathology that is homosexuality itself — is spiralling toward increasing derangement, abuse of children, and moral and social insanity. Kirk and Madsen aren’t in charge; the Evil One is. What’s needed even more than the courage to speak up in public on these issues is the courage to repent: to realize that when we turn our back on God’s revelation of man to himself, it isn’t God who disappears; it’s the human person as such.

    It is my prayer that homosexuality will one day be re-classified as the psychological disorder it has never ceased to be, so that the abuses that seem to grow worse with each passing year will be meaningfully overturned and society and children protected.

    The invitations open to all of us, Doug. “Do not fear; only believe.”

    In the love and truth of Christ and the Holy Family,

    Clinton

  • cestusdei

    I think like the early Church we will end up being persecuted for our faith. They will try to silence us anyway they can. I for one refuse to give in to PC.

    • Tiger

      Name a state where it’s legal for a business to fire someone for being Catholic.

      Oh, that’s right. That’s illegal. By Federal law. As in nation-wide. For half a century. For context, Hawaii had only been a state for 5 years at the time.

      But please, keep talking about how you’re being persecuted while arguing for the persecution of others to be tolerated. That couldn’t possibly hurt your credibility. No sir.

      • entonces_99

        As long as you’re a tame Catholic, sure, you can avoid being fired. But if your Catholicism leads you to do things such as contribute to those working for Proposition 8, if you write letters to the editor (or blog posts) over your real name arguing that same-sex marriage is irrational and abhorrent, if you even say in a private conversation that sodomy is immoral, don’t kid yourself thinking your job is safe.

        • Asmondius

          Think about what it must be like to be a Catholic and work for the Federal Government. Remember the Catholic chaplains?

        • Tiger

          I don’t think you caught my meaning.

          It is ILLEGAL nationwide to fire someone for being Catholic.
          Flat out. That has been the law of the land for 50 years.

          If you are fired for being Catholic, that is illegal and you should sue. If you can’t afford that, at the very least report it to the authorities.

          It’s against the law for an employer to do that.

          Now, if they’re firing someone because they think the employee is gay, that’s a different story. In most states that’s completely legal and the former employee won’t even have grounds to try to sue over it at all.

    • “Oh poor us.” Your victimization usually amounts to frustration that the entire world does not accept your religious beliefs. Meanwhile your attempt to impose them upon everyone else actually results in the persecution of a minority group.

      • April Spring

        Look we’re trying to help you leave your insane and destructive lifestyle.
        Two guys jacking off in the ass is not a marriage. You are insane!

        • I am quite sane (thank you very much). Moreover, I am an intellectually curious critical thinker. Blindly accepting the teachings of ambitious priests is neither. Fortunately Catholics are proponents of marriage equality in percentages greater than the general public.

          First lesson is that sexual orientation is not a “lifestyle.” Secondly, the way in which gay couples have sex is irrelevant to the issue. Thinking people are not affected by graphic imagery. Thirdly, gays are raising hundreds of thousands of children in this country. Then Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t like that but that ship has sailed. Ratzinger lacks the erudition to be decisive on the matter in the first place. The issue is settled and it is not going to change. Kids being raised by gay couples are better off if their parents are married.

          Finally, the purpose of civil marriage is to create a marital estate. That is how we protect surviving spouses and children if the marriage dissolves or one spouse dies. “Procreative marriage” is a Church concept. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not at issue. Mr. Mainwairing did the damage here by entering into a sham marriage to try to convince himself that he is straight. It was selfish and foolish.

        • Tiger

          How are you helping with that?
          What have you said or done that has done anything but make David more sure of his prior decisions?

          So many of you say “Oh, we’re just trying to convince them to come back to the Church when we shout and call them names and accuse them of trying to destroy society!”

          Please, explain to me how that’s ever going to convince any gay person in the world that they are wrong rather than convincing them that you’re simply have anger management issues and they’re the target of the day for them?

          • Objectivetruth

            DavidHart’s isn’t in here looking for information or education to try and be straight. He’s in here to call the Catholic Church evil.

            Wake up.

            • Tiger

              I’m not the one who claimed people were trying to bring David around to the Truth.

              I was just pointing out how their methods of spreading that Truth will only make people more resistant to ever hearing it.

