The Case Against Same-Sex “Marriage”

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 28 about whether there is a “constitutional right” to same-sex “marriage.” For the first time in history, our nation faces a dizzying prospect—that its laws, its courts, and the coercive power of the state that upholds them, could be turned against supporters of traditional marriage by judicial fiat.

This is not the first time that traditional marriage has been attacked at the Supreme Court level. But as the New York Times reported last week, it is the first time that top lawyers and top law firms have refused to file any briefs in support of it.

The New York Times suggests that one of the reasons why Big Law will not defend marriage is that some firms think that there are no good arguments against same-sex “marriage.” I wholeheartedly disagree. Although same-sex “marriage” masquerades as marriage, it cannot do the single most important thing that marriage does: create the stable nexus of relationships that serve as the building block of society.

We can see how same-sex “marriage” differs from marriage if we consider the most popular argument in favor of same-sex “marriage”: denying marriage to same-sex couples is like the denial of service to patrons at a restaurant on the basis of race. This is how the argument is expressed in the New York Times. It’s a brilliant rhetorical move because it quickly demonizes opponents of same-sex “marriage” by lumping them in with Klansmen. But it’s also a logically flawed move: it pretends that we are denying a group of people equal access to an institution, when in fact the members of that group have always been free to enter that institution, yet since they have no real interest in doing so, are now asking to create a new institution in its place.

So let’s break the race argument down. In its basic form, it has five steps:

  1. What we are born with is natural
  2. We are born with race and a sexual orientation
  3. What is natural is good
  4. Race and sexual orientation are good
  5. No one should be prevented from marrying based on what is good

Does it work? That depends on whether all the premises in the argument are true. Let’s take a look at the first premise: “What is natural is good.” Is that true? Well, it depends on what you mean by “natural.” There are three options:

First Option: Sometimes we say that things are natural when they happen according to the ordinary course of events.

In this case, “natural” is the opposite of “unusual.” For example, according to the ordinary course of events, people are born with 46 chromosomes. That is natural. But not all people are born with 46 chromosomes. According to the Center for Disease Control approximately 0.15 percent of babies are born with 47 chromosomes, a condition known as Trisomy 21. That is unusual, not natural. Likewise, according to the CDC approximately 1.6 percent of adults identify as gay or lesbian. Assuming that all of them were born with sexual desires oriented towards members of the same sex (and that is an assumption, not a proven fact), being born with sexual desires oriented towards members of the same sex is unusual, not natural. So, if “natural” means “happens according to the ordinary course of events,” then the first premise is false: what we are born with is not always natural. And the whole argument falls apart.

Second Option: Sometimes we say that things are natural when we receive them from our parents at conception, or when they come from what we receive from our parents at conception.

If that is what natural means, then “natural” is the opposite of “supernatural.” In this sense, it is natural to have two arms and two legs, because we receive two arms and two legs from our parents. Likewise, it is natural to walk, because eventually those two legs will develop into limbs capable of walking. By contrast, it is supernatural for a human being to have wings, because our parents don’t have wings; likewise, it is supernatural to fly without the help of machines, because if you don’t have wings, you can’t develop the power to fly. Skin color is natural in this sense—it follows directly from the skin color of our parents. Same-sex attraction may also be natural in this sense (although that has yet to be proven), and I am willing to grant it for the sake of argument.

So let’s move on to our next premise, “what is natural is good.” That seems reasonable, because having two arms and two legs covered with skin is good, and so is walking with two legs. But if we think about it carefully enough, we run into a problem. Walking with legs covered in skin is natural, but so is stepping on someone’s face—if I have legs, those actions are both equally within my power. Eating a sandwich with my arms is natural, but so is punching someone with them. What we receive from our parents at conception puts a lot of power at our disposal, but we can use that power to do good or to do evil. So, if “natural” means “what we receive from our parents at conception or what develops from it,” then the second premise is false. What a person is born with is natural, but what is natural is not necessarily good—what we are born with is neither good nor bad. What is good or bad is what we choose do with what we are born with.

Third Option: Sometimes we say that things are natural when they make us healthy. In this sense, “natural” is the opposite of “unnatural.” This definition is the trickiest of all because health is not a measurable or empirically quantifiable reality, like the ordinary course of events (which the CDC has quantified for us with regard to Trisomy 21 and same-sex attraction), or the observation of what lies within our power (which we can experience on a daily basis). According to the World Health Organization “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” And, while you can take people’s temperature and measure their blood pressure to see if they are free of disease or infirmity, you can’t quantify their well-being.

So if you can’t quantify health, how do you know if you have it? One way to tell if you have well-being would be to ask yourself if you feel like you have it. It’s a popular opinion, which is often used to support same-sex “marriage,” but there’s a problem with it: imagine that you’ve been un-healthy in some aspect of your life for a long time and you’ve never known any better? You’d make the mistake of assuming that your sickness was health—like an asthmatic assuming that everyone is supposed to wheeze, just because that is his or her experience of breathing.

So look beyond yourself at humanity throughout history. As a rule, people order themselves and their societies around four basic goods, which are required for human flourishing:

  1. Self-Preservation
  2. Having and Raising Children
  3. Cultivating the Life of the Mind
  4. Living in Society

Classical philosophy calls these four goods “natural goods” because if natural means “healthy,” then they are four things that humans tend to seek to maintain physical, mental, and social health. The only addition to the WHO definition of health is having and rearing children—which the WHO didn’t include because it was talking about the health of individuals, not the health of the human species and of society as a whole.

“Natural” Means Ordered toward Our Well-Being
With that in mind, let’s get back to our first question: is what we are born with natural? If “natural” means “healthy” then what we are born with is natural if and only if it is ordered towards physical, mental, and social well-being. Let’s take skin color, for example. Skin color arises from the concentration of melanin in the epidermis, and is ordered to the natural good of self-preservation by absorbing UV radiation. To the extent that we have an appropriate amount of melanin in the epidermis to absorb UV radiation (which the vast majority of people do, no matter their skin color), then the skin color we are born with is “natural,” because it is well-ordered to physical health. If, however, we happen to suffer from some skin condition, such as albinism, whereby we lack a sufficient amount of melanin in our skin to absorb the UV radiation to which we are subjected in the course of ordinary life, our skin color is “unnatural,” because it was not well-ordered to physical health. Notice the words I just used to describe albinism: I said it was “unnatural,” or “not well-ordered,” but I never said that it was “bad.” That is because “good” and “bad” are words that apply only to actions. It is not good or bad to be albino; rather, people with albino skin can do good and bad things, just like everyone else.

The same is true of people who experience same-sex attraction. As we saw above, things we are born with are neither good nor bad. They simply are. Feelings we are born with do not bring us closer or farther away from health; actions do. That’s because there’s a big difference between tending to want to do something and actually doing it. For example, someone says something that makes you feel angry. You may not be able to do anything about feeling angry. But you do have a choice of what to do next—do you walk away, ask him for clarification, or punch him in the face? Walking away or asking for clarification may mean not giving voice to your anger, even though you feel it very strongly. But does that mean your only option is to punch him in the face? Hardly. You do not have to act on your feeling, and often times it’s better if you don’t. The same is true for sexual attraction. If someone comes into the room to whom you are sexually attracted, you don’t have to have intercourse with them. You have lots of other options.

Even if feelings are neither good nor bad, we can call them “well-ordered” or “dis-ordered” depending on whether they tend to make us want to do things that are well-ordered towards physical, mental, and social health. Sexual attraction, like skin color, is usually ordered towards something healthy: having and raising children. To the extent that we experience the kind of sexual attraction necessary for the propagation of the human species (which, according to the CDC study I cited above, 98 percent of people do), our sexual attraction is well-ordered, because it makes us tend to want to do something that contributes to the health of the species. If, on the other hand we lack a sexual attraction that makes us tend to want to propagate the human species, it would be entirely appropriate to say that our sexual attraction was “disordered” or “unnatural” because it would not promote the health of the species.

How Race and Sexual Orientation Differ
This is the point at which race and sexual orientation differ. If “natural” means “healthy,” and what is healthy tends towards self-preservation, having/raising children, cultivating the life of the mind, and living in society, then almost every skin color a person can be born with is natural, because it contributes to physical health, but same-sex attraction is unnatural, because it directs us away from the health of the species. So, if you follow the argument about marriage with regard to race, it is airtight in almost every case; if you try to follow it through with regard to same-sex attraction, it falls apart from the get go!

Be that as it may, having children is not merely a biological process. Biology 101 tells us that you can’t procreate by yourself. In order to procreate, you have to enter into a sexual act with a person of the opposite sex. Consequently, the act of procreation does not just transfer a sperm to an egg to create a zygote; it brings together two people into an embrace of one another. Moreover, when the sperm and the egg make a zygote, the newly conceived child is not an isolated cell-clump with no relationship to the world; he or she is defined by a series of relationships: to a mother first of all, from whom he or she draws nutrition and sustenance, to a father, and through them to the rest of the world: uncles, aunts, siblings, cousins, and so on. That means that the biological act of having children doesn’t just contribute to the health of the species; it also contributes to social health, because it establishes the fundamental nexus of relationships that constitute the building block of society. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2207) So a well-ordered sexual attraction is not just about biology; it’s about society. It tends not only towards having children, but also towards raising them with the person you embraced to procreate them, and thereby to the creation of human society.

That is marriage. Marriage as I’ve set it forth is not something that some government or religion established, and so it’s not something that some government or religion can change. It’s something that people throughout history have discovered over and over again about the nature of health, of human persons, and of human society, just by looking reasonably beyond themselves, their feelings, and their situation. So let’s be clear about what our Supreme Court justices will be considering on April 28. The question before them is not whether people with same-sex attraction have a right to enter into the relationship that forms the building block of society. They are just as free as anyone else to enter into that relationship, and no one is saying otherwise. But then again, that would mean entering into a relationship with a person of the opposite sex, which for understandable reasons they may not wish to do.

Rather, the question before the Supreme Court is whether the government should institutionalize a different kind of relationship, which is founded upon a disordered feeling, which makes people tend to want to engage in acts that cannot result in procreation, which cannot create the network of relationships upon which society is founded, and so which is, in the truest sense of the word, “unnatural.” And the Supreme Court of the United States would do grave harm to American society if it tried to force such an unnatural institution upon us, and to pretend as though there were no difference between it and the original.

Jacob W. Wood

By

Jacob W. Wood is an Assistant Professor of Theology and a Faculty Associate of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He earned his Master's in theology from St. Andrews University and his Ph.D. from The Catholic University of America.

  • SnowSong

    All these reasons this is wrong..so many many reason, all right, all reasonable all in God’s will, the only real reason this is wrong is because God says NO. Problem comes into this when man FEELS otherwise. It’s that simple, simple as when Satan thought to himself he wanted to be God, problem there was he wasn’t God, he was a creature, a creation of God and so he could never be God even though he wanted to be so. Same with homosexuals, they aren’t God so they can never say what they want to be so is so and right, God, their creator, says NO.

    • Dear SnowSong:

      Since you’re obviously so chummy with Him, maybe one of these days you can get God to hold a press conference. There’s a variety of contemporary issues I’d sure like to get His opinion on. Climate change, for example. Is human industrial activity warming the planet and causing the weather to become more erratic? Or is it just a natural cycle? Surely He would know.

      • Don

        Chuck, since you enjoy visiting a Catholic website to comment on this topic, please answer two questions for me – and I’m not trying to be rude but just understand where you are coming from: (1) Are you Catholic? and if so (2) How do you square your faith with your position? – and be specific please.

        • Asmondius

          ‘Chuck’ is simply the ‘Max Headroom’ for pro-homo activists seeking to rattle the chains of people on Catholic blogs.
          .
          Whoever is working the persona on a given day spins out some general themes from their playlist (for example, see ‘But five years from now, people will wonder what all the fuss was about’ in various recent articles) and then does their best to rebut you with their own individual arguments. Note the snidely atheistic spin of this person’s comment.

          .
          The good news probably is that if someone is going through all of this trouble attempting to sow confusion and dissension in the ranks, they obviously have some real concerns.

          • Objectivetruth

            He should know by now he’s not convincing anyone with his anti Catholic argumentation and rhetoric. If anything, Chuck plays the role of the “Devil’s Advocate” by taking Satan’s side and speaking untruths he only gives clarity and concreteness to Christ’s teachings/Truths on faith and morals. Chuck inadvertently only supports the Catholic position.

            • LarryCicero

              I think his avatar has the horns cropped out.

              • REALLY, Larry? That’s just priceless.

                • John200

                  Chuck,
                  Your views are priceless. And since price is based on value, your views have no value.

                  Second point: We know you are not the devil and you do not have horns. That would be your theological muse, he’s the one who wears those ornaments and runs your life.

                  • You’re welcome.

                    • John200

                      Of course, the catch is that you are not doing yourself any good.

                      Gotta want the grace and the forgiveness, Chuck. In this sport, you don’t get the rewards just for showing up.

                      Friendly advice: Drop the partner, he isn’t helping you. In fact, he is stealing from you. He is stealing everything from you.

                • eddiestardust

                  Actually Chuck, the more you and others like you post and get angry at us and do all sorts of nasty things to us..the more resolute we become..Basically it’s human nature…but you aren’t that smart I guess….The Roman Catholic Church is 2,000 years old…Gay marriage? only 15 years old….

                  • Mike Nadeau

                    It’s not random people posting on this site that you have to worry about. It’s nut cases like ISIS that are in the process of wiping out what’s left of Christianity in its birthplace. Now they’ve been migrating to Europe and multiplying like rabbits while the Pope encourages Europe to welcome more of them. It looks like that “turning the other cheek” and “the blood of the martyrs” business isn’t working out so well.

                • LarryCicero

                  I’m onto you, Beelzebub.

          • Tamsin

            somewhere, there’s a timeclock that was punched…

        • Jacqueleen

          I can’t seem to find Chuck Anziulewicz’s answer anywhere?

        • Martha

          I imagine he’s an atheist. I don’t think he’d mock the Lord like he does if he weren’t.

          • Asmondius

            You’ll find that many atheist/humanist sites are fairly well-populated by homosexuals or homosexual advocates.

            • Jeremy Brothers

              You sound very familiar with them.

      • eddiestardust

        Chuck, why do you enjoy going to Catholic sites and giving us all a hard time? We normal folks don’t go to gay sites or didn’t you know that?

        • You are hereby invited to go to LGBT websites and vent your spleen. And guess what? You will never be banned!

          • Objectivetruth

            I actually do believe Chuck that it’s important that you continue to post here because your views reflect those of Satan, thus making you the “devil’s advocate.” I say this in all objectiveness and sincerity, you have a role to play, representing the thoughts of one diametrically opposed to Christ and His Truths.

            Catholics know what (and Whom) the Truth is. When your “untruth” postings on homosexuality are viewed side by side with those of devout Catholics on this site, Catholic teaching takes on a greater clarity and meaning to those poorly catechized Catholics/Christians coming to this site.

            We’re all searching for the Truth, Chuck. In an ironic way, your postings give people coming to Crisismagazine fine examples of what Truth is not, making the Truths of the Church far more attractive and appealing. This actually gives you a role in evangelization.

            So please…….continue to post! In reality, you’re probably bringing many souls to the Church!

          • eddiestardust

            Guess what Chuck, I choose not to go to gay sites:)

            • Mike Nadeau

              That’s too bad. I bet there are some hot studs who’d love to spitroast you.

        • Mike Nadeau

          You might meet a nice tranny.

