Is Homosexual Marriage Even Possible?

The homilist, a priest of impeccable orthodoxy, was enumerating the challenges facing the Church today. But I quickly found myself being greatly annoyed at his mention of the attacks being made on “traditional marriage” which were threatening our cherished tradition of “religious liberty.” Now, to be sure, what annoyed was not that he chose to criticize those who are attempting to subvert all rational standards of justice; with that, I wholeheartedly agree. Rather, what annoyed me was his implication that the marriage we are defending is merely “traditional,” and that attacks on that tradition are primarily an issue of religious liberty. On the contrary, marriage is rooted in necessary facts about human nature, and so to frame it as an issue of religious tradition or religious liberty seriously undermines the significance of our position and plays all too easily into the hands of those who aim to destroy the true nature of marriage.

First, it is crucial to our argument that marriage is not merely a “traditional” institution. While in one sense it is a simple indicative truth that Christians are defending marriage as it had been understood from the dawn of civilization against those whose arbitrary whim would force a new definition upon us, in another sense, however, this is a radically inadequate designation for our position in this fight. The problem lies in the connotation that our understanding of marriage is merely traditional. This is a problem for, if it is merely a human tradition, it is a sociological construct, and as such can be changed in accordance with the evolving standards of a developing society. It is in this vein that our opponents might point out that slavery was a human tradition of long standing, but was overturned in light of the enlightened standards of modern society. In this way, no mere tradition carries any true moral force, for it is simply a relic of a bygone age. The tradition of restricting marriage to two adults of the opposite sex is, they insist, one such insignificant tradition that we may now dispense with.

To grasp the underlying importance of this distinction, it might be helpful to recall that this is, at bottom, another permutation of the ancient debate about whether ethical principles are rooted in mere custom (nomos) or in nature itself (physis). Socrates rose to his prominence by challenging the Sophists in Athens on just this question. In an era of great social change, the Sophists tried to justify the new mores by insisting ethical principles are customary, and so vary according to time and place. In that sense, ethical principles are merely arbitrary rules we adhere to because the society has freely chosen to embrace them, but they have no intrinsic moral significance: a custom was binding only insofar as it was socially accepted, and so transformed public opinion justifies a transformation of custom.

This, of course, is the argument of those who insist that marriage can be redefined to accommodate homosexual unions today. We might note, however, one consequence of this positon is that this redefining of the institution has to remain infinitely plastic: once another innovative relationship becomes socially accepted (polygamy, for example), that too must be accommodated by the newly redefined institution of marriage. (This illustrates why this argument is not an instance of the “slippery slope” fallacy: since it is simply an application of the principle that insists on the rolling redefinition, it is an utterly logical conclusion which we draw, and not an unjustified inference that goes beyond what the principle entails.)

Against the Sophists, Socrates insists that ethical principles are grounded in nature: they are unalterable truths discovered by reason, not customs constituted by an act of the collective will. Upon inspection, it is obvious that this is the sort of thing marriage is, and was understood to be by the “tradition.” It is based on the biological constitution of the sexes, ordered toward the physical and—more crucially—spiritual complementarity of the spouses, and brought to full fruition in the procreative union of the couple: this conjugal view of marriage, so ably described and defended by Robert George and many others, establishes that this is something wholly natural and necessary for the good of the human race.

This, then, brings us to the second issue: that the defense of marriage is not primarily an issue of Christian religious liberty. It cannot be, because the institution of marriage predates the Church; it is only because marriage is self-evidently crucial to establishing a just and peaceful society that the Church began to bless the institution. St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine, distinguishes the two natural ends of marriage, the union of persons and begetting offspring, from the supernatural ends of marriage as represented by its sacramentality. Thus, marriage as a natural institution is part of the natural law. Since the precepts of the natural law follow upon the modes of acting characteristic to the perfection of any being, we can understand the precepts of marriage based upon human nature’s essence as a rational animal: inasmuch as humans are animals, the end of marriage (like all animal unions) is the rearing of offspring; but the primary end, reflecting humans as rational persons, is the unique friendship between two persons. This union of persons has both chronological and ontological precedence over offspring, for it is what makes the procreative truly human and guarantees that the offspring will enjoy the stability of the familial union for many years.

Aristotle—no Christian—recognized that the union of persons has priority for two reasons. First, because the goal of human life is happiness, and happiness requires friendship. True friendship, however, can only exist between virtuous people; indeed, true friendship is formed so that, in seeing in the other another self and genuinely wanting the happiness of the other for his or her own sake, there is mutual encouragement toward human perfection in the virtues. Marriage is the paradigmatic instance of this friendship in virtue, where the spouses are united as equals seeking the happiness of the other.

St. Thomas will affirm this in noting that this unity in virtue is the real ground for spousal attraction: “There is a virtue proper to both husband and wife that renders their friendship delightful to each other.” It is because of the natural goodness of this union that marriage is then ordered naturally toward procreation. (This fruition in procreation does not follow necessarily, however, because of possible biological impediments.) Goodness is self-diffusive, and the goodness of mutual love united in virtue is naturally fecund, so that the love and virtue can be shared with another human being. Yet that union in virtue always has primacy; it is for this reason that St. Thomas will say the marriage of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph is a perfect marriage.

The second crucial point that Aristotle recognizes about marriage follows from the first.  This marital union in virtue, which is ordered also to the begetting of children, becomes the foundation for the polis, not just through its procreative act, but also through its inculcation of virtuous friendship. All human societies are formed in order to attain a common good. The married family exists, as we saw, for the common good of mutual edification in the virtues. Political society simply builds on this; as St. Thomas, commenting on Aristotle, puts it, “Every association is established for the sake of some good…. [T]he good to which the political community is directed is the supreme human good.” The supreme common good is the improvement and happiness of all persons; but as the attainment of that common good presumes the existence of virtue, the family (especially those with children), as the first school of virtue, is the foundation for society as a whole. Indeed, civilization has been defined as the communication of excellence from one generation to the next; in this way, marriage that forms spouses in virtue, and communicates that to children, is the sine qua non for civilization itself.

Thus, even apart from all revelation, marriage has always been recognized as indispensable to man’s happiness; but both marriage and happiness are constituted by the fact of human nature and the objective needs of society. It is not a tradition that can be changed; nor is it a revealed truth to which only believers are subject. Recognizing these facts, the Church began—relatively early in its history—to bless marriages, for the union in virtue needs to be strengthened by the gifts of grace; grace perfects nature, and the blessings of grace help the spouses grow together and to stay together in the friendship of common virtue, which they then pass on to their children.

Again, it should now be clear that marriage is not merely a tradition; nor is it a peculiarly Christian sacrament. Rather, it is rooted in human nature and is the foundation of society’s efforts to attain a common good. In light of this, the only question about homosexual marriage should be: Is homosexual marriage even possible? Many have recognized the impossibility of homosexual marriage leading to procreation. What I would add is the impossibility of homosexual marriage realizing a union in virtue. If vice is, as St. Thomas says, acceding to the inclinations of sensual desires against the order of reason, homosexuality cannot be anything but vicious. Thus, “homosexual marriage” is a contradiction in terms: a union of virtue cannot be characterized by vice. It is, as I have suggested elsewhere, an Orwellian term composed of juxtaposed incompossibles, similar to “war is peace” or “freedom is slavery.” Indeed, this whole debate brings to mind another quip from Orwell: “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men”

But if homosexual marriage is not possible, what is it? To what do people refer when they are talking about it? It is, in fact, a mere fiction. In fact, many marriages today would be fictional: marriages that are temporary, marriages entered into out of selfish reasons, marriages motivated by greed or lust, are not real in any sense, for they lack the defining characteristic of permanence grounded in virtue. Only these marriages merit the name real or factual marriages. While the courts may pretend that these fictional unions have the legal trappings of a marriage, they are never real, they are never factual. Yet this brings to mind one last invocation of Orwell, for if the Leviathan state, in its quest to redefine reality, forces us to take fiction for fact, is there any limit to the powers of government?

Nevertheless, even in the face of the Leviathan, we remain hopeful, for we are confident that in the end reality will win out over fiction, for fiction can never meet the needs of people who live in the realm of reality.

James Jacobs

By

James Jacobs is Professor of Philosophy and Assistant Academic Dean at Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans, LA. His major area of research is Thomistic natural law theory, and more generally the need for a philosophical realism as a response to modern nominalism and skepticism. Professor Jacobs earned his doctorate in philosophy from Fordham University.

  • Mal

    When we talk about a marriage – any marriage – we always think about two entities merging perfectly. These entities are designed for this merger and, importantly, have a common purpose. The shoulder joint and the electric plug and socket are good examples. There is a good fit and a common purpose in both of them.
    This is why the committed union of a man and a woman is called a marriage. The relevant parts not only complement each other they – and this is the critical factor – serve a common purpose. And what a life-saving purpose it is! It provides the community with continuity which no other relationship can. And this is is why a homosexual relation is not a marriage. No politician or judge can alter this fact.

    • vorpal

      So…. because man-made things that were designed specifically by humans and meant to fit together do so – a poor analogy for a penis and vagina – no same-sex marriage. Gotcha.

      • GG

        No, it is the principle that matters. Get it now?

        • vorpal

          Your false reductionist view, or principle, as you call it, fails to take into account a multitude of factors: hence my mocking it as it rightly deserves.

          • GG

            Reductionist? Ha! You deny the obvious and call it reductionist. Which factors change unnatural into natural?

            • vorpal

              The fact that people exist who only hold same-sex attraction and who have no opposite sex attraction clearly flies in the face of your absurd argument. Your little false analogy does not take that into account in any sense, and you make no suggestions how such people should live their lives or why their relationships should be denied civil, legal rights and protections.

              • GG

                That pathology exists is not evidence it is consistent with man’s nature.

                To help afflicted persons you offer sound medical care, not babble that affirms their afflictions as normal and good.

              • Mike W

                What civil rights and protections don’t they have?

            • OfTheseTheGreatest

              In all fairness, just because a sexual act isn’t potentially procreative doesn’t make it unnatural. We know that many mammals engage in masturbation and other non-procreative sexual activities simply because they are pleasurable. Is a masturbating penguin unnatural? Is it unnatural for a man and wife to have intercourse during a woman’s infertile part of the monthly cycle or after menopause? Although the primary purpose of sexual behavior is procreation, the pleasure function is also natural, God-given, and important. The primary purpose of our ears is to hear possible dangers and to hear other members of our group, but we can also derive great pleasure from hearing birdsong or a symphony; is this unnatural? Our eyes’ primary purpose is to see our surroundings, helping us to locate food and avoid danger, but we can take pleasure in a sunset or a painting; is this unnatural?

          • I guess if you can’t formulate effective dispution, you can always resort to derision.

            • vorpal

              If an effective argument was provided instead of transparently childish nonsense in the form of a pathetic false analogy, I would formulate a rebuttal.

              • I guess if you can’t formulate effective dispution, you can always resort to derision.

      • It might be a lacking analogy, but it remains valid.

      • LarryCicero

        Have you ever used a public restroom in Europe? A circle and a triangle on the door- which one do you use?

  • Vinny

    “…we remain hopeful, for we are confident that in the end reality will win out over fiction, for fiction can never meet the needs of people who live in the realm of reality.” Amen.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    From the public perspective, the purpose of marriage is not procreation. Rather, the public interest in marriage is filiation.

    According to Paulus, a 2nd century Roman jurist, “pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1]. This presumption of paternity of the husband rests on the obligation of fidelity between spouses and reflects the commitment made by the husband during the celebration of marriage, to raise the couple’s children. That is why the leading modern commentator on the French Civil Code, le doyen Jean Carbonnier (1908-2003) insisted that “The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.” The English jurist William Blackstone (1723-1789) was of the same mind, when he argues that “one main inducement [of marriage] is usually not only the desire of having children, but also the desire of procreating lawful heirs.”

    No-one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide.

    • Gail Finke

      Oh yes, they deny it. Two of the cases being heard at Supreme Court today involve lesbian couples who want the “second mother”‘s name put on the birth certificates of the children they’re raising…. because, of course, it is hurtful to THEM (the women, not the children, who presumably alone among adopted children will never want to know who their birth father is).

