Where Will Same-Sex Unions Lead Us?

Listening to arguments by Theodore Olson, the lawyer challenging Proposition 8, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said this: “You’re asking for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor. There’s a wonderful destination or there’s a cliff.”

Last month the United States Supreme Court heard two cases challenging the oldest human institution next to gardening—marriage. The court is to rule whether constitutional equal protection should extend to same-sex unions and dub them “marriage.” The significance of this ruling is that the precedent it sets will be irrevocable. If the Supreme Court constitutionalizes a right to so-called same-sex marriages, it will be a point of no return.

Will this finality be the result of triumphant victory or terminal velocity? Will it be a wonderful destination somewhere over the rainbow? Or a cliff?

Perhaps we can get a sense of what lays ahead—a paradise or a precipice—by looking back at America’s infamous track record of redefining fundamentals:

  • 1960’s: Sex, redefined.
  • 1970’s: Human life, redefined.
  • 1980’s: Femininity, redefined.
  • 1990’s: Masculinity, redefined.
  • 2000’s: Marriage, TBD.

America has certainly not steered clear of uncharted waters before, and the result has usually been free-fall. Fornication is not love and pornography is not procreation—they are lies. Abortion is not eliminating a lifeless fetus—it is murder. Men and women cannot pick and choose their natures—it is hypocrisy. Same-sex union is not a marriage—it is a mirage.

Justice Kennedy is not alone in acknowledging that much is at stake in this ruling. Marriage stands to be re-ordained as a new and different institution from what the God of Genesis ordained and called good. It is difficult to imagine how this can be hailed as a healthy step for the human species—but it has a lemming army of proponents and defenders.

A series of scientific studies were offered to the court to assuage any misgivings that the legal redefinition of marriage as a societal union between two men or two women would prove anything but beneficial. According to their findings, there is no cause for alarm. This scientific promise, however, has no scientific premise. Same-sex union is still nothing more than a social experiment. It is too early to know if these unions are harmful or not. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize homosexual unions in 2004. “We have five years of information to weigh,” said Justice Kennedy, “against two thousand years of history.” Given the lack of data, there is no responsible or honest way to prognosticate the long-term effects of redefining marriage. Perhaps common sense should be consulted.

The fallacy in these reports is glaring even to the uninitiated. No evidence suggesting negative consequences is, under the circumstances, no reason to conclude that there will be no negative consequences. Such findings in themselves suggest neither one conclusion nor another. No news is not necessarily good news. Again, the only available resources are common sense, common experience, and the common man—poor influences in a world bent on the uncommon at every turning.

Thus, this wild conclusion-leapfrog is taken with a concerned seriousness. What these proceedings merit, however, is to be taken with a serious concern—there are innocent children involved, after all. Though a mere scrap of scientific statistics exist, august organizations such as the American Psychological Association, etc. do solemnly swear on a stack of Bibles ten feet high that information gleaned from same-sex couples indicate that they are just as good at being parents as any heterosexual couple. These statistical numbers and samplings are invariably drawn from homosexual forums and functions, surveying a few, biased individuals and producing pages of very promising numbers. Such social science should arouse suspicion.

What is even more suspicious is the violent defense of these reports. A rabid criticism is applied to any study that indicates that biological children raised by a married man and woman in a well-adjusted household tend to do fairly well for themselves; while children raised by gays or lesbians have been found to be subject to depression, deviant behavior, and learning disabilities. The aggressive attacks against such alternative studies are indicative of activists rather than analysts. If we are truly just dealing with a beautiful, undiscovered form of marriage, why is there such a strange and savage defensive at work?

The evidence has been submitted. The arguments have been heard. The verdict is expected in June. The Californian courts have already deemed Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The Supreme Court could uphold it or strike it down. If the justices rule that same-sex couples in the state of California may receive the same rights as married couples, the decision might only apply to California; but it is not unthinkable that the law could extend to some, or even all, of the fifty states. The definition of marriage hangs in the balance. Though this may simply seem like an argument over the meaning of a word or a name, we know from Genesis that words and names are very important because they impart meaning. They are sacred. The great word “gay” has already been purloined. God forbid that we hurl “marriage” over the cliff as well.

Sean Fitzpatrick


Sean Fitzpatrick is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and the Headmaster of Gregory the Great Academy. He lives in Scranton, PA with his wife and family of four.

  • Legalizing same sex unions will open the Pandora’s box of every sexual deviancy. Polygamy, pederasty, bestiality, necrophilia, and more will become “legal” between consenting (the dead consenting in advance) participants. All of this movement is the result of contraceptive sex. Since it is to satisfy the desire for sexual pleasure for it’s own sake and not the purpose for which it is designed.

    • dch

      There is zero evidence for any of that. SSM as been occurring in MA for almost ten years – since then not a single case of as occurred as result of a same sex couple getting married. Polygamy, pederasty, bestiality, necrophilia EXISTED before SSM and, using your cause-effect reasoning, could be said to caused by straight marriage.

      Contraception, of all things, is a not an issue for same sex individuals – and they have had zero effect on same sex behaviors.

      • poetcomic1

        Are you just being PURPOSELY dense? As soon as a strong, national affirmation of same sex ‘marriage’ is made, other kinds of ‘love’ will demand ‘equal marriage rights’ and they will have to be heard. Massachusetts is a weak, local phenomena and not enough to embolden the fetishistic and compulsives into demanding ‘affirmations’ of their ‘lifestyles’.

        • ME

          Its already happening in the UK… there were some articles a few months back about the NAMBLA groups looking to “normalize” pedophila. It won’t stop there either.

          • standtall909

            See my post about the AMA and pedophilia.

          • Frank Lozera

            Well, are there any signs that the British NAMBLA group is making head-way? And if they are, can you establish a cause-effect relationship between their successes and those of the SSM supporters?

            • John200

              Frank Lozera, you are back again. Oh God help us, it’s true, you are back again.

              Troll,troll, troll your boat,
              Gently down the stream,
              Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
              Life is but a dream.

              Troll,troll, troll your boat (sing it with me, Frank, come on, join in),
              Gently down the stream,

              Troll on, brother. Now as to your conversion, that’ll be a whole ‘nother comment.

              • Objectivetruth

                Great post! Frank Lozera,for an atheist, you sure do spend a lot of time on Catholic websites! You’ve posted Frank in the past how sodomy is innocent, causes no issues. Google “Gay Bowel Syndrome”, let me know your thoughts.

              • Bono95

                If you want Mr. Lozera to convert or see the truth, you won’t accomplish it by name-calling. As for his coming here a lot, be happy for that. He obviously finds it attracting somehow, and if it’s not yet for the right reasons, perhaps it will be soon. Don’t drive him away.

                • John200

                  Your predictive powers are not well established. I will do it my way, thank you.

                  I have not yet begun to convert Frank Lozera (or have I?).

                  • Bono95

                    Don’t ask me, ask God.

            • cestusdei

              The fact that they are out and working on their agenda is sufficient cause for concern. They used to march in gay pride parades until it created bad press. Now California is considering making pedophilia a protected sexual orientation.

            • Dmikem

              If the definition of marriage is changed based upon the Equal Rights Clause then all bets are off. Of course NAMBLA, polygamy supporters et al are struggling because these things are against the law. If marriage falls why can’t these deviant groups demand the same treatment as gays, it is only logical.

