It’s true the ongoing decline of marriage started long before gays were even a blip on the radar screen.  But since then they have come out of the closet and into the streets are making up for lost time. Example is they are militant in their support for abortion.

I agree, it is the disrespect and mistreatment of marriage by married couples that has caused children to be afraid of it.  Those children grew up in hurt, their friends saw them hurt.  How do they combat it?  Stay away from marriage themselves to make sure they don’t get hurt.  I suppose homosexuality could “morph” out of this as well since, as you say, it is a social issue.  Once marriage becomes disposable, people think morals in general can go out the door too.

merno just described the same reason whey gays don’t pay attention to catholic dogma. There’s been way too much pain thrust on them because the oppression just does not work. Children grow up and have no respect for a philosophy that tells them they’re horrible.
The ironic thing is that gays are trying to get married and follow that lifestyle and it’s still unacceptable to their original families and lobbied against.
It’s a wonder people have put up with this for so long. At least now people have choices despite all the hate.

Have any of the antigay people ever considered what “the direct evidence on the social consequences or fallout of same-sex “marriage”” is?

Talk to anyone in psychology and ask them how it is to grow up hearing this from one’s parents. Being gay does not give a license to anyone to treat them as subhuman which is the attitude I’ve been seeing. The “consequences” outlined above are because gays have been treated as if inferior and discrimination laws are to avoid that. Fund your own agencies and treat others they way you want to be treated then you might not be attacked for your actions.

@ Freye:  I think you just demonstrated one of the consequences of what what Stephen called “a contraceptive mentality” in his last post.  People treat marriage as merely a “lifestyle” and not a sacrament.

Also, I think merno was talking about children growing up in broken or abusive families.  Plus, the Catholic Church teaches that people with homosexual inclinations deserve respect, but the meaning of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Though you’re post does get me thinking.  Will children raised Catholic grow to have no respect for the government which will tell them they are horrible (i.e. bigot or full of have, etc)?

@ freye: The sad fact is that human history and culture is replete with all manner of contempt and disdain, secular as well as religious and pagan as well as Christian, for “effeminate” men and homosexual acts. Not only is hatred or dehumanizing attitudes of this kind no specially Christian thing, it is contrary to the historical as well as the theological essence of Christianity. One of the many radical and subversive things about Christianity that made it stand out from the beginning was its insistence that on the dignity and personal equality of every human being, man, woman or child, rich or poor, slave or free. Christianity condemned homosexual acts but in principle neither recognized nor contemned any class of “homosexual” persons. That’s not to say that hatred and dehumanizing attitudes haven’t always coexisted with Christianity, but they are fundamentally un-Christian.

@SDG: i absolutely agree with you with your comments to freye here when dealing with gays on a one to one basis. We have all probably had freinds and co workers who are homosexual, I certainely have. But here in the combox these are nothing but militant homosexuals who deserve nothing, and will get nothing from me. They give no respect in matters of truth and merely spread lies and distortions looking for the weak to prey on.

@ Larry:
 

“But here in the combox these are nothing but militant homosexuals who deserve nothing, and will get nothing from me.”

 
Militant anyones or anythings can be offputting, but we are commanded to return good for evil. If you love only those who love you, what reward have you?

I like this respectful discussion so far.

I appreciate SDG’s post.  I find the uproar against gay marriage to be off key precisely because it is one symptom of larger social/cultural problems.  I relate to freye’s post: what I see is gay people who are actually trying to live out the monogamous calling of sacramental marriage.  This is not to deny the fundamental differences gay marriage has with Catholic dogma.  I’m simply stating my experience that I know several long-term gay, committed couples who epitomize monogamy and marital unity more than many of my hetersexual friends.  Unlike Larry, I don’t have personal experience with gay people who are trying to prey on weaklings and spread lies; most that I know simply want to live their lives happily and healthily.

My point in writing is too highlight that, whether one believes gay marriage is a sham and virtually impossible, or whether one believes it is a right, in my humble opinion the furor of the entire issue is misplaced.  In that way, I guess I am accusing some people of “Chicken Little alarmism.”  Let’s spend more time and energy figuring out how to help professed Catholics improve and succeed in their marriages.  In that way we will be protecting and preserving the sanctity of marriage itself.  And dare I say, we might actually learn something from a sociaological and emotional standpoint from long-term committed straight and gay couples who actually stay committed and together through good times and bad?

@SDG: Yes thats true, and in real life, one to one, it’s always my first inclination. The combox is their battle ground where they prey on the weak. There comes a point where one has to defend. To them, disagreement is evil.

@freye ~ Divorced couples, disposing of marriage and not taking it seriously, caused many a child to hurt.  What you call Catholic “opression” we call simply guidance of our senses.  Now, if one does not want to be guided and simply “do as they please” and be promiscuous, they will view this guidance as “opression.”  This is what Eve thought too, and she convinced Adam to simply eat the dumb apple.  Look what happened after that!

@freye ~ Divorced couples, disposing of marriage and not taking it seriously, caused many a child to hurt.  What you call Catholic opression we call simply guidance of our senses.  Now, if one does not want to be guided and simply do as they please and be promiscuous, they will view this guidance as opression.  This is what Eve thought too, and she convinced Adam to simply eat the silly apple.  Look what happened after that!

Steven, thank you for affirming what is now obvious—10 years and counting—there is no evidence that same gender marriages infringe on heterosexual marriages.  This has even been the case in the Catholic countries that recognize marriage equality, such as Spain, Portugal, Argentina and several states in Mexico, with Brazil and Luxembourg on the cusp.  And kudos for acknowledging the threat to marriage and families lies with heterosexuals, not gays and lesbians. 

You are incorrect, however, in blaming same gender marriage laws for all of the scenarios you cited.  Michigan, for instance, does not recognize same gender marriages.  The reality is that anti-discrimination laws, even in states that do not recognize marriage equality, and the consensus of mainstream professional mental health organizations are at the root of the outcomes you cite.  In Boston, there are at least three documented occasions where Catholic Charities placed children with gay couples—prior to marriage equality.  Cardinal O’Malley only chose to make an issue of it when he was lobbying the legislature to initiate the process to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision.

Yes, the world is changing.  Some for the better, some for the worse.  God is behind all of it.  And what is good and right will prevail.

@ Larry: If it’s your first inclination, good for you. I wish I could say the same. I have not found preying on the weak to be the special trait of cyberspace, nor have I found the Sermon on the Mount to be less applicable or vital in combox debate. We can’t defend Christian virtue except by trying, however imperfectly, to live Christian virtue. Compromising our principles only confirms the other side’s worst suspicions and does no one any good. If we stick to our guns—and by that I mean uphold the Christian ethic in all its countercultural power, returning good for evil—Christ will be glorified.

@ john:
 
This is the second time you’ve construed that I “acknowledge” or “concede” something just because I chose to discuss something else instead. Please read more carefully.
 
What I said about same-sex “marriage” laws being used as a stick to beat defenders of traditional marriage is true. It is also true that is some cases where that stick is not available another similar stick has been used. That only strengthens my point. When that stick becomes available, incidents like this will increase. You seem to acknowledge that you consider this a positive outcome; if so, thanks for being clear about that.

