You make some excellent (though challenging) points.  One of the best “soundbites” I stumbled across recently was that every child has a basic right to a mother and a father.  Not to two fathers.  Not to two mothers.  Because a mother and a father serve different roles in a child’s life.

Until we are consistent—both in speak and in actions—on the marriage issue, our society will continue to suffer on the life issue.  The reason is simple: children are the logical result of marriage, and the purpose of marriage is for the raising on children.  IMO, the science is what makes this a no-brainer: it takes one man and one woman to create a new human person; new life cannot begin without one mother and one father (biologically speaking).  Of course, we have “progressed” (I use the term loosely here) to be able to create a new person without the man and the woman coming together physically, but you still can’t get away from the biological fact that you need an egg and a sperm, which necessarily comes from one woman and one man.  That being said, it stands to reason that each child that is created has the *right* to grow up in a home with one mother and one father.  Of course, these two people won’t always be the biological mother and father, but that doesn’t diminish the necessity of this formula.  Part of the problem is that society no longer sees marriage as the vehicle by which children are reared—or that this is the purpose of marriage (which, in turn, requires self-sacrificing love or agape).  Instead, marriage is deemed a legal contract which validates the relationship between “whoever” (e.g., a man and a woman, two men, two women, a man and several women, a person and a building, or a woman and herself) and confers upon said relationship certain financial benefits (related to health benefits, taxes, property ownership, etc.).  Unfortunately, most people have forgotten the reason why the legal system got involved in marriage in the first place: that is, to provide support to couples while raising a family because this was seen as a benefit to society as a whole.  Because many (maybe most?) of these relationships no longer benefit society (especially true when the divorce rate remains at about half), perhaps we should consider removing the legal system’s involvement in marriage altogether.  Without a financial incentive, there is no need to legally define marriage anyway.

All great points on marriage, thanks! You laid out the true pro-marriage (pro all marriages, that is) position quite well. Sometimes everyone needs to be reminded as to how truly harmless (and good!) same-sex marriage is. :)

Good points…and they show why stopping marriage equality in the civil order is doomed to failure.  It’s over, folks.

Matthew Warner, consider this reasoning for the defense of marriage: Scripture is clear that homosexuality is a sin and that God does not like it.  But, wait a minute, exactly why doesn’t God like it?  I mean he must have a reason, right?  In fact, there is a good reason.  Whether we want to admit it or not, the sad truth is that homosexuals TEND TO live short, troubled, unhealthy lives.  In other words, homosexuality harms people who engage in it and since God loves us he doesn’t want us to be harmed.  No parent would want to see their child engaging in harmful activity.  Here is one example of how homosexuality harms us: Before AIDS homosexual men had an average life expectancy of only 48 years.  Since AIDS it has decreased to only 38!!!!  There’s a variety of reasons for this, but one of them is not Christian persecution.  Understanding this, if your child had a same sex attraction, would you not be concerned and speak to him?  He may or may not listen, but a good parent would certainly try.  Should God also not try to warn us of the dangers by speaking through the scriptures?  Click on this link and scroll down to the question: “What does scientific evidence show about homosexuality?”  This article is well foot noted and sites many different sources backing the statements made:  http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp   My heart goes out to anyone who has to wrestle with a same sex attraction just like it would go out to a person who has to deal with a substance abuse problem.  They are all sins because they harm us.  Everyone needs to pray for homosexuals just like you would for any other sinner.  And, there isn’t much more evil that a person can do other then encouraging someone to partake in an activity that will cut their life short.  People who promote same sex marriage are defying scripture and unknowingly doing the devil’s work.

I agree, it’s harder, and I believe that cause will suffer much.  But on number 4—what do you mean “we”?  I was not born when most of this happened.

If we have already “lost the argument” with “God, the Bible and Natural Law,” and we are not being true witnesses ourselves in marriage and all the blessings it brings, well—why don’t we cut to chase here? - society has progressed to the point that only our continued “faithful” witness to the truth and yes, even martyrdom, will heal it. This is what we have left to our children…

Excellent article! 

I am unfamiliar with the phrase “unappreciation for the democracy of the dead”. I would be interested if you would write something on that.

I agree with you completely on the SSM part. I believe the pro-life/anti-abortion message would be more effective it would allow barrier methods and sterilization.  Where no egg was ever fertilized, but that would not meet the Catholic religious standard of being “open to life”.  Freedom of women is impossible without reproductive freedom.

“democracy of the dead”, from Chesterton: Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.

No need to write about it.  cool reference.

Sorry, Rover, that’s BS.  Reproductive freedom means freedom from being reproductive.  Everybody has that already.  It means not having sex so you don’t get pregnant.  Pushing the line that women will only be free once they maninuplate their fertility so they can have sex without consequences is basically saying all women need to be fixed in order to have dignity.  It is deeply misogynist.  And you have swallowed the partyspeak hook, line and sinker.  Wake up!  Contraception is the thing that makes gay marriage a possibility.  It is the very seperation of sex from procreation which has done all this damage to marriage, the unborn, the family and ultimately Christianity.  Contraception is the reason why we are living in the fallout of the sexual revolution (which was fueled by contraception).

Faith Roberts, you are absolutely right.  Artificial contraception enables promiscuity on a scale never before seen in all of humanity.  Once you drastically reduce the chance of pregnancy, there is nothing to restrain people from indulging in unlimited pleasure.  Even married people can be promiscuous and that is one of reasons why the divorce rate is so high.  Anyone who doesn’t believe this should just take a trip to a college campus to see how our youth behave.  “Morning after pills” are readily dispensed.  Of course, with all the promiscuity, it is inevitable that “mistakes” will be made and there will be a pregnancy.  But, not to worry, there’s a solution for that: abortion.  Artificial contraception has brought us casual sex, cohabitation and a sense of relationships that is so cheapened the concept of two men marrying is now plausible. Also, abortion and artifial contraception have driven the birth rates so low, it is taking an economic toll.  Just look at Greece to see our future.  God help us.

I can’t believe you’d profess your ignorance of science and faith in this article. How uninformed you are about marriage and society! Have you not read the Family Research Council study which presents unbiased evidence from around the world, which indicates that “committed” homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects: relationship duration, monogamy vs. promiscuity, relationship commitment, number of children being raised, health risks, rates of intimate partner violence? Your intuition alone should have warned you that homosexual sex is by nature a contraceptive act! Before you lose your faith, you had better brush up on Catholic apologetics right now! Do 2 things. #1: read the Holy See’s words on The Effects Of Alternative Unions On Society:
.http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html

#2: Go read that FRC study right now:  http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Homosexual sex acts by nature are contraceptive. This is common sense, you don’t need medical science. Regardless of the science, prochoicers are well aware of the existence of neonatalogy as a specialty science that definitively answers the question of when life begins. Prochoicers choose to refute the evidence and say science is irrelevant in this matter. Matthew, you need to brush up on your Catholic apologetics and appeal to common reason, or you will lead others astray and lose your faith in the process.

Rover wrote: “I believe the pro-life/anti-abortion message would be more effective it would allow barrier methods and sterilization . . . but that would not meet the Catholic religious standard of being ‘open to life’.  Freedom of women is impossible without reproductive freedom.”

What is “freedom”? What is “reproductive freedom”?

The Catholic understanding of freedom means the state in which the individual, the church, and the society are unhindered in their respective pursuits of the love and knowledge of, and service to God and neighbor. To the extent that the individual, the church, and the society are hindered in these pursuits, they are less free. To the extent that they are unhindered, they are more free. Hindrances may be internal or external. External hindrances may take the form of persecution, unjust laws, other unjust societal conditions. Internal hindrances often take the forms of illness and disability, and almost always my own attachment to sin and lack of virtue. All of these interfere not only with m freedom in my own pursuit of the good, but the freedom of my Church and my community, as well.

“Reproductive freedom” for a Catholic is a species of the freedom mentioned above. Catholic men and women who are unmarried find their freedom in serving God and neighbor while living in the chastity appropriate to the celibate (unmarried) life, that is, abstaining from all sexual expression. It follows from this, that reproduction will not take place from this lifestyle. Unmarried Catholic men and women are most free when the society in which they live does not pressure them to make decisions about entering into moral situations that will lead them away from God. Although society once offered this kind of freedom, unfortunately, we don’t have much of this kind of freedom in our society today.

Married Catholic men and women find their freedom in serving God and neighbor while living the chastity appropriate to the married life, that is, sexual expression exclusively with their spouse and open to new life, and if for serious reasons, the husband and wife agree that it is necessary to space the birth of children, to temporarily abstain for a time, according to the natural rhythms of the wife’s reproductive cycle. (While it is possible to use the old-fashioned “Rhythm Method” that became obsolete in the 1970s, more modern methods are easier to use, require abstinance for just a few days each month, and have a rate of effectiveness higher than “The Pill” - about 99%).

The Culture of Death’s understanding of freedom means “freedom to do what I want, when I want, with whom I want, with no questions asked and no holds barred . . . that I may commit the most outrageous offenses against God and man - seduce spouses and break up marriages, take up with a vulnerable young person, and abandon him or her to despair, without penalty and without question, and if Nature herself, whom I cannot control, produces unfortunate consequences to my actions, such as an STD, society will very likely have to foot the bill. And if a child comes into being as a result of my actions, then that child may have to pay for my actions at the cost of her/his life.”

This is a very different understanding of freedom from the Catholic understanding.