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Here is an extract from lecture notes for French law students at the Institut d’Études Judiciaires “Jean DOMAT,” which a friend kindly gave me.

        “It is necessary, since the law of 19th May 2013 (2013-404) opening marriage to persons of the same sex, to distinguish two marriages:-

        1. The union freely agreed to, of a man and a woman in order to found a family. Only this marriage between a man and a woman affects filiation (Title VII of Book I of the Civil Code) [This is a reference to Art 314 of the Code Civil, “The child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for father”]

        2. The union, freely agreed to, between two persons of the same sex, which permits them, within the limits of the appreciation of the interests of the child by the administration and then the judge, to adopt (Title VIII of Book I of the Civil Code) the child of one of them, or a ward of the State or, subject to what is permitted by conventions between states, a foreign child.”

        This laconic description shows how marriage equality, even in the hands of its proponents, reveals itself to be an illusion.

        • It also shows how the law everywhere is ready to lend its oratory to an assault on reality. This isn’t the first time the obvious was ognored or denied with disarming eloquence.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            What the lecturer does do is to correctly identify the fundamental difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage – “Only this marriage between a man and a woman affects filiation.”

            He rightly describes them as two different kindsof marriage and whether much is gained by applying the same name to both is open to doubt; we do not, after all, use a single term to embrace both sale and hire, or sale and barter, or deposit and pledge or agency and partnership.

            • Kilo 4/11

              “pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” Could this not also be interpreted “he who is the father will be shown by who marries (the expectant woman”)? In this way, the law recognizes, and arguably privileges, the natural inclination of a man to step up and claim and protect his own. (Excepting, of course, those bounders whose natural inclination is to run the other way.)

              On a tangent, some of the anger directed at this definition of marriage makes for an ironic echo of the anger of ’70s feminists, who railed at conventional marriage as a device of the patriarchy to control women through legal possession of their children.

            • Micha Elyi

              …same-sex and opposite-sex marriage…

              Pasting adjectives to nouns doesn’t create new kinds of things.

              There is marriage and there are counterfeits of marriage. There are no new kinds of marriage. (Hint: the phrase “opposite-sex marriage” is redundant.)

        • Paddy

          France is gone.

    • fredx2

      I don’t think you could be more off base. The fact that certain legal authors have at times cited filiation and determination of parentage as the purpose of marriage only means they were speaking of their sub specialties – they were not attempting to define what marriage was from an overall perspective. They were simply getting engrossed in their specialties, So I don’t see these quotations as having much force.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        “[T]hey were not attempting to define what marriage was from an overall perspective…”

        The questions they were addressing were: “What is the state’s interest in marriage? Why does marriage exist, as a legal institution? What is the unique legal rôle of marriage?” Those are the same questions that the Supreme Court will have to address in Obergefell v. Hodges.

        No civil code contains a formal definition of marriage, but generations of commentators have found a functional definition in the provision, common to all of them, that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father.” That was the opinion of the three most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925) and Gaudemet (1908-2001), long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated.

        Unless the purpose of marriage is to establish the legal bond between fathers and their children, it is difficult to see what other public function it does serve, or what distinguishes it from other domestic arrangements, such as unregulated cohabitation or civil unions between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

        • “Unless the purpose of marriage is to establish the legal bond between fathers and their children, it is difficult to see what other public function it does serve, or what distinguishes it from other domestic arrangements, such as unregulated cohabitation or civil unions between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.”

          If you are married, I pity your wife. If you are not married, I’m not surprised. Unregulated cohabitation doesn’t serve any public purpose, it is a public nuisance, creating social chaos at every level.

          That is cold and confused, man.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            Even unregulated cohabitation is not without legal consequences, which is why it has always been possible to obtain a « certificat de concubinage notoire » [certificate of notorious concubinage] from the local authority.

            Civil unions [pacte civil de solidarité or PACS] too, have proved remarkably popular with opposite-sex couples. In 2010, there were 250,000 marriages and 200,000 PACSs registered in France.

            Carbonnier pointed out that the institution of (opposite-sex) marriage entails consequences with respect to filiation that the other forms of union do not. Moreover, this leading jurist could find no other significant difference at all, in the laws governing cohabitation and civil unions on the one hand and marriage on the other, that does not logically derive from this presumption and no-one, to my knowledge – and certainly not the advocates of same-sex marriage – has been able to suggest an alternative reading of the legal texts.

            • Terry Mushroom

              Michael

              Do you know if PACS is similar/analogous to Civil Partnerships in England & Wales?

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                No, they are very different and significantly different to marriage in French law.

                1) There is no presumption of paternity
                2) Hence, no duty of fidelity – but there is a duty of “loyalty”; this concept is the product of jurisprudence and vaguely defined. Hence, too, one partner cannot sue the paramour of the other in delict.
                3) They do not confer the right to a “reserved share” in the inheritance of the other partner. Similarly, a partner is excluded from the inherited property (biens de famille) of the other.
                4) Liasbility of one partner for the debts of the other is more limited than in marriage.
                5) There are no mutual rights of financial support between one partner and the ascendants of the other. In general, a PACS does not affect third parties.
                6) They can be dissolved without a judicial process.

                In short, they are contracts, affecting only the parties to them and belong to the Law of Obligations, unlike marriage, which belongs to the Law of Persons, confers a status and can affect third party rights

                • Terry Mushroom

                  Thanks for your prompt, helpful explanation.

  • Seamrog

    The essential societal nature of marriage as a permanent union of man and woman was put on display yesterday in Baltimore.

    It is the logical end of the destruction of the family, coming soon to a neighborhood near you, and me.

    • Objectivetruth

      As I’m watching 15 and 16 year olds tossing bricks at the Baltimore Police at 3:00 in the afternoon, I have to ask: where are the fathers?

      • St JD George

        None that I saw either, but I did see a picture this morning (from yesterday) of a mother who went into the crowd to grab what I presume was her son by the scruff of his neck, slap him, pull off his ski mask to expose the naked cowardness, and was being quite verbal in expressing her displeasure at his act of stupidity.

        • Ruth Rocker

          Yeah, and she’ll probably be charged with child abuse for her actions.

      • GG

        All it takes is “luv” to make a family. That is what the bumper stickers say.

      • “I have to ask: where are the fathers?”

        Where they’ve always been-absent.

        • Objectivetruth

          If I saw my sons there, within the hour they’d be sitting in front of a Marine Corps recruiter lieing about their age and signing their papers, taking their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. I’d look forward to their graduation ceremony from Parris Island.

          • Except the Marine Corps doesn’t need recruits with that much of a penchant for criminality. They have enough of it with their CiC.

      • glad2btex

        GONE in one form or another!!!

      • Micha Elyi

        Q. “I have to ask: where are the fathers?”

        A. They didn’t jump, honey, they were pushed.
        __________
        Question Authority. (Ask me anything.)

  • Ciarán Ó Coigligh

    An excellent article and excellent further comment. Well done, Professor Jacobs, and well commented Mal.

  • JayRobThom

    In ‘That Hideous Strength,’ In which marriage is the center of the drama, the leading philosopher of the totalitarian think tank N.I.C.E. explains to Mark, the husband of Jane, that the real hope for all that they do is the complete replacement of natural reproduction, of nature itself – and this is the drive involved in this attempt to abolish the awareness of the Creator by absorbing into the state the very right to bear or rear children.

    • The Brave New World of commoditized, nocorporeal reproduction. The concurrent
      themes of the sexualization of children and mass narcosis make Huxley seem like a prophet.

      Apparently the ruling class uses warnings as blueprints.

      The state is a jealous god.

  • St JD George

    In the mind of spiritless man there is a single word, yes. I was thinking about it this morning in the context of Jesus’s admonition “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” The same could be said in Roe vs. Wade allowing the killing of children as a choice. Man’s rules in open defiance of God’s laws. Only God knows when he will have finally had enough of our perverting his purpose.

  • Navy76

    “Orwellian term composed of juxtaposed incompossibles, similar to “war is peace” or “freedom is slavery.” Indeed, this whole debate brings to mind another quip from Orwell: “We have now sunk to a depth at which the
    restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

    Common sense dictates that we be able to see the forest from the trees. The ability to logically look at the term “homosexual marriage” requires just enough intelligence to recognize that the term makes no sense at all.

    • GG

      Amen. We now need to defend what is self evident.

      • Seamrog

        Which is why it is important that these type of essays keep getting hammered home.

        It is firming up in the minds of many, why this is such a tremendously important issue and – one would hope – arming men and women to publicly stand for their faith, and the teachings of the Church.

        • GG

          Very true. In another thread here someone is asking me for evidence homosexual persons cannot be stable parents. With a straight face. Even typing this seems absurd.

          • St JD George

            Then you need to watch this. Where babies come from and the invisible father.
            https://youtu.be/ldJipGrrmwA

            • Objectivetruth

              Demonic. Simply demonic.

              “but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

              • St JD George

                LifeSiteNews dubbed the “quartet of truth,” four children of same-sex couples have “come out” and filed amicus briefs to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that striking down same-sex marriage bans in three states could lead to pain and suffering to thousands of kids.

                Recalling childhoods rife with loneliness, sexual confusion, alienation, and, most of all, fear of repercussion from gay activists; Katy Faust, Dawn Stefanowicz, B.N. Klein, and Robert Oscar Lopez were each uncompromising in their condemnation of denying children the right to be raised in households without mothers and fathers.

                “I grew up with a parent and her partner[s] in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” wrote B.N. Klein of her lesbian mother. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly [sic] displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.”

                “While I do not believe all gays would be de facto bad parents, I know that the gay community has never in my lifetime put children first as anything other than a piece of property, a past mistake or a political tool to be dressed up and taken out as part of a dog-and-pony show to impress the well-meaning,” Klein wrote.

                Klein went on to emphasize that her lesbian mother would also pressure to pay “constant homage and attention” to the homosexual identity and spoke of the gay community’s “obsessive unhealthy invasive preoccupation with their children’s sexuality,” saying that her mother would tell her “being a virgin was for the stupid.” Her mother also taught that “some Jews and most Christians were stupid” and that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.’”

                Her brief closed warning people that same-sex marriage will only lead to the exploitation of children as property where women will become breeders for “wealthy male elites.” She also emphasized extreme cases of child sex abuse, most notably, the case of Mark Newton and Peter Truong, who were “front-page news as Gay Fathers of The Year even as they were using their helpless baby as an international sex slave.”

                Robert Oscar Lopez offered a different perspective, crediting his two lesbian mothers for giving him the “best possible conditions for a child raised by a same-sex couple,” while simultaneously emphasizing the sexual confusion he had growing up without a father figure that led him to becoming prostitute for older men.

                “Had I been formally studied by same-sex parenting ‘experts’ in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest estimations of LGBT family life,” Lopez wrote. “[But] behind these façades of a happy ‘outcome’ lay many problems.”

                “I experienced a great deal of sexual confusion,” Lopez wrote. “I had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males … and wanted to have sex with older men who were my father’s age, though at the time I could scarcely understand what I was doing.”

                “The money I received for sex certainly helped me financially because it allowed me certain spending money beyond what I earned with my teenage jobs at a pizzeria and in my mother’s [psychiatric] clinic. But the money was not as impactful as the fact that I needed to feel loved and wanted by an older male figure, even if for only as short as a half hour.”

                Lopez does not stand alone in his conclusion that children will ultimately be harmed by the widespread acceptance of same-sex “marriage” and included in his brief nine other testimonies of those who grew up in similar circumstances. Lopez stressed he knew many more children in deep suffering, but emphasized their fear to come forward due to the intense harassment and intimidation they would face at the hands of homosexual activists should they speak out. Lopez attested to their fears, saying activists have previously harassed his employers and spread lies about him on the internet.

                “Children raised by same-sex couples face a gauntlet if they break the silence about the ‘no disadvantages’ consensus,” Lopez wrote. “In such a climate, I must conclude that placing children in same-sex couples’ homes is dangerous, because they have no space or latitude to express negative feelings about losing a mom or dad, and in fact they have much to fear if they do.”