Get to know the author:

Since Steve doesn’t seem to share his views on human excrement in his articles, I thought I’d post his reaction to the comments of someone who refers to human intestines as “sewer pipes.”

“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.”

If this is what the opposition to marriage equality comes down to, we’ve won!

“That’s not to say that hatred and dehumanizing attitudes haven’t always coexisted with Christianity, but they are fundamentally un-Christian.”

That’s interesting to see when the point of the article is to vilify and blame gays followed by multiple people making the claim that any attempt at having a family is deranged.

It’s not a discussion when insults are thrown at gays while any response is considered “militant”.
If you don’t want others to have relationships you are out of luck. We still will. We are winning and will continue to win when it comes to the individual wanting to have a family in the face of supposed “Christian values” that insist on preventing this at all costs. Denying love is never going to win.
If gays used only “faith” and slurs to win a case on civil rights we would never win. Neither will you.

And that is why these posts are counterproductive from every side and every angle.

Steven:

Yes, I believe it is a positive outcome when organizations receiving taxpayer dollars are not allowed to discriminate against the taxpayers who pay them.  Yes, I believe that professional organizations have a responsibility to censure practices that are proven harmful to patients. If same gender marriage helps advance those principles, all the better.

@SDG: Maybe I look at it wrong. It just seems cyberspace is where you continualy get beaten down no matter how right you are until you either agree or give up. You as a columinist know better than any of us. Giving up being the ultimate end. I wish I could believe the rest of what you said, and it would end there. Maybe it is the best way. I just have this knawing problem in my head telling me that if I would go to another country and fight in a war, keeping my family and neighbors safe from all the violence.  There must be many different levels of fighting in between when defending our families.

If “love is all that matters” why is polygamy a crime, and gay marriage is not supposed to be?  Clearly, it is a moral issue.  When polygamy was made a crime, it is becaue people had better moral values back then.  Today, the “anything goes” don’t tread on me-me-me spirit is rampant.  Time for divine intervention or some lawyers to get their brains together somehow and pull us out of this mess before we all go to hell in a handbasket!

@ John triumphantly pronounces a biological aside tossed out at the end of a 200-comment combox to be “what opposition to marriage equality comes down to.”
 
@ Joseph R Yungk says that “the point of the article is to vilify and blame gays.”
 
I’m sure both of you are capable of more intellectual honesty than you’ve demonstrated here.
 
@ Larry: I understand how you feel. It may also help to bear in mind that the defense of truth does not necessarily depend on who gets the last word.

Because polygamy is a behavior, being gay is a status.  One can be gay and celibate.  One can’t be polygamous without being in a polygamous relationship.  Laws that discriminate against status are different in that you are punishing people, or precluding them from equality, on the basis of an immutable characteristic.  Laws against polygamy, a behavior, can be applied equally to those who are heterosexual and those who are gay. 

The basis of laws against polygamy is that to permit multiple legal marriages would lead to nearly impossible to decide litigation over issues such as spousal benefits, spousal medical decisions and inheritance rights, among others.  No such issues arise with respect to same gender marriages.

@ John: Is being an ephebophile a status? Should laws discriminate against that status?

Steven, that you continue to sympathize with and even defend someone who uses such a vile characterization of the human body and repeatedly resorts to childish name-calling (go read all of his posts, if you haven’t already) speaks volumes.  I think your readers should know about your human excrement analysis.  Yes, it speaks volumes.  And yes, I’ve made an intellectually honest observation.

Steven, It is a condition.  And there should be punishment for acting on that condition.  Because acting on that condition requires non-consensual sex, ie, sex with a minor, a minor not being deemed statutorily capable of forming consent.

@ John: Larry is my brother in Christ. He’s not perfect, and neither am I. I’ve tried to encourage him in what I hope will be a helpful direction. I’ve tried to do the same with you. My biological comments are impeccably correct (I’m married to an RN and I’m a bit of a science geek). Lots of people don’t know that urine is a subset of the blood supply (and therefore sterile), and quite disanalogous to fecal matter which was never assimilated into the body. Most people see pretty readily that the penis is a generative organ and the bowel is not. If you feel any of this entitles you to take a moral high ground over me, be my guest. Cheers.

@ John: What’s the difference between a condition and a status?
 
“Not being deemed statutorily capable of forming consent.” “Deemed” is an interesting word. That just means it isn’t legally valid, right? Kind of like how same-sex marriage isn’t legally valid in a lot of places. So the law could change, right? If some country or state passed a law lowering the age of consent to 12, would that change ephebophila from a condition to a status? If not, why not?

Steven:

You’ve encouraged him to apologize for, and stop, name calling?  You’ve encouraged him to reconsider his characterization of part of the human body as a “sewer pipe.”  And if you really think there is room for discussing metaphors about human excrement in a debate about love, marriage and commitment, why not include it in one of your articles?

Steve.. That’s not what it means.  Non-consensual sex is a crime.  By statute, each jurisdictions deems an individual capable of consent at a certain age, almost always between 16-18.  If an adult has sex with someone under that age, it’s called “statutory rape.”  There is no investigation to determine if the minor has consented.  The minor is “deemed” by virtue of his or her age, not to have consented.  It applies not only to sex, but to entering contracts as well. 

If a society were to change the consent laws, and in effect, some countries have by allowing children to enter into heterosexual marriages, legally it would not be rape.  The psychiatric and medical communities, however, still consider it an illness.  Therefore, it is still a condition and not a status.  Laws against ephebophila can be justified to protect children based, on the damage it can cause children. 

Homosexuality is not an illness.  Nor is there any objective harm of such behavior.  Therefore, there is no basis to make illegal consensual gay sex between two adults.

@ John: I encouraged Larry to treat everyone with respect, to return good for evil. If I notice name-calling I do try to put a stop to it. I don’t read every post. I acknowledged earlier that calling the bowel a “sewer pipe” may be somewhat offensive but your outrage seems to me over the top. Sewer pipes perform a needed function, as does the bowel. I don’t find any of this relevant or helpful to the discussion at hand, but your earlier question caught my eye and I threw out a biological fact-check as a “FWIW.”
 

“If a society were to change the consent laws, and in effect, some countries have by allowing children to enter into heterosexual marriages, legally it would not be rape.  The psychiatric and medical communities, however, still consider it an illness. ... Homosexuality is not an illness.  Nor is there any objective harm of such behavior.”

 
The only thing missing from your analysis is the extent to which what is or isn’t recognized as illness depends on moral and political social consensus. A few decades ago homosexuality was recognized as a dysfunctional condition. Now it isn’t, and the relationship between that change and changing social attitudes is, if we can be candid, complicated. It isn’t that pure objective science rationally proved, to everyone’s surprise, in the teeth of all existing social expectations, that homosexuality wasn’t harmful after all, so social attitudes began changing.
 
