“Of all these, the root of the problem, more than anything else, is contraception.”

1. If that is the ‘root cause’ then logically you should be pushing for a constitutional ban on CONTRACEPTION and not SSM?

2. What do gay couples have to do with contraception use by straight couples?

3. Why do you all focus on limiting GAY people’s rights when you really think contraception and acts by straight couples is a bigger problem?

4. And you still have not indentified the actual mechanism by which a SSM couple down the street or across the country, who you do not know, and cannot even name, have a causal effect on the family structure of the whole society.  You have to PROVE a causal effect.  In all the court cases this has never been done.

@dch:
1. First the contraception laws were changed, then divorce was made easier to get, then abortion was ruled permissible, now single-sex “marriage” is the current battle.  To get things back to where they should be, these changes will probably have to be rolled back in reverse order.
2. You ask the wrong question.  Contraception weakens individual marriages, which in turn weaken the institution of marriage.  Gay couples do not hurt marriage, but calling a single-sex coupling “marriage” weakens the institution.
3. The focus is on single-sex “marriage” because that is the current battle.  If we were back in the early 20th century when contraception laws were being relaxed, that would be what we’re talking about.  As it is, even if we were to turn the tide and win the battle against same-sex “marriage”, there would be many other fights ahead of us if we seek to strengthen marriage.
4. Has anyone ever had to PROVE that counterfeiters are a threat to commerce?  If I am arrested for printing my own money, does the prosecuter have to show the concrete mechanism whereby my fake money poisons the money supply in general?  No, he just has to prove that I am passing a fake as thought it were real.  Thing is, you’re asking the wrong question again.  Single-sex “marriage” is not THE thing that will destroy marriage as an institution, but it is the latest in a long line of structural threats.

@ dch:

One thing at a time. I understand your preoccupation with the question of legalizing same-sex marriage, but that’s not really what I’m writing about here. The main concern of my current posts is not what the law should be, or what constitutional bans I would like to see. The main concern is what marriage is, and why society no longer has a coherent understanding of it. In this post my main point is that contraception is a catastrophic evil. I am discussing moral and social issues, not legal ones.

In principle, I believe I would definitely be in favor of outlawing contraception, but the cultural reality is that that’s a utopian impossibility. I would also be in favor of outlawing pornography, but good luck with that as well. Even on abortion, by far our nation’s greatest and most obvious institutional evil, we have an uphill battle. There are things we can do and things we can’t. There is a lot that can and should be done about contraception, starting with bishops and priests taking on the subject and taking the Church’s message to her people, but the notion of outlawing contraception is a nonstarter. There is still a widespread recognition that same-sex relationships are not and cannot be marriage. That’s something we can work with.

Same-sex acts and contraceptive acts are both contrary to the procreative purpose and meaning of the sexual powers. The nuptial embrace, an act of marital coitus, is like no other sex act in the world, and it is for this act that marriage exists. In the nuptial embrace a husband and wife are joined in a way that is not possible with two men or two women, or with the use of contraception. Their reproductive systems merge and form a single reproductive super-system. It is an act with an inherently reproductive meaning. This is an irreducible and essential part of what sex is and what it is for.

On how legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” affects the family and society, I already addressed the economic dimension of your question in the combox of part 1, and I will be discussing further implications in coming posts.

DCH, did you actually read this article? SSM is a logical end to the separation of the pro-creative and unitive aspects of Sex caused by the use and proliferation of contraceptives. Now that contraception is pretty much universally accepted, the idea that sex has anything to do with pro-creation is foreign to many people in our culture.

By removing the idea that marriage is for the begetting and care of children, contraception renders the argument that SSM cannot produce children is moot. Since most married couples render themselves sterile either temporarily or permanently, marriage is no longer for raising families, but rather for the convenience and happiness of the individuals in the relationship. Therefore it is unfair to deny that happiness and convenience for one sexual preference while allowing it for the other. This is the case your side brings.

As far as the losses on this issue on the side of those who want to preserve marriage, the cries of bigotry and homophobia have scared good but wimpy politicians into capitulating. That coupled with a broken judiciary have provided the environment we now have. It should be noted that SSM has never won in a popular poll or election.

Wrong again. 
How can you not see that it is “Abortion, mostly”, and no fault divorce, that has destroyed marriage.
Abortion redefined : Life, Family, marriage, father & mother, husband & wife.
You seem to pay more attention to your movies than you have to this subject or this would not have escaped you. I will give you great credit though for having the courage to allow us other critics to freely tell you what we think. It will make you a better writer and keep you from getting lazy.

@ Larry: Did you read the post? Contraception -> no-fault divorce and abortion. Contraception is the root. Also why are you giving short shrift to pornography?

@larry
“How can you not see that it is ‘Abortion, mostly’, and no fault divorce, that has destroyed marriage.”

Abortion and no-fault divorce grew out of the contraceptive mentality.  Stephen is right.  Contraception is at the root of the problem.

Thank you Steven for writing this. Over the years as I struggled with the Church’s teaching on contraception, seeing it’s link to the redefinition/degradation of marriage was the biggest factor in helping me to understand the Church’s opposition to it. Unfortunately, since our culture still embraces contraception, I feel the battle to protect traditional marriage has already been lost. Hopefully I am wrong. I look forward to reading your next article on this topic and admire your courage for speaking the truth. I will definitely be sharing this with others.

@dch: Please reread Steven’s article. It covers so much more than SSM. It also touches on other factors that have contributed to the redefinition of marriage such as abortion, divorce rates, cohabitation, etc. SSM is just the hot topic of the day. I also see many proponents of SSM refer to gay rights. Marriage is not a right, it is an institution. If it were a right it would apply to all people regardless of sexual orientation, age, relationship, etc. Among other reasons, it is limited to help ensure that both parties are mature enough to enter into a marriage freely.People that meet these reasonable limitations are free to enter into this institution with a member of the opposite sex, even people with same sex attraction. I guess my point is, I have a hard time understanding how marriage is a right.

Abortion is the root.

Steven D. Greydanus: thank you; I’d put part II as superior to part I as you clearly explain the shift in attitude toward sexual objectification.

I think it’s important, too, to address exactly what it is that SS couples want out of a government-recognized institution that is called “marriage.”  My understanding is that the goal is to obtain things like a share in health/medical benefits (particularly in the employment arena) as well as legal decision-making powers, tax benefits, etc.  So let’s look at the goal of providing these benefits in the first place: wasn’t the intent in providing such benefits to spouses and dependents ordered to benefit society by taking care of the family unit?  Isn’t that the reason behind child tax credits and the like?  Outside the context of the family, these benefits really make no sense.  Rather, they become an “entitlement perk” geared toward getting more for less.  Why not allow benefits to extend to any person that an employee names: a parent, a sibling, a really close friend?  I know plenty of people who care for aging parents that have high medical bills and could really benefit from being added on to a child’s health plan.  Again, the original intent of providing such benefits was for the welfare of the family unit.  Take away the basic structure of society—the basic understanding of the family—and any kind of exclusion to such benefits no longer makes sense.

@Larry - abortion grows out of the contraceptive mentality.  Abortion is the ultimate contraception.  Steven is right on the money here.

@ Larry: Asserting it doesn’t make it so. The historical and sociological reality is that acceptance of contraception precedes and leads to acceptance of abortion. Acceptance of abortion does not lead to acceptance of contraception. Contraception is the camel’s nose of abortion.

@Larry - your intention to make sure abortion gets its fair share of the blame is laudable but contraception remains Public Enemy #1.  The #‘s of abortions in our country skyrocketed (to our record numbers) with the arrival of contraception.  If you look at the history of contraception, it was never seen as a means of reducing or to eliminate abortions just the arrival of babies. 

Couples who wanted to have sex but not the baby used contraception and when it failed (as it is prone to due) they rationalized the abortion w/ the thought:  “Well, since we didn’t want it in the first place, tried to prevent it and it came anyways, we have the RIGHT to abort it because we never wanted it in the first place!” 

It is quite telling that the Pill was approved in 1960 and Roe v. Wade in 1973. 

There is also the reality of the # of early abortions that come from contraception itself - the IUD first and foremost and then the chemical wasteland of a uterus from the Pill which makes implantation all but impossible. 

Contraception has led to our horrific # of abortions and not the other way around.  Contraception remains the general of the armies leading the war against marriage but you are correct that it is not working alone.

“Contraception pollutes a marriage in a manner comparable to adultery.” Thank you for clarifying this for me. I think that I always suspected this was true, but I was never able to express it.

If I may elaborate, contraception turns marriage into a socially sanctioned form of prostitution. It turns a sanctified act into a utilitarian one.

What is missing is “chastity”. This word has virtually been eliminated from our vocabulary and the concept has been totally lost. We think of “a vow of chastity” only applying to priests and nuns. But what we fail to recognize is that marriage is also a vow of chastity.

And when we use contraception, we break that vow. Contraceptive sex is not chaste sex, it is not faithful sex. It is self-gratifying sex. It is a form of mutual sexual stimulation where the marriage bed is filled with the fantasies of other partners.

So even the commonly understood vow of faithfulness is seriously eroded by introducing contraception into a marriage. And as we have seen, the “vow” of marriage has devolved into the “contract” of marriage with all the implications that you have described.

Steven, this is an excellent article and you got to the root of the problem.  The whole same-sex “marriage” debate is a logical progression and conclusion to the contraceptive and divorce mentality.  Personally, I would go further back than the 1960’s with the advent of the pill to discuss how marriage has been treated.  The treatment of marriage as utilitarian started long before the pill.  The seeds of the current contraceptive mentality started at least a century before or more and it goes back to the utilitarian beliefs of marriage being a means to obtain wealth and prestige.  Granted, in those times, marriage was still seen as a means for pro-creation but when a sacred union is reduced to a mercenary arrangement and when divorce started to become more desirable (at least in the early part of the 20th century.  I don’t have the stats in front of me but I know that the divorce rate was increasing).

I think we also need to look at some of the underlying philosophies.  Philosophies which started in the 18th century regarding “individualism” and the further need to throw off the “yoke” of a higher authority.  Hence, the French Revolution and their hatred of the Church who doesn’t “need” to tell them what to do.  Its a philosophy that sowed the seeds for many of the problems that came later not only in the political arena but also in the cultural/social arena and we are still dealing with them today.

@dch:  “And you still have not indentified (sic) the actual mechanism by which a SSM couple down the street or across the country, who you do not know, and cannot even name, have a causal effect on the family structure of the whole society.”

Is there a causal mechanism which proves, from the situation you describe, that there is a right to same-sex marriage?  Or is there some right by default, which must be given effect if traditional marriage proponents cannot satisfy the standards of same-sex marriage proponents for what they find persuasive arguments (whatever those standards may be)?  Though that would be strange since the whole point of the marriage debate is to decide whether there should be such a right.

@ Stephen Greydanus:  Great post!  It’s tragic how contraception has fractured the human person in the way you describe.  It’s also unfortunate that the “individual” has replaced “man” or “person” in our society.  An “individual” strikes me as something outside or above culture while terms such as “man”, “woman” or “person” point to a culture in which they live and act.

So, I may have to disagree with you that there is a “contraception culture”.  It seems to me that there is only a fading culture with “individuals” hovering above it like gods.  Individuals (in their mind) are not bound by any duties that a culture would demand (such as the duties of family).  Contraception is just a way an individual can separate himself from the culture.

@stephen, This is a tired old argument. You are just rehashing what others have written over and over. Nothing new here. Forget about when the pill was legalized, and the fact that the more people that take the pill the more abortions that are performed, and that abortion is the ultimate contraceptive. roe v wade redefined marriage not a condom. People wanting to play naughty without consequence did not redefine marriage the u.s. supreme court did. Christian marriage does not exist and hasn’t for a long time. The meaning of father mother life family has changed since roe v wade.  The moral order of life, marriage, and family at the moment of conception needs to be restored. This will be done by the courts and must be demanded by us.

@ Larry:  I like what Stephen says.  Where do I get the materials which he is rehashing so I can read those too?

@ Larry: Others have written it over and over (and pretty much every other commenter so far agrees) because it’s true. Saying “abortion is the ultimate contraceptive” proves rather than disproves my point. First come less-ultimate contraceptives, then the ultimate one. The pill and the condom are the root; abortion is the fruit. You’ve practically admitted it, yet apparently you can’t see it.

You say “Christian marriage does not exist and hasn’t for a long time,” yet for some reason you insist on linking this first to abortion. Yet no-fault divorce made its debut in America in 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade. You can keep saying that abortion is the root but assertions don’t make it true. 

“The moral order of life, marriage, and family at the moment of conception needs to be restored. This will be done by the courts and must be demanded by us.” Alas, no. We have a cultural problem to deal with first. This problem cannot be dealt with first of all through the courts, although there are legal actions that can and should be taken.

Cutting to the chase: I’ve begun to suspect that behind your resistance to the obvious role of contraception in the marriage crisis might be resistance to the truth on this subject taught by the Church. I would be pleased to be contradicted on this point.

@Larry: Steven is right.  Contraception is the root cause.  The real issue.  It is what has led to the mentality that the only reason for marriage or any sexual relationship is what kind of pleasure is taken from it.  I am also appalled by your statement:

“The moral order of life, marriage, and family at the moment of conception needs to be restored. This will be done by the courts and must be demanded by us.”

This will NEVER be done by the courts, the legislature, or the president and it won’t matter how many republicans get into office.  This is not a solution that can be brought about through politics.  It can only be done individually, each heart at a time.

In fact, I will venture to say that we are losing the battle due to our reliance on contraception.  The pro-life movement will get NO headway as long as many who claim to be pro-life also use contraceptives.  They are aiding and abetting in this case.  Face it, we have lost the war on abortion and we are fast and I mean VERY fast losing the war on same-sex “unions” because the entire young generation is completely and irrevocably LOST.  Lost in their gadgets and drugs that brainwash them.  Marriage means nothing to these people.  It certainly doesn’t mean anything to the homosexuals who want to use “marriage” as a club to beat us over the head with.

Marriage means nothing because for years and years, the older generations divorced and contracepted and discouraged marriage until the young “find” themselves.  Meanwhile, the older generation either turned a blind eye or even encouraged promiscuity since the young can’t “help” it. 

Abortion is a grave evil but it is the ultimate contraceptive.  It is what logically stems from a mentality that thinks that divorce and contraception is the answer.  It stems from an extreme individualism that states that there is no one higher to be accountable too but themselves.  That philosophy goes back several centuries.  We are reaping what was sown then.

@stephen: you know the old saying about if a hundred people jump off a cliff it doesn’t make them right. Abortion the ultimate contraception does not make your point, you mention it only once and thats if the condom fails. the condom so to speak being the devil. Once again, abortion only because the courts allow it. You simply do not see the affect that roe v wade has had on marriages, the meaning of marriage, life family etc. nor do many of you combox followers. The sequence of no fault divorce and abortion does not mean much since it is abortion that has redfeined life, father mother, marriage,etc. Your cultural problems would reset, so to speak, once people recognized that a child in the womb is life, the father would be restored, the mother would be restored and marriage would be restored. Again you simply do not see this. I have never used a condom and my wife never took the pill. We agree with the church on this and the pill is so dangerous anyway. By the way I love the movie Thor. But thats for another time.

@ Larry: Thanks, I’m glad to hear it.

You have absolutely no basis for saying “You simply do not see the affect that roe v wade has had on marriages.” Nothing I have said supports this. What I am saying is this: Marriage was already far degraded by the time Roe came; the pre-Roe degradation of marriage paved the way for Roe; Roe would have been unthinkable apart from the prior degradation of marriage; Roe was the fruit of a way of thinking that has its root in prior degradation; and at the heart of the pre-Roe degradation of marriage is contraception and the contraception mentality. I don’t see how you can deny this; indeed, you haven’t even offered a single argument against it.

@Rachel: Steven is wrong. Abortion is the root cause.  The real issue.  It is what has led to the mentality that the only reason for marriage or any sexual relationship is what kind of pleasure is taken from it.  I am also appalled by your statement: ..That was easy.
Condoms didn’t dull our sences, KILLING did. Once it’s ok to kill, everything changed. If we can kill we can do anything. You are not wrong about everything, just on the effects of abortion and condoms and whats causing the destruction of marriage.

@ Larry:  It’s no coincidence that Roe v. Wade came after Griswold v. Connecticut.  Roe relied on the faulty arguments for the right to privacy claimed in Griswold, which established (I always preferred “made up”) the right to contraception.

A country doesn’t wake up one morning and decide murder is justifiable.  It reaches that point after a slow decline, in this case a decline that can be traced back to contraception.

@ Larry: For Pete’s sake. Are you really committed to the proposition that abortion was just vomited up out of hell with no preparation, no gradual steps, nothing paving the way? Marriage was fine and dandy and there were NO problems, and then suddenly out of the blue, wham, Roe v. Wade?

The question you tenaciously refuse to confront is how was Roe thinkable at all? Killing has dulled our senses, sure, but how did our senses get dull enough to accept killing in the first place? You think there was nothing wrong with our senses prior to Roe?

Does a man turn on a dime from being a faithful husband devoted to his wife to becoming an enthusiastic adulterer? No. It begins with smaller things. It begins with looking, flirting, fantasizing—all supposedly “harmless,” because he would never act on it. It moves on to secrets—e-messages or phone calls, a gift here, a lunch there. Over time, what would have been unthinkable starts to become thinkable. That’s how it happens.

Putting all the emphasis on the act of adultery and refusing to acknowledge the roots of adultery is a self-defeating proposition. The same goes with the roots of the dissolution of marriage and the acceptance of abortion.