        • John200

          He (dch) may not be dense, I can’t tell from here. But he (dch) IS wrong, just like any other advocate of homo”sex”ual marriage. His arguments exist to be refuted with great force.

          Good thing they always get refuted, and it is easy to do.

          He came here to stir you up. That’s all.

      • standtall909

        Just an FYI. The American Psychiatric Assoc. is now toying with the idea that pedophilia is a normal sexual attraction that should not be labeled any kind of abnormality or sexual dysfunction, nor should it be a criminal act between a consenting adult and a consenting child. They have met twice about this subject and from what I understand will again meet this coming summer for more discussion. Once “gay marriage” is the law of the land, it will not stop there. Basically, what has happened since the sexual revolution of the 60’s is that the very definition of sexual relationships has been redefined over the years, and it will not stop until the culture looks more like Sodom than a civilized nation.

        • Frank Lozera

          Could you please provide a link to support this story?

          • standtall909

            This article highlighted the 2011 conference of the APA. They met again in 2012 and I would have to dig up that link but according to what I’ve read. (and this isn’t the only site I’ve read it on) they will meet again this year and discuss the issue at their yearly conference.

            • Frank Lozera

              Your link does not mention any conference of the APA. It is about a symposium organized by a group called “B4U-ACT,” whose mission statement says that it “promotes competent and effective professional services and resources in Maryland for individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children through education, outreach, communication, creativity, and initiative.” The conference is about some issues with the DSM, but B4U-ACT is not a part of the APA.

              Please no more red herrings.

              • cestusdei

                So in other words it doesn’t matter what evidence is given. You will simply lapse into denial.

          • cestusdei

            So there are the links. Are you ready to concede?

        • Dmikem

          Did you know that in California (?) a bill is under consideration that would make it illegal to try and get a person to change their gender preference even if they want a therapist to attempt it. In the bill the language is so broad that is would make pedophilia just another sexual orientation. Attempts to tighten the language was shot down; google for details.

          • standtall909

            Yes, read all about it. The point is, they are making some headway in attempting to “normalize” pedophilia. Not saying this will ever come about, at least not in the near future, but once you open the flood gates and change the definition of marriage, eventually there will be complete sexual chaos.

            • Dmikem

              We agree.

          • Bono95

            That is sick and totally bigoted! If I had SSA, I’d run like mad to the nearest therapist who could help me out of it. The makers of that bill are heterophobes!

      • The DA of Utah is already saying, w/o benefit of SSM in the state, that they will not proecute polygamy cases unless they involve minors. We’ve already slid into that pool. APA has already hosted conferences where pedophilia was presented as an “orientation”. We are moving toward that one too.

      • AmberQuest

        But NOW they will be ACCEPTABLE as NORMS!!!!!

      • Dmikem

        You post contains some painful inaccuracies. Obviously contraception isn’t an issue for gays but apparently neither is safe-sex. I believe the LGBT people push for distribution of condoms to prevent HIV. Of course the statistics say that gay men ignore the use of prophylactics For example: “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.” (cf. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/)I

        I agree that polygamy, pederasty, bestiality, necrophilia all existed before SSM. However they are and, for now remain, illegal. What SSM does is open the door to legal approval of them on the same basis as SSM. Already in Canada efforts are being made for polygamy and in Holland activists are pursuing the legalization of group marriage. SSM is the worst kind of social engineering. The issue of gay marriage rose in the 1990’s. So to satisfy what the atypical behavior of a tiny percentage of the overall population we toss the thousands of years old tradition of marriage under the bus.

        The shame is that gays now claim that marriage a civil right……they want equal treatment under the law. But the constitution does not treat all persons and groups the same, it takes other things into account. For example, men and women have equal rights under the law but they still require separate restrooms. Single gender clubs, associations, schools etc. continue to thrive. a 20-year-old can enlist in the military but in many places cannot buy alcohol. In the case of gays they can achieve equality under the law through civil unions (cf. Illinois gay rights laws) making the redefinition of marriage unnecessary. In addition civil unions will side-step all these other issues of who can or can’t marry,

        • Frank Lozera

          Dmikem: If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that high rates of HIV/AIDS transmission among homosexual men should justify prohibiting SSM. Your reasoning is, I presume, that monogamous marriage between these men would spread the disease? I don’t exactly get that, and I hope you can explain it.

          In any case, you’re linking HIV transmission rates with marriage, so let’s look at some other statistics.

          The CDC Fact sheet on HIV/AIDS Among Women Who Have Sex With Women reports that “to date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database.”

          Using your reasoning, what would you conclude from that? Using your reasoning, here is what I expect you to conclude:

          Women who don’t have sex with women should not be allowed to marry. Does that sound right to you?

          Let’s look at some other quirkly little statistics and see what conclusions we can draw:

          In Tanzania (population 46 million), HIV incidence (per 100 person-years) was 5.15 for Catholics versus 3.25-3.97 for other religions. It was 7.04 for local brew sellers and 3.27 for bar workers. It was also higher for the more educated rather than the less.

          So, in light of these facts, should Tanzania ban marriage for educated Catholic brew sellers?

          In an analysis of blood sera from 2103 randomly selected South African individuals in 2008, 40% of the samples contained HIV. How many of these randomly selected individuals were likely to have been straight? Probably 96.5% of them, but what if it was more than that? Should heterosexual men there not be allowed to marry?

          In the same study, male subjects who had been circumcised were at a 1.3-fold risk of carrying the Kaposi’s Sarcoma herpes Virus than uncircumcised men. Should uncircumcised South African men not be allowed to marry?

          In several of Africa’s most economically advanced countries (e.g., Kenya, South Africa, Botswana), the richest 20% of women have four times the risk of being HIV-positive compared with the poorest 20%. In those countries, rich women should not be allowed to marry, I presume?

          Six times as many Americans are HIV infected as Norwegians. Should Americans not be allowed to marry?

          Six times as many South Africans are HIV positive as Americans. Does this mean South Africans should not be allowed to marry?

          In Canada, the greatest increases in HIV infections are among aboriginal Canadians. Should they be prohibited from marrying?

          In the U.S., African-Americans are three times more likely to contract HIV. No marriage for them?

          I hope you can see the absurdity of tying marriage rights of entire classes of people to their relative HIV/AIDS status?

          Maybe it is unwise for an HIV-positive man to marry an HIV-negative woman, or vice versa, but is it fair to say that the HIV transmission patterns of a particular group disqualify all its members–even the HIV-negative ones–from marrying?

          This would be like saying that, since many terrorists are Muslims, no Muslims should be allowed in this country. Or, since the Catholic Church cooperated with fascist regimes in the 20th century, our country should close all Catholic churches.

          • Dmikem

            Frank, the first rule of debate is to understand the points made. Your a smart guy so I can only conclude that you have deliberately misunderstood me. I made absolutely no connection between HIV and marriage…none at all. So your response to my comment is pure fiction. I was responding to dch’s post where dch said, “Contraception, of all things, is a not an issue for same sex individuals – and they have had zero effect on same sex behaviors.” I argued in my response that his post contained painful inaccuracies. I then argued the use of prophylactics is supported by gay and straight people alike as both a contraceptive and for disease prevention (HIV specifically). I went to point out that while contraception is not an issue for gay men apparently neither is save sex, then I provided a citation to prove my point while you provided nothing to support you numbers. My point was clear and simple…..the use of condoms is a behavior and it protects gay men from HIV.