In principle, the same process could easily happen with ephebophila. Kinsey, who pioneered the rehabilitation of homosexuality, argued for the same sort of rehabilitation for sexual activity with children, infants and even animals. Kinsey saw no reason, apart from “cultural conditioning,” that a child should be “disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts.” In his mind “the current hysteria over sex offenders” was the real danger to children. Society recoils from this, obviously, and the psychiatrists have withheld their approval so far. But it’s naive to posit a simple scientific Fact as the ultimate arbiter and consider the social censure to be a mere effect. If more and more people thought like Kinsey, the scientific community would come around, just as it has on homosexuality.

Steven, Again, ultimately, you defend the “sewerpipe” analogy.  You even consider it “over the top” to voice outrage over the use of such a term to describe a part of the human body.  Incredible.  If, indeed, sewerpipes are not such a bad thing and there’s merit to be had in the argument, then I encourage you to use the analogy in your next article.

The fact of the matter is that the medical, psychiatric and scientific communities now have 40 years worth of emperical data to evaluate the lives of openly gay people. If the APA were to take another vote, the margin would be lopsided. That’s pretty overwhelming affirmation that homosexuality is not an illness.

Equally convincing data about the proven harm of child sexual abuse has also been collected, researched and examined over at least the last 20 years.  Tragically, there has been no shortage of case studies, even to the extent of evaluating the effects of such abuse that occurred over 50 years ago.  Based on this, as well, the APA is no closer, and probably further than it’s ever been, to “coming around” on normalizing pedophilia or ecophelia.

There is no comparison between the two.

@ John: Why are homosexuals so much more prone to a host of mental health problems including much higher rates of suicide, depression, substance abuse bulimia and antisocial personality disorder?

I expect your response will be that the problem isn’t homosexuality itself, but only social pressure in a homophobic culture. Yet homosexuality enjoys far more social acceptance and legal protection than ephebophilia. Isn’t it equally reasonable to suppose that if social attitudes on ephebophilia began to change and ephebophiles could act more openly and in a less predatory fashion, some of the negative consequences of those relationships might also be alleviated?

You can deny this if you like, but science has no culture-free zone in which to examine these questions unaffected by social attitudes.

steven, again i defer to the psychiatric and medical communities that have researched these matters thoroughly and come to very similar conclusions.  you answered your first question yourself, so obviously you’ve either read about or are aware of the consequences of bullying, attempted “reparative” treatments, gay-bashing, demonizing and other forms of oppressing a minority. 

and while your assertion about ephebophiles might or might not be correct, alleviating “some” consequences of those behaviors (I would not call sex with a child a ‘relationship,’ as you do), society would have to be convinced that ALL consequences to such behavior would not only “alleviated,” but eradicated, before even considering your suggestion.  the data available, to date, overwhelmingly says otherwise.

again, there is no comparison.

Hello John,

That homosexuals are prone to so many more psychological and physical ailments is not due to societal homosexual bashing. These occurences are in countries that are homosexual “friendly” such as Denmark.

It’s the natural law. When a human goes against the natural law, his or her body and psyche will rebel and break down.

I don’t like homosexual sex or life style. Because I disagree with the homosexuals does not mean I hate homosexuals.Gay means happy joyful not homosexual. This is not hate. The above article is a good article.

I’ve never seen anything like this with a Christian label either. That it’s perceived as appropriate yet claim the other side is hateful is just not reality.
This is why you are losing. Equating consenting adults with those who prey on children is just not accurate.
Others know what this kind of bashing does to the developing psyche that is why we are winning. And that is why the vast majority of homosexuals leave your church. You have provided a very good example of the vitriol and hostility toward gays. You’ve also pointed out exactly how contradictory the reasoning is.

I disagree with homosexuals. I don’t like homosexual sex and way of life which I find disgusting. That does not mean I hate homosexuals because I dis agree. Anyone disagrees with homosexuals means you hate them and discrimniate against them. Don’t believthat is true. Gay means joy and happy not homosexual. I agree with the ariticle.

lisieux, what study of danish gays and lesbians are you referring to?

you are aware, by the way, that “gay friendly” is not the same as “gay affirming,” and that bullying, gay-bashing, discrimination (gay marriages are still not recognized in Denmark, only civil unions with fewer rights), demonizing and other forms of harassment do not disappear overnight?

gary…glad you like the article, which affirms that heterosexual behavior, and not gays and lesbians, are responsible for what many perceive to be society’s ills.

are you suggesting that gays can’t be gay and happy? maybe you don’t know too many.

joseph…i wish we could find a way to broadcast these comments as far and wide as possible.  then we’ll be able to provide another group of people with the distinction of being “10%” of the population.

Golly, reading through the 3 blog posts, and then all of the comments… Many great points (all around!), several head scratchers, a growing number of winces, and an aggregate Aflac Duck jowl shaking.

I was going to comment earlier, but decided to go to Confession first so I could get some help in quelling my first responder instincts. So, before I write anything, I can only ask in advance to be offered patience and forgiveness - just imagine how this would come out if I weren’t overflowing with Humility and Charity!

@Larry: Thor? Really? I was trying to figure if you were some kind of combox plant. Surely, no Christian could be “fighting the good fight” by way of a denigrating anatomical slur - intentionally hostile and dehumanizing; and then turn to mean-spirited, adolescent name-calling?

Well, I ended up figuring you were for real. Ironically, any “weak” individual checking out this conversation would end not walking, but running, away from your position.

@no one in particular: what happens when we put ourselves in one another’s shoes? It doesn’t mean we have to abandon our reason, or our beliefs, or come up with some mushy “it’s all good” conclusion. But it could help to acknowledge where positions are coming from, and what kind of experiences are forming them.

So, at least when I try this on the pro-gay marriage side, I do see a history of an enormous amount of hate directed at gay and lesbian people. I see many people yearning to be authentic, and vilified by what is very often a hypocritical, self-righteous majority, who shape their criticism and rhetoric in the cosmic terms.

If I wanted to engage in a real conversation about society, marriage, and sexuality, would this be a place to begin? 

Before I sign off for dinner, I would add that I thought SDG’s 3 posts were fantastic. Despite how some of the combox traffic turned into a gay marriage/friend or foe slugfest, I think that one of the most striking aspects of SDG’s whole approach is the way he points out that gay marriage, in itself, is not to blame for the fine mess we’re in. Which, of course, is not the same thing as saying that gay marriage is good or right (despite a few rhetorical attempts to state SDG’s “agreement”), or without negative consequences for society.

In fact, I thought this collection of 3 posts, taken as a whole, constitute one of the most insightful, and charitable reflections on the marriage/sexuality/society conversation that the gay marriage issue has brought to the fore that I’ve read.

gary…so you don’t hate homosexuals, you just find their lives disgusting?  how nice.

@Rob MACM. Thanks for the post.

“gary…so you don’t hate homosexuals, you just find their lives disgusting?  how nice.”

That’s what it comes down to and we’re seeing this as it unravels and exposes itself for what it is. And they don’t even hear themselves when they say these things. Even when some gays want the same lifestyle as heterosexuals with marriage it’s not enough. They are the ones who are going to have to get over it as all this appears to be bigoted to most who would ever run across it. That’s all that really matters after all the above has been said.