There are lots of reasons why marriage in this country has taken a sharp downhill “definition” ... no thanks to a pliant media, ever so attentive to advertising revenues and pressures from the top office to take a certain slant and bury it ever so subtly (at first) in favor of position X or Y on any given issue pertaining to marriage.
  I can’t help ignoring one major factor that the media, especially the more mainstream commercial media ... be it in television, radio or in the papers, dares not mention its name: Favoritism to Protestant mores and standards. This is different than blasting the media “you anti-Catholics!” because many of the reporters don’t even have a clue to the fact they’re participating in this perpetuation of Protestant “standards of expectations” for “accepted contemporary American views” towards marriage.
  Because Protestantism separated itself from the Holy See five centuries ago and had to find some anchor of support, its earliest leaders and followers naturally turned to their kings and local feudal lords for guidance. (And were they ever willing to oblige, if not take the lead for themselves, if for no other reason than to participate in what Protestant “nobles” were pulling in other principalities, the big power and land grabs.) Soon the Church in Northern Europe and Britain began to look like much of the ever-changing map(s) of late Medieval/Renaissance northern Europe; quite splintered and atomized. With every man a priest and every king a prelate, somebody or something had to step in and create order: THE STATE.
  This was an especially crucial turning point the cultural history of European society because once all but Communion and Baptism were jettisoned as commonly recognized and and respected Sacraments by the Protestants, especially the Calvinists ... the functioning of regulating marriages fell primarily into the hands of the “state,” be it the local noble, small republic, or the temporary Commonwealth in England under Oliver and Richard Cromwell.
  Since the Protestants comprised the highest number of settlers (in some colonies nearly 100 percent…by force of law, LOL, never mind simple demographics) and the Protestants were the most ingenious at creating order out of what small patches of land they first landed on…guess who by and large shaped the founding legal and civic structure of our growing colonies and eventual free nation?
  This meant, that notwithstanding how serious the local parson’s and the town’s congretation took marriage from a purely religious standpoint ... the earliest Protestants left the door wide open so many years ago to the eventual loosening of our commonly held views that since God had deemed it necessary for men and women to marry and bear children, and there was really no need to make the bond between a particular man and his wife more binding, (i.e. “till death do they part”—they unwittingly made it quite possible, even socially acceptable, for couples to be so casual   insofar as comming to term of what a lifetime committment really meant.
  This has proved especially true in the more socially mobile Sunbelt/Biblebelt states where the Bible remains the sole authority that young couples, no thanks to the loose Protestant (i.e. evangelical) style of church “authority” and governance. Sure, a strong pastor can and more lately, have taken measures to institute Pre-Cana classes like Catholics have been doing for years. (At least these ministers wisely see what Evangelicalism’s achilles heel of loose or no “centralized” teaching authority has left them with. As of several years ago, especially down SOuth and out West, where many young people feel far less committment to their local communities, have also proven less likely to remain “locked in lifetime committments and ‘anchored’ by a kid…” That’s pathetically sad, but true.
  Having been a probation/parole officer in very prominent Central Florida urban area several decades ago, I saw the effects of “no fault” divorce on so many young couples who were also raised in a predominately Protestant evangelical culture where either the state or ... again, culture ... NOT 2,000 years worth of original Christian teachings going all the way to Jesus had steered them. What I saw one day in the halls outside the local probate court clerk’s office one day was terribly saddening, and this was a “rock solid ‘buckle’ of the BibleBelt” region.
  Granted I came from a very liberal New England background, but there’s one thing damn few other regions in this country can say against this small state area, we’re a prominent divorce factory. Why? Many of us hail from Catholic (and old Yankee stock) where divorce was HIGHLY FROWNED ON largely because of the strong and lingering influences of both the tigh-knit Catholic “ghetto culture” and sometimes stifling small-town Yankee Puritanism. Surely , divorce rates have increased, but not to those matching our friends in the Bible Belt where outside of the local church and the Bible’s front n’ back bindings, there’s only the secular arm and fear of costly lawyers’ fees keeping people together. Sadly, “not enough God” despite the region’s reputation of being “so holier” than the rest of the nation.
  If you’re familiar “What! Are you going to let a church, especially one run by a bunch of foreigners, telling you how to live your life? That’s un-American.”
  This country has been since its colonial days, has and ever will be a perpetually Protestant(ized)society and nation. Of course, all citiizens, be they Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim ... all owe their first allegiances to God. Try and convince the majority of Protestants when the rub of “performing one’s expected civic obligations and willingness to go with the flow, get with the program and fit in with the crowd” mustn’t be allowed to supercede our duties to God. After all, when many, if not most of the strongest and most vocal “Bible Christians” are pushing the “U.S. is, or should be, and officially Christian nation” baloney ... even gently reminding them that their predominantely (Protestant) Constitutional Framers…yes, those “originalists” indeed, didn’t want the new nation to be dominated by any one faith…conversations can take an equally sudden downturn as well.
  Even the most “progressively minded liberal” Protestants have been known to pull this, though not with creating any theocracy in mind. Many in this bunch would gladly see every bishop and priest sent packed off to Rome because of our “interference” on abortion, etc.
  FDR was no bigot towards any non-Episcopalian denomination; but he had a keen sense of American history and politics. When his close friend, and Treasury Secretary, Henry Morganthau, Sr.,—a Jew, approached the president asking him to send a fleet of bombers to knock out Auschwitz, deep in enemy air territory—and well beyond Berlin, no less, Roosevelt firmly turned him down, and he was correct to do so on the moral grounds because the risk of bombing the camps outweighed the safety of both our pilots/crews and the concentration camp inmates. Roosevelt, then acting as commander in chief, could not justify the raid, no matter how importantly symbolic it would’ve been for Morgenthau and the many American Jewish leaders who finally received conclusive evidence that the Nazis were indeed exterminating people in camps in unprecedented numbers.
  The camps would’ve been back up in running soon and who knows how many bombers would’ve been shot down by the Luftwaffe on such a long mission. Eventually there were sporadic raids. But it wasn’t worth the risk, and FDR said “this is a Protestant country” ... meaning he, himself, would’ve been impeached, if he sent men into harm’s way to bomb Auschwitz to satisfy a small group of American (albeit influential and genuinely patriotic and humanitarian)Jewish leaders.
  Auschwitz was also a Catholic-killing camp, too. And FDR would’ve been just as right in reminding one of his close Catholic friends the same stark realities.
  As Catholics, we’d like to look back at Camelot and say, “Hey, Jack” proved we’re all part of the American nation” and expect to be respected as equals. That’d be nice. But let’s not forget that Kennedy felt compelled to toss his Church’s Magisterium aside, and his personal life, even while serving as President, was a disgrace. Don’t think that hasn’t diminshed our standings. And of course, there’s the pedophile scandal; that’ll dog the Church long after many of us have left.
  But…the biggest challenge for Catholic Americans is this “otherness” and to be honest, the best way to approach it is to say ... to hell with it and be ourselves. That’ll earn far more respect than any acts of appeasement big and small by groups or individuals. THe appeased Protestant majority will never be satisfied until we’ve completely let THEM turn us inside out to suit THEIR ideal notions of how, where “REAL AMERICANS” should do their thinking and praying.
  One small step all of us can take is to drop the “American” before Catholic, and convince other Catholics over here to do likewise.

To all…an apology for the ill effects of my bad habit of typing too fast. If you see some grammatical whoppers, it’s a reflection of some old lingering bad habits of thinking typing at 75 mph and thinking at 65. LOL.

Exactly what I’m getting at in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Naturel-What-Good-Marriage/dp/1931018588

Humanae Vitae is the key block in the Jenga game known as the Christian sexual ethic.

Steven, I’m impressed and edified by this multi-part post so far. Thank you for putting so much thought into it.
 
Contraception is of course a big part of the problem; but I think we should also make as clear as possible a broader statement of what’s gone wrong. To wit:
 
We no longer understand what marriage is, because we no longer understand what sex is.

I say “broader”, because this misunderstanding goes well beyond the issue of contraception and other non-procreative practices within marriage. It’s rather that our sexual ethics seem to have dissolved, and no one—even many professing Christians—seem to have much of an idea of where the new lines are to be drawn.
 
I keep banging on about this aspect of the issue because I continue to be genuinely unable to understand how anyone can discard traditional sexual ethics—especially if they profess any sort of even halfway-established faith—and replace it with nothing at all…or, at most, an implied belief in the principle “if it feels good, do it”.
 
Is there a philosophically coherent, religious-based (or even religion-friendly) opposing school of thought on sexual ethics to be found anywhere? Anything at all? Am I the only one whose mind is boggled by the fact that, say, an Episcopal bishop can endorse same-sex “marriage” without having even attempted to locate or articulate some version of Christian-esque ethics that justifies it?
 
Or perhaps there *is* some rigorously and comprehensively thought-out theory out there, but my library-fu and Google-fu are just failing to find it?

good response Steven (not Graydanus).  You are speaking about some of the stuff I alluded to in a previous post on the “enlightenment” philosophies.  In addition to what you have said, I also would draw the attention to the protestant idea of marriage being a contract. Again, when one looks at the marriage laws in the 19th century, especially in protestant countries among the gentry and elite it becomes more apparent that marriage was used more as a way to gain wealth and rank/prestige.  Part of this was because for the woman, this was her only way to ensure security.  For the lower classes, it didn’t matter either way.  Both sexes had to toil in the factories for their often short lives :(.  This increased use of mercenary marriage also led to divorce because very often, they were not happy together.  Granted, divorce was more difficult to obtain in the 19th century but it became more easier as the century progressed into the 20th and then of course came the scourge of no-fault divorce, widespread contraception, and then abortion.

P.S. None of the above is to imply in any way, shape, or form that I have always reliably lived out traditional sexual ethics. But when I violate them, I recognize it, and can’t imagine not repenting (or at least dimly perceiving the need to repent) in the end. So I simply cannot put myself inside the mind of someone who, contrariwise, decides to bless and endorse and justify violating the traditional ethics.

Blog Goliard:  very good question.  I have wondered the same thing.  I think that the entire issue of sexual ethics has been highjacked by the secularists, feminists, etc.  Part of that problem has been the fact that the Church is very slow to act sometimes, especially in regards to matters involving sex.  We are reacting more than proacting.  In fact, even the Theology of the Body is in many ways a reaction.  Honestly, I think that in the matter of sexual ethics, the Church has been too frightened to speak about it and as a result, the entire cultural discourse has been from one side: the secularists and those who hate the Church.

Thank you Rachael. One of the most alarming things I noticed while working in C. Fla, was the notorious habit of (male)managers at large employer to divide the shifts of young and hardly ... ready for prime-time adulthood responsibilties…married workers there, even if they had children. After they were taken advantage of, well, if the woman’s marriage collapsed, the usually shrugged “too bad” would almost inevitably follow. It’s extremely difficult to prove, but you didn’t even have to be a TV show actor playing a detective to develop strong suspicions that “company approved” or “textbook managerial reasons” had little to do with the boss’ motives.

Steven, you also are touching upon another factor in all of this: the economic system that we have.  Capitalism as we have practiced it is inherently anti-marriage/family because all that matters is the bottom line: money.  If you are not making them money then you can be thrown out.  Also, look at how wages have been depressed over the years as inflation has increased.  It literally takes two people, perhaps three in some parts of the country to make ends meet (especially in a place like C. Florida where you are).  This economic issue adds extra stress on married couples.  Stress that shouldn’t be there but is because of the harsh policies that many companies employ when it comes to the workers.

Did I not say this yesterday? Why did you blame all the laity when you really meant the uneducated “Catholic light” who do not see a problem with contraception and related evils. I’ll state it again: the liberal media, the academia, the gay activists, and the powerful lobbyists and weak-kneed politicians are more to blame than the average lay person. This article is far better than the first one, which, in fact, was not really an article or even a prologue to one. And you had no comment about my point about NEVER hearing a sermon against contraception? George Weigel was once asked what he felt was the most revolutionary invention of the 20th century. Easy answer: the pill.

@ mgseamanjr: You don’t read very carefully. Please try again.

@Stephen D.G.
5. WASN’T THE COURT ONLY CONTINUING A TREND
TOWARD “LIBERALIZING” ABORTION LAWS BEGUN
BY THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES?
No. In the years leading up to Roe, proposals to weaken laws
against abortion were introduced in most states but usually
not enacted. Some states did add narrow exceptions to their
laws, and a few legalized abortion for any reason, generally up
to 20 weeks’ gestation. But then the trend reversed. New
York’s legislature voted to restore legal protection to unborn
children (a move blocked by the governor’s veto). And in 1972
the people of Michigan and North Dakota overwhelmingly
voted to reject proposals to loosen their abortion laws. After
studying public opinion against legalized abortion, demographer
Judith Blake concluded that a Supreme Court decision
striking down state laws would be “the only road to rapid
change.” Roe created a national policy more extreme than the
law of any state, and it disrupted the democratic process by
which the American people had begun to deal with the conflicting
claims of the abortion debate.

You’ll find most people at the time roe v wade passed did not approve of abortion. So, condoms did not cause abortions either.

@ Larry:
 

“You’ll find most people at the time roe v wade passed did not approve of abortion.”

 
Was Roe met with universal revulsion, cries of outrage, demands for a constitutional amendment protecting life? No? Then our senses were already considerably dulled.
 
And they weren’t dulled only by legal precedents. The courts are powerful, but nowhere near that powerful. Only widespread cultural shifts and shifts in personal behaviors and outlooks could have dulled our senses to the point where Roe met with the levels of approval and support that it did.

@stephed D.G.
6. IN THE PAST THREE DECADES, HAVEN’T PEOPLE COME
TO ACCEPT THE POLICY OF ROE V. WADE?
No. Public opposition to legalized abortion remains strong.
The vast majority of Americans oppose the policy of unlimited
abortion set down in Roe, and most believe abortion should
not be legal for the reasons it is most often performed. In
Zogby International’s April 2004 poll, 56 percent would ban
all abortions or allow them only in cases of rape or incest
or danger to the mother’s life; these cases make up a tiny
percentage of legal abortions. In fact, only 13 percent in this
same poll agreed abortion should be legal for any reason at
any time during a woman’s pregnancy.
Even today with all that condom use going on, people are over wellmingly against abortion.

@ Larry: Food for thought from Pope John Paul II’s seminal encyclical Evangelium Vitae:
 

“But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected. ... despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. ... The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception. The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious.”

@stephen D.G.
9. HAVEN’T MANY STATES BANNED PARTIAL-BIRTH
ABORTION, THE KILLING OF CHILDREN IN THE
PROCESS OF BEING BORN ALIVE?
Yes, but even those laws have been struck down by the
Supreme Court on the basis of Roe v. Wade. By a 5-to-4 vote,
the Court has ruled that even these laws must include Roe’s
exception for the mother’s “health” (without explaining why
her health could require killing a mostly-born child instead of
completing a live delivery). Given the Court’s definition of
“health,” such an exception would make the laws largely
meaningless.
Yes, your right, the courts are very powerful. Have you seen the protest against abortion? try googling it.

@stephen D.G.
Wasn’t that 1995? the pope said that? 22 years after R.v.W.
All the bad had come to light by then. Killing numbed our sences not condoms.

@ Larry:
 

“Even today with all that condom use going on, people are over wellmingly against abortion.”

 
Amazing! So, apparently, neither condoms nor legalized abortion has had much of an effect on public opinion? Maybe I was wrong, then: We were fine up until last week! So, the gays really are to blame?

@ Larry: Note the words “contraceptive mentality.” Not “abortion mentality.”

@stephen D.G.: no I’ve said, it is abortion. You said it was condoms.

@stephen D.G.
11. HAVE COURTS APPLIED ROE TO OTHER ISSUES?
Courts have used Roe to strike down safety regulations protecting
women, as well as laws protecting children born alive
during abortion attempts. Judges have invoked Roe to argue
for a constitutional right to assisted suicide, to nullify federal
regulations protecting handicapped newborns from lethal neglect,
and to demand legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The courts are very powerful. Indeed!

@ Larry: “no I’ve said, it is abortion.” What has abortion done? People are still overwhelmingly against it, you say. So how has it had such a dramatic effect? How can something that people are overwhelmingly against have dulled our senses to the point where we no longer know what marriage is?

P.S. Larry, stop cutting and pasting. Make your own points or take it somewhere else.

@Larry: I do not understand what you are trying to establish by cutting and pasting a steady stream of Q&As; from somewhere or another, nor why you don’t simply provide a link to whatever webpage you’re copying them from.

@stephenD.G.:
Abortion redefined : Life, Family, marriage, father & mother, husband & wife. read the prior post.

@Steven: Jinx!

@blogG.:  if stephen ask me to I will.

Mr. Greydanus,
I’ve just finished reading Part 1 and 2, and must say that this short series may be the best I’ve yet read on this scandalous, but predictable development.  Thank you, and please continue the great work.

@Larry: Roe v. Wade was only part of the process of redefining these things. Remember the mention of Griswold v. Connecticut upthread?
 
Griswold was also an important landmark in the process of redefining family, marriage, and parenthood. And in constitutional law, without Griswold, there would be no Roe.
 
You seem fixated on proving that Roe v. Wade was *the* single solitary inflection point which by itself changed everything; and based on this, you find Steven’s choice to base his account here on contraception objectionable. I honestly can’t fathom the purpose behind this insistent monomania.

@blog G.: Griswold was said to be the foundation for R.v.W..
But it doesn’t kill, R.v.W. does. Lets remember were all on the same team here, minor differences. If anyone wishes me to leave I will.

@Larry: Some of the methods of contraception that Griswold forcibly legalized in Connecticut are known abortifacients. So surely that decision also kills (as you put it).

@blog:  Yes, later it was discovered about the pill?

@ Larry:
 

“Abortion redefined : Life, Family, marriage, father & mother, husband & wife. read the prior post.”

 
Makes. No. Sense.
 
Contraception meets with overwhelming acceptance and widespread use. Abortion, you say, is overwhelmingly rejected. Yet you blame something that is overwhelmingly rejected rather than the something that is overwhelmingly embraced for the cultural sea changes in how marriage is understood and lived.
 
You refuse to acknowledge that the root of the problem, as John Paul II accurately indicated, is the contraceptive mentality. You may accept the Church’s teaching on contraception, but you haven’t yet come to grips with the significance of the contraceptive mentality and how the use and acceptance of contraception corrupts one’s worldview. Your determination to maintain that condoms haven’t changed anything in spite of their overwhelming acceptance is the blind spot in your thinking.

Oh, I would say that in the two-thousand year history of the Church, the institution of marriage has been falling apart way before the invention of contraception (think Enlightenment, Henry VIII, etc). Yet, the proposition that contraception is the catalyst of all the post-modern cancers eating away at the building blocks of a healthy society seems the most logical. That is because it’s all about sexual liberation and freedom for women, liberation from nature itself, to not be bogged down by the biology of the female procreative process. Contraception liberated woman from her natural sexual constraints. Contraception is the ultimate “contra naturam”; the pill is like the apple that Eve once ate, liberating her from the laws of God and nature by making her like God. Contraception alas makes woman like God in the most unnatural way. With the pill, she can now give life whenever she pleases. With abortion, she can end it. Death follows from birth, thus the ability to kill an unborn at will follows from the ability to give life at will, thus abortion follows from contraception.

@ Steven D. Greydanus & Larry

Jennifer Fulwiler wrote this piece at Conversion Diary some time ago. I think it explains the contraceptive mentality very well.

http://www.conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html

@stephen D.G.—-I said—-
“Abortion redefined : Life, Family, marriage, father & mother, husband & wife. read the prior post.”
——You said——Makes. No. Sense.
Well then, you need to keep reading and learning about abortion. Your article is not a complete loss, you make many good points and surely are on the right team.

@ Steven D. Greydanus and Larry

Jennifer Fulwiler wrote this piece at Conversion Diary some time ago. I think it explains the contraceptive mentality very well.

http://www.conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html

@ Larry: Study Humanae Vitae and learn about the devastating effects of contraception. Read Evangelium Vitae and learn what Pope John Paul II was warning about with respect to the contraceptive mentality. Cheers.

You are right…. Contraception allowed for the re-defining of the purpose of sex. It’s primary function in our culture is pleasure and not procreation. This re-defining allowed for Roe v Wade and now homosexual “marriage”. So how do we get back to trusting in divine providence (and having more children) and caring more about the next generations rather than only our own?

Steven. Read the encyclical “On Christian Marriage” (1880) by Pope Leo XIII. It’s available at the Vatican website. It addresses the threat to marriage from divorce, and also the issue of “civil marriages” versus marriage sanctified by the Church.

“Now, those who deny that marriage is holy, and who relegate it, stripped of all holiness, among the class of common secular things, uproot thereby the foundations of nature, not only resisting the designs of Providence, but, so far as they can, destroying the order that God has ordained. No one, therefore, should wonder if from such insane and impious attempts there spring up a crop of evils pernicious in the highest degree both to the salvation of souls and to the safety of the commonwealth.”