            Your behavior is typical of ‘trolls’ who attempt to rule the conversation through deliberate misinterpretations, false accusations and unproven data. In short you effort to change the tone and topic of this thread is a ludicrous and transparent failure because:

            1. I made no connection what-so-ever between HIV and marriage, so the your arguments on the subject are just silly…LOL.
            2. Your whole ‘monogamous marriage’ presumption is deliberate and false and is as vacuous as #1.
            3. You then make numerous statements about marriage, Muslims and the Catholic Church that are riddled falsehoods and distortions.
            4. You failed to answer the thrust of my points obviously because you want to drive the debate…..

            So, because your reading of my post re: HIV is so…hmmmm…..inventive I’m not going to waste my time responding to you marriage comments. I’ll let others decide for themselves as to who is right.

            However you will not be so fortunate regarding your other….hmmmm….vacuous claims:

            Your Muslim comment is off point and doesn’t even apply to your own arguments. Did you make that up by yourself?

            Your claim that the Catholic Church cooperated with fascist regimes is completely false. I think your talking about Pope Pius XII or Pope Bendict XVI. With regard to XII you probably should stop reading long discredited sources like John Cornwell and read more recent reports. Try reading Gordon Thomas, a Protestant, who was given access to previously unpublished Vatican documents and tracked down victims, priests and others who had not told their stories before. These accounts totally disprove your claim. In addition, if you would bother to get the facts instead of fabricating stuff, you would find that even the Jews have come to recognize all of the efforts made by Pope Pius XII to save Jews from the fascists. But then you aren’t much for facts are you?

            In addition, you failed to recognize my comments on polygamy etc. You failed to comment on my claim that gay marriage will open the door to legalizing all of these other perversions. You failed to respond to my assertion that gay marriage is the worst kind of social engineering.

            If you want to debate with me….respond to the points made….support
            your claims with statistics and sources (reliable ones), don’t make stuff up,
            don’t try to change the subject….

            If you can’t do these simple things…..don’t waste my time by responding because I won’t waste a second of my time to respond.

      • tedseeber

        “Contraception, of all things, is a not an issue for same sex individuals – and they have had zero effect on same sex behaviors.”

        except of course that condom use leads to more reckless behavior and the spread of AIDS.

    • Adam Baum

      The relationship is reversed. It is a modern canon that any and all sexual behaviors are legitimate, a matter of unrestricted personal choice without responsibility. Marriage is no longer about an exchange of duties between two differently situated individuals and the offspring the union might produce, it’s social recognition. SS “M” isn’t the locomotive, it’s the caboose. When you fail to believe in something, you don’t believe in nothing, you believe in anything.

      Since anything can be something, nothing is excluded. What we really be interesting is when some fundamentalist Mormon shows up with his “wives” or the middle aged Imam brings his prepubescent bride. They’ll have the added argument of being restrained in their right of worship.

  • Instead of “two thousand years”, Justice Kennedy should have more correctly said “the whole of human history”. Marriage is a societal phenomenon, not a social construct; it arose spontaneously as the best form of procreation and protection of the offspring. It is not in human power to “change” its “definition”.

    • Bono95

      What do justices know about history?
      Answer: NOTHING, as this whole marriage mess proves.

  • Jackie Durkee

    I agree with Michael. If they rule that proposition 8 is unconstitutional then I believe other forms of sexual unions will be accepted as well down the line. We all know that with Roe v Wade, abortion became the irreversible law of the land. With this decision, same-sex marriage will become an irreversible law of the land. I feel like I’m living in Sodom or Gomorrah and we all know how that turned out.

    • Bono95

      A priest I know commented that if this madness goes on much longer, God’s either gonna have to deal with it harshly or do some serious apologizing to Sodom and Gomorrah.

      • Frank Lozera

        So you were told that by a priest that you know? Ummm. I know another priest who thinks SSM is a great idea!

        • Dmikem

          Frank, the Catholic Church in its totality teaches that same sex relationships are an intrinsic evil. So you knowing a priest that supports SSM means absolutely ‘zero’.

    • Frank Lozera

      Jackie. This is not Sodom and Gomorrah. Get a grip. Don’t blame gays for everything that you perceive to be wrong with the world. If two lesbians are in love and want to spend their rest of their lives together in a committed relationship, how is that Sodom and Gomorrah? Please explain. I don’t get it.

      • Dmikem

        Frank, you can troll all you want but you know as well as I do the biblical reasons for the destruction of S&G. If two lesbians want to liver together for the rest of their lives let them do it under a ‘civil union’.

      • Joe DeCarlo

        If a man and boy want to spend time together, is that ok? Frank, you have to have parameters in a society. Why not men having 5 wives and vice-versa? Sodom and Gomorrah were tame compared to this sick society. Look at all the perverts who are addicted to porn. People addicted to drugs, alcohol. More and more children taken their own lives. 15,000 murders in the USA every year. We read the books “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, by Edward Gibbon. We might not see it, but there will be a book entitled, “The Decline and Fall of the United States of America”. Every civilization has fallen. This civilization is not different than any other that has existed.

    • Sodom and Gomorrah was about townspeople who didn’t like outsiders who wanted to gang rape angels not loving unions between people of the same sex. Somehow it is OK that Lot gives up his virgin daughters to appease the townspeople. Rape is not about sex but about power so the story of Sodom and Gomorrah tells us nothing about same-sex marriage.

      • Dmikem

        Frank knows this he is just trolling.

      • Bono95

        Last I looked, gang or solo raping angels is not possible.

    • Dmikem

      Roe v Wade is reversible and we should work to make it happen.

  • Jhawk77

    Michael Rzeppa is spot on. This morphing social experiment won’t cease to extend its deadly tendrils after so-called gay marriage has become de rigueur. Unfortunately, we can only blame ourselves – the church – for this monster.

  • If you are worried about same-sex couples raising children, the fight over Proposition 8 is not the fight in which to raise that objection because same-sex couples can already adopt children in California within their domestic partnerships. Same-sex couples have the desire to raise children just like everyone else and will continue to do so because the government has no basis for denying recognition to that marriage.

    What is your basis for the statement “while children raised by gays or lesbians have been found to be subject to depression, deviant behavior, and learning disabilities.”? I suspect you are still quoting the Regnerus study even though he never examined a single child raised by two same-sex parents in a committed relationship. If anything the study shows that broken families caused by gay men marrying women harm children.

    • Karen Frances

      Actually, most – like 2/3 – of the same-sex-raised-children in that study were children who spent some of their childhood in a home with their biological mother in a lesbian relationship. Most children in same-sex households are the biological children of one of the partners from a previous heterosexual relationship.

      The study could only find 2 people (out of like 15,000 if I recall correctly) who had spent their entire childhood in a same sex relationship household. This is the glaring dishonesty of mainstream media at work that people think (I’m sure a poll would say this) homosexuals are adopting lots of kids in foster care or having children through artificial insemination or in vitro.