Matthew et al, please take a look at the Ruth Institute (“Making Marriage Cool”)at www.ruthinstitute.org . I especially recommend Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse’s 4-part series, “Same-sex Marriage Affects Everyone,”  the 30 minute version “Defending Marriage,” and their pamphlet, “77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage.” Dr. Morse recommends sending those CDs/ pamphlets to our elected officials and friends and neighbors to spread the word.

(I don’t work for her or Ruth Institute. I just think they’re doing a great job.)

@New Yorker
That is a broad stereotype you are making about homosexuals and inherent behavior.

I just drove by a woman today pushing two kids in a carriage.  As I drove by I looked at the two sleepyheads in the carriage and, smiling, looked up at the mother who was scowling at me! For looking at her children?! This is part of the consequence of the sin of homosexuality.  All relationships are tainted.  Friendship is destroyed. Parents are scared.  It is not holy. It is of the flesh.  Our priests who are disordered are leading the charge and they are doing it from a state of mortal sin. Parishioners are being led astray. Young homosexual priests are becoming doctors of moral theology and and studying the Church fathers to subvert the teaching.  Satan has entered the temple.  God help us.

Pam, hopefully she was just having an off day or was merely absent-minded. :-( I love it when people smile at my little one, and I know loads of mothers and fathers who feel the same, so don’t stop smiling!

Contraception is at the root of all problems. Say Yes to NFP.

“As I drove by I looked at the two sleepyheads in the carriage and, smiling, looked up at the mother who was scowling at me! For looking at her children?!”

Pam, in this day and age, you have to remember as the line from the movie said, “Don’t assume a gosh-darned thing!” (except the language was more profane than that; I made it PG.)

What I’m getting at is: How do we know that woman was the children’s mother? She may have been their baby-sitter or nanny, their neighbor, their auntie, or stepmother?

And how do you know she was scowling *at you*? She may have been looking at you while scowling, but she may have been scowling because she has allergies, because she has irritable bowel syndrome, a headache, a hangover, or fibromyalgia. She may be scowling because she just started a diet, or just quit smoking, or just cut up her credit cards, just learned her boyfriend is leaving her, just learned that her house is about to be foreclosed. She may just have learned that her much younger sister is engaged to be married to a wonderful, successful man, and she is envious. Or she may be scowling because she couldn’t find her glasses or contacts this morning and she can’t see.

And during all this, she may have seen you smiling at her, and thought, “Oh, Lord! How embarassing! She is smiling and we must have met? Now where was it? Oh, no, suppose she comes over and I’ve got to talk with her?”

Anyway, it’s hard not to take things like this personally, and we all do it every day, but it’s also important to keep oneself calm by remembering at the same time: this person’s troubling actions or appearance may have nothing in the world to do with me, and may not even be truly directed to me at all . . . ” That way, we may still be perturbed, but not as badly.

numquam, what is the broad stereotype?  The drastically reduced life expectancy?  I’m afraid we have been handed a whitewashed version of homosexual relationships.  There is research on this topic that does not support the current strerotype that everything is fine and wonderful in the world of same sex ralationships.  These points of view are swept under the carpet and anyone who brings them us is considered a biggot.  It’s not right to pat people on the back and encourage a behavior without telling them the whole truth.

The expectation of available contraception has changed everything.
.

I wish I would have copied it but didn’t think to at the time… . but last week, I noticed an acquaintance of mine (who I understand is an atheist) had commented on a Facebook thread outside of my set of contacts.  When I went to look at the topic, it was a secular discussion of the HHS mandate, and how silly this whole Catholic argument is (in their view)
As I scrolled down the discussion, one of the men had commented that… “At this point, sex should be no more than an enjoyable activity.”  (I’m paraphrasing, because I didn’t think to copy it) and he went on to say something about that’s what contraception is for… blah blah blah.
.
Now, I’ve known for a long time that this is how much of society has come to see sex. Believe me, I’m a single, never married, 40-year-old woman…  I know that most of society thinks sex is expected payment for three dates!!!  But seeing it spelled out like that… it’s nothing more than an enjoyable activity and they’re SATISFIED with that?!?!?!?!??
No wonder so many people are not married.
Why lock yourself down to just ONE enjoyable activity partner?
.
I don’t know why I’m surprised that so many wonderful, smart, beautiful, faithful women are single at 40.  This is the world someone else has created and we have to suffer in it.

Marion, I live in the Boston area. Perhaps that’s enough said, but if its not, there is a movement here to make children “safe” and still be open to homosexuality as an acceptable Christian lifestyle.  God have mercy. This is part of it. They are trying up here to establish new norms and codes of conduct that go against everything Jesus taught. I agree we need to make sure we don’t project, but we can’t lose common sense.  Having someone glare at you with an angry face for no other reasonable explanation is not a large jump to relating it to smiling at the kids. Interestingly, the reading today spoke about how “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free…If the Son frees you, you will truly be free.”, confirming His power to free us from sin, including this sin.

That as much effort was placed on the kingdom of heaven.

Pam - As you live in the Boston area, (as I do), the reason that the mother scowled at you is probably because…  she is just one of the miserable people around here who hate the weather, hate the high prices, high taxes and everything else that comes with this liberal, overrated commonwealth.  Or maybe some other reason…
.
To add to this discussion, I will say that contraception and abortion have undermined marriage and hence, social stability, for all the reasons mentioned here.  Also, the perception of ‘safe sex’ is not at all the reality.  Gay sex (and straight promiscuous sexuality) spreads disgusting and scarring and deadly STI’s, for which we all pay more in medical insurance.  Think AIDS, Fallopian tube scarring that lead to infertility, necessitating expensive artificial reproduction technologies, etc.  We are paying the piper now as a society for the debauchery that contraception has introduced and supported for decades.

@ Quo Vadis,

Yes. And what do you or the Church do to support the single adults you know, so that they have a refuge somewhere in their lives of dating and having to reject everyone who expects sex in a dating relationship?
Oh yeah, nothing.
.
One thing that really chafes me, is seeing comments on sites like this, from all the marrieds who shake their heads and click their tongues because obviously all single people are promiscuous, those dirty dirty sinners…. and not realizing that the handful of single people that they ignore at church are NOT promiscuous.
And we are beaten down daily by how hard it is to be a chaste 30-45 year old out in the secular dating world. 
.
But I guess that’s okay, because all of us single adults just assume that all you married folks had premarital sex anyway… and that we’d be married too if we had given in.
.
Sweet Lord, my reward better be in heaven!!!

Erm, TRS, As far as I know Catholicism offers, for the single adults who wish to remain chaste, special bible studies, retreats, and a lot of similarly-minded single chaste Catholics.
The people who state that single people are promiscuous most likely mean that as a whole, the world today is, sadly, greatly promiscuous (on average) and are not assuming that every single person is promiscuous.

If marrieds want a refuge where pro-marriage is easy, go to mass or anything to do with the Church.  Singles are, at the very least, ignored and, at most, blamed for their own singleness.  All of society is designed for couples.  I subsidize marrieds’ health insurance, travel, and tax breaks through the “privilege” of paying higher rates than marrieds do per person.  If you want to check me on that, try reading SINGLED OUT by Bella DePaulo.  I am a single parent and I even pay more in CCD fees for my one child than those who have more than one child pay per child.  I guess the Church figures I have more money to throw around.  Yeah, I have to pay more for my child to be taught that our family isn’t a “real” family because there’s not 2 parents.  We are close to leaving the Church and joining another Christian denomination that is INclusive of people who HAVEN’T sinned (no, I’m not divorced and I became a parent through adoption - no sin there).  Only thing stopping me from leaving right now is that I’m hoping to help change the Catholic Institution into what I believe Jesus Christ would want it to be - an inclusive, loving environment for all people who are trying to live a chaste and holy life, married OR single.  BTW, this ‘promiscuous” society is probably as or more promiscuous within the married population than within the single population.  Sometimes those that protest the most are secretly the worst offenders.

LH, you’re right that married people can be promiscuous too.  That’s one of the reasons why the divorce rate is so high.  I sent my kids to Catholic school all the way through high school - all while paying enormous property taxes to, in part, pay for public schools which my children did not go to.  The point is that life isn’t fair.  We all have to deal with these inequities.  The real question is this: what are YOU going to do about it?  Why not go to your pastor or parish council and start a ministry for single parents?

New Yorker, I believe I suggested that I was trying to affect change in the Church.  And my post wasn’t about life being “fair.”  It was countering the idea that society is anti-marriage, the thesis upon which this thread was begun.  Inequalities which result in the common good are, in fact, not inequities.  I have one child that I drive around on roads most likely a lot less than you do, I generate much less trash I assume than your family does, etc. etc.  Your taxes pay for the maintenance of roads, trash, the provision of protection via police and fire for your bigger family, etc. etc.  The fact that you pay taxes for other children’s public schools (which you benefit from by being allowed to live in an educated and thus productive population) and I pay for taxes for bigger families who put much more wear and tear on the community resources are both for the common good and not inequitable.  However, the fact that you would ask me what I am going to do about the fact that singles and single parents are ignored in the Church is exactly proof that the inequalities in the Catholic Church are not equitable.  Many marrieds lack the same awareness of this that you apparently do.  Do YOU have to take on the responsibility of starting a married ministry in the church?  No, the Church (and, as I stated before, society) is already set up for YOU and YOUR married state.  You simply attend a function and feel accepted, valued, and tended to as far as your needs.  Do you also ask the elderly what THEY will do about needing something from the Church, if THEY will start a ministry for themselves?  We all look to the Church for guidance and support in our pursuit of a holy life.  YOU find it; singles, whether parents or not, don’t.  THAT is what my post was about.