@Rachel: Wow, did you hit the bulls eye! Great post! I’m no longer living near the Mouse House, Harry Potterville or the big fish park, not to mention as many outlet stores as there are tropical/semi-tropical plant species. Thankfully, I haven’t lived there in three decades and as the years pass so has any desire to return…except for a vacation. When I was younger, concepts like “right to work” states, etc. didn’t have as much of a penetrating impact on my thick Irish skull as they should’ve. But, my how marriage and worrying about your family’s financial security changes the overall perspective of what the real economic situation is in this country for so many working class families. 
  The more I observed the stinginess of some conservative pols and the effects of their simplistic ideas, the more repulsed I became of my earlier conservative views when it came to dollars and sense. Yes, the pun is very intended, too. Perhaps you may have noticed it beginning around the earliest months of the Reagan era, when it seemed like everybody who wanted to be taken seriously in the ascending private sector was pushing the mantra of “competitiveness.” From Wall Street to K-Street and down to Main Street (er, rather the outlet/retail strip malls bullying over Main Streets, especially with Wal-Mart as their “anchor”… everybody had to prove how much more “competitive” he or she could be in coming up with ways to improve productivity, thus the employing company’s bottom line measure of competitiveness. On paper, why that looks like a pretty good idea, just as “trickle down” with Reagan’s first tax cuts, Bush’s tax cuts, and what today’s millionaires are trying to blackmail the country with the debt ceiling to protect…same old same old, but with far more potentially dire consequences if this game of chicken to preserve yet more benefits for the wage and worker squeezers…it’s obvious nothing has changed; strategically speaking.
  Why? First of all, the people pushing this ever more stressful drive to increase their respective   companies profits and competitiveness on Wall Street were not going to enjoy the fruits of their hard(er) labors. Those rewards were to be set aside for the “wealth producers” of that era, the investors, the ahhhntrepreneurs, as they were so often spoken of in such fawning and endearing terms back then. In the mean time, and VERY MEAN, time, employers were snatching employees pensions legally and using them as leverage on Wall Street during the heydays of leveraged buyouts, “greed is good” Alan Boesky, “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap and a then lesser-known, but soon to be rising n’ smiling future star of the GOP, Mitt Romney. Not only did his leveraged buyouts kill a lot of jobs or sent ‘em packing to Beijing and other sweatshop havens for this new class of parasites, when he later became da guvnah of Massachusetts, during his years in office, the Bay State ranked 47 th in job creation. That’s right … the state with all those colleges and their brainy graduates and the best they could come up with was Reagan Lite. Tasted worse than the original and certainly didn’t help people keep their kids bellies any more filled; notwithstanding all the extra hours Mom n’ Pops had to put in just for that purpose, after their “survival bills” were taken care of first, mortgages, taxes, car insurance, etc.
But we were so COMPETITIVE, just like we’re so “ACCOUNTA-BULL.” (Well, so many employers and their political back-watchers are when it comes to making sure the “business community” is pacified, lest some big loss of jobs is likely to translate into a loss of votes in the next election cycle.
What a wonderful trip the employees have been dragged through after Reagan and Company (appropriately enough to be remembered by ) for the past 30 years and (chump) change. Employers who once never challenged their respective states and towns “blue laws”  proscribing open shop hours, much less so if they owned package stores and gin mills, stopped giving a damn and started getting their state legislators to cave into business demands to change their laws or “they’ll find a state that’s more “pro-business” to open shop. (After NAFTA and the rise of real raw and unmitigated Spencerian “Free Trade” … the big boys of business were off to the races … yep, races to see how many bucks they could legally and illegally , if necessary, squeeze out of their workers.  And I’ve only partially touched on what happened to workers in the retail sector.
I really don’t want to have to describe what’s happening to public sector workers due to the privatization by some states of their prison systems (including the building of debtors’ prisons again!, police/fire, public schools and so forth, all lately it seems at the behest of the brothers Koch, David and Charles in their continued attacs on the public sector and getting their puppet governors from FL, OH, WI, IN and other like-minded ilk collecting public paychecks while supposedly representing and serving the public… through their favored tactics of slash n’ burn budgeting, union busting, and the use of even   allowing their privately built and operated penal facilities to engage in sweetheart contracts with Starbucks and Victoria’s Secret for near slave labor. (Well, the “workers” do get paid, hmmm, a buck a day. Not hour, not piece, but a buck a day.) Boy will that help make the populace become “more accountable” in its daily lives, workplace and learn to shut up, take what thin gruel for “wages” their boss man/lady offers (minus benefits … “benefits?” LOL)
Do you recall back in the early-mid 90’s when a slew of very pro-management “Managing Techniques” books were published by this or that guru of productivity came out? Yeah, they, too were all for putting more “accountability” in the job sites, work schedulesl … but when the emplyees wanted to know   where all the fruits of their labors were really going to because they obviously weren’t getting to enjoy them all, their not-so-“transparent” bosses told ‘em to shut up and be thankful.
Yes, we should all be thankful if we’re not picked up by a privately employed “Traffic Officer” for a minor violation, which upon further “ discovery” turns out to be a much bigger offense thus “forcing the judge” (who might’ve been a counsel for the company that took over the running of the courthouse and local privately built n’ “operated” lokey-pokey) to incarcerate the offending driver to the same pen which will some day have the bought n’ paid for “elected” judge’s name emblazoned on the front entrance. As for when this sorry “traffic violator” will ever see his family again, much less breath fresh n’ FREE air, well…that too is yet another saga in the ever-slowly grinding family capitalistic crushin’ machine’s march back to the dark ages of pre –industrial reform.
Oh, and don’t forget what’s happening to child labor laws, in Maine of all places? On the other hand, should it surprise anybody to learn Maine’s Leg voted to increase kids’ working hours given notorious Tea Party “gov” Paul LePage’s treatment of a pro-labor mural in the state’s “Department of Labor” office’s waiting lounge?
Remember also the Reaganite mantra about local government being superior in quality to the workings of our federal system? LOL x’s how many small town governments we have operated by ideological hacks working on behalf of stealth anti-government yokel politicos and wandering pros sent out by the Republican party and Karl Rove in particular. Yet, even liberal progressives can get into the act, even to cut out the jobs of (town) employed cafeteria workers, i.e., “Lunch Ladies.”
My wife found this out the hard way. Thankfully she belongs to a union which negotiated a two year extension as a town employee with benefits, but she still came up short for her pension which she worked hard for. Not that teachers don’t but in a college town, when a school committee is made up most of tenured academics and other civic minded but well paid and protected area college staffers, God even help the lowliest department and voters, themselves from a snarling and socially snobbish school committee that felt compelled to trash for voting against their pet property-tax override. etc.
The entire department was privatized to save the taxpayers a whopping $120 a year increase. That’s a movie night a month. In the meantime, those women sans enough years saw their pensions stopped, frozen in time at their highest levels (and believe me, Lunch Ladies don’t stress any state or county pension system), health benefits for themselves and their families cut, or left to fend for what the union, or new employer had to offer. Even the union said it understood when some women, my wife included, elected to choose MassHealth. (Anybody who doesn’t have this back up and still sneers “Obamacare” won’t be sneering much longer if they find themselves in a similar pickle. Because I’m disabled, I had to take Medicare or use a different tier of Masshealth. But at least I had two options. What about paying for abortions and “death panels.”  Take a look at your present Blue Cross or other carriers and see if it doesn’t offer coverage for “termination of pregnancy procedures” … and don’t kid yourself … the private companies have been using their own death panels for years to boost their “competitiveness.”.)
Yogi Berra had it down pat when it came to giving us a phrase for using to describe what capitalism has been left to pull on the American family for the past three decades. Ain’t no guvmint, or lokel-yokel guvmint dandy. And ain’t those promises of trickle down leaving you all jes’ tickled with more prospects of being pickled to death before you “reach retirement”, never mind getting to hold at least one grandchild before you all “check out”?
Rachel, some folks who follow this website no doubt think the port-side of my mind has been grossly affected by some Kool Aid I’ve consumed. Maybe so, but … even though I don’t drink anymore, I’d sure as hell take my chances again with Mr. Johnny Walker than take a sip of the Chamber of Commerce’s, Koch Brothers, Tea Party’s and GOP’s tea.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2075859,00.html
http://privatizationwatch.org/

Michaell, thank you for pointing that out, but I’ve decided to focus on the economic pressures bearing on marriage. Yes, I’m aware of those other crucial factors, but contributors have done and can do a better job than I in this respect.

Michaell, OOOPS! It just dawned on me you referring to Steven Greydanus. My apologies to both.

For the sake of clarity, I invite readers to address me by my frequently used initials, SDG. It might also help if other Stevens differentiated themselves somehow (StevenX, Another Steven, etc.).

@steven:
you need your own blog and server. Are you sure you don’t drink anymore?

@Steven aka SDG. See also the encyclical “Chastity in Marriage” (Casti Connubii, 1930) by Pius XI.

“Wherefore, conjugal faith, or honor, demands in the first place the complete unity of matrimony which the Creator Himself laid down in the beginning when He wished it to be not otherwise than between one man and one woman…. Nor did Christ Our Lord wish only to condemn any form of polygamy or polyandry, as they are called, whether successive or simultaneous, and every other external dishonorable act, but, in order that the sacred bonds of marriage may be guarded absolutely inviolate, He forbade also even willful thoughts and desires of such like things.”

@Steven aka SDG. More from the encyclical “Chastity in Marriage” (Casti Connubii, 1930) by Pope Pius XI. This section speaks directly about the issue you have brought up, which is contraception. And it seems that Pius XI echoes your sentiments or vice versa. :)

53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented.”

@ MichaelL: The combox is for comments, not for serial cutting and pasting. I’m certainly familiar with the relevant magisterial and pastoral documents (my graduate studies included Church teaching on marriage and the family, so I’ve gone thorough them all in some depth), but in this series I’m trying to make my points from observation and common sense, not authority. If you have some specific point you want to highlight, feel free to comment with a brief quote and perhaps a link.

@Steven aka SDG. To put the encyclical “Chastity in Marriage” (Casti Connubii, 1930) by Pope Pius XI in historical perspective. The Anglican Church at the 1930 Lambeth Conference gave its approval to contraception for married couples. This was a turning point in the history of “birth control” because up until that point all major Christian denominations maintained a strict prohibition against contraception. This was reflected in the laws in the US where the sale of contraceptive devices was prohibited. This was one of the first battles that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, engaged in which was to overturn the Comstock Law. In 1932 she deliberately challenged the law and eventually won the case in 1936. Undoubtedly the position of the Anglican Church on contraception helped to influence that court decision. This demonstrates how small concessions from the Christian community have been used to deliberately whittle away at public morality until eventually we get to the point that we are at today.

@SDG:  go easy with michaelL, He brings very important and timely information. Just when we thought we had all the answers…....

@Steven aka SDG If I try to provide a link, the spam filter kicks in and blocks my comment. Even though you may be familiar with these Church documents, other readers are probably not which is why I post them. I certainly didn’t post anywhere near the whole documents and tried to keep them to the bare minimum. I’m glad to hear that you have a knowledge of the history of the Church teaching on marriage and the family. I certainly would have had no way of knowing that. My point is that the historic stance of the Church with regards to marriage has been totally consistent. The battle over marriage goes far beyond even the battle for abortion or contraception. Napoleon was the one that stripped the Church of its authority over the institution of marriage and created civil marriages and that was (I believe) in 1804. This was a consequence of the French Revolution which was openly hostile to the Catholic Church and resulted in the massacre of priests and nuns. Again, you may be totally familiar with these facts, but other readers probably aren’t. I know that I was never taught about these things in my history classes.

No Larry, I haven’t taken a drop, not even Communion Wine. Don’t need it, any more than I need Tea Party swill either. Nor do I need to watch families torn apart by busineses that are so eager to talk out of both sides of their mouths in the way they package n’  pitch their products for sale at the middle class ... all the while they couldn’t give a rat’s tail for the struggling middle class employees they’ve hired.
  BTW, nobody says you have to, or need to, read my posts. If you don’t like them, ignore them. While I’ll grant that sometimes I should pull back on the typing ... LOL ... you got me there, what’s your other beef. Ah ... could there be an ideological point you’d really like to make?

Whoa! the only point is how loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong your post are. I certinely did not read it, just skimmed it to find something to zap you on. all in fun, ok?

Commenting so I can receive email notifications

@dch “You have to PROVE a causal effect.”

At no time in history has there ever been a call for same sex marriage.  Homosexual behavior has existed to varying degrees in various societies, but as common as that may have been, it never took on the acceptance and normality as a male-female relationship, and never took on the image of family with children.  These are new concepts in human society that challenge the idea of normal.  Family, the institution by which regeneration of human life is continued, has always been between the male and female genders, and what those relationships produced is normal by nature, common sense and logic.  For what other reason were man and woman made differently, but in such ways they are physically compatible?  They were made that way for procreation and procreation is normal for all species of animal life.  Marriage was a “contract” legitimizing that union between the male and female genders.  Legitimizing it for the right to procreate with no harmful reflection on the off-spring.  Legitimizing it for the rightful raising of off-spring enabling the male and female figures to raise their off-spring to develop normal lives so that they too could continue the procreation in adulthood when they have left the nest and are on their own.  Legitimizing it for the lawful rights of human beings, including looking after the children, when the union between them is dissolved. 

This instinctive normalcy is shattered by the sight of two males kissing each other in a family park as a male and a female would.  It is as shocking as if a man was casually walking around the park with his genitalia hanging out.  As a father of a six year old boy walking in an open family park with my son, I saw such behavior between two late teen, or early twenty year old boys.  It was revolting and sickening, making me distract my little boy as I hurried him away from seeing it.

What two people do behind closed doors is between them and the public has no “rights” as long as it is not hurting either of the two.  But when ones abnormal behavior produces nauseating disgust in public and is demanding the same name of the “institution” developed since the beginning of human evolution that describes normalcy, that has never been nauseating, then that action, in itself, is harmful to the institution developed since the beginning of time for the procreation of the species.

The fact that such a demand by radical homosexuals has never been made in the history of the world before, is self evident of the abnormality of the demand.  No two same sex individuals can ever procreate to insure the continuation of the species.  Such a union is a species of a different color and should not be called by the same name as the union that has historically insured the survival of the species.  The seriousness of this normalcy should not be experimented with just for the self sake of some individual’s selfish desires that produce no good for the healthy, long term continuation of the species.  Call such abnormal unions what ever you like, but don’t call it marriage.  Call it “manige” or “womige” if you like, but don’t call it marriage.

Furthermore, it should not be the responsibility of the marriage institution to “PROVE a causal effect,” it should be the responsibility of those demanding the same name to prove their right to having it.  And that is something they can not do.  That is why no homosexuals throughout history ever sought to be covered by the institution of marriage, nor any society tried to bestow it on them.

I’m enjoying the exchanges here. I do have a question if anyone wants to take a stabb at it: Where in the Bible do you find justification for the use of contraception?

From my undestanding, other non-Catholic Christians (i.e. Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc…) approve of the use of contraception. But, I don’t know how they are justifying it, considering that their authority for what they do and don’t do is the Bible.

It says very clearly in Genensis, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Also, there’s someone in the Old Testament who was stuck dead by God because he tried to prevent his wife from conceiving.

Thanks!

The name of the Old Testament guy was Onan, and the sin I think is called Onanism.
Hope this helps.

@ Rafael: Contraception was rejected as a perversion of marriage by all Protestant traditions prior to 1930. In that year, the Anglican Communion’s Lambeth Conference cautiously suggested that contraception might not ALWAYS be sinful—that in LIMITED circumstances Christian couples might have responsible recourse to contraception. The rest of the camel quickly followed, and within a few decades an entire generation of Protestant Christians had no idea that Christians had EVER had any kind of moral objection to contraception.

Thanks for the response.

I remember Janet Smith and Christopher West talking about that 1930 landmark decision. I’m just curious which Biblical passages they cited as justification for making the change in 1930. How did they arrive at that conclusion that it “might not always be sinful?” Protestants always seem to reference specific - or numerous biblical passages (out of context, of course). I would love to see how they spun that one…

@Rafael The Anglicans just voted on it. It was there “conscience” that told them, guided by the Holy Spirit according to them. See my comment above. The Catholic response from Pope Pius XI was immediate in the form of the encyclical “Chastity in Marriage” in 1930. I don’t know how the Anglicans justify contraception on the basis of scripture. Sometimes it seems like sola scriptura is just a club that Protestants use to bash Catholics (and each other). According to Baptist theologian Albert Mohler, evangelicals have “reconsidered” there position on contraception and are now mostly in agreement with Humanae Vitae. He still attempts to get his camel through the eye of the needle however by saying that it is OK to use contraception sometimes, but not all the time. Well that’s the same thing the Anglicans said in 1930 and you can see how well that slippery slope held up. Some people just never learn.(See “Can Christians Use Birth Control?” and other similar articles on Albert Mohler’s website. You’ll have to search for it because if I leave a link then my comment will get swallowed by the spam filter.) @Steven aka SDG What? No hat tip for my mentioning the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference in a previous comment? :)

@Rafael After doing some more searching I found the official response to your question on the Church of England website:

“By the 1920s, certain sections of the Church were beginning to develop a richer understanding of sexuality. Sexual love can be seen as good in itself, and it provided an essential way for a husband and wife to express and strengthen their love for each other. In the Garden of Eden God had said, ‘It is not good that the man (Adam) should be alone’ (Genesis 2:18). It was also argued that people were limiting their families in order to give children a better chance of success. The debate makes fascinating reading and went on through the 1920s until the Lambeth Conference of 1930. The 1930 resolution was greeted with mixed reactions and read: ‘Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence that the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles.’”

So the biblical quote you’re looking for is Genesis 2:18, which apparently is interpreted as Adam needed a sexual playmate, and not that Adam needed a wife to be his companion and to bear his children. Personally, I think they should have gone with Genesis 3:13 “The woman said, ‘The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.’”

(A search for “church of england contraception” will get you to the page I quoted.)

Steven Greydanus said, “It can be merely recreational. Giving and sharing recedes, and taking pleasure and fulfillment comes to the fore.”
The giving aspect of sex is often glossed over by those who promote same-sex “marriage,” primarily because in a same-sex relationship it’s impossible to use the sexual faculties not only to give new life, but to give pleasure to one’s spouse.  They often think they’ve won the argument when they can show that so many traditionally-married couples avoid procreation, leaving only the pleasurable aspect of sex to be debated.  However, the only pleasure possible in a same-sex relationship is one in which it is taken rather than given.

MichaelL:  it would seem that the Anglicans were trying to correct one error by creating another.  The error for many centuries before was that marriage was only to be for pro-creation to ensure legitimate heirs and that the sexual love/pleasure part of marriage was not necessary or that in some cases back in the Middle Ages, it was even considered a venial sin.  I think this is also why it often happened that many men would have mistresses, etc for their own pleasure.  Also, the disparity between men and women intellectually didn’t help.  The marriage laws didn’t allow for a woman to have recourse in the case of infidelity of her husband, etc.  Marriage was used as a means for security and obtain wealth, etc.  This was an error.  Where was the love?  Love is essential too.

So, the Anglicans, in an effort to emphasis the unitive aspect of marriage, de emphasized the procreative aspect.  Its swapping one error for another.

Seeing how these are your catholic definitions I still don’t see how you have to impose your definition on others.

Nobody is making you have a gay wedding. Not in your home or your church. If you can’t have that in your family, I pity your homosexual offspring.

“he just has to prove that I am passing a fake as thought it were real. “

But you’re still just addressing your reality through your church and not allowing anyone else to put into practice their own very real relationships under their own set of standards.

Again: your religion running someone else’s life.

@ Joseph R Yungk:
 
Marriage was not defined by my religion. Marriage is the common heritage of the entire human race—a socio-anthropological feature of essentially all known cultures and civilizations. It is what it is: an enduring union of a man and a woman as the privileged and socially approved context for sexual activity ordered toward the procreation and raising of children. That’s not my religion talking. That is something that no religion or government instituted, and no government or religion has jurisdiction to make it something it is not.

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. It’s already happening.

“a blunt instrument for punishing wrongthink religious groups and believers.”

And that’s exactly what your church has been doing to us. There are other religions that allow same-sex marriage and you’re clearly trying to control those religions too.

Joseph R: what part of “same-sex union” isn’t natural nor has it been tried in thousands of years of human history all over the world do you NOT understand???  This isn’t a religious issue.  We are talking about the basic human understanding of marriage and family.  The basics of what makes a nation, a civilization.  Why is that so difficult to understand.  As for as other religions allowing it, tell me one that does because I don’t know of any that do.  IF you are referring to certain protestant groups who “bless” such “unions” then you aren’t talking about people who are doing this based on any verifiable Biblical teachings because there are NONE.  ZERO.  NADA.  You won’t find this kind of thing in the doctrines of Judaism (in spite of what some liberal Jews might do) nor Islam.  You won’t find it in Buddhism or Hinduism.  Its in none of the religions.  Even if we were to go into more animist religions, you will be hard pressed to find advocation of “same-sex” unions because the notion is absolutely absurd.  It is completely unnatural.  The parts don’t fit!! Its a simple as that.  It is so silly to call it a “marriage” when it isn’t.  It can’t be.  Please, must someone spell it out for you?  What can you possibly produce in such a “union”???  What?  Tell me.  Marriage is a natural institution that transcends all religions, races, cultures, etc.  Its in EVERYONE of them because this is the most stable kind of environment in which new people can be produced and raised.  Apparently, you and other “same-sex” advocates care NOTHING for the propagation and rearing of children in a safe and stable environment.  You are a bunch of narcissistic, immature people who are so arrogant as to try to re define terms based on your feelings because you feel soooo “victimized”.  That is what you are doing.  Because you don’t like the fact that there can possibly be a natural institution called marriage you want to change it.

It is YOU and people like you who want to control what everyone else does and when we say something you don’t like, you want to slap us with “hate” crimes.  You hate to hear your “precious” attraction to the same sex to be called unnatural.  You keep screaming and whining like babies, like spoiled children every time someone speaks the truth.  The UGLY truth of homosexuality.  It leads to an early grave with no production of life.  That is what it leads to.  That is what you want to shove down the throats on the majority of the population that are normal and straight.  You HATE the thought that engaging in unnatural homosexual behavior could possibly be called unnatural and for this you would want to shut all of us up.  That is what you ultimately want. Its already being done.  First with the schools to brainwash the children which has sadly succeeded.  It disgusts me that you want to rob them of their innocence.

Granted, I don’t know you personally but I’m basically projecting what I have seen of the homosexual lobby and movement.  The onus is on YOU to try to prove why this is necessary.  Why should marriage be redefined??  It is madness.  That is what it is.  Sheer insanity.

There are other religions that allow same-sex marriage and you’re clearly trying to control those religions too.

 
As far as I know, no one, surely not SDG, has proposed trying to control other religions in this way. But the state is not a religion, which is why the only coherent way it has to deal with marriage is in its historical identity as a social institution which deals with a certain kind of union for a specific sociological reason. Other unions, such as same-sex ones of any kind, are irrelevant to this purpose. This is a fairly simple point, and you’re refusing to deal with it.