      • Yes but most of those children raised by their biological mother in a lesbian relationship were the product of broken marriages to men, most likely because the mother couldn’t live a lie anymore. So you still have the negative impact that comes from going through a separation of your two parents. The more that same-sex marriage and civil unions become the norm, the more likely same-sex couples will pair off before either of them marries someone of the opposite sex, thus they will be more likely to adopt or have children through artificial insemination.

        It is precisely the messages of people like those who frequently comment on this site and demonize same sex couples that leads gay and lesbian individuals to feel compelled to enter into opposite sex marriages and produce children even though those relationships are the least likely to last because one spouse is living a lie. When that marriage breaks down, it is harmful to the children.

        The studies that actually do look at children raised by same sex couples who adopt through the foster system show that the children are just as well adjusted as any who are raised by opposite sex couples. (See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121019094534.htm )

        Since you seem to think that it would be better for children if they were raised by same-sex couples who adopted or took the time to conceive children through artificial insemination, supporting same-sex marriages is the better way to go. This will lead to less of the broken families like Regnerus highlighted in his study, and a better life for children overall.

        • Karen Frances

          I don’t think that at all. I think it has to be tough for children in those situations and we will hear from them. Children want to conform. They don’t want to be oddballs.

          I would not have allowed my daughter to visit a friend’s home with same sex parents and I honestly feel it would have been my obligation not to allow it. I believe that homosexuality is a mental illness and, of course, I have a right to believe that. The children in those homes will necessarily suffer from social ostracism because many parents will be wary of them. Protecting your children is and should be a value above being “nice.” And thats just how it is. The media gives us images that are 99% baloney. Most children in same sex households are not upper middle income, either. According to that study, they are more likely to be low income/poor.

          No, we are not responsible for people marrying people they should not marry.

  • cestusdei

    It will lead to the destruction of marriage and family. That will destroy society.

    • standtall909

      Anyone who thinks it will not lead to other “abnormalities” becoming legal and accepted is fooling themselves. Yes indeed, it will surely destroy society COMPLETELY. And it all started with the Birth Control Pill.

      • Frank Lozera

        No, Standtall909, it didn’t start with the Birth Control Pill. It started with women’s suffrage. Think about it.

        And you could go back even further. To women’s right to own property. To women’s education. To their right to appear in public without covering their face. If you really want to go all the way back, go to Saudi Arabia. They are about as far from all these “other abnormalities” as you can get. Same-sex marriage won’t happen there anytime soon.

  • Charles Lewis

    To say that same-sex marriage will lead to “pederasty, bestiality, necrophilia” seems an extreme assessment and insulting to gay men and women. Is this how we want this debate to go? Vicious attacks on people who were born the way they were born? However, I think the thing to worry about is whether same-sex marriage will lead to legalized polygamy. There is anecdotal evidence that with immigration polygamy is probably already practiced widely in Canada, outside of splinter Mormon sects. In Canada, many observers who did not oppose gay marriage are vehemently against polygamy. Which comes back to holding the line on the definition of marriage. I’m not sure there can be a strong legal objection to polygamy once gay marriage is made legal. Pederasty, bestiality and necrophilia are practiced by those who are deranged and do not flow from gay marriage. It’s a sickness that’s always been with us.
    Just one last thing: is there any evidence at all that there’s a direct link between legalized gay marriage and the destruction of traditional marriage? It would seem traditional marriage has had a tough time since divorce laws were liberalized. There’s also the question of why so many straight couples are opting to live together. Marriage is in trouble for many reasons and it’s wrong, I think, to simplify the causes.

    • Ford Oxaal

      Extreme? Are you bigoted? We are in the process of breaking the boundaries where sex was confined to lifelong partnerships for the good of the fruits of the relationship, namely, children. Now that we have progressed beyond that antiquated and restrictive view, why shouldn’t all relationships be deemed normal, so long as the parties are enjoying themselves, and wish, at the time of consent, to do so for life? And besides, isn’t pleasure ultimately equal to consent?

    • Karen Frances

      Polygamy has a longer, stronger tradition in the United States than gay marriage, which almost no one was talking about, including gays, just 25 years ago.

  • publiusnj

    “Same sex marriage” never produces issue. NEVER, ever. Not even if one of the “partners” outsources the contribution of “Opposite Sex Genetic Material” (OSGM) from a person of the opposite sex so as to join the contributed OSGM with his/her own genetic material to result in human conception. In that case, the resulting issue is not the product of the “same sex marriage” but of a “union” however temporary (and perhaps entirely artificial) of a “gay marriage partner” with a person of the opposite sex. So, the only way for a gay person to sire or dam issue is by entering into some form of union with someone of the opposite sex. (Birds and Bees 101).

    If “Gay Marriage” is permitted, the key civil components of Marriage (Presumption of Paternity and Adultery Prohibition) have to be stood on their heads. While statutory revisions since teh 1960s have weakened traditional laws on Adultery and Divorce, the legal presumption of paternity has generally persisted since the State always has wanted a way to nail the male as a supporter of any issue born from the marriage. The Common Law traditionally prohibited adultery by either participant and then irrebuttably presumed that issue born out of the woman during the marriage was fathered by the man in the marriage; yet, in “Gay Marriage” there either is no woman or there is no man. As a result, the legal presumption of paternity by a male of children born out of a woman in the “marriage” becomes a silly lie. Likewise, any prohibition on Adultery is irrelevant to the issue of reproduction except if the gay partner strays “straight” in his/her adultery.

    What’s more, any prohibition on adultery in a “Gay Marriage” context imposes a novel state-manufactured moral code that is not found anywhere in traditional culture. Traditionally, it has been gay sex that is immoral, not sex–gay or straight–outside “gay marriage” and a prohibition on adultery from a “gay marriage” is irrelevant to any state interest in ensuring that children propagated by a member of a “gay marriage” be the child of his/her partner too. That would be the merest wishful thinking. Ipso facto, any such child CANNOT be the other “partner’s” child too, and must be the child of a “different sex stranger” to the “gay marriage.” Again, this is just Birds and Bees 101.

  • cestusdei

    From Fr. Z:
    Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation Under CA Bill

    California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to
    federalize a state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s
    sexual orientation. That doesn’t sound that extreme, but pedophilia is a sexual orientation according to this bill as well.

    Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.

    The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s
    sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so
    is “dangerous and harmful.”

    The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.

    “Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental
    health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual
    orientation,” the bill says.

    Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality. [There it is.]

    “This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all
    forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus,
    president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the
    orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

    Who Cares If Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation?

    It also means that, if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, [then…] that discrimination laws also apply to pedophiles. That means you cannot block a pedophile from being a preschool teacher or any other high-risk occupation.

    Once you attack what true marriage is, what nature calls for, this is the road you follow.

    • cestusdei

      No comment from Frank?

  • Charles Lewis

    I have to jump in again. Is it fair to say same-sex marriage will ruin traditional marriage without statistical evidence? It’s not enough to believe it. I think being concerned about polygamy is the strongest case against same-sex marriage being legalized, especially with more Muslims coming to North America and the concern about how women are treated by some in that culture. Those who claim that gay marriage will kill traditional marriage and lead to legalized perversions such and necrophilia are going to ensure that same-sex marriage becomes legal by sounding like a bunch of crazy people. People on the fence on that issue are going to be put right off by these unsubstantiated claims. Look up stats online. It appears that the absolute number of divorces has dropped since around 2004 and as a percentage of the population is falling. Though it’s hard to say how clear those numbers are when many couples — straight couples — choose to live with each other but not marry.