It’s not the Church that assumes single persons are promiscuous, it’s the media. St. Elizabeth Seton was a single parent. There are ways to meet other single Catholics….

. If you have a problem with the CCD cost speak with your CCD director. He or She will likely waive it, and-or ask you to help during class time.

Putting four children through college is going to be a challenge, but we’ll be providing for everyone’s Social Security. ;-)

David, I think you missed my point and focused on my comments about economics which were only part of my point.  Sure, I could ask to have the CCD extra fee waived and I’m sure I would be asked to make up for it by helping out.  Problem is I am not available to do that as a working single parent and, if one thinks about it, I’m sure that those with more than one child are not asked to choose between paying more or helping out.  Also, college is a challenge for everyone, regardless of how many children you have.  BTW, I have a job that does not allow me to collect SS and it will probably be a thing of the past soon anyway so . . . ;-)

My main point is that singles, whether parents or not, are NOT valued or even recognized as having needs in the Catholic Church.  When we do get any response from marrieds, they are always in the vein of what I’ve gotten here:  “what are YOU going to do about it?” and “There are ways to meet other single Catholics.”  Marrieds seem not to be able to understand that singles have spiritual needs just as marrieds do.  It’s not all about us coming up with our own support groups because marrieds aren’t required to do it and, even if we did, it would be like the blind leading the blind - we NEED spiritual guidance, not just a group to vent with.  And it’s not all about “meeting other single Catholics.”  There really is so much more in life than coupling and marrying but the Catholic Church doesn’t seem to notice that and either do many marrieds whose lifestyle has been exalted to the position of sainthood by the Church.  It just seems to be a real situation of a huge group of people being purposefully ignored, because marrieds and the Church HAVE heard our cries by now, and it is hurting the Church itself.  Writing blogs contending that “pro-marriage” is so difficult just doesn’t make it so.  Reality within the Church and without would tell a very different story.

The Sacraments are there for everyone. I know a woman with 6 children whose husband left her, she is active in her Parish and I have never heard her speak this way. 

You seem to have an axe to grind and it appears to be the manner in which the Church exalts Marriage.  In today’s day and age don’t you think that’s a good thing!

David, it’s funny that you would think I have an “axe to grind” because I speak for singles who feel our needs are ignored by the Church and are willing to vocalize it.  Do you also feel that marrieds have an “axe to grind” when they defend marriage and their spiritual needs?  I believe this whole thread is in response to “pro-marriage” being so very difficult.  My posts have merely been giving my opinion that “pro-marriage” ideas should be quite easy within the Catholic Church and, in fact, in most of the rest of society.  I gave my reasons for my opinion, also.  I simply won’t let the pat answers that have historically been given so glibly to singles sit without a response.  If having an opinion other than that of the status quo is having an “axe to grind,” then I am fine with saying I do. 

No state, other than true sainthood, should be exalted by the Church.  In fact, if you study the history of the Church, it wasn’t until fairly recently that marriage was put forth as a superior state.  It certainly wasn’t framed that way by Christ.  Even as recently as the Vatican II Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, it states “The laity derive the right and duty to the apostolate from their union with Christ the head; incorporated into Christ’s Mystical Body through baptism and strengthened through the power of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, they are assigned to the apostolate by the Lord himself.” (No. 3) “This plan for the spiritual life of the laity should take its particular character from their married or family state or their single or widowed state . . .” (No. 4)  Therefore, we are ALL called to the apostolate, yet we are not all encouraged and guided by the Church in the apostolate.  Those of us who are single are expected, by many parishes and many marrieds, to fend for ourselves.  It’s time the Church practice what it officially has set forth as its beliefs.  If it makes some uncomfortable that singles are beginning to speak out against the lack of spiritual guidance in the Church for singles, so be it.  I’m not sure how supporting singles in living a holy life could ever be a threat to marrieds unless those marrieds are incredibly insecure or erroneously believe they by right have superior status.  Believe me, if marrieds want a strong Church in which to continue to raise their families, it would behoove them to listen a bit to what single parishioners are saying.  Unfortunately, I know of many churches at this point where there is a mass exodus of singles and a relative stagnation of marriages.  Churches are closing and parishes are having to combine.  Yes, some of that is due to the sad state of moral thinking in our society today, but much of it is because the Church is ignoring such a significant fraction of the population.  I would never condone any parish ignoring the needs of marrieds nor do I condone any parish ignoring the needs of singles.

Jesus was clear about the teaching on marriage and adultery and fornication.  And Peter was aghast!  The thought of never being allowed to divorce seemed an impossible standard to him and he lived with Jesus for three years. But Jesus told them nothing was impossible for God and they had great faith having seen Jesus’ miracles.  And I have asked God’s help in my own life when my family has been under attack and He has given it.  There are people who actively interfere in couples lives because they think they know better.  It causes chaos and harm. The secret, I think, is trying to love in the moment.  Jesus said enough for each day is its worries.  Sometimes we see things that we think we could never stand for a lifetime, but we don’t have to.  Can you love for this minute or at least walk away without erupting for this minute.  People’s worst moments are constant.  They are once in a while.  It may be why Jesus and Mary asked us to pray without ceasing. If we can turn to God and get through the moment, the better part of the person who you loved will emerge soon enough. And what you thought you could never bear, you will find is behind you.  A big part of the problem, I think, is that this teaching is even open for discussion.  Jesus was clear.  Why tempt people to think any other way is going to be all right?  Give them the standard and strength and example of believing Jesus wholeheartedly and embracing his will and your cross.

I meant to write peoples worst moments are NOT constant. OOPS.

I’m 44, single, and no, my “needs” aren’t “ignored by the Church.” The Church has all kinds and can’t do everything. I get my sacraments. I contribute where I can. I pay my own bills. Who has to meet “my needs”? That’s called a “sense of entitlement.”  Carve out your own niche!

easiest talking point:
I support equal rights for equal situations. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality. One is rightly ordered, the other is not. Period.

also:
“No one is being stopped from being together. We simply are not obligated to treat homosexual relationships in the same way legally that we treat heterosexual relationships”.

Contraception = Abortion. It’s no longer enough to be Pro-Life; we must be deeply, profoundly, and personally Pro-Ceptive in order to heal our society.

contra contraception.

Sorry folks, but I have to disagree with most of you here: abortion is wrong and should be avoided. Contraception is not wrong and this is evidenced by the fact that most Catholics practice it.  EWTN and the National Catholic Register is a collection of people who really don’t think for themselves but just ecco the Bishops talking points.

You can tell each other what you want to hear, but most Catholics are not listening, because your condemnation of contraception does not make sense.
You need to hear people don’t agree with you.

“We’ve completely separated marriage from procreation from sex.”

 
I think that peeling back the layers of that statement will reveal that abortion and same-sex “marriage” are strongly related, which I believe is key to getting pro-life Catholics on board with the Church’s teachings on same-sex “marriage.”
 
One of the core ideas of those promoting same-sex “marriage” is, as you indicate, the fact that so many couples get married with the intention of having no children that the entire institution has been reduced to something merely sentimental, leaving no justification for denying it to same-sex couples.
 
But is this a valid view?  To find out, the first thing we need to understand is the reason that marriage exists in the first place, which has always been much more as something that society demands of a man and woman who wish to begin an intimate relationship than something it merely allows them to do.  The question, then, is this:  Can the measures available today short of abortion - artificial contraception and sterilization - reduce the possibility of conception to the degree that they eliminate the reasons we might expect a couple to make a public commitment to each other before they begin an intimate relationship?  Given that even in theory these measures are at best 95-98% effective - and in practice are far less so - the answer is clearly no.
 
So then how can the relationship of a man and woman be made “equal” to the relationship of two people of the same sex, to the degree that we can say that their unions are equally worthy of being treated as special by society at large (ignoring the inescapable difference of genders, of course)?  The answer is abortion, the availability of which is the only way that a man and woman can guarantee that their intention of having a sterile relationship will be realized.  In other words, in order to accept one of the strongest arguments in favor of same-sex “marriage,” you have to accept abortion.

Kevin,

“To find out, the first thing we need to understand is the reason that marriage exists in the first place, which has always been much more as something that society demands of a man and woman who wish to begin an intimate relationship than something it merely allows them to do.” Are we talking modern marriage or arranged marriages, or polygamy?  Marriage has a long history with Love only being a modern reason.

When 2 70 year old widowers remarry, the child risk is equal to 2 men or 2 women marrying.  The church is on the wrong side of history on this one as it was with slavery. 

Although I happen to support reproductive freedom, it is a streach to tie it to SSM. 

Rover Serton said,

“Are we talking modern marriage or arranged marriages, or polygamy? Marriage has a long history with Love only being a modern reason.”

 
I think the reasons for marriage that I’ve alluded to - which predate even Christianity - apply to any of those types of marriage.  And for better or worse I’ve said nothing about love.
 
 

“When 2 70 year old widowers remarry, the child risk is equal to 2 men or 2 women marrying.”

 
We expect 70-year-olds to marry because if we didn’t, it would be difficult to expect couples who married when they were young to stay married when they are no longer fertile, which would be a concern for a great many of them, especially those of the gender that usually actually does lose their fertility.

A couple of comments:

It’s not possible for the Church to be on the wrong side of history because the Head of the Church is the Author of history.

Expecting the Church to abolish slavery in the early Church when Christians had no political power and were being thrown to lions is stupid. Once the Church had the power and means to do so it did work to abolish slavery.

There will be no end to abortion until there is an end to the widespread practice of contraception. Individuals may differ but as a Society abortion is there as a back up to contraception in mind and will. Similarly there is no firm basis to reject homosexual acts as disordered unless one considers sex to have been Created by God for the two fold purpose of babies and bonding been a man and a woman in holy matrimony.