      • Aldo Elmnight

        http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/church_sodomy.htm
        In the Old Testament Scripture refers to the vice of homosexuality with special severity:
        • “And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous” (Gen. 18:20).
        • The angels arrived at Lot’s house, under the appearance of two handsome men. “But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? Bring them out hither that we may know them. . . . And they pressed very violently upon Lot; and they were even at the point of breaking open the doors. And behold the men [angels] put out their hand, and drew in Lot unto them, and shut the door. And them that were without, they struck with blindness from the least to the greatest, so that they could not find the door” (Gen. 19:4-11).
        • “And they [the angels] said to Lot: . . . all that are thine bring them out of this city, for we will destroy this place, because their cry [of their crimes] is grown loud before the Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them” (Gen. 19:12-13).
        • “And they brought him forth, and set him without the city: and there they spoke to him, saying: Save thy life; look not back, neither stay thou in all the country about, but save thyself in the mountain, lest thou be also consumed” (Gen. 19:17).
        • “And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth. And his wife looking behind her, was turned into a statue of salt. And Abraham got up early in the morning, and . . . looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country, and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace” (Gen. 19:24-28).
        • “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22).
        • “Defile not yourselves with any of these things [illicit unions, child sacrifice, sodomy, and bestiality] with which all the nations have been defiled, which I will cast out before you, and with which the land is defiled; the abominations of which I will visit, that it may vomit out its inhabitants. . . . Beware then, lest in like manner, it vomit you also out, if you do the like things” (Lev. 18:24-28).
        • “If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them” (Lev. 20:13).
        • “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God” (Deut. 22:5).
        • On the punishment that God prepared for the Jews: “And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them . . . the shew of their countenance hath answered them: and they have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom, and they have not hid it: woe to their souls, for evils are rendered to them. . . . The Lord standeth to judge the people” (Is. 3:4-13).
        Vague references to sodomites, without special interest for our exposition, are found in 1 Tim. 1:8-10. Other references to Sodom and Gomorrha, without express mention of the vice of homosexuality: Deut. 29:23; 32:32; Jer. 23:13-14; 49:18; 50:40; Ezech. 16:55-56; Matt. 10:15; Rom. 9:29; Apoc. 11:8.
        In the New Testament, Saint Paul indignantly castigates this vice against nature:
        • “Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind [sodomites] . . . shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
        • In the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle of the Gentiles threatens perverts with punishments even on this earth: “Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error” (Rom. 1:24-27).
        • Saint Peter stresses the infamy of the sin of sodomy and the chastisement God reserves for it: “For if God . . . reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly, and delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked . . . [then] the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented” (2 Peter 2:4-9).
        • Saint Jude is no less severe: “As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighboring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire, in like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion [of Christ], and blaspheme majesty” (Jude 7-8).

      • LarryCicero

        One of his “opinions” is found in Malachi 2:15 “Did he not make one being, with flesh and spirit: and what does that one require but godly offspring?”

        See Chuck, God had a press conference. It was recorded in the Bible. Two men cannot produce offspring- pretending it is marriage won’t change that fact..

        You are mocking God.

      • TERRY

        Go to your room

        please

      • SnowSong

        Or you could ask Him yourself.

        • Mike Nadeau

          “He’s” not answering, as usual.

          • SnowArt

            I usually find it is not God who is silent, it is just that we are not listening to Him.

      • Jacqueleen

        I’d sure like to get His opinion on. Climate change, for example. Is
        human industrial activity warming the planet and causing the weather to
        become more erratic?
        You need to ask your Atheist friends, the greedy ruling class of thugs who are spraying the skies with chemicals to control the weather. Blaming all this on global warming, if you please….not climate change. The only things this spraying is doing is putting millions in the liberal, insane, filthy rich goons’ pockets by making everyone spend a whole lot more on their heating bills due to colder weather and a longer cold winter period and causing many autistic births. We are being duped, raped and robbed and don’t realize it by the ATHEISTS WHO ARE DICTATING DEPOPULATION OF THE WORLD by attacking various avenues. Now, that I have your number…don’t expect a reply from me, again.

        • “Spraying the skies with chemicals to control the weather”? THANK YOU, Jacqueleen.

          • Martha

            I don’t know what they’re doing, but chemtrails are freaky, don’t you think? Maybe it’s more obvious out in the country, or maybe my area gets more action than others; it’s quite noticeable here. So different from contrails that it’s apparent something is going on. It’s not just that the trail is there, it’s the way it behaves; how it spreads thin and drips down until there’s a massive screen of thin white film that looks like it’s literally smeared and dripping across that entire area. Some days it’s kind of overcast, and there aren’t any clouds. I could post amazing pictures!

        • eddiestardust

          IF we grow the atmosphere…and yes that is what we are doing…we change the climate by making it easier for the atmosphere to warm or become a better greenhouse…just like Venus is..and that’s why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

          • Jacqueleen

            Then, since you are the scientist, explain the constant ChemTrails in the sky all over the world?????

      • eddiestardust

        Chuck, ignorance comes in all shapes and sizes. One need not ask God one only needs to know a bit of science, after all God is the author of science:) Explain why Venus is actually hotter than Mercury and you will have your answer…no I’m not kidding it’s pretty simple…

    • Joanna Ionescu

      Not everyone believes in the God of the Bible. There must be sufficient reasons against the so-called same-sex marriage that can appeal to everyone in virtue of having a mind that can reason and follow logical arguments.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        You could try taking a high school level human anatomy course. It should be able to answer all your questions.

        • Joanna Ionescu

          Was there a question?

          • Asmondius

            What is the purpose of the human excretory system?

            • Joanna Ionescu

              Anal Sex as well as oral sex is widely practised by heterosexuals. There seems to be no requirement for them to promise not to engage in such perversion in order to get married. To present a persuasive case against same sex marriage more is required than just stating the biological purposes of various openings. The article is about presenting oral arguments to the Supreme Court. Surely the judges are already aware of the purpose of the human excretory system as you put it.

              • Asmondius

                Answer the question.

                • Joanna Ionescu

                  This is rather ridiculous. We all know the function of the anus is to eliminate feces and of the mouth to speak and take in food. What this have to do with the article above? The state cannot and should not regulate the people’s sexual activity. Nobody can. The case presented here is whether the federal government will take away that which is proper left for the states and impose by judicial fiat same sex “marriage” on the entire country, just like with abortion. Quoting the Bible or stating biological functions will not help the case of the traditional marriage. And the kind of discourse in these comments does not help either. Homosexuality is already legal and socially accepted. It is with the definition of marriage that we are concerned for if same sex marriage becomes the law of the land, next you’ll have the schools’ curricuulum adjusted beginning with kindergarten just like in Canada – indoctrination of children. Talk about the grossness of homosexual acts will not stop the behemoth.

                  • GG

                    What you are saying is that logic is lost on moral idiots. Got it.

              • GG

                Is this gay logic? That heterosexuals can abuse the marital act is not proof two same sex persons can be ” married”.

                • Joanna Ionescu

                  The point is that the courts cannot rule on the morality of sexual acts between consenting adults whether within or outside marriage. The logic follows: just as it is not the court’s business to rule on the morality of sexual activity between heterosexual consenting adults so also for homosexuals. Pretty straightforward. In order to stop the courts redefining marriage so that homosexuals could marry, different arguments must be adduced. Read the article again with care for it is well thought and written.

                  • LarryCicero

                    Marriage must take into consideration the rights of the possible offspring. There are laws against incest. Siblings are prevented from marrying. A child has a right to a mother and father, not that one always has both present in his/her life, but that there exists one biological mother and one biological father, and that it is in the best interest of the child to have both parents present in his/her life. It is unfair to allow consenting siblings to reproduce because it is unfair to the offspring. There is no possibility for same sex “couples” to reproduce. Not only should their relationship not be granted legal marital status, they should be prevented from adopting children, because mother and father are by definition gender specific, as are husband and wife.

                    Marriage is not just about a relationship between two people. Brother and sister could live a celibate life together, but should not be accorded legal benefits for their loving relationship. The marital act can only be performed by couples of the opposite sex, and there are limits on heterosexuals as to who can enter into a marriage.

                    The court needs to look beyond a couples consent, and to the common good, that families deserve a special designation in the law, because families with both parents, are good for society. If this is about benefits, then an argument can be made that the laws discriminate against singles and childless couples. The sexual acts are not equal and can never hold the same potential, and therefore not of equal benefit to society.

                    • Joanna Ionescu

                      Precisely. I totally agree with you. But we live in a very individualistic culture which is also relativistic in the extreme when it comes to morality. If you follow this discussion it goes to snow song above.
                      Everybody agrees on the fact that laws should protect the common good of the society. What remains is to argue persuasively that same sex marriage hurts children and consequently the good of the society. Hard to be convincing in a society that threw out the window natural law and good old socratic logic. We rely now heavily on empirical evidence and studies from the specialists, sociologists, psychologists and the like who are far from reaching any consensus. Such is the sorry state at the present.

                    • santiago

                      Well put. People may define good in their own way and it may be relative but it is still argumentative an while there can be argument for or against something then it should not be closed either way, doing so would be disrespecting the other side of the argument even if it may be flawed. We might know that society is better off with marriage between a man and a woman, but many people out there might not care or might believe that better off is going their way, and again that might be faux, but it is still argumentative in the end. And the present state is the product of many different cultures and beliefs, that is what diversity is, and guess what, the world is divers, the USA is diverse.

                    • GG

                      Children matter more than your anti Catholic logic.

                    • santiago

                      My Anti Catholic logic? hahaha. I am not the one that is being exclusive or trying to make people feel bad about them. I am not the one trying to destroy what little dignity people might have left. And yes Children matter more than many things but not my faith, not by a long shot. I am talking about a legal piece of paper not about children. Gay marriage is separated from gay adoption, single people can adopt and do adopt and many are gay. I find it appalling for sure, no doubt about it. I do not disagree on that point. But I do disagreee that people can not have a legal document that says they are married because of their twisted or none twisted sexuality. The state should not regulate that becuse you open yourself to many other types of regulations that will be for my Catholic faith counterproductive, and I do not want that, not in a million years because it would force me to take actions that I do not want to take in order to defend my faith form the interference of the state in the future and it might even mean taking up arms.

                • Mike Nadeau

                  Anal and oral sex are necessary for those hot triple penetration videos.

                  • GG

                    Loser.

                  • John200

                    Dear Mike,
                    You seem to think that letting boys put things into your bum and your mouth is sex.

                    It isn’t. Stick around CrisisMag, you will learn everything you need to know.

                    Check the archives. The comprehensive refutation of your silly “view” is sitting there, easy to find, and completely persuasive to anyone who has a mind. You have a mind, Mike.

                    I’ll wait awhile….

                    You need not thank me when you see what I have done for you. Just carry forward the message, that will be ample compensation for my effort with you.

                    Best wishes to you and yours.

                    • Mike Nadeau

                      Just to set the record straight, nobody has ever stuck anything anywhere in my vicinity. Not that there’s anything wrong with it. My only sexual outlet has been porn.

                    • John200

                      Scroll up and down this thread. Look at your own comments. Consider what it would take to make up for the trail you have left. That’s your credibility, laying there, destroyed. So it’ll be a while before your word suffices to “set the record straight.”

                      Meanwhile check the archives. There is a full education in there.

                      Best wishes.

            • Mike Nadeau

              Buttsex is a good secondary purpose.

    • santiago

      I do not believe that the devil believes he could be God, he could not deny that he came in to existence because God created him, besides he knows God very well, and he knows that God limits his ability to act, to suit God’s plan. God’s monkey (Satan) only cares about himself and that is it why he did not want to serve because he did not have a say in it like none of us do, he even is offended of his own existence because God created him without his says so, that is why his pride is so deep. We serve wether we like it or not, just as the devil does, and that only serves to make his pride even bigger. God’s plan is perfect and takes in to account all of our choices made through our own free will, just as it takes in to account the existence of the devil, and the beginning of temptation. There is NOTHING that happens in existence without God’s consent and without God’s will.

  • St JD George

    Crisis editors: the directoon lately seems to be heavily weighted to this one topic, can we get back to more balanced writing? Nothing against your article today Jacob.

    • Objectivetruth

      Agreed, but……

      With the upcoming June SCOTUS deliberation/decision on possibly mandating federal approval of “gay marriage ” as the law of the land, the issue is huge. Did you ever think you’d live long enough that the United States would ever federally sanction mortal sin (abortion, sodomy)? I applaud Crisis for sticking with the issue, it really is that important.

      • Martha

        I’m afraid to know what I’ll live long enough to see, if the past 50 years is any signpost for the future! 😮

        • St JD George

          Maybe it’s just the way I feel since I was recently baptized, but I’ve never felt more alive. Storm clouds be damned, the Son will always prevail.

          • Martha

            That’s awesome, Fred! I knew you were a convert, but I didn’t know you were actually just baptized as well! Congrats!!! That must’ve been a great day. 😀

            My husband was Confirmed 4 years ago on the Feast of St. George, and that was pretty awesome, too.

            • St JD George

              Thanks Martha, it was one year ago, and it was awesome.

              • Mike Nadeau

                Enjoy your superstition.

                • John200

                  Enjoy your darkness.

                  Later you might enjoy conversion. It will start the day you wake up.

                  • Mike Nadeau

                    Did you get that from a fortune cookie?

                    • John200

                      Did you get your perspective from an unfortunate cookie?

                      Or from your bum?

                      Wipe and flush, Mike, wipe and flush. It is time for you to improve.

                    • John200

                      Did you get that from the darkness that surrounds you?

                • St JD George

                  It’s called love Mike, and my prayer for you is that you will open your heart and come to know what those of us who have been touched by the Holy Spirit know. Be not afraid, your soul is restless because it is unfulfilled. Love awaits.

      • St JD George

        I get it.

    • We all know what Jacob Wood is trying to accomplish. I suppose people like him are hoping that, by the time the Supreme Court rules that there is no reason why law-abiding Gay couples should be denied the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, the anti-Gay side will be whipped into such a frenzy that they’ll be taking up arms, shooting up weddings, and firebombing Gay bars. If you read comments on sites like WND and CNSNews, you’d think marriage equality for Gay couples was going to precipitate a full-fledged civil war.

      But five years from now, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

      • Objectivetruth

        Chuck, I’ve got to conclude, sitting there in West Virginia, you’re just bored!

        A friend once told me that if you didn’t hunt or fish, there’s nothing to do in West Virginia.

        Son……you need to get out of your own self obsessed head! It appears you stalk Catholic websites 24/7, that ain’t healthy.

        Why don’t you go find a good Catholic charity that helps the poor of Appalachia? That’ll make you feel better, get some fresh air. Your hours everyday spent brooding over the keyboard of a computer must be depressing.

        • Vinny

          I’m sure he’s on a payroll. The bottom of a cascade of Soros money.

        • Mike Nadeau

          They also blog about conference realignment in WV. Check out the “Dude from WV”

      • eddiestardust

        Just like Roe right, well buddy did you realize that The Senate changed hands in November? Get ready, you aren’t going to like what is coming..The People of The United States are NOT going to back down!

        • Mike Nadeau

          Bwahaha! The gays are getting married and you superstitious boneheads can’t stop it.

          • GG

            No, they are not married. It is like saying circles are now squares now. Hahahaha.

      • Jason Wills

        Chuck, did you even bother to read the article?

        • Again, it’s not about a convincing argument. Never has been. Here’s an experiment– ask any pro SSA advocate if science and reason were to conclusively show us that SSA activities are destructive and unnatural, would he reverse his opinion? The answer would be generally “no” because “rights” (read, what *I* want to do) trump right reason.

          In fact, I predict the whole “we were born this way” meme will fade away in the near future since the prospect of choosing one’s “gender” based on desire will be a protected right, as well as choosing one’s “partner”. And if science were to show indisputably no biological determinism in this regard, it wouldn’t matter one bit. The end game of the sexual revolt is to make the individual autonomous about such matters.

          • St JD George

            Hopefully you can appreciate the humor, but I can imagine in my mind God looking down from heaven holding his head in his hands wondering how did my flock get so scattered and confused, where is my prize rooster to lead them, and how are they ever going to find their way back to the coop at the end of time having strayed so far. I’m building a coop right now so chickens are on my mind – could have used sheep, more apropos.

        • Mike Nadeau

          There’s an article?

          • John200

            That’s the first funny thing you said.

            It really brings Chuck to life. There may yet be a man in you.

          • Jason Wills

            Scoll up, Mike.