              But do please show me where the Catholic Church says you don’t need to respect the dignity of people who aren’t persuaded by being shouted at. (That’d be everybody, by the way. That “technique” only ever makes people even more polarized in their own existing positions)

          • April Spring

            I don’t have anger management issues.
            But I AM ANGRY WHEN THE JACKING OFF IN THE ASS CROWD, wants to come into the schools to corrupt our children with SEXUAL EXPERIMENTATIONS so they can get HIV, HPV, and AIDS. Have you ever taken a required sex-ed class in high school? I will tell you that it is filthy!

            You mouth is evil Tiger!

            What ‘names calling’? IT IS CALLED — HONESTY! It is called the “scare straight” method. It is to point out their sickness and their addiction. Why should I confirm someone in their insanity.
            Go to Youtube and see all the ex-gays leave their destructive lifestyles. They were willing to face humiliations and to help gays leave the destructive lifestyles.

            These ex-gays are honest people, but YOU TIGER ARE NOT!

            • Tiger

              You sure *look* like you have anger management issues, shouting and carrying on and calling names.

              Here’s a hint, you’re not scaring anyone straight. You’re making it look like gay people are opposed my shouting, bug-eyed, thugs.

              That makes the gay people’s arguments look more credible and makes you look like someone who can’t carry on a conversation without shrieking about how THOSE PEOPLE can’t be trusted and need to be PUT IN THEIR PLACE and other psychotic anti-Christian sentiments like that.

              But you know what? I don’t really have a problem with you destroying your own credibility by carrying on like a 5-year-old having a tantrum in a supermarket.
              So please, carry on.

              • April Spring

                You are pure evil promoting sodomy so that kids can get HIV, HPV, and AIDS. Wow, you just don’t care that people get hurt.
                Your mouth is evil, promoting evil and insanity. YOU JUST WANT KIDS TO DIE!
                Most of the people in this world, will never accept “the jacking off in the ass so that I can AIDS lifestyle”.
                YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!
                God seek help, troll.

                • Tiger

                  Yep. Erratic was the right word. You’re so angry you’re screwing up your grammar.

                  You’re getting quite close to the “violent malice in speech” that Pope Benedict said needs to be condemned.

                  But please, I can let you look like a fool for as long as you want to keep it up, so by all means, carry on yowling as long as you like.

                  • April Spring

                    Who is the fool? You are the one promoting sodomy.
                    You are the one promoting evil.
                    Your brain is mixed up, for why would you want to have sex with guys?
                    You are a guy. You brain is in the gutter, because you perform the act. You dishonor the body that God has given you by misusing your sexual organ.

  • cpsho

    the author says this in his preface:
    “I am a gay man who is opposed to same-sex marriage”
    .
    The real question for Catholics and other Christians is: who is a gay man? Who is a gay person?
    .
    “who is a Homosexual person?

    Is he the person having homosexual sex (engaging in sodomy)? Or the
    person fantasizing about homosexual sex (sodomy in the thoughts)? Or the
    person tempted to have homosexual sex? Or the person coerced to have
    homosexual sex? Or the person tricked to believe he cannot live without
    homosexual sex? Or the person who believes he was born to engage in
    homosexual sex (Sodomy)? Or the person who believes God created him to
    be tempted to engage in Sodomy? Or the person who accepts the ‘Gay
    agenda’ and the’ Gay lifestyle’?”
    http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/03/23/category-archive-message-board-21/#more-220

    http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/04/02/category-archive-message-board-24/#more-237
    .
    My advice for all Catholics (including Mr Doug Mainwaring) think deeply before describing yourself or any Catholic as “GAY”.

    • ForChristAlone

      Personhood is not defined by what one does with one’s genitals.

      • cpsho

        That is why I wish Mr Mainwaring will stop calling himself “Gay”. He may be struggling with same-sex attraction (SSA); but as a Catholic he can not be “gay”.

        • Paul McGuire

          And it is proclamations like this that make it difficult for there to be a discussion on these issues. A gay man who hears that the Catholic Church doesn’t consider him gay isn’t going to say “Oh thanks for that pearl of wisdom, I should have known all along, you are right.” Instead, he is going to reject the church as out of touch with the reality that he and a majority of the country recognizes as true.

          • slainte

            As Catholics we are called to subordinate our will to God’s will in humility.
            .
            All of nature and all creatures, including man, must conform to the will of the Creator. Humility must temper Pride.