Hello John, I am referring to a 2003 Dutch study that found that even homosexual men who had a “steady” partner” also had an average of eight “casual” sexual partners per year. Those without a “steady” had an average of 22 casual ones.  For this reason, homosexual men experience highter rates of gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV/AIDS, and “gay bowel syndrome” among other problems.

The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize homosexual “marriage,” and male homosexuals there are not experiencing a cessation of biological ills: Maria Xiridou, et. al., in AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038.

John, do you think that three persons should be allowed to marry here in the US, or say, two siblings who already have children together? Afterall, they love one another.

rob, well said.  but one clarification.  if you are referring to my posts, i never said sdg suggests he personally believes same gender marriage is good or bad.  i said he acknowledges they are not the basis of marital and child rearing problems and pose no threat to heterosexual marriages.  the latter, while he attempts to hedge by saying he’s not really saying that, is implicit by the lack of so much as one example as to how same gender marriages threaten mixed gender marriages.

lisux, what’s the link to the study?  do you know how conducted it?  was it another narth/george rekers “study?”  or paul cameron “study?”  have vaginal and penile infections been eradicated in the netherlands?

for your attempt at analogizing homosexuality with incest and polygamy, please read my earlier posts above that distinguish between what constitutes a “status,” a “condition” and a “behavior.”

Nice post, Rob.  I agree that the earlier parts of the thread were compelling, focusing on Steve’s attempt to dig into some of the roots rather than the current symptoms.  Yelling and screaming about gay marriage will do little.  Working to lower the divorce rate, especially among practicing Catholics and Christians, and tending to our own parish communities has a much stronger ripple effect and alienates fewer people.  Whether we agree or disagree with someone’s behavior and/or lifestyle, if we actually hear them with an open heart and open mind (not the same as approving, btw) we may learn from them.

Hello John, I have a paper copy referring to it, and no electronic link. As for vaginal and penile infections being eradicated, you can find that out.  Also- can homosexual men donate blood in Denmark?

They cannot do so legally here in America, and for good reason. There blood supply is still not safe.

Please answer my question, John. I answered yours.

If you want to homosexual men to marry, why not two homosexual women who want a third male partner?  What about two siblings?

Hey, guy, you’re the one who wants to redefine marriage!  Let’s talk redefining marriage! :-}

Threesome Marriages
“First came traditional marriage. Then, gay marriage. Now, there’s a movement combining both—simultaneously. Abby Ellin visits the next frontier of nuptials: the “triad.” “

“Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another. Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet, 55—were legally married in 2000. Rather, this public commitment ceremony was designed to also bind them to Shivaya, their new 60-something “husband.” Says Sasha: “I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”’

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/07/threesome-marriages.html

John, would you go so far as to redefine marriage for these three people as well? They seem to want the same as you do.

Please address this point.

whose name is on the paper copy?  who’s the author?  who published it?

you seem to agree that there are many conditions that can be contracted from sexual behavior, whether gay or heterosexual, and that they are not grounds to stop having sex.  the cdc is in the process of lifting the blod ban that has been repudiated by the medical community, just so you know.  the risk, fyi, was never ‘gay blood,’ it was the possibility of transmitting the blood of donors who might be hiv positive.

go read my earlier posts.  sexual orientation is a status, not a behavior.  one can be celibate his or whole life and still be gay.  polygamy and incest are behavioral. one cannot be polygamous or incestuous without being in such a relationship.  the difference is that discriminating on the basis of status is discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic, the other can apply to everybody, irrespective of their status.  go read my other posts for the parts about objective standards of harm for polygamy/incest and the lack thereof for gay sex.

i have no idea what you are trying to say in your last sentence.  yes, i’m in favor of extending marriage rights to include gay couples.  i’ve never tried to say otherwise.

Posted by Joseph R Yungk on Wednesday, Jul 6, 2011 7:21 PM (EDT):

in response to john
““gary…so you don’t hate homosexuals, you just find their lives disgusting?  how nice.””

“That’s what it comes down to and we’re seeing this as it unravels and exposes itself for what it is.”

And that’s why I left the church. I did not want my son to have that type of highly personal (as you say) vitriol put on him. Now I understand what he was afraid of and what he has to deal with. I suggest that rather than poke the fire just let it burn out. Other true Christians are throwing water on it right now.

liseux, you’ve missed my earlier posts. that question has been asked and answered.  many times.  search for “status” and “behavior” and you will find them.

john,

please keep in mind this is the same place where someone was insisting that because one is for gay marriage they must then, without question and for no reason at all, does absolutely therefor agree with incestuous marriage.

jimmy, i can’t even begin to explain how sad i am to read the vast majority of posts here.  gay people are accused of being nazis, depraved, blackhearted, disgusting, diseased, mentally ill and sewer pipe drinkers, among others, and their consensual, loving, adult relationships are being analogized as on a par with incest and the sexual abuse of minors. (all of these are directly from various posts, not merely “gist of”) on the one hand, i rejoice in the knowledge that if this is what underpins those who oppose marriage equality, they are doomed to lose the fight, even sooner than expected.  on the other hand, i can’t believe in my heart that these same people consider themselves loving Christians using terminology and arguments that they think Jesus himself would make.  even the author, whose article is reasonable enough, resorted to defending the term “sewer pipe” to define human intestines.  i am at a total loss as to how virtually any of these responses are even remotely Christian.

John, I gave you the name, please read my post.

As for the CDC, you are incorrect. Some politicos within and without the CDC are agitating for lifting the ban. Here’s a recent CDC report having to do with MSM (men having sex with men) and the statistics are not encouraging.

Keep in mind, this report is from 2010, not from 1985. This is decades after so-called safe sex practices for homosexuals have been promoted:

“HIV and AIDS among
Gay and Bisexual Men
Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all
races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in
which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing. There is an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV
prevention interventions for gay and bisexual men, as well as to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population.
A Snapshot
t MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated
532,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
t While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of
new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000
MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
t MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have
declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM
has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.”

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

If homosexual sex is so natural, then I don’t think that it would be so medically treacherous and risky, John.

Please answer my questions. I have been courteous to you and answered yours. I don’t think that three people who want to get married really diffentiate between status, orientation, or other labels.

Would you allow three people to redefine marriage, and would you allow two siblings who have children together to redefine marriage as well?

As for your other posts, I’m sure they are informative. But I don’t have the time to sift through them all for pertinent or nonpertinent information. Thanks.

Jimmy J, how can you deny two siblings the “right” to marriage if you can allow to men to marry?  What about consenting adults?

A brother and sister couple in Germany who have four children together are petitioning the German high court to get married. Part of their reasoning is that homosexual marriage has been legalized. So if their unnatural couplings can be recognized, why not other that were once deemed unnatural?

BTW, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, and France have all decriminalized incest between consenting adults, so this is a relevant topic.