          • Jason Wills

            Yes, Mike. Scroll up.

      • LarryCicero

        What legal benefits do straight couples have that gay couples don’t? Straight parent living with straight child, straight sibling living with straight sibling, straight friend living with straight friend are all “straight couples.” You want approval of perversion-normalization of the abnormal; legal benefits for sodomy,blessing of sin. You might “love” your friend. You can even be best friends forever: bff. Marriage rules take into consideration the well being of the potential offspring, hence no incest. You will need a third party to reproduce and marriage is limited to couples- that is the rule. If you want to start changing rules, where does it stop?

      • Norman

        Economists still may be fussy:
        http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

      • Martha

        The anti-gay side will be whipped up into a firebombing, gun wielding frenzy? Seriously? Just who is this ‘anti-gay’ side? We are generally Christians. We care because sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. We’re trying to save people’s souls. ‘Firebombing’ and ‘shooting up’ wouldn’t make much sense with that end in mind, now would it?

        My ultimate goal in life is to get myself and the people I love to Heaven. I am also called, through the Spiritual Works of Mercy (one of which is ‘admonish the sinner,’ another is ‘instruct the ignorant’), to try to help those I meet to make it to Heaven as well. That is why we are here, this is what we do.

        • Oh, Martha. I’m not worried about YOU. You seem like a gentle soul. But there are plenty of others who seem determined to take matters into their own hands.

          • eddiestardust

            Chuck..our lives here on Earth are a short bit of time. Eternity is endless. Now the question is this…you are choosing whether or not you want to live happy in the next life or eternally doomed..Your choice but I will choose to pray for you.

            • I respectfully request that you NOT pray for me.

              • eddiestardust

                I care enough about you to want to see you gain heaven..Eternity is a long time…forever. Who would want to be in hellfire for Eternity.
                Request denied:)

              • GG

                I offer you what St. Elizabeth Seton offered her teenage son. We will pray that God continues to purify you. Said with respect and absolute sincerity.

            • Mike Nadeau

              Superstitious twit.

              • eddiestardust

                I will pray for you…you won’t like it much when you realize that you don’t lose consciousness at all…

                • Mike Nadeau

                  The Singularity is coming. Soon nobody will lose consciousness.

                  • eddiestardust

                    Try referencing Dr Elizabeth Kubler-Ross….or NDE’s…

                    • Mike Nadeau

                      NDE’s?! Are you for real?! You’re worse than those New Age hippies.

                    • eddiestardust

                      Maybe you really aren’t as smart as you think you are?:)

                    • Mike Nadeau

                      I don’t think that’s possible.

                    • eddiestardust

                      Pride…that’s a biggy…

                    • GG

                      Arrogance and stupidity are a vicious combination.

              • GG

                Hi genius.

                You have so much to offer us. Keep posting.

                • Mike Nadeau

                  Thanks for your support. I’ll try but on my computer it says I’ve been blocked. Can’t figure that one out.

                  • GG

                    Work on removing your fecalith.

          • Martha

            Aw, Chuck, that’s sweet of you to say when I’ve been ‘admonishing’ you all this time. I must admit, though, there are certainly some crazies on each side, some of which have said horrible things here. You’re one of the most pleasant (pro-homosexual) debaters I’ve met on this site; most are such nasty personalities. You must be a nice guy, as you say. 😉

            We’re not going to quit trying to change your mind, though! You know, plant one of those little seeds that might grow. You are on our turf, after all!

          • eddiestardust

            Chuck…your biological parents gave you life…society is pretty much geared to marriage between a man and woman, creating children and the raising of them to become the next generation of productive citizens. What happens when that changes? Gays can’t produce their own biological children so they have to rely on heterosexuals….A lot will change…it we let the change go through…ultimately this is even far more ranging than Abortion and it will effect our nation in ways most cannot even comprehend right now.

        • eddiestardust

          What’s to stop them…I’m serious…suing someone you know..who isn’t gay…but who has served you…trying to destroy their lives…that’s not violent?

          • Martha

            Are you referring to the pro-gay crowd being violent? If so, I agree. They have shown themselves repeatedly to be violent, while accusing Christians of the hatred, vitriol, and intolerance they’re exhibiting.

      • John200

        This is not a fuss. It is a dispute over approval of subhuman homo”sex”ual behavior for humans. The subhuman behavior does not belong. Those who indulge in it are to be pitied, so we feel pity for them (you).

        I do not expect you to accept such a sophisticated formulation of the issue. Indeed, your comments suggest that you will pretend to misunderstand the truth, and that you won’t and can’t accept it.

        When the world recovers sanity and finally leaves your “thinking” behind, we/they will wonder what all the fuss was about.

        Look at what homo”sex”ual activity will do in terms of moral and spiritual health. Catholics are trying to tell you. Look at the physical results: check the pictures of what homo”sex”uality does to the alimentary canal. They are on the internet. You can easily see what is coming. No one has to experience it.

        Well, maybe you do have to experience it. I dunno.

        • eddiestardust

          Actually, most of the world is NOT for gay marriage at all…

          • John200

            Agree completely. I apologize if I seemed to think the world favors it. Sorry, I misspoke.

            For the record, I think homo”sex”ual “marriage” is impossible. Among its natural effects, I think it harms everyone it touches:
            1. homo”sex”ual activity destroys the homo”sex”ual spiritually, physically, and mentally. The effects are widely known and instantly available to anyone who reads this note.
            2. ditto for the harm done to his partner, which is awful.
            3. it harms others who might have benefited if he had chosen more wisely – start with children, friends, relatives, et al. The list is long. Finally,
            4. it harms society as a whole (never doubt it, you are paying for it. The amount is in the multiples of billions).

            Thus the secular reasons to object to homo”sex”ual activity. The religious or supernatural reasons to reject it are all over the CrisisMag archives, repetitively, and in great detail.

            We have an excellent archive open to us, just a few clicks away. Much has been hashed out over the past 30+ years.

      • eddiestardust

        In January, The United States Senate changed hands…do you not understand why? More folks were convinced we are headed in the wrong direction. Don’t be fooled by Democrats…they have their collective heads in the sand so deep that they don’t realize they are about to lose The White House next year…

      • eddiestardust

        Actually I wish that law abiding gay couples would just mind their own business and not everyone else’s business…Christians and Catholics didn’t start this but in the end we may finish it. Christians don’t file lawsuits against Gay bakers or photographers or florists because they chose not to partake in our Christian weddings…Gays on the other hand…the one’s that choose to..find nothing wrong in just plain mean actions…You folks couldn’t win the vote for gay marriage so you took it…like Roe did…to the courts…Judicial Fiat they call it….Well…many of us realize you don’t give a darn about the rest of us who aren’t gay….

      • eddiestardust

        I imagine that’s exactly what they said in 1973 with Roe….

    • GG

      Just note the swarm of “gay” persons that come to these essays. That is proof the topic is not over used. Our culture is at a crisis point. Children matter.

      • Mike Nadeau

        I thought gays traveled in “herds”, not “swarms”.

        • GG

          You should get that fecalith out of your circle of Willis.

    • Julian Desouza

      yes because this is the most pertinent topic at the time because of the revolutionary nature of it. People don’t understand the principles of gradualism or irreversibility. Things evolve slowly through minor increments. Minor liberties lead in the end to major changes. The movies allowed certain liberties and after a few decades anything is allowed. The hemline went up slowly through the decades.Same can be said for so many aspects of culture including fashion, music, art, language, manners, and so on. That’s why people who happen to be sticklers might have a good reason to be. Even things that are innocent of themselves were restricted because it leads inevitably to something evil. Things like lack of censorship which seems ideal in theory to let creativity flow, leads to a society controlled by a decadent mass media. If anything is allowed to be expressed, there is no telling what kind of evil can seduce the masses through emotional manipulation and passive entertainment.
      Also, people don’t understand that once certain liberties are allowed, it is practically impossible to return to an older state of affairs. Issues such as divorce, contraception, and pornography were debated before but now the stage of debate has seemingly passed and it has become normalized in society. Can you imagine the chance of going to an older more ordered state of affairs? Seems impossible without divine intervention.
      I would love to see other topics as well but this is not a minor issue and should be in the foreground.

      • St JD George

        Julian, you know we share all that in common.

        • Julian Desouza

          Yes, haha I did think it seemed a bit much when I logged on and saw articles related to gay marriage. They are such a tiny minority in such a vast world but the wreckage they are causing to social order is unbelievable. I am a big fan of Dinesh D’Souza and am from the same area, but no, not related. Its a common last name in the portugese empire.

          • St JD George

            I guess they are trying to exploit the old saying “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”. Indeed, it is hard to believe that such a small minority can make so much noise. I really enjoyed Dinesh’s movies.

    • Mike Nadeau

      Enough with the homos already!

    • eddiestardust

      That’s because it’s a paradigm change in human history….

  • orientstar

    Very cogently argued and convincing. Sorry though, the Supreme Court doesn’t care. They will do it anyway because they are committed to an ideology – and clearly that is not anything to do with logic anymore than it is to do with democracy or states rights or (when we get to stage two, religious rights or individual rights) they will do it because they will to do it just as with abortion.

    • Mongo

      “…the Supreme Court doesn’t care.”

      Yes. How true. That’s what the supreme lib social engineers want and that’s the way things will be as long as people are stupid enough to listen to them. Indeed it’s simply a matter of time until they mandate enthusiastic approbation for ‘marriage’ between a man and his favorite poodle. It’s inevitable.

  • Keith Cameron

    Codification under law of what is an unnatural act can only lead to further abominations being also codified.

    • Jeremy Brothers

      Get off your soapbox, blowhole.

  • Vinny

    Crisis is focusing way too much on homosexuals and their associated and assorted abnormalities. Not to ignore its destructiveness but it will collapse from its own degradation. The Church just needs to be Christ in the world and proclaim the truth.

    • Keith Cameron

      The homosexual agenda is only one cog in the machine of Secular Humanism that seeks to destroy the Church. We need to focus on all aspects and this one is currently front and center in the minds of people and in the news.

      • John200

        Depend upon it, sir, the Church is ready to blast the rest of secular humanism as well. The whole of it is anti-human and the Church has known how to deal with secularity (is that a word?) for 2000+ years.

        It isn’t just homo”sex”ual sin that moves us to action.

      • Mike Nadeau

        Go put on your tinfoil hat.

        • Keith Cameron

          That’s very witty Mike. Did you come up with that on your own?

        • GG

          Are you out on a day pass?

    • eddiestardust

      Vinny, our nation seems to be on the verge of chaos….

      • Vinny

        It’s way past the “verge.” All the more reason to simply proclaim Christ’s teaching of truth and life through the Way by His worldly bride the Church. There is a choice and you have the alternatives in front of you. Make an informed choice. I choose not the world, not evil (sin) which is death but life. When I fall a formed and informed conscience guides me to reconciliation. You can’t pound that into anyone, they have to hear and believe, or not believe. As long as the Church continues to proclaim it’s doing its duty and not causing anyone to sin. Whether you believe or not there are consequences. A consequence in the world is persecution with everlasting life with a connection to the divine or the best life the world can give with the everlasting (continuing) death of separation with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

        • Robjensen

          Being Gay is not a choice.

          • LarryCicero

            Rejecting God is.

          • Acting on it is.

          • Vinny

            If you believe you are homosexual then examine your emotional attachment with your father and he with you. It may not be a pure choice but it’s not from a gene.

          • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

            There is no such thing as “being gay.”

            • GG

              Exactly. Gay is a political ideology. One chooses it.

            • LarryCicero

              I don’t mean to be Clintonian, but it depends on what the meaning of “being” is. I think one becomes “gay” as in one’s mind becomes sick, or as Paul put it, “darkened.” And so why has it become darkened, if not for some reason, which Paul explained for being “undiscerning?” I keep reading “As long as you don’t act on it, there is no sin.”
              But from reading Romans1:18-32, it appears as if it is a punishment for the sin of idolatry,. and as the USCCB put it- “to remove the facade.” Any thoughts?

          • St JD George

            Sticking your __ where it doesn’t belong is a choice. Just like sticking your finger in an electrical outlet. Bad choices lead to bad consequences, it’s really about that simple. And they really aren’t inseparable for probably 99%. There are a few I know who struggle with SSA yet remain chaste.

          • John200

            Homo”sex”ual activity IS a choice. A terrible self-destructive choice, at that.

            Got a feeling you know all that. But you could learn something here.

            We’ll all find out soon enough.

          • eddiestardust

            How one chooses to act on it…as all actions are..that is the choice…

            One can live a celibate life which is what God says we must do IF we are not going to marry in the traditional way.

            • Mike Nadeau

              People get horny. Especially dudes. Then you get blue balls.

  • GG

    Crisis is doing a great job focusing people on one of the central issues of our time. One cannot underestimate the demonic influence this issue has or how it will corrupt children and future generations. Read the dialogues of Catherine of Sienna to get a taste of how evil homosexual acts are to our Lord.

    • Aldo Elmnight

      http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/church_sodomy.htm
      Saint Catherine of Siena, a religious mystic of the 14th century, relays words of Our Lord Jesus Christ about the vice against nature, which contaminated part of the clergy in her time. Referring to sacred ministers, He says: “They not only fail from resisting this frailty [of fallen human nature] . . . but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them. . . . It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves.”

    • St JD George

      I’ve been to Sienna several times (very beautiful town and region of Italy) but never bothered to learn much about her. You piqued my interest so I read a little and found her story very fascinating. Also the troubled times for the church there. I know what I will be doing this weekend now, especially with rain in the forecast.

  • Charles Putter

    A good analogy must cover all the cases at hand. Unwed couples don’t eat at restaurants. That’s fine. The bisexual goes to the same restaurant and is told that there is a rationing policy. He is to be served just one dish. How odd. Management tells him that he must first regurgitate the meal (get divorced) in order get served again. He can then change his choice of dish (man+woman or man+man). The polygamist is always frowned upon, being somewhat greedy. Nonetheless, he, too, is told to regurgitate and join the queue for more meals.

    Western civilisation, how decadent have we become! This is a gay roll in the hay, a self-indulgent frolic, especially for the black-robes. As far as the unwed couple is concerned, they can cook up any meal, any time, at home. The don’t need to be seen eating in public. The black-robes, on the other hand, love to be seen at the head table, anywhere and anytime.

  • athanasius777

    If, on the other hand we lack a sexual attraction that makes us tend to want to propagate the human species, it would be entirely appropriate to say that our sexual attraction was “disordered” or “unnatural” because it would not promote the health of the species.

    The eugenic population controllers want to severely limit the propagation of the human species, so, for them, it would be entirely appropriate to say that barren same-sex attraction was “ordered” and “natural” except for a minority who possess the heritable characteristics required by the quality control standards they have decided “promote the health of the species.” My point here is that there is no consensus regarding what “the health of the human species” really means.

    The heart of the matter is deeper than that. If humanity is merely the accidental product of undirected, mindless, purposeless, natural processes — if a human is merely a peculiar configuration of matter and energy from which consciousness emerges along with the illusions of rationality and free will, then whether or not same-sex marriage is upheld by the Supreme Court doesn’t really matter. Nor does anything else.

    On the other hand, if the Founders of this nation were right, and there are realities such as “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” then it does matter whether or not the government “legalizes” that which blatantly violates “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

    Theories of law and government that logically flow from atheism are irreconcilable with the one that logically flows from theism. Either there really is a “higher law” or their isn’t. Either Caesar is subject to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” or he has unrestricted freedom to impose whatever he wants on the rest of us as long as he has the power to do so.

    The heart of the matter is a battle between atheism and theism, between “atheocracy” and government the purpose of which is to protect human liberty and God-given human rights by acknowledging the Authority above its own.

    • John200

      You are talking about homo”sex”ual clods who do not know what human liberty under a higher authority is; freedom to do the right thing.

      They think liberty is freedom to do anything they want. Aristotle knew better; that’s 2500 years ago. And any rational human being since Aristotle’s time can know better. Millions do.