Austin, I understand your reasoning because I used to think just like you.  What I was missing is the fact that artificial contraception enables promiscuity on levels never before seen in the history of humanity.  Yes, it’s true.  Have you been to a college campus lately?  Do you think that so many of our young people would live so loosely if there were the natural chances of pregnancy?  Would women in the pornography industry do what they do if there was a chance of them getting pregnant?  Would the men do what they do if they had to hone up and take responisbility for the children they produced?  There has always been those who would take the chance, but most probably would not.  Birth control pills came on the scene in the early 1960’s.  Within about 10 years the divorce rate hit 50% (married people can be promiscuous too) and the abortion became legal (if you have enough sex, even with artifical contrception there will be “accidents”).  Artifical contraception has watered down male-female relationships to the point where same sex marriage is now plausible.  Artifical contraception (and abortion) has also caused a “birth dirth” in all European countries.  There are simply not enough native Europeans being born to replace the current population.  Even Japan, South Korea, and Latin America are seeing alarmingly drastic drops in births.  This is causing significant economic problems (look at Greece).  So, all of these things are connected.  Lastly, the fact that most Catholics ignore church teachings on artificial contraception does not mean that it suddenly invalidates the church’s position on this.  This is not a democracy and the majority does not rule.  Suggest you check out this article for further details:  http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0217.htm

I pray that the light bulb will go on over your head as it did mine.  I know this is a tough nut to swallow, but the truth is the truth and no amount of denying it will change it.  If a hard head like me can come to understand the long term problems with artifical contraception, then anyone can.

Churches do not support marriage until two people walk in and announce they are getting married.
Too much effort to say stay single - that because you are not married it is God’s will that you are single, and you should stay that way.
BS.  God never called but two people to be single - and he didn’t play hide & seek - He came right out and told them.

Churches never want to help nor encourage singles who are not engaged to marry better by setting marriage as a goal and working towards it.

The church view to eliminate divorce:  everyone stay single
No wonder many non-married people are saying good-bye to the church.

To eliminate divorce, eliminate contraception. Couples who practice some form of fertility awareness and abstinance have a divorce rate less than one tenth of the general population.

My heart hurts for all the single people in the church who feel less valued or ministered to, due to being single.  LH is speaking from a place of pain and woundedness.  As a married person with five children, I am far removed from “remembering” those days.  We all must work together, whether married or single, adult or child as one body in Christ.  Listening to one another gives us an opportunity to change~as we plan our events, committees, ministries, we can all keep in mind the words LH has spoken and seek to be all inclusive to the various states in life~married, single, widowed, etc. I am sorry, LH, for any pain you have experienced and ask God to send special graces into your life and special individuals to your parish, who will help to remedy this situation.  I hope to be a better Catholic and reach out in meaningful ways the singles I meet.  God’s blessings on you!

A wise priest I know put the debate in the following terms: instead of asking why two men or two women who desire marriage should be DENIED the right to do so, we should instead be posing the question, “why does the state PRIVILEGE and provide benefits to one woman and one man who enter into marriage?

The answer is, because CHILDREN have the right to have a father and a mother, and marriage is the optimal arrangement for raising children—which brings many benefits to individuals and society. What other interest would the state have in providing legal status/benefits—sanctioning—any relationship between persons.

It’s about protecting and providing for children, whether a union produces any children or not. Gay “marriage,” adoption by gay couples, etc. is basically a vast social experiment on children and we won’t truly be able to assess the impact on kids for decades to come.

The same priest also discussed the “iconography” of marriage: it’s how we teach the next generation what marriage is, and is not.

That’s the same question I posed in a letter in USA Today a year and half ago.  Of course, those who promote same-sex “marriage” don’t have an answer.  They just dodge the question, because for them marriage must be a purely sentimental thing without any real substance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/letters/2010-11-11-letters11_ST_N.htm

Matt,
As Catholics, we must remember the procreative end of marriage, which has been lost since the Sexual Revolution. We often forget the ability to create new life is a powerful gift from God. All marriages must recognize procreation as a tendon of true marriage. Children is not the only purpose behind marriage, but it is the most complete commitment of the will between husband and wife. Now, in the modern world, this might seem preposterous to those who have a hedonist view towards sex. But, as Catholics we are called to live in the truth even in times of trouble. In order to defend and restore marriage, we must remember the procreative end of marriage.

The author recognizes the strong arguments in favor of marriage equality.  More telling, however, is the way he underscores the fundamental disagreement between those who favor and disfavor marriage equality.  By suggesting gay people should “seek a higher calling” he is implying that gays and lesbians would be more useful to society if they were single and celibate.  Which begs the question, if gay people don’t choose to be gay (they don’t, even the Catholic church accepts this in “Always Our Children”) and aren’t going to “convert” to heterosexuality (because the overwhelming evidence is they can’t, again see “Always Our Children”) what is the harm of their entering relationships?  Who gets hurt and how? 

As for the reader who says the best sound bite in favor of disallowing marriage equality is that children need a mother and a father, this would be an argument better used against single parent adoptions, which the church does not oppose.  (Note:  Catholic adoption agencies place kids with single parents.  Obviously, if the church believed this to be detrimental, they wouldn’t agree to it and would have to close down all over the country.)

John, it isn’t same-sex-attracted persons merely entering into relationships that harms those who don’t recognize them, but rather the legal recognition of such relationships, which becomes a tyranny against everyone who doesn’t accept them.  There are myriad examples of the harm this has done in U.S. states that recognize same-sex “marriage” as well as several other countries.  I can go into detail in another comment if you’re not familiar with them.
 
Regarding adoption of children by same-sex couples, it is not that such adoptions are worse or better than single-parent adoptions, but that they inject the child into a paradoxical existence that is unnatural on an entirely different level than single-parent adoptions are.  Another consideration is that single parents will often seek an adult of the opposite gender who can be something of a role model for his/her children in place of the parent that is missing.  Do same-sex couples try to do the same thing?  Or do they somehow think they can cover all the bases themselves?

John, You misunderstand, I think, what the author is saying.  He recognizes the sound bites that are used but clearly knows how flawed they are.  He recognizes we Catholics and Christians are not living up to the standard Jesus Christ set and how that has caused people to toss out whatever Truth we might speak. (Not because it isn’t the Truth but because we are hypocrites.) And he recognizes that people who favor gay marriage don’t want to listen to arguments that are theological or even based on natural law and he sees these as hurdles, not to the Truth, but to reaching people like you who can’t see the destructive consequences of this sin or sin in general. He also recognizes that there is cruelty in the world and some gay people have suffered from it. Today there is so much cruelty everyone suffers from it.  I have not read “Always Our Children”, but I will. But I have seen that the root of homosexual temptation is sin and Christ has overcome all sin. Today’s society feeds the temptation and embraces it. True love does what is best for the whole person - body and soul.  If you had a natural or an unnatural attraction to someone who was off limits and truly loved them you would not pursue them.  It’s really that simple and that hard.  The fixation keeps people from living more fully.

Pam,  those are not just sound bites.  They are reasonable arguments that more and more people are beginning to recognize.  Your argument underscores all the more why civil marriages are distinct from religious ones.  Christians, including Catholics, take a variety of views of what constitutes sin.  It is not up to the state to decide what is or isn’t sinful, who’s right, who’s wrong.  Those are questions for theologians and individuals to grapple with.  Civil society offers equal opportunity to everyone, regardless of their immutable statuses.

From a religious perspective, fundamentally, a sin involves something that is detrimental.  For “homosexual acts” to be considered “detrimental” or “sinful,” you’d have to establish that 1) procreation is required of us and 2) if gay people were not engaging in gay relationships they’d instead be procreating in heterosexual ones.  Once you accept that gay people neither choose to be gay nor have the ability to change their orientation (both of which the church acknowledges in “Always Our Children”) maintaining that their decision to be open to relationships rather than live as single celibates becomes problematic.  Because if they didn’t choose to be gay and cannot change it, then refraining from relationships will have no effect on “dissuading” people from being gay or result in gay people entering heterosexual relationships.  Then the question becomes, “If they’re not going to have pro-creative heterosexual relationships anyway, what’s the harm (or difference between, for that matter) of entering gay relationships rather than remaining single?”  Likewise, what’s the difference between two gay people getting married and a straight, post-menopausal women marrying a man?  Neither relationship is going to create a child without some other intervention.

You also have to consider that at least two very important variables have changed over the thousands of years since scripture was first recorded.  1) The human race no longer faces the very real risk of extinction it once did (in fact, over-population is the far greater threat to humanity right now) and 2) homosexuality has only begun to be understood over the last roughly 100 years (note, the term ‘homosexual’ itself is not much older than 100 years).  In the past, it was believed that everyone was fundamentally heterosexual and gay people had sex as some form of aberrant behavior apart from their underlying heterosexuality.  We now know this concept is hopelessly flawed.  While a very small percentage of people may have leanings both ways, most peoples’ attraction goes in one direction or the other.  The church, or certain men in the church hierarchy, may choose to construct a rationale that homosexuality is unnaturally or flawed spiritually, but it is not the realm of the church to decide what is medically or psychiatrically “natural” or not.  Which brings me back to the underlying point that government, and not the church, should provide a neutral playing field in matters of civil law and equality while religions, and different religious within religions, battle it out over issues of morality.