                Expanding on the intimidation front, Katy Faust testified that children from these relationships suffer the constant pressure of being labeled “bigot” or “hater” should they voice their opinions.

                “Some adult children with gay parents shy away from making their thoughts about marriage public because we do not want to jeopardize our relationships with those to whom our hearts are tethered,” Faust wrote. “Unfortunately, many gay-marriage lobbyists have made gay marriage the sole badge of loyalty to our LGBT family and friends.”

                “The label of bigot or hater has become very powerful and effective tools to silence those of us who choose not to endorse the marriage platform of many gay lobbyists,” Faust continued. “For much of my adult life I was content to keep my opinions on the subject of marriage to myself. I was (and still am) sickened by the accusation that I was bigoted and anti-gay for my belief in natural marriage.”

                “For many years those devices kept me quiet,” admitted Faust. “I didn’t seek a venue where I could share my views. But I have come to realize that my silence, and the silence of others, has allowed for the conversation to be dominated by those who claim that only animus, ignorance, or indoctrination could lead one to oppose ‘marriage equality.'”

                Faust’s opposition to same-sex marriage stemmed from her convictions that all children have a natural, inalienable right to a mother and father.

                “When we institutionalize same-sex marriage … we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households,” Faust wrote. “Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent. Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.'”

                Dawn Stefanowicz spoke in more graphic terms, recalling her life with a promiscuous homosexual father who died of AIDS.

                “It is quite difficult to discuss the implications of growing up in a gay household until later in adulthood when we have developed a measure of personal identity and independence apart from our LGBT parent, partners and the subcultures,” Stefanowicz wrote. “We are often forced to approve and tolerate all forms of expressed sexuality, including various sexual and gender identity preferences.”

                “As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion,” wrote Stefanowicz. “Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licenses, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children don’t accept their parent’s partner du jour.”

                “The special-interest LGBT groups and so-called support groups for kids sometimes act, or function, as fronts for a far darker side that silences, intimidates and threatens the children who want to share the truth, allowing only a politically-correct version of our childhoods to be heard,” Stefanowicz continued. “These special-interest groups support political and legal objectives toward same-sex marriage, ignoring the horrendous inequality, permanent losses and prejudice to children in the name of adult sexual rights. Children lose forever their rights to know and be raised by their married biological father and mother.”

                The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals won’t be issuing a decision regarding the same-sex “marriage” bans for months.

                1.14.2015 Paul Bois

                • GG

                  Sick.

                • Kilo 4/11

                  Thanks for this post. This will help those of us who are reticent to confront homo parents out of fear of appearing misinformed. Now we know our gut feelings were right.

                  • St JD George

                    Confront is a good word, yet it carries with it a “hardened” and not merciful context. Nobody changes their views in an instant (except Saul, but God intervened directly with him), so the love and patience of a saint are the utmost important qualities to carry with you. Anger no doubt will arise and so control over emotions will serve you well. Still, in the end I know there are too many stories where the chasm was not bridged, and the shackles of sin were never unbound. That doesn’t mean we stop loving them. A good place to start is by praying. Trust in the heart of Jesus, for he is the truth, the way and the life.

            • GG

              Well, they have to corrupt a child to get the child to view reality in such a deranged way.

            • Vinny

              Except for the difference in type of sin, not much different from ISIS indoctrination of children.

            • The Truth

              This is insanity.

              • Jolundy

                Truth, I agree with you.

          • LarryCicero

            And yet we wait to see what the courts will do next-a $135,000 fine for the bakers who wouldn’t decorate the cake to look gay. The moral idiots are redefining reason.

            • “Appetite” and “greed” will always seek to “pull reason from her throne” as the blind bard said. God bless. Keep our good bakers in your prayers.

          • santiago

            There is no evidence either way. That is why it should not be something to be played with to start. Since you can not assure through evidence that they can be stable parents or that it does not create problems in the upbringing and psyche of children, then it should not be permitted.

      • Paddy

        Hillary demands that religion abandon its concept of “natural law” and follow her into the rabbit hole, while Barack “evolves” to denigrate Western Civilization, itself. Can any Catholic morally be registered in the corrupt Democratic Party now? NO!!.

    • fredx2

      Pretty soon we will be discussing whether things should fall up from now on. You will be a “bigot” if you believe in “traditional gravity”

      • Navy76

        Fred, I think we’re there. Just look how some scientists faked the data regarding global warming. Geez

    • santiago

      the same thing goes for “civil marriage”, it is just contradictory. But Civil Marriage is that it is just a lawful contract and the word Marriage is redefined by itself. Civil Marriage is not about procreation, love, partnership, friendship or companionship, it is about taxes mostly. That is why I do not care one bit about Civil Marriage I’ve never found it important and it does not have any impact on me except for tax purposes and other legalities.

  • lifeknight

    “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

    This statement says it all. To think that we have to embrace evil as promulgated by our “society” is ridiculous. Also that one would be considered “intelligent” because he embraces the obvious.

    When right is wrong and wrong is right, means we are a very sick society.

  • Kim58

    Contraception trains a married man and woman to center their marriage on vice (lust) rather than virtuous friendship. Thus, most married Catholic couples today struggle mightily to keep their marriages intact (if they even bother to get married!). The Catholic Church has been so silent about contraception, and has rarely ever explained to the faithful what chastity is, therefore the Church is going to have some very real issues facing her in the coming years. I must say, however, I don’t have much sympathy for our Bishops and Priests, particularly the ones who have not preached on the definition of marriage and chastity in their homilies. But I will pray they have strength and courage in the difficult years to come. What they will be facing won’t be pleasant.

    • Atilla The Possum

      AMEN!

  • James Jacobs spends most of this column space writing effusively about marriage between heterosexual couples before finally cutting to the chase:

    “Many marriages today would be fictional: marriages that are temporary, marriages entered into out of selfish reasons, marriages motivated by greed or lust, are not real in any sense, for they lack the defining characteristic of permanence grounded in virtue.”

    And it is true, too many couples rush into marriage without fully considering the implication it the institution is SUPPOSED to be permanent in the best of all possible worlds. People rush into marriage with stars in their eyes, not even considering the fact there would probably come days in the future when things AREN’T going so well, days when both persons might even end up screaming at each other. True commitment means anticipating those moments BEFORE they occur, and agreeing to work beyond them rather than just calling it quits.

    Unfortunately for Mr. Jacobs, such a commitment between two compatible people of the same sex is nothing more than a “fiction,” presumably because they cannot by themselves make babies. But ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire or even the ability to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

    No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

    THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And it looks like most American agree that allowing Gay couples to make that solemn declaration of support and commitment is preferable to just shacking up together.

    • GG

      No, that is not a marriage. That is two guys thinking they are friends, but commit unnatural acts together. Marriage cannot happen between two same sex persons regardless of intent or desire. It is pure fiction.

    • Veritas

      It is not that you can’t be committed to your partner that reason objects to, but that peanut butter and jelly is a more natural “marriage” than two people of the same sex.

    • Gail Finke

      Nice, but not true. Marriage exists as an institution all over the world — and in many cases the couple are chosen by their families. It is not necessary for people to know each other before they marry, nor is it necessary for them to even like each other to remain married. The do not need to remain under the same roof to be married, or to support each other in any way. They can be at each other’s throats and remain married. The purpose of marriage is to create a new family by uniting the basic units of that family — a man and a woman — whether or not any children are actually born to it and whether or not the family likes or supports each other. Artificial contraception makes that difficult to see, because so many people in the West today choose to have few or no children (which is an unnatural state for human beings), but it still remains true. Any other marriage-like arrangement is just that, a different arrangement that resembles marriage in some respects but differs from it in others.

    • Objectivetruth

      Welcome back…..Crisis Magazine’s advocate for the devil!

      We’ve been patiently waiting for your return. Thank you, for showing us how Satan’s position and lies are presented….!

      • St JD George

        Pray for Chuck. He’s here, that’s reason enough for hope that he may yet overcome his struggles with sin.

    • But sir, there is no real sex taking place. Only abusive, empty acts that never arrive at the summit of union. Shacking up is wrong because it has all the complications of marriage due to the sexual component without the benefits of the marital covenant. It is a puzzlement to the thinking person, unless one is a nominalist at heart.

      • “Real sex”? It’s irrelevant.

        “You can have lots of sex without marriage. And you can have a marriage without much or any sex. But you cannot have a meaningful marriage without love and commitment.” –Andrew Sullivan

        • Seamrog

          No, Chuck – it is relevant.

          Homosexual acts are a perverted distortion of nature – “abusive, empty acts,” exactly as Anglicanae describes them.

          You know this, because you are here……again.

          If you weren’t struggling with this, you would be out living a normal, healthy life, instead of lying and distorting truth to discredit the Catholic faith…on a Catholic website.

          And so, here you are…

        • Objectivetruth

          “Real sex?” It’s irrelevant.”

          Yes, Chuck……excellent job of presenting Satan’s deceptive tactic of avoiding what is True. Great job!

        • I can have a committed, loving relationship with my brother or sister on that view since sex is not part of anything.

          But you instinctively know the sexual component is the normative means of intimacy, which only opposing sexes can offer.

        • BPS

          Actually, non-consummation (never having sex once) is perfect grounds for annulment(proclaiming a marriage never existed in the first place).
          The Catholic Church will marry a man and a woman even if you’re not able to conceive children (i.e. due to woman’s hysterectomy, age, other problems making conception impossible). The church will NOT marry you (generally) if you are unable to have natural sexual relations.

          • “The church will NOT marry you (generally) if you are unable to have natural sexual relations.”

            Nor will the church ever be forced to. It’s a moot point anyway, since couples do not need church approval to marry, and none of the legal benefits of marriage come from the church anyway, they come from government.

            • BPS

              “Nor will the church ever be forced to.”
              So you say. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised if lawsuits were not pursued in the future to take away tax exempt status from churches that won’t perform homosexual marriages, still teach homosexual activity is immoral etc.

              • Even if someone files a lawsuit, they will lose. Even the IRS turns a blind eye toward huge moneymaking empires like CBN, Trinity Broadcasting, and Daystar Television, because they call themselves “ministries.”

                • Just as they do for all the gay “charities”. You know that “wall of separation” Chuck? Tax Exemption is the other side of the coin.

        • Gail Finke

          So all of a sudden it’s not marriage that matters, but a “meaningful marriage.” To be measured by whom? People can get married without knowing each other, and stay married without even liking each other. Love and commitment are desirable for, but not necessary in, marriage.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      But, according to Blackstone, “one main inducement [of marriage] is usually not only the desire of having children, but also the desire of procreating lawful heirs.”

      By the same token, the law facilitates marriage in extremis, for the sole and simple reason that it can legitimate children previously born.

    • Ford Oxaal

      Your view of the motives of marriage does not explain why an infertile couple will go to the extremes of science in order to procreate. In your view, having a family and taking on the lion’s share of the work in preserving society is an after thought to shagging your partner and being besties for life! Anyway, I hope we can agree that all else being equal, the natural father and mother of a child will best safeguard that child. How much would you say society owes parents? Anything?

    • Asmondius

      You mean ‘sodomite couples’, Chuck.

  • Gail Finke

    “Filiation,” which a commenter explains nicely, has been the focus of protests against “gay marriage” in France… not that it’s done them any good yet. But it may change people’s minds over time. The gnostic idea that you can remake reality any way you want to because they physical world is all just a lie anyway is now so widely and firmly held that people don’t even recognize that it’s a delusion. Tell people that it’s impossible for two people of the same sex to marry (which it IS) or that a person with a male body can’t “be” a woman, and you get blank stares. The hysterical canonization of Bruce Jenner — countered by the bizarre and equally hysterical denunciations of him by many when they discover that he is a political conservative — show the deep emotional attachment people have to this idea that men and women are interchangeable and that their spirits are all that really matter, which goes far beyond reason and helps explain why reason doesn’t touch it.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Le Manif pour tous has had considerable success in strengthening public opinion against « la marchandisation du corps, celui des ventres à louer » [merchandising the human body, of wombs for rent] Widespread support has been mobilised, even in the National Assembly, for the principle that the purpose of adoption is to give a family to a child, not to give a child to adults.