      But these mental and moral defectives don’t know any better.

      At least it is easy to see what we are dealing with. And how easy it is to destroy their “arguments” for homo”sex”ual activity.

      • Mike Nadeau

        Liberty IS freedom to do what you want, dipshit!

        • John200

          Wrong, little perverted boy. You don’t even know what liberty is, so reconsider which of us is the —

          “dipsh!t!”

          Get a dictionary.

          • Mike Nadeau

            I use secular dictionaries. Not Catholic ones where they redefine words to suit their purposes.

            • GG

              You do not think. You simply react.

            • John200

              You are still ignorant of the meaning of liberty. From your babbleblather, it is apparent that you do not use any dictionary at all. Try an English dictionary. Not a dictionary that tells you to put things up your bum, or up your boyfriend’s bum, or up your father’s bum or your son’s bum, or your son’s thingie up your bum, or any of the other possibilities….

              Just to be safe, from here forward, get someone to navigate the dictionary for you.

              You are not far from the truth, but you resist it and. At some point, you will assent.

              We wait patiently.

              • GG

                True, but it is of no use. Those bound to deviant thinking will only respond by prayer. They cannot reason well.

        • GG

          Wow, that is brilliant. I guess rape or genocide is freedom. Nice logic.

          • Mike Nadeau

            It must be. I don’t see your god lifting a finger to stop it.

            • GG

              More logic. You sound very smart for a second grader.

        • Objectivetruth

          Truth is frustrating you, making you crack. You’re reverting to your true self: a whiny, spoiled six year old.

  • Jacob Morgan

    A more effective argument could be that marriage was a facet, a function, a sacrament, of religions for centuries before any government now existing was founded.

    Marriage is, therefore, a type of religious worship. People should not be compelled to participate in, or even approve of, any acts of religious worship. Especially when that act is a sacrilege, i.e., a sacrament mutilated.

    The hypocracy screams to high heaven. Observing a moment of silence at a high school football game violates the establishment clause, but suing someone to participate in one’s version of a religious sacrament, well that’s just fine.

    What business does the government have regarding anything to do with marriage? Is it to regulate the other six sacraments? Legally, so many people are shacking up these days, the legal system of child custody, probate, etc., needs to change to recognize de facto families. If churches want to have would-be couples sign agreements that would entangle their legal affairs, even go beyond current law, as a condition for marriage, so be it, it could strengthen marriage as an institution.

  • JGradGus

    We live in an age of moral relativism and judicial activism. All the logical and rationale
    arguments in the world are not going to sway SCOTUS on this issue. They are simply going to look at the polls and say “the people accept it, so be it,” and they will then come up with some weak argument(s) that will justify their ruling. And a giant can of worms will have been opened.

  • jimbo_jones

    From what I see, this is, essentially, the argument from public health and the interest of the state and/or society. It’s the strongest secular argument the pro-sanity side has. And it’s a very powerful argument.

    Another argument I find powerful is the one from authority and tradition. It goes like this: NEVER before in history has this thing been considered seriously. And the vast bulk of the world opposes it right now. So, you know, maybe it really is a bad idea?

    • James Patton

      “Another argument I find powerful is the one from authority and tradition.”

      Both arguments are logical fallacies…Ad Verecundium and Appeal to Tradition.

      • John200

        In this case, each of the two proposed arguments is persuasive to the reasonable man. Keep at it, with proper development you will see that each argument is brilliant, and….

        As an ensemble, they destroy any defense of homo”sex”ual activity.

        Just like Thomas Aquinas did 750 years ago.

      • bman

        re: “….Appeal to Tradition.
        —-
        Consider this statement from the Griswald case on the role of tradition:

        …. the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental…..

        In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the “traditions and [collective] conscience of our people” to determine whether a principle is “so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental.

        The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family – a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization -surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so.

  • St JD George

    Take comfort in the readings from Acts yesterday, and the eunuch who traveled all the way from Ethiopia to Jerusalem to hear about the good news. He was so moved by the Holy Spirit that he stopped his chariot and plead for Phillip to baptize him right then and there when they came across the water. Everything is possible through him, we only need to be steadfast and courageous like Phillip to allow him to do his works through us, including bringing eunuchs from afar to come to know the love he has for them too.

    • Mike Nadeau

      Did it say how that eunuch lost his balls?

      • St JD George

        I don’t have to Mike, because you don’t have an understanding of the Biblical context of the term. Educate yourself, then come back and say something informed.

  • cestusdei

    Absolutely excellent, however many today can’t even understand the logic behind it.

    • John200

      For a Catholic, the proper and necessary response should be to teach them the logic behind it.
      Teach them.
      Teach them.
      Never stop teaching.

      We are such lazy cowards/unprofitable servants; how do you think the devolution of Christian society went this far? A: It was us, cestusdei, it was us.

      Great stuff, Deacon Jim. Thanks!

      • santiago

        What about choice that defies Logic is that a good argument? Just because…

        • John200

          Is English a foreign language to you?
          Or are you really as confused as your comments, including this one?
          Or are you 8 years old?

          I cannot tell which.

          • santiago

            Maybe I was not clear. People have a choice to deny logic just because. And that is as good an argument as any argument born out of perfect Logic. And yes English is a foreign language to me. Many people do nat care about logic no matter how much you teach them it does not matter if Aristotles himself teaches many individuals logic, there will still be many people that rather have their own beliefs than logic. They still deserve your respect and not your lack of charity.

        • John200

          Is English a foreign language to you?

          Or are you really as confused as your comments, including this one?

          • GG

            Oh, he is confused.

  • maineman

    Yes, things look grim at the moment, but a modicum of courage will sweep it all away in the end.

    Just remember Walter Sobchak’s famous observation: “No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There’s nothing to be afraid of. These men are cowards.”

    • Jeremy Brothers

      Donny should have been afraid. He ended up dead.

  • thebigdog

    One of the symptoms of mental illness and addiction is that people in those groups believe the solution to their problems is for the rest of society to change.

    • jrs8031

      Couldn’t you say the same thing about people who support “traditional marriage” who want the rest of society to change to agree with them. I’m not saying I disagree with you, but this point is a bad one.

      • GG

        Accept that normal people have hundreds of centuries on their side and the aberrant sexual herd has nothing.

        • santiago

          Homosexual relationships lasted for centuries and have lasted for centuries and have been very well accepted for centuries in the past.

          • Asmondius

            No formal society or civilization has ever elevated homosexual relationships to the status of traditional marriage – not even the ancient Greeks.

            • santiago

              Depends on your choice of historical material. From what I have investigated you are not correct. You should look in to many of the mesoamerican cultures, and investigate more on the greeks specially Athenians and the many problems they had with the olympians, that viewed the sexuality of many of the greek tribes as abominable going all the way to try and commit genocide because of that.

              • GG

                You have to go back to some pagan culture centuries ago to “prove” deviant behavior is acceptable. What disingenuous rubbish. You should stop with the propaganda.

              • Asmondius

                You are incorrect. The Greeks tolerated pederasty, but they reserved formal marriage for heterosexuals. They were not a suicidal society.

                • santiago

                  I did not mean marriage I meant relationships and I specifically wrote that word not marriage. And it was an argument based on the use of that word.

                  • Asmondius

                    The issue here is not ‘relationships’.

          • Objectivetruth

            You’re just tossing this ridiculousness out hoping no one confronts you on it, aren’t you?

            • John200

              Oh gosh, OT, right through the heart. I always admire good shooting.

              Now I suppose we have to clean him up.

              Second point: santiago is working in a second language. Look over the thread, you’ll see.

            • santiago

              No I am just stating my opinion. For me it is very simple if I or anyone has a differing opinion, then we are covering or promoting or justifying, which is not the case. I a m a heterosexual male that practices celibacy due to the fact that I am unmarried and am willing to elevate my self above my own sexual desires which are great, god knows that an I know that and my past is proof of that since I have not been my entire life celibate. But everyone immediately jumps to their own conclusions that emerge from their own opinions and not facts. Case in point comments above, and below yours and your own.
              I am also Catholic that after many years of being judgemental and a complete prude, came to realise that is the biggest hypocrisy and sin that anyone can practise.
              The last thing Christ would have done is humiliate a homosexual person, he saved that for the know it alls (Pharisees), he respected people of different creeds and beliefs, opting for Charity before anything else, again with the only ones he did not have patience with were the Pharisees, and it sure looks like there are a lot here and in my faith.
              Again, who are you or I to object to an atheist wanting to copulate with as many men as he wants or animals for that matter, that is he’s choice, not yours, respect his choice and respect the mans as well. you want to be an example for the world then have patience and trust in God not your judgement, your job is simple, try to be charitable and patient, and just because you lack faith in God that does not give you the right to make anyone feel bad or humiliate them in anyway that is not your job, your job is not to protect the Faith Since Christ already promised that, the gates of hell would never overcome the Church, and that is God’s promise not man’s promise.

              Again, your definition of healthy is another mans definition of unhealthy. One can argument a lot of things and still come short of a definitive LOGIC answer, since all premises are flawed from the start. You want LOGIC then dwell on the fact that the only thing that one can prove is it’s own existence, everything that comes after that is pure conjecture. Conjectures that we may need in order to give purpose to life, everything else comes from faith, not logic. One could argument that the las t thing man needs to be healthy is more men, more pollution, more consumption, since resources are limited. And arguments like those are a dime a dozen, so are arguments like i’ve read form all the articles articles, comments, debates etc… that I have witnessed one way or another.
              All arguments in this article or your comments are conjecture and at best only serve on side of the argument.
              Be humble enough to at least listen to what our pope has offered as well as many of the saints that our church venerates (although many misguided ‘Catholics’ adore).
              What would or mother do, what would Christ do, certainly not what almost everyone that has posted a comments here does.

              • GG

                So much nonsense.

            • santiago

              Actually I am looking for anyone to prove me wrong to give me a definitive argument, a full proof, undeniable, crap kicking, argument. Haven’t found one yet. I am not attacking nor wish to win or change your opinion. Ridiculousness for me is acting with callousness using rhetoric that only serves one small niche of human kind. So by allemandes confront me without going in to personal attacks, if you can not do that, and you do not have the capacity or the knowledge to sustain your own beliefs then please refrain from commenting back.

              • GG

                You are a relativist. That is anti Catholic.

          • GG

            No, that is your propaganda.

          • Skeezix

            A butthole wouldn’t last centuries of a homosexual relationship.

      • thebigdog

        Since you are tying to make us believe that this is only your second comment ever… I will not dignify the deception techniques of the Gaystapo with a response. If, however, you choose to come back with the name you usually post under, I will be happy to engage.

        If you homosexual activists wish to be taken seriously, you must stop lying all the time and show others the respect they deserve.

        • jrs8031

          Hahaha whoaa relax. I thought this was my first comment on this site, a facebook friend posted this link and I wanted it to read it. I hadn’t heard a good anti-gay marriage argument yet because that side is inundated with incoherent extremists like yourself, who are far more loud than logical. The article was good and sensible, but people who react in similar ways as you, only hurt your cause. I’m trying to help you, because even though I believe I still disagree with you Jesus calls us to love everyone.

          • thebigdog

            Here’s my argument against gay marriage… it’s based on a lie. Virtually every lecture homosexual activists and their useful idiots in the media have given normal people over the past several decades has been based in deception.

            In countries where gay marriage has been legal for several years, less than 5% of homosexuals have gotten married. This whole charade is a ruse to make gay people seem sympathetic while painting sincere Christians as intolerant villains. The reality is that for every two “loving, monogamous” homosexual men in a “committed relationship” for more than ten years, there are dozens of homosexuals who have hundreds of sex partners. Your Pride parades expose who you really are.

            “Gay marriage” is merely a Trojan horse for the cultural Marxists attempting to brainwash society into accepting deviant behavior. The next target for the emotionally damaged, mentally unstable narcissists will undoubtedly be young boys… and normal people who want to protect children will be called something like “youth-phobic”

            • santiago

              Catholicism is about being inclusive not exclusive, there was nothing exclusive in Christ, that is TRUTH. Any argument you make in order to achieve validity has to hold that in to consideration. Civil life is not Church life, it is different and we Catholics can practise that inclusiveness in society without violation our Church principles. Yell all you want when people attack our Church, when they want the Church to change it’s Dogma’s for the sake of everyone else. Before that you seem that you want the Church’s beliefs to dominate the whole world.

              • VM

                Christ was not “inclusive” of sin, was He? St. Paul makes it very clear that homosexual behavior is sinful.

                • jrs8031

                  Actually he was, he hung around with prostitutes and sinners more than the so called “righteous” That’s the main theme of the Gospel, Jesus loves everyone and we should follow his example

                  • Asmondius

                    ‘Go and sin no more’.
                    .
                    You seem to have missed that part

                  • GG

                    No, that is your gay theme. Please stop with the facile and silly faux theology.

                    • jrs8031

                      Ohh I see you just ignore parts of the Bible you don’t agree with (like the entire gospel) and focus instead on little parts that tell people who they should and shouldn’t sleep with. Let me ask you one small question, have you ever had mold in your house? And if so how did you remove it?

                    • GG

                      No, we have reason and faith. What We do not have is a primitive theology that is an inch deep and informed by sound bites and doltish reasoning.

                    • Mike Nadeau

                      “facile” Is that your vocabulary word for the day?

                    • Jason Wills

                      Is “vocabulary” your vocabulary word for the day?

                    • GG

                      i am trying to teach you. You seem unteachable.

                    • santiago

                      Actually he made a point of that, specially with people like you, we know them as Pharisees.

                    • GG

                      No, you are the Pharisee. You make your own law and guard it with a fence. You bind others to your false interpretation. Stop your lies.

                • santiago

                  And Christ makes it even more clear that hypocrisy is sinful as well and had little patience with know it alls, which is the term I like to use for Pharisees. Judge yourself then judge a behaviour that is abhorrent to you but not to many others, you will see that there are much wort sins that you partake with than any kind of sexual sin in the world. I believe it is a worst sin to humiliate a human being for their own sins.

                  • GG

                    This is an unusual and strange theology. Not only is your assertion wrong but not Catholic.

                    • santiago

                      Not according to many canonised saints and apostolic letters. The sins against purity are in no way worst than sins against others.

                • santiago

                  Of sin, no, of course not he is God after all, perfect in every way, without blemish. But on the sinful, yes all the way, without any limits, such is the case that all sins can be taken away from the sinful and Grace be given by him. What is the unforgivable sin? There is only one and that is not wanting salvation, not wanting Grace. The only ones he did not tolerate that much were those who loved to judge and to balme and to hate to humiliate and exclude those who believed that they were that masters of the law, that thought that they knew better, those he did not have that much patience for.

              • Asmondius

                ‘..can practise that inclusiveness in society without violation our Church principles’
                .
                Then I take it you would see nothing wrong with working at an abortion clinic.

                • santiago

                  of course I would but that is ME not everyone else. If someone does not believe abortion is a moral fault or is amoral to begin with that is their problem not mine. I have to live my life according to MY beliefs nor according to everyone else’s, and everyone else has to do the same, that is what free will is. Everyone is free to be a slave to their own vices, if they choose to do so, or their own beliefs.

                  • GG

                    You forget the common good. We are not rugged individualists that care only for our base desires. We have an obligation to society and children. There is no right to vice.

                    • santiago

                      Ok then let’s force Catholicism on everyone because we know that the common good is for everyone to be Catholic. You still can not understand what is to respect others even when they are acting against the common good. You want to take away free will just because it is against the common good. It would definitely be closer to the Utopia you want, go on take away choice, because of the common good. Why din’t God think of that? Is he dumb or something, because certainly you are right on the matter, you know better than him. Shed your puritanist blindfold. BTW you better reconcile with the notion that the Supreme Court will force the legalisation of gay marriage.

              • GG

                This is wrong and confusing. You start with a false premise and then reason by emotionalism.

              • thebigdog

                “Catholicism is about being inclusive not exclusive, there was nothing exclusive in Christ

                Christ did not confirm anyone while they remained in their sin… did you miss the part where He says “now go and sin no more”?