    • Karen Frances

      What about common sense? Do we need statistical evidence in order to avoid things that are just plain anti-common sense?

      The purpose of marriage has always been the protection of vulnerable women and the vulnerable children that almost inevitably result from sexual union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals don’t have that concern; they really don’t. Why would including a group who lack the major purpose of the institution NOT be dangerous to the institution? It would be like shareholders in a corporation allowing non-shareholders full voting rights, a group that obviously does not have the same interest.

    • Dmikem

      On of the reasons the percentage of divorces in the population is dropping is because the number of people actually getting married is falling like a rock. With respect to statistics you make a great point……no-body knows what the knock on effects of changing the definition of marriage will be.

      I want to know what the hurry is? The gay marriage issue came on the scene in the mid-1990’s. Marriage has been around for thousands of years. Before changing the definition of marriage shouldn’t we look at its potential effects?

      We know that in Canada efforts are underway to legalize polygamy. In Holland activists are on record as predicting that gay marriage will soon follow a change in the definition of traditional marriage. If gays win the right to marry under the Equal Rights Clause why can’t polygamy advocates or why can’t groups consisting several men and women marry? What legal implications are their if any or all of these things are allowed? Are there any positive effects of gay marriage besides allowing gays to marry? What are they, I haven’t seen any predictions of good things. So the question becomes….is this good for the common good? What will be the impact on religion? If the HHS mandate is creating huge controversy over religious liberty then redefining marriage will be the HHS mandate on steroids. Is the government going to declare the bible a ‘hate’ book and ban teaching from it? Will the government force Catholic priest’s to marry gays or face financial and legal consequences.
      There is a great deal at stake and no reason what-so-ever to hurry the decision to redefine marriage without serious study of its effects.

  • A Hicks

    With nearly half of all marriages in America ending in divorce we have now reached the point in our civilization where divorce is a commonplace if not the norm. Family law has
    been rewritten to dilute both the rights and obligations of marriage. With “no-fault”
    divorce, spouses can now break the bond for little or no reason at all.
    And what is the response of the Church in America to this? Well, practically speaking,
    she has acquiesced. Catholic priests and bishops say little or nothing about this epidemic of divorce while we witness, in the words of John Paul II, “the scandal of seeing the value of Christian marriage being destroyed in practice by the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of declarations of nullity, in cases of the failure of marriage, on the pretext of
    some immaturity or psychic weakness on the part of the contracting parties.”

    Even those who continue to reverence the marriage bond have become wholly inured to divorce as a result of its pervasive numbers. Given the moral gravity of divorce, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church characterizes as “a grave offence against the natural law,” this routine failure in fidelity to the marriage vow could be considered one of the
    most significant moral failures of our time, an immense crisis of character, with far reaching moral, psychological and social consequences. Factoring in the widespread practice of contraceptive sex, even among the nominally Catholic, and we now have an almost complete breakdown of marriage in both its unitive and procreative ends, ends which define marriage in its essence. Is it any wonder then, that in the public debate the very nature of marriage is now up for grabs?

    • Dmikem

      You mix civil with religious argument. Someone who gets a civil divorce does not break the sacramental bond created when they married in the Church. The CC is following biblical precepts that it has no power or right to change. So it matters not how many people do or don’t follow these precepts. Those that don’t aren’t really Catholics they are cafeteria Katholics, liberal Katholics, Katholics-in-name only etc. Authentic Catholics must follow the Decrees of Vatican I that define what a Catholic must believe to be a Catholic (cf. Session 3, Chapter 3, On Faith, paragraph 8). Catholic doctrine will never become a matter of popular vote.
      With respect to nullifying marriages you are correct but the granting of them has been tightened. There are just reasons for nullifying a marriage where one of the parties enters the marriage with no intention of living by it strictures or for the wrong reasons. I would agree the bishops need to do much more to teach the faith and condemn relativism. But the Church has not abdicated as evidenced by the CCC and by the teachings of the magisterium.

      With respect to the civil arguments you make….would you agree that no-fault divorce and the widespread approval of contraceptives has been drivers behind societal moral decay? I think Paul VI was prophetic when he wrote ‘Humanae Vitae’, it is well worth reading. (cf. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html)

      The problems you outline about marriage will be nothing to those that SSM will bring.

      • A Hicks

        Thank you for your observations. I have read Humanae Vitae. I have also read the CCC where it says “divorce is a grave offense against the natural law.” (Notice that this doesn’t say that only divorce and remarriage
        is a grave offense, simply divorce.) I also believe (apparently with you) that
        no-fault divorce and the widespread approval of contraception have contributed
        to societal moral decay. My problem is not with the teaching of the Catholic
        Church. My problem is that this teaching on the sanctity of marriage and the
        evil of contraception has been largely ignored in the Catholic Church in
        America over the past 30-40 years. That, in addition to “the scandal of seeing the value of Christian marriage bein destroyed in practice by the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of declarations of nullity.” (JP II) (Has the granting of annulments been tightened? Perhaps, but I know that tribunals are still granting annulments for reasons that are juridically questionable, at best.)

        I believe that Same Sex Marriage is morally objectionable and therefore should be resisted. My point is not that we shouldn’t resist it, but that if the value and understanding of traditional marriage has been undermined in the Church by neglect at the pulpit, in the confessional, in the tribunals, and in the religious
        education of Catholic children, we should not be surprised that, once again, “in the public debate the very nature of marriage is now up for grabs.” If we are to defend traditional marriage, we need to first defend traditional marriage.

        • Dmikem

          I think we are in violent agreement. I am well aware of the failings of the bishops to faithfully teach on contraception, divorce and a number of other issues. I can only pray and talk with people like you to do my part.
          I have personally guided two people who were successful in seeking annulments and brother……they had great cause to do so. I can’t speak to specific cases where annulments were granted for trivial reasons but I believe that many have been so granted. But I do believe that it is changing. It was tough before…and it is tougher, in my opinion now and I hope it gets tougher still in the future. I believe completely in the sacramental nature of marriage and will never divorce…for any reason.
          However I believe you may misunderstand the Church’s teaching on divorce. People who divorce and remarry without the benefit of an annulment have committed a grave offense. However a civil divorce does not change a person’s marital status in the eyes of the Church. Many divorced people who remain celibate enjoy all the rights and privileges of any faithful Catholic and, in my opinion, rightfully so.
          As for contraception….this is one of the most evil things ever behind abortion. I agree that many priests do not teach on contraception, pre-marital sex, abortion, confession or anything controversial. That’s why I started attending a Latin mass. There just ain’t no shortage of straight-from-the-shoulder preaching on Catholic doctrine, there is a dress code, there is no kids playing and eating cheerios during mass, women wear mantillas (out of respect as they are not mandatory), confessions are before, during and after every mass (next Sunday it will be 5 weeks since my last confession….I will go and this will require I get to mass 15-20 minutes early because of the line that forms), the music is traditional, the ceremonies are traditional, the mass is in Latin but the mass books have Latin on one side and English on the other, the choir is in the loft (there are no musical performances), people kneel for communion, there is silence during mass for prayers, there is no clapping, presentations, plays or other things permitted during mass so people can focus on Christ’s sacrifice made present, holy water is always available, the priest will bless salt upon request…I could go on. These are the things important to me. If you haven’t been to a TLM, I suggest you give it a try.
          As for gay marriage…..join the fight against it the consequences of changing the definition of marriage will have a devastating impact upon our culture.

