Lord have mercy on us, poor sinners! We are failing so hard on our mission as laity, I wonder how big of a miracle is required to put us back in the right track.

This may be where you’re going, but I’ve found this old blog post helpful in forming my thinking on the issue.

I’ve seen some good arguments for the traditional meaning of marriage, but most of them are based on natural law arguments and people today don’t think or argue in those terms.  People today don’t ask what the good of something is, but rather why is it useful.  Marriage is no exception.

Most of the proponents of same-sex marriage are utilitarians judging by their appeal to the emotional well-being of homosexual couples.  I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that most people in the United States are unacknowledged utilitarians which is why so many are receptive to the arguments for same-sex marriage.

It seems to me that advocates for traditional marriage are in a dilemma: either they argue in utilitarian terms in order to “speak the language” of the population at large, or argue in natural law terms.  The former method, while it may be successful, is ultimately contrary to religious principals.  The latter, while it is faithful to religious principals, falls on deaf ears.

The task of Christians today is to make the deaf hear.

“We have given in to the willful child’s argument of our society.  It’s an argument not unlike the nature of which a 13-year old trying to get around their parents uses to get their way: one wrong accepted and tolerated by a powerful person or group supports the argument for another wrong to be accepted and tolerated, even embraced: “But Debbie’s parents are letting her do it!“.  The final coup d’état on this argument is the bully, the perverse scream,  if not given its way: “But you don’t love me!”  Ad infinitum.  It doesn’t just work in the beleaguered home, it works in the beleaguered society because the beleaguered society is all the homes who agree to this skewed vision of love.  Skewed love in this sense means giving in to whatever behavior pleasures are wanted, no matter how perverse. The abnormal is made to look normal by changing the meaning of words and rational minds (and most dangerously those in authority) stall with sputtering argument when they face such an attack.”

“To put it forthrightly, it really has come to this: there has been a fundamental (and at times willful) misunderstanding and preaching on the atonement of Christ’s sacrifice. It is not to be reduced to a cheap grace or a get-out-of-jail free card to be given at the gates of judgement.”

http://mereed.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/grace-is-not-an-innertube/

@ Pachyderminator: Thanks, I’m glad my thoughts there were helpful. Yes, there’s going to be some overlap here, although I’m going to be drawing on ideas I’ve written about here and here, among others. Expect some Humanae Vitae too. :)

@ Tim: Whether to look at the issue from a utilitarian or natural law perspective is, I think, ultimately a matter of emphasis. Natural law “works,” so it has utilitarian value. And utilitarian concerns must take into account what things are, so they can’t really escape natural law.

The way to cut through the dilemma is to shift the burden: Ask the same-sex marriage advocate, “What is marriage? Why have marriage at all? Why have a state-run bureaucratic apparatus for this? What business is it of the state’s? Why the limit of two? Why exclude polygamy, polyamory, consanguinity?” This is not necessarily or solely a practical, slippery-slope argument (although I’m sure it will eventually come to that), but an in-principle reductio ad absurdum.

At the very least, we can show that the other side has no coherent answer to the question “What is marriage?”

I agree that there is a community responsibility.  But when a minister, priest, or elder who knows what is right, but is tempted away from it because of money, because if he preaches the truth those people walk away from the congregation and withdraw their monetary support, then he is accountable before God for loving something else more.  These were our first line of defense (James 3:1: http://bible.cc/james/3-1.htm )

Let us be clear here.  That is at the root of this evil.  “For the love of money is the root of all evil.”

To quote Rev. Fletcher Mantandika on hearing from a fellow minister: ““Fletcher, I cannot preach
about sin in my congregation. People get mad at me,
and they would walk out of the church if I did that.”
With great frustration and disillusionment, he continued, “I am serious! This is the reality in many congregations and in our denomination.” 

http://www.jtwministries.org/files/2011-03_Modern_Reformation-Matandika.pdf

Marriage is base on natural law, the sole purpose of procreation, there would be no family…no society without it, not to mention the adverse economic effects of gay marriage, this is not rocket science, pretty simple to explain to gay christians or atheists.
I recommned this site: http://www.ruthinstitute.org/

I dunno. You say dont blame the priests, blame the people—but why are the people so ignorant in the first place. They haven’t been taught. An entire lost generation of non-catechized Catholics is rearing it’s ugly head.

No doubt this will be addressed, but honestly, I think the advent of wide-spread availability of contraception has done more damage to our society than anyone could have fathomed.  To illustrate: I’ve seen/heard many advocates for same-sex “marriage” state that what they want is no different than what traditional marriage partners already enjoy.  (“I know many gay couples who have been together for 20+ years, and they have a better idea of what marriage is about than most traditionally married couples who divorce after 3 or 5 years!”)  The crux of it is, they might be right.  When the vast majority of marriages are sterilized (either temporarily or permanently), thereby removing or distorting the procreative and unitive aspects inherent in the conjugal act, than there is little more “defining” about traditional marriage over any other aberration of marriage.  It does, in fact, become more contractual and utilitarian in a selfish sense, rather than ordered to the good of the spouse and subsequent children (and society).  Instead of welcoming new life into the fold of the family, children are “accessories” to the marriage, something to be added on or manipulated depending on how it suits the adults.  The adults, then, become objects in and of themselves, only giving something in order to get something else in return.

So yes, traditional marriage is not all that far-removed from same-sex “marriage” because traditional marriage isn’t all that traditional anymore—something that has dramatically shifted in the last 40 years.

Good article.  However I’m going to disagree with you that we shouldn’t “blame the bishops or the priests”.  How are the sheep to act when the shepherd looks the other way on couples who are living together but not married?  Married couples using contraceptives?  Allowing, even if passively, the celebration of the GBLT lifestyle in a Mass?  I worked in a parish in which a couple, not married by the Church but living together, both divorced from previous marriages, were given leadership roles!  Yes, we have brought this upon ourselves and the only way to turn this around is to solidify, “One Man and One Woman” - meaning, holding sacred the Covenant made by One man and One woman and denouncing the divorce culture that has infiltrated even the Church.

@ Melanie Reed: I agree. As I said, bishops, pastors and priests do bear a special burden of responsibility. I don’t mean to deny that, only to emphasize the larger scope of the problem.
 
@ Elise: I don’t think the problem is primarily ignorance. Many Catholics know, at least at some level, what the Church teaches. They just don’t want to hear or obey. It doesn’t seem credible to them. That doesn’t let our shepherds off the hook. I’m just emphasizing that what we have is an entrenched cultural problem that is bigger than cowardly pastors and gay activists.

@ Miguel: If you read the rest of the paragraph and my comments above, you’ll see that “Don’t blame the bishops or the priests” is a partial statement, not a complete one, and that I’m not letting our shepherds off the hook. Like you say, we’ve brought this on ourselves. That’s my point.

If you want to take a long view on the decline of marriage, begin with the rise of civil marriage.  With that, the authority to define (and redefine) marriage passed from Church to state.  For relatively more immediate causes, consider no-fault divorce.  Although the laws did not actually change until the 1970s, the rot had been going on for decades.  You might also want to consider the effect of contraception and the sexual revolution.  These developments destroyed the institution of marriage, although its death was not immediately obvious.  Gay marriage is merely the fruit these processes.  (Yeah, the pun was intentional.)

@ Stephen:  I agree with you on the importance of who has the burden in the marriage argument.  Normally, one would think that the historic significance of marriage as being between one man and one woman would place the burden on those who wish to change the traditional meaning.  However, in reality it seems the burden is on the advocates of traditional marriage to show why there shouldn’t be a right to same-sex marriage (as an aside, I find it funny that people have no qualms about changing the meaning of marriage, but retain an almost sacred observation of “rights”).

However, I disagree with you that the difference between natural law and utilitarianism is one of emphasis.  The two deal with the same subject matter, but have opposed interpretations of reality. 

For example, natural law may “work”, but some other theory may work better, depending on our preferences (and someone who asks if something “works” probably has already adopted a utilitarian viewpoint).  Natural law asks us to question preferences (by asking what “is” man, or what “is” marriage), while utilitarianism takes preferences for granted and searches out for the most efficient means to achieve those preferences.

I do think that asking “what is marriage?” is the right step in shifting the burden.  But that shift won’t be so easy to accomplish.  Natural law requires a capacity to reflect on things, a capacity whose use our culture does not encourage.

Thanks for your post by the way.  I look forward to its sequel.

Thank you! As a married man, father of 7, I have tried to get this same idea across: marriage has been redefined and attacked far longer than the contemporary rise of gay “marriage”. The Church needs to fight the battle where the real confrontation can be found: in the minds and homes of the overwhelming vast majority of couples and singles who are heterosexual and corroding marriage from “within” so to speak.

I was taught by my RCIA teachers that gay marriage and women priests are fine and that the Bible is merely a record of the faithful’s reflections about God.  The upshot of the morality component of RCIA was that nothing is a mortal sin if you sincerely believe it’s OK, and how much better this understanding was than pre-Vatican II “legalism.”  And given that about half of Catholics vote for openly pro-death candidates, including those whose claims of Catholicity are greeted by silence from their bishops, I doubt the situation at my parish is unique. 

Protestant Evangelicalism has embraced the secular business model of church leadership popularized by authors like John Maxwell, and their churches are rapidly devolving into therapeutic-social clubs with the thinnest veneer of following Christ.  God forbid that our bishops follow the same path!

You are absolutely right in that we have, culturally, lost the definition of marriage. Most people see it today as a public recognition of their feelings for each other. “You two love each other? Congratulations! Here’s your government certificate. And how about a tax break on us?”

The problem is that if romantic attachment is the standard for recognizing a marriage then there’s no real way to reasonably place limits on it. Which is why, the purpose of marriage- in purely secular terms- is to promote the propagation of the species and to provide a stable environment for our offspring. Excluding marriages with multiple parters (unstable), close relatives (produces serious genetic disorders), same sex partners (non-procreative), partnering with animals (non-procreative and indicative of mental disorder), pedophilic/pederast partnerships (takes advantage of people who are not capable of deciding for themselves, abusive), etc are all natural and logical limitations on an institution whose sole purpose is geared towards procreation and protection of children.

elcid

“not to mention the adverse economic effects of gay marriage”

Ok that is a some what specific claim that should is “economic” , and ,thus, QUANTIFIABLE.

Please provide the specific harms (“adverse economic effect”), name a harmed individual, and an actual quantifcation of the econimic harm or damages.

@ dch: If, ideally, society accords marriage recognition as institution beneficial to the greater good, which society has a direct and immediate interest in fostering and protecting, and privileges it accordingly (for example, with tax breaks), that privilege comes at some cost to society as a whole. Such a cost is warranted as an investment from which society ultimately reaps greater rewards.

For example, a society of stable marriages is a society in which fewer children grow up fatherless, fatherlessness correlating with significantly increased poverty and welfare dependency, illness and child mortality, poor school performance, truancy and dropout rates, substance abuse, delinquency, crime and imprisonment, violence, depression and other emotional problems, diminished earning potential, and perpetuating the cycle of fatherless households.

These consequences of fatherless households come at a considerable economic cost to society. Conversely, stable family structures come with a significant benefit to society: productive, successful offspring who contribute to society. To support family stability—to encourage fathers and mothers to stay together and raise the children they have brought into the world to become more successful, productive members of society rather than drags on society—is worth a considerable social investment.

To extend similar privileges to other relationships in which society does not have the same direct and immediate interest would be to invest in relationships that don’t benefit society in the same way. So, there is indeed an economic cost. That’s above and beyond the indirect erosive effect on the marriage culture that same-sex marriage may have. I’ll be writing more about this in future posts.

The problem is, by far, the number of divorced and cohabitating heterosexual couples and the fact that most priests and bishops accept this practice without blinking an eye. What percentage of catholic heterosexual couples are currently living together outside of marriage? Likely over 50%. How many practicing catholic couples are divorced and remarried? Likely also over 50% (or maybe 40%). Where are the bishops on proposing an ammendment to ban divorce or cohabitation? In fact, not long ago, New York passed legislation legitimizing cohabitation as something that amounts to “common law”. Not a whimper from the hierarchy. So why the gay marriage issue? Why now? Because they can get their names in the paper?

This is all about leadership. You can’t blame this on the people.

There are several extremely wealthy individuals in this country who are personally funding and driving this cause.  The politicians are just doing what they are being told to do (being paid to do).  Wake up, peeps.

Ditto the recent heresy conference in MI.  It was all done by a wealthy Floridian.

The great swells of change in society are really just the pet projects of a person or, literally, several persons.

@ Brad:  You write:
 

“The great swells of change in society are really just the pet projects of a person or, literally, several persons.”

 
Really? Which person or persons are responsible for, say, the catastrophic rise in illegitimacy in the last half century?
 
@ Matt: You write:
 

“The problem is, by far, the number of divorced and cohabitating heterosexual couples and the fact that most priests and bishops accept this practice without blinking an eye. ... This is all about leadership. You can’t blame this on the people.

 
How do you reconcile your last dozen or so words with your first dozen or so words?

Well said….....We heterosexuals have abused and mangled marriage so much that a same sex couple seems like the logical next step…....anything goes in our country because we are “free”.

Steven…it’s easy to reconcile. Priests and bishops give their “consent” by their silence. This is a failure on their part. For the Catholic church, the Magisterium has the responsibility to ensure the faithful are ware of and undertand their faith. I bet if you asked church-going cohabitating couples if their actions are sinful, most will say no. The reason? Nobody ever told them. Which goes back to my question. Why are the bishops so resolute on the gay marriage issue, but sit back and allow these real threats to marriage go unhindered?