Although I can tell you are well-intentioned, I’m astounded by one part of your response. It is obvious you don’t know any families headed by gay couples and yet you feel free to label them as detrimental.  How can you condemn what you don’t even know?  To answer the question which makes it so obvious you don’t know any gay-parented families, gay parents are just as concerned about having positive male and female role models for their kids and routinely reach out to make sure aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, other gay couples, etc develop close relationships with their children. That you don’t know this or would even doubt it just underscores the breadth of lack of understanding or first-hand knowledge of gay parents.  Gay or straight, one parent or two, parents usually have the same aspirations for their kids.

I’m sure the “consequences” you are referring to are the decision by the Catholic church to abandon their adoption agencies and a handful of town clerks who do not wish to preside over same gender weddings. The bottom line is this, when the church acts as an agent of the state, it can’t discriminate. When it accepts taxpayer dollars, including taxpayer dollars of gay citizens, it can’t turn around and refuse to serve those people (both directly and in the aggregate) whose tax money it is accepting.  It is no different than saying an Evangelical-based adoption agency can’t refuse to place children with Jewish couples or Catholic couples on the grounds that doing so would be exposing them a faith or practice they don’t agree with or consider detrimental. Would you want your tax dollars supporting an adoption agency run by the gay community that wouldn’t place kids in Christian homes?  It’s the same concept. Ditto with town clerks who, again, are paid with tax dollars. They can no more refuse to perform a same gender, civil marriage than they could refuse to perform a second marriage for a divorcee who didn’t get an annulment on the grounds that it would violate his or her religious principles. If you can’t serve everyone, you can’t be a civil servant.

That leaves your last argument, which is, essentially, “if marriage equality is enacted, those who oppose it won’t feel good about themselves.”  And you are right. They will be labeled bigoted and intolerant.  In country after country, state after state where marriage equality has been enacted, no one has ever been forced to enter into a same-gender marriage or denied the opportunity to enter a gender discordant one. Imposition of one’s own religion is denying another person’s right to make their own decisions. No one on the equality side is trying to stop anyone else from marrying. So while a subset of people or institutions might believe discrimination is somehow justified, it is still, no less, discrimination. And, yes, those on that side of history will be viewed as bigoted and intolerant.

I’ve been loosely following these comments since last spring. I think that perfecting our own lives in the image of Christ would be a better use of our time in this life rather than defining what is an is not sin.

You are right, R.  So you decide what “living in the image of Christ” means for you, and let others decide what it means for them.

John, Yes they are sound bites.  We disagree.  Also, I don’t agree at all that homosexuals don’t choose their orientation(unless that means with free will) nor that they can not change it.  As I have stated before, I have seen too many kids and young adults who were born heterosexual groomed or coerced or mentally beaten into so much self-doubt that they ended up in the lifestyle.  Also, on one of these blogs it has been cited that forty percent of homosexuals have been molested.  That statistic alone is enough to raise a red flag.  I do agree that many don’t realize that they made their choices under grooming and coercion or because of rape or mental abuse and they came to believe they were “always that way” but it’s not true. Now I see a culture that labels young children’s sexual orientation based on their dorkiness or good or bad looks or their naivete or interests while they are still in elementary school and it is very disturbing.  Many of these kids would grow into normal wonderful heterosexual men and women but they are being derailed.  Dorkiness and sexual orientation aren’t linked.  Handsomeness and homosexuality aren’t linked.  Innocence and homosexuality aren’t linked.  Being a second son or daughter and homosexuality aren’t linked. Being an athletic girl or unathletic or dramatic boy and homosexuality aren’t linked. But they are TARGETED by people who are homosexual and others since these kids are emotionally vulnerable or are in more need of love and seem to fit into the labelling and an agenda.  The state has a roll in encouraging morality and protecting children’s sexual integrity.  That is why we have laws.  They are a form of coercion to enforce a moral code.  And the nation where these laws are made has a Declaration of Independence that acknowledges a Creator.  We are a nation Under GOD whether you choose to reject it or not.  Every new citizen recites the pledge of allegience. And yes, homosexual unions harm others when they are made public and harm the concept of marriage, family, the whole concept of friendship and children are exposed to the portion of the population that would use loose morality to target children.  Also you should familiarize yourself to the Regeneres(sp?) study (Texas professor)that shows that children raised in same sex households are more likely to struggle in life and to be homosexual themselves. This is not about the goodness of the individuals who end up homosexual. It is about forcing people who see the harm to pretend they don’t see it. We should all treat each other with compassion and respect, but there are many psychological and emotional and physical and societal downsides to homosexual relations and the struggle with homosexuality itself. So many it has been taboo for thousands of years despite your claims. For Catholics the Bible passages of Saints Paul and Peter and Phillip are so clear that this is not an acceptable lifestyle for us.  But we aren’t left without hope.  Christ’s grace is greater than all sins.  Don’t know who your last post was addressed to, but you make alot of assumptions. Churches don’t take government money nor do many of the small businesses that are being forced to act against their religious convictions.  Their freedom of religion is under attack. Our freedom of religion is under attack.

@ John: Yes. I think that Christ’s message is one of love, humility and redemption.

Pam, there are so many inaccuracies and fallacies in your post I don’t know where to begin.

1)  The Texas study you site makes clear that they were not comparing comparable households.  The study itself acknowledged it was not comparing kids of in-tact gay couples with children of in-tact heterosexual couples.  In fact, all but two of the children with one gay parent compared in the study were from broken homes (gay parents who tried to pretend to be straight and married an opposite gender partner) while the majority of kids from heterosexual households came from in-tact households. 

2)  If you think homosexuality is either chosen or changeable, then you disagree with the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the world-wide counterparts of each of the above, the Roman Catholic church and even the President of PFOX!  In fact, no scholar has even been able to assemble a sample group of supposed ‘ex-gays” large enough to do a study because there are so few who remain to identify as such for any significant period of time.  If you know so many of them, you should collect their contact information and forward them to medical schools around the country.

3) Your “recruitment” argument is highly offensive, not to mentione repudiated by every major medical or mental health related organization.  It is clear you have not educated yourself, at all, on this issue.

4)  God made gay people, God made straight people.  He rejoices in diversity.

5)  NONE of the three biblical passages in the old or new testament refer to consensual relationships between adults.  Go check the “New American Bible” (ie, the official Catholic, English translation of the bible) on that one.

6)  I do not know where you get your statistics about 40% of gay people being sexually abused.  However, that means that over half are not and yet are still gay anyway.  Likewise, there are studies showing a third of the entire population has experienced a form of sexual abuse, meaning the difference isn’t that great between heterosexuals and gays.

7)  Churches are allowed to discriminate when they are acting as churches.  It is only when you have a church affiliated hospital or university, for example, that accept taxpayer funds that they are not allowed to discriminate.  Businesses are public accommodations and therefore cannot discriminate against gay people or couples any more than they could discriminate based on race or against people in interracial marriages.

john, you will never convince me that homosexuality is not a disorder, because we all know with our senses how man/woman is made, and how the ‘pieces’ interact.  Because one person’s brain is wired against that truth does not justify redefining marriage for all society.  It is a simple as that.  It is not hate or fear that prompts one to assert the truth of marriage, but a desire to keep an institution created by God Himself intact and protected.  How consummately selfish it is to force the whole society to conform to an aberration, all to force acceptance of a behavior, (not an inclination), that we cannot comprehend or embrace. 
.
With the push to redefine marriage also comes many other degradations for society - contraception, non-natural ‘assisted reproduction’, and the ultimate horror, abortion.  Politically, these issues are all of a piece.  Apologetics for all these sins always includes twisted logic about rights, privacy, individuals’ wants and desires, and ultimately, a sense that one can be God.  Remember that 48% of the populace did not vote for Obama, and even some who did are not willing to further degrade our culture by eroding religious rights.  Stay out of my pocket and leave my kids alone, please!

And by the way, john, your point #7 betrays your real intention, to close our historical church-run social service institutions, to be replaced with soulless ‘gov’mint’ institutions run according to your worldview alone.  That is…  until the next regime comes into power.  Hmmm, could be worse for all.

Eileen, your responses are just sad.  To live with so much anger and hatred can’t be easy.  So determined are you to cling to your antiquated, discredited and rejected views that you are willing to deny science, medicine, reason and possibly even official church teachings (that sexual orientation is not just a behavior, but an orientation that is neither chosen or changeable) rather than take a look at what your homophobia is really all about. 

It is clear you are disappointed with the election results, as many are.  How or why you would accuse gay people of being “in your pocket” or doing anything to your kids, though, is beyond me.  It seems you are more interested in lashing out than rationally thinking through the issues.

I don’t think you realize it, but every letter of every word that people like you say or write is worth at least a 1,000 votes—FOR THE OTHER SIDE!

john said,

How or why you would accuse gay people of being “in your pocket” or doing anything to your kids, though, is beyond me.

 
At one time you could have said that we are wrong to be concerned about other people using artificial contraceptives, too, because it won’t affect those of us who believe it’s wrong.  Well, now I’m facing the prospect of my parish having no choice but to abandon the school my children attend come next August if nothing changes, thanks to a law that will impose hypocrisy on its administration.  I’m sorry, but we don’t have any reason to feel guilty about opposing the homosexual agenda with every ounce of our existence.

That’s some doozie.  Your kids’ school might close because insurance companies are required to provide contraception to everyone and that justifies discriminating against gay people.  The arguments just keep getting more and more desperate—and outright looney!  Again, please do my side a favor and keep talking/writing.  You all make our job SO MUCH EASIER!

I’ve never discriminated against anyone.

Voting against equal treatment for everybody is discrimination.  There is no way around it.  You might try to argue it is “justifiable” discrimination (ie, because if you votefor marriage equality your kids’ school will have to close because insurance companies are required to cover contraceptives) but it is, no less, discrimination.