          • A Hicks

            With all due respect, my friend, I believe I am clear on the Church’s teaching on marriage. I did not mean to imply that there was nothing wrong with a divorced Catholic getting remarried without first having their prior marriage annulled. I was simply trying to highlight that the Catechism teaches that divorce by itself is a grave offense, which we never hear anymore. If divorce by itself is a grave offense, remarriage is even more so.

            Regarding the annulment process itself, let me refer you to Robert Vasoli’s “What God Has Joined Together: The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism.” This book was written in 1998, so perhaps
            it is dated and things are better now. However, in an interview in 2008,
            Raymond Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, makes reference to the “worrying fact” of American annulments, which, in his words, “risks making one think that it is an ‘American way’ to introduce surreptitiously a type of ‘Catholic divorce.’” This would lead one to think that, in his mind at least, there is still a problem.

            As for liturgical preferences:

            “Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.”

            • Dmikem

              Funny you mentioning Cardinal Burke….I pray for him every night. Under his leadership I expect to see a general tightening of rules and conformance to them.

              I do believe you are right about annulments being to easy to get but I think you are wrong regarding the direction the Church is moving. In fact I think you will find the following link very informative regarding the rate of annulments world-wide. The U.S. with 6% of the world’s Catholics accounts for 60% of annulments. In 2007 the absolute number of Catholic annulments world-wide was 58,000 and 35,000 of that number were granted in the States. That supports part of your argument…no question the U.S. is way, way, way too loose as compared to the rest of the world.


              But hold on a tick…..in 2007 in the U.S. about 2,200,000 people got married. The Catholic population is about 21% soooo very roughly there are a little over 460,000 Catholic marriages. I think the divorce rate in the U.S. is about 47% in the U.S. so if Catholics divorce at the same rate as everyone else…there were about 215,000 Catholic divorces granted in 2007. I assumed that those that 35,000 of the total number were granted an annulment or about 16%……way, way, way too many. More shocking is of the number requested over 90% are granted….making your point that the system is being abused. But the other side of the coin is important too and is also very sad. This means that 84% or 180,000 couples are divorced annually without getting an annulment so I disagree with your conclusion that it is annulment has become a Catholic divorce mechanism. I do agree it is ridiculously high in the U.S.

              So my friend, Sumus in violento conventionem!
              Pax tecum

              • Joseph DeCarlo

                Don’t believe that annulments are easy to get. That is a lie. I took a theology course and a couple of students said that is very difficult to get an annulment. The process is long and arduous. Both of the students were turned down.

                • Dmikem

                  I don’t think it is easy to get on either. But the U.S., as I said in the above post, is 6% of the world’s Catholics but grants 60% of the world’s annulments. To me that is too loose in this country. So, once again as with Mr. Hicks, Sumus in violento conventionem! (We are in violent agreement).

  • cminca

    The answer to the headline’s question is exactly the same as the answer to the question “what will happen to the military after the repeal of DADT?”–
    Absolutely nothing.

    • Karen Frances

      Don’t we have to see how that works out??? The end of DADT, brought to you by the same people who supported the Iraq War.

      • cminca

        Aren’t you confusing Obama and Bush?

  • Frank Lozera

    Looking at your bulleted list of “redefined fundamentals,” I do not see anything to dislike. This is not to say that there is nothing to dislike about the post-60s world of sex, reproduction, gender roles, and marriage. But I am pleased to see that women have more control over their reproductive choices, that sex has been de-coupled from procreation, and that rigid gender roles have somewhat relaxed. It’s a better world, not a worse one. And we are certainly not in “free-fall.”

    Fornication and pornography were around long before the 1960s, though pornography is now much more easily accessible in the Internet age.

    As for same-sex marriage, those opposed to it will be telling us for the next 50 years that it is “too early to know if these unions are harmful or not.” (Isn’t this what G. W. Bush said about climate change: “It needs more study.”?) Meanwhile, same-sex couples who have been together for two, three, and four decades are “tying the knot,” and no one can come up with any reasons why they shouldn’t—at least not pragmatic ones.

    Don’t bother consulting “common sense.” Too often a pretext for prejudice, it is also much more fallible than empirical data, of which there is already plenty in this case. Neither reason nor evidence points to any “negative consequences” of same-sex marriage. On the contrary, marriage reduces promiscuity, encourages commitment, and provides mutual support, social status, and access to legal mediation where there are property or child-custody issues. What’s not to like about all that? Children who are parented by same-sex couples can only benefit when their parents’ unions are recognized by the state.

    Your charges against the APA are without foundation. You would have to be one heck of a conspiracy theorist to think that all the major medical, psychological, and sociological associations in this country have gotten their data from “homosexual forums.” That is off-the-charts ridiculous. I suppose you think the World Health Organization is up to the same tricks.?

    What you call the “rabid criticism” of studies purporting to show bad gay parenting outcomes is actually nothing more than well-justified outrage at the use of junk-science to disparage gay families. The fact that you didn’t mention Regnerus’s name is to me a hopeful sign, because it suggests you’ve already gotten a whiff of the scandal over that study, and it does stink.

    You know from Genesis that words are important? What else do you know from Genesis? That the world was created in six days?

    • Dmikem

      Even a 5th grader knows there’s a baby in there. And it’s not surprise at all that atheists want no boundaries.

    • That Was Then

      “On the contrary, marriage reduces promiscuity, encourages commitment,
      and provides mutual support, social status, and access to legal
      mediation where there are property or child-custody issues. What’s not
      to like about all that? Children who are parented by same-sex couples
      can only benefit when their parents’ unions are recognized by the state”

      Except that pro gay marriage advocates like the famous Dan Savage actually openly practice and encourage open marriages with unlimited sexual liaisons. So much more reduction in promiscuity.

      • Frank Lozera

        Funny. In this morning’s paper, columnist Leonard Pitts writes about rapper Rick Ross, who is in big trouble over his recent “date rape” song, which goes, “Put Molly [a methamphetamine] in her Champagne / She ain’t even know it / I took her home and I enjoyed that / She ain’t even know it.”

        Now, I am fully convinced that Rick Ross speaks for all heterosexual men. All of them. Furthermore, heterosexual men should not be allowed to marry, because all they really want is to get women unconscious and rape them.

        TWT, when will you and others blogging here learn what a generalization looks like? You cannot take one viewpoint from one individual and use it to characterize all members of that person’s group.

        So Dan Savage is gay and believes in open marriage. So what? I am gay and I do not believe in open marriage. Why aren’t you quoting me instead of Dan Savage? Do you imagine that Dan Savage speaks for every gay and lesbian person? Did you know that lesbians are more strictly monogamous than straight women? Do you think they will suddenly become promiscuous because Dan Savage believes in open marriage?

        Do you like Rush Limbaugh? Does he speak for you? Are you a dittohead? Can I quote him to characterize YOUR views and those of all or most heterosexual males?