Actually, it was Martin Luther:

on marriage:

“a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government”

On divorce:

If a husband and wife could not live together harmoniously, but only in hatred and continual conflict, let them be divorced.

@ Matt: I think there’s a chicken-and-egg difficulty that needs to be acknowledged. It’s not like one fine pre-Vatican II day in the Eisenhower administration everyone understood Catholic teaching on marriage and cohabitation was unknown, but then the bishops and priests stopped teaching, and over time the faithful accidentally stumbled into cohabitation because they didn’t know any better. There is a significant extent to which shepherds stopped talking about teachings the faithful didn’t want to hear about because they were already unfaithful to them.

I’d take that bet. I think most church-going cohabiting people know that their behavior is sinful, or that the Church teaches that it’s sinful, even if their priests never talk about it.

Steven…you are correct to an extent. However, I was married 7 years ago (when I was 22). I wasn’t cohabitating and the subject never came up in our marriage formation anyway. However, most of my now married friends (all Catholic-school educated) did cohabitate before marriage, didn’t know/think it was wrong and the subject never came up in their formation either. But again…the bigger question is why the bishops seem to care more about a relatively small group of people (homosexuals) when Catholic marriage is on life support due to divorce and cohabitation, which are just as immoral, if not more so? Nobody can seem to answer that question.

@ Matt: I can answer your question. This isn’t a complete answer, but it’s a big chunk of it: (a) Going after cohabitation would be unpopular with a lot of people, and (b) legally recognized same-sex marriage poses a threat to the Church. Catholic adoption services driven out of business; Catholic hospitals and schools forced to hire “married” gays and provide benefits for same-sex spouses; church tax exemptions in jeopardy; and in the long run, potentially, churches coerced to either marry same-sex couples or face sanctions or punishments; etc.

I’d like to share this old post of mine (written in 2007) for anyone interested; in it I attempt to discuss the secular reasons to oppose gay “marriage”:

http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2007/02/secular-reasons-to-oppose-gay-marriage.html

While I still see what I wrote there as reasonably sound, it’s amazing how many people reject that view, seeing civil marriage as a government’s stamp of approval on one’s romantic partnership, with corresponding tax breaks and other government goodies.

@Erin: I don’t see how the law demonstrates any particular concern that children be the natural and expected result of the marriage contract.  But here’s a legal anecdote:  When I adopted my step-daughter, I was admonished by the judge that the (legal) relationship I was creating with the child would be more permanent than the one which I shared with my wife.

Steven:
(a) “Going after cohabitation would be unpopular with a lot of people”

Exactly right. Which makes the Church either gutless, worldly or both. It also plays right into the hands of those who believe the church is just targeting homosexuals and not the greater moral good.

[DELETED]

You are absolutely right, of course, and I’ve been decrying for years the damage we’ve been doing to marriage ourselves.  But that doesn’t make it any less disingenuous for those desiring same-sex “marriage” to at once claim that they think so highly of marriage that they want it for themselves despite the cost to others of granting it to them while at the same time trading on its failure to live up to its ideal.

@ Itstheorientation: Please keep your tone less inflammatory and more moderate and charitable.
 
@ Matt: Too harsh by half. “The Church” is Christ’s holy Bride, to start with, whatever the failings of her officers may be. Second, noting that going after cohabitation would be unpopular is a neutral observation; ascribing specific motives (gutlessness, worldliness) is dangerous and runs the risk of rash judgment. The whole attempted parallel is misleading: Legalized same-sex marriage is an institutional sin in a way that cohabitation is not. It is right for the Church to respond to one differently from the other.

@ Tim: I don’t mean to say that utilitarianism and natural law theory aren’t very different philosophies. I’m saying that the angle or disposition from which people approach this particular question doesn’t fundamentally alter the realities to be discussed. Indeed, the more utilitarian one’s thinking, the more vulnerable one is to the question what marriage is, what it is for in the first place. What is the utility of having such an institution? I don’t think it’s hard to shift the burden in this way, if we can make ourselves heard at all.

Steven, I disagree. They argue that this is a threat to marriage. Perhaps it is institutional, but it is less of a threat than cohabitation and divorce, no? Divorce is an institution. Where is the fight on the state allowing divorce? Didn’t Jesus expressly forbid it? Why does the church not speak up? I just don’t understand how the bishops can decry so loudly the passage of this bill but ignore the much larger marital issues. Isn’t that straining the knat and swallowing the camel to some degree? Focusing on the small issues of the law and ignoring the bigger moral issues right in front of them? I will never understand it.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t fight this…I’m saying they are wholly and utterly inconsistant and then get upset when they are attacked as bigots. By definition a bigot focuses negative attention to a certain group while ignoring the same problems of other groups. This is exectly what they are doing. We are lacking a bishop like Athanasius these days.

What does it take for any of you to listen?  It would seem from the same re-hashed arguments, finger-pointing, the people enjoying their own theologies as if it were a debate over a pint at the pub, all indicating that you don’t really understand the import of what is happening,  about what the Lord has told us is Holy and what is not.  Indeed, you have proven his point that nothing will change for the greater number of you until He comes again. Only here’s the rub: then it will be too late to do anything. What do you want? He has given you a precious gift and there are only two questions you need to concern yourselves with: 1) Do you want salvation?  2) Are you going to accept His Lordship in your lives?  If so, then a child can understand what you have to do to obey God which is an evidence of your love for Him. What is it to be for you?  If you agree to the baptism you were given than start doing it.  Otherwise, let your own will be done in your life and be willing to face the consequences.  “He has told you what is good for you, O, earthling man.”  The question to ask yourselves is why is that not good enough? Some of you say you have not been taught.  The Word of God is for the most part in this country available in every library and bookstore and in a number of hotel rooms and homes. People in China are not allowed to have Bibles and those going into the country are limited to one copy and it must leave with them when they leave the country.  Yet people are hearing the word of the Lord.  Please do not tell me that someone taught you the “wrong” thing.  That won’t pass on judgement day.  Form a “longing” for the word as the Psalmist cries out.  “Come, all you thirsty ones. Come and drink life’s water free.”  Are you thirsty?  I assure you from personal experience, from mistakes, from misinformation, from every device the Enemy can through to confuse, you can know what is in that book called the Bible if you want to know bad enough: Ask! Yes, ministers and priests can and should do better.  But you and I are still responsible before the Lord.  You have a decision to make today: what do you want?  If you want Him, then seek Him with everything you have and stop letting other things stumble you. God bless you and may he be with you in your pursuit of Holiness and worship that pleases Him.

@ Matt: In the first place, civil divorce is not comparable to civil same-sex “marriage.” It is not a precept of natural law that marriage is indissoluble; in fact, natural marriages can be dissolved. Catholic sacramental teaching affirms that a consumated sacramental marriage is indissoluble, but this is a truth of divine revelation, not a precept of natural law. Deeming same-sex unions to be “marriage” flies in the face of the essential nature of marriage in natural law in a way that civil divorce does not.

Furthermore, the Church is free to maintain her teaching and practice and reject civil divorce among baptized Christians, and the state has nothing to say about it. Civil divorce doesn’t prevent the Church from affirming that sacramental marriage is indissoluble and treating it as indissoluble in her own interior life.

The concern with same-sex marriage is that the Church may not be free to maintain her teaching and reject same-sex marriage without the state having something to say about it. Same-sex marriage is potentially a weapon that will be used to try to pressure the Church into not affirming the truth about homosexuality and marriage, into accepting what she cannot accept. Same-sex marriage is potentially a noose around the Church’s neck in a way that civil divorce isn’t.

Matt, you are correct to a degree, at least regarding cohabitation.  For example, a couple in Michigan recently found out that the law prohibits them from refusing to rent an apartment to an unmarried, cohabiting couple.  While this is actually inconsistent with other state laws (e.g. one that helps pay rent for low-income single women where they become automatically ineligible if their boyfriend moves in with them), the effect is similar to the effect of same-sex “marriage” and civil union laws in that it requires Christians to affirm, at least indirectly, acts and relationships that are in clear violation of their faith.  On the other hand, there is no push to grant all the privileges and rights of marriage to merely cohabiting couples that is commensurate to what we see for same-sex “marriage.”  And I see no parallel effect from divorce.

Since there has been marriage, there had been divorce. And co-habitation is nothing new under the sun. But no culture, no society, no religion, no era, or civilization, in all of recorded human history, not even the ancient Greeks or Romans at their most depraved, ever so took a complete and utter collective leave of their senses so as to entertain the notion of constituting men sodomizing each other as a “marriage”.

This has never happened. For whatever reason, Hell has been allowed to vomit upon the world an evil that the world has never seen before.

Trite. I’ve spoken up about as much as I can, to everyone I know, to the detriment of my career. It’s been a losing battle, with academia, journalists and powerful lobbyists fighting against us. Now I learn that I’m to blame. Thanks a lot. That just made my day. Now I can’t even count on conservative Catholic bloggers for support. You might look elsewhere for blame. After attending mass for 25+ years as an adult, I can safely say that not once have I ever, ever heard any priest speak out against, for example, contraception. I suggest you do a little more research before pointing the finger.

@mgseamanjr

I am sorry for your pain; I am confident SDG doesn’t mean to point the finger at you personally, but at the laity at large. By saying “us”, he’s refusing to disavow some responsibility even though he’s obviously living Catholic teaching rather fully. It’s a good idea not to just point the finger at others—it risks what the tradition has labelled a Pharisaical attitude.

If you’ve truly done all that you can do (and I’m not doubting your effort)—why do you feel guilty about it? Because you resent the suffering the Lord has allowed you to undergo in His defense?

John:
I don’t feel the least bit guilty. I am doing my part. I just don’t think that I should be lectured to about it. There are two Catholic worlds: those who live by the faith and those who, as George Weigel and others have pointed out, are Catholic Light, those “Catholics” who have divorced themselves from the faith but who have just not bothered yet to turn in their letter of resignation. Which group do you suppose reads this website?

@ mgseamanjr: I’m pretty confident all of us could use to be lectured to about one thing or another. If this isn’t the lecture for you, move on and find a lecture more helpful to your condition. This is the lecture for someone. The readers of this website aren’t as monolithic as you seem to think, and even among those you might classify as “living the faith” there are different species of besetting temptations and tendencies.

Yes, I plan to do so. If you are so keen on advice, check out my first posting.

mgseamanjr: I saw both of your previous comments before. My last reply was all I wished to say in response to either. Cheers.

From Bill Foley: How to argue for marriage per Dr. Morse. 4 principles: (1) Children are entitled to a relationship with a mother and a father.  (2) Mothers and fathers are not inter-changeable.  (3) Biology is the primary way to determine parenthood.  (4) The state ordinarily recognizes parenthood but does not determine it or contract it.
Remember that the essential public purpose of marriageis to attach mothers and fathers to children and to each other.
Negative results from “same-sex marriage”:  (1)It will separate the child from one parent.  (2) Fathers will be marginalized from the family.  (30 Triple parenting will be unstoppable.  (4) Expansion of state power will be breathtaking in scope.

Indeed, it is the culture here in the west that has gone so awry that everything from the birth of a child all the way to his/her end has been redefined and reinvented. The only way we can fix this is if we, once again make God the centre of our life, the grand narrative upon whom our life is based. Otherwise, all our morality will go to the blazes.

http://viewcatholic.blogspot.com/2011/06/utter-utter-failure-of-postmodernism.html

I gotcha, blame the laity first. Even if you are in a state of grace, go to daily mass, do door to door visitations, do internet apologetics, are perfectly kind to others, have visions of Jesus and Mary, don’t commit a single sin for twenty years, are very generous to others, and have miracles worked through you, you are to blame. Right! Gotcha!

This is a twist on blame America first.

David H.: If you really haven’t committed a single sin for twenty years, what need to act so defensive?

Why are you so assuming. When did I say I didn’t?

I realized you were probably giving a hypothetical case, but it’s such an extreme one - in fact, a ridiculous one; no one doesn’t commit a sin for twenty years - that I don’t understand its purpose or why you seem to take a slight to this hypothetical saint so personally. It seems clear that the responsibility SDG ascribes to the laity is collective, and may not apply to everyone individually or the same way. However, since the failure is an intellectual one, it could well apply even to that sinless visionary you describe. SDG’s point is not that the laity have not lived holy married lives, but that they have not articulated to the world a coherent vision of what marriage is and where this definition comes from.

A collective judgment includes all members of that corporate group. We should have less pastoral statements and hyperbole, and more systematic statements.

I also guess that you are suggesting that Church Teaching is not sufficient? All an apologist has to do is state Church teaching, and he has presented an intellectually satisfactory articulation of the truth, unless you want to challenge Magisterial documents.

It still presumes blame, which is calumny or detraction. How about speaking about the message and not the individual?

A collective judgment includes all members of that corporate group.

 
Surely not always. When Jesus referred to his “evil and adulterous generation,” was he condemning everyone in that generation without exception as evil and adulterous? Including the apostles? It is fair to say that the redefinition of marriage in our society is due to a failure of the people of the society at large, and that this would not have happened if the Catholic laity as a whole had been doing their job. Undoubtedly this includes many, many people with the best of intentions unwittingly contributing to the problem. But no one is being personally blamed.
 
Church teaching is sufficient if it is presented holistically, with emphasis on its basis in human nature and natural law and the ways it can be supported from human history. It is not sufficient if it is simply repeated thoughtlessly and expected to somehow settle debate in a secular society where Magisterial documents don’t mean much to most people.

What a bunch of baloney. I take offence to the “we are the problem”. Maybe you are the problem. I am not. the priest and bishops are not. I don’t know one person who cannot define marriage. One way or another. Stick to your film critic gig and stay out of things you know nothing about.