            • Rather arrogant to presume a monopoly on knowing God’s will? Does this come from the writings of ambitious celibates or from reading ancient texts?

              • Objectivetruth

                Nope, not arrogant…..the Truth.

                But you’re an atheist that has jettisoned the Truth because it flies in the face of your chosen perverted lifestyle. The Truth causes you great agony and distress, lies are where you live and are comfortable.

          • April Spring

            Two guys jacking off in the ass can not create the body and soul composite. So the act of jacking off in the ass is an abomination.
            You are misusing YOUR sexual organs in the sight of God, the SEED OF LIFE THAT GOD GAVE YOU, YOU THREW IT AWAY IN THE FECES. You are sick in the head!

            • Tiger

              Keep it up, April! You’ll change his mind if you just keep shouting erratically enough!

              Undisguised animus toward someone is the best way to make him agree with you, after all.

              If it doesn’t work, start calling him deliberately hurtful pejorative terms, that’ll surely make him listen to you.

              • Objectivetruth

                Paul’s not in here to change his mind. He’s in here for yours and others acceptance of his gay lifestyle.

                • Tiger

                  And you’re here to make him look like the only person in the discussion capable of civil conversation, apparently.

              • April Spring

                How is it ‘erratic”? No, I can never change a person’s mind if his god is his sexual organ. But since he is trolling over here, he needs to leave, and SO DO YOU! Good news today, the European court recognize a Freak Marriage for what it is: A FREAK SHOW!

                No one should be FORCE TO CELEBRATE A FREAK SHOW MARRIAGE.

                Read and weep liberal:

                Human rights court: Europe cannot be forced to redefine marriage:

                http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/human-rights-court-europe-cannot-be-forced-to-redefine-marriage-24798/

                • Tiger

                  Ah, calling people “freaks.”

                  That must be what that hymn about “They will know we are Christians by our love” was talking about.

                  You do realize the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith said that kind of malicious speech toward gays is “deplorable” and “should be condemned” right?

                  Those particular terms were chosen by later-to-be-Pope Cardinal Ratzinger.

                  But just to be clear, you’ll never change ANYONE’S mind in your favor by calling them freaks and shouting at them, no matter if they’re good Christians or not.

                  No one in the history of the world has ever been persuaded by that.
                  But hey, just keep insulting people HARDER, it’s bound to work eventually, right?!

                  Start calling them “queers.” That’s a popular slur on this site. Surely that will make them listen to you.

        • Tiger

          If someone calls herself “gay,” you can be sure that what they mean by it is “same-sex attracted.”

          The only people who use any other definition are either using it as a slur or are trying to equivocate a strawman definition into other people’s statements.

          • cpsho

            How then do you differentiate between a catholic struggling with sin and a non-believer who embraces the “Gay Agenda” and the “Gay lifestyle”?

            • Tiger

              By recognizing that a single adjective will never provide a complete profile of any person in even the best of circumstances.

              When gay people call themselves gay, they aren’t making a statement about agendas or lifestyles, only about attraction experienced.

              So the term inherently won’t specify those things, just as “licenced driver” doesn’t tell you anything about the color of my car.

              Now, some people may want to emphasize their adherence to Catholicism by using “same-sex attracted” instead, but that doesn’t add meaning to what gay people mean by calling themselves “gay.” Especially because from their perspective, “same-sex attracted” is an unnecessary term, as it means something they already have a shorter, more familiar word for.

              • cpsho

                A man is having temptations that can send him to eternal damnation; yet he feels the best thing is to cuddle and identify himself with that temptation. Does that make sense?

                • Tiger

                  What are you talking about?

                  I just finished explaining to you that they don’t mean any sort of link with lifestyles or agendas when they say it.

                  When gay people say gay, they literally *just* mean “same-sex attracted.” That’s *all*. Nothing else.

                  Why is using one term over the other a big deal when they are used to mean the exact same thing?

                  Saying “gay” is no more “cuddling and identifying…with temptation” than saying “same-sex attracted.”

                  Unless you’re intentionally misinterpreting what you know they actually mean, but then that’s you injecting your own agenda into their statements, not anything they’re doing.

  • I object to sham marriages (which is what this guy is in). Indeed, his kids fit the Regnerus template; One of their parents had one or more same-sex affairs. He is personally responsible for the damage that he has done to his children.