      France retains very strict laws against human gametes being treated as articles of commerce or a market in babies, bespoke or prêt-à-porter through surrogate gestation.

      The country’s highest court, invoking Art 1128 of the Code Civil, which provides that “only things in trade can be the subject of an agreement” has treated as a perversion of the institution of adoption the plenary adoption of a child when this is only “the final phase of an overall process designed to enable a couple to take into their home a child conceived under contract and requiring that child’s abandonment at birth by his or her mother.”

      There can be no ownership of human gametes or embryos; Art 16-1 of the Code Civil provides that “The human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right.” Nor can they be bought or sold, for Art 16-5 reinforces the general prohibition of Art 1128, by providing that “Agreements that have the effect of bestowing a patrimonial value on the human body, its elements or products are void.” Finally, out of an abundance of caution, Art 16-7 provides that “All agreements relating to procreation or gestation on account of a third party are void.”

      • Gail Finke

        I meant it has not been a legislative success, despite huge public support. In a way that is more ominous. I hope that French laws will continue to protect poor women from being exploited and embryos from being sold, etc. But I am not persuaded that they will.

  • Exactly. “Gay ‘sex'” is an oxymoron, since the physiology can only allow for masturbation. In a real marriage, the man protects the virtue and sanctity of his wife’s womb. His exclusive, devoted sexuality in the marriage covenant keeps her chaste, and therefore him as well. Same sex partners have nothing to provide or protect in their pretend union on the most intimate level, since their physiology is denied its unitive end.

    The state has no interest in enshrining masturbation as marriage; the Church has no sacramental context for such a lifeless union. The same sex advocates are begging for water from a stone, and judicial fiat cannot create it for all the ink in the world.

    • Objectivetruth

      Spot on, Anglicanae.

      All “gay sex” is, is one guy helping a pal to masterbate.

    • publiusnj

      I just viewed the movie below with that 4-6 y.o. girl explaining sperm donors in a gay marriage and it shows the gay view of marriage. What it perhaps unwittingly proves is that “Gay Marriage” is the kind of “marriage” in which reproduction can only occur if one of the “spouses” goes outside the “marriage” to engage in heterosexual sex or its ersatz equivalent (artificial insemination of some sort). The legal enforcement of faithfulness in marriage, through the presumption of legitimacy that attaches to any child born out of the wife in the course of the marriage and the legal sanction against Adultery, has always been designed to ensure that one spouse does not go outside the marriage to procreate with another. We know that a child born out of a woman who is a spouse in a “gay marriage” could not have been sired by her spouse because her spouse is not a man. Likewise, no child can be born out of the woman in a male-on-male “gay marriage” because there is no wife.

      Now, of course, there are some heterosexual marriages in which there can be no reproduction as a result of the intercourse of the two spouses, but that is a matter of volition or infertility not the impossibility of reproduction from gay sex of either kind. While the state has no reason to invade the privacy of a heterosexual couple that asks for a marriage license to ensure that the couple is going to reproduce, its denial of licenses to gays requires no invasion of privacy. A male is a male etc., at least until some numbskulls in black robes start messing with that issue.

    • Navy76

      Very nicely written and packaged Angelicanae. It is a “pretend union” as you say and as such cannot be enshrined as something holy and natural.

  • Where were you 15 years ago when this all started? Where were you in 2004 when the world changed overnight and faithful Catholics became hateful bigots?

    I am no longer hopeful. This civilization is going homosexual, and the next step will be parent licencing.

  • athanasius777

    Professor Jacobs,

    You wrote:

    The homilist, a priest of impeccable orthodoxy, was enumerating the challenges facing the Church today. But I quickly found myself being greatly annoyed at his mention of the attacks being made on “traditional marriage” which were threatening our cherished tradition of “religious liberty.” … the defense of marriage is not primarily an issue of Christian religious liberty. It cannot be, because the institution of marriage predates the Church

    Right. But the government punishing citizens for refusal to participate in, pay for, or otherwise do what would falsely signal their approval of that which has long been considered unnatural and/or blatantly evil by Christianity (and to a large extent by everybody else) IS primarily an issue of Christian religious liberty.

    Priests many eventually be punished for refusal to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. (That may already be happing to military chaplains.) Catholic institutions are being coerced, via the HHS Mandate, to pay for drugs the purpose of which is to take innocent human lives.

    I think you become annoyed a little too easily. You should have congratulated the priest after Mass for speaking out about the issue. It is not like Catholics across the country are hearing about it from the pulpit. On the contrary, the silence from American Catholic pulpits is deafening. Addressing the same-sex marriage issue in a not-quite-philosophically-perfect way is commendable and far, far better than not ever preaching on it at all.

    • Gustav2

      “Priests many eventually be punished for refusal to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.”

      As soon as legally single couples (divorced) can force the priest to perform their second marriage.

      • “Priests may eventually be punished for refusal to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.”

        Uh, no. The separation of church and state is considered so sacrosanct in the U.S. that churches and priest will never be compelled to provide services to anyone. And why would any Gay couple want to be in hostile territory on the happiest day of their lives anyway, when there are so many more welcoming churches out there?

        • Gustav2

          It is never going to happen. Even non-religious state licensed officiants may refuse in Ohio.

          • cestusdei

            Oh it will happen. Homosexuals will demand it and punish those who refuse. Their hatred of the Church is scalding hot.

            • Gustav2

              Indifference is not hate.

              • Seamrog

                This is not indifference.

                It is hate.

                “Rejection lies in this, that when the light came into the world men preferred darkness to light; preferred it, because their doings were evil. Anyone who acts shamefully hates the light, will not come into the light, for fear that his doings will be found out.”

                • Gustav2

                  99% of gays and lesbians just don’t care about your particular dogma, they don’t care what kind of ceremonies you have behind the closed doors of your church.

                  Now they may care when a religiously affiliated organization discriminates using tax payer dollars.

                  • Martha

                    So are you part of the 1%? If you don’t care, then why are you here? We are discussing our particular dogma.

                    • Gustav2

                      To dispel the myths about the what the Supremes are discussing today.

                    • Martha

                      It is involved when you’re on a traditional Catholic website.

                    • Gustav2

                      Not when you are talking about the Constitution.

                    • Martha

                      The Supremes?! Wait… is there a motown revival going on today? In that case, no, not a lot of dogma there.

                    • GG

                      The gay dogma is involved. Including the ‘gays” on the court who are biased.

                  • GG

                    “Gays” only care about making others affirm their weird desires. That is it completely.

                  • Seamrog

                    Nope – not true.

                    The homosexualists are arguing in front of the Supreme Court today.

                    They wouldn’t be there if 99% ‘didn’t care.’

                    I think a more accurate statement would be “99% of the population that identifies themselves as ‘gay and lesbian’ hate the Catholic Church.”

                    • Gustav2

                      What does arguing about civil marriage in the US have to do with the Catholic Church?

                    • Seamrog

                      The Church is the Body of Christ.

                      Destroying the family, subjecting men, women and especially to the perversion of people of the same sex calling themselves ‘married’ has EVERYTHING to do with the Catholic Church.

                    • Gustav2

                      Nothing to do with US Civil Law. The Church’s laws and dogma cannot be made into US law. That is unconstitutional.

                    • Seamrog

                      The homosexualist bigots are not in front of the Court arguing for Church teaching to be made law.

                      They arguing for laws contrary to Church teaching – that Catholics – the members of the Church, THE Church – will be compelled by force to follow.

                      This effort by the homosexualists bigots is to compel Catholics to legitimize a deviant, sinful lifestyle, against their consicence, against their will, and against their God-given rights.

                      THAT, is un-Constitutional.

                      That is tyranny.

                      That is evil.

                    • Gustav2

                      Only public accommodations and civil rights laws.

                      Too often the Church has overstepped and tried to over influence laws so it could receive tax dollars and ignore civil laws.

                    • Seamrog

                      Nope – it is about forcing Catholics to legitimize perversion and sin. Laws must uphold the common good, and any law that contributes to the destruction of the family must not be allowed to stand.

                      I do agree that the Church should receive no state or federal funds.

                    • Gustav2

                      I didn’t say is shouldn’t receive tax dollars, but once it does it loses autonomy is all things. With the money the state can make rules to receive the money.

                    • GG

                      The money is from the people including Catholics.

                    • Gustav2

                      The money is from all tax payers, yes. That’s the rub.

                    • GG

                      Yes, but money does not control people’s rights.

                    • Gustav2

                      You take the money you do what the boss says.

                    • GG

                      Only in a tyranny. In a just society one takes the money and retains their God-given rights.

                    • Gustav2

                      The Church signs a contract to provide services. It is allowed not to sign the contract, no tyranny.

                    • GG

                      Taxes come from the people. Taking money does not mean you are owned by the people paying you. That is tyranny.

                    • Gustav2

                      But you must follow the contract yes? Otherwise you are a liar and a thief.

                    • GG

                      The contract cannot include unjust things or it is a false contract.

                    • I was involved in government contracting-never once were there terms that superceded rights. This is your fantasy.

                    • Gustav2

                      And never once did the contract allow you to violate local laws.

                    • Local laws don’t supercede Constitutional rights.

                    • Gustav2

                      Public accommodation laws have been ruled constitutional. Requiring a contractor to follow local laws to receive tax dollars has been ruled constitutional.

                    • Jonah Goldberg was right. The left is inherently fascist.

                    • This is how you want it to work. Another word for you is fascist.

                    • Asmondius

                      ‘You take the money you do what the boss says.’
                      – Heincih Himmler

                    • Gustav2

                      Why do you hate capitalism?

                    • Capitalism is a term of derision invented by Karl Marx. Why do you love serfdom?

                    • Asmondius

                      Why did you resort to an ignorant question?

                    • Gustav2

                      Me?

                    • glad2btex

                      That is exactly what “they” are banking on!!! Leverage!!

                    • The state is not my boss. The people are its boss.

                      Note that absolute inverted thinking.

                    • glad2btex

                      This is exactly where all the lines get blurred!! It is time that “The Church of Nice” takes a very, very hard look at themselves!!

                    • glad2btex

                      And that’s the CRUX of the matter!!!

                    • I’ll bet you’ve received dollars at some point in your life, do you “lose all autonomy”?
                      What is wrong with you?

                    • GG

                      Civil laws not influenced by morality are tyranny.

                    • Gustav2

                      Civil laws based on one religion’s canon and dogma are unconstitutional

                    • GG

                      It is not about canon or dogma. The Church has influenced Western Law for centuries and the two have been quite compatible. Without Her we have tyranny as we see today as the “gays” oppress us.

                    • Asmondius

                      Here we go – the ol’ Catholic hater soft shoe reveals itself.
                      .
                      Give these folks enough Vasoline and eventually they slip up.

                    • Rights do not come with a forfeiture clause.

                    • If you were indifferent you would have made your claims and left.

                    • glad2btex

                      Gustave2 all I can do is shake my head…..You just don’t get it!!! How very sad!

                    • Oh he gets it, he doesn’t care. All of the disjointed rhetoric and specious reasoning is merely a pretext to insist that we comply or die.

                    • glad2btex

                      I was trying to be charitable. But now, I agree with you!! I wish you a very Blessed day.

                  • Asmondius

                    I feel the same about pro-homo organizations.

                  • “99% of gays and lesbians just don’t care about your particular dogma, they don’t care what kind of ceremonies you have behind the closed doors of your church.”

                    Which is why the hounded for example, Brendan Eich from his job at the company he founded. Your assurances are hollow in light of the evidence to the contrary.

                    • Gustav2

                      The straight employees did that.

                  • Navy76

                    Gustav2, it is very evident, to use your line that “99% of gay’s and lesbians just don’t care about your particular dogma,” that although they don’t care they want the rest of us to legitimize their unnatural actions. Inside their God given souls they know what they are doing is wrong and to placate their consciences want the rest of us to verify their disordered view so they can feel exonerated as to their choice of lifestyle.