        • That Was Then

          Yes, Rick Ross “is in big trouble over his recent date rape song.” That says it all, doesn’t it? He “is in trouble over it”.

          Dan Savage is a prominent gay rights spokesman, unlike yourself. He advocates sexual promiscuity, despite the fact that sexual promiscuity is what leads to skyrocketing STIs, of which HIV is only one disease with life long health implications. So what about open marriage? It isn’t monogamous, despite your claims in your original post, and that is what I was responding to. He is not the only gay man I know who advocates this.

          As for lesbian females, are you sure? I have heard of them also advocating free and open marriages.

          However, I will say this: the institution of marriage has been devalued by HETEROsexuals long before the discussion of gay marriage opened up. It is only because it became devalued by mainstream heterosexuals that we are even having this conversation about gay marriage.

          I live in a country where gay marriage is allowed, and it has not changed society here at all, because marriage was long ago devalued by the mostly baby boomer generation.

          • Frank Lozera

            TWT, you are still generalizing: “I have heard of them [lesbians] also advocating free and open marriages,” you say. How many lesbians did you hear advocating this? Were they representative of all lesbians? What about lesbians who do not advocate this? Should they have the right to marry?

            And what about Rick Ross? After his rap about getting women unconscious and raping them, do I hear you saying heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

            You still don’t “get it” about prejudice. What you have said/written is the very purest distillation of prejudice. It amounts to making huge over-arching judgments about entire classes of people based on the behavior of a few. All Germans are Nazis, all Italians are mafiosi, all blacks are criminals, all Jews are avaricious, all Arabs are terrorists. Don’t you ever figure this out?

            But I am glad to hear you say that legalized same-sex marriage in your country hasn’t changed society there at all. I will quote you to all the fear-mongers who claim that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope leading to goat-on-sheep romance and marriages with one’s household appliances.

            Dan Savage does NOT speak for all gay men and lesbians, many of whom don’t even know who he is. Those who are aware of his views may not agree with him about open marriage.

            Again, do you agree with everything Rush Limbaugh says? Or Ann Coulter?

  • Pingback: Friday Update Marriage & Same-Sex Attraction - Big Pulpit()

  • Wish more people would call this what it really is: addiction to pain.

  • Luz

    America needs to listen to Christ:” If you want to follow me DENY yourself take up your cross and follow me”. We should not do everything we feel attracted to do, if this is a cross lets take it.

  • Pingback: Friday Update on Marriage & Same-Sex Attraction - CATHOLIC FEAST - Sync your Soul()

  • Pingback: Friday Update Marriage & Same-Sex Attraction - Big Pulpit()

  • Dmikem

    If the HHS mandate is an infringement upon religious rights…conscience, by forcing Catholic institutions etc. to provide insurance coverage for contraception and abortifacients then legalizing gay marriage will the HHS mandate on steroids!!! Will Catholic Churches be expected to perform gay marriage ceremonies under penalty of law? Will biblical citations that criticize homosexual sex become hate speech? This will truly be the end of religious freedom in America.

  • Ron

    if this passes now one thing God is so near on 2nd comming and where will all you gays hide

    • Greg B.

      If this passes? You have no fkn idea what you’re talking about.

  • Karen Frances

    My daughter is in her mid 20’s and rather undecided on the subject, perhaps because we discuss it and I have come to oppose “gay marriage” as it will undermine traditional marriage (which is already under attack). However, ALL of her friends support gay marriage vehemently. These are heterosexual women, mostly single, and all college educated. “I couldn’t date a guy who didn’t believe in gay marriage.” — thats the kind of thing these young women say.

    Its not only a mindless indoctrination at work. I fear for them because they are so incapable of recognizing their own interests. The purpose of marriage has always been the protection of women and children. Anything that redefines or undermines marriage is necessarily against the interests of women and children. But most heterosexual young women will tell you that they are all for throwing that away because its “not fair” to gays.

    I suppose you can’t just blame the young heterosexual women exclusively because unless they have parents talking to them, there is no one allowed to say to them, “You, YOU, are the ones who will feel the consequences, not us oldies who have been married 30, 40, 50 years and know what we’re talking about.”

    • Greg B.

      They know better than you. Open yourself to the idea that you might have been wrong all along.

  • inspokane

    Its going to happen…Gay Mariage. So what do we need to do. WE need to define marriage just like they want. So call GAY MARRIAGE just THAT! GAY Marriage…THEN CALL MAN AND A WOMEN MARRIAGE Secular Marriage or Normal Marriage or Natural Marriage…what ever…..THEN CALL CHURCH MARRIAGE…SANCTIFIED MARRIAGE. NOW IT IS DEFINED AND WE ALL KNOW WERE EVERYONE STANDS. THE ONLY MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED BY GOD IS SANCTIFIED MARRIAGE ANYWAY. I know very well gay marriage is going to cause many other problems and discrimination..and if you follow it out to its end..the bible will be illegal and Christians will be persecuted. Its the world we live in…Let us be clear then what we Christians will be persecuted for even unto death….Bible says persecution will happen… So I will clearly put myself in harms way and fight for Santified Marriage difined by the Sacrement it is. Secular Marrage should be called so. Then Sactified Marriage blessed and recognized by God. Then at least the kids are not confused and they have a chance to make correct Godly choices. GB j

  • The “state” does not propose equality among individuals. The “state” in proposing that it has the right to define “life”, “marriage” and “rights” proposes that the “state” is equal to God. The result is not equality among individual persons, the result is the rupture of every continuity upon which the human family is founded upon. There is absolutely no “same-sex” union or relationship that was, is, or ever will be equal to the marriage of one man to one woman unless the state proposes that every man be castrated. Any man who would support this, regardless of their “attractions”, has already been spiritually castrated.

  • paulrolly@rocketmail.com

    “Where Will Same-Sex Unions Lead Us? ” Straight to Hell, there is no doubt about it!

    • Greg B.

      A decade of marriage in Mass, longer elsewhere. Still not in hell. Your god is quite the procrastinator.

  • I can’t know where same sex marriages will lead. I can know and understand the past regarding marriage and family and children. We survived quite a lot of terrible abuse already so I rather suspect that we will in the future as well. This matter is in God’s hands and I have faith that he/she knows what she/he is doing. I have to, that is all there is now. Pax et Bonum.

  • Any “revolution” that attempts to defy inherent natures will end in abysmal failure. Unfettered sex, led to the highest rate and variety of STDs the world has ever seen, unfettered “femininity” and “masculenity” have led to egregious conflations of people who try on character traits from opposing sexes with impunity and to their shame: ever seen a woman boxing match? This experiment into the “unchartered” waters of gay marriage will lead, just like the others to abysmal failure – Nature, i.e. the Natural Law, cannot and will not be redefined. It is, is a fact, and must be the basis from which all idenitty flow for both genders, men AS men and women AS women. All else is from the evil one.

    • Frank Lozera

      Hi Mtxun, where can I get a copy of Natural Law? And should I use the 12th-century version or the new one? Is there any difference?

    • Greg B.

      Nature didn’t create the thousands of laws that constitute marriage. Humans did. And humans can change them to suit an evolving society.