    As for “After the Ball,” were it not for conservative Christians I would not know of its existence. It had limited distribution and has been out of print for years. To suggest that this comprises The Homosexual Agenda™ is ridiculous.

    • ForChristAlone

      I see the homo trolls are here

      • DE-173

        They are like prairie dogs.

        • ForChristAlone

          2nd chuckle of the day by you…you’re on a roll

          • DE-173

            Thanks, glad you enjoyed.

  • Art Deco

    I see the sorosphere has rotated in its regulars.

  • Amatorem Veritatis

    Mr. Mainwaring is a true profile in courage. So rare these days in our suffocating blanket of political correctness and moral/philosophical relativism. For someone who bears the burden of homosexual attraction to write something as strategically informative, counter cultural and provocatively courageous as this deserves both our applause and our prayers. For those of us on the front lines of this battle, Mr. Mainwaring represents a brother in arms, a worthy warrior and ally that risks a great deal more than the majority of us. Credit where credit is due. Oorah!

  • ForChristAlone

    Gay “marriage” is an impossibility.

  • Bedarz Iliaci

    Marriage is a pre-political institution, the Conservatives never tire of repeating,. And now when society has pre-politically generated a type of marriage and family, the self-same Conservatives bring in “the will of the people clearly established through ballot initiatives”.

    What has the “will of the people” got to do whether a gay couple calls itself married or not?.
    Pathetically, the Americans have been programmed to seek State permission in order to marry, a custom that most of the world finds excessively servile.

    • Guest

      No, society has not generate a new “family”. There can be no such thing. That is like claiming there is a new human nature. Such absurdity is beyond contempt.

  • BillinJax

    I’d say beyond any doubt that one can not be pro-family and also pro-gay marriage. Either you believe and profess pro-creation or you leave God out of the mix entirely.

  • sparrowhawk58

    I have a question for everyone reading this, because I think this loophole will soon be exploited by those promoting the “gay agenda.”

    As I understand it, a marriage is valid if performed by a member of the clergy, even a different denomination, and a divorced person needs an annulment if he or she wishes to re-marry in the Catholic Church.

    Now, let’s say two men (or two women), one of whom is Catholic, get married in a Christian church that allows gay marriage. They later divorce. Then the Catholic person falls in love with a member of the opposite sex and realizes that he or she is called to the marriage vocation, and this couple wants to marry in the Church.

    Does the formerly-gay-married person have to get an annulment?

    If so, this would mean the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of “gay marriage.”

    Or does the person not have to obtain an annulment because gay marriage is by its nature not valid?

    If so, a lot of heterosexual couples in the same predicament (married by clergy, divorced/not annulled, wanting a Catholic marriage) will be held to a different and much stricter standard than the gay couple. That seems punitive of heterosexual marriages.

    How do you think the Church will handle these cases? Will she cease to recognize ALL marriages that are not totally in line with Rome, or will she make some concession to gay marriage? I can’t see either happening, but I don’t see another solution either.

    Thanks!

    • Art Deco

      I think such a ceremony would be regarded as having a defect-of-form and the matter decided administratively without the need for a ruling from a tribunal. I do not imagine the Church paid much attention to the Tom Thumb weddings popular in the early 20th century.

      • Guest

        Yes, there is no need for the Church to investigate imaginary things. Two men can never be married. There is nothing to investigate.

    • ForChristAlone

      I have no inside scoop on this but my guess is that the Catholic Church will one day have to face the reality that what everyone else calls marriage is NOT what the Catholic Church means by marriage and therefore ALL marriages not conducted by the Catholic Church have no validity at all. What happens when the Anglicans say you can marry your golden retriever? Will the Catholic Church place this matter in front of our august Church tribunals? What happens when the Anglicans say you can marry your brother or sister, mother or father?

    • RuariJM

      “As I understand it, a marriage is valid if performed by a member of the clergy, even a different denomination…”

      I think you understand wrong – in the case of baptised Catholics. If a Catholic gets married other than in a Catholic Church without dispensation and/or the presence of a Catholic priest, the marriage is not recognised by the Church. Catechism 1621, 1631 et al.

      • entonces_99

        You missed the point. Catholics who “marry” without dispensation or a priest and two witnesses still require a decree of nullity if they later wish to marry n the Church. Because it can be handled in a “documentary process,” the decree can be issued much more expeditiously in such “lack of form” cases than in ones where the tribunal has to inquire into the intentions of the parties (e.g., did they have an intention contrary to unity, indissolubility, or offspring), but it’s still required. sparrowhawk58 was asking whether those who enter a same-sex “marriage” that’s recognized by the state even need to bother going through the documentary process for a decree of nullity.