              • cestusdei

                They are not indifferent. They demand we applaud their lifestyle.

          • GG

            Two men will never be “married” either. Oh wait, the State affirms that fiction now. Anything goes.

          • cestusdei

            Just today:

            Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to
            Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an
            ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail
            time and fines.

            The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and
            Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding
            chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage, The Daily Caller
            reported.

            A federal judge recently ruled that the state’s ban on gay marriage
            was unconstitutional, while the city of Coeur d‘Alene has an ordinance
            that prevents discrimination based on sexual preference.

            The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to take on gay rights’ appeals
            from five states has opened the doors for same-sex marriages to go
            forth.

            The Knapps were just asked by a gay couple to perform their wedding ceremony, The Daily Caller reported.

            “On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and
            the Knapps politely declined,” The Daily Signal reported. “The Knapps
            now face a 180-day jail term and a $1,000 fine for each day they decline
            to celebrate the same-sex wedding.”

            • Gustav2

              They were a party house that had ordained ministers who did CIVIL marriages and advertised that because they were in the same block as the courthouse. They changed their business plan to where they only do religious marriages, are now a church…so the problem was solved. No lawsuit, no further action.

              • cestusdei

                Yet, you are willing to use force. This will not end until homosexuals have a full inquisition to eradicate any opposition to them. You can’t kill us all.

            • The pilot project for Sodomistic fascism.

        • Seamrog

          If you believed this, you would not be HERE.

          You are a liar.

        • Asmondius

          ‘And why would any Gay couple want to be in hostile territory on the happiest day of their lives anyway..’
          .
          Such as forcing the caterer and photographer to be there against their respective will?

      • GG

        That is coming, too. The perpetual adulterers demand affirmation of their sin.

        • Gustav2

          Even those with annulments have to priest shop.

          • Veritas

            Explain what you think you mean by “priest shop.”

    • “It is not like Catholics across the country are hearing about it from the pulpit. On the contrary, the silence from American Catholic pulpits is deafening.”

      As someone who was raised in the Catholic Church (http://www.straphaels.org), the homilies I heard at Mass were never of a political nature. Priests didn’t thunder against what they considered to be social ills. Homilies were usually spiritually uplifting, spoken gently, with a focus on love and kindness and even, occasionally, social justice. And considering how prevalent celibate Gay men have been in the priesthood historically, why would I expect otherwise?

      • Asmondius

        Hitler was raised in the Catholic Church as well.

      • If they are celibate, they are same sex attracted, not “gay”. You can comment on them when you are celibate.

  • Guest

    What concerns me most is that the door to our Catholic Churches may not be strong enough to hold this back. How long do you think it will be once the Supreme Court rules in favor of Gay Marriage that they will be banging on our doors demanding a Wedding in our Catholic Churches? Mind you I am a devout Catholic who was/is gay who fully follows and believes in the Catholic Church and Catechism. This is coming. I hear/read that there are those who will not stop until the Catholic Church recognizes Gay Rights, Ordains Gay and Women Priests and allow for the direct selection by the Laity of Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope, as well as the right to determine their beliefs related to the Catechism and Sacraments. There are already Religious (and Groups) who support this. We only need look at what is happening in Germany. I pray every day that this does not happen and is turned back!

    • Joseph

      People can demand a wedding in a Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church has the freedom to deny this. Can you cite one instance of when the Catholic Church has been legally required to marry a divorced person? Marriage of divorced is legal in all 50 states, and yet, I cannot find one instance of any Roman Catholic priest being legally compelled to marry a divorced person.

      How many Orthodox rabbis have been forced to marry a Jew to a non-Jew? Sure, a member of a temple can demand this, as marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew has been legal for centuries. Can you cite a single case of an Orthodox rabbi being required to marry a Jew and a non-Jew? It is absurd on its face.

      There are many valid arguments against same-sex marriage, but the notion that churches will be required to marry people against the doctrine of the church is hysteria, hyperbole, and hyperventilation.

      • Objectivetruth

        But THIS is what is going to happen, soon:

        A “married” lesbian claiming to be Catholic is going to apply for an open teaching position at a Catholic school. She’ll be denied and sue the school for discrimination. In today’s arse upside down, atheistic judicial activist world we live in, she’ll win. The archdiocese will have to possibly decide between a million dollar settlement, or having a “married” lesbian teach our children.

        And….

        Check Lifesite news. There’s an article where Hillary Clinton spoke last Friday that religous organizations should be forced by the state to change their teachings and dogmas on abortion. Who’s to say this can’t happen in the future with the Church being told to change their teaching on homosexuality.

        So get your head out of the sand. Anything is now possible in our moral sewer of a country.

        • As long as the Catholic school isn’t accepting any taxpayer funding, nobody cares whom they discriminate against.

          • Seamrog

            Again – you are lying, Chuck.

            You read the essay on the homosexualist bigots targeting Marin Cathoic.

            • It comes easy after you convince yourself the anus is a sex organ.

          • Objectivetruth

            The Christian bakery in Oregon which was forced out of business and court ordered to pay $150,000 in restitution for “discrimination” wasn’t taking taxpayer funding either, Chuck.

            Your sewage is getting old, Chuck.

            • A business is not a church. Businesses have to abide by prevailing civil rights laws. Churches do not.

              • Objectivetruth

                Do us all a favor, Chuck. Admit to the following:

                The truth is, you’re not really here to defend “gay marriage.” You’re here because of your seething hatred of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church’s teachings.

                You know it, I know it. Any denial of this simple fact is a lie.

                • Chuck is here because he’s obsessed with futility. He’s habituated that as the “Polish Bear”

              • GG

                Like Germany in the 30s.

              • JP

                Businesses are run by citizens. And citizens have guaranteed rights – one of them being the Free Exercise of Religion. BTW, “prevailing civil rights laws” do not trump the Bill of Rights. One does not check one religious rights at the door if one goes into business.

                BTW, if you’re looking for religious people to sue and persecute, the following link shows a number of Muslim bakery owners who refuse to serve gay weddings:

                http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/

              • Asmondius

                Well here goes ‘Chuck’ telling us that freedom of religion is now restricted to the four walls of a church.

                • When Chuck should be restricted to a residential facility.

              • Right, that’s why there’s no need to litigate against Kommisar Sebelius and the Ministry of Health.
                Chuck, you really should think before writing.

              • And a Church is none of your business.

              • glad2btex

                That is for now!! Does anyone here have this awful feeling in the pit of their stomachs that says this truly may not end well. Of course I believe and trust in the Blessed Trinity, Our beautiful Blessed Mother. But I am also aware that Jesus can and has shown his wrath against Sin!

          • JP

            Read the First Amendment. I didn’t see any caveats to the “Free Exercise of Religion.”

          • Guest

            If this were the case the Archbishop of San Francisco would not be under attack. The Catholic High Schools are owned by the Archdiocese but because Archbishop Cordelione wants to hold the teachers and staff to the Catechism of The Catholic Church there is fury. If the parents or the teachers do not like the rules they can always go somewhere else. But they would rather stay and stir the pot and demand the Archbishop give in to their wants. My son has been in Catholic School his entire life because I wanted him to have a Catholic Education with Catholic Morality and Teachings intact. There are many private schools here for me and for those in San Francisco for them to choose. Instead of complaining they could always take their money to a school that better suits their beliefs. It is time for those who are Catholic in Name only to choose! If no one cared about this those who oppose the Archbishop would not be lobbying the Papal Nuncio and ultimately Pope Francis nor would they have a high priced lobbyist!

          • Asmondius

            False – that hasn’t stopped homosexuals from suing Catholic schools.

            • Have they won any of those lawsuits? No.

              • Asmondius

                False. Some have. Your logic here seems to be that it’s OK to stand under a tree during a thunder storm because you have not witnessed anyone being struck by lightning yet.
                .
                Irregardless, it is costly for the Catholic establishment to defend itself against any suit, not matter how spurious. The lawsuits are certainly not helpful and are in fact an attack upon Catholic belief.

          • Oh that’s right, if the tentacles of the state invade your treasury, you forfeit your rights.

      • ColdStanding

        Both your examples at least retain the image of marriage. The proposal in question does not. The motivations behind it have very little to do with marriage and everything to do with knee-capping Christians, so I would not council relying too too much on precedent. Indeed, the word of the day is unprecedented, therefore, all bets are off.

      • JP

        And a decade ago, the very thought that Christians would be prosecuted for not serving at gay weddings would have been declared paranoid rantings of the Moral Majority; and 2 decades ago, the very idea that gays would successfully litigate in federal court the right to force states to issue gays marriage licenses would have been considered the insane rantings of the 700 Club. And four decades ago if a lawyer wrote a scholarly document claiming a constitutional right to sodomy, he would have been considered a fringe crank.

        Somehow your post rings hollow.

      • GG

        This is highly uninformed. A few years ago who would have said men would be marrying men? You would be thought of as mentally ill. Now it happens. Anything goes.

      • Guest

        If the Supreme Court or The Federal Government (IRS) or the Society at Large determines that in order to maintain your status as a Tax-Free Entity you are not allowed to discriminate on any basis it could change the framework entirely. We can no longer say this could not happen. Look at what is happening in the Archidocese of San Francisco. Who would have thought this possible that to hold people accountable to the Catechism of the Catholic Church would cause this much uproar. I would also point you to catholicchurchreform.com. They are not in Communion with the Holy See (but claim to be Catholic) but seek to “educate the faithful by encouraging them to think independently, to recognized the primacy of their conscience, and that it is their duty to speak out on matters that concern the good of our church.” I would also point you to Dignity USA and New Ways Ministry, both of which were started by Catholics and claim to be a Catholic Movement. 5 to 10 years ago your statements would have been true. But looking at our world today, no longer

      • You can’t be this naive.

  • cestusdei

    This is a key point. Homosexual marriage is impossible, no matter what the COTUS or a piece of paper says. It isn’t real and we will not say it is no matter what. This is what will ultimately lead to serious persecutions since they demand we approve of “it.”

  • Martha

    Well said, Mr. Jacobs.

  • thebigdog

    If “homosexual marriage” becomes the law of the land, three things will happen:

    1 – The vast majority (95%) of homosexuals will never get married.
    2 – Homosexuals will move on to their next target… young boys.
    3 – The homosexual activists aka gaystapo, will attempt to charge the Catholic Church with hate crimes for not performing “gay weddings”

    “I expect to die in bed, my successor…in prison…his successor…a martyr” – Cardinal George

    • St JD George

      I posted an article regarding (1) the other day. Basically affirming that so much is fixated on the anti social behavior of this act that once the right is obtained and society more or less acquiesces the thrill will be gone for those who seek pleasure in disrupting normalcy. Then with the bondage of their shackles to the nether world they will go on to seek out a new thrill to go against God’s, and their own nature.

      • thebigdog

        Like a child hounding his parents for months to buy him a specific Christmas gift, only to play with it a few times and never touch it again. Among children, this immature and selfish behavior which lacks self-awareness is normal — among adults, it is a symptom of mental illness.

        • Atilla The Possum

          Those LGBTQWERY people are pretty much immature … so they want to brainwash the rest of civilisation into immaturity, too.
          A mature person would seek another confectioner if one will not carry out your request. An immature person would stamp their feet, spit the dummy, try to be sarcastic, insult you with profanities and ”scream and scream and scream until they are sick” (to quote that little brat, Violet Elizabeth Bott from the Just William stories by Richmal Crompton)… all the way to some expensive lawyer with £££££ signs or $$$$$$$ signs in their eyes.
          Like I said many times before: these people have more money than sense!
          As for marriage, an openly gay British TV presenter said that lack of commitment and recklessness is one of the pitfalls of gay relationships.
          And marriage is about … What? Sorry? Forsaking all others, keep the only unto him/her, ’till death do us part. Now THAT is commitment.
          Same sex marriage is dead in the fires of hell before Obama’s poisoned ink has dried!

      • GG

        Exactly correct. Part of the punishment for sin is the illicit thrill we get from it. The more we do the sin the more we want it and the farther from God we go.

  • M.J.A.