@ Pachyderminator: Spot on.

@rachel I appreciate that you are trying to be generous and compassionate with your analysis of why the Church of England (COE) approved contraception in 1930. And it doesn’t help in our understanding of that event that the COE seems to attempt to rewrite history on their website. The issues you bring up are certainly valid with regards to sex being viewed as sinful even within marriage. (I think the Catholic attitude towards this has always been more “liberal” than protestants who tend towards being more puritanical.)

The COE however could have easily addressed the issue you mention without bringing in contraception. And in fact the actual resolution (#15) from the 1930 Lambeth Conference suggests the opposite of what you are suggesting:

“Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.”

Notice especially the last sentence regarding “motives” which are not acceptable for the use of contraceptives. These seem to exclude the idea of using contraception in order to express sexual love in the marriage union.

I’m afraid that what may have swayed the COE to change its position is the popularity around that time of eugenics and population control. It could be that this position was taken in order to justify the use of contraceptives in the British colonies and among poor British citizens at home. The opening sentence says the purpose is to “limit or avoid parenthood”. Or in other words “birth control” or “planned parenthood” which are really just euphemisms for eugenics and population control.

Even the alternative method of “complete abstinence” and “self-control” can be viewed as not allowing God to be the one to determine when to bring a child into the world. So even this part of the statement can be seen as advocating a “culture of death” rather than a “culture of life”. In contrast, the Catholic Church teaches that we should always be open to the gift of life from God.

The COE statement twice refers to a “moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood”. This is the type of language that today’s “pro-choice” groups would feel quite comfortable with. You can easily see how such logic can be extended to justify abortion in cases of an “unwanted” pregnancy. And the use of the term “moral obligation” seems to suggest some sort of Malthusian logic; the same type of logic that drives the advocates of “global warming” today.

Larry…ya got me! LOL, Have a great weekend!

MichaelL:  thank you for the clarification.  I was not trying to defend Lambeth at all but I was trying to grapple with the sudden shift in thinking.  I think that you brought up some very good points on this issue and I thank you :).

“Give unto Ceasar”

Civil Marriage:  A legally binding legal contract that provides for mutual responsibilities and rights between two people with respect to each other and to society.  You are right, Steven, in saying the state does not confer the benefit of sacramental marriage on couples.  That’s why gay couples are equally entitled to civil marriage as straight couples, whether fertile or infertile, pre or post menopausal, intending, or not, to be together forever. Whether churches wish to confer separate, sacramental marriage status upon a given couple is up to the discretion of each denomination.

Is marriage determined by nature?

Or, is it for whatever we want?

Civil marriages are constructs of society.  Sacramental marriages are constructs of religion.  For example, studies show marriages, whether gay or straight, are beneficial to good health.  Society has a vested interest in promoting good health—for everybody.  Ergo, society has a rational basis for encouraging marriage.  It doesn’t have to, but unless it finds a countervening, more compelling reason not to, it would be irrational not to. 

And as even Steven concedes, there are no rational arguments that gay people marrying in any way threatens straight peoples’ marriages.  Unless or until a justifiable argument comes along demonstrating some harm to society by recognizing marriages between people of the same gender, there is no reason to deny them the same rights. 

Another old argument that has fallen apart is the notion that society “encourages” homosexuality by accepting marriages between people of the same gender. Science, medicine, psychiatry and even church leaders (broadly) regonize that sexual orientation is neither chosen nor changeable.  It is a status, an immutable characteristic.  There is no evidence to show it is contagious or in any way influenced by societal acceptance.

@ john:
 

“And as even Steven concedes, there are no rational arguments that gay people marrying in any way threatens straight peoples’ marriages.”

 
Excuse me? When did I concede that?

@john This quote is oh so incorrect:
“Another old argument that has fallen apart is the notion that society “encourages” homosexuality by accepting marriages between people of the same gender. Science, medicine, psychiatry and even church leaders (broadly) regonize that sexual orientation is neither chosen nor changeable.  It is a status, an immutable characteristic.  There is no evidence to show it is contagious or in any way influenced by societal acceptance.”

Kids are trying on the varieties of sexual experience and expression the culture is lauding through art and media. While what you mention might apply to long term behaviors- what is happening now in a whole sale slide into Sodom and Gomorah remixed. And the damage to souls in the process- by exposure to perversion in the compromise of their innocence, by the introduction of temptation through curiosity in the midst of an ocean of confusion or ala carte mores- this is a sociological nightmare that I also believe is becoming a political one as well.

I think contraception is a lynchpin for Satan’s scheme of destruction for marriage and his latter days attack strategy against the Church. But I also believe with Michael (I think it was), that chastity and the absence of a clue about this virtue in self possession of the individual is a deep part of the problem. People do not bridle their inclinations when their duty or their state in life or their personal integrity require it- mentally, emotionally or physically/actually, because they do not understand the value in doing so. And because it is painful. We live in a world where our comfort zone is the temple in which we worship our God- Who is often whittled away in His immensity and mystery in order to fit inside it.

This is what happened to the Anglicans. They chose to opt for a more secular means of viewing the situation rather than a position of more profound faith. Just because we think we can control something does not mean that God wills that we assume to. It is a universal Protestant norm that contraceptive technologies are a gift from God through science to be used as effective tools for the management of responsible parenthood. The ends justified the means. At least that was what I understood as a Protestant.

@john:  As a person who plays in and eats out of sewer pipes, you have no credability when talking about marriage, or anything else for that matter. People who play in and eat out of sewer pipes clearly cannot teach us about whats beneficial and good for society. People who play in and eat out of sewer pipes surely cannot tell us whats healthy. Propaganda, like gay marriage does not promote homosexuality, spread by people who play in and eat out of sewer pipes, is damaging and confuses mostly the young. Science, medicine and psychiatry all teach us that playing in and eating out of sewer pipes is a bad choice, especially todays doctors. You would be hard pressed to find a church leader who would agree with anything a person who plays in and eats out of sewer pipes has to say.

What is the problem with nfp?
Why are so few catholics not aware of their fertility?
It is like keeping ones umbrella up when it isn’t raining,and keeping it up until it rains again.
That is what artificial contraception is like.
Where is the sense in that?

Of course, the root of the problem is not really contraception, which has been around for thousands of years, but the Church hierarchy’s open and obvious failure to teach and to condemn. The huge majority of priests and bishops disagree with or, if they agree, are embarrassed by the teaching against contraception. That’s why we in the pews never hear about it. We are now wallowing in the results of their failure.

Steve….You say in the article that when people ask you what it is about marriages between people of two genders that threatens someone else’s mixed gender relationship your response is to ask what marriage is.  I didn’t see anything about how same gender marriages threaten the stability of mixed gender marriages.  If you can explain, precisely, how they would, I’d like to know.

Jo… You are probably correct that kids are more prone to experiment, sexually, now than in the past, although perhaps not as much as you might think.  But that is not limited to homosexuality and does not relate to marriages of people of the same gender.  If anything, opening up marriage to people who are either inately gay or heterosexual encourages stability and, long term, encourages sexuality with commitment.  The church does not have to sanction this, but clearly society has an interest, a right, and perhaps even an obligation to do so. 

Larry….Aside from asserting outright falsehoods about church leaders and doctors, your response is proof positive of the hate that underlies the motivations of so many of those who oppose affording any rights or dignity to gay people.  Can you even imagine Jesus coming up with a response like yours?  Clearly, to be so vile, you have serious issues (and fears) about your own sexuality.  I hope some day, for your own sake, you are able to accept yourself for who you are and develop at least a modicum of self respect.

@ KTF: You would have to live in a cave not to know what he Church teaches about contraception- whether or not you hear it in the pulpit. No doubt it would certainly help if those of us living a life open to life in accord with Church teaching found support there for our lifestyle in Christ.
The underlying reasons for why contraception caught on so well among our people, who knew better, and who continue to know better, are materialistic and control-oriented. This is the mindset: I want what I want, the way I want it, and if I can have that under the illusion that God is fine with it, or He will allow it, then I win! And we live this way in every single area of our lives- why should we think that our reproductive lives will be different?
Where the Church fails to witness to the evils of contraception is in its abject failure to create a family- big family, disruptive children, not all pulled together and predictable - friendly culture.

Here is a prime example: I have 13 children. If I want to put two high schoolers in my local diocesan Catholic high school I will need financial aid or a break on the tuition. In order to find out if I can get a break on the tuition I have to pay a non refundable $200 application fee. After I pay that fee and submit all the paperwork to apply I will find out if I can afford to even do this. How many of you can gamble like that with $200?

It’s not just about money, although the Catholic Church makes you pay for everything- way different than the Protestants. If I take my kids to Mass and they misbehave- which is all the time, someone is always acting out in my bunch, which is admittedly irritating- then I become a target for unkindness, rather than an opportunity for joyful and grateful sacrifice on the part of my fellow parishioners. I know I need to discipline my kids and train them to be reverent, but disapproving glares and the very clear sense of inhospitality toward my not-a-good-fit-here-family do not encourage me to continue to find refuge among a group of people talking out of both sides of their mouths. Nor does it encourage me to live a life of faith according to God’s heart and mind as expressed in His word, regarding welcoming children into my family.
It’s not my pastor or my bishop that hurt me by not regularly mentioning the evils of contraception, it’s the rest of you treating me and my highly imperfect children with disdain, disregard, and out right rejection that have failed.

@john: If your not gay or pushing the gay agenda, my comments are not for you. I find it helpful when dealing with people who promote playing in and eating out of sewer pipes as normal. It brings to the forefront what exactly we’re talking about. Church leaders and doctors who would promote playing in and eating out of sewer pipes as good and healthful are either gay or what is known now as alies.  Cay You imagine Jesus telling two men that it is good for them and healthful to play in and eat out of sewer pipes? Clearly, it is not vile, painfully honest maybe, any you confuse playing in and eating out of sewer pipes with sex.

@john: The bottom line for any Christian is that homosexual acts are an abomination to God and the persistent participation in such acts is a disqualifier for eternal salvation. I did not make this up- it is written in Scripture just about that clearly stated, word for word.
Now, if we as a nation, cultural group etc. sanction by law, what God has condemned then what will the result be, in addition to complicity in the demise of the eternal well-being of misguided souls following a path contrary to what God has said? We can jump through hoops all day long to try to make this understandable to people who do not want to accept what is revealed and charity demands that we try to help it be more understandable on every possible level, but when it comes down to it- the fact is that God has condemned homosexual acts and called them a perversion- that is a degree farther from Him than adultery or fornication which are grave sins, but still behaviors consistent with human nature. From a Biblical perspective homosexuality as a persistent state of behavior is one of those wipe-you-all-off-the-face-of-the-earth kinds of abberrations, like abortion which is the same as throwing your children in the fire as sacrifices to idols. These things destroy people’s souls, their bodies, their lives, and their societies. The evidence is out there in history and in statistics if you are willing to go look at it.
Where does that leave the same sex attracted? Cursed and rejected by God? NO. Called to a profound life of sacrificial chastity and dedication to Christ, through which the evils that run rampant in our world can be unravelled by heroic virtue.

Larry, again, your response speaks volumes about your own internal conflicts with your own sexuality.  That you would compare any part of the human body with sewer pipes underscores the depth of your fears and distaste for the human body.  Do you consider the penis to be a “sewer pipe” as well? 

I gather from your struggles with grammar and spelling that you have not had the luxury of a decent education. While that makes me sympathetic to you, it does not excuse the outright venom that possesses your soul.  I would encourage you to read your own posts to your priest.

@john:  My post are made in front of god and the world to see. As you seem to be promoting playing in and eating out of sewer pipes as normal, shows Your internal conflict with what sex is. And no the penis is not a sewer pipe and also does Not belong in one either. Thanks for catching the spelling errors, you obviously have a great education. To bad they didn’t teach common sense.

Jo…Any Catholic priest that I have ever spoken to about sexual morality, and it’s been many, would refute your claim about homosexuality being “a degree further” than adultery, masterbation, contraception or fornication.  To the contrary, I have always heard that church teaching on sexuality is consistent and equally applicable to every sexual act outside of marriage.  I also don’t understand how you can support your assertion that homosexuality is somehow less consistent with human nature.  It has been around and a part of the human experience in every society.  The only thing that has changed is our understanding of homosexuality as it has come to be viewed by psychiatry, science, medicine and even many religions as an innate characteristic rather than a disease or disorder.

You might also want to take a closer look at what scripture says about homosexuality.  If you read the footnotes in the Catholic bible to the three references often cited as proof of condemnation of homosexuality, you will see that “homosexuality” is the word used to translate the Greek word “catamite.”  A catamite is an adult male who has sex with an underage male prostitute.  This obviously is no comparison with consensual sex among adults.  If you want to apply old testament standards, read through the litany of “abominations” listed among homosexuality—including wearing blended fabrics and long dismissed dietary restrictions. 

Again, religions may differ on the morality of contraception, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, etc.  But civil law should not discriminate or interfere.

Again, Larry, your tone, illogic and inconsistency speak volumes.  You’ve succeeded in proving my point.  Thank you.

In promoting playing in and eating out of sewer pipes as normal, you have No Point. Just an agenda.  Your denial of truth speaks volumes of your logic.

In fact, truth is winning out.  That is your biggest fear.

@john: Well at least your honest about your playing in and eating out of sewer pipes as normal, agenda. I have no fear, God will set this right. I completely believe that.

Yes, God is setting this right.  And I am grateful for that.  I’m glad we agree.

@john: We DO NOT agree.

We agree God is setting this right.  Fundamentelly, that is the unity binding together all Christians and believers.  We have nothing to fear.  God’s love, God’s truth prevails.

@ john- the civil law should not defend and institutionalize that which is objectively unlawful according to natural and moral law. This is clearly explained over and over again by the Church, that is the point. All homosexual acts are immoral, and marriage has nothing to do with homosexual acts- they are completely incongruent topics.
We are not talking about protection from dragging you out into the public square to be tarred and feathered because someone filmed you via webcam in a homosexual act, punishing sexual sins by law is never going to happen in the United States of America, although there are laws against them on the books in many places. The worse anyone gets on that score is front page headlines for weeks on foxnews.com.  Anyone who chooses to practice a sexually immoral lifestyle will visit the consequences on his or her own head.
The problem here, regarding homosexuality, is in forcing a whole society whose basic moral fabric decries (for good reason) homosexual acts as unnatural and immoral in general, whether you debate he definitions of words and phrases to death or not.  For Catholics, this is condemned and clearly explained in the Catechism, for Protestants see Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6, 1Timothy 1 etc.

To suffer punishment according to law for acting according to what is normative, moral and upright according to God is what the redefining of marriage along these lines means for the heterosexual majority -this is an oppression of the majority for the sake of not only a minority, but a morally repugnant, socially subversive minority. I use these terms based on the histories of societies that sanctioned homosexual behavior as one more choice among many.

Jo…any religion can define, for itself, what constitutes “natural” and “moral” law.  Putting aside, for a moment, the church’s difficulty in articulating this conclusion successfully in public debate (yes, it has repeated it’s conclusion over and over again, but it’s arguments keep shifting around all over the place), the bigger issue is whether the church can impose the same standards on all people in civil law.

Again, the scripture you site does not refer to consenting adults.  Nor does the Catechism supercede scripture. 

I am also at a complete loss as to how anybody is oppressing the majority.  Nobody is forcing straight people to marry people of the same gender.  Noone is denying straight people the right to marry.  You also seem quick to condemn a minority as being “socially subversive,” though I fail to see how wanting equal access to a conservative institution constitutes being “subversive.”  Perhaps you can help me understand by specifying an example of a society that sanctioned homosexuality in a way that justifies your assertions.

@john:  See what happens when you play in and eat out of sewer pipes? Simple things escape you completly. Wrongs are rights, rights are wrong, and some how we agree when nothing could be further from the truth. You may want to lay off the fecal diet and see if that helps.

If you disagree that God is setting this right, then I don’t understand how you can be a believer.  Perhaps it is your diet, whatever that may be, that needs some adjustment.

God will set it right, but not the way people like you who play in and eat out sewer pipes believe. You would probably be able to understand if you would lay off the fecal diet. But you can’t, it what you have become. Dare I say it—-Fecal Man!

There is no more obvious admission of defeat than resorting to name calling.  Thanks!

@Jo Flemings on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 10:44 AM
Not sure why you decided to attack me. I don’t live in a cave, although my house sometimes looks like one because I have nine children.
Ask Catholics who go to Mass every Sunday - the practicing Catholics - and I bet 90 percent will tell you they sincerely believe the Church has changed her teaching on contraception. And they are allowed to live in their error because my pastor and yours, my bishop and yours, never preach about contraception. They don’t preach about it because they don’t agree with Church teaching, or are embarrassed or afraid to proclaim it. When is the last time you heard a homily in a parish Mass against contraception? Never. When was the last time a couple who has been sterilized - and such sterilization is publicly known, because they brag about it - has been denied Communion. Never.
Until preaching and sanctions occur, Catholics will continue to act like the rest of the population.

Jo and KTF:  St. Francis used to admonish his friars to “preach the Gospel constantly, use words only when necessary.”  If the two of you are leading happy, enviable lives with large families, other people will see this and want to emulate you.  Your joyful witness is far more powerful than instructions from the pulpit.  Based on your comments and interaction, the only witness against contraception that I see is “misery loves company.”  I can’t help but think your desire to hear anti-birth control sermons is less about concern for the souls of those who use it, and more about needing affirmation for the choices you have made in your own lives.

@KTF- first of all I apologize to you for making your post an impetus for my pet peeves. I am sure we have similar first hand experiences of the moral sufferings wrought in the midst of the Church by contraception in our society. I still take issue with the cure coming through decisive action on the part of our leadership- and that is because I live in an area where my pastors and bishops are very regularly vocal about Church teaching on contraception, and they are especially outspoken about abortion and other life issues. We have a really strong support in our area for women in crisis pregnancies as well. But the subculture in the parishes still caters to the norm in our society- meets the needs of the typical two child family- not, the five to eight child family. (I think I can safely assume that there would be a mean of five to eight children in the average American Catholic family if we did not have contraception.) And there is an undercurrent of expectation that if you have all those children you should be able to control a) yourself, b) them, c) your finances d) your time - commitments to volunteer at the parish and e) your obligation to educate your children -all according to what everyone else (i.e. the two child crew) is also doing or you have no business having them in the first place-( and therefore we have NFP). This is the marriage of the contraceptive mindset and the current parish climate- and it does damage to the women with children who cannot keep up with this expectation by driving them away from frequenting the Church- whether it be attending Mass or any other activity. When we remove the young mother and children from the community because they are bugging us or when we allow only the narrow sliver of this group that can conform, honor and inclusion in activities, we effectively hamstring the future.
I hope my whine is just my own experience and more because I am substandard in how I live this out, all true—but I am afraid it might not be the case- and that there is a very real hostility amongst the faithful toward women with little kids at Church, when they do not keep silence and decorum as we prefer so we can pray in comfort.
Between the social rigidity in Church and the cultural pressure to focus on our exterior appearance and outside the home achievements, few women will find support and courage to build joyful family lives, whether two children or ten, that are well integrated into the Church and make a difference in our society for the Truth of following Christ without reserve.
But I think I have taken the issue way far afield of what the topic of this article was initially. Probably past time for me to back away….

John, why do you want to get married?

The real tragedy is that some will actually find an excuse to say others belong in the “sewer pipes” because they believe their love is valid.

Sorry but this is not Christian. The real harm is putting others in an inferior category because of your religion.  This is what is shown here and this is what has been inflicted on gays whether we act on it or not. No matter how much one argues “tradition” it still comes back to your pope.

You can say this stuff but you have absolutely no right to blame gays for abortion or set legislative policy based on your dogma.  Nor do you have a right to diagnose or prescribe lifelong treatment on others.

If any of you put yourselves in the position of a homosexual growing up with your church’s teaching you would fight it. “Chaste” homosexuals are very rare for a reason—it’s unfair and not doing you harm.

“’Chaste’ homosexuals are very rare for a reason . . .”  Chastity, like charity, is a virtue that must be cultivated from an embryonic form to full maturity.  As you can tell from the expanding waistlines of Americans they have a difficult time moderating any appetite.  Soon you’ll need to redefine what the word “obese” means and then you’ll be able to opine that “appropriate weight people are very rare for a reason.”