                ” Civil life is not Church life”

                This is funny… I have known hundreds of Christians (Catholic and Protestant) and have never heard this phrase before. Civil life vs Church life? Sounds like a garden variety homosexual activist pretending to be a Christian… too funny.

                Good luck balancing your civil life and your Church life.

                • santiago

                  That is MY prerogative to live MY life according to MY faith. Clearly you misread or are looking for faults in everyones arguments in order to win a debate. Congratulations you are losing more friends and my be winning many debates, even though i doubt it. Civil life means that there are a lot of non Catholics out there, actually the GRAND majority, and just because I have MY own faith and MY own Christina life that does not mean that everyone else has to have eMY beliefs. Do you get the point now about CIVIL LIFE, probably not.

                • santiago

                  Go sin no more is one example of many and he just said it of Mary Magdalene. He also clearly stated that a healthy man does not need a doctor and that he came for the sinners. In what way did he exclude the sinners? On the contrary.

            • jrs8031

              I think more people are worried about their young boys left alone with clergy than they are about some slippery slope possibility of pedophiles wanting to marry young boys. And the church has a bad image because they’ve been hate mongering based on very little, and it seems very odd to people who aren’t extremists to get so upset about it. Jesus never mentions gays, but he does denounce divorce, yet the same Christians who spout hate against gays, know that it’d be wrong to hate someone simply for being divorced.
              But I know this will be my last post, I know your type and you will not even be a little convinced so an argument is pointless, just remember as Christians we called to love everyone, and if two adults do fall in love and want to raise of family with love and care, that is a beautiful thing straight or gay

              • Asmondius

                Actually, it would be homosexuals wanting to marry adolescent boys – your hero Harvey Milk, for example.

              • GG

                Gays hate the truth and the hate virtue.

                • Mike Nadeau

                  Did some gaywad bend you over a garbage can and rape you?

                  • GG

                    Hi Perv.

                    To bad you have no argument. Try and keep up. You will need a dictionary and a book with pictures so you do not get confused.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    You must be such a source of pride and joy to your parents.

                    • Mike Nadeau

                      They’re dead, by it would serve them right for bringing me into this crap hole world.

              • thebigdog

                “I think more people are worried about their young boys left alone with clergy”

                Like predictable cartoon characters, Satan’s minions always end up attacking the Church. If you did some actual research, you would learn that over the past couple of decades, public school teachers are far more likely to molest children than Catholic priests.

                “And the church has a bad image because they’ve been hate mongering”

                Oh, you poor little victim… sniff, sniff. Here’s how it works — the Church has always taught and always will teach that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Please understand, it’s not true because the Church teaches it… but rather, the Church teaches it, because it is true. Oh, and it is not our fault that you infer “hatred” when charitable truth is implied.

                “Jesus never mentions gays”

                I would be willing to bet that you don’t even own a bible… go back to HuffPo where your arrested adolescent techniques impress those who also get their news from the Comedy Channel.

                • santiago

                  What the Church does teach is this: “homosexuality is intrinsically disordered” taken out of the Catechism edited by Ratzinger Our last pope. What the Church definitely does not teach, or I should say strongly does teach against is this: “Oh, you poor little victim… sniff, sniff.” Hypocrites like you are everywhere, the worst example our Church has to offer.

                  • thebigdog

                    I wasn’t talking to you, unless you are posting under two different names,.. which would be consistent with the disingenuous, homosexual activist troll style.

                    • santiago

                      I am not. I have stated several times, that I am Catholic, I believe most of what you believe, I Believe and acknowledge that Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and it is in most cases perverse, as the act itself always perverse. I believe that most homosexuals now a days are homosexuals because of a FAD or at least some type of mental disorder, which for me the first one is worst. If you read my posts you will notice I do not justify or defend homosexuals, I respect them and I do not tolerate them I do try to have patience as with every other person or belief that I think is wrong such as the Us government , 90 percent of US nationals, most musllims etc… I try not to hate but I seriously believe that I can not force anyone to adopt my views, faith, virtues, reasoning, etc.. nor am i anyone to limit a part of society so that thy forcibly hold what I already stated. I have no right to force my views on marriage on anyone, no matter if they are right or wrong, and I know they are truth without a doubt, I know that society would be better off if everyone shared my faith and what it means, but they do not. I have MY marriage waiting for me in a Church with a priest as the essential witness once and if God grants it to me and I find the person for me, and I do not care about Civil marriage it has no power for me none what so ever except legal power and for me laws of man are like toilet paper, worthless, intrinsically unjust and most of them contrary to my faith. I do not post as another person, I don’t have to I am not that dishonest and try to be as honest as God gives me strength. But you do not seem to get the point. Wrong or right as we may or I may be, the rest of society does not give a crap, and I HAVE to respect them, because GOD RESPECTS them. Am I mightier than God? Am I over God? NO. The moment they try to marry a homosexual couple in my Church I will march directly to Rome and will picket the Vatican until someone listens to me and I will not sleep until they take it back, but only until then.

                    • thebigdog

                      “But you do not seem to get the point.”

                      You accused me of lacking charity and humility and then make a comment like this?… are you like Padre Pio or something and can read my soul?

                      I’ll be brief. Over the past several years, I have had many interactions with homosexual activists at various sites. In a nutshell, they are usually bullies who travel in packs attempting to intimidate people who don’t accept and promote their lifestyles into silence. The vast majority of the time, they are liars and I am no longer willing to play their game by their rules… been there, done that. Satan’s minions mistake kindness as weakness.

                      There is nothing humble about being bullied into silence or playing shell games with the disingenuous — and there is absolutely nothing charitable about enabling and accepting emotionally damaged, mentally unstable people in their state of mortal sin.

                      Sincere people have been trying it your way for decades and look where it has gotten us. I was there too, but finally drew the line between patience and stupidity and now call them out on their lies.

                    • santiago

                      I also have had many interactions with homosexuals and many of them do not have a hidden agenda they just want to have recognition of their dignity and respect of their persons and choices.

                    • thebigdog

                      “they just want to have recognition of their dignity and respect of their persons and choices.”

                      You respect gravely sinful acts? That’s charity to you?

                    • santiago

                      No i respect their choice, and also respect their consequences of those choices, coupled with patience and understanding of weakness of man. That is charity.

                    • thebigdog

                      Do you also “respect” a married man’s “choice” to cheat on his wife or a woman’s “choice” to abort her baby? — Or do you raise homosexuality up to a level of “special” sin?

                    • santiago

                      I do respect their choice I do not prohibit a man to cheat on his wife. I also respect the woman to KILL her baby, I do not go around and detain people or subdue them. I respect the consequences of their actions and choices as well. Homosexuality is not a sin, homosexual actions are the sin. Obviously cheating on your wife is worst since you are also hurting a non participant person, your wife. If you masturbate most probably is a mortal sin, but not the same as cheating, since the first is a sin against God and your dignity, while cheating is a sin against God, you and your wife. I do not condone homosexuality nor I tolerate it, I respect the choices of the people that act upon those twisted desires, the same way I respect my unmarried friends that have sex with women, even though I am also single but celibate I have to respect them and just because I understand celibacy and human dignity, that does not mean others do and I should disrespect them for it. I do tell them I believe it is better to be celibate and straight because you admonish your dignity and appreciate your sexuality better and also are in peace with your conscience, but not all believe in God so I can not tell them it is wrong, unless I give them a course in Philosophy, Theology and why it is Truth that God exists and that there is only ONE Church, the Catholic Church and that Virtues are universal and unchanging. In my experience that takes years, and even if you do, the holy spirit is the one that does the conversion, not Logic, Reasoning or rhetoric.

                    • thebigdog

                      You’re a babbling lunatic.

                    • santiago

                      Thanks for the insult. Expressing my opinion and opening to debate. Apparently to much for you.

                    • santiago

                      Apparently you seem to believe that believing in the existence of God is lunacy, also in the Catholic Church. Hmmm I am a lunatic and proud of it. I’d rather be a lunatic than an atheist.

                    • santiago

                      The changes that I would like to make to legislation would be to: 1.- Make abortion not only illegal, but with prison sentences for practitioners comparable to those of first degree murder, and for the mothers forceful sterilisation. 2.- For cheating spouses high economic fines and prison sentences depending on the amount of time of marriage and cheating relationship. 3.- outlaw any public homosexual practise,. e.g. holding hands, kissing, etc… and Outlaw homosexual clubs and organisations. But that is me. And I acknowledge that those are my beliefs, not everyones, and I can not convince everyone to understand or comprehend virtues and morals, nor convince them that they are wrong and doing any of this is wrong in any way, including purely anthropological arguments which should be valid enough. People believe what they want to believe and I can not impose myself on to others. I Used to get mad and angry at all of this, specially abortion, that just makes me very anxious and angry. But I understood that there are illogica, and egotistical people out there and it is their choice and I can not change them, I had to respect them, like God does, he respects their free will he even lets us condemn ourselves to eternal damnation, with all the love that he has for us that I believe is the last thing he wants for us, but it is our choice and he respects it. About the decriminalisation of adultery I still believe it shouldn’t happen no matter what, because it is breaking a contract or at least if there is an extensive harm done to the other spouse that spouse should be able to seek some sort of compensation or justice.

                • jrs8031

                  Well first of all the first comment about the clergy was a comedic slight, put in there to remind you of your extremist’s imperfections, and more make me laugh so I don’t rip my hair out. And I’m not personally offended by the church, I’m worried for it. I am a christian and I’ve regullarly attented church all my life, but I also have a brain in my head. With said brain, I can notice that when people think “Christian” they think right wing nutjub holding signs that say “God Hates Fags.” This image is not representative of Christianity as I know it; my image is of Christians feeding the hungry and clothing the homless, preaching love not hate and bringing people into the church and relationship with God. Unfortunately so long as their are loud people preaching hate from the guise of Christianity people will continue to turn away from us and from God.

                  Finally, I own three bibles. And Jesus does not mention homosexuals in any of them. With the possible exception of Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” That’s the only possible exception, and even then we can’t be sure whether born eunuch implies homosexual or someone born without reproductive organs. I know you’ll say the latter, because if it were the former that would mean you’d have to love gays as fellow human beings, and you don’t seem to be about loving your neighbor as yourself.

                  • thebigdog

                    “I can notice that when people think “Christian” they think right wing nutjub holding signs that say “God Hates Fags””

                    You are a cartoon character… this is so patently absurd, the equivalent would be saying “I can notice that when people think “homosexual” they think Gacy and Dahmer.

                    “you don’t seem to be about loving your neighbor as yourself.”

                    Love is desiring God’s will for all people… it is not enabling emotionally damaged, mentally imbalanced people and confirming them in their mortal sin. Loving a pyromaniac does not mean supporting arson. Similarly, loving someone struggling with same sex attractions, does not mean supporting homosexual behavior.

                    Why are homosexuals so arrogant as to believe that their sin is “special” and others should accept it? We are all sinners but the difference is that the rest of us go to confession and pray for the Grace to overcome our sins. You are free to keep trying, but I will never play your game by your rules… I desire God’s will for you and that does not include homosexual anything.

                  • GG

                    Is this a joke?

          • Asmondius

            Would you love your mother’s rapist?

            • Jeremy Brothers

              Isn’t that the Christian thing to do?

              • GG

                Yes, love him and make sure he goes to jail. Perfect.

                • Jeremy Brothers

                  How is sending him to jail the same as forgiving him?

                  • GG

                    Because forgiving does not mean one does not pay for their crime. Think like a human and not a sheep.

              • Asmondius

                Answer the question.

              • Asmondius

                If you feel that calling me a homosexual is insulting – go right ahead.

          • GG

            Ha. Gay ideology is not logical or loving.

        • santiago

          Why because he, she or it has a valid point? Muslims believe in their countries where they are that majority and “the rest” of society in their lands, that all should convert. Are they right? Or is it just in your own little piece of society when your argument holds validity? Your piece of society is small compared to the world society.

          • Asmondius

            All the societies that ever existed were built upon heterosexual bonding – none has ever been built upon homosexuality.

            • Jeremy Brothers

              This will be the first. We’ll be trailblazers!

              • GG

                Like Ebola.

              • eddiestardust

                Right, just like the “fact” that I’m next in line for The Crown of St Edward”…

              • Asmondius

                Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were trailblazers as well.

            • santiago

              True but that can all change. Science is advancing everyday, soon in vitro fertilization will be full proof and cloning procedures are coming to such an extent that an egg (ovulo) won’t be needed. Society will change, that is for sure, change comes wether we like it or not we might guide change to suit our beliefs but OUR Catholic beliefs are not the majority in this world not by a long shot. Maybe in a distant future copulation will be outlawed in order to prevent disease and the only method of procreation will be in a lab, then all arguments for procreation will be completely invalid, now they are just argumentative and not factual, they may have been in the past but not now.

              • GG

                Sounds like Nazi Germany. And that you defend.

                • santiago

                  Are you dumb? I do not defend it, nor I defend gay marriage just the right people have and should have. You believe that the opposite position can not be taken against our Church in the future if you start regulating stuff like this? Are you an idiot? I’d rather have a libertine society than a restrictive society, in the future Christianity will be a minority around the world, and I do not want my rights to be limited because of people with opposing view points that are just like you, but on the other side.

              • Asmondius

                Some day Christ will return to judge humanity for its errors.

                • santiago

                  We all must look forward to that day, hopeful and trusting the mercy of God.

          • GG

            What valid point?

            • Mike Nadeau

              The one on top of your head.

              • GG

                Are you 12? I mean your IQ?

            • santiago

              That his argument can be used like any double edged weapon, it has two sides that can cut, or like a coin with two faces. It is bad argument.

              • GG

                That is mere relativism and moral equivalence. Your argument is like that of a third grader.

      • Asmondius

        Since society is built upon traditional marriage, your point is specious.,

        • santiago

          Traditional marriage? Like having many bastards? or what? Traditional marriage is flawed in every sense of the word. Why put an adjective to something that is supposedly self explanatory, or whatt is marriage according to you and what is “traditional marriage” Because to me Traditional marriage means having at least one piece on the side and at least one bastard child and in many examples of traditional marriage that I have witnessed a male lover as well, with oll those closet homosexuals in traditional marriages.

          • GG

            More strange reasoning. Since some pervert authentic marriage then we should pervert it even more. Sickening.

            • santiago

              It’s already perverted, it all comes to choice. I decide to wait for that reason and until I find a woman that has values and virtues I will not marry. I decide to be celibate. I decide and that is the point. You want to take away choice, and that is the devil’s work. You know who thinks like you? every sharia council in every muslim nation.

          • Asmondius

            Any institution involving human beings is flawed.

            • santiago

              agreed it goes both ways.

            • santiago

              The only way for a marriage to become a good marriage is through the sacrament of marriage and understanding of implications and lengths of marriage, not through a legal paper that says that two people are in a civil contract, which can be easily violated, specially by the legal definition of such contract.

  • Mike Smith

    I’ve often heard the argument that homosexuals are no different in terms of societal health because they, too, can be perfectly fine parents, either through adoption or other means. This arguments always astounds me because I don’t understand how they don’t realize that, for a homosexual couple to have a child to raise, a man and a woman somewhere had to engage in heterosexual activity.
    Even giving them the benefit of the doubt and, for argument’s sake, agreeing that homosexual couples can be fine parents, it still doesn’t change the fact that they are reliant on the actual building blocks of society, the heterosexual relationship, to get to that point.

    • santiago

      Those arguments come accompanied with zero dependable studies. There hasn’t been enough time or enough data to ascertain anything like that.

      • Asmondius

        All of prior human civilization – is that enough ‘time’ and ‘data’ for you?