To my dear, devout comboxers who are not part of the problem: May I humbly ask to benefit from your virtue through your efforts to “be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way”? (In this connection I am grateful for the efforts of John M and Pachyderminator.)

Specifically, @ David H and @ Larry (and @ mgseamanjr, if he’s still around), and anyone else who felt I was speaking specifically to him, or who thought I was necessarily calling out each and every reader: May I ask that you reread the words I wrote? Specifically, the words “by and large, we ourselves—Catholics as well as Protestants”? Doesn’t “by and large” indicate a pattern that is explicitly not universal or even virtually so? I was trying to call out a majority of Catholic laity and Protestants. Tomorrow I will make it clearer what majority I had primarily in mind (without necessarily letting anyone in particular off the hook, including me).

Yes, @ David H, I blame the laity first, for a number of reasons. One reason (an important one, though there are others) is that I am a member of the laity, chiefly addressing my lay peers, not my betters. If I were a bishop, I might blame the bishops first. Blaming the bishops is a popular pastime among highly observant Catholics; there is even some truth in it. We (yes, I say we; include yourself or not at your discretion) are fond of quoting the sharp-tongued maxim, variously attributed to this or that saint, to the effect that the streets of hell are paved with the skulls of bishops. It’s a good maxim for bishops, and even for troubled Catholics, if it helps reinforce their loyalty to the Church. I’ve quoted it myself (I said “we” for a reason). But we might do well to have a corollary maxim, to the effect that the sidewalks of hell are paved with the skulls of laypeople quick to blame the bishops.

I’m sorry if anyone takes offense at this. I doubt if my favorite secular lay saints/beati (Thomas More, Louis Martin, Pier-Giorgio Frassati) would have objected. Those of us (us!) who are still imperfect in humility may well benefit from their example. I think also of the humility with which St. Francis urged his followers to respond when accused, and hope someday to attain humility approaching that.

@ David H, in view of your stated concern for avoiding calumny or detraction, I hope when you wrote “I also guess that you are suggesting that Church Teaching is not sufficient?” that you were being rhetorical (which I admit would be odd in view of your other stated preference for less hyperbole and more systematic statements, but given the choice I prefer to assume you’re being rhetorical).

Yes, I presume blame. How could it be otherwise? We should have same-sex marriage in New York without blame? We should have cohabitation, serial monogamy and widespread acceptance of contraception without blame? I don’t here blame any specific individual. But how one could think we’ve gotten to where we are without blame beats me.

Finally, what are we to make of this? Here is @ Larry, who claims not to know a single person who doesn’t understand what marriage is. On the other hand, here is @ mgseamanjr, who has never, in 25-plus years of going to Mass as an adult, heard a priest so much as speak out against contraception, for example. Friends, here is a riddle: the priests so silent, the people so well-catechized. I wonder whether if we got mgseamanjr and Larry together the room would explode. (Tongue in cheek—I certainly don’t mean to doubt the honesty of either of my correspondents.)

Again, I see your point, but again I don’t believe it is accurate. If all the officers in an assault have been killed, then one could rightfully blame the enlisted soldiers for not taking the initiative in advancing the attack. However if all the offerers are present and accounted for, and it is their position that is being attacked and overrun, and they make the deliberate, premeditated choice NOT to anything about it, then the blame quite clearly falls on their shoulders first.

Put another way, if the shepherd is simply spending his time snoozing under a tree, when he has been commanded, and of his free will accepted the responsibility for following the command, to lead the sheep elsewhere, don’t blame the sheep if they have scattered themselves all over the countryside.

@ Max: I don’t think your analogies are as helpful as you seem to think they are. This is a case in which disanalogies are critical.

Finally, what are we to make of this? Here is @ Larry, who claims not to know a single person who doesn’t understand what marriage is.
Friends, here is a riddle: the priests so silent, the people so well-catechized. I wonder whether if we got mgseamanjr and Larry together the room would explode.
——Yes it’s true, people generally know what marriage is, and I do not know even one person who doesn’t know. Apparently much to your disliking. Here’s a riddle..If you even slightly knew what your talking about you would realize at least half of the people marry for purely selfish reasons, and we are not to blame for that either. The church does it’s job, and people fail. The radical homosexual crowd is solely to blame for this, and the church is up against a formidable foe.

@ Larry: Do you know anyone who uses contraception? If so, the understanding of marriage among the people you know may not be as universal as you think. From recent voter referenda and polls it appears that slightly fewer than half of the population are confused about whether it is possible for two men or two women can possibly be married, but only slightly fewer than half, so confusion on a very fundamental level is very widespread.

How is it that “at least half of the people marry for purely selfish reasons,” yet “we” are not to blame? Do you always use “we” to mean “we few, we happy few, we the pure remnant”? Also, if the Church is doing its job, how is it that so many selfish marriages occur? How do all these selfish couples get through pre-Cana? How do they convince a priest that they have the necessary disposition to marry?

@Steven:  Yes I know people who use contraceptaives, but not with their spouse. We preferred the rhythm method.  I take it your not hanging the meaning of marriage on a condom.  You mention polls, are these the same homosexual agenda polls or friends and allys of the gay crowd polls you have fallen prey to?  Not only that, people lie to polls just for fun, I’m guilty of that. Following your blame logic, I guess one would have to eventually blame Jesus Christ for all the churches failings since he started it. I prefer to blame individuals, they are responisble for their selfishness, and their lies and missrepresentations that get them through pre cana.

To your article concerning the redefintion of marriage, I would like to submit for your kind consideration a defitnion which should satisfy most though perhaps not all.

Let us say that marriage is a formal agreement.
Let us say it happens to be a reflection of social desire and/or chocie, if you will, and first and historically foremost from the majority who happen to be straight.
Let us now also say that marriage is a principle means of survival of the species, namely that with formal agrrements familkeius have hisotrically been able to survive more often and prosper more often because they were inexorably linked to one another.
Let us say that the males—who were in charge (due to the agricultural society we had dominant for so many years)—made chocies based on econoimic realities and the need to psychological procreate….yet fathers who had daughters rejected the notion that males could tramp aroudn any time they felt like it….
in other words, marriage has always eben a means by which humanity namely commun iites contolled secxual desires….and provded soem hope for the future whiule also offerign relief for those fathers who had daughgters….it was always a natural marriage, compsoied of recipe ingredioents…a little religion,a little practical adaptation…and a little social pressure arising from economic and poltical leadership…. its a mixture of thigns really. As time ahs prgoireessed it is less of a communal thign and more of an indivudal choice… but for those of us who maitnai at elast some semblance of tradition it most assuredly is a form of sexual law and order…which inveariably insured that chidlren had respectable, loving homes and women had economic/material provision.. fast forward and outr society has become an informnaiton society wherein females no longer depend on men for their sustainance. Food is elntiful and so muslces and testosterone are no longer in demand and no longer evolutionarily advantageous.  So, now you have a europe which is populationarily disappearing, and a society which no longer cares about chivalry..even though some reports still trickle in double standards on the part of women who “want it all”.
  Marriage is a contrsact, it si an agrerment—(i.e. you take care of me and Ill take care of you)...but it is also a means by which the population is best managed since it forms a control mechanism for sexual expression…and familial alliances…such alliances no lnger hod the same value as the focus of economic activity now allwoas women enough indpednance that they do not have to pay heed to their father’s or their oldest brothers advice….and of course theres the matter fo teh birth control pill and the sexual revolution promoted by liberals in Hollywood….who love freedom more than life… Ultimately and in summary, I tell you that marriage will last as long as their are those who value life over liberty.  The contract is not dead, but it is dying….along with the secular conservative movement. Left to teh relgious communities only, current tredns would sadly, indicate only Isla as the fastest means of cotinuing the value of marriage. However if the catholic church could somehow “revive” itself,exponentially I emean then marriage as an institution would come with it.

You hit the nail on the head.  Yes, we are to blame.  We spend more time watching TV, playing sports, than thinking about moral and ethical things. The culture is filled with boob tube idiots from the laity all the way to the papacy.

The Catholic church is not serious about fighting homosexual relationships.  Why?  Otherwise it would have to disfellowship itself from 33% of the priests and the bulk of the Jesuits.  Homosexual clergy, trying to act straight and celibate, is what is caused people to lose confidence in the Catholic church.  People if they are serious about change will seek a good Bible believing church instead of supporting Father Flapdoodle Sunday’s prattling.

@Carnuba—since you throwing numbers out, why change when 83% of all the other churche ministers are gay, and no one in their organization cares?  At least the cathoilcs are trying to change and the vatican has never approved. For the record, Father Flapdoodle prattlings are more interesting that Minister Mini’s Weiner’s reports.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!

Sorry, non sequitur. Somehow the last two comments put me in a silly mood. @ Carnuba, I regret to report that we are stuck with the Catholic Church, as it’s the only Church founded by Christ that we’ve got. Another church might not have Father Flapdoodle’s prattlings, but on the down side we would have to give up the apostolic succession, ministerial priesthood, Eucharistic sacrifice, Petrine ministry, obedience to Christ and (for me, certainly) hope of salvation. That’s pretty much a non-starter in my book.

@ Larry: People seldom claim in polls to hold views they actually consider morally repugnant. Would you tell a pollster you supported same-sex marriage for fun? Would you vote for same-sex marriage for fun in a referendum, as nearly 48 percent of California voters did?

Do I hang the meaning of marriage on a condom? Potentially, yes. A condom is enough to hang the meaning of the nuptial act, which expresses and consummates the marriage. What God joins, a condom must not separate. But at this point I’m spilling into my next post. Please hold.

I couldn’t agree more.  By our negligence and human respect we Catholics brought this on ourselves and the whole society.

Catholics and other Christians have been fleeing prudery for a long time now, with such success that many of our children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews are libertines-together with society as a whole. We have ceased to be salt and light.  “We don’t smoke and we don’t chew, and we don’t go with girls who do. Our class won the Bible.” This mocking lyric came from the graduating high school class of 1936.

For six decades now the television industry has been deliberately walking our morals down. How many times have we not thought of rising in righteous indignation and turning off the TV, but we did not want to be or to seem to be “prudes.” Besides the offending program was only slightly more racey or scandalous than the program the night before.

And so it goes, day after day. Now there is talk about the innocence of the fifties, but even if you listen to recordings of Jack Benny’s radio programs in the 1940’s, you will hear double entendres and allusions that we should never have sat through. We would not adhere to an absolute standard of purity. It would have been “prudish.”

In an allocution on radio and television in 1949 Pope Pius XII quoted the pagan poet Juvenal, “Nothing impure in the home!” What would happen to the Sunday collection of the pastor who made that a theme of his homilies for the next year and seriously endeavored to pry the remote control from the hands of the fathers in his parish?

Nothing impure in the home? Not televised sports with their cheerleaders and salacious ads, not the Sunday paper with its materialism and sensuality, not the G rated dvds with their scatalogical humor?

We much prefer to be libertines.

Decades ago when we decided to sit and absorb the secular propaganda with only feeble protest we effectively decided that marriage would be redefined, that vocations to the priesthood and religious life would fall off, and consequently that our children would not be instructed in the faith, and that society as a whole would decay into what it has become. We have become the light suffocating darkness of our age.

I fear that we have already lost the war :(.  The young generation thinks that same sex “unions” are fine.  Many of them are turning to atheism and becoming hateful of religion, especially Christianity.  I think we are doomed and I don’t see how it is possible for the tide to turn.

@Lee:  I understand where you are coming from but being prudish was never the answer either.  In fact, I think it was due to some overly prudish attitudes that led to the libertine attitudes and cultural mores that we have now.  What we have seen is a reaction to the prudish attitudes of the Victorian era which btw, wasn’t treating marriage well either.  For several centuries, marriage was treated in a mercenary manner, especially among the upper classes.  It is interesting how much of the literature dealt with this issue of mercenary marriages in which only money and rank mattered and nothing more.  The breakdown of marriage started then with the utilitarian attitudes placed on marriage and the pursuit of mercenary means to become wealthy and maintain social positions.

The Catholic understanding of marriage as a union of a man and women united in mind, body, and soul was not readily accepted. Instead, oftentimes the woman was seen as nothing more than her husband’s property.  An outlet for his sexual desire and the pro-creation of children.  Why do you think that divorce increased?  Sure, it may have been more difficult in the 19th century but it certainly was becoming more and more a problem.  Men could put away their wives for anything.  She didn’t have much say in the matter.

We are to blame but thinking that if we were more prudish that this stuff wouldn’t happen is also faulty thinking because all that would do is give a veneer of respectability. A veneer of morality which is what happened in the 19th and early 20th centuries.  There was a hotbed of seedy and nasty stuff going on underneath the prudish, respectable exterior.  The pendulum swung to what it is now: completely sex-crazed and libertine with little or no morals.  The young generation (those in their teens and twenties) are already lost.  They think that homosexuality is perfectly normal and that same-sex “unions” are ok.  They have been brain washed in all the schools.  ALL of them.  We are doomed.  There is nothing that we can do.  Its over :( :(.

@Stephen, You make alot of claims, ask questions I already answered, and then ask even more ridiculous questions, which you already know the answer to.  If you wish to “potentially” hang the meaning of marriage on a condom, go ahead, what ever that means. In the mean time I’ll wait for your next post, maybe this time you will do a better job.

@ Lee Gilbert: What’s wrong with a little scatological humor, as long as it’s actually funny and judiciously used? Certainly, too much of it is dumb and tiresome, but sometimes it’s funny, and it doesn’t have to be offensive.
 