So, would you allow them the same rights you would give to two men?

lisuex, you did not give me the name of the study, the author, or the publisher.

the cdc and dept of hhs are in the process of revising the standards.

gay sex does not cause disease.  a once deadly, and still very serious virus, has been transmitted by both heterosexuals (the vast majority of cases on a world-wide basis) and gay men.  lesbians have the lowest incidence of hiv transmission.

i answered all of your questions, even restating the difference between a status and a behavior, which answers the difference between incest and polygamy vs. being gay.  for further reading, you will have to go to my earlier posts.  i don’t have time to keep writing the same thing over and over again.  others have failed to refute the arguments, you are welcome to try.

lisieux, you say the article states:

“Part of their reasoning is that homosexual marriage has been legalized.”

not true.  same gender marriages are neither performed nor recognized in germany.

lisieux…i think i found the study you are referring to. here’s a thorough rebuttal of the methodology and “sample” that was utilized in reaching its conclusion.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm

Here it is again, John:
Maria Xiridou, et. al., in AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038.

Nice dodge, on my question.  You have not answered it. And I find that enlightening, as you call for homosexuals to be married, but can’t seem to stick your neck out for others who are consenting adults and presumably love one another.

So, I guess you will redefine marriage for yourself, but not others?

Would you allow three people to marry as you call for two men to marry? They really don’t care about status, orientation, labels, etcetera.

The CDC is at times controlled by political goings on. But based on this latest report, I doubt seriously that they can by any means lift the ban on men giving blood if they have had homosexual sex. According to this study, they would be more likely to lift the ban on blood from IV drug users, as their incidence of disease in 2010 is increasing, while that of MSM is INCREASING still.

On the other side of the empathizing-with-‘the other’ fence, there are the (for the most part on this site, Catholic) folks who claim that gay marriage constitutes “changing the definition of marriage.”

This one is a bit of a puzzler to me; that is to say, I can see how people could want to change the definition / society’s understanding of marriage, but I am less able to see how people can say that it isn’t being changed (and so, implication, what’s the big deal, and anyone who doesn’t see it this way suffers from some permutation of “hate” - speaking of constant, mantra-like rhetorical bombs….)

Again, I think that SDG did a great job of showing a time line that demonstrated the very long period in which the definition of marriage has changed, with what I think was a very insightful discussion of causes and effects. The comments for the first 2 blog posts also had some great material from a long line of Papal Encyclicals - which proved to be frighteningly prescient in their analyses of the consequences of various social changes - going all the way back to 1880: Leo the XIII (is there anything about the 20th c. that Leo XIII DIDN’T see coming / have something important to say about?!) regarding marriage, sex, and society.

One of the essential things I think these issues come down to is a question of anthropology: WHAT is the human? What is the human person? And from this, what constitutes male and female, unions between 2 people, the family, and all of the ways these aspects of humanity form a society. One of the causes of the disconnect in the whole discussion is the big divide in people’s understanding of this anthropology.

This is one of the reasons for the whole “show me one example of same gender marriages threatening mixed-gender marriages” impasse. In the Christian anthropology, same gender marriages are perhaps the most dramatic representative of the social paradigm shift into a completely different understanding of the human person. And that paradigm shift began centuries ago, and has been picking up speed at a blinding pace, in a kind of snow-balling effect.

In a way, even the notion of “sexual orientation” makes little sense in the Christian view of the human person.

@John- and BTW,  the notion that there is irrefutable “established consensus” within the medical and psychological communities is inaccurate, as is the notion that this is all about science, and not social and/or political pressure. The fact is that the American Psychiatric Association’s dropping of homosexuality as a defined disorder in 1974 came after 4 intense years of disruptive activism from the Gay Liberation Front, at the APA’s offices and annual conventions. Whether you agree or not with the ultimate conclusions, it seems that this was done out of politicized pressure as opposed to scientific study.

Nor do I think the your depiction of status-behavior-condition is so clear cut:
In their 2008 Q&A brochure on Sexual Orientation, the American Psychological Association states:
“Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others”

In fact, in 2009, after years of study trying to establish the inherent genetic/biological “status” of homosexuality, the APA basically gave up, and declared: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

Well, that’s way more than an allotted comment. Cheers to All.

John said

““Part of their reasoning is that homosexual marriage has been legalized.”

“not true.  same gender marriages are neither performed nor recognized in germany.”“

And there you have it. When there’s not enough, spread rumors and outlandish comparisons. Even call people disgusting names, adults doing this. As sad as it may be, I’m very happy this is documented. Anyone can now look at just how ugly this is toward others.

Liseux, I don’t think john is “dodging” your question.  Agree or not, he does seem to have tried to answer it in several posts above.
Also, you appear to hold the belief that homosexual persons choose to be homosexual.  John clearly does not believe that, so it is unlikely that you two are going to find common ground on this.  I would like to point out, though, that on the topic of whether people choose their sexuality, the Catechism of the CC clearly states, “They do not choose their homosexual condition,” while acknowledging (as Rob did) that it is virtually impossible to know the etiology of homosexuality in any given individual.
Having said all that, I do see a difference between a polygamous relationship in which, by definition, a person chooses to engage in multiple relationships at the same time versus a situation in which someone is born into a state of being.  You may argue, if you wish, that they must learn to control their behavior.  But, natural law or not, if someone was born with that impulse it’s going to be tough to convince them all to do so.

for the third time to you, and umpteenth time on this site, gay people can get married because being gay is a status based identity.  incest and polygamy are behavioral based identies.  the two are not the same.  that’s as clear as it gets. 

in the science, medical, legal and psychiatric communities, the distinction between status and behavioral based identies matter.  it is irrelevant if those you refer to do not care if their identy is status or behavioral-based.  for the purposes we are discussing, the distinction matters.

the cdc can be political at times, as it was during the reagan administraion when the blanket ban was enacted in the first place.

oh..and lisieux, i presume you received my follow up on the bogus, non-peer reviewed, limited data study you interjected into the discussion.

rob.. i never suggested homosexuality was solely genetically-based.  other factors may indeed, or not, be a factor.  being left-handed is a status, but noone has ever discovered a ‘left-handed gene.’

as for the apa, that vote was taken in 1974.  with 37 years of experience with openly gay people now a reality, something that was much less so back then, i’d be up for a re-vote.  and i’ll bet the margin would be significantly greater this time.

John, you state:
“...gay people can get married because being gay is a status based identity.  incest and polygamy are behavioral based identies.”

Okay, John, I disagree, but I can play with your words.  The triads who want to get married too are a homosexual pair who identify as homosexuals. They want to marry a man who can identify as a heterosexual man who enjoys having two women.

So we have these three people who, based on your definition, identify as homosexuals and heterosexuals and want to get married and have all the benefits of marriage.

What’s to stop them?  Please don’t tell me that you can open up the defintion of marriage to include two people who identify as homoseuxals, but not two people who identify as homosexuals and the man they love.

Why,..... that’s discrimination!  Argh!!!

So… by your definition (man-made- not nature-made) these people should marry, BUT you refuse them the same “rights” you want.

No, John, I did not read your link. I don’t read links, I only read what other posters provide for me, so if you wish to dig it up, I’ll peruse it.