        • santiago

          To determine that Gay people can become fine parents? There is no data to back that up, like there is no data that can ascertain that gay people can’t become fine parents either. Give me the numbers and I’ll crunch them up? Give me the statistics of all prior human civilisation. Do you have them? Where can I get them? Dis you even read the post that I answered? Here is a copy of the beginning of Mike’s post :”‘I’ve often heard the argument that homosexuals are no different in terms of societal health because they, too, can be perfectly fine parents, either through adoption or other means” Obviously I was commenting on those arguments or that particular argument which was the only argument mentioned in Mike’s post. If you only cared to read instead of just reading your own thoughts. You really can’t see more than an inch away from you can you? You’ve clearly shown that in all of your posts.

          • GG

            Data? Data is not needed and is the wrong metric. Right reason and truth are the metric. You reason as a relativist and utilitarian.

            • Drozdowski

              “Data ARE not needed”

            • santiago

              No I reason that there are relativists out there and it is their right to be relativists. I do not reason like that, you still do not get my point. Choice has to be protected, not gay marriage or traditional marriage, but freedom even if that freedom is libertine. The grand majority does not hold my values, nor my beliefs and that is the point. Haven’t you seen the changes through time? There will be a time that an idiot like you who thinks like you but is anti catholic might want to ban all religions because of the “common good” and they will be able to do that because of people like you.

          • Asmondius

            Parents = a Mother and a Father
            .
            By definition, homosexual couples can not provide that.

            • santiago

              That is not the definition of a parent. There are many children that have two heterosexual male fathers and two heterosexual male mothers, as per the definition of a parent, as in caretaker of an offspring. What about Gay parents that got divorced after having a “traditional marriage”? There are many other good arguments against gay parents.

      • GG

        No study can make deviant life not deviant.

    • Mike Nadeau

      Clones are the future.

  • Mia

    Don’t expect Justices Bader Ginsburg and Kagan to recuse themselves despite having performed several same-sex “marriages”, not to mention Ginsburg’s numerous statements in support of the arrangement.

  • Norman

    Ahh yes, the olde “I’m born of nature, nature cannot be wrong, ergo I cannot be wrong” argument; I come across it often. People also let me know the only reason I could be supportive of traditional marriage is because of “religion”- not philosophy, not truth, but “religion”. At that point I find it beneficial to recount secular arguments in support of religious of marriage views also exist, how baffling: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

    • santiago

      Philosophy also shows us that nature is not detrimental in anything.

      • Asmondius

        Homosexual behavior is therefore unnatural.

        • santiago

          Yes it is, but that is besides my point. Who cares about unnatural or natural? Only very few of us, the majority does not care, and that IS my point that clearly you can’t even begin to comprehend since your world is very small. For someone gay natural is the least important thing in his mind. Do you really believe that the devil thinks that he can win? He may be blinded by pride but he knows God and he knows he is just a creation and he is limited by God. The same thing goes for gays, they know that they came in to existence because of a man and a woman, and they choose not to care, that is their choice and that is what they want and believe in, flawed as they may be it is their choice and who are you to tell them otherwise? The all knowing Asmonidius who is actually God using a nickname to teach us all what is truth? You wouldn’t know truth if it slapped you all the way back to your mothers womb.

          • Guest

            How strange and twisted.

    • vm

      I have found this article to be a good starting point for the issue under discussion. You may be familiar with it.

      http://www.readperiodicals.com/201101/2247619481.html

  • Ruth Rocker

    This is a wonderfully what written article. It does, however, expect those on the other side of the discussion to employ logic and reason. These are mental faculties they have proven over and over again are either missing from their brains or simply discarded for the sake of convenience. The gaystapo is NOT interested in fake marriages. Their ultimate goal is to make EVERYONE not only accept their sick lifestyle but to celebrate it as perfectly natural and a viable alternative to normalcy.

    If the court approves this, it’s time to start looking for another planet to live on because all connection with reality and common sense will have been extinguished.

    • Ann Hessenius

      AMEN to all your fantastic posts!…Please keep posting. 🙂

      • Mike Nadeau

        kissass

        • Objectivetruth

          Nice……your mother must be so proud of you.

    • santiago

      They may also be looking for equality in society, and I can not see anything wrong with that. Why has there to be fingerprinting in either direction? They might want people to acknowledge that being gay is as cool as being heterosexual, but ow do not want that, you want them to acknowledge that they are not as cool but perverse, and your point of reference are your own beliefs not the world’s beliefs, but yours.

      • Asmondius

        Two men can not equal a man and a woman – this is common sense.

        • Mike Nadeau

          So people aren’t equal?

          • eddiestardust

            Marriage between a man and woman unites the sexes…that’s true diversity…marriage between two men or two women doesn’t

            • Mike Nadeau

              Gays don’t want to be united with the other sex. Let them be.

              • eddiestardust

                Then they should let everyone else be…but they are better and more important because they are gay….so they are out to get us….

                • Mike Nadeau

                  Maybe they are better and more important. The communities where they reside in my part of the world, Northampton and Provincetown MA are very nice. Meanwhile the town I live in which is straight as an arrow is a total rundown dump. The gays seem to bring culture to a community. My town would benefit from their presence.

                  • eddiestardust

                    Pride…

                    • Mike Nadeau

                      and Prejudice. A lot of the latter around here.

                  • GG

                    That is how the facile reason.

                    • Mike Nadeau

                      Thank you.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    In your posting, change the word “gay” with “white”, and “straight” with “black”, and tell me how it sounds.

                • santiago

                  In what way do they want to get the rest of us? Most do not believe they are better, they actually believe they are subhuman and you can thank people that only judge, discriminate and hate, that is way more evil than two people of the same sex screwing each other from dusk till dawn. Most just want everybody else to let them be.

                  • GG

                    You are confused.

              • GG

                Stop destroying society.

          • GG

            Equal in dignity, but not the same.

            • santiago

              Good one. Please try to live by example and respect everyones dignity instead of trying to undermine everyone else dignity.

              • GG

                Dignity refers to the person as a child if God. It does not allow vice or legalize deviant behavior.

                • santiago

                  You are right so everyone has dignity even gays that want to get legally married.

          • Nordog6561

            Just say “NO!” to sexual discrimination!

        • santiago

          Of course not two men equal two men. Your point is?

          • Asmondius

            Therefore two men can not be wedded.

            • santiago

              Than only means that they can not procreate.

      • Ruth Rocker

        It is not just my opinion. It is nature itself that dictates this is abnormal behavior. The pieces do not fit together naturally and it is a completely sterile coupling. I don’t believe that “being gay is as cool as being heterosexual” because it is an unnatural coupling. The people within the relationships are worthy of respect and dignity because they are children of God, even if they don’t acknowledge it. I’m talking about behavior, not their intrinsic humanity. And the world’s beliefs aren’t necessarily correct. If you don’t believe that, check back through history at all the beliefs that were held to be good and later proven otherwise.

        • santiago

          Yours is probably the best comment here, which is what I believe. But it is not the only perspective and that is my whole point. If you read all my comments I have not excused homosexual behaviour, I just respect individuals personal choices and dislike hurtfull behaviour that arises from many of us which for me is a graver sin than two men copulating or a man and a woman copulating outside of marriage.

          • bman

            re: “We could argument all we want about right or wrong from many perspectives, faith, morality or lack of it, and all it comes to is the same thing personal choice.”

            Your comment supposes morals are simply a personal matter. There are also public morals, however

            Your thinking on morality will be incomplete unless you find the correct balance between personal morals and public morals.

            In short, public morals regulate society, while private morals would not.

            Since this issue is about the morals that regulate society, its a logic error to conflate personal moral choice with that.

            • santiago

              What does two people having sex in private have to do with public morals? Definitely gay marriage is not attack against public morals since public morals are defined by society and society has changed and is changing. What was deemed immoral 600 years ago publicly is considered amoral or even moral now a days. Let society choose what it wants for their public morals.

              • bman

                re: “What does two people having sex in private have to do with public morals?”

                Marriage is a public moral endorsement of how sex should be practiced.

                What sexual morals do you want marriage law to publicly endorse to society as good?

                • James

                  “What sexual morals do you want marriage law to publicly endorse to society as good?”

                  Why is this the government’s job to endorse what kind of sex people should and shouldn’t be having?

                  • GG

                    Because perversion destroys society.

                  • bman

                    re: “Why is this the government’s job to endorse what kind of sex people should and shouldn’t be having.”
                    —-
                    The religious skeptic Bertrand Russell stated the point thusly,

                    “It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognisance of by a legal institution.”

                • santiago

                  Not as good obviously and I am not endorsing anything except freedom and choice, because I do not want anyone to take away my freedom to practise my religion or my virtues.

                  • bman

                    re: “…I am not endorsing anything except freedom and choice…”

                    You still change the public moral environment by voting for SSM.

                    What was previously immoral by public moral standards you would make moral by public standards, if you vote for SSM.

            • santiago

              I know morals are universal and unchanging, they emanate from virtues which in turn emanate from God, but that is my belief. What we understand as Public ‘morals’ can be as relative as personal ‘morality’, we can see that through history and in the present, look at other societies how their ‘morals’ are completely inmoral. For example most of the Western world have laws protecting womans choice to abortion, going as far as declaring it a Human Right, which is not. My argument is that regulation is wrong because it limits personal choice, which is something that has to be guaranteed in order to limit the state. Look at many other countries in which practicing publicly our religion is illegal and that is inmoral, but that society views it as moral, and by eliminating the protection of personal choice they can get away with it. I do not want that, because my society might be Catholic in it’s majority right now, but things change. The current tendency in western countries is that people are becoming atheist so is society in general and I know many Ateieists that would argue about eliminating the practise of religion from society in general. I do not want that and if I support regulation just because it is what i believe is in societies interests and I can do that now, I open myself for others to do the same against me in the future.

              • bman

                re: “What we understand as Public ‘morals’ can be as relative as personal ‘morality’, we can see that through history and in the present..”

                When a moral principle is endorsed by society it becomes a moral guideline for society. Its not just a personal matter.

                If you vote for SSM you set a moral guideline for society that men having sex with men is morally approved by society, which will lead many developing youth astray for generations to come.

                • Griffonn

                  Approving of homosexual behavior is not really the issue people think it is. Homosexuality is just as associated with disease as it ever was, and people are slowly becoming aware that drug-resistant STDs are a real thing – and San Fransisco is apparently one of the places where the problem is becoming known. All the media manipulation in the world can’t keep the problem silent forever, and quite frankly as soon as the Left is done with the gays they won’t even try – they will stop promoting the destructive behavior and start capitalizing on it instead, exactly the way the lefties have done with the last batch of “identity politics” pawns in places like Ferguson and Baltimore.

                  What is really a problem is that they want to change the rules regarding FAMILY morality – specifically, they want to make it a *crime* to recognize biological kinship as different from any two people who declare themselves to be kin; they want to make it a *crime* to hold any biologically unique relationship (such as that between parent and child or parent and parent) as sacred or special; they want to make it a crime for us to teach our children the values that are ESSENTIAL to maintaining a strong, healthy, cohesive family unit.

                  They want to make it the law of the land that it is literally a crime (“discrimination”) to recognize that rights and responsibilities are bound up together. They are promising gays (and other recipients of Sexual Revolution lies) the “right” to have rights and freedoms WITHOUT the obligations, responsibilities, and consequences that inevitably come with such rights.

                  They want to break capitalism, and they do it by breaking anything that human beings can or do rely upon for nurture, protection, or provision. They want the almighty state to be the ONLY source of support. All things will belong to the state.

                • santiago

                  Exactly my point, when you vote or endorse a moral principle it becomes a moral guideline for society, that is why the state should not codify any type of moral, once it does and you support it, it can codify any other ‘moral’ it deems according to it’s own definition and we know how the state can twist anything and easily corrupt morals. Everyone should prohibit the state from typifying or codifying morals. The state should not define any moral at all you open the door for the state to regulate morality and that really scares me more than two gay men ‘marrying’ each other. I am not advocating gay marriage I am advocating for the state to not be a moral authority. I actually advocate celibacy and treatment for homosexuals, I do believe Homosexuality should be in the DSM as a mental disorder or even a personality disorder.

                  • bman

                    re: “Exactly my point, when you vote or endorse a moral principle it becomes a moral guideline for society, that is why the state should not codify any type of moral…”

                    It sounds like your model would also allow x-rated content on public television during prime time, or allow people to walk about naked in the public park. Is that the sort of thing you mean?

                    • Maria Tierney Koehn

                      I just found this in my father’s old book today:

                      “The last act of his supreme magistracy was to inculcate in most impressive language on his countrymen … his deliberate and solemn advice; to bear incessantly in their minds that nations and individuals are under the moral Government of an infinitely wise and just Providence; that the foundations of their happiness are morality and religion; and their union amongst themselves their rock of safety. . . .

                      May these United States flourish in pure and undefiled religion, in morality, peace, union, liberty and the enjoyment of their excellent Constitution as long as respect, honor, and veneration shall gather around the name of Washington; that is, whilst there still shall be any surviving record of human events!”

                      Archbishop Carroll: Eulogy of George Washington (1799)

                      Outstanding!

                    • bman

                      This statement by President Washington in his 1789 inaugural address seems like he was speaking to the America of our day:

                      “….the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained..”

                    • santiago

                      No, commercial content is something that can and should be regulated a commercial entity is not a person no matter the efforts of the state and corporate world to give them personhood.

                      Common codes of conduct and dress codes can be stipulated but not due a moral nature. Is wearing a suit more moral than wearing jeans and a shirt? Are restaurant or club dress codes about morality? It is easier to set a minimum public dress code, without any morals in question, than trying to set public decency dress code, which is almost non existent now a days, I really doubt it is decent to dress in a an attire that barely covers your genitals and other private erogenous parts of ones body, and we see that every day. Since public decency is something that can also be viewed as relative, which again I stress that it is not, since modesty reminds us of our fall from grace, as well as the Glory of redemption. But not everyone holds my views or beliefs and relativism is for now a reality, we can discuss the anthropological reason of relativism, but it is pointless i personally believe it has to do with multi culturalism.

                    • bman

                      re: “commercial content is something that can and should be regulated a commercial entity is not a person no matter the efforts of the state and corporate world to give them personhood.”
                      —-
                      You allow commercial content to be regulated but what if its regulated based on public morals? Do you forbid or allow that?

                      You also say, “Common codes of conduct and dress codes can be stipulated but not due a moral nature.”

                      I think that ignores the public moral reasoning behind a dress code. For example, a woman in the army can have hair down to her collar but a man in the army can not. Is there no public moral reasoning behind it that presumes a man should not have long hair, but that a woman can and should?

          • Griffonn

            You have no right to take away our right to disapprove of homosexual behavior.

            Sorry – but your right to do a thing does NOT take away our right to disapprove of it.

            And it does NOT give you the right to use the coercive force of the state to FORCE me to participate in lies, such as “Heather has two mommies”. If gays really believe that marriage is not procreative, then let them act like they believe it, and stop trying to insist that somehow they are “related to” their lover’s child, or “have a child together”, or have some special right to adopt as if their union were an intact family. It’s not.

            • santiago

              Exactly no one has the right to force anything on anyone, specially the state, if the state regulates morals, then the state can typify any moral if we are lucky or amoral concept as a rule. If the state can say that it is wrong for two males to get married it can easily say that since the Church is ‘amoral’ for ‘discriminating’ and outlaw Religious matrimony. They are doing it with abortion in other countries they are forcing doctors that do not want to perform them in public hospitals with threats on their jobs economy and there are talks of prison time now and they are trying to include private hospitals as well. You think that the PP agenda has not thought of that? they are the ones that have lobbied those laws in LA. That is my fear, that is why I do not want to threaten my own religion and my own beliefs. I do not approve gay sex, nor condone it and definately I do not accept it,I do not make anyone feel bad about it though either, and if someone is Christian I do talk about it with them in a very patient manner.

              • Griffonn

                The state does not say that it is wrong for two males to marry, for the same reason it does not say that it’s wrong for a cat to be a dog: it’s an ontological impossibility.