    Homosexual ‘marriage ‘ being seen as both against natural law and God ordained ways – hopefully the judges would be blessed to have both aspects of that truth in their hearts , whatever arguments are presented by those who want the rest to accept evil and curses as good , in order to bring more curses upon all .
    Scriptures give us ample warnings as well as the reports of the high # s suicides and such among those who choose to curse God ordained marriage between man and woman , by their willful and blatant proclamation of the intent to enter in and remain in a cursed state , forcefully wanting the rest, to offer support for same , not the grievings of repentance , which is what the enemy seems bent on blocking !
    Any regular marriage can have its tough moments ; couples have asked for and receive
    the grace and blessings , to repent for choosing evil, thus to be set free from the curses that result from such choices , by The One who became a curse , for our sake, for us to be dead unto same , giving hope and strength , while waiting patiently in the grace , to see both hearts , in the light of His transforming power ;
    ‘outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and… ..everyone who loves and practices falsehood .’ – a nation that proclaims trust in God , do not need to ask for the curse of being of being ‘outside ‘ ..
    May He have mercy on all for the blessing of Godly wisdom !

  • St JD George

    Source: Ryan Sorba, on RedState today (in the spirit of James O’Keefe)

    I recently went undercover in Palm Springs, California posing as a same-sex marriage activist. I asked the following question:

    “Do you believe being gay is strictly genetic?”Here is the link to the video. I must warn you there is some explicit language:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h5pI7KASjU&feature=youtu.be

    The video is a montage of clips from interviews in which gays admit that they believe they are gay due external circumstances, such as being sexually abused at an early age or going through other traumatic experiences.

    This video ought to be a crucial component to the upcoming Supreme Court marriage decision because it gives natural marriage proponents what they need to neutralize any personal testimony that being gay is an “immutable characteristic” such as race.Please Donate Now: http://www.gofundme.com/rightontheedge

    The video is particularly relevant because in past cases in which the courts ruled in favor of overturning state Marriage Amendments, which protected marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, they did so by reasoning that being gay is on the same footing as race and therefore protected by the Due Process Claus of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, they state the oft repeated claim that, “gays are born that way” in order to achieve Suspect Classification. In order to be deemed a Suspect Class a group must meet three criteria.

    1. The group must have suffered a long history of discrimination

    2. The group must be politically powerless to help themselves

    3. The group must have an innate and immutable characteristic (be “born that way”)

    There is no scientific proof that people are “born gay.” In order to argue that individuals are born that way lawyers have relied on carefully selected personal testimonies. Carefully selected personal testimonies can obviously rely on biased individuals however who have ulterior motives. For this reason I decided to go undercover to find out the truth from gays themselves. He states that he, I was surprised by how easy it was to get gays to talk openly about the fact that they believe personal experiences were to blame and many of them stated that they had been in love with a women and could be again.

    The video confirms that sexuality is not fixed like race or gender. That is what we have known all along, however. Emotions are fluid. Modern behaviorist psychology has shown that the nervous system is a blank slate. We can be conditioned to feel this way about that, or that way about this. As can be seen in this video, being gay seems to have something to do with unresolved emotional issues.

  • St JD George

    Chris Queen, 27 April 2015

    Still Waters United Methodist Church occupies an idyllic location in a beautiful neighborhood in Atlanta. The church has been in existence for about 15 years and has had one pastor leading the congregation — Dr. Carole Hulslander. The members of Still Waters have built the church literally with their own hands, giving both money and sweat equity to the congregation they love.

    Dr. Hulslander and her husband love and care for their parishioners, and the pastor preaches the Bible to this multicultural congregation. The church members would have no reason to believe that their beloved leader’s position would be in jeopardy. But all of that changed one Sunday this past March.

    Two weeks before Easter, the District Superintendent showed up with a new pastor. When the Chair of the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee refused to allow a service that Sunday morning, because the District had violated the church’s Book of Church Discipline, the congregation retreated to their fellowship hall to sing and pray. The new pastor came in and began berating one of the members of the congregation. The new pastor demanded keys be handed over. When others intervened to calm the situation, the new pastor told the congregation to ‘f*ck off’.” The lion that would separate the sheep from their shepherd now paces around the walls of this church.

    What would be the reason for such drastic measures? Dr. Hulslander’s outspoken support for traditional marriage is to blame, according to the pastor.

    But after Dr. Hulslander signed a “Unity and Integrity” statement calling on the United Methodist Church to maintain its standards of Biblical integrity with regard to marriage, the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church sought to remove her.

    The culture war has arrived at the door of Still Waters United Methodist Church.

    The congregation has dug in their heels, unwavering in their support for Dr. Hulslander. As a result, Still Waters may lose its building and property. But the physical building is a small price to pay to these people as they stand firm in their convictions and their attempts to be the church that Jesus Christ called them to be. The church has started a GoFundMe account to help them in their fight. Share this story to help get the word out.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/27/why-would-the-united-methodist-church-want-to-remove-a-popular-pastor/#ixzz3YcgbyaEJ

  • GG

    ++Thus, “homosexual marriage” is a contradiction in terms: a union of virtue cannot be characterized by vice.++

    This is exactly true.

  • Ruth Rocker

    The last line of this article is particularly telling. Part of the problem is that the proponents of this fiction aren’t not rooted in reality. They are living in their own little self-enclosed bubble oblivious to the fact that what they are proposing is preposterous.

    It is not now and has never been about the gaystapo being allowed to marry. If tomorrow, by judicial fiat – which seems to be in vogue now – civil unions between homosexuals was legalized and those unions given all the “rights” that married people have (inheritance, taxes, etc) they would not be satisfied. It is only in destroying society to rebuild it in their twisted vision that will suffice for them.

    They want everyone to not only acknowledge that same sex intercourse is a good thing (in fact they sometimes claim it to be superior to normal sexual relations!) but that it should be celebrated and made to be normal for EVERYONE! If and when this happens, the truth is doomed. As it is, truth is the new hate speech for many. If the SCOTUS makes the monumentally idiotic decision to make these fake marriages legal everywhere it will be truly the beginning of the end for our civil society. This will cause a larger more violent rift in this country than desegregation and legalized abortion combined.

    Lord protect your people!

    • GG

      Very true. It would be an oppressive tyranny that would unhinge society from reality. The perverts would destroy civilization.

  • fredx2

    It must be understood that gay marriage is an attack on marriage itself. To redefine it to exclude all the normal incidents of marriage – procreation, monogamy, etc, basically guts the whole idea of marriage.

    This is very serious business.

  • St JD George
  • Pickwick

    I think it is not tradition nor natural law from which we should argue the sanctity of marriage, but as Jesus did, from the word of God. Homosexual marriage is rebellion against God and His revealed word. Love the sinner but hate the sin.

  • St JD George

    Now this is the stuff of real persecution you can believe in by the IS. Pretending to befriend another, lure them with a warm embrace, extract an admission, and then stone them to death. I think there is a better way.
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-militants-go-undercover-as-gay-men-tricking-homosexuals-into-execution-photos-show-jihadi-fighters-hugging-captives-before-their-stonings-138268/

  • Tom Saltsman

    Fading rapidly and dangerously from this entire discussion involving homosexuals–who allegedly ‘can’t help themselves’ with feeble psychology alone–are the radically easy medical cures for any sexual obsession–male or female–that have been around for centuries, if not millennia. As a former homosexual who is completely peaceful and happy in my Catholic faith, I took the cure in 2007 and have no regrets. Those who refuse to openly discuss this cure are denying the faith in my opinion.

    The cure not only rid me of my uncontrollable sexual obsessions and gave me peace, it adds about 10-to 20 more years to my life. A few thought my actions drastic. Yet they were far, far less drastic than Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy and a lot more justified!

    For the sake of politeness, Christ did not mention the cure explicitly, though he came very close in Matthew 19:12–assuming one employs the historical and contextual meaning of the word “eunuch.” Christ didn’t mention the cure for women, but I can think of two medical procedures, one more ‘drastic’ than the other, that can stop any female sexual obsessions.

    “If your eye offends you…”

    • Orchiectomy?

      • St JD George

        You cause me to use the dictionary a lot, and that’s a good thing.

        • There are times to be clinical.

      • Tom Saltsman

        You guessed it! Congratulations!

        • One brave Christian amid a Huxleyan generation. You are a giant of a man. Blessings.

          • Tom Saltsman

            Thank you.

      • LarryCicero

        Wow. I can’t help myself. It sounds so close to the Polish word for nuts-orzechy. Sorry.

    • St JD George

      God bless you Tom for sharing that personal experience. I pray that others come to benefit from your strength in overcoming sin.

      • Tom Saltsman

        Thanks.

        • St JD George

          I had my own demons to conquer too and it was only through the saving power of Christ I was able to unshackle myself and be free.

    • Objectivetruth

      Your path is one of sainthood……

      Beautiful post, Tom.

    • Atilla The Possum

      God love you for your courage, Tom! I pray that other men will take much from your post.

      One of the promises Our Blessed Lady gave to those who devoutly recite the Holy Rosary is that it would ”destroy vice … and promote virtue.”
      I mention the Holy Rosary because one porn addict wrote about how he was eventually cured of his addiction by means of this powerful prayer.

  • Marriage is an arrangement that accounts for two physically and emotionally dissimilar individuals, each with unique perils (men who might abandon a woman and or children, women might become impreganated by another man) that can occur upon entry to those bonds. Principally it deals with those perils by making the arrangement exclusive and permanent, imposing unique rights and responsibilities upon the husband and wife, and restraining others who might intrude upon the unique rights of a spouse.

    In addition, that union might produce children who would be totally dependent upon others for care, custody and correction for a minimum of the better part of the first two decades of life, and whose development is bettered by stability.

    The idea that two individuals equally situated and incapable of producing offspring needing marriage is ludicrous. It is a raincoat in the desert.
    .
    Until arrogated to the state by Luther and Tudor, it was principally a religious and cultural matter. The extension of marriage as a public franchise to homosexuals has always been a matter of deforming marriage to be a mere instrument of public recognition. It is acceptable to the public because marriage among men and women is now optional, barren and dissoluable for light and transient causes, a temporary bond where inordinate effort is put into having a wedding, but a fraction of that effort is expended into sustaining the marriage.

  • St JD George

    I wish more could be done to force Justices Kagan and Ginsberg to recuse themselves before the case of Obergefell vs. Hodges. If there was ever a conflict of interest case to be made, I can’t imagine a more iron clad one against them having presided over many of these immoral unions. Then there’s a whole other matter against those who violate their oath by using language like social values trump constitutional considerations in their opinion papers, sworn oath to defend be damned.
    http://www.afa.net/who-is-afa/press-releases/2015/01-january/kagan-and-ginsburg-recuse-yourselves/
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/12/caap-calls-on-justices-ginsburg-and-kagan-to-recuse-themselves-from-same-sex-marriage-decision/

  • Alex Hradek

    Meanwhile, Pope Francis couldn’t be reached for comment as he was too busy addressing climate change.

  • Mike W

    What do you do if, when the whole world does not agree with your false view of reality, it interferes with your happiness? According to the SS’M’ lobby the The Constitution is clear – you have to agree with their false view of reality.

  • bonaventure

    Anyone can tell who are the Egyptian characters on the picture? Or any other information about this Egyptian sculpture?

  • M.J.A.

    Not wanting to be snide , but Pope Francis being concerned about the climate would very well be linked with the topic at hand , since , as mentioned at the very beginning of history , the connection between rebellion in nature and our choices are shown , in Genesis on down.

    Picture of those Egyptians above …the prevalence of the practice of castration in harems ..The Lord’s mention of persons being born as eunuchs , ? as a consequence of the curse in family lines , from such practices … and possibly less incidence of such conditions, in our times , as a result of the power of deliverance from curses , in the grace of The Lord … as mentioned in healing of families, asking for mercy and deliverance , for past sins in family lines , in all such areas as a way of preventing and curing such afflictions ..