SDG: may I suggest an additional consequence?  It seems, now that sexual intercourse has been divorced from procreation that there is frenzy of copulation and pseudo-copulation.  I’d suggest that subconsciously people know that the breeding dance should, in fact, result in breeding.  Seeing their actions bear no fruit, they try all the more.  I think there was a suggestion for a behavior classification of hypersexuality.  The question is hyper compared to what?
-
Thank you again for your fine, clear writing.

Liseux, if you’re up for it feel free to read and address my earlier post regarding the Catechism and the role of choice in your understanding of homosexuality.  I believe this is important because, in my opinion, it does distinguish homosexuality from polygamy (i.e., one may not choose whether they are born attracted to their own gender, whereas one certainly chooses how many people they are in relationship with).  You seem to be equating homosexuality with polygamy, or saying that all homosexuals are polygamists or something, so I am confused about your position on that.
Also, that link may be worth your while, especially if you plan on utilizing statistics from your aforementioned study.  But since you aren’t going to use it, basically the study you cite wasn’t it’s own study, but utilized data from a previous study.  The study it used to gather this data categorically and specifically ruled out entire populations of homosexuals (e.g., anyone over the age of 30, females, men without STDs) that clearly would skew the data.

Richard, thanks for recalling what the CCC says regarding homosexuality. I agree that some homosexuals do not choose their condition.

However the CCC continues, and #2357 does say as well, “Its psychological genesis remains largely explained….. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law.”

#2359 says, “Homosexuals are called to chastity.”

Do you agree with this?

that should be “un"explained

BTW, Richard, the Bible never did say that polygamy was disordered, did it?  King David and Solomon had many wives, yet God didn’t call them on it specifically. 

Also, I think some people do CHOOSE to be homosexual. Anne Heche is an example, as someone who dallied with Ellen De Generis and then left her for the cameraman. $$$$ and lust can make people choose some odd things.

Also, if you have been around any large high schools today, you can see the number of young people who “choose” to experiment with homosexuality one month and not the next.

I understand it’s not their “orientation” but they would argue it’s their lifestyle, which is as valid as an orientation since they choose to live it.

@Gary

“I don’t like homosexual sex or life style. Because I disagree with the homosexuals does not mean I hate homosexuals.Gay means happy joyful not homosexual. This is not hate.”

Gary, I think your idea of the meaning of “gay” is lacking.  The truth about the real meaning of “gay” as it pertains to homosexuality turns out to be quite accurate a noun for homosexual.  In addition to your definition of what gay means, it also means “given to social pleasure; also LICENTIOUS.  Licentious means, “1 :lacking legal or moral restraints; esp: disregarding sexual restraints 2 : marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness. 

The fellow in New York City who started the gay movement, which is a political movement, was quit accurate in the name he select for his cause.

I’m looking at the foul nature of some of the comments and it goes from the surreal accusational to the absurd:
““1 :lacking legal or moral restraints; esp: disregarding sexual restraints 2 : marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness.

“The fellow in New York City who started the gay movement, which is a political movement, was quit accurate in the name he select for his cause.”

Where exactly did you get this? The part about a movement specifically choosing something with a distant synonym and make a conspiracy out of it? I’m seeing more and more the “quality” of the data that some base this on.

“BTW, Richard, the Bible never did say that polygamy was disordered, did it?  King David and Solomon had many wives, yet God didn’t call them on it specifically.”

Well I guess now that answers the forever slippery slope question about polygamy. Maybe that guy claiming we’re all into father/daughter marriage will now admit that much of Leviticus would lead someone to say he must therefor support death penalties for certain things.

Joseph R Yungk -

Can you please quote an excerpt from SGD’s article, or official Catholic teaching, that you consider to be “hateful” toward homosexuals?

I keep asking this question (on other blogs and such) of those who accuse Catholics of being “hateful” toward homosexuals, and so far no one has chosen to respond.

Liseux, I do believe that homosexuals are called to chastity (as are unmarried people, as are divorced people).  However, what’s relevant to the discussion is not what I do or do not believe.  You and I may agree with the Catechism or not, but there are two important things that aren’t often addressed: 1) how to interact with and treat homosexual people who are, in all other ways, living God’s call (they do exist, I know several of them who are in long-term, monogamous, gay relationships); and 2) their freedom to make that choice, regardless of what the Catechism says and/or what I feel about it.  While it would be great if all homosexually oriented people (and all unmarried people, and all divorced people) would live chaste lives, that’s not up to me.  And since it is not up to me, I’m not going to spend lots of time spinning wheels at each movement that comes along.  Perhaps if we engage people who are making immoral choices with a friendly compassion that reflects Catholic virtues and values that will do more to get them closer to Christ than calling them disordered.  It doesn’t mean caving into pressure to drop our values; but it also doesn’t mean trying to run others’ lives and giving them the freedom to find their path, just like we have the freedom to find ours via Catholicism.  As per JoAnna’s last post, I’m not sure I’ve seen or read much outright “hate,” especially in the article itself (which is why I liked it - it was not an anti-homosexual screed but an actual analysis of root issues).  But the lack of tolerance shines forth more brightly than any level of compassion.  It sometimes seems to me from some commenters that they would just assume box all homosexual people up and throw them into the sea than actually engage them on any human, personal, or social level.  That is something I disagree with, regardless of how I feel about their lifestyle choices and/or their struggles to come to terms with their own make-up while still seeking God’s love.

@SDG—My first comment to you was baloney if I remember right.
You seem to me to be saying don’t blame the church at the same time blaming the church. By part 2 the tired argument of contracptives being the cause of anything except people just wanting to control the number of children they have and when got my blood boiling. People should have the right to use technology of today and prevent unwanted children and plan their families. It makes sence. What could be wrong with that? I’v been strugling with this since you wrote it and cannot leave it alone. There was a lot of activism back then just as there is a lot of activism today. They did not help this at all. Alot of what was bothering me was this feeling that there was something before the pill or condoms, so it couldn’t be the pill or condoms that was the cause. Just like abortions had to be caused by the courts and people had to be convinced that life was something other than a fetus. People just wouldn’t kill so they could have as much sex as they wanted. I did not want to believe that. Then I found out that almost One Million babies were aborted the first year after R.V. Wade. I never knew that. I never wanted to know that. I told you this was a tired old argument, because there was something there before the pill. You were right. Peoples lack of understanding of marriage mixed with the latest gadget to prevent pregnancies and presto, you have 1 million kids murdered every year and gays doen your throat so they can get married and have all the sex they want. I said earlier that alot of people get married for selfish reasons, and only they are to blame for that. Well if that’s not the defination for being misguided and lack of knowledge of marriage then there is none. And birth control allows it. No kids, no responsibility, no commitment. Life’s a orgy. Thanks, I’ll keep thinking about this one.

@ Larry: Jennifer Fulwiler wrote a piece describing the contraceptive mentality at her blog Conversion Diary awhile back.  I think you may find it provides good food for thought.  I tried to post a link earlier, but I was always blocked.  Anyways, if you go to Conversion Diary, there is a column on the left of most popular blogs, it is under that titled, “How I Became Pro-Life.”