I sent two responses to John through my phone but they went to webmaster at ncregister so if they appear after I post this, I apologize.  John, The author of the Texas study answered your reservation. There weren’t enough in tact homosexual households to make such a comparison possible. And psychiatrists and psychologists are divided on the issue.  The politics and the truth are at odds.  No doubt it’s the same for the AMA.  The Roman Catholic Church is compassionate but does not believe it is impossible to overcome homosexuality.  We have a program called “Courage” that works with homosexuals.  And sixty percent weren’t molested but that doesn’t rule out the grooming, coercion and mental abuse.  And “Do not be deceived.  No sodomite will enter the gates of heaven” is exceedingly clear. As is the passage stating that when a man lies w a man as w a woman he has been handed over to his passions.  Same when a woman lies w a woman.  It isn’t what u were created for. God did not create us for passions of the flesh or even to be happy on this earth.  He has something much greater in mind - Life in Eternity in union with Him.  And John if you are offended because these things are happening to children you can only imagine how greatly those of us who see it and how our Lord himself must feel.  “As there were false prophets in the past history of our people, so you will have your false teachers who will insinuate their own disruptive views…(you?)  Many will copy their debauched behavior, and the Way of Truth will be brought into disrepute on their account….When angels sinned, God did not spare them…He did not spare the world in ancient times:  He saved only Noah , the preacher of uprightness, along w seven others…. He condemned Sodom and Gemorrah by reducing them to ashes as a warning to future sinners. 2Peter   “Keep yourself from the disordered natural inclinations that attack the soul.”  “For the rest of life on earth (the converted) is ruled not by human passions but only by the will of God.” 1Peter.  “Sodom and Gomorrah, too, and the neighboring towns who with the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts, are put before us as an example since they are paying the penalty of eternal fire.”  God inspired these passages in love to warn and educate us all.  God does not want anyone chained to sexual immorality. He will give the grace but we MUST call it what it is, repent, knock, seek, and ask!  And you my friend are the one with all the anger not Kevin or Eileen.

Most decision making is a form of discrimination - discerning what is good versus what is harmful.  Only equal things should be treated equally and homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions. They are two different entities on the surface and in many other ways.  It is dishonest to not recognize that.

Moderator I posted comments before this last one that was posted at 11:12EDT (even though my computer says 10pm) and they have not been posted yet.  Is there a problem?

Pam, Gay men fall in love with men.  Gay women fall in love with women.  Denying marriage to an entire class of people because of whom they fall in love with is discrimination, which you seem to acknowledge.  Furthermore, marriage equality is in no way harmful to heterosexuals marriages, nor is denying marriage equality in any way helpful to heterosexual marriages.

john, you are sick and sad.  Why don’t you come out against the insane terrorist tactics of the homosexual thugs in ACT UP, Savage, etc.?  Is what they have done to Rick Santorum, a fine family man, ok with you?  Is it a sign of a healthy mind or society to drag Rick into the sordid sex scene of some homosexuals?  Is it ok with you to terrorize a deaf black professor because she believes that people should have vote before our society authorizes gay ‘marriage’?  Is it not selfish to take innocent children into homosexual households, to play act that this is a normal family?  How sad for those children.  I can imagine the deep soul sickness that will result when they yearn for the mother/father they don’t have.  It is very clear what the thugs in your movement want, and they will not get it.  Sorry, but the emperor has no clothes…
.
Yes, your part of this very divided society looks to be in the ascendence now, but time will tell…

John, No I do not agree it is discrimination in the negative context you mean it.  I mean it is more like realizing red is not black or an apple is not an orange.  But I am glad that you recognize they are not equal.  That is why we do not call it marriage.  When you start to speak from passions - “fall in love”, you are not using the wisdom that looks out for all interests, best interests, long-term implications etc.  Our passions can lead us in alot of places we shouldn’t and don’t go.  With alot of things we shouldn’t do first comes a thought.  At this stage it is easiest to overcome.  We recognize it for the enemy it is and run the opposite direction or turn to something we should do as opposed to wasting time or tempting ourselves with what we shouldn’t. Many saints and laypeople know the wisdom and truth of doing this.  If we don’t then the thought is nurtured.  We daydream about it. Wonder at what it would be like. Minimize the negatives and accentuate the positives despite the experience and wisdom around us. We can still overcome it but we have made it more difficult. If we don’t try to overcome it then the nurtured thought is acted upon. We have given in to our passions and we have rejected overcoming the passions.  We rationalize our choices and sometimes even try to change everything to make our choices accepted.  Even after we have done this, with God’s grace we can overcome any passion if we are open to Him.  Just the loss of this discipline is a harm to society.  A society that is run on passions is not healthy.  You can see many reasons above why it hurts heterosexual marriage and how denying it is very good for us all.  Perhaps God is asking you to change John.  God bless.

Terrorists?  Are you for real?  This is the kind of desperation that just reeks from the homophobes who will reach for any lie or distortion or lie to try to justify their bigotry.  I have yet to see one logical explanation as to how marriages between people of the same gender in any way threaten heterosexual marriages, or how preventing gay people from marrying protects them.  Marital love is marital love, whether between heterosexuals or gay people.  There is no difference.  Fortunately, more people are beginning to realize this and within a generation, marriage equality will be the norm.

Pam, I don’t know where you garnered from my post that I do not consider the two equal.  I do.  Can you elaborate for me what you mean by “all interests, best interests, long-term implications etc.?”  I am still waiting to hear how gay people getting married is any detriment to straight people or society as a whole.  Likewise, your characterization of homosexuality as nothing more than a “passion” is in direct conflict with the medical, psychiatric, psychological and scientific communities and, to an extent, even the Catholic church, which acknowledges sexuality as an orientation that is neither chosen nor changeable.

John, I garnered it from your falling back on emotions as opposed to facing the difference in the unnatural union of two people of the same sex versus the natural and potentially life-giving union of two people of the opposite sex and by one being a union of complimentarity and one not and of one being the bedrock of society for millenium and one being taboo for millenium.  As to “all interest, best inteests, long-term implications” you are a perfect example. You stonewall anything that opposes your desires. You are not open or listening to reason but rather answering reason with inflammatory or highly emotional statements.  As to the detrimental affect to straight people or society as a whole, I would point out the movement to attack the children of believers and try to make them gay. (Would you consider that terrorist attacks?) Or the discrimination and set-ups at workplaces against people who oppose homosexual marriage.  (Would you consider this terrorist attacks?)Or the attempts by schools to alienate children from their parents under the guise of making the child handle everything, making a six to 18 year old responsible for his own defense against an adult teacher. (Who do you think will win those confrontations or discussions?) and keeping mom and dad out of the loop by making kids feel like they are wrong not to handle it all by themselves or how about by putting “The Two Princes” in the elementary curriculum without getting parental consent before the child is exposed to it.  I could go on a very long time….lets not forget the pastors who use the pulpit to preach in opposition to Church teaching to parishioners because they are in fear of being outed or are homosexual and sympathize with the movement or should not even be priests. ( Hence the some who may think the orientation is neither chosen nor changeable but they are NOT the Catholic Church.) And we can never forget all the damage being done to the normal sexual development of children who are exposed to things innocent children should not be or are being categorized and sorted, manipulated and even raped by the liberal agenda.  And most importantly we can not forget the damage to FAITH that these unholy unions have already caused.  God is real and as Padre Pio would say in the confessional, “If you don’t believe it now, you will believe it when you are in hell.”  What does it take to reach you John?  If too people of the same sex really love each other they are best friends for life.  They are not lovers. Crossing that line hurts us all. It doesn’t make them evil but it does make them fallen. And we are more than willing to show them a better way.  If you aren’t willing to listen and are going to call the truth insults or lies, there’s not much to discuss.

Pam, to the contrary.  I’ve responded with specifics to your continual sweeping, unsupported generalizations.  I’ll delineate my response, below, to make it clearer:

1)  Your sole support for your assertion that homosexuality is “unnatural” is based on a construct formulated thousands of years ago.  You again ignore science, medicine, psychology and psychiatry, disciplines that were either non-existent or in their infancy up until the last 100 years.  By your rationale, we should still believe the earth is flat because that’s what people believed for thousands of years.  “That’s what we always believed” and “that’s the way it’s always been” are arguments for those who have no arguments.  (FYI:  go read “Always Our Children,” written and approved by the US COnference of Catholic Bishops.  People neither choose nor can change their sexual orientation.  Or do you consider the US bishops to be liberal wackos, too??)

2)  No one can make someone else gay.  If an uncle molests his underage niece, will that make her heterosexual?  Does such an abhorrent act make heterosexuality depraved or sick, or is it a grotesque attack on a child, plain and simple? Pedophilia is neither heterosexual nor homosexual.  It is a crime against children. 

3) Still waiting on the specifics of how gay couples who marry threaten heterosexual marriages.  Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate when marriage equality became a reality almost ten years ago.  It still does.  In fact, opponents of equality can’t even muster 1/4 of the legislators to put it up for a vote.  They’ve had at least four elections and they still can’t come up with enough support.  If things were that horrible, they would have made some progress by now.

4)  Definition of a terrorist: one who uses acts of physical violence to promote his or her cause.  Can you come up with even one instance of a gay equality activist killing or harming another individual?  And even if you could (which I know you can’t), would you consider all pro-lifers terrorists just because a handful of people claiming to be “pro-life”  have murdered doctors? 