@joseph yungk:  We don’t say that others belong “in sewer pipes”. I say that is where they play in and eat out of. And, it Is Very christian. I detail your “sin” or explain your misguided behavior. Thats tough love brother. To deny the truth of it all and to lie to you would be an even greater sin. I’m sorry you hate the truth and God’s teaching. We did not write the bible ourselves, it was us and God. So called gay marriage in not merely tradition. But you know all this already, it always rehashing the same old tired gay militant arguments. Homosexual life is always chosen, you will argue that. etc.etc.etc. As for the Pope, I hope in the near future he will call the church to get out of their comfort zone and into the streets. Marching, blocking traffic, peaceful but firm in conviction and results. So called gay marriage must be banned. This is not out of hate, but love. I know you have been given over to a reprobrate mind and can no longer yourself see what you are doing. You and your militant teachings must be stopped. It’s a new type of battle that as always, it’s the christians who will pay for with their lives and fortunes.

“We don’t say that others belong “in sewer pipes”. I say that is where they play in and eat out of.”

Please tell me how this is treating homosexuals with “dignity and respect”.
Otherwise anyone can see how abusive and contradictory this is.

by the way, regarding “We did not write the bible ourselves, it was us and God.”

You have absolutely no right to legislate that into my life since it’s a religious standard interpreted by your religious clerics-not mine.

Mr. Yungk,

SDG has already addressed the fallacy that this is a matter of a religion imposing anything on you. How about engaging the argument? Posting the same assertion again is not going to convince anyone.

Joseph R Yungk: you and a group of others have made an idol of orgasm declaring it an end in itself rather than what it truly is: an aid to reproduction.  You have no right to attempt to foist your non-understanding of biology on anyone else.

stilbelieve:  Though you might not intend it to be so, asking that question is inherently insulting in that it implies the reasons gays and lesbians might want to get married would differ from that of heterosexuals.  It’s no different.  Gay and lesbian couples want to marry to make a commitment to the person they are in love with in front of God and their families, to create a family of their own, to be ready for whatever life God may send (whether children or otherwise), to enjoy the same civil rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, whether it be the right of a non-US citizen to automatically get a green card, being considered “next of kin” without hassles, sharing in government benefits such as social security, filing joint tax returns, and any number of the other 1000+ civil benefits accorded married couples.

Now I have a question for you, and for Steven:

How, exactly, would the marriage of your brother and his husband in any way threaten the stability of YOUR marriage or, if you are not married, discourage you from doing so?

“You have no right to attempt to foist your non-understanding of biology on anyone else.”

Actually I have every right to speak. I don’t have any right to “foist” anything on anyone. Neither do you by that same reasoning. And nor does your church. Therefor by your own logic your church has no reason to legislate my personal life.

By the way, there’s more to the biology of orgasm than strictly reproduction and I’m not sure when I was ever addressing that here. But you’re free to try not ejaculating for a few decades and let me know what your doctor tells you. Either way it’s still my personal choice based on my beliefs.

joseph: word to the wise…don’t waste your time with larry.  his repetitive, vile responses betray his underlying mental illness.  sadly, i strongly suspect it has much to do with his repressed homosexuality. 

if you notice, although most people here share his view on marriage equality, not one is jumping in either to defend him or concur with his rhetoric.

and kudos on your biology response.  isn’t it ironic that someone would try to inject science into an argument where science, medicine and psychiatry all have concluded the exact opposite of their assertions?

“By the way, there’s more to the biology of orgasm than strictly reproduction . . .”  No, there is not and therein is the problem: lies spoken as truth.  A man who tries to insemination another man is no different than a man who tries to inseminate a child: willful misuse of his body combined with sexual objectification of another human.

@Yjungk: Careful your hatred and bigotry is starting to show.  Also, just by telling you that playing in and eating out of sewer pipes is unhealthy, unnatural, definately a wrong use of both organs and immoral is tough love,  and all the dignity and respect any and all fallen and misguided human being deserves. Lieing to you and telling you that playing in and eating out of sewer pipes is good would be a great sin. You simply cannot see it, and neither can any of your militant gay doctors, lawyers, and specialists and internet bloggers. There is a giant wall between you and people who believe in the teaching of the church, you simply cannot see that either. And you will win no hearts here I guarantee it.

I’m at a loss as to what post of mine reflects hatred and bigotry but when I’m told I’m eating out of the sewer I can say that the person telling me such is indeed hateful and bigoted.

if this is the quality of your doctrine it has no use in U.S. legislation or a Christian organization of any kind.

john

I found this useful as now we can all, without question, see where the hate is actually coming from.

SteveP:  So if sex is only about reproduction, I presume you oppose marriage for post-menopausal women and infertile couples and oppose sex outside of a woman’s monthly reproductive cycle?  Where does the church make this argument?  (And FYI: even the highest authorities in the church have rejected your analogy of consensual sex between adults and sex between an adult and child.  There are completely separate processes and consequences for priests who engage in sex with adults as opposed to priests who have sex with children, because there is no comparison what-so-ever.)

Larry:  How many hearts do you think you’ve won by making sacreligious and disparaging comments about the human body? Logic, kindness and witness change hearts and win out.  Look which direction society is moving.  That might tell you something about where hearts are moving.

well said, SG

John: Re-read SDG’s article as your question is addressed therein.  Note that human females who are past menopause can be fertilized but is it not likely the zygote will implant unaided.  As you know from your secondary school biology class, males do not produce ova and children do not produce ova (females start near the first menstruation): A man who tries to insemination another man is no different than a man who tries to inseminate a child: willful misuse of his body combined with sexual objectification of another human.

@JR Yunk: The church not only has the right, even more than you, it has a duty to Teach, the world Gods teaching. One of those teachings just happent to be Do Not play in or eat out of sewer pipes. Again thats not hate, thats love. You’ll have to show us a legitimate non militant homosexual activist groups finding that tells us different.  By the way, the bible tells us to subdue the earth. Thats not just the fields the cows and fish. It’s the whole earth. It would include towns, countrys and governments. I’m sure God would have us teach everyone, including the fallen misguided and sewer worshipers, drug addicts, pedophiles, murders, thieves, etc.etc.. You will continue to call good bad and bad good, you simply cannot see that your wrong. Jesus died on the cross for all, even the misguided, but we also have to change, and live right.

SteveP:  Are you a stand-up comic?  You think anyone half way rational is going to buy the argument that producing zygotes constitutes procreation? Have you ever attended the baptism of a zygote?  And you still haven’t addressed the issue of infertile couples or sex during the infertile period of a woman’s cycle. 

Larry:  Keep ‘em coming, God bless you.  Nobody proves my point better than you.

Thank YOU and I will.

Yes, Joseph.  Could there be any more ample proof of what’s really behind anti-marriage equality forces?  Equating consenting adults with an adult and child, calling the human body a sewer (which, presumably, applies to the bodies of heterosexuals who engage in the exact same sexual activity), insisting it’s just right because they are sure they know exactly what God thinks, name calling, suggesting equality poses a burden on them, as if their (apparently delicate) marriages are going to fall apart because gay people are getting married?  I came to this site only because I was interested in seeing how people with different views were reacting to marriage equality in New York.  What an eye-opener to see what the other side is really all about!

John said: “You think anyone half way rational is going to buy the argument that producing zygotes constitutes procreation?”  I’d recommend a remedial course in biology – your local community college or continuing education extension is likely to have suggestions.  The common terms of progression are gamete, zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, child, youth or adolescent, young adult, and adult.  A procreation cycle is complete adult-to-adult.  That is, you have not procreated until you have grandchildren.  As you can see, a same-sex pseudo-copulation is never procreative: consent can never turn an ovum into a sperm or vice versa.

Thanks, Steve.  I stand corrected.  Ever been to the baptism of a gamete?

And I still don’t see any response to the question about infertile couples or women outside their reproductive cycle.  Face it.  Sex isn’t only about procreation.  Nor is procreation the primary basis of sex, love and commitment.  Sometimes it results in babies.  More often, it does not.

The ancient Romans had several forms of marriage, although all were considered “marriage.” There was the form in which two people, often freed slaves, started living together and announced (to whomever might care) that they were “married.” It was an easy-come-easy-go form of marriage. At the opposite extreme, there was the most solemn, official “til death do us part” type of marriage that often involved a contract and the exchange of cash and real estate, which united not just the couple, but the two families. This was also considered a form of “marriage.”

It would appear that now in the West, we have entered a phase of history in which we have come to recognize that we, too, have several forms of marriage-like unions, all of which are considered a form of legal “marriage” and / or domestic partnership.

There will always only ever be, however, one form of solemn, life-long, sacramental espousals within the Catholic Church and her sister, the Eastern Orthodox Church; these will always be reserved to one consenting man and one consenting woman who promise to be true to one another always.

Marion, you may or may not be right about the future of marriage in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.  Clearly, to date, the Catholic church has, at least linguistically, maintained it’s opposition to divorce (the Eastern Orthodox church has not).  My sense is the evolution will continue, one way or another, but I could be wrong.

Thank you, though, for eloquently distinguishing between civil and religious marriages.  Neither should have the right to impose it’s definition of marriage on the other. That’s the crux of the argument of those who favor civil marriage equality.

John: again I refer you to the article’s seventh and eighth paragraph in addition to the biological reality of male and female.

SteveP, And again, I don’t see anything indicating tangible harm to straight marriages.  And again, not all straight couples are biologically capable of making babies.  And again, no one seems to be advocating the outlaw of civil divorce and remarriage.

Since you seem unable to articulate a response with your own words, why don’t you cut and paste the precise language you are referring to that demonstrates tangible harm?  Maybe I’m not reading the right section.

John said: “That’s the crux of the argument of those who favor civil marriage equality. “ Which is, of course, yet another untruth; the idea is to create equivalence between a male-female pairing and a male-male pairing or a female-female pairing.  One of the old-fashion phrases for male-female copulation was “to make love.”  Those dumb folks in olden times knew that what moderns call “sex” really produces a child: an embodiment of love which lives on separate from but in addition to the male and female; binary becomes triune.  “Marriage equality” folks insist there sterile acts are also “making love” but there is no objective evidence.  Indeed there is a deep confusion that produces sentences like: “Sex isn’t only about procreation.  Nor is procreation the primary basis of sex . . .”

John: you asked a question; I referred to the article as an answer.  Now you are asking a different question.  The answer is: marriage is for pair-bonding—human biology is quite clear on what happens and why it happens.  Homosexuals cannot pair-bond.  Tolerance of age-appropriate friendships which may have been inappropriately eroticized is adequate.  Finally, see Franke’s NYT article regarding the danger of same-sex marriage to homosexuals.

SteveP:  I am still at a loss as to why you have to rely so heavily on the words of others, rather than just saying what it is you want to say.

With respect to what you do seem to be saying on your own, there is no requirement that couples have to have sex after getting married.  There is no requirement that couples be biologically capable of making babies.  There is no requirement that couples have to desire to make babies to get married. If the church wishes to define sacramental marriage one way, it may.  If civil society elects to choose a different definition, it may.  My point is that civil marriages among gay men and women in no way infringe upon or interfere with sacramental marriages.  People who wish to think of marriage as you define it, may continue to do so.  No one is stopping them.

To respond to your comments about “sterile acts,” I know for a fact infertile people can make love.  My aunt, who had an emergency hysterectomy in her early 20s, prior to marrying, was never told by her priest that she was somehow barred from marriage because she was capable only of “sterile acts.”  The priest knew she couldn’t have children, as he was one of the people who was instrumental in counseling her through the ordeal.  The marriage lasted until my uncle died—over 40 years later.  She’s never had a problem understanding why gay people want to marry.

@john - As a militant gay activist you plenty well know the importance of using others words to advance your gay agenda. But unlike the church you don’t have history, natural law, or common sence to back you up. Like I told you earlier, you’ll win no hearts here. Why don’t all of you gay activist or like I like to call you “Poop Troop”, just take a hike. Remember, playing in and eating out of a sewer pipe is a bad idea, there is no denying that. And you haven’t refuted it. LOL

because the more we read and respond to comments like yours, the more we realize just how hollow the argument against marriage equality is. notice how not even people who oppose marriage equality are in any way coming to your defense?  that should tell you something.

John: A sterile act, for example, is a man trying to inseminate another man or a man trying to inseminate a child.  I’m not sure you have comprehended SDG ‘s article: I’m suggesting nothing different.  It is interesting, however, that you want to call the former act a marriage but the latter act a crime.

Um, do I really have to explain to you that the crime of an adult having sex with children isn’t about insemination, it’s about the inability of a minor to form consent to a sexual act?  You really don’t understand that?

Apparently, you cannot make any more sense of the article than I can, as you refer to it without trying to decipher it’s convoluted argument.  And for the record, a man has no greater chance of success trying to inseminate a woman without ovaries than he would another man.  That, too, should be obvious.

@john
“Gay and lesbian couples want to marry to make a commitment to the person they are in love with in front of God and their families, to create a family of their own, to be ready for whatever life God may send (whether children or otherwise)”

First, if I understand your reasons for wanting to be married, you consider marriage a means that expresses your feelings for another in a spiritual and religious context that provides an opportunity for a life long commitment in which God can work.

@john
“…to enjoy the same civil rights and benefits as heterosexual couples…”

Second, you also consider marriage a matter of qualifying for state created contractual eligibilities.

@john
“… being considered ‘next of kin’ without hassles….”

Third, you want cultural and societal recognition and acceptance.

Did I understand you correctly?

You have some of the gist, though I would not quite word your summation the way you do.  You’ve missed a few details, but yes, those are among the highlights. 

Fundamentally, my desire is to have access to the same civil rights, benefits and responsibilities civil marriage affords heterosexual couples. The religious aspect is more personal and is already an option.  There is no shortage of priests willing to perform sacramental marriages for same gender couples.

If my argument is hollow I hope people jump down my throat. Surely I want to know. I do not lead my comments with what homosexuals do for no reason.  My intent, is to always keep in mind and bring to the fore front just Exactly what we’re talking about. Exactly what the homosexual activist are promoting to even our grade school children.  If any christians agree with you I want to know and want nothing to do with them. You are either for good or you are for bad.  Like I said earlier,
I hope in the near future the Pope will call the church to get out of their comfort zone and into the streets. Marching, blocking traffic, peaceful but firm in conviction and results. So called gay marriage must be banned.

John: The article is quite clear.  Especially “People have enormous difficulty wrapping their heads around this point because it’s so foreign to the dominant worldview today: The true union of husband and wife always has a procreative meaning—even during infertile periods, or in the case of a sterile couple.”  As said previously, human biology function leading up to, during, and after coitus confirm what SDG has written and that same biology invalidates any male-male or female-female pairing.  You have not attempted to explain why a male attempting to inseminate another male is not the same as a male attempting to inseminate a child other than to bring consent into the argument.  I do not think you have a serious argument that is objective.  I understand you have a subjective desire.

larry, just be sure in your “the human body is a disgusting, filthy object” parade to include admonitions to heterosexual couples who engage in the exact same activities.

SteveP, there’s a reason people have “enormous difficulty” wrapping their heads around his point.  It is because it makes no sense.  “Why” a couple is unable to make babies has no bearing on whether or not a sexual act, to use your words, is a “sterile act.”  A sexual act that can’t produce babies is inherently, again to use your words, a “sterile act.”

I did explain the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex.  I will flesh it out further since you apparently really don’t understand what makes sex with a minor a crime.  Sex is a crime when it is non-consensual.  Minors are deemed not to have the capacity to form consent.  Ergo, sex between an adult and child is non-consensual.  It does not matter if it is an adult male with a child or an adult female with a child.  Ergo, sex between an adult and child is a crime.  Two adult males consenting to sex is not a crime.  That is because their sex is consensual.  Consensual sex is not a crime.  Ergo, two adult men having sex is not a crime.

John: I did not mention an age; you assumed “child” meant younger-than-age-of-consent.  A child becomes an adolescent when secondary sexual characteristics emerge; that may or may not coincide with age of consent.  As far as your first point, I would suggest re-reading SDG’s paragraphs at the same time you have a biology book.  In addition, see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex; “having sex,” in common terms, only occurs between males and females both of whom have reached reproductive maturity.

lol. i assumed you meant “child” as in “not an adult.”  how foolish of me.

irrespective, the same analysis as to why one the one constitutes a crime and the other does not, remains the same.  go read some law books.

SDG: I think one of your points – “An essentially social understanding of sex and marriage has been replaced by an essentially individualistic, self-centered understanding . . .” – has been borne out well in this set of comments; you may consider adding the point that the social understanding of a person’s body is diminished as well.  Thank you, again, for the clarity.

@john: —————“the human body is a disgusting filthy object”——-are your words not mine. Comparing what hetero couples do with what homesexuals do shows how militant you are. Christian couples do not teach children to play in and eat out of sewer pipes as a healthy activity or what god would like us to do. Christians do not teach children to experiment with same sex encounters to see which they like and that either are ok. Christians do not teach children to disregard the church based on what they want. Poop Troop is not a idealogy we should endourse or teach our children. Keep trying john, but you’ll win no hearts here.

John: The question had no ages given concretely for any of four of the hypothetical persons.  Each act might be legal or criminal depending on age and locality.  Your answer reflects your desire rather than an actual difference.

@john: You said, “Sex isn’t only about procreation.  Nor is procreation the primary basis of sex, love and commitment.  Sometimes it results in babies.  More often, it does not.”
Certainly procreation isn’t the only possible result of the sexual act.  If it were, I’m sure the human race would die off in just a few generations.  No, sex has dual purposes - procreation and pleasure.  The latter has lower and higher forms.  In the lower form, one uses the sexual faculties to obtain pleasure for oneself, while in the higher form one uses those faculties to give pleasure to another.  Next you have to consider whether the two purposes of sex are independent or if one serves the purpose of the other.  I suggest that the pleasurable aspect of sex serves the procreative purpose - in other words, the pleasurable aspect is necessary to ensure that the procreative purpose happens often enough to ensure at least a stable human population.  Given that in a same-sex relationship procreation is impossible, the higher form of pleasure is impossible and the dependent nature of the two purposes of sex is meaningless, it is certainly reasonable for society to regard such relationships differently than those that do not have these limitations.
—
In response to the assertion that homosexual acts are immoral, you countered that consent is not taken into account by philosophies that find those acts to be immoral, implying that consent alone can make a homosexual act moral.  There are two major problems with this philosophy.  First, it is circular reasoning - homosexual acts are moral because those involved consent to them being moral.  Second, it grants that morality a rather precarious existence - if no one ever consented to homosexual acts then by your own definition they would be immoral.  The morality of purely sexual intercourse does not suffer from these logical limitations.

lol. i assumed you meant “child” as in “not an adult.”  how foolish of me.  i’m sure everyone else knew you were referring to “child” as in “an of-age adult who hasn’t reached sexual maturity.” 

irrespective, as you admit, the same analysis as to why one constitutes a crime, and the other does not, remains the same.  that’s the BIG difference between the two.

SDG:  I answered the question in a way that I’d bet the vast majority of heterosexuals would.  Yes, marriage has shifted from arranged, loveless marriages for the purpose of protecting property rights to one of love and commitment between two individuals. I can live with that.

And I do believe society has a vested interest in promoting stable relationships.  Gay or straight.  Glad you appreciate the clarity.

larry, i don’t know any other way to characterize your referral to the human body as a “sewer pipe.”  and i can’t believe it is a surprise to you that heterosexual couples engage in oral and anal sex.  or is that supposed to be a secret?

kevin…what i am asserting is that sex obviously serves multiple purposes.  post menopausal women, infertile couples, women outside their reproductive cycles have sex that, inherently, is not conducive to making babies.  babies are an occasional by product of sex—sometimes desired, sometimes not.  i’m not saying it can’t be a beautiful thing (i happen to think it always is), but i believe opinions as to what purposes constitute a “higher” form are subjective, and differ from couple to couple.  i’ll bet if you surveyed couples, this would bear out. 

nowhere did i argue that homosexual sex is moral because it is consensual.  i was asked why homosexual sex is legal and sex between an adult and “child” (which, apparently, can mean an adult who’s not a child but not fully developed sexually) is not.

i don’t believe gay sex, in and of itself, is immoral.  for something to be immoral, i think there has to be a demonstrable, objective harm to one or both persons or to society.  two adult men having consensual sex does not rise to a level of immorality to me.  there can be questions about promiscuity, using other people, transmitting a serious disease, etc, but that can equally apply to heterosexual sex.  what’s more, i do think sex between two men or two women can be the moral equivalent between a man and a woman.  i do not believe sexual orientation is a factor.

@john: —I never said that the human body was a sewer pipe or that I was surprised at anything. What I keep saying is that it’s wrong and immoral for militant activist like your self to keep preaching and lying that some how playing in and eating out of sewer pipes is good, healthful and natural. Tell me john are you the leader here of Poop Troop?