                Nobody is “banning” you from marrying, or pretending to be married, or whatever it is you want to do. The question is whether the state can force everyone else to pretend that your cheap parody is somehow equal to the real thing. The answer is, it can’t, for the same reason it couldn’t legitimize slaveholding: rights are based on reality, truth, and need, they are not granted or withheld at the whim of the state.

                If rights could be granted or withheld at the whim of the state, then you would have no argument in favor of gay marriage or even the legalization of sodomy: if a majority said “we don’t want that”, then you’d be just out of luck.

                • santiago

                  Now here I disagree completely. Slaveholding has been in the past not only a ‘right’ but supposedly moral as well. The state when administering the rule of law does in fact recognise rights and withholds them as well, and in many modern states grants and does not recognise them. That is also why women did not have the right to vote. Some rights are one hundred percent dependent on the function of the state like voting, for example, in the US you do not have the right to direct elections, nor to elect ministers and or secretaries, in Switzerland they have that right and in some other states they do not have any right to vote at all, because there is no democracy.
                  If the state has no say in morals, principles or individual determination, then there isn no possible way that a minor part of the population can be forced, since the state can not determine and a group of society can not force the state to recognise anything regarding those issues, society could only pressure the rest os society or coerce but not lawfully force through legislations or have societies whims enforced by the state. That way minorities or majorities of society can not force the rest to it’s will.

      • Guest

        Such behavior and desires are not equal. Pathology is not equal to health.

      • Joseph Lammers

        Santiago, they are also targeting Christian small business owners, such as bakers, florists, and photographers to force them to celebrate homosexual “weddings”. They want more than equality, they want to force others to not just tolerate but to participate in their deviant lifestyles. If all they wanted was “equality” they wouldn’t be trying to drive the self-employed out of business.

        • santiago

          That is what i mean, if the state starts typifying what it thinks morals are, then they can codify and force everyone to so what they want. This type of behaviour really makes me sick, no one should force anyone else to decide what they should do or believe in, not the state no one. I heard that story about the bakery 2 years ago and they actually won, claiming it was discrimination, when it was not. I do not deny that there are pressure groups out there with totalitarian agendas which are wrong and contrary to what my point is, but the sword cuts both ways. Why open my self to that whenI should be fighting that and that is a point in common with a lot more believes.

    • eddiestardust

      No it means it’s time to kick a certain party out of The White House:)

  • Ford Oxaal

    Marriage is an institution for the propagation and well-being of the entire species. Homosexuality is not.

    • santiago

      Propagation is not at risk either, specially not from an exaggerated 15% of the world population not propagating because of their sexual interests.

      • Asmondius

        15%? Not even if you counted every sexual by the number of limbs they have.

        • Asmondius

          Sorry, should read ‘homosexual’.

        • santiago

          You can’t read at all, I know my english is awful but Exaggerated means exaggerated.

      • Guest

        Sounds like hell.

        • Mike Nadeau

          Luddite.

          • GG

            Perv.

        • santiago

          It isn’t it is in another plane. I’d rather copulate in order to have children and try many times.

      • Modus Pownens

        Sounds like a “Brave New World.”

        • santiago

          An awful world but by the way things are looking it might become a reality.

    • jrs8031

      That’s where you’re wrong, sex is for propagation of a species, that’s the biological part of it. Marriage serves two functions 1) The legal services such as sharing of property and the privileges of being a spouse like access to medical information and 2) A union bringing two families together into one this can be political (like Royal families merging) or for the sake of social ties and maintaining social structure. 2 is often the religious aspect as well as these two family’s are brought into the same fold with some ceremony. Gay marriage satisfies both these criteria, the only question is whether the religious institution will preform the requested rituals, which is and should be totally up to them.

      • bman

        re: “That’s where you’re wrong, sex is for propagation of a species, that’s the biological part of it. ”

        Although sex is for propagation of the species, marriage is the institution for the sexual propagation and well being of the species, as Ford stated.

      • Guest

        Marriage, by definition, involves male and female. To deny that is to deny reason.

        • Mike Nadeau

          Look in any dictionary. Most words have more than one definition.

          • GG

            Dictionaries have what is popular, not necessarily what is true. Think more deeply.

            • santiago

              Many people do not care about truth, do not like truth or are against truth. You have no right to force anyone to your point of view or to TRUTH itself. Think even more deeply

              • GG

                Many people think all types of erroneous or evil things. They have no right to force that on us.

                • santiago

                  Exactly and neither do you have the right to force goodness on to others, much less the state, because later when the tables are turned they will want to force evil on to you, they are already trying. Look at abortion laws for God’s sakes, talk about evil. Some countries are even forcing doctors to practise abortions in public hospitals and clinics. There is a real thereat from Bishops of closing Catholic clinics due to laws like those. Stop trying to regulate that is a double edged sword.

              • Objectivetruth

                OK…..I think murder, stealing, and adultery are all good. These are my “truths.”
                Tell me where you live. I’m coming over to steal your car and squire off your wife.

                • Ah, to be forever dealing with the polemical “stupidity masquerading as insight” comments of “the progressive relativist”! They don’t want to dialogue my friend or truly understand anything at all for that matter. They are only interested in justifying their proclivities through any lens that will seemingly permit them to do just that. This is what happens when one abandons a liberal education , and gives ones life over to youtube, concern for “the good opinion of others”, how well dressed one is, personal weakness and appetite. Pearls and swine my friend. Don’t forget, pearls and swine…God bless!

                • santiago

                  Then you will have your own consequences in this life and on final judgement. But people still choose to do so and you can not stop them. God doesn’t stop them he respects the will of his creatures to even condemn themselves to hell.

              • GG

                Thinking deeply does involve moral relativism. That is superficial and frankly stupid.

                • santiago

                  That is besides the point because people choose to believe whatever they want and it is within their God given right to do so.

              • Truly?

                • santiago

                  Truly. Talk with my brother in law and you will see what I mean. He even goes as far as saying that for him the truth is that 1+1 does not equal 2 that simple math is relative and it depends on his ‘truth’ It is impossible to speak wit the guy, so when I see him we speak about movies and nothing else because that is what he likes.

                  • Respectfully…if that’s true, you may want to ask your brother-in-law if it’s true that he likes movies!

                    • santiago

                      Hahahaha Why waste my time?

          • eddiestardust

            Go ask your parents and grandparents:)
            That’s why you are here:)

        • santiago

          Denying reason is as valid as reasoning perfectly, it is a choice in the end.

          • GG

            Ah no. That is insanity.

            • santiago

              I agree but it does not take away the fact that people choose to be insane all the time. I’ve witnessed people denying stuff right in front of them just because they want to, it is their choice. And definitions change even if they are ilogial, look at what is happenning all around the world.

    • Asmondius

      Homosexuality is an institution for the propagation of disease and despair and the well-being of narcissism.

      • Zeke

        One would think that the institution of the Catholic Church, featuring vast numbers of closeted homosexuals, would be more supportive of same sex marriage.

        • Asmondius

          One would think that wishful thinking is not a substitute for fact.

        • Guest

          Why? Because they are deviant and therefore should support deviancy?

          • Zeke

            No, because it’s abundantly clear that these good and holy men experience same sex attraction beyond their control, and must question why their institution insists that they are deviants.

            • Guest

              If they are good and holy then they accept the truth. Homosexual inclination is not ordered correctly.

      • santiago

        There can’t be well being in narcissism, but I get your point. But again that is according to you, the fact is that many people do not agree with you, they might be wrong or they might be right, but still they disagree with you.

  • jacobum

    We are dealing with a Godless liberal society and mindset where “feelings” trump “facts”. Truth and morals have nothing to do with anything….unless it gets me what I want…
    Unfortunately, the Catholic Church, the only institution capable of fighting this nonsense is practically moribund herself after 50+ years of self induced novelty, nonsense, and the surrender of Truth to Power. The RCC has tried Dancing with the Devil in his ballroom and dance floor. So far the enemy has thoroughly infiltrated her and She has been taking a beating with no end in sight.

    • eddiestardust

      That’s what you think….Think again…
      Our Church is The Body of Christ..not just a collection of Priests & Nuns….

      • jacobum

        Of course it is and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it for sure. But Christ never said how small it might become did He? To the contrary He wondered if there would be any faithful left upon His return. The fruits of Vatican 2 have been a self induced disaster and the crisis continues. Sister Lucy of Fatima did not use the term “diabolical disorientation” to describe an afternoon tea. She was talking about apostasy in the Church. If the Synod on the Family doesn’t qualify then nothing does. Take care.

  • Diane

    too wordy, but correct. Better said: heterosexuality is rightly ordered; homosexuality is not. Something that is not rightly ordered cannot be equal to something that is. Also, if it doesn’t make sense physically, it likely won’t make sense ‘sociately’.

    • bman

      re: “…too wordy, but correct”

      I think the extra words are probably needed or the opposition will presume the weakest possible interpretation.

  • Mike W

    The fact that lawyers will not support natural marriage is proof yet again that the US has the best legal system money can buy.

  • Objectivetruth

    A little off topic, but a very scary speech given yesterday by Hillary Clinton that religous teachings/beliefs against abortion must be confronted and changed by the state:

    “The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

    “Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/hillary-clinton-religious-beliefs-that-oppose-abortion-have-to-be-changed

    • Yeah, well, we all saw that coming. So much for all that talk of church and state. Meh.

  • JP

    From a practical point of view, the entire case revolves around one justice, Justice Kennedy. And the Progressives would love to get Roberts on-board to enact a 6-3 decision instead of a narrow 5-4 decision. Kennedy always prided himself on being Progressive on social issues, and like O’Connor before him, he relishes being the deciding vote on said issues.

    Let’s face it, the culture drives the law; it’s not the other way around. Just 25 years ago, the Supreme Court in Bowers v Hardwick ruled that state laws prohibiting sodomy were perfectly constitutional. So, what changed? It wasn’t the Constitution; it was the culture. There is an old saying that the High Court rulings follow election returns. I’d go further and say that the Supreme Court rulings follow the Golden Globes and Academy Awards.

    Anyone who believes that SCOTUS will rule constitutionally (i.e. with a view firmly anchored in Federalism) is deluding himself. And if Justice Kennedy for some odd reasons joins the “conservative” bloc, there is always Justice Roberts to wield the knife. In any event, the culture has moved on. Transgender theory is the new rage; and standing in the wings are Genetic Distraction Disorder (formerly known as incest) and polygamy.

    • eddiestardust

      And what party has been in The White House since 2009? It’s pretty rare that one party gets in is re-elected and then runs another candidate and wins again these days. Just watch what happens when a Republican is sworn in!

      • Jeremy Brothers

        Probably nothing. They just use you religious nutcases to get elected so they can help their rich friends. You saps keep falling for it.

        • eddiestardust

          Jeremy, watch out..you are trying to debate someone with a degree in Political Science who btw has served in local govt and been an elected official:)

          • Jeremy Brothers

            Remember all those Pro-Life rallies in DC in the 80s? Remember Reagan speaking at them? NO? Me neither. All Reagan ever did was phone in his support even though he was living in the same city. He didn’t want to be seen with you guys. He just wanted your votes

            • GG

              Still better than the abortion lovers, by far.

            • eddiestardust

              Jeremy, since 1973, millions of Christian Americans have left the Dem Party…some have become Republicans. That’s partly why Dems are so nutty. IF Supremes vote for gay marriage…more will follow…Of course you didn’t hear about “Reagan Democrats”?

        • GG

          Not much different than the abortion lovers that use pervs then help their rich friends.

  • bman

    re: “….a well-ordered sexual attraction is not just about biology; it’s about society..”

    The above was an excellent point from the article that stood out to me.

  • Atilla The Possum

    The Irish nation – and every nation – should read the above.
    Well done.

  • santiago

    I truly believe there is no case against same sex civil marriage. The day that the Church wants to change our (Roman Catholics) definition, that is the day I’ll have to jump and defend marriage. For me a civil union holds no sway over my soul, just ecclesiastical marriage, that is what is important, unless of course civil marriage also becomes a sacrament.

    • Asmondius

      Marriage is a sacrament.

    • Guest

      Marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church. Sacramental or not marriages are valid and deserve protection. To allow the State to misdefine the basic unit of society is to destroy the family and civilization.

      • eddiestardust

        Dates back to Genesis:)

  • Mal

    “Marriage as I’ve set it forth is not something that some government or religion established, and so it’s not something that some government or religion can change.”
    Absolutely! This is precisely what people – politicians, judges and those voting in referendums – making decisions on this vital matter need to be made aware of.
    Designed in our human nature are two distinct Genders that have specific organs associated with them. These organs are complementary and, importantly, serve a common purpose, namely our survival, our continuation. When two people from the two genders commit themselves to each other they ESTABLISH a marriage. (Think of another marriage: an electric plug and socket which together enable electricity to flow.) This marriage has the potential to sustain society. No other relationship – parent and child, brother and sister, friends, relatives, teacher and disciple and so on have this gift. This is why marriage is extremely important to society and also unique. And this is why it is communally celebrated all over the world.
    If politicians and judges are empowered to interfere with this natural phenomenon there is no way we could stop them from redefining marriage to suit other lifestyles. A community that destroys its marriages will destroy itself.

  • A fine example of the “straw man” argument. Although the author has fine credentials, he seems to have expended little effort in researching the history of marriage and the place of marriage in Christian history.

    First, he conflates three definitions of marriage: the secular or social, the Orthodox or Roman Catholic, and the Protestant Christian definition.

    He then asserts that homosexuals have “always had access” to the secular version of marriage, a position that is categorically and obviously false. Why make an assertion that is trivially demonstrable to be untrue? Well, because his argument rests on it. If homosexuals always have had access to secular marriage, then obviously, discriminating against them is not the same as discriminating against someone on the basis of race. But, since homosexuals have never had, and still do not have, access to the institution of marriage, the entire discourse is invalidated.

    The United States survived into the 21st Century by being a secular nation, in which citizens of all faiths, or no faith, could live and work side by side. The Pilgrims who settled in the Bay Colony in 1620 believed that marriage is a civil contract; no place in Scripture is found to give authority for the church to control it, nor to legitimize it. Orthodox Church members are free to live and work right along with those Protestants who regard their presumption to rule over marriage as sacrilegious and having no Scriptural basis. Those members of the OC probably do not shun Protestants who have divorced and remarried — but they are free to do so, since members of the OC believe that all such persons are tainted and going to Hell.

    You are not free to banish those tainted persons from the public square, denying them jobs, housing, or commerce, because they are, by your lights, “living in sin.” You are not free to deny divorced persons the right to remarry. Just so, you are not free to banish homosexuals from the public square, and you are not free to deny them the right to marry.

    The campaign for equal rights has never been a campaign for the right to marry in a church, any church. If you think that banning homosexuals from your church will get you closer to God, you’re free to do it. I think that when Jesus returns, he will be found among the outcasts and despised, just as he was when he first appeared. And you will be fretting in your neatly maintained homes, among carefully manicured lawns, wondering how you could have been so wrong, and whether or not it’s too late.

    • eddiestardust

      You are not free to Crucify folks because you disagree with them….
      You will be in my prayers:)

    • JP

      There was one and only one institution of “marriage”. It’s actually a Sacrament, called the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. And every child who attended CCD is well aware of the Gospel of Saint Matthew 19:6 – to paraphrase, “What God has joined let no man put asunder.” Christ went beyond Mosaic Law, and said that with His New Covenant with Man, there would be a new Covenant between Husband and Wife. Just as He remains Faithful to Christians, he demands husbands and wives to remain faithful to each other.

      Until very recent history, marriage was a religious institution. It was recognized by rulers and governors. But, if one wanted to marry, one had to be a Christian. Protestantism is and was just that – a Protest against the Church that Christ created on that first Good Friday. Secularists do not want the Christian arrangement, but a Pagan one. An arrangement that predates the Church and has more in common with Pagan Romans and Greeks. Divorce, abortion, adultery, incest, sodomy, lesbianism and incest were the order of things before the Church; but, they were replaced by the Church over the course of the first 8 centuries of Europe. You can call these new arrangements marriage, if you wish. But, they are not. And the day is coming when these new barbarians will attempt to force the Church to comply with the new pagan practices.