5) I’m also curious to know just how many children of gay couples you know.  None of the ones I know have ever felt they were exposed to some tyranny or confusion or “false” family.  In fact, all four (from three different couples) turned out to be heterosexual and all but one have children of their own. 

Pam, to the contrary.  I’ve responded with specifics to your continual sweeping, unsupported generalizations.  I’ll delineate my response, below, to make it clearer:

1)  Your sole support for your assertion that homosexuality is “unnatural” is based on a construct formulated thousands of years ago.  You again ignore science, medicine, psychology and psychiatry, disciplines that were either non-existent or in their infancy up until the last 100 years.  By your rationale, we should still believe the earth is flat because that’s what people believed for thousands of years.  “That’s what we always believed” and “that’s the way it’s always been” are arguments for those who have no arguments.  (FYI:  go read “Always Our Children,” written and approved by the US COnference of Catholic Bishops.  People neither choose nor can change their sexual orientation.  Or do you consider the US bishops to be liberal wackos, too??)

2)  No one can make someone else gay.  If an uncle molests his underage niece, will that make her heterosexual?  Does such an abhorrent act make heterosexuality depraved or sick, or is it a grotesque attack on a child, plain and simple? Pedophilia is neither heterosexual nor homosexual.  It is a crime against children. 

3) Still waiting on the specifics of how gay couples who marry threaten heterosexual marriages.  Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate when marriage equality became a reality almost ten years ago.  It still does.  In fact, opponents of equality can’t even muster 1/4 of the legislators to put it up for a vote.  They’ve had at least four elections and they still can’t come up with enough support.  If things were that horrible, they would have made some progress by now.

4)  Definition of a terrorist: one who uses acts of physical violence to promote his or her cause.  Can you come up with even one instance of a gay equality activist killing or harming another individual?  And even if you could (which I know you can’t), would you consider all pro-lifers terrorists just because a handful of people claiming to be “pro-life”  have murdered doctors? 

5) I’m also curious to know just how many children of gay couples you know.  None of the ones I know have ever felt they were exposed to some tyranny or confusion or “false” family.  In fact, all four (from three different couples) turned out to be heterosexual and all but one have children of their own. 

Moderator:  can you please explain why my posts are being labeled “spam?”

John you are in denial.  You confuse God and science.  God is eternal and never changing.  His Truth is the same yesterday today and forever.  The Biblical quotes I gave above are as relevant and true today as they always were.  Your human body by the way is not a construct.  It tells you you have male parts (I assume from the name John). Those parts are made for female parts and when they unite they have the potential to share in the procreative act of God.  That is really AMAZING and GOOD and a gift.  That is its intended use. And it is a lie of the homosexual community that no one can make anyone else gay.  I personally have seen the grooming and know for a fact it exists.  Some gay people pursue people trying to convince them they are gay. Like that song, “Ricky don’t lose that number.”  They don’t give up and they don’t listen to the person who insists they are not.  And if that long list of negatives I gave you does not show you all the harm you have totally shut down. And please don’t cite Massachusetts.  I live here and people of faith are under attack, Catholic marriages are under attack, our children’s faith is under attack.  And since when is violence to psyches not violence.  The examples I give are bullying and terrorism.  And yes I know children of gay couples and have seen some sad things.  The kids are harmed.  Parents split and two women come together and the girls of the family are put in a very awkward place (no sons involved)that lead to problems some that I have witnessed (acting out and shame and embarrassment, confliction and confusion) and some I have heard about such as drugs.  John God is the answer.  He will lead you if you will open your heart to Him.

john said,

Voting against equal treatment for everybody is discrimination.  There is no way around it.  You might try to argue it is “justifiable” discrimination (ie, because if you votefor marriage equality your kids’ school will have to close because insurance companies are required to cover contraceptives) but it is, no less, discrimination.

If someone comes to the door of my house claiming to be from the gas company and wants to check for leaks, but there’s nothing on their vehicle or their person that shows they are who they say they are, I discriminate against them, too.  But discriminating against something or someone because they’re not what they claim to be is not unjust.
 

I have yet to see one logical explanation as to how marriages between people of the same gender in any way threaten heterosexual marriages, or how preventing gay people from marrying protects them.

If you’re going to be objective, you can’t pick and choose which effects of something (i.e. government recognition of same-sex unions) you’re going to consider valid and which you’re going to excuse or ignore.  There are myriad other ways that government recognition of same-sex “marriage” hurts other people besides the effect it has on real marriage.  That said, it is much more that real marriage has to be damaged in order to excuse same-sex “marriage” than that the latter damages the former.
 

I am still waiting to hear how gay people getting married is any detriment to straight people or society as a whole.

No one has a problem with same-sex-attracted people getting married.  What they have a problem with is government recognition of unions between two people of the same gender.  There are myriad examples of how that hurts society, including clergy investigated and even being convicted of crimes in countries that have already recognized same-sex unions, church-run adoption agencies ceasing their services when required to violate their own teachings in this country and others, and public school students and teachers being suspended for merely publicly voicing their opinions about homosexual practice in our own country.  I could go on.  And I am still waiting for someone to present a cohesive argument in favor of such government recognition that doesn’t depend on the sentimental conditioning that has apparently been going on through the media.  (I haven’t watched network TV shows in a couple decades, so I’ve missed what is apparently leading to a lot of the popular support for same-sex “marriage.”)

john said,

go read “Always Our Children,” written and approved by the US COnference of Catholic Bishops.  People neither choose nor can change their sexual orientation.

If we’re going to have respect for the Church, that’s fine.  The Church carefully and dispassionately considers the motives, context, meaning and results of an act before she weighs in on it whether it is morally permissible.  But you can’t bank on her being right in one instance then claim that she’s wrong in another, for she applies the same standard of faith and reason to everything.
 
What Always Our Children actually says, however, is:

“You can help a homosexual person in two general ways. First, encourage him or her to cooperate with God’s grace to live a chaste life. Second, concentrate on the person, not on the homosexual orientation itself. This implies respecting a person’s freedom to choose or refuse therapy directed toward changing a homosexual orientation. Given the present state of medical and psychological knowledge, there is no guarantee that such therapy will succeed. Thus, there may be no obligation to undertake it, though some may find it helpful.”

 
If you accept that, then you have find the law in California that says that a person who experiences same-sex attractions but finds them undesirable cannot obtain professional help to be unjust.  And the Church would be pretty unwise to claim that such therapy always can succeed, since it would be similar to getting someone to change their attraction to children, which psychologists told dioceses in the 1980s could be done, but which it has since found to be sadly untrue.
 

No one can make someone else gay.  If an uncle molests his underage niece, will that make her heterosexual?

That’s probably more likely to make her homosexual.  It’s no secret that a lot of children are subjected to sexual abuse in this country, and it’s only natural that many of them will reject the sort of people who perpetrate it, perhaps even an entire gender.  But most of them are still going to have a desire for intimacy.  I think it would be pretty naive to think that this isn’t a factor in at least some people’s involvement in homosexual relationships.

Pam, you live in a fantasyland and it is pointless trying to get you to acknowledge medicine, science, psychiatry and psychology, all of which resoundingly dispute every last one of your assertions.  You reject them all and cling to a “flat-earth” worldview that simply does not exist.  Kevin, feel free to discriminate against your exterminator, but that has nothing to do with denying equal opportunity for gay men and women to marry the person they fall in love with.  What are the “myriad of other ways” marriages of gay people harm marriages of heterosexuals?  Still waiting for specifics.  You seem to be suggesting you’d rather gay people marry people of the opposite sex. Really?  Would you want your daughter to marry a gay man?  Where has a clergy member been convicted of anything related to his or her belief against marriage equality?  What state? What country? I’d like to know.  And no, when a church is performing as a state agent, it cannot discriminate against those it is supposed to serve.  I make my discernments based on a variety of sources.  It is perfectly fine to pick and choose among arguments that do or don’t make sense, just as some anti equality advocates here are doing.  Finally, your conclusion is simply wrong. The vast majority of women who’ve been sexually abused by men are heterosexual, not gay as you indicate.  So whether an uncle molests a niece or nephew, they are still far more likely to be straight than gay.  There is no correlation between sexual abuse and sexual orientation.  This myth has been debunked repeatedly.

john said,

feel free to discriminate against your exterminator, but that has nothing to do with denying equal opportunity for gay men and women to marry the person they fall in love with

Neither does avoiding government recognition of such unions.
 

What are the “myriad of other ways” marriages of gay people harm marriages of heterosexuals?

Where has a clergy member been convicted of anything related to his or her belief against marriage equality?  What state? What country?

These are part of the same question.  Here are the answers:
http://www.wnd.com/2008/06/66247/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/mar/05033001
http://www.charismamag.com/site-archives/570-news/featured-news/12897-uk-court-rules-christianity-harmful-to-children
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
http://www.soulwinning.info/rights/criminalizing.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/florida-teacher-suspended-for-anti-gay-marriage-post-on-personal-facebook/
 

when a church is performing as a state agent, it cannot discriminate against those it is supposed to serve

Which also sets us up for coercing churches to solemnize same-sex unions, which is already happening in Denmark for one church, and is likely to spread to other churches and countries.
 

The vast majority of women who’ve been sexually abused by men are heterosexual, not gay as you indicate.

You implied that the result of a niece being abused by her uncle was to change her sexual orientation.  I only said that if it changed, it was more likely to change to homosexual (from heterosexual) rather than change (from apparently homosexual) to heterosexual, which has nothing to do with how many sexually abused children end up practicing homosexuality.