    • Frank Lozera

      Why the all-caps? Are you trying to mimic the writing on the stone tablets? Or are you just full of yourself?

  • If gays get benefits, why not unmarried straights, too….and unmarried gays? Unmarried straights could marry an image on a monitor and ask for the same benefits as married gays & married straights. Unmarried gays could aspire to hundreds of serial relationships as “equal to” marriage. Why not; it’s “love” isn’t it? Why marriage at all, then?

    The state has traditionally given the benefit to married couples because only they can produce the benefit to society of children. So, then, the state is saying traditional marriage has not produced that benefit, and is not therefore worthy of any benefits in return.

    If marriage will be thus essentially abolished (because everyone will be married to some person or some thing), then all will essentially be married to the state. This would then be Socialism, the actual goal of this movement to have gay so-called marriage.

    • Frank Lozera

      Doc, in logic, this is called an “argumentum ad absurdem.” It is so far-fetched that I cannot think of any way to reel it in for serious discussion.

      • Just because absurdity exists, doesn’t mean we should be absurd. You have made my point for me. Thanks.
        Marriage isn’t many things, it is one thing, and can’t be compared to anything else. It would be absurd to think otherwise.

    • Greg B.

      FAIL. We’re talking about granting access to marriage for people who choose to marry. You’re taking about granting the benefits of marriage to people who could marry but choose not to. This is yet another silly argument from those who want to justify their bigotry but whose arguments continue to get completely destroyed. Try again.

  • mally el

    Polluting the natural environment, even by legalised processes, harms the environment. Polluting the nature and structure of marriage, even if legalised, harm human society. We cannot escape this fact. We have examples from the past.
    Sodom was destroyed because the community in that town had perverted their lifestyle,
    The old world was destroyed in Noah’s time because there was a widespread perversion of marriage.
    We need to stop the perversion from becoming widespread today.

  • tedseeber

    Marriage went over a cliff when no-fault divorce was granted. Gay marriage is at neither the top or the bottom of the slippery slope. Here comes polygamy!

    • That Was Then

      Exactly. The majority heterosexual population doesn’t value the status of marriage all that much. It’s so easy for them to walk away when things start to get tough, and many do. They repeat the walking away with second and third marriages, which could be considered serial polygamy. Many other heterosexuals don’t bother with marriage at all. Hence, it was easy for the gay marriage proposal to pass in my country, Canada. Marriage was devalued long before the gay activists pushed for it here.

      • Frank Lozera

        Good, TWT! I like hearing you acknowledge that “things have not gone to heck in a handcart” since gay marriage was legalized in Canada. I’m going to quote you.

        You have also just pointed to one of the best reasons why heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Their divorce rate is deplorable. They have no interest in fidelity, and as we discussed before, male heterosexuals only want to get women unconscious so they can rape them. It’s a pretty sorry record, and I personally think you should just turn the institution of marriage over to us (gays) for a while because we might be able to actually handle it. And, Lord knows, we may not be able to have babies, but it won’t be for lack of trying. Sometimes we try for hours and then at the end we’re just sweaty and exhausted.

    • Greg B.

      Nope. Marriage equality allows a class of people to gain access to an existing institution. Polygamy creates an entirely new institution for a class of people who
      already have access to marriage. Big difference – both legally and logically. Try again.

  • The morality of Gay marriage is comparable to the morality of Straight marriage: It is morally and ethically preferable to encourage people toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and possibly promiscuity.

    Studies have repeatedly shown that the benefits are substantial:
    1: Married couples typically contribute more and take less from society.
    2: Married couples support and care for each other financially, physically and emotionally and often contribute more to the economy and savings.
    3: Individuals who are married are less likely to receive government entitlements.
    4: Individuals who are married statistically consume less health care services, and often give more to churches and charities.
    5: Married couples are better able to provide care and security for children.

    So what sense does it make to exclude law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples from this place at the table? Why is it, for example, that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

    Couples do not need to marry to have children, nor is the ability or even desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. There are also countless Gay individuals and couples who are raising adopting children into healthy, well-adjusted adulthood.

    As Judge Vaughn Walker said in the decision on California’s Prop. 8 Case: “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” It was a view shared by the courts in the Golinski case against DOMA, where a Bush appointee in the Northern District of California concurred: “The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages.”

    • Frank Lozera

      Thank you, Polish Bear. These are excellent points. I like your list of benefits and would like to refer to it often. It is so ironic that we are judged for being promiscuous and we are judged for wanting the stability of marriage and family. Just can’t satisfy some people. What so offends me is the presumption on the part of conservative Catholics that they have a right to decide what is right for my life, to insist that I should be celibate, and to tell me that I am sinful. I am not a subject of the Catholic empire and I would like conservative Catholics off my back about this. I am beginning to understand at a deep level what the Reformation and the Enlightenment were all about. When are they going to get it? We no longer live in a society where the Church can tell everyone what to do.

    • publiusnj

      Sorry, but gay males annot engage in monogamy unless they marry women.

      • Frank Lozera

        Are you saying that among married same-sex couples, there is no difference between polygamy and monogamy? Here’s a dictionary definition of monogamy:


        The practice or state of being married to one person at a time.
        The practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.

        • publiusnj

          Actually, you are right and I was wrong. I confused the Greek root “gamy” meaning “marriage” with the Greek root “guny” meaning woman. Theoretically, therefore, two gay males could engage in monogamy.
          What is different in a legally significant way between “gay couples” and male-female couples is that the State has much less interest in seeing that the couple stays together or in regulating the terms of the breakup. There are no children that the two of them conceived together. Neither “partner” has any more of a call on the other for support post breakup than the other, and neither partner is a member of a dominant sex vis-a-vis the other. Therefore, any understanding as to continued support after breakup can be resolved on a contractual basis

  • revrocky210

    FOR GAYS ONLY: Jesus predicted that just before His return as Judge,
    there will be a strange, spontaneous, mind-twisting fad – a global
    steamroller notable for its speed, boldness, violence, and impudent
    in-your-face openness. In Luke 17 He called this worldwide craze the
    repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19 for details). By helping
    to fulfill this worldwide mania quietly coordinated by unseen spirit
    beings, gays are actually hurrying up Christ’s return to earth and
    making the Bible even more believable!
    They’ve actually
    invented strange architecture: closets opening not on to bedrooms but on
    to Main Streets where kids can see naked men having sex in “Madam”
    Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco Brothel District. We wonder how soon S.F.’s
    underground saint – San Andreas – will get a 10-point jolt out of what
    goes on over his head (see the dire prediction about cities in
    Revelation 16:19)!
    What’s really scary is the “reprobate mind”
    phrase in Romans 1:28. A person can sear his conscience so much God
    turns him over to S, the universal leader of evil who can turn such a
    person into Mr. Possessed with a super-human strength that many cops
    together have trouble restraining.
    Remember, gays don’t have to
    stay bound to their slavery. Their emancipation is found in a 5-letter
    name starting with J – no, not James or Julia. As soon as they can find
    out the all-powerful J name, gays will really start living!

  • Greg B.

    The fact that the author doesn’t even know what decade we’re in discredits the whole article!

  • My goodness, this site just drips with Christian Love! I now know where to post when it’s time to build gallows for the gays! After all, the Bible says they should be put to death!