    One can even wonder if the work of St.John Paul 11 might even be as reparation for some similar sins that took place in members in The Church –

    http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/castration_catholic_church.php
    The idolatry of animal worship in ancient cultures- did that too lead to the curse of being afflicted by animal instincts ..and The Lord, taking upon all such curses upon Himself , willing to be scourged …. offering up His life , so that we too be dead unto sin, in Him ..
    wherein those who feel it is difficult to control passions , see themselves , being scourged ..being on The Cross ..same for the couples who find it difficult to follow NFP.. ..or even difficulty in forgiving – seeing the other , in The Passion ..
    for hearts thus to be purified , in seeing all hearts , in His holy , pure heart , in response to His glorious invitation -‘ bring them to Me ..’ so that the sting of sinful traits do not last long but gets transformed into occasions , of ‘ bringing ‘ and raising of hearts , to Him ..
    Allowing The Spirit to help bring deliverance , in The Lord, in a manner that befits the dignity of the children of God , without recourse to barbaric means – our Lord came to destroy the works of the devil, including the slavery to passions ….the heroic struggle of St.Francis , in this area has left us the miracle of the roses without thorns ..wonder if the oil from those rose hips have ever been tried as remedy …to counter the curse invoked on the wicked , in Psalm 108/109 – of the oil seeping into the bones …bones – the supporting structures , ? such as Judiciary ..
    Hope the Franciscans would be blessed to be of help , to bless the internal kingdoms, thus , in turn , to bless and protect the external one !

  • hombre111

    The author himself admits that there is an exception for the procreative purpose of marriage because some couples, because of age or for other reasons, cannot have children. If we do not grant this exception, old people cannot marry. This exception granted, everything St. Thomas says in this article can apply to gay marriage. I know of gay couples who have, and are, successfully raising children. They are a solid part of their community. They are strengthened and nourished by their marriage. Rather then fester in some hidden life, they are out in the open, good citizens, making America a better place.

    • I know of a man who made a vow to be a Priest and dispensed with it. He also made a vow of sorts to take leave of Crisis and refuses to leave. Your lack credibility with anything that involves vows makes you unworthy of any thought on such matters.

    • GG

      Normal married people are not analogous to homosexual pairings. Pleae stop insulting us.

      • hombre111

        If they love each other? If they are gentle and kind? If they pay their taxes?

        • Disgusted

          If a man married his son and they “loved” each other and paid taxes is that a good standard to use?

          • hombre111

            Straw man. And you don’t appreciate humor.

            • Disgusted

              Straw man? What? Nonsense. My example is no more aberrant than two men claiming they are “married”.

              Goodness is not fake marriage and paying taxes. That is a standard so low that even a first grader would be offended.

    • Disgusted

      How are an elderly married couple engaging in the marital act the same as two guys sodomizing each other?

      Perhaps you are deranged or perhaps you are profoundly unreasonable? Either way you are confused or disingenuous.

      • hombre111

        A gay I knew, a former priest, told me he was not into sodomy. He and his partner have lived together now for thirty years. More than most heteros, this day and age.

        • Disgusted

          How is that comparable to a marriage? First you try and compare sodomy to infertile people, then you compare some type of friendship to marriage. You just move the parameters around.

          Marriage is not mere friendship nor is it about two people committing unnatural acts on each other.

          • hombre111

            I congratulate you for your lofty view of marriage. But, back to the original article, the author cited the very rational argument of St. Thomas, which, it could be argued, excludes the infertile and the elderly, from marriage. Now you cite a very emotional argument, which could be discussed, but not in this context. The rational, essentialist arguments used in this article can be turned on their head to allow gay marriage. :>)

            • Disgusted

              Not even close. Normal married people engage in the marital embrace. It may or may not produce conception. It is always ordered toward procreation as ordained by our Lord. It is never sodomy no matter the likelihood of conception. Never. To compare it to sodomy is disingenuous and in no way would Aquinas agree with such sophistry. That is not emotionalism but logic and biologic fact.

              Two men cannot engage in a normal sexual act. It is always perverted. It attempts to ape the authentic marital act.

    • St JD George

      Successful by what standard Hombre, by living and teaching God’s message? I’m glad they aren’t ax murders either because that would be at odds with being a solid part of their community, so is not being an ax murderer the standard, or even worse, a gun worshiper? That is perverse logic, to me. Having said that I don’t persecute any who are afflicted and have hope for them. Did you read Tom Saltsman’s very personal revelation yesterday? There is hope in his message for all who are afflicted. We are all sinners Hombre, and we are called to help pick each other up and shake the dust of our sins from our garments. Enabling sin is no favor.

      • hombre111

        I respect your reply, St. George, and I don’t imagine for a minute that what I am going to say will make any sense to the conservative brains on this website. I am echoing Elizabeth Johnson in her magnificent book on Mary, called “Truly our Sister.” When I talk about “essentialist thinking,” I am rejecting the idea that there is a rigid, one size fits all masculine or feminine nature which demands that men and women play predefined, separate social roles.

        Psychologists would say that masculinity and femininity exist on a kind of continuum, and would say that masculinity with no feminine traits, or femininity with no masculine traits is pathological. The only people who really believe in total masculinity are junior and senior highschool boys involved in the frightening project of their own sexuality, who are merciless toward any other boy who is soft or “feminine.” This is a case of what Jung would call “shadow possession.” Terrified at the feminine traits they sense within themselves, their fear becomes hatred for any boy who manifests the least trace of dreaded femininity. An yes, there are grown men who have never gotten past that adolescent phase.

        As a strong heterosexual (not an easy assignment for a celibate) I have no natural empathy when I see a man kiss a man or a woman kiss a woman. But I am not operating within their reality, which is as deep-seated as my own. I am like those little ring-bearers and flower girls in that incredible marriage picture who cover their eyes or open their mouths in horror when the bride and groom engage in a loving embrace and a passionate kiss. What gay people experience is outside my understanding. But my friendship with gay people causes me to respect them as human beings. They are among the best people I have ever known, and would not do what is dishonorable.

        I know, I know. This is “relativism.” But God takes us where we are.

        • St JD George

          You should be quite comfortable then in this world, because that is in the direction we seem to be headed … rushing into the unknown with open arms into like unto a brave new world. Why do you put your faith in the blind psychologist who does not understand yet feebly tries to pry into what is God’s providence? Indeed there are many people who call themselves Christian who don’t live according to God’s plan in loving one another, including a lack of empathy towards others not like themselves, but is that a solid basis for relativism? Relativism exists in the mind and like a pathogen because it enables the rationalization of anything, like guns leaping off the table to shoot people (that was meant in a bit of humor, laugh). SSM is not rational, nor moral, nor natural. Did you read Tom’s personal reply from yesterday?

          • hombre111

            St. George, Christianity has always been rushing into the unknown with arms open. Take the drama of the very earliest Church. Christ died for us on the cross, but did following him mean everybody would have to live by all the rules of the Mosaic Law, especially circumcision and the dietary codes. It was inconceivable to St. James that there could be any other choice. But St. Steven, who was a Greek speaking Jew from outside Jerusalem, saw an end, not only to the Mosaic Law, but to the temple itself. When St. Phillip preached in Samaria, he was crossing a line. When Peter went into the house of the Roman officer to preach Christ, he was violating Jewish law and stepping into the unknown. What? Give way to Gentiles and forgo the ancient Tradition? Surely, this was relativism.

            For two thousand years, Christianity was comfortable with branding homosexuals perverse. Now they are emerging to demand their stake in humanity. They are asking us to cross a line. As a follower of Christ, is the only thing I can say about them is that theirs is a disordered condition? They are a whole lot more complicated than that. For the early apostles, it was almost unthinkable to preach Jesus without the Jewish Law. But Greek-speaking Jews from outside the bubble, saw it differently. We do not appreciate the struggle today, but it must have been as difficult as the present struggle over the gays.

            • St JD George

              Unknown in terms of fate, but not unknown in terms of what he revealed to them, including that they and we would suffer for his name. As I read the NT I often immerse myself in their life and times, and of the saints who came after as well.
              Did you read Tom’s reply yesterday? I believe it is an affliction and can be overcome, even if by struggling and choosing to be celibate. The act of sodomy is perverse, including among heterosexuals. Like with the woman adulterer, we should admonish those who would stone, BUT ALSO remind the sinner they have an obligation to sin no more. We seem to be uncomfortable in our society in doing the later or even recognizing evil exists, while acknowledging our own ability to sin.

              • hombre111

                You skipped the point. They clearly did not know that the Jewish Law and the Temple were done with, or there would have been argument. They had to sort it out with the help of the Holy Spirit, and step into a world not ruled by the Torah.

                I looked for Tom’s reply, but it was so far down the thread I didn’t find it. It is too easy to tell a homosexual that he can overcome his affliction if only he put his mind and heart to it, and lives a celibate life. Some people claim to have done this. A lot have tried, and failed. And my conscience hears God’s voice in the background asking judgmental heterosexuals for whom this is not a problem, “why do you make it so hard on some people? Don’t you remember what my Son said about binding up huge bundles for other people to carry?”

                • St JD George

                  I understand the point about being full of zeal but starting something new and rebellious.
                  How is it a burden to not recognize SSM, God does not, why should we? Or encourage sodomy, which is implicit if not explicit?

                  • hombre111

                    There is a certain risk in basing moral conclusions on an early iron age document. Citing the source in a different place, someone could say, “God recognized slavery and said that blasphemers and recalcitrant sons should be stoned to death.” It is tricky. How do we separate God’s will from something that is culturally and historically conditioned?

                    • St JD George

                      That’s why we are not strict fundamentalists, we recognize that the Bible was passed down largely based on oral tradition, certainly reflective of the times, based on people’s understanding of the inspired, not the literal word of God … at least in much of the OT. He finally freed his chosen people from unjust slavery and bondage to deliver them, and he also said that the poor will always be among you. He never said that it was his will was to make all people equal economically, though he did admonish those who had gifts of talent not to build bigger barns of store their treasures of grain and goods on earth, to squander, and that each of us can be like unto a mustard seed in our faith. He also knew that gentiles throughout the land would be hungry to hear his good news and commissioned his apostles and disciples to spread it. Indeed it was hard for them, and no less so today, but Christ calls us to teach and to spread the good news, not to enable by relying on a crutch of modern psychology to rationalize behavior from the mind of a spiritually undeveloped soul. There are gentiles still today who culturally and historically conditioned, should we just accept? SSM and sodomy and all forms of sexual perversion I feel safe in saying are blasphemous in the eyes of the Lord, and I don’t think he wants us to turn the other cheek. That does not mean condoning like IS in the ME, that means being merciful yet forceful, and not enabling.

                    • hombre111

                      Nice summary of things, tractor guy. :>) Jesus said the poor are always with you “and you can help them if you wish.” Which we don’t. One of the best ways for the ordinary person to have a hands on experience of helping the poor is to work with St. Vincent de Paul. Lacking that, he can give his waitress a generous tip.

                      As for the morality of the crotch issues and the stand we take? Sure does take up a lot of energy. Sexual perversion? I’m agin it. Anal intercourse? It has its own punishment, as in eventual incontinence, because the sphincter muscle is seriously weakened. Might be more effective if we simply pointed that out. A person could say, do you want to wear a diaper in middle age so you don’t poop yourself?

                      But probably, if we add up the damage done, the greatest harm to the children is poverty and divorce. Take the riots in Baltimore. A good summary of causes in the Washington Post and Time Mag. The jobs left Baltimore, and behind, there is only black despair. Another aspect of the “creative destruction” which is at the heart of the capitalist system. Businesses that leave America for cheaper wages and no environmental protections should have to pay a penalty to help clean up the social cost. That is one of the reasons the poor are always with us.

                    • St JD George

                      We do help at our parish SVDP. Delivering basic things we take for granted is eye opening for those who don’t see it and drive by. It tests my faith asking questions to be sure. Sometimes we run across people of faith with deep gratitude, more often others who seem incapable of making the positive changes that they are capable of to improve their lot. Still captialism has raised more out of poverty in the world than any other system known. I have a friend whose family fled Venezuela before the socialist thug Chavez came to power. Turned it from a paradise to a dump with a whole country in despair instead of just a few, except for the ruling class that is. That story is told over and over and over again in world history.