@john
“Fundamentally my desire is to have access to the same civil rights, benefits and responsibilities civil marriage affords heterosexual couples.”

Have you ever read about the history of “marriage” say like in the Encyclopedia Americana?

Headline News: 
A bill devised by a homosexual California lawmaker, Mark Leno, requiring schools to promote homosexuality and other alternative sexual lifestyles to children without parental permission or even knowledge has been approved by the legislature and is on its way to Gov. Jerry Brown.
——This is the future from homosexual militant activist who want to teach our kids it’s normal, healthy, and natural to play in and eat out of sewer pipes. The church needs to rise up, march in the streets, and let the world know, not on our watch, not to our kids, not as long as I have a breath in my body.

More talk about gays eating out of sewer pipes. Max on the other board, and Larry here. Are they the same?

Anyway, this has gotten way too dirty here. This is not civilized social discourse when these things are being said and I doubt that the clergy would disagree. I do not and have not seen anyone progay on this site saying such things.
And yet there are claims from those using such slurs that they do not hate.

@freye???:  What are you the Second Shift? me and Max are different people for sure, please find some clergy that agree with you, and your gay agenda of teaching our children the healthful and and social benefits of playing in and eating out of sewer pipes as natural normal and healthy.

john said, “post menopausal women, infertile couples, women outside their reproductive cycles have sex that, inherently, is not conducive to making babies.”
There is a difference between engaging in an act that makes babies and doing nothing intentional to prevent that from happening and engaging in an act that could never make babies even when the fertility of those involved is perfectly intact.
—
“babies are an occasional by product of sex—sometimes desired, sometimes not”
This alludes to the same error propagated by many of those who don’t experience same-sex attractions, which is that it’s reasonable to engage in sex even when one adamantly desires to avoid pregnancy.  Nothing can change the basic fact that intercourse between a healthy man and woman of childbearing age may result in pregnancy.  But that is never a fact of sexual activity between two healthy people of the same sex.
—
“nowhere did i argue that homosexual sex is moral because it is consensual.”
Actually, your first comment regarding consent was in response to a comment by Jo Flemings posted Monday, Jul 4, 2011 @ 12:24 PM that said homosexual activity is prohibited by the natural and moral law.  Your response was, “the scripture you site does not refer to consenting adults,” which implies that you believe that consent somehow affects the morality of the act.
—
“for something to be immoral, i think there has to be a demonstrable, objective harm to one or both persons or to society”
I believe that we can perceive that something will tend to be harmful through nothing but human reason.  To suggest that something needs to result in “demonstrable harm” in order to be considered immoral is itself immoral, for the only way to demonstrate something as harmful is to test it on live humans.  In other words, we’d have to find people willing to be guinea pigs for every bad idea that someone comes up with in order to determine if that idea should be considered moral.  (Though following your logic we would have to do some testing on live humans just to determine if using humans as test subjects should itself be considered immoral.)
—
“there can be questions about promiscuity, using other people, transmitting a serious disease, etc, but that can equally apply to heterosexual sex”
I don’t know that you can say all those things apply equally to normal sex - certainly males having sex with males is more conducive to the transmission of STDs than male-female intercourse.  And from my perspective homosexual activity always amounts to “using other people,” for even when there is no question of consent it is nothing more than two (or more) people giving each other permission to use their bodies for their own pleasure.  And those aren’t the only questions - there are also questions about incontinence caused by misusing parts of the body for purposes other than what nature intended, for example.

Part 3 is now up.

I agree with freye and Joseph R Yunk, the tone, the analogies, the accusations. Who would ever want to read a third part to this? This entire board is like some kind of indictment of a third party for the problems the church sees in their own flock. The slippery slope of what-if’s are feared but we also know just how bad things can go when there’s a religious oligarchy and with this attitude it would be dangerous.
But the attitude is just too over the top to respect in any way when people’s personal lives are referred to in such filthy ways. It’s the mark of a very filthy and angry mind. And there’s two of them using the same terms. Is this the common lingo in Catholicism? Sewer?
I recall all the things I used to hear growing up and I never thought I’d here adults talking like this while claiming to be doing it in the name of God.

I’ve just read Part 3.  It’s very good.

Kevin Rahe said….

regarding postmenopausal sex: “There is a difference between engaging in an act that makes babies and doing nothing intentional to prevent that from happening and engaging in an act that could never make babies”

There is no difference. They are both sterile.

“for the only way to demonstrate something as harmful is to test it on live humans.”

We already found out that the kind of treatment that homosexually inclined children get throughout all their developmental years is extremely harmful. Most catholic and/or anti-gay critics claim that promiscuity and depression are inherent to homosexuality. In fact these are inherent to anyone berated and denied love. We’ve also found out that stable relationships do the opposite. And you want to keep gays in a place where this is an impossibility. For your own comfort—not the guy being legislated against. No freedom for the individual to choose an emotionally and physically healthy lifestyle. Is homosexual monogamy harmful? I’ve never seen harm from this have you?

“males having sex with males is more conducive to the transmission of STDs than male-female intercourse.”

We’re talking monogamy here. Remember? When you force people into secrecy, that would be the result whether homosexual or heterosexual. All this is documented, no experiment needs to prove it.

And: “And from my perspective homosexual activity always amounts to “using other people,” for even when there is no question of consent it is nothing more than two (or more) people giving each other permission to use their bodies for their own pleasure.”

How was this “perspective” developed? are you just saying what someone else said or do you know enough people who have given you this knowledge clearly? I can’t imagine anyone being able to say this who has not been in these situations repeatedly. I’m not accusing you of being gay, just not having done this research which is actually quite well documented in this case.

“it’s reasonable to engage in sex even when one adamantly desires to avoid pregnancy.”

Yes. and we have a right to. there is no law against having sex. gay or straight. preventive birth control or not. If you are trying to outlaw gay sex it’s just not going to happen. Otherwise we’d have to outlaw all the same acts that many heterosexuals currently engage in with absolutely no public criticism.

by the way, I’m still wondering: is “sewer” the new catch phrase? I’ve seen it in comments in both parts one and two.

“your gay agenda of teaching our children the healthful and and social benefits of playing in and eating out of sewer pipes as natural normal and healthy.”

Many of us, and quite a few here, have been raised under your ideals. Look how it’s worked out for gays. You are also talking about all those homosexually inclined catholic children who you are saying would be eating out of sewer pipes if they have any interest in ever loving someone.

Not at all a healthy way to raise a child. And the results are the slurs you put on them.

Larry…you keep contradicting yourself.  First you say you never said the human body is a sewer pipe, then you go back to your sewer pipe argument.  So enlighten us all.  Define “sewer pipe” for us.  Are you referring to human intestines?  And if so, why are human intestines sewer pipes but the penis is not?

And just so everyone knows, if you compare the broken grammar, syntax and spelling errors of Larry and Max, you will see that they are one in the same person.  Perhaps Max is the fictitious sewer pipe that Larry longs for.  Or vice versa.

stilbelieve, yes, I have.  what’s your point?

@ john:
 

“Define “sewer pipe” for us.  Are you referring to human intestines?  And if so, why are human intestines sewer pipes but the penis is not?”

 
Point of biological order.
 
First and most obviously, the penis is a genital organ—an organ of generation or procreation—while the bowel is not. If this didn’t occur to you, John, that would be a pretty striking illustration of the point I’ve been trying to make.
 
Second, on a more medical-geeky level, I can’t help noting that the bowel and the digestive tract represents a frontier between the sterile world of the body and the nonsterile outside world. What is in your mouth or in your gut is not yet “in” your body in the sense that your blood and organs are in your body. The bowel and the waste it carries are in that sense “outside” the body. Fecal matter is matter that was never assimilated into the body. This is completely disanalogous to urine, which is a subset of one’s blood, filtered from the kidneys. That is why urine is sterile while fecal matter obviously is not.

Kevin,
par. 1) What’s the difference?  Neither will result in pregnancy.
par. 2)Nor is it ever a fact for sex between men and post menopausal women, infertile couples or women outside of their reproductive cycle
par. 3)I made no such implication.  I said the new testament is silent about sex between consenting males because the passages she referred to are talking about catamytes.  I never said that the new testament holds same gender marriages or same gender sex to be either moral or immoral. It is silent.
par. 4) you keep harping back to an undefined standard of “human reason.” If it’s so obvious, define it for us. and to suggest we need human guinea pigs is just absurd.  human behavior hasn’t changed that much.  there are plenty of real life (sometimes tragic) situations to use to determine if the consequences are something we can hold to be either moral, immoral or morally neutral.
par. 5) maybe you’re right that the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is different—but not in the direction you probably think.  go check comparative statistics of gay vs. heterosexual men on the prevalence and spread of syphillis, gonorrhea and even hiv (on a world-wide basis).  you guessed it.  heterosexual sex is more conducive to transmission and there is a higher incidence (percentage wise) of each among heterosexual men than gay men. i presume you conced that heterosexuals are equally capable of the other situations cited.

larry—name calling is one way to respond to those who refute your absurd comments.  it is an act of capitulation, an admission you have no serious reply to make, as your failures to reply makes obvious.

Steven, I am shocked that you are backing up Larry’s characterization of a part of the human body as a “sewer pipe.”  That you further attepmt to dignify his comments by distinguishing the penis and discussing your version of the fineries of human waste is appaling.  I really expected no reasonable person to come to his defense.  Truly stunning.

The penis has dual purposes, much like other parts of the body.  So if human intestines are ‘sewer pipes,’ so is the penis.  That’s by the words you are standing by, not me.

Now we have conclusive proof of what your side is all about.  Even the supposedly “reasonable” ones.

@ John: I thought your question was worth responding to. That doesn’t mean I support Larry’s choice of metaphor. It’s certainly not the way I express myself. However offensive Larry’s metaphor may be, there is a germ of truth in it. The penis does indeed have two functions—and the bowel doesn’t, and that matters for this discussion, as should be obvious. It is also untrue that the bowel and the penis serve analogous functions with respect to waste, for the reason noted above.

freye said, ‘regarding postmenopausal sex: “There is a difference between engaging in an act that makes babies and doing nothing intentional to prevent that from happening and engaging in an act that could never make babies”
There is no difference. They are both sterile.’
It is true that as a rule they are both sterile, but for very different reasons, which is what makes them different.  For opposite-sex couples, however, there are exceptions - it is not difficult to find a couple who thought they were infertile but conceived anyway, or a woman who became pregnant through intercourse that occurred at a time of the month when she shouldn’t have been fertile.  And it isn’t impossible to find accounts of post-menopausal women who have borne children either - such stories even appear in the Bible - or even a medical explanation for how it is possible ( http://www.parentingnation.in/Pregnancy/pregnancy-and-menopause_226 ).  If one accepts that the exception proves the rule, then in that sense you could say that the two are the same.  If, on the other hand, you contend that the exception breaks the rule - as those who advocate for same-sex “marriage” so often do - then “sterile” intercourse between a man and a woman is clearly different from homosexual activity, for which no such exceptions are possible.
—
“Is homosexual monogamy harmful? I’ve never seen harm from this have you?”
When enshrined in law, it certainly is, as the links provided in part 3 of this series ( http://www.ncregister.com/blog/redefining-marriage-3 ) clearly show.
—
‘How was this “perspective” [that homosexual activity is “using other people”] developed? are you just saying what someone else said or do you know enough people who have given you this knowledge clearly?’
Neither.  It is merely a deduction based on biology.  Since unlike a man and a woman it’s impossible for two people of the same sex to use their sexual faculties to give each other pleasure, the only possibility for them to experience pleasure has to come from their taking of it from someone else.
—
john said, ‘you keep harping back to an undefined standard of ‘human reason.’ If it’s so obvious, define it for us.
If you don’t already accept it, I doubt any definition would ever make it clear to you.  It’s something that cannot be proved, but only perceived, like the axiom that two parallel lines never meet.
—
“i presume you conced that heterosexuals are equally capable of the other situations cited.”
If we can only discuss questions that you approve of, then there is no point in having a discussion.

kevin,
1)when a woman without ovaries conceives, i’ll consider your argument. 
2)the links posted in article 3 are results of anti-discrimination measures and professional codes (ie, discriminating in services funded by taxpayer dollars, medical societies prohibiting harmful treatments)
3)obviously you do not know anything about gay sex if you think the pleasure is in one direction
4) human reason, you say, ‘is something that cannot be proved.’  you can’t have ‘reason’ without ‘reason.’ 
5) i’ve responded to all of your questions from all of your posts.  it is you who is choosing not to answer what is obvious—that heterosexuals are equally capable of all of the same behaviors and recognition that there is a higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among heterosexuals.

john said, “when a woman without ovaries conceives, i’ll consider your argument”
And when I address that adequately, I’m sure you’ll come up with another curve ball, just like you did after you abandoned “post menopausal women, infertile couples, women outside their reproductive cycles”.
—
“the links posted in article 3 are results of anti-discrimination measures and professional codes (ie, discriminating in services funded by taxpayer dollars”
If you’d have followed the links I referred to, you would have seen that such measures aren’t limited to those that involve taxpayer funding.  For example, regarding a Catholic adoption agency, one of the articles states, “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.”
—
“i’ve responded to all of your questions from all of your posts”
You’ve not responded to the “questions about incontinence caused by misusing parts of the body for purposes other than what nature intended.”  Here’s a primer:  http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ate/sexandrelationships/sex/200700.html

kevin…i haven’t abandoned any of them.  they are all still incapable of reproducing. if, as you suggest, someone in one of those categories does conceive, it means they were misdiagnosed, and therefore neither post-menopausal, sterile or outside their monthly reproductive cycles.

i do not know which state the article is referring to, as this is the first i’ve heard of it.  i imagine it probably is due to the fact that a state agency assigns children to adoption agencies and is forbidden from assigning children to an agency that has a policy against placing children with mixed race couples or same gender couples.  so taxpayer dollars can’t be divorced from the process.

as to your last point, i suppose vaginal or urinary tract infections are reasons why heterosexuals should stop having vaginal sex.

john said, “i haven’t abandoned any of them.  they are all still incapable of reproducing. if, as you suggest, someone in one of those categories does conceive, it means they were misdiagnosed, and therefore neither post-menopausal, sterile or outside their monthly reproductive cycles.”
In other words, we do not know when a woman cannot conceive.  We can only know when she does or does not conceive.  In contrast, we always know when a same-sex couple cannot conceive, even when no medical diagnosis, personal information or family secret is available to give us a hint.
—
“i do not know which state the article is referring to, as this is the first i’ve heard of it.”
Massachusetts.  Read about it here:  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
—
“as to your last point, i suppose vaginal or urinary tract infections are reasons why heterosexuals should stop having vaginal sex.”
Until they are cured, of course, but the occurrence of such infections are hardly reason to proscribe relations that are perfectly normal and necessary for life by every standard of morality and science.

john said, “obviously you do not know anything about gay sex if you think the pleasure is in one direction”
Only in purely sexual intercourse does a single act involves pleasure in both directions.  In any other sexual act the pleasure is in only one direction, even if two separate acts are being performed simultaneously so that each partner receives pleasure.  In that sense, such acts approximate mutual masturbation much more than sexual intercourse.

no, kevin, we can know that a woman without ovaries won’t conceive. and we can know that, with a proper diagnosis, the other conditions prevent conception as well.  in any event, as i’ve said before, i do not believe the ability to have children is the core of marriage.  plenty of heterosexual couples marry for other reasons, many even actively ensure children will not ensue.  making babies is irrelevant to marriage equality.  it may be a reason why some, even a majority, marry.  it is not the reason for many others.

hooray for massachusetts! 

i would suggest that anyone diagnosed with any condition resulting from sexual behavior refrain from whatever that behavior is until such time as it is safe to do so again.

kevin, you are speaking from experience?  don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

Welcome to the fun world of the homosexual activists and the culture wars, SG.  I would like to make one correction: the new testament is not silent on these issues, in fact it is quite clear in its condemnation of disordered sexual relations: Romans 1: [26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. [28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. [29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, [30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [32] Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.(RSV)

TMR:  surely you know that passage is referring to ritualistic forms of worship in non-Christian temples.

@TMR: If 28 thru 32 doesn’t fit this group to a tee nothing does. This is true prophecy, timeless truths. Much better than any of my poopie talk.

@SDG: I see you are so right.

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. [29] They were filled with all manner of Wickedness, Evil, covetousness, Malice. Full of Envy, murder, Strife, DECEIT, malignity, they are Gossips, [30] Slanderers, Haters of God, Insolent, Haughty, Boastful, “inventors of evil”, disobedient to parents, [31] Foolish, Faithless, Heartless, Ruthless. [32] Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.(RSV)”

Note that in the passage above, what comes before all of this is idolatry and that is the real problem.  When one worships self and what is good for the self, first, then one is making oneself into god.  This is the original sin, btw, making oneself into god, and making up one’s own rules. Instead of worshipping the one, true God, and following his orderly rules which guarantee that we are working for the good of the other, first, over the desires of ourselves.  This is the definition of love-desiring the good of another over our own selfish wants. Once one falls into idolatry and self-worship then all things become licit. The sexual act, instead of a life-giving joining becomes nothing more than a moment of mutually-indulgent masturbation and loses its entire meaning. Note that the homosexual activist is always talking about what is good for ‘self’, what is ‘allowed’, his ‘pleasure’ and his own ‘need’, never about what is in the best interest of the partner. Then what is claimed is that as long as the pleasure is mutual, the act is good. Because most of the time, what is in the best interest of all is to embrace chastity, considering the great physical health risks, the mental health risks and even the high death rates of active homosexuals-which cannot be accounted for by ‘supposed’ persecution because this is true even in very liberal, embracing cultures. Choosing a life of chastity for those struggling with same-sex attraction is actually the ultimate act of love and common sense.  But no, this would be serving the wrong god.

Thanks Steven for a great article.  Its’ conclusions are obvious to me, but it doesn’t surprise me that you have received so much opposition.  Unfortunately I know of too many couples who have recently divorced after having the requisite 1.7 kids.  I just don’t have the energy to argue with the haters anymore.  Thanks for being out here on the front lines.

I don’t think so John.  Paul is referring to what happens to those who know God, but then turn away. God leaves them to themselves and they…well….one thing leads to another… I would be careful of who I use to interpret my scripture verses for me, J.  Many twist the words to fit their own agendas. But here in Romans, it is clear what happens to those who have ‘darkened minds’ Romans 1:17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. [24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. [26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

TMR:  where are you getting your information about gay people not thinking of the best interest of their partners?  that’s not at all true for any gay couples i know.  likewise, your data as to the “physical and mental health risks and high death rates” are groundless.  go look at studies of gay people in different societies and their relative well being in correlation to the degree of acceptance a society extends. this applies not only between countries, but even states withiin the u.s. 

but here’s my bigger challenge.  go attend a meeting of courage, where gay catholics go when they want to remain celibate.  then meet with the folks at dignity.  perhaps, then, you will be better able to decide who suffers more from depression and mental health issues—gays who are accepting of who they are, or those who fight who they are.

go ask a jesuit or a franciscan.  or any parish priest who’s graduated from a recognized school of theology.

sandra…who here has said anything the least bit hateful about families with more than 1.7 children?  anyone who wants to have a large family is welcome to do so.  it is their choice.

John, my info is from all kinds of places that the drive by media mostly ignores. the increase and suicides is present even in very liberal accepting countries, like Denmark and New Zealand.  The rate of STD is very high in homosexuals. The physical damage due to disordered sexual activity is also documented. The mental health problems of active homosexuals are also documented, in countries where marriage and societal norms are very liberal.  It’s not the society that is causing this.  It’s natural law. When one violates the order of natural law, there are consequences.  About life span “The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide—and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44, and 20% died old.Two and eight-tenths percent (2.8%) of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic-accident death-rate 18 times the rate of comparably-aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. Twenty percent of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident—a rate 487 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. The age distribution of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature from 1989 to 1992 suggests a similarly shortened life-span.” partially taken from stats from The American Journal of Public Health, 199282220-24, and printed on the website:http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron2.html. 
BTW, I don’t know what priests you are learning from or what schools they are from, but I know quite a few priests and theologians who have graduated from Catholic schools, who teach what the Church and magisterium really teach about homosexuality who will agree about what I say. What I say has to do with love, not hate. Here are a few of my sources, if you are truly interested in looking them up: http://www.chastity.com/chastity-qa/homosexuality/homosexuality/how-can-people-say-h   by the way, they are lying about the effectiveness of condoms and STDs,-condoms do not protect at all against HPV:  http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html ; http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html; http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html; http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron1.html,
another: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2008/12/homosexual-partnerships-and-homosexual-longevity-a-replication/; Homosexual Partnerships and Homosexual Longevity: A Replication
Author: Paul Cameron
Summary: Replicating previous findings that homosexuals are underrepresented after middle age, the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (N = 12,381) and 2000 Kaiser Family Foundation 15-city survey (N = 405) reported that homosexual men and women are seldom aged 50+ yr. and that older homosexuals are more apt to have a homosexual partner. Deaths of 228 homosexuals as recorded in the Washington Blade 1999-2001 were examined. Although more apt to have a partner when older, the median age of death of 88 homosexually partnered men was 45 yr., while for 118 unpartnered homosexual men it was 46 yr. This is consistent with the suggestion that homosexual partnering may be an additional hazard to men.
References: Psychological Reports, 2002, 91, 671-678.  I can dig more.  I know Dr Janet Smith, the moral theologian has spoken extensively on this issue and I will soon have her CD.