@ Rachel: Terrific comments. Three cheers. Only don’t despair yet! It’s true that social momentum favors the other side. The social understanding of marriage is at such a low ebb that the words “marriage equality” have become a nearly irresistible force. But there are immovable objects on our side. New York was a serious defeat, but it will also be a galvanizing force.

@ Larry: I haven’t asked any ridiculous questions that weren’t invited by your ridiculous comments. As for knowing the answers, of course I do. Every lawyer knows a question you know the answer to can be your best friend.

I have another comment to make concerning this.  I have often thought about the root causes of this particular problem, especially in regards to “rights.”  I think it stems from a grossly misguided attempt to right “wrongs” done in the past.  The Civil Rights movement was noble.  It came about as attitudes towards those who were repressed changed, especially African Americans, Native Americans, etc.  The societal changes were very, very necessary.  I would HATE to live back in the early to mid 20th century in a racist and segregated country.  The sins of those times still cry out for justice and finally justice was bought but with a price.  Many died for the cause. 

Sadly, the “gay” rights movement took off in response to the changing societal attitudes toward the marginalized and oppressed.  They couched their demands in civil rights language and even went so far as to compare themselves to the African-Americans who had a reason to demand justice.  It disgusts me to know that these people would compare themselves to African-Americans as if their situation was the same.  It isn’t of course.  It is highly unjust and unchristian to discriminate and hate based on a man’s skin color or ethnic group.  It is another to discriminate based on behavior. 

This is the language they continue to use.  The language of the oppressed victim whose civil rights are being violated.  What this is is the perversion of the Civil rights movement.  I think that as a nation, we are still grappling with these changes in society that finally has spoken and said that all men are created equal and shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their skin color or ethnic group.  However, this should not extend to behavior and this is where the confusion lies.  This effort to extend rights to everyone has also bred a moral relativism which has been slowly killing our nation and culture.  What was once a movement based on moral rights that God has given us is being used to “bless” and “approve” so-called “rights” which is a grave perversion.  I may be wrong, but I think that this might be one of the root causes.  The confusion on what is exactly a “right” and who gets such “rights”.

Again, just as going back to prudish attitudes isn’t the way to go so would going back to gross and racist notions of how a society is to be run the way to go.  The late 19th and early 20th century was a VERY dark time for those who were marginalized and oppressed.  I don’t think I need to go into a lengthy discussion on the demerits of fascism, national socialism, eugenics, and other silliness that was prevalent at the time.

I meant that going back to racist ideas are DEFINITELY not the way to go.  We as a society need to take stock and honestly find out what is truly meant by rights because this is one of the reasons why many think that same sex “unions” are right and should be given.

@Stephen—Yawn…Your article is ridiculous as is most of your comments. And if you knew the answers you would have written them down for our enlightnment. Why don’t you go back to the gay bloggers site you mentioned and continue bashing catholics and the clergy. I’ll have no part in it.

Rachel- I certainly wasn’t making an argument for being prudish.  “How blessed are we, O Israel, for what pleases God is known to us.” We were and are afraid of strictly obeying the commandments for fear of being *called* prudish. This has totally killed us. Stephen writes, “What is wrong with a little scatological humor?”  In the same vein, what is wrong with an off color joke now and then, with a little homosexual humor?  It was the camel’s nose under the tent. We laughed and the unspeakable became a little more acceptable.

We sat through and continue to sit through many and many risque jokes and situations and dance routines.  How does all this square with the sixth commandment?  It doesn’t, but we have abandoned an absolute standard for a relative one.  We can see the result in the way our young people dress, dance and live, in what they believe and don’t believe, in the way they vote, in the society they are creating.

For the past sixty years we have been and continue to be shocked, shocked, shocked. It is ridiculous. What did we expect when we turned on the TV in the first place, when we went to the movies?  Producers and directors make their names by breaking taboos.  It is the sure way to success. In a sense, you could say they have done their jobs very well. If only we had followed our principles as rigidly and as ardently as they followed theirs.

Stephen, you write above:
 
“At the very least, we can show that the other side has no coherent answer to the question ‘What is marriage?’”
 
I am just as intrigued by the fact that the other side has no coherent answer to the question of what sexual ethics they would propose to replace our bad old judgmental ones, and in what their proposed alternative is grounded.
 
Or is their alternative simply chaos? Could it be that they really believe that sexual behavior—all of it—exists in a completely a-moral, an-ethical category of behavior? (And if so, how can they expect society in future to continue to prohibit or disapprove of any possible form of sexual expression whatsoever…even those which the vast majority of LGBT activists themselves vociferously denounce at present?)
 
This question becomes even more pressing—and intriguing—when we look at same-sex “marriage” supporters who profess some form of Christianity. Forgive me for raising a terribly rude question here, but it must be asked: How *can* one square any conceivable vision of Christian ethics with a “sacrament” that can only be consummated, if at all, by inserting you-know-what into somewhere other than you-know-where? (Or, alternately, must be consummated somehow without any you-know-whats being available to either party?)

@ Lee Gilbert:
 

“Stephen writes, “What is wrong with a little scatological humor?”  In the same vein, what is wrong with an off color joke now and then, with a little homosexual humor?  It was the camel’s nose under the tent. We laughed and the unspeakable became a little more acceptable.”

 
Poop is not sinful. I don’t understand your thought here.
 
Perhaps it was Elijah who let the camel’s nose into the tent, during his smackdown with the prophets of Baal. Our delicate translations obscure the scatological edge of Elijah’s mockery: “Cry aloud, for he is a god! Either he is thinking, or he is relieving himself…” (i.e., using the toilet).
 
Note that I’m not conceding that ribald humor is always bad either. Just saying I really don’t get your moral concern about scatological humor.
 
Poop is not sinful. Poop. Poopy poopy poop poop.

To keep it in perspective, scatalogical and bawdy humor has been around for eons.  Shakespeare, Chaucer, Greco-Roman mythology, the Bible, etc, etc, etc all have humor of that nature in them.  The problem arises is when the only humor there is is of the coarse variety.  I think it is more of the case of a little goes a long way

“Poop is not sinful. Poop. Poopy poopy poop poop.”

Stephen, you will find a roll or two of “carta igenica” under the sink. Help yourself.

No, none of our natural functions or their products are sinful, of course. However, how we treat them, how we speak of them comes under the scrutiny of moral theology, does it not?

Is it irrelevant to this discussion- or to to the ethos of a Catholic film critic, for that matter- that St. Paul says in Phillipians 4, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS.”  Is THAT the principle by which the Catholic people have governed their mass media choices over the past 60 or 70 yrs?  Have we EVER heard that principle enunciated from the pulpit, or insisted upon by the Catholic press and its film critics??  No, that would have been “prudish” and a very severe constriction of the fare available for our viewing.

And that fact naturally led to the moral relativism that has prevailed among us in our media choices, and in our lives.  We have have undergone as a Catholic people the de-evangelization of our imaginations.  We have submitted to a rape of our minds and hearts.

As far as scatological humor goes, before the good taste prevalent throughout our culture was relentlessly and deliberately drummed out of us, the kinds of films that are given G ratings for viewing by our children now would have provoked deep outrage.  We were a Christian people, by and large, with an ethos derived largely from scripture and sustained by the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

12“You shall also have a place outside the camp and go out there, 13and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your excrement. 14“Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you.” Deuteronomy 23.  Dung is evidently not among the true, honorable, pure, lovely and gracious things He wants us to think about either.

No, of course it is not grossly sinful, but it is the breaking of a taboo and a lowering of taste, a kind of gentle and humorous entrance into the habit of accepting ever lower standards and broken taboos.  The refusal to draw the line here or ANYWHERE is giving us New Sodom. No, no one can accuse us of being prudes or puritans.  That is one charge we will escape, but it would never have been levelled against us at the Last Judgement anyway.

WHile not deeply versed in natural law or other philosophical schools I agree with Stephen, but with a little different “spin”.  We have allowed the redefinition of marriage through our own acquisitive nature - we want the nice house, the larger TV, the vacation somewhere fancy and to accomplish this we need two incomes.  We reduced marriage to a financial agreement instead of the wedding of two souls.  When my wife and I were married we shared the joy by sending to the local nursing home roses and cake for the people who were left alone - we donated much of the money we were given to a local charity - what we were told is that we were crazy - getting married meant spending lots of money and having a lavish party.  We focused on the ceremony and to this day it holds us together when things are not going well. 
WE have chosen to ignore to the greatest extent possible the economic pressures that have consumed many of our contemporaries to the extent that when our youngest daughter graduated from high school she was one of 8 students out of 75 who came from an intact family.  The reason most of the families dissolved was financial stress.  Not enough money to live on or do the things that others were doing. 
I am not suggesting that if we had a better economic system or that one salary would allow a family to survive with dignity that marriage would be not redefined; I think that this has been long in the making - but I think that the pressure of our society to have more creates friction and displeasure that forces a redefinition.  Just my thoughts.

Gay marriage. Cohabitation. Abortion. Contraception. You name it, and you’ve probably not heard a homily on any of these moral issues in the last few decades.

Homilies at Mass are generalities about love and helping the poor. Period. Priests are afraid of controversy so they won’t speak out. Don’t offend anyone in the pews or they may go elsewhere or stop putting money in the collection basket.

I remember one visiting priest who did speak out against contraception and such. Our bishop found a way to remove him from parish life because he allegedly said a Mass in Latin and a few of his parishioners complained.

Come Holy Spirit: renew your church!

“Same-sex marriage was not foisted on New Yorkers by less than 5 percent of the population.”
I’m not sure that is true: money is power; recall the Prop. 8 complaints that the Church (along with the Mormons) brought capital to bear and out spent the opposition.  The tale in New York may be simply that anything can be purchased in this world.

@ Lee Gilbert:
 

“Is it irrelevant to this discussion- or to to the ethos of a Catholic film critic, for that matter- that St. Paul says in Phillipians 4, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS.”  Is THAT the principle by which the Catholic people have governed their mass media choices over the past 60 or 70 yrs?  Have we EVER heard that principle enunciated from the pulpit, or insisted upon by the Catholic press and its film critics??  No, that would have been “prudish” and a very severe constriction of the fare available for our viewing.”

 
That’s a harsh judgment. Some food for thought.

In response to this: “I’ve never once had any same-sex marriage advocate be able to offer a coherent account of what marriage is and is not, and why it is the state should have a bureaucratic apparatus for certifying (and decertifying) sexual partnerships involving two and only two non-related adults in any gender combination.”

You don’t make any sense. There are laws governing marriage.  Those laws are different from state to state. Country to country.  The laws should apply equally to gay people and straight people. That’s all. Very simple.

If you need the church to hold your marriage together you are with the wrong woman.

@ David:
 

“There are laws governing marriage.”

 
Why are there laws governing marriage? Why should there be? What is the purpose of marriage? What is the purpose of the laws?
 

“The laws should apply equally to gay people and straight people.”

 
They do. Always have. The law that marriage is the enduring union of a man and a woman applies equally to everyone regardless whether they self-identify as “straight” or “gay.” As far as the law is concerned, any available man is free to marry any available woman, and vice versa. The law makes no differentiation between “straight” and “gay,” categories that are somewhat artificial and problematic anyway.
 

“If you need the church to hold your marriage together you are with the wrong woman.”

 
This seems to be a non sequitur. The word church doesn’t even appear in the sentence you’re responding to.

@ Stephen-

    Yes, it is a harsh judgement, but I stand by it. Since we had thrown out the television when the kids were very small (Blessed be the day and the hour!) we were aware of the (seeming) necessity to expose the kids to good cinema.  Among other films we saw were “My Father’s Glory,” “My Mother’s Castle,” “A Sunday in the Country.”  How many times in this venture were we taken by surprise by raunchy trailers, against which I have never heard a word raised in the column of any Catholic film critic, nor in the sermon of any priest.

    How many times did we go to a highly recommended film only to encounter some fleeting but powerful moment that undercut the faith or its disciplines.  Those moments have their cumulative effect over the years.  In fact, I would say there was ALWAYS something, to the extent that I am convinced that the war between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness is primarily fought out on the cinema screens and television screens of the West.

  The fleeting moments of pornography/profanity or violence in the trailers or the feature were so many invitations to the innocent to abandon their innocence or their serenity, and as a people we have not been immune. We have done that.

  You refer to the citation of Phillipians 4 as a glib citation. I would say you glibly qualify it.  Would to God you would strictly apply the Phillipians 4 test to every film you review.

  Now that the kids are long gone from the house my wife and I have made some tentative forays into the theater, and we have seen “The King’s Speech” and “Of Gods and Men.”  “Of Gods and Men,” was excellent, of course, and I went so far as to write our diocesan director of evangelization urging him to mount a campaign to make it a phenomenon in our city.  This, of course, was against diocesan policy.  Virtually no one went to see it, because by now our tastes are too jaded. It meets the Phillipians 4 test and THEREFORE we reject it. 

    Even the “Cave of Forgotten Dreams” about prehistoric art recently discovered in French caves managed to get in some digs against decency.

    “The King’s Speech” was very good except for the one scene with the bad language, but from the Phillipians 4 standard, that was disqualifying.  Yes, that kind of speech is everywhere now, but it is everywhere now precisely because we did not put our foot down long ago. I have just now returned from a walk where I passed a small group of young people by a park here in Portland, with a 15 yr old girl repeating the F word over and over at the top of her lungs, ala King George. How is this going to contribute to her chastity and that of her friends? The young are mimics, and in the chaos of their young lives have mimicked what we did not have the courage to condemn and avoid.

    We will not apply a strict scriptural yardstick to our media for the very obvious reason that we would no longer fit it. We seem to have lost sight of the fact that we are not SUPPOSED to fit it.  We are supposed to be light and salt for the world

    And so we have New York/Sodom. Yes, we have brought this on ourselves.