        • RuariJM

          I addressed a specific point you raised. I quote again, to remind you what I was talking about:

          “As I understand it, a marriage is valid if performed by a member of the clergy, even a different denomination…”

          No, it isn’t – in the case of baptised Catholics.

          However, FYI – a decree of nullity is not ‘divorce’ and it does not ‘undo that which has been done’; it is a statement that there was no marriage in the first place, regardless of who officiated and however much was spent on wedding cars, cakes and reception.

          So no, a marriage is not automatically ‘valid’ in the situation you mention.

          • entonces_99

            No, it isn’t automatically valid. The “marriage” of a baptised Catholic before a justice of the peace is in fact invalid. But the parties to such a non-marriage still need to get a decree of nullity before they contract a new marriage. The question is (at the risk of repeating myself) is whether the parties to a same-sex “marriage” (which is obviously invalid) need to go through the same process of getting a decree of nullity.

            • RuariJM

              It is invalid.

              Sigh.

              That’s it.

              Goodnight.

              • entonces_99

                No one is denying that it is invalid. But does “[t]hat’s it” mean that partners who once contracted a same-sex “marriage” don’t need a decree of nullity, because the invalidity is so obvious, or do they need to get a decree of nullity just like everybody else in a putative but invalid marriage?

            • Same-sex marriage are valid where recognized by law (19 states plus DC). The Church’s recognition of the marriage is comparatively irrelevant.. Some Baptist churches still claim that interracial marriages are invalid.

    • Guest

      It is a non issue. To have a marriage you need correct form and matter. “Gay” marriage is like a man “marrying” a tree. It is of no consequence. It is imaginary.

  • finishstrongdoc

    I have come to the conclusion that gay sex could be just bedroom role-playing taken too far. Way too far. Or it could be just be a matter of people who never matured sexually due to several possible influences. The human imagination is a pretty amazing thing, and it is possible to manipulate it in bizarre ways. Cue the trolls….in …three….two…

    • ForChristAlone

      basically gaydom is stunted psycholgical development

  • Tiger

    It’s funny, no gay person I’ve ever met has ever read “After the Ball” nor has expressed any interest in doing so. The only ones who have ever even heard of it heard about it from people who use it like it was the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or something.

    It’s not like they’re handing it out at pride parades or something. Anybody can write a manifesto, and usually they’re so gonzo they can be used to tar anyone who even vaguely resembles the writer.

    I mean, if it were required reading at activist planning meetings, don’t you think it would’ve been reprinted at some point in the past two decades? There’s not even an ebook version.

    Oh, and there’s the fact that the gay rights movement pretty much rejected it from the day it was published. That’s probably why there’s only $80 used copies from the 90s available. Only a book collector or a nut would blow that much on some guys’ manifesto.

    • Guest

      That book is not the sole source of that evil agenda. It just correctly reveals it. The ideology it coveys is alive and well abd practiced everywhere. Deny it but reality proves it.

      • Evil agenda? Shall we go back in history and reveal agendas and the profound evil done by men as Defenders of the Faith?

        • RuariJM

          I look forward to your revelations of the secret parts of the New Testament in support of your thesis, David.

    • Art Deco

      It’s funny, no gay person I’ve ever met has ever read “After the Ball” nor has expressed any interest in doing so.

      You collect stratified samples of perfect strangers and query them about their reading habits?

      • Tiger

        Actually, the “sample” based on people I know would skew disproportionately TOWARD the group the author suggests would be the ones reading it.

        Yet the only people I’ve ever heard even mention the book are conservatives who think it’s required reading for “the gay agenda.”

        My cousin is an gay rights activist who’s been on planning committees in a major city you’ve mentioned recently for its value in demographic comparisons. The *most recent* copy of After the Ball to roll off the printing press did so BEFORE SHE WAS BORN.

        It was moldering in obscurity before the people the author is claiming follow it had even gone to kindergarten.

        But if you really need a Fabulous Protocols of the Gay Elders of Zion to thump at people, I can’t really stop you.

        Just know you’re not working in the realm of facts when you do so.