                    • hombre111

                      Capitalism has also plunged more people into poverty than the world has ever known. Communism didn’t come from outer space. It arrived because of the ravages of capitalism. Unless there was a war or some kind of climate disaster, there was no generalized starvation until market capitalism came along.

                      Here is an example, from Colombia, where I lived. On second thought, I have to go hear confessions. Then, four Masses again this weekend.

                    • St JD George

                      Father, you know I joust with you here a bit. It is clear our perspectives are born in part by our experiences and perhaps too our nature. We could go on citing examples all day, but I think we both know where the problems lie, a lack of faith. I have worked hard and I know I have been blessed. As I grow into my faith I want to make the church the center of my life and move beyond labels identified with either donkeys or elephants. They divide, but there is one who can unify, and in him we should focus all our energies.

                    • hombre111

                      I enjoy our conversations, tractor-man. It pleases and amazes me to see you are trying to make the Church the center of your life. People are so busy working and raising kids, they often don’t have the time or energy. Today, in a few minutes, I will celebrate Mass with a church full of anglos. As usual, I will feel blessed because the Church will be full, and I am not sure where those empty churches are. I will preach about Mary and try to get them to focus on God. Then, the Spanish Mass, with folding chairs and a thousand people and I will try to say the same thing in Spanish. Three Masses to go, including a forty mile drive to the state penitentiary.

                    • St JD George

                      Since I was baptized a year ago last Easter God is all I think about. When I was in San Jose a few years ago for 6 months I was the only Anglo in a mostly Hispanic church, and am 6 and a half feet tall, blond (or white) so I stood out as not a regular.

                    • hombre111

                      I really enjoy celebrating Mass in Spanish. Take yesterday. For the noon Spanish Mass they have to bring in about three hundred chairs and the place is jammed. We had a glorious May Procession, sang Las Mananitas for a guy celebrating his 102 birthday, I gave out Communion until my arthritic arm was aching, and then a whole mountain of children came forth for the blessing we give just before the end of Mass. Along the way, that glorious Mexican music to a Latin beat, full of love and devotion.

                      Conservative sites I like to check out are The American Conservative and First Things.

                    • St JD George

                      We had a growing vibrant Hispanic community in ATL, and do here as well in OH. Our Pastor, who is very Anglo and not far behind you in age, spent ~5 years in Chile many years ago and learned to speak “Spanish” in his mission there. He’s one of the few priests who can in our Diocese and I know he feeds off of their energy as well. A few times a year he has a shared Mass where he will speak both as a reminder of our diverse parish community, and also pragmatically due to the need to have one Mass sometimes for an special occasion.

                      Our Pope reminded us last week (again) “Catholics must be active in politics, no matter how ‘dirty,’ “, to continue the struggle for the greater common good. So I guess we’ll carry on struggling to figure out the best way to march forward while we are in this world.

                      Hope your arthritic arm cam get some rest today and recover.

                    • hombre111

                      Thanks. your pastor might have been part of something called the St. James Society, which allows diocesan priests to work in Latin America. He might have something to tell you about the suffering Church in Chile and its witness to justice in the face of the Pinochet regime and its aftermath.

                    • St JD George

                      Yes, he has strong feelings for the influence of Pinochet, and our government’s role in supporting him – a strong Roman Catholic. He was there after his rule of course. Different circumstances, but no doubt our Pope had some similar feelings stirred by his experiences with the strong armed dictatorships in Argentina, and the missing dissenters.

                    • St JD George

                      Reading the gospel and being inspired by Jesus is fulfilling, and opening one’s heart to the Holy Spirit. Leading an enterprise as large as a country is quite another thing with fallen men, so many forces pulling in different directions tearing at your flesh, and having differences of opinion on how “best to” by people who probably at their core really want “what’s best” and aren’t entirely self absorbed. I would say it’s the very rare exception to find one who would step into that role who is not ego driven. Not every everyday decision is so clear cut as to “what would Jesus do” and people of faith can and do come to different conclusions on how best to solve problems here on earth. I would more easily follow a humble man who makes mistakes but acknowledges his limitations and who prays for strength and wisdom from God, knowing that all power and glory flow from him. I do believe in Satan and that he tempts us away from Christ, and that not acknowledging evil exists is a big problem in our society today. He, being the father of lies, does it through obfuscation and preying on our free will to get us to make the decisions of our own damnation as the exercise of choice. Today that battle is for the hearts and minds of those who rationalize un-sacramental marriages between SS couples, or accept sodomy and other sexual perversions as normal and healthy between all people.

                    • St JD George

                      I applaud your prison ministry work. That is a passion of my pastor as well, and I think about going with him maybe sometime in the future. Probably no place where you can have a more positive impact. I read all the time how Islam is spreading like wildfire through our prison system today and it doubly depresses me. Not enough people to spread the good news so the grab what is offered.

                    • hombre111

                      Of all the people around, prisoners are at the bottom. They leave prison with nothing. We make efforts to help them after that, but we are a bucket under a waterfall.

                    • St JD George

                      What do you think are the differences in spiritual and material poverty. I could, but I don’t want to make any generalizations about inner cities like we saw last week. I don’t believe it is just a matter of money. Lots of money has been poured over the years and yet the results are the same, or worse. Do you really believe it is just they are being taken advantage of? I think liberal policies have destroyed families, created inner generational dependence on the goverenment, ruined work ethic, and have created more despair than hope. What ever we are doing it clearly ain’t working.

                    • hombre111

                      Agree about things not working. Mother Theresa described the spiritual poverty she discovered in the United States. I see this more and more in a few of my relatives. They just don’t have a sense of God or any other higher purposes in their lives.

                      The causes of material poverty are complicated. As I have said somewhere else, half of all Americans have an IQ 90 or below. The work that might have given many of them some kind of decent life just doesn’t exist any more. The recent crash left many out of work forever. They don’t have the skills, their jobs have moved, or they are considered too old. The one liberal policy that has had the most damage is easy divorce, which is a quick jump into poverty for many. I don’t know where the ruined work ethic came from in my mostly Republican state. Can’t blame the liberals for that. It seems to be a generational cohort sort of thing. I have special contempt for some men in my expanded family who don’t really look for work.

                    • St JD George

                      I have too in my family which no doubt makes me jaded. Lost their job in retail and never looked for work all the years unemployment kept getting extended. As soon it was ended they found one. What gets under my skin the most is the attitude though, the hyper defensiveness that somehow the government owes it to them and actually bitter when the checks stopped coming. Able bodied mind you.

                      It is only going to get worse as traditional jobs are displaced by tech work that requires more knowledge than before.

                      I think the EU is a disaster and I don’t look to it for a role model. It’s birth rates are near one, people are mostly afraid, churches are emptying, people look to the state to solve all thei problems, there are so many regulations people are afraid not knowing what to do except what they are told, and the continent is aging.

                    • St JD George

                      And yes, I can farm but I can’t hunt … except for ground hogs with my 22.

                      Nice way with words on the other topic. I have friends who are nurses in trauma centers who see that in young men now, long before old age. Very, very sad.

                    • St JD George

                      My son worked at a large retail store on the edge of an urban area and he said that they had a merchandise theft rate of 20%. After 10 or more years of operating they are closing their doors this year and moving else where. If you were a business owner and put your own sweat and equity into an enterprise that you needed to feed your family, would you put up with that too, if you had a choice? There are no easy answers. Unless people are morally grounded and invested in their communities and families things will never change. Telling people all the time that it’s not their fault, somebody else is to blame for holding them back, and that they being able bodied are entitled to the fruit of others labors for life is morally reprehensible in my opinion.

                    • hombre111

                      Unfortunately, a lot of times it is not the fault of the workers. Move entire industries to areas where people will work for less…and less…and less. This is why employers come to my state, where the brochures boast about low wages. They don’t make their living in my state; they ship their goods elsewhere. But one industry just moved out, because they found even lower wages and fewer regulations in Mexico.

                      I can understand the theft problem, though. It is a vicious circle. But you don’t have to be poor to have that attitude. Look at the Lords of Wall Street who caused the collapse.

    • bonaventure

      The author’s argument does NOT exclude the marriage of elderly opposite sex people:

      Yet that union in virtue always has primacy; it is for this reason that St. Thomas will say the marriage of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph is a perfect marriage. (Bold emphasis mine).

      The point is: the union of opposite sexes in marriage is virtuous (whatever their age), while homosexuality in and of itself is intrinsically disordered, and therefore a vice (whether behavioral, or simply emotional) that cannot be united to produce any good.

  • america111

    ” In fact, many marriages today would be fictional: marriages that are temporary, marriages entered into out of selfish reasons, marriages motivated by greed or lust, are not real in any sense, for they lack the defining characteristic of permanence grounded in virtue. ” Exactly why the Catholic Church finds many “marriages” invalid, and thus gives annulments.

  • Thank you Mr. Jacobs. This is one of the best short essays I’ve read to date addressing the present anthropological crisis.

    Corrupt ideas about human nature and behavior are wreaking havoc throughout humankind. Children are being conceived and cast away in ways ought to inspire animal-rights activism. Depraved practitioners of medicine, instead of healing minds and bodies, are enabling phantasm-plagued patients to undergo elective surgeries to cure imaginary afflictions. Starvation and suicide have become accepted medical procedures. To alleviate increasing varieties of madness, human beings produce expanding classes of pharmacologic agents, while the ‘non-rational’ creatures in the Animal Kingdom seem ever more sane. With respect to the meaning and purpose of gender and sexuality especially, the latter are holding down the fort.

    Like Socrates, those who follow the truth are condemned and then must swallow the poison—but it does us no harm…and the cup overflows…

  • Micha Elyi

    Q.Is Homosexual Marriage Even Possible?

    A. No more than pi = 3 is possible, even if the State decrees it so.
    So-called homosexual or “gay” marriage is a lie, a counterfeit of marriage. It can never be marriage.
    __________
    Question Authority. (Ask me anything.)

  • Jay

    Dr. Jacobs,

    Let me first say that I am grateful for your response here. While I think the first half of your argument is sound, and agree that “traditional marriage” is a misnomer based on the distinction you rightly draw between custom and nature, I think you might do well to reconsider the second half of your argument, i.e., that part of the argument that touches on the distinction between the ends of marriage. I think it is unwise to assert so definitively that procreation not the primary end of marriage, and that St. Thomas himself actually taught this: http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2244/1842. In fact, in many places, St. Thomas seems very clearly to assert the exact opposite, not to mention many other church documents such as Casti Connubii, the 1917 Code, etc. Nor do I find that the arguments taken from Aristotle’s treatise on friendship necessarily support your conclusion, and a sign of this is that you cannot formally and properly distinguish marriage from other true friendships based solely on this argument. The final end is what is most formal and determinate. It seems to me that it is important that we continue to hold up procreation as the natural primary end of marriage in order to see most clearly and precisely why homosexuals “marriages” cannot exist.

  • Jolundy

    I had asked these question before and I going to ask it again. 1) What part of a man’s body was made for another man? 2) What part of a woman’s body was made for another woman? If the answer to these two questions is “0”, then homosexual marriages is nothing but a bunch of filthy foolishness.

  • Fred E Rick

    I had to laugh when I saw the image Crisis Magazine “A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity” is using to discuss “natural marriage”. The ancient Egyptian Kingdom condoned and preferred that Pharaohs marry their sisters to keep their bloodline pure. Ha! LOL! Too Funny!

  • OfTheseTheGreatest

    If it is factual that sons who are raised without their fathers grow up to be homosexual prostitutes, then we as faithful Catholics should focus our attention on helping couples strengthen and preserve their marriages. If at least 95% of the population is heterosexual, and 50% of marriages end in divorce, that is a lot of sons without fathers. We are perhaps misdirecting our energies towards the 5% (or less) of the population that is homosexual. By sheer volume, thoughtless marriage and no-fault divorce is ruining the family far more than any homosexuals will ever do.

    • bonaventure

      One effort (to save marriage from divorce) does not exclude the other effort (to save marriage from the attacks of homosexuality). In fact, the two are related, as both divorce and homosexuality stem from the same contraceptive mentality of the culture of death.

MENU