      The West survived 2000 years of History with Christian marriage. It thrived, actually. To force a wholesale change in this institution will in fact destroy it.

      • Seamrog

        The homosexualists will never destroy the Church – although they very much want too.

        Jesus told Peter as much – “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

        Don’t mind Michael – he think’s he’s enlightened.

    • Mal

      Actually it is you, Michael Powe, who is so wrong. Opponents of homosexual ‘marriage’ do not banish ‘those tainted persons’, as you call them, from the public square. You are absolutely wrong to think that Christians believe that banning unreal marriages will bring them closer to God. You are wrong to think that we should call homosexual relationships marriages. A human marriage naturally happens when two commentary parts existing in our two genders come together. Two of the same gender do not a marriage make.
      Marriage is not a phenomenon created by society. Marriage, and only marriage, creates society. This is why any attack on this vital phenomenon in human nature needs to be defended.

    • Chairm

      The man-woman requirement does not deny the individual the right to marry. There is no gay criterion for ineligibility to form the union of husband and wife.

      Perhaps you meant something else. Forming an all-male or an all-female relationship is not prohibited by the marriage law; so you may be operating under the false notion that the marriage law prohibits people from forming ine-sexed relationships that lack either husband or wife. That is demonstrably untrue.

      Maybe you meant something else?

    • SnowArt

      At Mary’s request, Jesus worked His first miracle.

      By His presence, Christian marriage was raised to the dignity of a Sacrament.

      Luminous Mysteries. Pope JPII. Marriage is between one man and one woman.

      God’s laws protect us from our base sinful desires, they not harm us or punish us, our own bad choices do that. That the human race has made a mess of His laws doesn’t change what God has decreed and this is not a reason to defend the mess, to defend the sins that are destroying society by destroying the family as God has so clearly revealed in His Will to us. By defending the sins you are encouraging the sinner to continue on and in so doing, helping them stray from God.

  • James

    “The question before them is not whether people with same-sex attraction have a right to enter into the relationship that forms the building block of society. They are just as free as anyone else to enter into that relationship, and no one is saying otherwise. But then again, that would mean entering into a relationship with a person of the opposite sex, which for understandable reasons they may not wish to do.”

    Isn’t entering into such a relationship a bad idea for everyone involved, especially the heterosexual spouse?

    If a gay person isn’t going to be entering into such a relationship (and probably shouldn’t anyway), why not recognize the relationships they do want to enter into?

    • Chairm

      If someone prefers a nonmarital alternative, that choice is a liberty exercised and not a right denied.

      But why do you assume a husband-wife relationship would be “a bad idea”?

      Perhaps because you recognize that marriage is a sexual kind of relationship. If so, then, that would make forming the husband-wife relationship a choice to enter into a relationship that is procreative in kind and commonly procreative in outcome. It is also unitive bodily. Gay or not, such a relationship must have its appeal based on human nature.

      • James

        It would be a bad idea for a gay person to enter into a heterosexual marriage because the overwhelming majority of these marriages end in divorce.

        Marriage is generally a sexual relationship. Trying to enter into a sexual relationship without sexual attraction is bound to fail.

        • Chairm

          You do not know the proportion that divorce.

          You speculated, which is fine as far as that goes, of course.

          And, likewise, you judged such marriages to be bad, due to your notion of heightened risk of divorce due to … sexual attraction … “bound to fail”, you said.

          But the choice is a liberty exercised.

          And marriages, including these, are commonly procreative in outcome. Because marriage is a sexual relationship of man and woman.

          • James

            Yes, these marriages are commonly procreative, which makes the divorce all the more damaging.

            • Chairm

              You talk as if you know their marriages better than they. What if the overwhelming majority do not bust up?

              Then instead of bad, good? Instead of damaging, positive?

              You seem to be heavily prejudiced (as in pre-judging) against them.

  • BaldyBapTheBarber

    Hi Jacob,

    I’m not sure if you will see this comment but I have one question regarding your article that I’d like you to clarify, if possible.

    Let me start by saying that I think your article is great and has gave me quite a bit to think about, I particularly love your reasoning and examples that you put forth to explain the same. I’m an Irish Catholic who just loves reading Crisis Magazine, the quality of article that’s published is just fantastic.

    That said, I do have difficulty with one comment that you made. You state in the third paragraph that same sex “marriage” “…cannot do the single most important thing that marriage does: create the stable nexus of relationships that serve as the building block of society.”
    My question then is – how do you know this? How do you know that same sex “marriage” can’t provide a stable nexus of relationships that serve as the building block of society? What are the facts to back this up?

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an advocate for same sex “marriage”, however I’ve yet to see anyone provide any independent data that confirm assertions like yours above.

    Now maybe I’m picking you up wrong so let me also add; are you saying that a same sex “marriage” can’t provide a stable environment for the rearing of children? Because this is how I interpret you statement.

    I look forward to hearing from you or any of the other learned commentators who contribute to this fantastic website.

    Thank you.
    Kieran Maxwell

    • LarryCicero

      Marriage is not child-rearing certification.Why should two friends have to marry before adopting? What is it about the designation of marriage that turns a couple into good and competent child-rearers? Marriage is not “best friend forever” as the rate of divorce can testify. You can look at the prison population and see that fatherless children make up a high percentage, but this does not mean that two fathers or two mothers is what is needed. We need to define what marriage is and understand why it exists before we change the meaning and purpose. If we change the definition of father, mother, husband and wife, meaning is lost. Do we need to subject children to experimentation to develop sufficient statistical facts or can we discern the truth through right reason? A child should have a mother and a father. Married husbands and wives best provide that stable nexus for procreation.

      • BaldyBapTheBarber

        Hi Larry thanks for your reply.

        I would agree with most of what you say. However, you still havn’t answered my main query, which was how the author can make the assertion that same Sex “married” couples can’t provide a stable environment?

        I don’t necessarily disagree with the authors comment, it’s just that I’d never go about making that claim without being sure of the evidence for the same.

        I agree with you about not subjecting children to experimentation to find out, but at the same time I ask myself why and how the author can make this assertion without stating his evidence for this claim?

        • LarryCicero

          My reply relates to the second part of your question, what is the relationship for? The “building block of society” must revolve around procreation, which builds society with more people. The relationship of the child-rearers is secondary to that of the begetters. Marriage is the recognized relationship for bringing a child into the world that is not a bastard. A stable relationship is not the basis of marriage. It should be- ’til death do us part- but it is not, because of divorce. But to be joined together, to procreate, can only be accomplished through gender specific couples- husband and wife.

        • LarryCicero

          I will concede the argument that it is about procreation, and rather paternity to MPS’s comment under today’s article, “Is Homosexual Marriage Possible?” Thanks for asking a great question and forcing one to clarify “Why?”

    • GG

      Two men acting like husband and wife cannot be stable. It is unnatural and contrary to reason. It is a type of assault on children. No “data” is needed to grasp this.

      • BaldyBapTheBarber

        Hi GG,

        Why can’t it be stable? It may be unatural or contrary to reason as you claim, but that doesn’t prove it’s unstable.

        Why do you think it’s a type of assault on children and what are your reasons for thinking that?

        Thanks
        Kieran

        • GG

          How can something contrary to reason be stable? I am sorry but that makes no sense. If the concept defies reason then you are by definition unstable.

          What I find so troubling is that your question even needs to be asked. We have fallen so far from reason and nature that we now ask the most basic questions about reality.

          Why is it an assault on children? It is self evident that two men can never be a father and mother. To subject a child to such a pairing is unconscionable. You are depriving them of normal parents and forcing them into an unnatural situation that impairs their development.

          • BaldyBapTheBarber

            Hi GG thanks for replying.

            I’m not sure I buy your assertion that being unreasonable makes you unstable. Can you elaborate prehaps?

            Given the arguements for Gods existence such as the cosmological arguement, the arguement for fine tuning of the universe, the moral arguement etc, do you believe that athiesits are unreasonable? If so does this therefore make them unstable? I personally don’t believe it does.

            I’m asking my questions to try and help me formulate my opinion, I’m sorry if this is annoying you. You see I still haven’t came across a good argument that can stand up to the assertion that same sex “married” couples provide an unstable environment for children.

            If this is your belief there must be some evidence for it, other wise you are guilty of being irrational, given you believe in something without evidence to back it up.

            • Mal

              Evidence that was not available earlier or was suppressed does provide some food for thought.

              Dawn Stefanowicz, who has written a book on problems associated with Gay parenting, said: “Due to media silencing, political correctness, GLBT lobbying efforts and loss of freedom of speech, it is very hard to tell my story. But I am not alone …”

              Katy Faust who was brought up by a lesbian mum believed she was deprived: “A gay man can be a
              great dad, he just can never be a mother. A lesbian woman can be a great mom,
              but she can never be a father. Kids want and need and deserve both.”
              In Scotland the use of those two beautiful terms MUM and DAD have been banned at some places. Very sad. One can go on.

              • BaldyBapTheBarber

                Hi Mal, thank you for your post.

                However, while your reply adds to the debate, the information you provide does not verify the claim that a gay relationship is an unstable environment for the building blocks of a fruitful society. This is essentially what the author has claimed in the 3rd paragraph of his article.

                I’m no advocate of same sex “marriage”, but like I’ve said to other commentators here, I’d like to know the provenance of the authors claim so that I too can confidently say the same when discussing this topic with my own friends and family. As I believe it would be a useful argument for the Christian case.

                I haven’t heard of Dawn Stefanowicz or her book, but do you know if she cites any reliable info in the same book that could back up the authors claim in this article?

                God bless.
                Kieran

                • Mal

                  Kieran, I believe that the gradual removal of Mum and Dad, husband and wife are damaging. In Scotland, where they have had this ‘marriage’ children in some schools have been banned from making Father’s Day Cards. Just imagine not being allowed to celebrate fathers!
                  Do you know that even as far back as – well, before Jesus’ time – the Chinese believed that only in primitive or uncivilized societies will people not have a proper concept and appreciation of husband, wife, father, mother, brother and society. They knew then then the importance of marriage which they called the fundamental unit of society, and also the harm in not appreciating it.

            • GG

              ++I’m not sure I buy your assertion that being unreasonable makes you unstable. Can you elaborate prehaps?++

              How can something contrary to reason be stable or good? If you put sugar in your car’s gas tank would the car run well?

              Humans by design are intended to complementary. Children, by design, need a father and mother. This is self evident and is known from reason, biology, history, revelation, and pretty much any other metric you can chose.

              The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. Homosexuality is contrary to nature and to the moral law.

              As for atheism. That too is unstable and leads to all types of serious problems. If you do not believe your eyes then I cannot make you see what is evident.

              Atheism has given us more murders than any other period of history. Stalin is a perfect example.

              The idea that homosexuality is parenting is beyond any reasonable definition of stable. Two men sodomizing each other and calling it a marriage is simply depraved.Children have rights.

              • BaldyBapTheBarber

                “How can something contrary to reason be stable or good? If you put sugar in your car’s gas tank would the car run well?”

                Of course the car would not run well, but we’re not talking about Cars and sugar. We’re talking about a stable human family and what constitutes the same. We have plenty of evidence to show that a car will not drive without gas, we know scientifically that sugar will not provide the combustion needed to drive the engine; how much evidence do we have to back up the claim that Same Sex couples provide an unstable environment? So your example doesn’t stand up I’m afraid.

                “Humans by design are intended to complementary. Children, by design, need a father and mother. This is self evident and is known f rom reason, biology, history, revelation, and pretty much any other metric you can chose.The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. Homosexuality is contrary to nature and to the moral law.”

                I agree.

                “As for atheism. That too is unstable and leads to all types of serious problems. If you do not believe your eyes then I cannot make you see what is evident. Atheism has given us more murders than any other period of history. Stalin is a perfect example.”

                Unfortunately, I know quite a few atheists, but fortunately none of them are murderers. I would describe them as fine upstanding citizens with strong moral values. I certainly wouldn’t describe them as unstable or intrinsically bad! I think your logic is flawed when you compare every atheist with Stalin. By your logic the Atheist would well be within his right to tar every theist with the horrific crimes of the Islamic suicide bomber. Your thinking is faulty here.

                “The idea that homosexuality is parenting is beyond any reasonable definition of stable. Two men sodomizing each other and calling it a marriage is simply depraved…”

                I don’t believe homosexuals can be married, full stop! The definition doesn’t lend itself to this situation, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. It’s like a square and a rectangle, they both have four sides, but you can’t start calling rectangles squares just because they have four sides. They are defined differently exactly because they are different. The same applies to marriage, it has a single definition, it’s illogical to try and apply this to any other union.

                “Children have rights,”
                Do you have any knowledge that children’s rights are being infringed? What do you mean by this statement? Are you implying that homosexuals will have sex in front of any children they may be given custody over? I think you need to explain this one.

                GG, you certainly come across as a passionate person with strong personal beliefs, and I’m not getting at your personally, I’m just trying to resolve a flaw in the authors thinking, a I see it.

                Without documented evidence I believe he is wrong to state that Same sex couples provide an unstable environment.

                I’m open to persuasion though! Hence my initial posting.

                God Bless.
                Kieran

        • Objectivetruth

          “Why do you think it’s a type of assault on children and what are your reasons for thinking that?”

          Simple. You’re consciously denying a child either a mother or father (as GG states below.) A form of child abuse. The reason two “gay” men don’t understand this or refuse to believe it is their narcissim and self absorption has blinded them. For them, having a child is not about the child, it’s about the “gay” couples narcissistic bent.

          • BaldyBapTheBarber

            Hi objectivetruth, thanks very much for your reply.

            That first line of yours is really quite good and makes a lot of sense to me. I never thought of it that way; that You’re consciously denying them a mother or father. It’s so obvious once it’s pointed out. Cheers for that, I will use that in future discussions.

            God bless
            Kieran

  • JourneyForTruth

    I was reading in the comments that asked if there were any studies done that suggested children of homosexual parents grow up with not the best possible environment. I propose the Mark Regnerus study; the biggest study ever done, fervently challenged yet stood by and held up by the university along with the sociologist.

    http://www.markregnerus.com/

  • JourneyForTruth

    We never hear from the children of homosexual marriages because well… when they’re young they lose their allowance and when they’re older they don’t network well in getting a job by professing such beliefs..but they are out there. Take a look at this professor that is taking the hits for children raised in gay parenting situations.

    Children of Same-Sex Couples: A Turning Point
    By Robert Oscar Lopez

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/children_of_samesex_couples_a_turning_point.html#ixzz3XONjxFwz

  • JourneyForTruth

    MORE studies that show children are better with their biological parents given to me by “Citizen Link”.

    The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/

    Why children thrive with married parents
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267383/Why-children-thrive-married-parents.html

    Why Marriage Matters by Brad Wilcox (& colleagues)
    http://nationalmarriageproject.org/resources/why-marriage-matters/

    Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles
    http://protectmarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/WI_Marriage.pdf

    New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter
    http://dailysignal.com//2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggests-differences-matter/

  • JourneyForTruth

    The ten myths of homosexuality by Professor Whitehead. Very good research!

    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/myths.pdf

  • JourneyForTruth

    What would Martin Luther King say about Homosexuals jumping on his civil rights movement (Skin color is not behavior)? Well, we know his daughter Bernice King said, ““did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage,””. The closest public statement we have from King on that is this writing of advise in an article.

    What did MLK think about gay people?
    By John Blake, CNN

    In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn’t uncommon, but required “careful attention.”

    “The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not AN INNATE TENDENCY, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what-did-mlk-think-about-gay-people/

  • JourneyForTruth

    Catholic Answers Tracts: Homosexuality

    Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

    For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable

  • JourneyForTruth

    Hum… interesting!

    Epigenetics Havard Study: Early Experiences Can Alter Gene Expression and Affect Long-Term Development working paper 10

    “Contrary to popular belief, the genes inherited from one’s parents do not set a child’s future
    development in stone.”

    http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp10/

MENU