@Evan: Thanks I got that earlier and it helped me.

Hello Richard,

I’m glad you believe that homosexuals are called to chastity. We agree. I believe the CCC is relevant to the discussion, and not just when it tickles your ears or the ears of those with whom we disagree.

I am all for engaging those with whom we disagree with friendly compassion, not a false compassion.

I am called to love homosexuals, and that I do. I haven’t given in to insults here, at least not intentional. If facts and figure are negative to one’s point of view, look at the facts, not the messenger. I get your point about the tone of messages….

I’ll try to get my point across and yet still do more than play footsies.

Time is short. Thanks for the input.

Regarding the triumphal, “we are on the right side of history and therefore God is on our side,” mantra - for all sides of this complex conversation: let us beware the main pitfall of the Whig approach to history - that time and history represent some kind of divinely orchestrated constant ascent of Progress - which is that it is wrong.

Better to keep in mind Mao’s response to Kissinger, when asked what he thought about the French Revolution: “It’s too early to tell.”

Humans are fallen creatures. Societies make grave errors of judgement and understanding. Civilizations rise and fall. It is the determinists who believe that the film of history has already been shot and that we are just watching, looking for signs of his (dis)favor.  I am less inclined to draw cosmic conclusions, regarding either victories or defeats.

@ Jayne B

“Where exactly did you get this? The part about a movement specifically choosing something with a distant synonym and make a conspiracy out of it? I’m seeing more and more the “quality” of the data that some base this on.”

I was reading a news article about a man in NY City who was homosexual who started this movement he referred to as “gay.”  I thought the use of the word “gay” to describe him and his political activity was a strange choice of words to pick for what he was doing as the word was best known back then in the way Gary described it, which I quoted in my comment.  “Gay” also was used back then among to describe an effeminate, male homosexual.  I decided to look up the definition of “gay” in the dictionary and one aspect of it’s meaning was “: given to social pleasures; also : LICENTIOUS.”  I looked up “licentious” and found that word only means “1: lacking legal or moral restraints; esp: disregarding sexual   2 : marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness.”  I thought that accurately described homosexual behavior and have understood ever since then that this guy was correct in calling his political activity by that name.  This was back some 25 or 30 years ago.

Ever since then I have understood there are two types of homosexuals.  One type, the majority, understands they are homosexual and are comfortable with it and go about their daily lives just like heterosexuals, not making an issue of it.  The other type are blatant, in-your-face, political militants who are going to flaunt their sexuality as the word “Gay;” i.e., Licentious means. 

The founding of the “gay movement” was not a “conspiracy” as you seemed to suspect I was implying.  It was a bold, political movement which has found a home in the Democrat Party.

lisieux, i have answered the status/behavior question several times, starting with the fact that laws against polygamy and bigamy apply equally to heterosexuals and gays and, therefore, there are no equal protection issues.  beyond that, the rational basis for denying bigamy and polygamy, legally, is raises a whole set of complications such as, which spouse is entitled to spousal benefits and inheritance?  which spouse makes medical decisions?  the government would have to be continually stepping directly into individual relationships to mediate between spouses.  that is a position government will not take.

joanna…calling homosexuality, based on a religious opinion and not grounded in psychiatry or medicine, “intrinsically disordered.” (catechism)  comparing same gender marriage to the brutal dictatorship in north korea. (archbishop dolan) suggesting that same gender marriage is like marrying a pet (bishop dimarzio).  a number of people might categorize those comments as hateful.

I enjoyed this article very much. I’m a new Catholic in love with Jesus and his church. I ponder these issues in my heart. I don’t share my thoughts with family members who will quickly label me a hateful bigot. I struggle to be loving and fair.
From a secular view it seems marriage has been grounded in a biological reality of human reproduction.
From a Christian view we are created beings. I’m a simple person so I believe that: Male and Female He created them…be fruitful and multiply. Then came The Fall.
We must treat everyone with love and respect. We all struggle with that command don’t we?
But I know Pride is a sin and mere consent is not the sole criteria of the rightness of a behavior. Has the time come that “Tolerance” is not enough and we MUST APPROVE of behavior we cannot approve?
For me, it comes down to “Has God spoken” and has He built His Church?
I try to be fair and listen to these discussions because I know I’m a sinner. God loves me and all of you!

rhonda, welcome to the universal church!  you will find many opinions and many different kinds of people.  i encourage you to discuss these issues whenever possible, as even priests and bishops hold varying views and interpretations of scripture.  i also encourage you to read other publications like the “National Catholic Reporter,” (slight difference in the last word), which will give you greater perspective of the variety enjoyed by the church.  we have different opinions, but we are united in Christ through the church.  again, welcome!

@ John:
 

“joanna…calling homosexuality, based on a religious opinion and not grounded in psychiatry or medicine, “intrinsically disordered.” (catechism)  comparing same gender marriage to the brutal dictatorship in north korea. (archbishop dolan) suggesting that same gender marriage is like marrying a pet (bishop dimarzio).  a number of people might categorize those comments as hateful.”

 
How you do twist and misrepresent. “Comparing same gender marriage to the brutal dictatorship in north korea.” What would that even mean? Archbishop Dolan did not compare same-sex “marriage” to North Korea, he compared the misuse of government powers to redefine “rights, relationships, values, and natural law” to the abuse of government power in North Korea. And saying that Bishop DiMarzio “compared” same-sex marriage to marrying a pet is misleading: Bishop DiMarzio didn’t say they were the same, only that one potentially opened the door to the other. You may disagree, but that’s no excuse for misrepresenting.
 
This style of misrepresentation seems to be typical of your comments. You complain that gay people have been called “nazis” and “blackhearted,” when in fact both words were invoked the same way as North Korea, as a political reference, not a reference to a sexual preference or lifestyle. Nor has anyone stated that same-sex relationships were “on a par with incest and the sexual abuse of minors.” That is your own determined misreading of other people’s words, including mine on that last point.
 
As for the Catechism, it’s true that “a number of people” might call the Catechism’s statement of Catholic belief—founded not on “religious opinion” but on natural law and divine revelation—“hateful.” Other people would say that misrepresenting and taking other people’s words out of context is hateful. I would like to think reasonable people could avoid such excesses.

John, why do you consider “intrinsically disordered” to be hate speech?
The Church says that the INCLINATION ITSELF is disordered, not the people who HAVE the inclination. How is this hateful to people?

As for the comments of individual bishops, I’d like to see them in context with proper attribution, but I asked for official Church teaching (i.e., encyclicals), which the comments of individual bishops usually aren’t.

Hmm, john, there may be different opinions out there, but many do not conform to the teaching of Christ. The National Catholic Reporter, in particular, has for many years advocated views that are in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Church. This is the fact. They are entitled to their opinions, but it is simple dishonesty to claim that the are Catholic, or that it is legitimate for Catholic to hold them.