Kevin, Not allowing gay couples to have the same rights and benefits afforded by marriage between heterosexual couples is discrimination.  Which one of your links shows a clergy being jailed?  I don’t see it.  Nor do I see anything about marriages of gay couples damaging society or harming marriages between heterosexuals.  Free speech rights will work themselves out, much as they have with interracial marriages.  As you should know, there are “state religions” in many western European countries.  Those churches live off of government funds and are subject to greater influence by the state.  And yet, if you are right, only in Denmark has this been an issue, and only for the state church, not the Catholic church, other protestant churches or Jewish or Muslim temples/mosques in Denmark.  No clergy member of any denomination in the US (or anywhere else, as far as I know) has ever been forced to marry any two people, period.  Even now, after 40 years of interracial marriages, clergy may refuse to marry people of different races.  What peer-reviewed medical studies can you point to that show any correlation between sexual abuse and sexual orientation?  My question was intended to point out that if a gay man is abused by an uncle, people will use that to say that’s why he is gay.  But if a straight woman is abused by an uncle, people don’t say she is straight because her uncle abused her.  Simple reality is that there are straight people who have been sexually abused, or not, and gay people who have been sexually abused, or not.  In either case, sexual abuse has no bearing on someone’s sexual orientation.  If you have a peer-reviewed medical study that says otherwise, I would like to see it.

John said,

No clergy member of any denomination in the US (or anywhere else, as far as I know) has ever been forced to marry any two people, period.

I didn’t claim that this has happened, but how are you going to eliminate supposed discrimination against same-sex couples if it doesn’t?  The precedent for coercing churches to solemnize same-sex unions in this country has already been set.  In both marriage and adoption the church facilitates the formation of family units that are legally recognized, and the state grants the church the privilege of certifying the legalities on its behalf.  We’ve already seen it revoke that privilege where a church would not facilitate adoption by same-sex couples, and if it will do that in one case, there is nothing in principle that would prevent it from doing the same in the other.
 
Regarding the effect of abuse on sexuality, I would say that if abuse is a factor in one’s choice to engage in homosexual behavior (which is always a choice whether one experiences same-sex attractions or not, just like engaging in heterosexual behavior is always a choice), that it would push both women and men toward homosexuality is quite logical, in contrast to the historical - and I say flawed - ideas you portray.  The reason is this.  First, the vast majority of abuse is perpetrated by men, regardless of the gender of the victim.  A woman so affected will naturally reject men.  A man, however, is faced with the prospect of rejecting what he himself is.  He can’t do that, which would be essentially denying himself.  So instead he rejects the dominant or expected characteristics of men, and adopts those less expected of them, lest he be associated with that which he rejects.
 
I’m not a psychologist, haven’t read much on the topic and am very much just thinking out loud while working through the logic.  I’d be happy to consider any expert research or opinion on the matter, though, especially if it makes logical sense and can be shown to be consistent with psychology’s understanding of similar but less contentious causes and behaviors.  Also, last I checked, no one is prepared to claim today that same-sex attractions have a wholly biological cause, despite the indication from the APA several years ago that it expected such evidence would soon surface.  They all leave the door open for environmental factors to have something to do with it.  But if there have been any updates in that area I’d be happy to consider them, too.  Statistics don’t impress me, though.  You can get them to go any way you want.

Again, there is no precedent, anywhere, for any clergy member being forced to marry any two people anywhere, ever.  If this were the least bit of a realistic concern, the Catholic church would already have been forced to perform marriages where one or both parties have been divorced but not received an annulment.  Simply not going to happen.

With all due respect to your personal theories, when you have presented your studies of people who have been sexually abused for peer review that allow you to draw your conclusions that there are any correlations between sexual abuse and sexual orientation, I will gladly reconsider.  Until then, your “conclusions” reflect, as you say, that you “haven’t read much on the topic and am very much just thinking out loud.”  It shows.

It may not be a phenomenon related exclusively to sexual abuse, either.  Perhaps verbal, physical or emotional abuse could also have the same effect if it were significant enough.
 

there is no precedent, anywhere, for any clergy member being forced to marry any two people anywhere, ever

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/denmark-bishop-concerned-same-sex-marriage-law-could-force-unions-on-cathol

Dr. Kevin—It could or couldn’t be anything.  All a bunch of unsupported “theories” by someone who admits, “I haven’t read much on the topic and am very much just thinking out loud.”  Think some more, read some more, educate yourself before you go making up theories.  Still no evidence of any harm of gay couples marrying or of clergy member being forced to marry any two people, anywhere.  Random bishops continue to try to scare people by speculating and making wild predictions, but NOwhere has ANY priest or church been forced to marry ANYone!  Not even in Denmark!

But it can’t be “equality” until all churches will solemnize same-sex unions, so the pressure to make that happen will be there as long as this fad persists.

Again.  No different from interracial marriages.  No different from divorcees who remarry. Until you can come up with ANY evidence of ANY church ANYwhere being forced to marry ANY two people, you are simply repeating a non-existent issue for the sake of trying to come up with some sort of justification for discrimination against gay couples seeking a civil marriage.  Much like making up theories without having read much or given much thought, it simply doesn’t hold up.

Well, it is happening in Denmark, which you seem to be denying.

Dude. Can you read??  Go read the article you sent a link to!  The Catholic church is not being forced to do anything!  The state Lutheran church, supported by state tax dollars, is required to allow marriages among gay couples to be performed during the services rather than just after, which the state Lutheran church already allowed on its own.  And even there, no minister is being forced to perform the marriage!  Not even REMOTELY relevant to your concern of any religious being forced to perform a marriage!

‘Under the new law, priests may opt out of performing the “wedding” service for theological reasons.  However, a bishop must arrange for a replacement.’

 
www.lifesitenews.com/news/denmark-forces-churches-to-perform-same-sex-marriages/

Yes, you just proved my point!  No one is forced to perform the wedding!

Someone is.  If all priests refused, the law would become paradoxical.  It’s poor law, if nothing else.

No one is forced!  There are plenty, in fact, I’d bet a majority, of priests, ministers and rabbis of some denominations (including the Catholic church) willing to officiate at marriages of gay couples.  So again, you are wrong.  No one is FORCED to perform a wedding between ANY two people ANYwhere.

A priest/minister and a church are two different things.  A church is being forced to perform same-sex “weddings” in Denmark.

A state-run, state-supported, state-church is being required to allow the wedding within the context of the regular service, rather than after.  No other religion is being required to do anything.  Nor is any minister being required to do anything they oppose.  Even in the US, marriages of gay couples in the Lutheran church are performed at the discretion of individual ministers.

The fact that the law exists indicates that there must have been some conflict about what it requires.  It is what it is.  You think it’s excusable.  I think it’s abominable.

Sorry to hear you concede defeat to the Truth instead of growing.  Your sweeping accusations are blatantly desperate.  In support of what Kevin is saying there are many people being forced to act against their religious belief.  Just check out the Alliance Defense Fund and the Thomas Moore Law center.  Your comments make me believe that there really is a tie between arrested development and homosexuality.  They are that juvenile.

Nice try, Pam.  So let me see.  What “sweeping accusations” that are “blatantly desperate” are you referring to?  Or are you still unable to point to anything specific after all these days?  And things are SOOOO terrible and horrible that people in how many countries and states where marriage equality has been enacted are up in arms trying to reverse it?  Hmm.  Let’s see, in Massachusetts, after four elections, your side can’t even manage to get 1/4 of the legislature to put the matter up for a vote.  Your war against equality isn’t over.  But it’s already been lost.

John, Your inability to acknowledge that the two unions are not alike reflects a brokeness. (Reminds me of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” - get the right people telling the lies and the populace follows, but the pure and innocent see through it.) And your inaccurate assertion of who agrees with your point of view vs. the truth of the politics and money that drowned out all those within those associations who STILL believe the issue is a psychological disorder is a form of denial. And the Catholic Church still states the union is OBJECTIVELY disordered - that is anyone can see just by looking at the parts that they aren’t intended to go together and our teaching is that fostering a temptation is a sin and NOTHING is impossible with God. The way you state your case in every instance is dishonest. And the way you switch the subject every time you cannot logically respond to a point. As to the conflicts, most of the Middle East has been up in arms since Obama took office and has been put in chaos.  Our own nation just had a very corrupt and divisive election over the issue as did Massachusetts with Elizabeth Warren throwing out inflammatory soundbites instead of thinking through difficult issues for solutions that would benefit all society and the human soul.  In Massachusetts the Governor’s daughter came home on a college break (accompanied) to announce she had decided she was homosexual and he uses (or abuses) his authority to promote the lifestyle as does the mayor of Boston. Remember the Chick Fil-A is not welcome here debacle?  Intolerant tolerance.  So vividly bigoted.  The political machines of these men actively work to silence or intimidate any who try to speak the truth.  Actually Massachusetts did have enough signatures for a vote several years ago and somehow it was not allowed on the ballot.  Massachusetts doesn’t recognize homosexual marriage based on a democratic process. It was done through the courts and judicial activism. So nothing to brag about there.  My concern is for the Truth as taught by Christ and speaking up where lies are passed off as truth.  If you are told the truth and reject it, I have done what I am responsible to do.  Your soul is at risk but now it is solely on your own head.  I will pray for you.

Ignoring the previous comments: This article has an excellent point. I have also noticed the relative difficulty of arguing for marriage compared to arguing a pro-life position. Christians/conservatives overall have allowed and even embraced no-fault divorce and the use of the Pill. We (as a monolithic “conservative” side) do not have a moral high ground in that argument, though we do in the pro-life question. This is, as Matthew notes, a matter of how we’re perceived more than a matter of actuality, though. Truth is still truth.