@ Lee Gilbert: There is no Philippians 4 “test.” If we were only allowed to think about what is good, honorable, pure, etc., then we would not be allowed to think about Muslim terrorism and so could not watch Of Gods and Men (which I’m glad you enjoyed, as it is my favorite film in years). Your own posts have been full of thoughts about what is not good, honorable, pure, etc.

I hate to say it, but people didn’t miss Of Gods and Men because it meets a Philippians 4 “test.” They missed it because it’s a slow-moving French art-house film with subtitles. There are plenty of slow-moving foreign films that are not decent with equally low profiles at the box office.

We disagree on the obscene speech in The King’s Speech, and on a great many things, obviously. I’m sorry that you find it necessary to give my words the rather ungracious (so it seems to me) reading that you have, but I see no need to defend what I’ve written. 

Incidentally, since you like Philippians so much, you should know how to spell it. One l, two p’s. Cheers.

@ Joanne:
 

“Gay marriage. Cohabitation. Abortion. Contraception. You name it, and you’ve probably not heard a homily on any of these moral issues in the last few decades.”

 
Happily not the case at my parish.
 
@ SteveP:
 

“I’m not sure that is true: money is power;”

 
Both money and power have limits. Fifty years ago all of Rockefeller’s wealth couldn’t have bought same-sex marriage.

Part 2 is up.

DCH,

With all due respect, I think you missed Steve’s point entirely.  Go back to the questions he posed in part 1:
(1) What is (and is not) marriage?
(2) Why it is the state should have a bureaucratic apparatus for certifying (and decertifying) sexual partnerships involving two and only two non-related adults in any gender combination?

Classically, marriage has been a contract and covenant between a man and woman, before God and sometimes the state. The state has a key interest in promoting these unions, and the stability thereof, to create stable societies.  On the whole, the results of marriage promotion are too numerous to list: better children, less crime (including less violent crime), fewer out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and so on.  Because the spouses are monogamous, there are fewer kids born into one-parent families, and the spread of disease is far lower.  Adjusting for all other factors (income, and the like), marriage has a demonstrable causal effect on all of these things—the very sort of causality you purport to be looking for in # 4.

The problem with “gay marriage,” then, isn’t the gays.  It’s that it continues the evolution of “marriage” from what I described above to something vaguer and stupider.  Strip marriage of its permanence (through no-fault divorce), and from its connection to families (through gay marriage), and marriage functionally ceases to make sense as a socially-protected institution.  I can see a clear compelling interest for governmental intervention in promotion of traditional marriage, for all of the reasons outlined above.  Even if you don’t care a lick about sexual morality, the social impacts of marriage vis-a-vis promiscuity are compelling.  What I can’t see is why the government even cares whether a gay couple continues to date, and consider themselves married.  What interest does the state have?

If two gay people want to call themselves “married,” that’s between them.  If they demand that the state start promoting their unions as equivalent to traditional marriages, that’s where we draw the line.  Why should it?  Simply to say that gay marriage won’t automatically lead to divorce is to tilt against windmills, and I read your arguments as fighting absurd strawmen that Steve never raised in his piece.

Steve D. Greydanus said, “Why are there laws governing marriage? Why should there be? What is the purpose of marriage? What is the purpose of the laws?”
Excellent questions I’ve been asking for some time, including in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/letters/2010-11-11-letters11_ST_N.htm).  I’ve never seen anyone who supports same-sex “marriage” try to answer them, however.

@Steve

Of course, you might not have the time or the desire or the ability, for that matter,to respond to my arguments, but saying that I am ungracious and correcting my spelling is a poor substitute for a substantive response, is it not?

Saying there is no Philippians 4 test will not make this God-given criterion for the objects of our thought evaporate, will it. On this principle and many others we will soon be judged.  And, believe me, no one who vaunted Philippians 4 against the viewing habits of his civilization will be found “glib.”

@Lee: Steven *has* responded fully to your arguments. He still doesn’t agree with you; but he’s laid out his own case with more care than I would have expected.
 
And while some might see his correction of your spelling as petty or ungracious, personally I’m amazed at how patient he’s being. You’re coming off as an absolutist Dr. Bowdler wannabe, who is refusing (or is unable) to engage in any subtlety and depth of thought whatsoever.
 
In a nutshell, I believe Steven is trying to show you that it *is* possible to follow St. Paul’s advice and teaching fully, while yet avoiding being a humorless know-nothing prig. It’s not his fault if you either can’t see, or aren’t willing to look, in the direction he’s pointing.

@ Lee Gilbert: I didn’t say you were ungracious. I said your reading of me was ungracious. Ironic case in point, no? You seem to parse my words with a chip on your shoulder. You say I “refer to the citation of Phillipians 4 as a glib citation.” That’s not how I would put it, but I don’t see the need to defend my words any further. So you can have the last word. On the spelling correction, I receive corrections all the time from my readers, and I’m always grateful for them. Cheers.

Again and again it must be said that the militant homosexual movement and their “progressive” allies continue to play political Chess while the Churches play political Checkers. For them it is not and never was about marriage but rather fundamentally changing society; redefining marriage is but a Chess move alowing complete domination of public school systems K through 12; the destruction of marriage was only a tool to this end ... see the future:

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/06/condoms-for-kindergarteners/

Given the now 50+ year old defacto “political marriage” of the Catholic Church to the Democrat Party [1960 and JFK] and given the fact that politicians of all stripes have readily observed that there has been zero, zip, nadda political price to pay for the murderous war on the unborn & homosexual rights; on the contray there has been affirmation look at the “triumphal” funeral of pro-abort pro homosexual rights Teddy Kennedy with Bishops and Presidents in attendance. Given the do as I say not as I do example of the Institutional Church it is actually amazing that these so called conservatives held out so long. Talk about improper positive and negative reinforement.
Politicians of all stripes know that come the next election being on the right [or should I say left side] of “immigration reform” or “universal health care” or “gun-control” will always trump 40 Millions and counting of dead babies and/or the Pol Pot indoctrination of the coming generations in a school system now under the complete control of the “Progressives”. To save real Marriage and Societal norms, to stop Abortion the Catholic Heirarchy must divorce itself from what the Democrat Party has become or simply become a reflection of it.

“Incidentally, you are dreaming if you think that same-sex marriage legislation isn’t going to be used as a blunt instrument for punishing wrongthink religious groups and believers.”

Because they’re humans beings who love each other just as you do and have a need for a family just as you do. It is only your religion that makes the case against it. The writer didn’t answer the question regarding how one’s marriage is measurably affected by another’s marriage.

@ Joseph R Yungk: Let’s keep single lines of discussion to a single combox, please. Your comments here have been addressed by other commenters in the part 2 discussion. And yes, I did discuss the cost to society of recognizing same-sex “marriages,” and will be exploring the subject further in posts to come.

Steven, by and large, I agree with Lee Gilbert’s assessment.
We are too open and accepting or willing to ignore, for the sake of entertainment, those things which offend God. And Catholics particularly turn a weak eye to this, making excuses for artistic expression as a neutral cultural thermometer. Our ‘entertainment’ is formative- (have you seen the ads for Greek yogurt and YaYa?) And now, because so much of it is degraded, our culture is wallowing in a mire of licentiousness. Asmodeus reigns.

And I blame myself first, when I look in my mirror and have to reckon with what I allow into my home, and into my own mind and heart through my poor choices for media exposure. Without a vibrant and disciplined prayer life, without a firm understanding of the heart and mind of God as revealed through Sacred Scripture and clarified through the Church, without a willingness to pursue what is truly good and beautiful accordingly at all costs, and without the courage to suffer for the sake of all of these things, we have effectively taken a .45 to our own right feet. If it were not so then the landscape would not be so fraught with dragons.

And now we begin to reap thorns and thistles where we have failed to sow sustenance- and the only path back to holiness is probably one of martyrdom.

@Blog Galiard, you make my case, for you write,

“In a nutshell, I believe Steven is trying to show you that it *is* possible to follow St. Paul’s advice and teaching fully, while yet avoiding being a humorless know-nothing prig.”

My argument was that in our times is not possible to pursue a media strategy based strictly on the ten commandments without being called a prude, but we are afraid of this, both of being or seeming to be prudes, so we have a relative standard that is killing us.

But to be called a humorless know nothing prig! It’s terrifying, I tell you. You forgot obscurantantist trogdolyte, card-carrying member of the booboisie.  I’m sure if you spent a little more time with H.L. Mencken, you could eventually devise a pejorative vocabulary more suited to our time and equally ennervating for those timid souls who give a tinker’s dam what anyone else thinks.

@ Steven

I re-read your piece about Phillipians 4 in a less contentious frame of mind.

You wrote,

“St. Paul’s exhortation to think about the good, the true and the beautiful is sure guidance on the path that leads to life—if not necessarily in a literal way in each and every step, certainly in the whole. We should keep our eye toward the good, the true and the beautiful. Ugliness in moderation may be part of a search for the good, the true and the beautiful, but ugliness shouldn’t fill our lives.”

Believe it or not, I understand this.  You cannot have a hero without expatiating somewhat on the difficulties the hero has to overcome. These can be horrendous, mind boggling and disturbing. Fine. Even given all this, a movie can fall on the right side of Philippians 4.  Granted.

And I could not agree with you more that, “We need movies like The King’s Speech—good, wholesome movies about good, wholesome people….”

My entire point is that WE DO NOT HAVE THEM.  Our popular culture is trash- soul, marriage, family and society annihihilating trash.  In the face of that FACT, what are we going to do, keep wishing for better movies? Continue to provide roadmaps for conscientious Christians to thread their way through the minefield in the hopes they don’t mis-step and find their eldest son blown to hell by a pornographic trailer, or their daughter repeating the F word at the top of her lungs because her parents took her to the least trashy movie they could find?

As a strategy for preserving the family, the very idea of marriage and family, this leaves a lot to be desired.

We cannot continue to place ourselves in front of extremely powerful secular propaganda without being secularized.  We have to draw a line. And that line has to be an abyss between ourselves and the secularizing media. NO other strategy has any possibility of success.

If you disagree, what would you suggest as an overall strategy for Catholics and other Christians that has a real possiblity of turning our situation around before the whole society rushes over the cliff?  We are out of time.  We need something that we can do, right now, today, together that will turn this situation around on a dime.

@ Lee: Here, here! I whole-heartedly echo a Yea and AMEN!

Now, if we think we can retreat into our Traditionalist ivory towers, and effectively separate ourselves from interaction with our culture, we have missed the mark. We need to cultivate higher, Godlier tastes, and reclaim some standards of decency- and I mean that without being judgmental. Conversations like these- guided by Christian charity, more of them- in our families, parishes and somehow in a more evangelistic forum are a great way to impel people to think things through and to maybe become strengthened in finding firmer more Christlike boundaries. Within the realm of art and culture are a wide array of tastes, and that can and should be respected.
But, we have slipped below what is appropriate and by and large our culture is degraded- and sadly I think we are awakening with horror to the reality that on some base level we ourselves crave that depravity or have some inclination toward it. I think this has created an inertia among Catholics.

the cost to society for not having gay marriage has been a class of people who are perceived as inferior without a say in how they validate their relationships.

After looking at what are perceived as costs I see a lot of speculation and insult. On the part comments two abortion was actually blamed on gays by the writer.

This is the kind of slander that I’m not having homosexual inclined children hearing as I used to. Nobody deserves all that—not me or your children.
Regardless of who deserves first amendment rights—we all do—gays are out and you will have to deal with that whether we have gay marriage or not. Your divorce rate is climbing and others are leaving the church whether gays marry or not.

Making the premeditated decision to sodomize another man, or simply harboring the desire, does not make one in to a “class of people.”

If marriage can be changed to mean something that it has never meant in all of recorded history, then no one who supports “gay marriage” can ever bar anyone, or any group from marrying. A man can marry his own son, or 5 men can marry their own daughters, a marriage can be 3 people, or 8, or 79, because to say no to any of that is in fact discrimination.  No could a “gay marriage” supporter say it is wrong, or immoral, for a father to marry his daughter, because the statement that it is immoral would be nothing more than personal prejudice and nothing more. No claim to God, or natural law, or objective morality could ever be made because the homosexual “rights” lobby has said those things are not to be considered concerning who can marry and who cannot.

Not even the ancient Romans or Greeks at their most depraved had ever so taken a complete leave of their senses so as to delude themselves into thinking men could “marry” each other.

@Max, you write,

“Making the premeditated decision to sodomize another man, or simply harboring the desire, does not make one in to a ‘class of people.’”

With this I agree wholeheartedly, yet it is completely amazing to me how the concept of “the homosexual person” or the concept of “those with a homosexual orientation” is driving not only our politics, but also our moral theology.

What about those poor people with an orientation to bestiality, nymphomania, contraception, parricide, embezzlement, suicide, apostasy and other unspeakable acts. Don’t they have any rights?  Must they continue to live in the shadows, scorned by the rest of society?

If the embezzler wants to marry his bank, or the bestial his horse, who but hate-filled bigots would raise objections?  Let us shed a tear for those who still (still!) are in the throes of a love that dare not speak its name.

“If marriage can be changed to mean something that it has never meant in all of recorded history, then no one who supports “gay marriage” can ever bar anyone, or any group from marrying.”

There is no such law or line of reasoning that makes any of this real. But there is an absolute fact that legislating against one’s own right to choose religion and its dogma is unconstitutional.

Mr. Gilbert

Is equating gays who want a relationship with an adult they love with embezzlement and bestiality really treating homosexuals with “dignity and respect”?