@john

“yes, I have.  what’s your point?”

In reading your Encyclopedia, what did you take away as the historical development and purpose of this male, female relationship throughout history that has evolved into what is called marriage?

Homosexual acts seriously offend God and participating in them kills the life of grace in the human soul. This is a crystal clear teaching throughout the history of Judaism and Christianity. It is clearly explained and taught by the Christ appointed infallible voice for matters of faith and morals, the Roman Catholic Church.
At no time may a society of Christian men and women redefine what God has stated according to contrary explanations.
This is being challenged by a small subset of people who prefer to believe otherwise and to force those of us who hold the historical Judeo-Christian view to conform to their contrary understanding, under the guise of freedom and human rights. While I will concede that it is outside the boundaries of the governing entity of a pluralistic free society to enforce restrictions on what occurs privately between mutually consenting adults, it is likewise as inappropriate to mandate that the rest of the populace create a protective legal hedge for the sake of preserving a right to participate in what most people find tragically disordered.
So if you choose a homosexual lifestyle, may God have mercy on your soul. If you dare to attempt to force me to approve, I will die before I will accede.

TMR:  by “driveby media,” i presume you mean the main stream press.  there’s a reason they don’t print your stories.  they have no credibility.  all i had to do was look at the links you sent to confirm this.  your “sources” do not appear in the “Harvard Medical Review,” “American Journal of Medicine,” “American Journal of Psychiatry,” or any medical school website, for that matter.  they are to a bible site, a chastity site and narth.  (we all know how well narth founder george rekers managed to repress his own homosexuality.)

you also seem to not have your statistics straight about stds like gonorrhea and syphillis, both of which have a much higher incidence in heterosexual males than gay men.  and by the way, lesbians have the least incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. does that make their sexuality the most moral of them all?

as for denmark and new zealand (neither of which recognize gay marriage) and the other “liberal accepting” you think are gay utopias, you can check my earlier post about the difference between tolerance and affirmation and the lingering gay-bashing, bullying, discrimination, demonizing and other forms of harassment that continue in even the most “liberal accepting” countries out there.

you do know that paul cameron, author of the last piece you cite, was expelled from the american psychological association in 1983 for multiple ethics violations, as well as subsequently charged by the same organization with “misrepresenting social science research?”

ergo, until you can find a credible, peer-reviewed study reflecting the comparative health in a society that’s become 100% gay affirming, your arguments hold no merit.  we’re a long way away.

stilbelieve:  i’ve learned that it’s an instution that takes on many different meanings, has evolved over time and continues to evolve.

jo…if that’s what you think about homosexuality, than i’d suggest you refrain from lesbian sex.  you see God your way, others think differently.

i guarantee you no one will force you to be a lesbian, or prevent you from marrying a man.  nor should you try to impose the reverse restraints on anyone else.

John said, in paraphrase, “females who have been surgically altered – removed ovaries – can marry a male.  I have no ovaries.  Ergo I can marry a male.”  This logic ranks as one of the most amusing things I have read.  Let me try it: “unemployed persons receive a stipend from the government.  I’m employed eight hours a day and unemployed for sixteen hours a day.  Ergo I should receive an unemployment stipend.”  I like it!  All I need to do is “prove” there is no difference between two things and ta-da: government benefits!

@john

“i’ve learned that it’s an instution that takes on many different meanings, has evolved over time and continues to evolve.

In what period of history and in what society or culture did it extend to go beyond male and female relations?

john said, “kevin, you are speaking from experience?  don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.”
Now we’re getting somewhere.  That many may find homosexual acts preferable to normal sex should actually be of paramount concern to society, especially if the social and moral barriers to the former are obliterated.  The secular world is already recognizing problems created by perversions such as pornography and masturbation, like reduced interest in and ability to perform real sexual intercourse, as evidenced by this clip from a perfectly and proudly secular talk show:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecPSirQEJlc

The real kicker in that piece is actually the final words from Ian Kerner, which are, “Men develop what’s called an idiosyncratic masturbatory style; they’re so used to a kind of pressure and friction with their hands, it can’t be approximated during real sex, so as a result they have to fake it.”  Given that homosexual acts already approximate (or actually are) masturbation, it’s certainly not unreasonable to think that they could have the same negative effect on real sex that masturbation does, especially since for so many the focus is strictly on the pleasurable aspect of sex and as you acknowledge the procreative aspect is actively avoided.

If men and women actually do find homosexual acts more pleasurable than real sex and the barriers to homosexual activity are broken down, it’s not unreasonable to think that it could begin to have a significant negative effect on traditional marriage and birth rates, which would be devastating to our society.

actually, not quite.  because being unemployed is about not having a job, not whether or not someone is working at the moment. 

also, i was not referring to individuals, i was referring to couples.  biologicaly inability to make babies is not a basis to deny a couple marriage.  whether a sterile male and female, a female with no ovaries and a male, two men or two women.  each set of couples is different, but all share the biological equivalence of being unable to produce children.

stilbelieve:  ours.  HALLELUIA!

kevin, in all honesty, i really appreciate your reply.  it is so helpful in deconstructing the mind of the radical heterocentric activist.
by “normal sex,” i presume you mean vaginal intercourse?  you would label anal sex and oral sex “abnormal,” presumably whether practiced by gay or lesbian couples or heterosexual couples.  i don’t know what your basis is for what constitutes “normal” or “abnormal” sexual behavior.  if you are aware of a peer reviewed medical study that concludes anal and oral sex are “abnormal,” please forward the links here.

i presume you also classify masterbation as “abnormal,” based on the testimony of your youtube guru.  again, any peer-reviewed medical studies coming to the same conclusion would be interesting to read.  i assume, of course, that you are in no way suggesting that gay men and lesbians are to blame for heterosexuals who masterbate.

your last paragraph is the real kicker, though.  you are of the school that homosexuality is either contagious, or “catching on.”  that if the “secret” gets out that gay sex is mutually satisfying, heterosexuals will start undergoing some form of reverse-reparative treatment to convert from being heterosexual to being gay or lesbian.  here’s where our fundamental disagreement lies.  i do not believe that societal approval or disapproval impacts the number of gay and lesbian people there are in society.  i do not believe that sexual orientation can change.  i believe there are some people who vascillate, but eventually come to terms with their true nature. so don’t worry.  coming to terms with the fact that gay sex is mutually enjoyable isn’t going to turn you gay.

@john

I asked you if you read about the history of marriage in an Encyclopidia and you said you did.  I then asked you the following question: “In what period of history and in what society or culture did it extend to go beyond male and female relations?”

You answered correctly: “ours,” with the exclamation, “HALLELUIA!”

Why do you think this never happened before “our” generation?

“ours.  HALLELUIA!”

Ignore the repeat phrase.

John, my cited places use data extracted from other places such as the CDC, etc. And these cited sites and mags, etc, are the only places that will publish this stuff , because the mainstream media is too gay-bashed and running scared with PC innards to print anything negative about the gay lifestyle.  So-called gay rights are now a sacred cow.  Narth uses Data from reliable sources and the man who runs Narth was harassed, yes harassed, in the APA by gay rights activists in the organization to discredit him.  You know this.  He eventually left the organization voluntarily because he knew he would not get a fair shake there.  Nice try though.  the data is there is,  you do have to dig for it, however.  This is something the lazy journalist seems to not have the stomach to do.  The disordered homosexual lifestyle is bad for one’s mental health, physical health and spiritual health. But do not lose hope, there is an answer: embrace a life of chastity-which is something all of us must do, btw.  Drop the mainstream, propaganda, kool-aid lie so that more men who will die. So-called same-sex Marriage will only embolden this lie.  Don’t push your agenda on the rest of the world that knows this is a lie, despite the bullying, and the slick campaign you put forth.  we want fairness for you, but we know what marriage really is.  you see, we know better.  but your real agenda is to destroy us because you think we stand in your way.  That is your real agenda.

um, stats taken from the CDC, american journal of public health, 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse ,2000 Kaiser Family Foundation 15-city survey, psychological reports, 2002. something tells me you did not read the post.  these were cited in the other places. sort of tells you that the mainstream journals you mention are hardly un-biased in this area.  hmmmm…..

john, you can substitute “normal sex” in my comment with the apparently more acceptable term “real sex,” as they use in the video clip.
—
‘your last paragraph is the real kicker, though.  you are of the school that homosexuality is either contagious, or “catching on.”  that if the “secret” gets out that gay sex is mutually satisfying, heterosexuals will…convert from being heterosexual to being gay or lesbian.  i do not believe that societal approval or disapproval impacts the number of gay and lesbian people there are in society.  i do not believe that sexual orientation can change.  coming to terms with the fact that gay sex is mutually enjoyable isn’t going to turn you gay.’

Except that I’m not saying that.  What I am saying is that for some people it is becoming less who they find attractive and more what they find pleasurable that determines the activity they involve themselves in and perhaps even prefer.  And this is not an insignificant number of people.  As noted in this video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjY8zeLHjVU&feature=related), 40% of women aged 20-24 in a recent survey indicated that they had experienced anal sex.  Apparently pornography is teaching people that this is normal sexual behavior.  So we have a significant number of men who have already demonstrated that they are not satisfied by “real sex” alone, and we know from the previous clip I posted a link to that many of them are having difficulty even performing “real sex” when it’s what their female partner wants.  It is a short leap from there to choosing a partner who is more likely to oblige their desires for more pleasure and who won’t ask them at all to perform less-satisfying “real sex,” which still carries the unavoidable possibility of pregnancy.

Unless you’re acknowledging that it is indeed a good thing that a great number of people still find homosexual activity and relationships revolting, in which case we would appreciate it if you would stop protesting when we say so.

stilbelieve:  because up until 100 years ago, society did not have an understanding of homosexuality as a status.  it is only through advancements in the fields of psychiatry, medicine and psychology that we now understand homosexuality is not chosen (as even the new catechism admits) and deeply embedded.  it is as much a characteristic of who we are as is race, ethnicity and even something like being right-handed vs. left-handed.  you can’t condemn what you don’t understand.  now that we understand, there is nothing to condemn.  both religion and civil law are beginning to embrace that reality.

john - you’re kidding.

TMR: our “real” intention for wanting marriage equality is to destroy heterosexuals.  this about says it all.  we know where you are coming from, too.  you don’t hate homosexuals, you’re just convinced they’re trying to destroy you.

anybody can take random statistics from select studies and try to argue anything they want.  that is why only peer-reviewed articles in respected publications are even worth considering. 

as for your comment about embracing chastity, drop in on a meeting of courage one of these days.  have a good look around at the “chaste” people who attend, make a rough assessment of their relative state of mental health.  then go to dignity and do the same.  it will be an eye opener for you.

it’s interesting to know that you think “gay pressure” is what led george rekkers, founder of narth, to hire a male prostitue to go to europe with him to help him “lift his luggage.” my, my,  gays and lesbians are to be blamed for everything.

kevin, i know a lot of you non-haters find gay people in relationships to be “revolting.”  it’s too bad. perhaps it stems from the fact that you get your “information” from youtube gurus rather than peer reviewed studies and articles that use credible methodologies in coming to their conclusions.

stilbelieve:  what part don’t you understand?

john, the discussion in last video clip I linked to was based on a study published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine.  According to the publisher’s web site (http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1743-6095), “In each issue, The Journal of Sexual Medicine disseminates preeminent, peer-reviewed articles on sexual medicine in men and women to the scientific community.”

kevin, ‘who’s discussing’ is the problem.  as i said, anyone can take random statistics from any study (valid or otherwise) and manipulate them.  a “discussion” among select participants is not the same as a peer reviewed article or a conversation among credentialed people with varying viewpoints. 
narth, the organization founded by george rekkers, the man who hired a male prostitute last year to go on vacation with him to “lift his luggage,” is a prime example.  it cites the cdc and other statistics all the time. their selective use of data and inability to relate cause/effect has been roundly discredited repeatedly. that’s why nobody’s hiring them any more for “expert witness.”

john, the only element from the discussion on which my reasoning depends is the fact of the percentage of women who have reported participating in anal sex, which is purported to have come directly from a study published in a peer-reviewed journal.  I suppose the discussion participants could have blatantly lied about that fact, but I certainly cannot imagine what they think they could gain by doing that - they certainly don’t seem like the type who would typically take a conservative view of sexual issues.  If you’re determined to show whether the fact was falsely conveyed, however, I’m sure you can find a copy of the original source somewhere, and if you show me to be wrong, I will admit so quickly and emphatically, as I always do.

@ John…yep…attack the messenger of the bad news, destroy his character. that is the modus operandi of the radical gay agenda and the last strategy of those who have no good argument.  The stats are there if you care to look for them, but you won’t even if they stare you in the face.  And as to those people at the “Courage” meetings you disparage-how can you judge these folks by their outside appearances? Isn’t that the ultimate form of discrimination?  You are a worse bigot than you think I am.  These people are trying to live a chaste life-obviously you don’t understand this yet-maybe someday. Only God will judge them, not you. I would counter with this: Do you condone the behavior you see at the average gay pride parade? Do you condone that children should see what happens there? Your grandmother? Do you condone the recent articles that talk about the lack of monogamy even in professed gay couples, from a study done in a reputable way? http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/07/san-francisco-study-monogamy-rare-in-homosexual-relationships/  Yes, you are trying to destroy the basis of the family-the basic unit of society-the basic unit that makes children and protects them.  You cannot change that. Once you redefine marriage to be whatever one you want it to be, instead of what it really IS-you weaken the institution ever further for a whole generation of young people who are generally confused about the nature of marriage to begin with. You make things worse so that you can do what you want.  No one has the absolute right to be married, not even me.  Defend that, instead of tearing down the messengers who oppose your selfishness.

the above applies to kevin, as well.

john said, “it [same-sex attractions] is as much a characteristic of who we are as is race, ethnicity and even something like being right-handed vs. left-handed.”

I haven’t seen any scientific, peer-reviewed information that suggests that same-sex attractions have a wholly biological cause.  I think biology may have something to do with making people predisposed to having such attractions, but just like those predisposed to alcoholism, it’s not set in stone that they will - environment also plays a part.  Note that even if it’s a combination of biology and environment, that doesn’t mean that those who experience same-sex attractions will feel like they have control over them.  But just like those who are attracted to the opposite sex, however, they do have control over whether they involve themselves in sexual activity or relationships.

btw….nowhere did i say i hated anyone.  that is your bigotry shining through.  you see-Truth=Love and the only form of love must come from Truth.  You took my words and implied that i hated someone because I disagree with you.  That is the height of your tolerance.  that shows who the true bigot is here.  a true bigot assumes, then assigns motives, then attacks and destroys all who oppose him.  You obviously do not understand my motives, but I understand yours.  You want want you want when you want it.  Then you want US to put the stamp of legitimacy on your behavior, which is disordered.  Then you want to break apart the first unit of life, of the Church, which is the nuclear family.  That will disrupt the power of the Church, eventually….that is the ultimate goal here.  We see that, you may not be aware of the greater battle here, since you are simply a tool in that battle and apparently have not read the Book.  But we have the ultimate weapon, you see, we have prayer, grace and Truth on our side.  So, I will pray for you, Kevin and John and all of you who are lost in relativism.  Sorry about that. May grace turn your lives upside down !  (as it has done for me.)  You see, I am not hating, I am trying to build up.  That is what real love is. that is the difference between me, and you-who do you think will win this battle, ultimately?

@john

“...it is as much a characteristic of who we are as is race, ethnicity and even something like being right-handed vs. left-handed.  you can’t condemn what you don’t understand.  now that we understand, there is nothing to condemn.  both religion and civil law are beginning to embrace that reality.”

Being of a “race” is genetic.  Being of an “ethnicity” is cultural.  Being “right or left handed” is natural or can be learned.  There is nothing to “condemn” in them by themselves.  But if their behavior produces unacceptable behavior, then that behavior can be condemned.

There is no evidence that those who struggle with same-sex attraction, have this attraction due to a genetic or biological cause alone.  No one knows what causes this situation. No one can say, “they were born with this” either, because none of us know our earliest memories or can remember our early formation before the age of three. The changes in structure and physiology supposedly attributed to those with same-sex attraction could also be due to the repeated use of certain parts of the brain, as our brains and the structures of our bodies are fluid and learn and adapt to and from the environment.

TMR Beste, I’m not sure why you’re admonishing me.  I haven’t disagreed with any of your comments - haven’t even responded directly to them for that matter - because we appear to be on the same side of this issue.  Perhaps you’re a bit shocked by some of the details of aberrant behavior into which I’ve delved, but I believe that in order to pull people out of a morass, you first have to know where they are.  Not that getting sucked into it yourself isn’t a potential peril, however, and if you’re praying for God to grant me the grace to stay firmly on the outside of that of which I speak, I truly appreciate it.

well….maybe I misdirected my comments, Kevin, please forgive me.  And no—nothing shocks me, really, if you read my posts I think you will realize that.  I’m hardly a prude and I’ve been around the block a few times. Although, I am old ;)

kevin first, then TMR
kevin…if the percentage of women who’ve reported having anal sex is what is important to you, i don’t have any problem with it.  whatever it is, it’s not a foreign practice to heterosexual couples. as for homosexuality itself, it doesn’t have to be genetic to be as immutable as race.  it is a status that leads to no harm.  the american medical association and american psychiatric association back me up on this.  if something causes them to change their conclusions, i’ll take another look. 

tmr:  first i obliterated your arguments. then i pointed out the lack of credibility (but no lack of hilarity) of where those arguments come from.  as for the courage folks, it’s not from observation.  i was intimately involved in group discussions for almost a year and met with many of them one-on-one during and since then.  i said they are very sad people, not bad people so, yes, i know what i’m talking about and no, obviously that doesn’t make me a bigot. as for you, it’s not your disagreement with me that i find hateful, it’s your assertion that homosexuals are out to destroy society. if that’s not hate, i don’t know what else it is.

stilbelieve:  homosexuality isn’t “unacceptable behavior.”  the ama and apa back me up on this.

@john: well. because that is what they are doing (destroying society) with their systematic agenda to ‘change’ society into the what the radical homosexual agenda wants society to be.  This is not a ‘hateful’ statement, this is what is happening and will be the result of what they will do if successful.  If you are trying to alter the traditional family, you are trying to destroy the traditional family, then it follow that you are trying to destroy society, because the traditional family is the building block of society.  its that simple. You may not be aware of this, but that is the result.  The radical gay agenda has been conspiring to do this for a long while, placing people in strategic places in organizations that matter-the APA is a good example.  Once enough with this agenda were in positions of power, they could silence any voice that opposed them.  The agenda bullies those who get in its way and generally try to play the ‘victim card.’  But the real story is that same sex marriage is bad for all of us and the same-sex lifestyle is bad for the individual and really bad for children. 

here are more stats that back up my claims. 
These are a bit hard to simply wave away when they come from such good sources. 
btw, these seem to be harder to find on the internet as of late-hmm, the PC police are even getting to the info on here. From such places as the AMA, the journal of epidemiology, APA, American Journal of Public Health, Developmental Psychology, Adolescent psychology. 
Yet these do not make mainstream mags..hmmm…wonder why. 

“Physical Health Risks
-obviously, AIDs.even a higher risk in ‘monogamous relationships.’ 41
-Anal cancer, soars to 4000 percent in those who engage in anal sex.  Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90
-strong link homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems,” Oct 1999, AMA assoc archives of General Psychiatry.
-4X likely in lesbians to suffer from major depression, anxiety disorders. 4X more likely to suffer from conduct disorders, 6X from multiple disorders, 6X more likely to commit suicide. This happens even in the Netherlands and New ZEaland, were homosexuality is widely accepted. ARchives of general pyschiatry.