        • Art Deco

          But if you really need a Fabulous Protocols of the Gay Elders of Zion to thump at people, I can’t really stop you.

          If you suffer a persistent and abiding inability to construct valid analogies and understand why they are used, I cannot help you.

          • Tiger

            Please, explain to me why a book so allegedly popular wouldn’t be reprinted a single time in the lifetime of most of the people you’re claiming it’s popular with? Without even an online text or ebook of it?

            Or alternately, show me YOUR stratified samples of perfect strangers and their reading habits that YOU’VE taken that show the book is actually widely read by ANY demographic AT ALL.

            Either one is acceptable, I’m flexible.

    • Asmondius

      Most Americans don’t carry around a copy of the Constitution in their pocket but are, however, familiar with the concepts it espouses.

      • So your argument is that this tome, the very existence of which is unknown to most gay people, is as authoritative to gay people as the US Constitution is to American citizens?

        • Tiger

          They’re really jonesing for a Protocols of Zion of their very own.

          • Art Deco

            Except that the book in question is not a forgery of the Russian Okhrana, but a trade book on marketing. You can get a used copy on Amazon or likely find one at a public library near you.

            • Tiger

              I highly doubt my public library has a copy of a book that goes for $80 used because it’s so rare. Rare because it hasn’t been printed in TWENTY FIVE YEARS.

              The gay community outright excoriated the book when it was released, and it died unmourned.

              Besides, it’s pretty obvious I was talking about the use people put the Protocols of Zion to, not it’s origin.

      • Tiger

        Ah, but you can go read the Constitution online or in a textbook.
        You can even BUY a copy to keep in your pocket if you want. For $1 on Amazon. Or FREE if you have a kindle or smart phone!

        It hasn’t been out of print due to lack of demand for a quarter century like After the Ball has been.

        In fact, it’s reception among gay activists even when it was in print could be *generously* be described as “chilly.”

        • Asmondius

          Ah, but one can easily find the same information from this book spread across any number of homosexual advocacy Web sites.

          • Tiger

            Should I just take your word for that?
            I certainly can’t afford to waste $80 on some erratic manifesto screed. If you’d like to buy me a copy, I’ll happily hold my nose and read it to see if it says what you claim, though.

            And as a plus, then you’ll actually know of a confirmed case of a gay person reading it in the last 20 years!

            Win-win!

            • Asmondius

              Like most people who don’t have a strong argument, you simply fixated on simple rhetoric by going off on a tangent..

              No one cares if many homosexuals actually read the book, that is irrelevant.. Since many of the ideas it espoused have been put into play to advance homosexual wishes the authors would receive credit by default.

              • Tiger

                You know one co-author of the book said himself he hasn’t ever seen evidence that the book was meaningfully influential?

                I think he’d have a better idea of the contents of the book than a bunch of people who’ve never even read it.

                But yeah, if you want to buy me a copy of this so-important-nobody-reads-it book, I’ll actually read it, and then you can truthfully say you know a gay person has actually read it at some point.

                • Asmondius

                  I never trust old queens.

                  • Tiger

                    Is Hunter Madsen gay? I can’t find much info about his life. I know he’s been an advocate of gay rights, but I haven’t found anything saying whether he is gay himself.

                    • Tiger

                      Actually, now that I think about it, I don’t recall ever seeing anywhere that specifically said Marshall Kirk was gay either. Doesn’t mean it’s not there, but I don’t recall anything ever specifying it.

  • entonces_99

    Do not be afraid to speak up. Don’t make the mistake of remaining quiet
    until you are certain you have a winning argument. Simply speak
    truthfully and let others know your beliefs. The truth will prevail, if
    each of us will only open our mouths and proclaim it.

    Unfortunately, the forces of tolerance and welcoming have arranged things so that, for many of us, following that advice would put us in danger of losing our jobs. (The homosexualists respond to this by saying, “See, now you know what it’s like,” which is a little like arguing that, because white people used to lynch blacks a lot, we ought to be accepting if blacks were now to lynch whites with impunity.)

  • April Spring

    Tiger,

    You mouth is Satanic, get an education before promoting a destructive lifestyle:

    “An estimated 90% of MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse…The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 TIMES MORE RISK for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.” -WebMD.com

    • Tiger

      Who’s promoting a lifestyle?

      Maybe argue with the person you’re addressing your comments to instead of shrieking at the memories of past arguments.

MENU