These contradictions are among the reasons why you are losing in the legislation arena and have been losing for so long in the gay arena.

Mr. Yungk,<br>

There is no such law or line of reasoning that makes any of this [anyone marrying anyone else] real.

I’m afraid you miss the point. According to the arguments for gay marriage there is no law or line of reasoning which prevents any of these things either.

Is equating gays who want a relationship with an adult they love with embezzlement and bestiality really treating homosexuals with “dignity and respect”?<br>

Those with same-sex attraction demand respect for their actions, without any discussion as to whether their tendencies and actions are good or bad. Simply that fact that they have it is supposed to be sufficient. In the same way, why can’t those who engage in bestiality demand - and receive - respect and even legal recognition for their actions as well? Who are you to say who (or what) they can love? <br>

These are fundamentally the same arguments that I hear all the time from advocates of gay marriage. I’m applying them to places where most would rather not go, but the point is that the logic is the same. If one is correct, why not the other? Since the nature of the relationship is not allowed to have any bearing on the argument, then the logic must apply to any sort of relationship.

@ Joseph R Yungk,

As already stated, your line of reasoning means that you must allow these things because you have no moral foundation to oppose them. You personally may “feel” they are wrong, but the “gay marriage” supporters seethe with anger and hatred at notions of immorality.

And there is simply no dignity whatsoever in men sodomizing other men. None.

Max

Again: only what your church tells you.
Seething with anger and hatred are grossly bigoted comments by any standard. Nothing really carries weight in civil discourse. Certainly not in keeping with treating others with respect and dignity.

@Joseph R Yungk, you write

Is equating gays who want a relationship with an adult they love with embezzlement and bestiality really treating homosexuals with “dignity and respect”?

First of all, there are only two sexes, male and female.  There is no special third kind of being. 

Given that fact, how is it showing respect for yourselves to mis-use your bodies and those of others in an incredibly unsanitary simulacrum of sex, where the reproductive organs of one use the alimentary canal of another, hmmm?  This is respect, or self-respect?

The reason we are losing is because what you do is so unspeakable that we can’t even talk about it! Perhaps we have to get beyond that and start referring to this phenomenon in the vivid anglo-saxon language of the recent past, that is so descriptive of reality.

Lee Gilbert

You continue to use your religion to not only rationalize legislation that undermines multiple first amendment rights and insult gays.

Still not constitutional or treating us with respect.

Both Aristotle and Plato stated that men sodomizing other men was so vile, that it made those who made the deliberate choice to engage in the conduct lower than wild beasts. That was their philosophical position. It is conduct utterly lacking in dignity, in honor, and in decency.

To use philosophy, if a fundamental principle is in fact arbitrary, then all subordinate principles must necessarily be also arbitrary. That is the reason you have not been able to refute the statement that you must in fact either acknowledge that your position supports a father marrying his own daughter, or you are a hypocrite.

And no one can deny that the homosexual lobby is in fact seething with hatred and anger and be taken seriously in any debate.

“ou must in fact either acknowledge that your position supports a father marrying his own daughter”

those are separate issues and again you insult with inappropriate and inaccurate comparisons.
As for seething with hate: I really don’t see how your church is not if you go on comparing us in such ways. Yours is the side that is asking to limit rights and using insults.
If you can’t argue without insults you really are never going to win.

There is not one insult you can point to in any of my posts. I think you know that you are being dishonest here.
And no, they are not separate issues, you know that as well. If in fact the meaning of marriage can be changed to mean something it never has in all of recorded human history, than it can mean anything. This is your position. You can claim you do not support a man marrying his daughter, but to do so would make you into a hypocrite since you would have no moral grounds to oppose it. There is no right, either given by God, or enshrined in the Constitution, to equate men sodomizing each other with as a marriage. One must do violence to their own reason to hold otherwise. You seem to claim that homosexual sodomy in an ontology, but no where offer even a shred of proof of this absurdity.

The reason the great philosophers, and the worlds great religions, all consider men sodomizing other men to be morally repugnant and void of all honor and dignity, is because that is the truth.

Steven, I responded to your question about what marriage is.  Still waiting to hear from you what the detrimental effect of same gender is on your marriage, your possible eventual marriage, or anybody else’s marriage.

John,
Do a google search “The Audacity of the State” for your answer.

If calling people gutter feeders and equating them with pedophiles and/or incest is not an insult in your church, there’s really no reason I should every be expected to follow it.

if you can’t see that there’s no point engaging your further and I have to surmise that it is you who is consumed with anger.

A quote from the article from Touchstonemag.

“To make matters very much worse, the parens patriae power has recently received an enormous boost from another feature of the contraceptive society: same-sex “marriage.” Though most people have not yet realized it, the advent of same-sex marriage has transformed marriage from a pre-political institution conferring “divine and human rights,” as the Roman jurist Modestinus put it, into a mere legal construct at the gift and disposal of the state. The legal terrain has thus changed dramatically, along with the cultural—something I have tried to show in a little book called Nation of !@#$%. The family is ceasing to be what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights confesses it to be, viz., “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”

Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact.”

John, if you notice, Max didn’t answer himself. Like many and what seems to be expected of even noncatholics is following whatever their authority says. When that does not work it’s on to legislation and insults.

John
I’ve got another example here:
“Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact.”

And of course there’s no reason that Max’s church should be defining it other than for it’s own flock. We would all then be chattels of the church—not constitutional.
Neither Max nor catholicism has any right to define me or my relationship.

Joseph,

Of course you have to surmise that, because for the “men sodomizing each other can be a marriage” fanatics, reality is anathema. It cannot be any other way. The Brave New World is already here.

For this reason you have to resort to claiming something about “gutter feeders”. Who made that comment and where? Either I did not notice it reading this thread, or you are hoping to get some sort of “victory” by blatantly and deliberately lying.

“Neither Max nor catholicism has any right to define me or my relationship.”

Joseph,

Bingo. That is why you support the “right” for a man to marry his own daughter. Because no one has any right to deny him doing just that according to you.

You like to unloose your hate against the Catholic Church, but no Church, no religion, no society, no culture, pagan or otherwise, ever, in all of recorded history, stands against you, and the absurdity of “homosexual marriage”.

Max, are you unable to articulate a response in your own words? 

The article you site fails to recognize the distinction that has long been recognized between religious, or sacramental, marriages and civil marriages.  In Europe, people have two ceremonies—one in the local municipal building, and another in a church (if they choose to do so).  In the United States, religious leaders are delegated authority by the state to officiate over the civil act of marriage. Delegation of authority for presiding over the religious marriage comes from the Bishops.  Ergo one can have a civil and a religious marriage, or only one of the two.  Same gender marriage in no way changes this reality.
So I repeat my question.  How, exactly, does same gender marriage threaten anyone else’s marriage?

“Neither Max nor catholicism has any right to define me or my relationship.”
Joseph,
Bingo. That is why you support the “right” for a man to marry his own daughter. Because no one has any right to deny him doing just that according to you.
You like to unloose your hate against the Catholic Church, but no Church, no religion, no society, no culture, pagan or otherwise, ever, in all of recorded history, supports you and the absurdity of “homosexual marriage”.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/redefining-marriage-1/#ixzz1RGaBA47E

“That is why you support the “right” for a man to marry his own daughter.”

I was right. There is no civil discourse when one uses insults and putting words in another’s mouth. So far there’s no argument supporting your church in defining me or my relationship. Just another distraction.

These comparisons are getting more laughable by the minute.  Now you equate incest with homosexuality.  Incest, bigamy and polygamy are all behaviors.  One cannot be incestuous, bigamous or polygamous without being in such a relationship.  Sexual orientation is a status.  One can be celibate his or whole life and still be gay (ask some priests. go attend a meeting of courage).  The same cannot be said for someone who would claim to be incestuous, bigamous or polygamous without ever having been in such a relationship.  Therefore, laws against incest, polygamy or bigamy can be applied equally to people of all statuses, and do not constitute status-based discrimination.  Likewise, I can make a rational argument that society’s interest in preventing bigamy is that only one person is entitled to the rights and benefits of marriage with another person.  Otherwise, the state would have to step in as a referee and decide which spouse has the right to make medical decisions, accrue social security benefits, etc.  It opens up a whole new avenue for state intrusion into families.  The same cannot be said of same gender marriage.

John,

Actually, it does nothing of the sort. It very precisely answers your question. If you support giving the state the power to change a word and institution to mean something that not only never existed in all of recorded human history, but that every people, society, culture, or civilization, would have rightfully considered nonsense, then you support the power of the state to change the meaning of any word. 2+2= whatever the state and a small group of militant fanatics decide. Hence freedom = slavery, Jew = less than a human being, and so forth.

Joseph,

Clearly you think publicly sulking is some sort of articulate, intelligent, rebuttal. Again you are wrong. And, again, the fundamental principle that marriage is between a man and a woman existed in all cultures, societies, and religions, in all of recorded human history. You seem to like to pretend that the Catholic Church decided 2000 years ago to simply make that little truth up out of thin air.

Max, that makes no sense.  Civil and religious marriages have long been considered separate.  That’s why a divorced Catholic may re-marry in a civil marriage but not in a Catholic marriage.  Divorce redefined marriage in ways far more profound than same gender marriages.  I don’t hear anyone trying to outlaw second marriages after divorce.  Or am I mistaken?

Homosexuality is a sexual appetitive disorder, and no more or less a “status” than any other disorder.

Someone who habitually experiences the desire to engage in sodomy with other men were under the same laws as those who don’t. Marriage was open to everyone as long as they wanted to marry someone of the other gender. And even the pre-christian pagans knew this truth.

As for your statement that you somehow believe the state can be so intrusive as to redefine marriage to mean something it never has, but not support polygamy because that might cause the state to be more intrusive, well, let’s just allow the nonsense of that notion speak for itself.

@ Lee Gilbert:
 
I appreciate the tone of your latest post and your constructive engagement/disagreement. I’m glad you recognize some validity in the point I was trying to make, and I agree that a lot of contemporary culture is what you say, “soul, marriage, family and society annihilating trash.” I think the minefield analogy is somewhat useful but it doesn’t get at the fact (to switch metaphors) that here is nourishing sustenance out there as well as rat poison and everything in between—and that we have a choice about imbibing what we’re exposed to. I want my kids to benefit from what is good and know the rat poison for what it is. I have high hopes that raising my children right, including watching good movies with them and teaching them how to judge bad ones, will leave them better for the experience and more ready for what’s out there. I don’t believe in taking my kids to the “least trashy” movies and I do not expect any of my children to wind up poisoned by pornography or shouting the F-word. (My eldest daughter, who will be 17 this year, just learned what “the f-word” was while reading the subtitles in Of Gods and Men. Her only comment was, “That’s the f-word?” She knew that there was such a word from reading my content advisories over the years. She is not at all tempted to start saying it.) I’d like to respond more thoughtfully and in greater depth but time doesn’t permit at the moment. Cheers.
 
@ john:
 
Are you talking to me? I didn’t see your response and can’t find it at the moment. Too many comments for me to follow everything. I’d appreciate responses to me being addressed to SDG so I can scan for that. Cheers.

Mas, By whose definition is homosexuality an “appetitive disorder?”  Did you get that out of a recent medical handbook?  You still haven’t answered the question about civil marriages after divorce.

And you completely missed my point about bigamy/polygamy.  My concern isn’t the state intrusion by redefining civil marriage.  It is the reality that the state would be required to step into the actual marriage itself to mediate between and among dissenting spouses.

John,

Your just wrong there. Divorce goes back as far as marriage does. But “homosexual marriage” never existed, ever. So, no, divorce did not redefine marriage more profoundly than the chimerical absurdity of “homosexual marriage”.

Really, Max?  So you disagree with Archbishop Dolan, president of the USCCB, that marriage has always been “one man, one woman, forever?”  Go back and check your facts.  Even in this country, divorce was legal only in Nevada until a little over 50 years ago.  Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Argentina and other countries only legalized divorce within the last few decades. 

Civil society has a right to define, and redefine, civil marriage.  Religions reserve the right to define and redefine, or not, religious marriages.  It’s been that way a very long time.  And it should remain that way.

If civil society has the right, power, and authority, to redefine anything, then you are saying they have every right to define a human being as a non person, the right to say 2+2=5, and all the rest that entails. Reality and truth may or may not be considered in the debate. And you should check your facts, divorce is nothing new. No civil society was ever so depraved, or so hostile to thought and common sense, so as to think something could be that which is never was, or ever could be. Which, again, is why you are utterly wrong about divorce redefining marriage more than homosexual sodomy.  If, as you believe, there is no such thing as objective truth, than there is no such thing as objective morality. Thus no sexual perversion is objectively wrong or immoral, only, and at best, subjectively so.
According to you, civil society could, if it so wished, and for whatever reason, say marriage was a civil contract between a man and his arm chair, or a woman and a dolphin, and would have no less claim to legitimacy than any other marriage. Nonsense. Your Brave New World, and NewSpeak, cannot long endure, because it’s all about emotional children playing make-believe, and nothing more.
The economic crisis of the last 4 years has the same cause. The Third Reich rose to power because the people were desperate to believe anything except reality. There is no case, in all of recorded history, of it ending well when society abandons reason and truth. It will be no different this time.

Max…so are you saying divorce was legal in the US before it was legalized in Nevada?  ‘fraid not.  go look it up.

and you seem to not understand what civil marriage is.  it is a contract.  essential to a contract is the ability to consent.  last i checked, arm chairs and dolphins did not have such a capacity.  so until armchairs and dolphins are allowed to enter into contracts to buy cars, airline tickets and other items, I wouldn’t worry too much about society giving them a right to enter into a marriage contract.