-Physical Abuse
-double rate of abuse in males with same-sex attraction. American Journal of Public health.
-50-90%lesbians reported abuse. Journal of interpersonal violence. 9 (1994): 469—492.
Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41—59

-Mortality Rates from the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded:“In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.52”
stats published in Orthodoxytoday.

Bad for the children-
sons of homosexual fathers are at greater risk for homosexual behavior-
“Numerous studies indicate that while nearly 5 percent of males report having had a homosexual experience sometime in their lives, the number of exclusive homosexuals is considerably less: Between 1 and 2 percent of males report exclusive homosexual behavior over a several-year period.56- However, J. M. Bailey et al. found that 9 percent of the adult sons of homosexual fathers were homosexual in their adult sexual behavior: “The rate of homosexuality in the sons (9 percent) is several times higher than that suggested by the population-based surveys and is consistent with a degree of father-to-son transmission.“57
-There is a high relationship between being raised in lesbian families and homosexuality-Susan Golombok and Fiona L. Tasker, “Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families,” Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 9
-60X higher risk of incest in homosexual parented family-60 P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772
-Children do better in families with both mom and dad in the same house- Pitirim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1956), pp. 6, 77—105. 68 See the following: Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45; Pat Fagan, “How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1283, June 11, 1999, p. 13; Dawn Upchurch et al., “Gender and Ethnic Differences in the Timing of First Sexual Intercourse,” Family Planning Perspectives 30 (1998): 121—127; Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, “Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23—54; Jane Mauldon, “The Effect of Marital Disruption on Children’s Health,” Demography 27 (1990): 431—446; Frank Furstenberg, Jr., and Julien Teitler, “Reconsidering the Effects of Marital Disruption: What Happens to Children of Divorce in Early Adulthood?” Journal of Family Issues 15 (June 1994); Elizabeth Thomson et al., “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors,” Social Forces 73 (1994): 221—42

I have tons more to pass on, but why bother, this gets the major problems out there. 

references for others above-
41-41 G. J. Hart et al., “Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991—1992,” AIDS (July 1993): 863—869, cited in “Homosexual Marriage: The Next Demand,” Position Analysis paper by Colorado for Family Values, May 1994
56 ACSF Investigators, “AIDS and Sexual Behavior in France,” Nature 360 (1992): 407—409; J. M. Bailey et al., “Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers,” Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124—129; J. O. G. Billy et al., “The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives 25 (1993): 52—60; A. M. Johnson et al., “Sexual Lifestyles and HIV Risk,” Nature 360 (1992): 410—412
57 J. M. Bailey et al., “Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers,” pp. 127, 128

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.

@john: well. because that is what they are doing (destroying society) with their systematic agenda to ‘change’ society into the what the radical homosexual agenda wants society to be.  This is not a ‘hateful’ statement, this is what is happening and will be the result of what they will do if successful.  If you are trying to alter the traditional family, then you are trying to destroy the traditional family, then it follow that you are trying to destroy society, because the traditional family is the building block of society.  its that simple. You may not be aware of this, but that is the result.  The agenda bullies those who get in its way and generally try to play the ‘victim card.’  But the real story is that same sex marriage is bad for all of us and the same-sex lifestyle is bad for the individual and really bad for children. 

here are more stats that back up my claims. 
These are a bit hard to simply wave away when they come from such good sources. 
btw, these seem to be harder to find on the internet as of late-hmm, the PC police are even getting to the info on here. From such places as the AMA, the journal of epidemiology, APA, American Journal of Public Health, Developmental Psychology, Adolescent psychology. 
Yet these do not make mainstream mags..hmmm…wonder why. 

“Physical Health Risks
-obviously, AIDs.even a higher risk in ‘monogamous relationships.’ 41
-Anal cancer, soars to 4000 percent in those who engage in anal sex.  Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90
-strong link homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems,” Oct 1999, AMA assoc archives of General Psychiatry.
-4X likely in lesbians to suffer from major depression, anxiety disorders. 4X more likely to suffer from conduct disorders, 6X from multiple disorders, 6X more likely to commit suicide. This happens even in the Netherlands and New ZEaland, were homosexuality is widely accepted. Archives of general pyschiatry.

-Physical Abuse
-double rate of abuse in males with same-sex attraction. American Journal of Public health.
-50-90%lesbians reported abuse. Journal of interpersonal violence. 9 (1994): 469—492.
Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41—59

-Mortality Rates from the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded:“In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.52”
stats published in Orthodoxytoday.

Bad for the children-
sons of homosexual fathers are at greater risk for homosexual behavior-
-9X the risk for homosexual behavior, 9% with adult exclusive homosexual behavior, several times the norm at 1%.56- “57
-There is a high relationship between being raised in lesbian families and homosexuality-Susan Golombok and Fiona L. Tasker, “Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families,” Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 9
-60X higher risk of incest in homosexual parented family-60 P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772
-Children do better in families with both mom and dad in the same house- Pitirim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1956), pp. 6, 77—105. 68 See the following: Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45; Pat Fagan, “How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1283, June 11, 1999, p. 13; Dawn Upchurch et al., “Gender and Ethnic Differences in the Timing of First Sexual Intercourse,” Family Planning Perspectives 30 (1998): 121—127; Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, “Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23—54; Jane Mauldon, “The Effect of Marital Disruption on Children’s Health,” Demography 27 (1990): 431—446; Frank Furstenberg, Jr., and Julien Teitler, “Reconsidering the Effects of Marital Disruption: What Happens to Children of Divorce in Early Adulthood?” Journal of Family Issues 15 (June 1994); Elizabeth Thomson et al., “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors,” Social Forces 73 (1994): 221—42

I have tons more to pass on, but why bother?  This addresses the major issues. 

references for others above-
41-41 G. J. Hart et al., “Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991—1992,” AIDS (July 1993): 863—869, cited in “Homosexual Marriage: The Next Demand,” Position Analysis paper by Colorado for Family Values, May 1994
56 ACSF Investigators, “AIDS and Sexual Behavior in France,” Nature 360 (1992): 407—409; J. M. Bailey et al., “Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers,” Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124—129; J. O. G. Billy et al., “The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives 25 (1993): 52—60; A. M. Johnson et al., “Sexual Lifestyles and HIV Risk,” Nature 360 (1992): 410—412
57 J. M. Bailey et al., “Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers,” pp. 127, 128

john, perhaps this is news to you, but the comments I and probably many others direct your way are not composed with the expectation that they will change your mind.  Rather, they are for the often-silent masses who are perhaps less decided about the issue than you or I are.  (Not that many of them would take the time to wade through the quantity of comments found on this particular article in any detail.)

Regarding the topic of the article and supposed lack of attention to it by commenters such as myself, I suggest that the failures of traditional marriage and relationships weren’t the subject of many comments because we readily admit to them, so what is there to debate?  Instead of recognizing that the suggestion of same-sex “marriage” would be inconceivable without those failures and leaving it at that, however, people such as yourself sought to use them as a platform to further your own agenda.  Perhaps a repetition of my first comment on part 1 of this series, directed to the author, is appropriate:

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.

keith, nor was it my expectation to change anybody’s mind.  but i sure understand now why the tide is turning/has turned.

@john

“homosexuality isn’t “unacceptable behavior.”  the ama and apa back me up on this.

The ama and the apa are not the “authority” on what is “unacceptable behavior.”  The creator of human life and the societies that evolve from that human life are - in keeping with their Creator according to His word -
and the same Creator whom you would want involved in your life if allowed by society to get married.

@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: well. because that is what the radical gay agenda is doing (destroying society) with their systematic agenda to ‘change’ society into the what the radical homosexual agenda wants society to be.  This is not a ‘hateful’ statement, this is a statement of love because this is what is happening and will be the result of what they will do if successful.  If you are consciously and purposely trying to alter the traditional family, then you are trying to destroy the traditional family, then it follows that you are trying to destroy society, because the traditional family is the building block of society.  Its that simple. You may not be aware of this, but that is the result.  The agenda bullies those who get in its way and generally try to play the ‘victim card.’  This is what happened at the APA, a concerted effort, a bullying, a false-scientific approach to prove what was not true, then a rubber stamp of the gay lifestyle and now hardly nothing of a critical nature gets published anymore through them.  But the real story is that same sex marriage is bad for all of us and the same-sex lifestyle is bad for the individual and really bad for children. 

here are more stats that back up my claims. The most damning comes from the American College of Pediatricians:http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html
These are a bit hard to simply wave away when they come from such good sources. 
btw, these seem to be harder to find on the internet as of late-hmm, the PC police are even getting to the info on here. From such places as the AMA, the journal of epidemiology, APA, American Journal of Public Health, Developmental Psychology, Adolescent psychology. 
Yet this information does not make mainstream mags..hmmm…wonder why. 

“Physical Health Risks
-obviously, AIDs.even a higher risk in ‘monogamous relationships.’ 41
-Anal cancer, soars to 4000 percent in those who engage in anal sex.  Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90
-strong link homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems,” Oct 1999, AMA assoc archives of General Psychiatry.
-4X likely in lesbians to suffer from major depression, anxiety disorders. 4X more likely to suffer from conduct disorders, 6X from multiple disorders, 6X more likely to commit suicide. This happens even in the Netherlands and New ZEaland, were homosexuality is widely accepted. ARchives of general pyschiatry.

-Physical Abuse
-double rate of abuse in males with same-sex attraction. American Journal of Public health.
-50-90%lesbians reported abuse. Journal of interpersonal violence. 9 (1994): 469—492.
Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41—59

-Mortality Rates from the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded:“In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.52”
stats published in Orthodoxytoday.

Bad for the children-
See the link from the American College of Pediatricians which states that having two parents of opposite sex, that are married is the best for children and that homosexual parents increase mental and physical risk for kids: http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html
-sons of homosexual fathers are at greater risk for homosexual behavior-9Xhigher.56-57
-There is a high relationship between being raised in lesbian families and homosexuality-Susan Golombok and Fiona L. Tasker, “Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families,” Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 9
-60X higher risk of incest in homosexual parented family-60 P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772
-Children do better in families with both mom and dad in the same house- Pitirim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1956), pp. 6, 77—105. 68 See the following: Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45; Pat Fagan, “How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1283, June 11, 1999, p. 13; Dawn Upchurch et al., “Gender and Ethnic Differences in the Timing of First Sexual Intercourse,” Family Planning Perspectives 30 (1998): 121—127; Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, “Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23—54; Jane Mauldon, “The Effect of Marital Disruption on Children’s Health,” Demography 27 (1990): 431—446; Frank Furstenberg, Jr., and Julien Teitler, “Reconsidering the Effects of Marital Disruption: What Happens to Children of Divorce in Early Adulthood?” Journal of Family Issues 15 (June 1994); Elizabeth Thomson et al., “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors,” Social Forces 73 (1994): 221—42

I have tons more to pass on, but why bother, this gets the major problems out there. 

references for others above-
41-41 G. J. Hart et al., “Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991—1992,” AIDS (July 1993): 863—869, cited in “Homosexual Marriage: The Next Demand,” Position Analysis paper by Colorado for Family Values, May 1994
56 ACSF Investigators, “AIDS and Sexual Behavior in France,” Nature 360 (1992): 407—409; J. M. Bailey et al., “Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers,” Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124—129; J. O. G. Billy et al., “The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives 25 (1993): 52—60; A. M. Johnson et al., “Sexual Lifestyles and HIV Risk,” Nature 360 (1992): 410—412
57 J. M. Bailey et al., “Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers,” pp. 127, 128

@TMR Beste—You cannot confuse John with facts. He’ll not allow it. Militant agendas are not about facts, only results.

for all you fence sitters out there, please note TMR’s “non-hateful” statement:

“because that is what the radical gay agenda is doing (destroying society) with their systematic agenda to ‘change’ society into the what the radical homosexual agenda wants society to be”

so, remember, it’s not hateful to accuse a small minority of people (with a ‘radical agenda’ of equality) for ruining society, kind of like the way it’s not hateful to say jewish bankers are ruining the economy. it’s not hate, it’s just stating what is.

oh..and before you give credence to TMR’s “list” of sources, you need go no further than his first source to see who these people are. Google “American College of Pediatricians” and you will see they are a small organization of pediatricians formed for the sole reason that they disagreed with the findings of the “American ACADEMY of Pediatrics,” the mainstream organization of pediatricians in America akin to the AMA, supporting adoptions by same gender parents and finding no basis to deny adoption rights to gay parents.

And you still have not indentified the actual mechanism by which a SSM couple down the street or across the country, who you do not know, and cannot even name, have a causal effect on the family structure of the whole society.  You have to PROVE a causal effect.  In all the court cases this has never been done.

As others have stated, you are asking the wrong question.  It may not be the individual couple down the street that causes injury to another straight couple, it is the societal recognition of the SSM couple that causes injury to the institution.  Public recognition of SSM further deteriorates the meaning of marriage by giving additional credence to the separation of procreation from sexual intercourse.  At this point, SSM may be the equivalent of stabbing a guy who has already been shot 15 times with a .45, but you certainly don’t increase the chances of saving his life by the additional stabbing.

But, no matter.  Truth has a way of re-asserting itself despite our best efforts to the contrary and our continued contraceptive culture (of which SSM is a part) will collapse upon itself and disappear at some point.  It is an inevitable law of nature.

By removing the idea that marriage is for the begetting and care of children, contraception renders the argument that SSM cannot produce children is moot. Since most married couples render themselves sterile either temporarily or permanently, marriage is no longer for raising families, but rather for the convenience and happiness of the individuals in the relationship. Therefore it is unfair to deny that happiness and convenience for one sexual preference while allowing it for the other. This is the case your side brings.

And, unfortunately, it is a strong case.  But that is not because SSM is somehow good, it is simply because contraception is wrong and as a society we have acceptd it.  Contraception is the nose of the camel that gets it inside the tent.  Actually, contraception is probably more akin to everything but the tail.

@larry

How can you not see that it is “Abortion, mostly”, and no fault divorce, that has destroyed marriage.

I think you misinterpret what is meant by the “root” of a problem.  Root refers to the beginning, that which paved the way for later things, that which provides the logical jumping point.  Much like a plant, the root usually springs first, but may not be the largest part of the tree in the end.  It is also what continues to provide support (at least logically) even though it may not seem to be the most serious.  If we did not have a contraceptive culture, we would have no basis for accepting no-fault divorce or aborion.  Accepting contraceptione provides the logical cover to separation of sex from procreation.  It is from that root which the huge and damaging trunk and branches of no-fault and abortion grow.

lol…“stabbing a guy who has already been shot 15 times with a .45” is the equivalent of same gender marriage.  no, not hateful.

matt, as i posted after your other comment, animals mate to procreate.  humans elevate it to a far higher status than making babies.  that is why many marry even though they can’t have children (they are infertile, have had surgical procedures, are post-menopausal, etc).  some marry just because of children (ie, unintended pregnancy) and then use it as a grounds for annulment after-the-fact.

the bigger issue is whether the church can impose the same standards on all people in civil law.

well, that is one of the issues isn’t it?  And it cuts both ways - whether the Church should be allowed to impose its view of marriage on others through the state, or whether homosexuals should be able to use the state to push their alternative view on others.  The state can articulate valid secular reasons for supporting marriage as defined by the Church.  As for SSM, the only argument I have heard so far is “we want it, we can’t have it, therefore it’s unfair”.  That’s not an argument.  That’s whining.

@ John-you buy no facts that contradict your world view. True and Natural Marriage has nothing to do with the Church ‘imposing this on the world’ and everything to do with the ordered complementary of the sexes and the law written onto our hearts-otherwise known as natural law.  The Church only acknowledges what has already been established as Truth and proclaims this Truth because this is what is good for us, in the end.  That is love, not hate. Love, if you do not know-is what is for the good of the other. You worry only what is good for yourself. You are one trying to change this order that I speak of and the natural law.  It is YOU who ARE trying to change this order of Marriage and imposing YOUR ideas, your will, on all of us, on future children-to their detriment, on society-to its detriment, and against the common sense that we all have in our hearts. Then, you have the nerve to call us ‘haters’ because we know what is wrong, and what is right for the future and for the children of the world. I think you are a hater, of what is good and right for everyone else.  You hate the Truth. Why are you not an anti-Catholic bigot?

@c matt—I have changed my mind and totally agree with -SDG- on this matter.
@john—I’ll take a .45 shot 15 times before I’ll masturbate myself in the wrong orifice lubed with human feces.

cmatt, i’m sorry you do not understand why gay couples have every right to petition their government for the same rights that heterosexual couples have.  the whining i’ve heard comes from the other side, that heterosexual marriage is so weak that it will now fail as an institution because of same gender marriages.  in other words, heterosexual couples won’t feel “special” anymore.  boo hoo.

TMR:  I buy no presentation of facts that is biased by it’s very nature, promoted by small groups of dissenters who can’t accept what their peers have roundly concluded. 

You have a right to teach your kids whatever you want about marriage, about what is right, what is wrong.  Other parents have the right to teach differently.  Governments make decisions on facts, not what you or any individual define as “common sense” in your heart.  Despite over 10 years of same gender marriages, no one has been able to come up with one, single way in which children have been harmed, heterosexual marriages have been decimated, or society has collapsed because of it.

and i hope any fence sitters out there are taking a look at the language that is cropping up again.  i would be an anti-catholic bigot for disagreeing with what some segments in the church have decided is the “truth.”  and i would be “imposing” my values on “them” by opening up an instituion and making it more inclusive, but the other side is not imposing their values on me by excluding me.  how logical.

John. Marriage is not a civil right. Government only regulates what is already in order for the common good. Besides, no rights are being removed for anyone when the government does not extend so-called ‘marriage’ onto same-sex couples because they can obtain all of those rights legally by other means. What same-sex couples really want in ‘marriage’ is to impose on all of us the stamp of legitimacy so that they can further indoctrinate the rest of us into their radical agenda.  They want the rest of us to say: ‘yes, disordered sex is good.’  Nothing less will satisfy their agenda.  Since studies, surveys and recent articles show that same-sex ‘marriages’ are mostly in name-only and the partners involved are almost never monogamous and living any semblance of what most of us think of as ‘marriage’, this is what I must conclude is the true agenda.

TMR:  Marriage isn’t a civil right????  Since when?  Have you read the US Supreme Court’s decision in “Loving”????  denial of rights is no different from removing rights.  what same gender couples want from marriage is no different from what mixed gender couples want.  and just to clarify, again, “disordered sex” by whose authority?  what do the american medical association and american psychiatric association have to say about it?  the “true radical agenda” of gay people is to be treated equally.  nothing more, nothing less.  and out of curiosity, have you been reading what recent articles have to say about the percentage of heterosexual marriages are truly monogamous?  apparently not.

John. I am not a small segment of the Church. Open up the catechism.  Same-sex relations are intrinsically evil, it follows that same-sex marriage is intrinsically evil.  Anyone who knows their Catechism will know this fact. My Bishop stated this, the USCCB states this,  the Knights of Columbus supports this idea.  This is the Truth of natural Law, the Truth of the Church began by Jesus Christ, not my Truth.  What you are talking about is relativism, which changes with one’s whim and fashion. My Truth is ever-lasting and eternal, never to be changed with the current fashion.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357
CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved

TMR: The Knights of Columbus are a religious authority?  The Catechism reflects the thinking of ALL Catholics?  Natural law as defined by whom, a segment of the Catholic church?  and where’d you get your definition, let me guess, another bible site?  a dissenter’s organization? how about trying the AMA, APA or Webster dictionary for a definition?

TMR:  and i guess you concede marriage is a civil right after all. phew.

For all those sitting on the fence.
One of The best definations I’ve read of what marriage is. It’s a PDF file

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102279285913-6/GGA+-+What+is+Marriage.pdf

TMR Beste wrote “The Church only acknowledges what has already been established as Truth and proclaims this Truth because this is what is good for us, in the end.  That is love, not hate. Love, if you do not know-is what is for the good of the other.”  Very well put.  Thank you.

@john

“oh..and before you give credence to TMR’s
‘list’ of sources, you need go no further than his first source to see who these people are. Google ‘College of Pediatricians’ and you will see they are a small organization of pediatricians formed for the sole reason that they disagreed with the findings of the ‘American ACADEMY of Pediatrics,’ the mainstream organization of pediatricians in America akin to the AMA, supporting adoptions by same gender parents and finding no basis to deny adoption rights to gay parents.”

john, so you know what % of MDs belong to the AMA”?

And by the way, did you see my last reply to your to mine about who is the “authority” on what is correct behavior?

Part 10 is now up.