I happen to agree with your comment:
“There is no case, in all of recorded history, of it ending well
when society abandons reason and truth.”
That’s why marriage equality is, slowly, and will, eventually, prevail.

I’m saying divorce has been around almost as long as marriage, and you know this.
And why should consent be a principle if gender is not? Historically speaking, consent was not alway required, but opposite gender always was necessary.
Men sodomizing each other is as repugnant to decency and honor, as the nonsense of “gay marriage” is to human reason.
I believe the political philosophers such as Burke who said the freedom and liberty cannot endure without virtue and morality, which is another reason why elevating the choice to sodomize other men out the the sewer is a a threat to freedom and liberty of everyone.

“If civil society has the right, power, and authority, to redefine anything, then you are saying they have every right to define a human being as a non person, the right to say 2+2=5”

Well, as Mr. Yungk has recently pointed out, a church does not have any right to define marriage or someone outside of their faith in the first place.

By the way Max, I believe Mr. Yungk was talking about your referring to us as feeding out of sewers, and you get upset that he misquoted with “gutter”? Sewer/gutter, not at all Christian. “Public sulking”? I’ve seen Mr. Yungk as very articulate. Max just throws out the slurs. Yes, much of this conversation is abusive and insulting, not Christian. Calling others rat poisoning is not going to win friends either.

And why is Max claiming gays are all for incestuous marriage between a father and daughter? I can’t find anyone saying that.
Yes, much of this conversation is abusive and insulting, not Christian. Calling others rat poisoning is not going to win friends either.

The Church did not define marriage, it simply was given the task to proclaim what in fact marriage is by Him who created marriage in the first place.
Now, to your concerns:

1. What right to sodomites have to redefine marriage? If they have that right, which the people reject since every single time the people have been asked they have said no. If the courts get their authority from God, then they do not have the right, if from the people, the people have also said no.

2. Since I never wrote “sewers” and never insinuated anything about feeding out of them, I will just simply reject your goofy and untenable assertion of Mr. Yungk being articulate.

3. You claim that this conversation is abusive and insulting for, from what I can gather, two reasons. The first is because nothing more than invented slights. The second because you take offense to people stating and agreeing with the Church and great philosophers that men sodomizing other men is depraved, disgusting, and utterly lacking in decency.

4. There is nothing more ludicrous than people who are not Christians, and do not agree with Christianity, or understand anything about it, claiming actual Christians are not acting in a Christian manner.

5. Finally, if men sodomizing each other is not objectively wrong, then objective morality does not exist. Thus no natural law, no metaphysics. In that eventuality, no sexual depravity is immoral.

Um:

Posted by Max on Wednesday, Jul 6, 2011 12:45 AM (EDT):

“... which is another reason why elevating the choice to sodomize other men out the the sewer is a a threat to freedom and liberty of everyone.”

Oh, I see, you were talking about having sex out [of] the sewer? But you said you never wrote it. I’m absolutely amazed that one can go on about “invented slights” when saying such things. This is a very serious sign of a fundamentalism that has been responsible for way too much pain in world. And for this reason, our founding fathers wanted nothing to do with churches making such policies when concerned with personal freedoms. Freedoms such as the ones you exercise right here. We have most of the same freedoms. And we’ll have all the same in a few years. 
Get used to it, we’ve heard it all our lives and now we’re no longer silent.

To be clear the accusation was made before the word was used, which is what I was denying. Probably why the word was fresh in my mind. Your side used it first. In the same way I never wrote anything about feeding out of them. Simply more invented reality.

What is responsible for pain in the world, be it the German people in the 1930s, the banks of the last 20 years, or those who support equating men sodomizing other men to marriage, is pretending reality is anything one wishes it to be, instead of what it actually is. Making the deliberate choice to sodomize or be sodomized be another man does not make of one into an ontological being anymore than it makes of one into a lawnmower.

Freedom, according to our Founders, the Holy Saints, and the great political philosophers, depends on virtue and morality and homosexual sodomy is a utterly void of either and has been responsible for the death of tens of millions of people.

And we already have the same freedom. Anyone could marry any other another person they wanted as long as it was a member of the opposite gender, of consenting age, not a close relation, and not already married.

You are supporting the same philosophy that allowed the Nazis to exterminate those who suffer from homosexual orientation disorder during their rise to power. You are saying that the state and courts have the authority to say any word can mean anything at all, including something it has never meant in all of recorded history.

IF the word can be changed to mean something as debased as homosexuals sodomizing other homosexuals, than there is nothing stopping it from meaning anything anyone else decides it can mean.

Part 3 is now up. 

Max, you are completely wrong about divorce.  It is a relatively modern construct.  In the past, the options were annulment (and pretty much available only to the very rich), sending a wife off to a monastery or keeping her at home but having a mistress on the side.  I find it remarkable that you disagree with Archbishop Dolan, president of the USCCB on this.

I find it even more remarkable that you do not think “consent” should be a factor.  Yes, thank God, we have evolved to the point that we now recognize that consent is a vital factor to marriage.  Lack of consent is grounds for annulment.

You keep repeating yourself that same gender marriages go “against human reason,” but you fail to define how.

Glancing over your other replies, the church has only been in existence for 2000 years.  If God gave the church the task to proclaim marriage, as you say, are you saying that there were no marriages before the church existed?  Or are you conceding that marriage meant something very different 6000 years ago, 4000 years ago, 2000 years ago and today?  Because that’s the reality.

Divorce goes back quite a long way before Christianity came on the scene. It is amazing that even that little of history is unknown to you.
And you steadfastly refuse to address my points.

The people have said there is no nonsensical “right” to equate homosexual sodomy with a marriage.
God has in the worlds 3 great monotheistic faiths condemned the practice as an abomination in His eyes.
Thomas Jefferson said the practice was akin to rape. (which means he certainly did not ever intend the Constitution to allow “homosexual marraige”)

So where does this untenable idea come from. There is no historical precedent. The Founders condemned it, the Holy Saints and Prophets condemned it, God (the source of human rights) condemns it, the great philosophers said it made a person lower than a wild beast, and it’s practice has resulted in the death of tens of millions.

The reality is that we are devolving, and anyone with even a lick of sense can see that. Many of the more articulate thinkers on both the left and right have written about that.

You have not offered one shred of evidence to support the notion that deliberate decisions to engage in homosexual sodomy make an ontological being, and have no where provided any reason to think this is nothing other than a fascistic attempt to indoctrinate a society and culture to accept an evil spat out of one of more putrid corners of Hell.

divorce has been around that long?  oh, really?  what Christian countries are you referring to?  and again, you disagree with Archbishop Dolan?

I’ve addressed each of your points, one by one, and will do so again.  Sodomy does not equal marriage, anymore than heterosexual sex equals marriage.  Two people falling in love and forming a life long bond, does.  Religions are reevaluating their views on homosexuality in light of a new understanding generated from modern psychiatry, medicine and science, as well as human experience.  And I’ve conceded that two gay men cannot produce a baby.  Nor can a post-menopausal woman, an infertile couple or a woman outside of her reproductive cycle.

Again, I said, “Divorce goes back quite a long way before Christianity came on the scene.”

“Two people falling in love and forming a life long bond, (forms a marriage).”

That is a definition that you simply invented, and you know that full well. The question is under what authority do you have the “right” to force your views on society? Especially when the people have rejected it every time they have been asked. This Brave New World Understanding that you are championing is simply Orwellian nonsense.

Religions are not reevaluating their views, they are abandoning them. Even to debate this issue is a barometer of just how debased, hedonistic, and nihilistic, the modern fascistic homosexual lobby has become.

Again, if this right does not come from God, if it does not come from Natural Law, and if it does not come from the will of the people, wherever did it come from?

max, again you fail to understand the distinction between annulment and divorce.  what’s more important, though, is that you are suggesting that the ability to dissolve a marriage, which the church, fyi, defines as “forever” is less debilitating to marriage than expanding the definition of marriage to include gay couples in the institution.

as for my “invention” of what marriage is, i suppose you are suggesting that you possess a definition that is more credible.  i’d like to hear it.  please spell it out for us.

and let’s not be delusional about who is “forcing” whose view on whom.  i am not trying to force you to marry a man.  i am not trying to prevent you from marrying a woman.  it is you, and people who support you, who are trying to “force” their views on society by denying the same right to other people.

civil rights to marriage come from the constitution, which has an equal protection clause.  that a number of popularly elected (and re-elected) legislatures have chosen not to wait for a court decision is ample proof of public support as well, as is the fact that it is now the pro-equality movement that is petitioning for votes on the issue in states like Washington, Oregon, Maine and California. 

as for your final argument, gay people might not have always existed in your definition of “natural law,” but plenty of others reject this definition.  you wouldn’t want to be forcing your definiton on everyone else, right?

Again you simply do not have any idea as to what you are talking about. Divorce goes back long before Christ.

And as for your definition of marriage, it is a definition that has never existed in all of recored history, hence pretty much any definition would be more credible than the one invented by the modern liberal Orwellian fascist homosexual lobby.

What you are trying to do is force society to accept your changing the meaning of a word even though you have no right to do so. Ample proof of public support? How many times has it been on a ballot, around 34? And every time the people have rejected it as the utter nonsense it is. What is worse, and this is where the truly black heart of the homosexual lobby is revealed, is that they are trying, actually trying, to force children to accept this. Marching under a banner of utter depravity, they have made the decision to unleash their hellish attack on children. They are actually even willing to sacrifice the innocence of children in order if that is what it takes to remold the world according to their disordered lusts.

Following in the footsteps of Goebbels, the homosexual lobby is using his simple but successful strategy of telling a lie long enough in order to get people to believe it. But “homosexual marriage” is as great a cynical joke as “Arbeit Macht Frei”.

let me guess.  you don’t hate homosexuals either?  but you think they are a bunch of modern liberal orwellian fascists who are blackhearted and march under a banner of depravity using nazi strategies to force children to be sacrificed?
you ignored my question.  do you honestly believe that divorce is not a threat, or that it is less of a threat, than allowing two men or women to marry each other?
and please, for the record, let’s hear your definition of what a marriage is, since two people in love committing to each other is so modern liberal orwellian fascist.

as for your democracy argument, fundamental rights should not be put up for a vote.  that said, the numbers are moving rapidly in the directoin of equality.  many of those battles are already being re-fought by public referenda, and will be won.

And I am still waiting for you to explain your ignorant contention that divorce is modern, and never existed in antiquity. Nor have you explained where you get your definition of marriage from. Since you invented it, that is not surprising. Finally, explain where you think fundamental rights come from? The State has not received any authority from God to certify as good what God Himself condemns. You cannot deny and even concede that every time the people have been asked if “homosexual marriage” can ever exist, they have said “no”. So if it does not come from God, or the people, and Natural Law and the great philosophers condemned as vile the deliberate choice to engage in homosexual acts, then this is simply another invention in your mind.

The federal government made a pretty strong case for marriage from the ADministration of Children and Families.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2011/fh_hm.html

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance today announced the availability of funding for four discretionary grant awards totaling $150 million for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants. These grants will go to help fathers meet their parenting and financial responsibilities to their children and assist married couples or those considering marriage in building strong relationships with each other and their children.

“To invest in the success of fathers is to invest in the future of our children, our economy, and our communities,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “This funding provides organizations in underserved communities with the tools they need to promote responsible parenting, to encourage healthy marriage and relationships, and to remove barriers to financial security and self-sufficiency.”

The Responsible Fatherhood program has $75 million in new funding intended to promote or sustain responsible parenting, marriage and economic stability. The Healthy Marriage program has $75 million in new funding intended for pre-marital education; marriage enhancement programs; divorce reduction programs; marriage mentoring programs; and skills programs that may include parenting skills, financial management, conflict resolution and job and career advancement.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=831

max, you non-hater you.  you don’t understand the distinction between the concepts of annulment and divorce. more obviously, you know that divorce is a bigger threat (which is really what is at issue here), and that’s why you won’t respond.  you also won’t give your definition of marriage.

unlike you, the God i know to be the true God is a God of love.  love is God.  where there’s love, there’s God.  God never condemned those of us whose God given orientation is different from the majority.  i know you think that is commie, pinko, nazi, fascist.  and i’m sad that’s your reality.  you give NO definition of marriage.  probably because you don’t know, can’t think for yourself, and don’t know where to look to find the answer someone else has written for you.  pity.

if your last remaining argument is there hasn’t yet been a majority at the voting booth, just wait.  almost there.

You have still not accounted for where it is you got your definition from, again because I suspect you know full well you made it up out of thin air.

Either all the Old Testament Prophets, the Church founded by the Son of God, all the Holy Saints, the Founders, the great political and ancient Greek philosophers, the three great monotheistic religions, and all of recorded human history is/are wrong, or you are.

The fact is that the homosexual lobby worships at the alter of the power of the State, which they know they must in order to force their putrid agenda on society. I don’t use the term “fascist” as a pejorative, but as an accurate term to describe a group that worships State power in order to destroy truth and reason. A group that is so depraved, that they would even sacrifice the innocence of children to promote their depravity.

And like the German people in the 30s, I have no doubt that more and more people will believe the lies of the homosexual fascist lobby. I also have no doubt it will not turn out any better.

From the link:

“Denial of Reality is Deadly: The idea of marriage for same-sex couples is a denial of the nature of marriage. As a general principle, the public denial of any reality does significant harm not only to all those in denial but to the culture as a whole.”

Even in the face of disease and death, homosexuals did not alter their behavior, and how many tens of millions suffered and died because they refused to stop denying reality?

max, again you fail to define marriage for us. i know you HATE the “modern liberal” idea of marriage being about love and commitment, but you fail to give us your definition.  and again you throw in the nazi, depravity, fascist, sacrificing children nonsense that reveals exactly who you are and where you are coming from.  the future is here, max.  your “when all else fails make wild accusations and analogies” strategy doesn’t work anymore.

Still waiting for you to admit you simply made up your definition.

And, yes, the homosexual lobby worships at the altar of State power. Since you have all but stated that reality is subjective, it is not surprising that this little truth escapes your grasp.

Max, my defintion of marriage comes from years of learning about marriage in ccd, witnessing successful marriages, talking, listening and reading.  i did not go to a book to get a clinical definition of marriage.  apparently, you have.  but you refuse to share it with us.  interesting.

reality is what is.  reason is what can be deduced logically.  and one obvious reality is that you don’t know where to go to get the definition of marriage that you think you are supposed to have.

The definition of marriage comes from the ‘institutionalization’ of marriage following the creation of Adam and Eve, in Genesis 2. It is endemic in the nature of man and woman, this is why the Church is so adamant about it’s position, and likewise faithful Catholics are also adamant. We did not make this up and we are not free to alter it. Even if we try to the Truth about human nature will prove itself. In this case, we are headed toward the train-wreck version of proof, in a number of areas.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

jo…i know you are well intentioned, but the definition i am asking for has to do with a question i was asked about defining what marriage is about.  i gave my answer, incorporating love and commitment, to which max replied that my definition was “modern liberal” (among other things, which I will leave out of here) and invalid.  i have repeatedly asked him to give me his definition, which he has refused to do.

we all know that God made adam and eve—and adam and steve, as well.  most of us accept that genesis is metaphorical and not literal, unless you really believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

I want to thank everybody, truly everybody, who has posted comments on this article.  I came to the site to see what the reaction is of the conservative spectrum of Catholics to the legalization of same gender marriage in New York.  After reading Steven’s initially promising articles that put the blame for the breakdown of marriages where it belongs – on the shoulders of heterosexuals – I began to realize how that kernel of insight was largely ignored in the discussion.  I haven’t seen any references to “radical birth control users” or heard about “radical birth control activists” using “nazi” tactics to “deliberately destroy society.”  Rather, the entire discussion has revolved around the horrors of homosexuality and the still-undefined threat of same gender marriage to mixed gender marriages.

My greatest enlightenment has been in recognizing that, “if these are the best arguments they have and this is the best way they can present them, same gender marriage will be a nationwide reality in the next 20, maximum 30 years, and maybe even sooner.”  Reading the vast majority of posts reminded me of one state senator who changed his vote from “no” to “yes” who was asked by a local reporter what had changed his mind.  His response was, “hearing the testimony of those who oppose it.”

Judges were the first to begin to realize that civil law should not discriminate against a gay or lesbian person who wants nothing more than the right to marry the person he or she loves.  Legislatures have begun to follow suit, and the voters have come closer and closer to affirming non-discrimination in elections.  It will be telling next year to see if the voters in Oregon, Washington and Maine approve same gender marriage, as each of those referenda is being placed on the ballot by PRO-marriage equality organizations.  This is a first.  Whether or not people want to believe opinion polls, both the polls and electoral results show momentum in the direction of marriage equality.  For those under 35, the majority in favor is overwhelming (both in election results and in opinion polls).

Thanks to this site, my own beliefs have crystallized and been synthesized.  Religious laws dictate who may marry whom in a given denomination.  Civil laws dictate who may marry whom in a civil marriage.  Neither have a right to interfere with the other.

Nobody should be denied the right to the benefits of marriage on the basis of their status.  Society stands only to benefit from encouraging stable relationships among both gays and heterosexuals.  Same gender marriages pose no threat to mixed gender marriages, as is already being proven in multiple countries and states where it already exists.

Being gay is not an illness.  Gay sex is neither dangerous nor in any way an illness.  Having unprotected sex, gay or straight, can be dangerous and unhealthy.  The American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association both back me up on this.

And, finally, I am proud to be a Catholic.  I am proud of the many elected Catholic officials who have been instrumental in making same gender marriage a reality.  Catholic judges, governors, legislators and citizens with Catholic upbringings and Catholic values have determined that discrimination against gays and lesbians is wrong and have worked emphatically to do something about it.  I am proud of the Catholic countries who are leading the way in making same-gender marriage a reality.  Countries like Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil (which celebrated it’s first same gender marriage just last week) and the others that will follow.  They, too, have demonstrated that Catholic values leave no room for discrimination.

I am also encouraged by knowing children, gay and straight, will learn that their personal moral beliefs and moral beliefs passed down by their parents are valid.  But they are not grounds to discriminate.  And for those children who are gay, I can only hope they see a future free of, or less polluted with, bullying, discrimination, intimidation, jeering, name-calling, demonizing and all forms of harassment.  The future is already here.  It’s just going to take a little longer to realize it.

From Genesis is the explanation of man and woman created in complementarity, for the sake of onefleshness-to be fruitful and multiply- fill the earth and subdue it. The totality of sexual purpose in general for the human race is explained in these references- let me reiterate, BY GOD. Homosexuals try to twist the truth through discounting what is CLEARLY the mind and heart of GOD on the matter- it is clearly explained in Scripture, repeatedly. I am sorry if you prefer something different- no go.
The same is true about adultery, fornication etc. NO GO. Under no circumstances can a Christian approve of this behavior- whether or not you want to frost it in some concept of “BFF-ish.” No way, never. End of debate. The most the homosexual hell bent on the gay marriage agenda will ever get from the authentic Christian is painstaking explanations from this way until Sunday of what they choose not to have ears to hear. If they truly loved Christ they would do His will-they would obey His commands. Here in these com boxes we get on and on of why they should not have to- nonsense. Hear the word of God, obey the word of God. If you choose otherwise, you bring destruction down on your own head and on your society- for the record, most of us will not sit idly by and sing Kumbayah while you attempt it.

@john: you have won no hearts here. Thanks for nothing. Congratulations on delivering the militant gay activist B/S so well, I have seen no better. You are tireless and truly comitted.

@SDG: Thank you for your article, you have changed my thinking on this matter completely. I have been glued to this com box since you adjusted my thinking, just to read your comments. You are a great influence for all. Thank you, I look forward to reading your work.

@ john: we’ll see.

“militant gay activist b/s.”  but still “not hating.”  only God can change your heart, larry.  i sure hope He does.

jo, we already are seeing it.  and in spite of it, you are still entitled to hold onto your version of what God is all about.  the sky hasn’t fallen. and it won’t.

Romans 1:28, John.  If you thought that the Kingdom of God would be made by your desires you are sadly mistaken. His Kingdom is no part of this world. Flee from what is wrong before it is too late.  It will not be man’s law that you will have to wait for but God’s justice which is equal with His mercy. He has told you what is good and what is evil and it is not for men in their courts to decide.  There is only one place to look for that: “It is written…”  the same answer our Lord gave when the devil tried to twist scripture with subtle reasoning.  Listen to God before it is too late and remember that God says we must be clean to enter the Kingdom of God. And many who practiced homosexuality were made clean: “For that is what some of you were…” It is a grave thing to contradict and lie against the living God.

melanie, i am who God made me, and i am happy with whom God made me. i firmly believe God is as well. i’ll have another look at my splinter if you’ll agree to take a look at your beam.  peace.

“Max, my defintion of marriage comes from years of learning about marriage in ccd, witnessing successful marriages, talking, listening and reading.”

i.e. in other words, you, in fact, simply made it the hell up.
The government in Spain, and the other countries is not Catholic, they are rabid socialists, bordering on Marxist.

The untenable, and repugnant to Holy Scripture’s Revelation of God’s Word, lie that God intended men to sodomize other men deliberate self-delusion, simply ratifies C.S. Lewis contention that the door to Hell is locked from the inside. By your deliberate actions, especially your assault on the innocence of children, your are making the choice to condemn yourself, and all because you refuse to believe that you have no choice but to sodomize other men.

As for your sky falling comment. To borrow from you, just wait a little longer. Tens of millions dead because of homosexual conduct. Perhaps as many as half a billion unborn children slaughtered by your side. Lives ended without trial, without mercy, without compassion. The family disintegrating. The attack by militant homosexuals on the innocence of children, especially in the schools.

All you are doing in making the deliberate choice to pour gasoline on the fires of Hell that is engulfing the moral values of civilization while proclaiming “all is well”.

for all those reading Max’s comments, notice we are still waiting for his definition of marriage?  He seems too ashamed to share it. pity.

and for you, max, what credible source are you citing for your projection of “tens of millions dead because of homosexual conduct” and “half a billion unborn children slaughtered by your side” (are homosexuals out killing unborn children now, too???).  or, “in other words, you, in fact, simply made it the hell up.”

Those who support SSM whom I have encountered generally do not accept that marriage is for procreation.  Given the example of many couples, it is difficult to convince them otherwise.  And that is where we run into a huge roadblock - until we can change views on contraception, etc. it is basically a losing battle.  And I do not see how that will happen - the commenter above was right - the vast majority of Americans do not accept that acts are ordered a certain way based upon their nature.  Everything is malleable and up for grabs based upon our own desires.  The only first principle I can discern among most Americans is do what feels good as long as it doesn’t hurt others…too much.

c matt, marriage has always had more than one purpose.  some people have married just because of children (ie, unintended pregnancy), some have married with no intentions of having children (by using birth control, being post-menopausal, infertile, etc).  love, commitment and companionship superced procreating.  animals mate to procreate.  we elevate it to a much higher level than that.

You have all but confessed that you made up your definition out of thin air. Yet you still want to force that depraved utterly invented definition on the whole of society, including children, thus denying them their God given right to a mother and father.

And since you did not even know that divorce existed before Christianity, it is not in the least surprising that you have no idea how many have died of Aid/Hiv.

And it is the same left wing “homosexual marriage” advocates that enshrined the cold blooded merciless slaughter of killing unborn children on America, and the world. 65 million unborn children in America alone have had their lives snuffed out by you left wing fanatics.

In 5000 years, whenever a Saint, Apostle, or Prophet had anything to say about homosexual acts, it was that it was wanton depravity and an abomination in the eyes of Almighty God. The Church founded by Christ Himself has since the very beginning condemned homosexual acts.  However, according to you, God is actually a supporter of men sodomizing men. That you would willingly drag children down into Hell with you, by using the State to indoctrinate them, says all that need be said about your lack of honor, character, and decency.

for those of you still reading here, notice the post of max, the “non-hater” again.  he still can’t come up with a definition of marriage.  love and commitment is not what it’s about for him.
he still argues that because divorce has existed longer than same gender marriage it is less of a threat to marriage than same gender marriage.
he now blames “left wing homosexual marriage advocates” for abortions, even though he derides them for being unable to conceive.
he still hasn’t checked his bible to find out which greek words were translated into “homosexual” and how none relate to consensual sex between adults.
and here’s the kicker, guys, he’s not hateful, but he says, without ever having met me, that I lack “honor, character and decency.”

A quote from Emerson comes to mind: “What you are shouts so loud in my ears I cannot hear what you say.”

Homosexuality will always be abberant and unhealthy and dysfunctional.  People can do what ever they want in private with discretion, but to bring their perversions out in the open and demand not just tolerance but blanket acceptance and total equivalence is just plain immature selfish and wrong not to mention inherently anti-social.  Clearly those who cling to their pillar of solidarity regarding deviant sexual behavior, clearly have no tolerance what so ever for basic human dignity and any advocation of overcoming our inequity instead of embracing it like a inverted badge of honor.  Things have simply gotten so absurd these days.  It is sad. Those suffering homosexual compulstions have become useful idiots and tools to be manipulated like pawns for the “progressive” agenda.  What they do not understand is that the real reason progressives promote immorality, constant victimhood and liberalism, is because their goal is to break down society so they can justify imposing government control over our lives.

“5 (more) Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=539

Part 10 is now up.          

Nobody is foisting gay marriage on anyone.  Homosexuals who love each other, and want to share the rights and privileges as heterosexuals can now do so.

If your marriage loses its meaning because someone else gets married, then your marriage is a sham, and you should worry more about your life.

Please consider that your bigotry, and it is bigotry, is based on superstition.

If they required you to marry someone of the same sexual orientation then you’d have a beef.

Otherwise, you only have bigotry.

Marconi: Did you read the blog series?

The excellent series of posts on Redefining Marriage inspired me to ask whether or not a lack of spiritual formation is a fundamental cause of cultural decline. Today I published the first of a three part series. http://tamingthewolf.com/2011/10/marriage-and-the-spiritual-journey-part-1/

@Pachyderminator. It is called generalization. It is injustice for fervent Catholics who constantly defend the Faith, to be lumped with milktoast Catholics who rarely try to convert. After performed counseling for years, I find it interesting that the worst thing people do to themselves is down themselves.

If you study Christ speaking to a generation, he was speaking to Jews who were looking for signs: “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”

Only those in the generation that “looks for a miraculous sign[s]” a condemned. This brings it down to the individual level.

You were being incomplete by not giving the full context of the quote.

@Pachyderminator. It is called generalization. It is injustice for fervent Catholics who constantly defend the Faith, to be lumped with milktoast Catholics who rarely try to convert. After performed counseling for years, I find it interesting that the worst thing people do to themselves is down themselves.

If you study Christ speaking to a generation, he was speaking to Jews who were looking for signs: “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”

Only those in the generation that “looks for a miraculous sign[s]” a condemned. This brings it down to the individual level.

You were being incomplete by not giving the full context of the quote.

[The post above was mistakenly attributed.]