Also, I have the same questions about “status” and “condition” that SDG has (July 6, 3:15, 3:31PM). As far as I can tell from what you’ve said, “status” and “condition” are basically a matter of an “official” recognition (either from the government or a group like the APA). I don’t see (in principle) why these entities couldn’t recognize ephebophilia, or many other as-yet-undefined conditions, as a status as well. Sure, ephebophilia is considered morally repellant (at least currently), but society’s attitude toward it could change, like it has towards abortion and many other things once considered unacceptable.

I believe your confusion comes out in the following remark (in response to merno asking “why is polygamy a crime, and gay marriage is not supposed to be?”)

Because polygamy is a behavior, being gay is a status.  One can be gay and celibate.  One can’t be polygamous without being in a polygamous relationship.  Laws that discriminate against status are different in that you are punishing people, or precluding them from equality, on the basis of an immutable characteristic.

As far as I know there were/are no laws against anybody for “being” gay. The laws were against certain behaviors whether or not they were done by people with a particular status or not. Why would calling a tendency to a behavior “intrinsically disordered” be hateful if, as you say, there is a sharp distinction between status and behavior? The only reason I can see is that homosexuals, as a matter of fact, do define themselves in terms of their behavior, or at the very least, in terms of a tendency toward it.

steven, the hairs you love to split.  how is it any less hateful to compare the popularly-elected new york legislature with a dictatorship?  even people on the right knew his analogy was insulting and absurd. 

you admit bishop dimarzio says that opening marriage to pets (who cannot enter into any contract, for obvious reasons of consent), as if it’s even logical to make that comparison. 

you admit you understand how people could interpret word like “intrinsically disordered” to be hateful, even if you qualify it by saying it is grounded in a particular interpretation of natural law. 

you’ve also admitted you don’t read every post.  that explains how you missed the multiple comparisons with incest, polygamy and adult sex with minors and the characterizations of “radical homosexual activists” as being the same as Goebels, the nazi propaganda minister, fascists, “in your face militants,” sewer pipe lickers (thankfully, you finally seem to have stopped defending this one), intentional destroyers of families and many, many others.

there has been, unfortunately, no shortage of blatant hatred of gays and lesbians (unless it doesn’t count as hate against gays and lesbians if it is directed only at those who lobby for equality), nor any shortage of inane comparisons and analogies that have already lost in the sphere of public opinion.  and, no, steven, i have not “mischaracterized” any of this.  it would be a good idea to read through all of the comments before lodging accusations.

John, I agree that you indirectly answered the question that I asked.

You state:
  “..... laws against polygamy and bigamy apply equally to heterosexuals and gays and, therefore, there are no equal protection issues.”

Yea, but we have a federal law in Texas against homosexual marriage, and it’s under attack right now. The Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

This law is under attack.  I submit to you that where marriage has been redefined to include two men, that that law as well will come under attack. If we can redefine marriage to two men, then one man and two women is not inconceivable at all. In fact, in Canada and Hawaii, it’s besing clamored for. ( I have those links as well.)

From the Washington Times: “Same Sex Marriage Gives Polygamy a Legal Boost” 

“The outlook for polygamy hasn’t been this good since Abraham took Keturah as his third wife.

Plural marriage remains illegal, but it’s undergoing an image upgrade as a result of television shows like HBO’s “Big Love” and TLC’s “Sister Wives.” More significantly, it’s getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy.

The federal government and most states define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. If marriage is redefined to include two people of the same sex, the argument goes, then it can be redefined to include more than two people.

Critics reject the polygamy comparison, arguing that marriage’s definition as a union of two people remains inviolable. They also dismiss the specter of legalized polygamy as a scare tactic used by the traditional-marriage camp to chill public support for same-sex marriage.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/20/same-sex-marriages-give-polygamy-a-legal-boost/

Also, you say that the goverment will not take a position on “which” spouse makes medical decisions, etc. Wow. I didn’t know you speak for our government!

According to this article, polygamy has much deeper cultural roots in societies globally than homosexual marriages have ever had. Plus, polygamy has ties to both Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

So, John, please tell me why you would deny the rights of marriage to people who seem to want the same benefits you have?  Why do you discriminate?

sam, you may have your opinions about ncr but they reflect a view of Catholicism that is much more prevalant among American Catholics.  I’ve answered the question about why having sex with minors is a crime and sex between consenting adults is not.  it has to do with the inability of a minor to consent, hence, it’s rape. the status/condition of the adult is irrelevant.  i have also repeatedly stated the rationale for not legalizing polygamy, namely, the requirement that the state would have to step in to settle issues of inheritance, spousal benefits, spousal medical decisions, etc, when there are disputes between spouses.

fyi: polygamous behavior is not illegal, nor should it be.  nor should any consensual sex between adults be grounds for throwing people in jail.

Actually, John, when homosexuals cry “hatred” every time an argument is made against them or when someone disagrees with them, it weakens the credibility of the group.

It’s a lot more convenient to cry “you hate me” or “you’re a homophobe” than to logically confront the issues.

I don’t hate you- and I’m certainly not afraid of you. I just disagree with your point of view regarding homosexual acts and perhaps homosexuality.

lisieux…for the same reasons stated before.  our government, unlike others, will not step into the middle of relationships to pick and choose which spouse is entitled to benefits, make decisions, etc.

lisieux, obviously you haven’t read these posts, either.  it’s not about people disagreeing, it’s about maligning a group by associating them with fascists and nazis and calling them blackhearted and sewer pipe lickers that warrants the label “hate.”

John, are you referring to National Catholic Reporter as having a view which is much more prevalent among Catholics?  Not among practicing Catholics, or those who attend Mass weekly.

So if polygamous behavior is not illegal, and they are consenting adults, why don’t you support marriage between them? You are discriminating based upon all you’ve said.

Please don’t hide behind the inheritance, spousal benefits, etc. claim. You know as well as I do that simple power of attorney and other legal work can take care of that. 

John, you want special rights for homosexuals, but refuse them to a group of three or more who want the same benefits you seek.

John, you are a hypocrite for wanting something for yourself which changes the current laws, but not allowing it for others when a simple law change could include them as well.

John, aren’t you open-minded?  Why do you shut the door on marriage once you seem to have legally gotten through it? 

Would a polygamist accuse you of hatred?

John states, “
“lisieux…for the same reasons stated before.  our government, unlike others, will not step into the middle of relationships to pick and choose which spouse is entitled to benefits, make decisions, etc.”

What?

But the goverment is willing to step in the middle of relationships to erase the names of “Mother” and “Father” from birth certificates and be willing to put “Parent A” and “Parent B” in some states already.

Please don’t hide behind that argument. You and I both know that power of attorney and other legal documents- pre-nups, for example, take care of a lot of details. 

I have read the e-mails. I’m not calling you a Nazi or sewer pipe licker either. I’ve even (almost) forgotten that you called one of my valid documentations bogus. Let’s not brood over wrong-doings!

Back to the issue at hand:

Why will you not allow three men to marry when you are willing to go through all kind of legal hoops for two men to marry?

@ John: If it’s “hairsplitting” to you to distinguish between (a) statements about political actions, tactics or opinions and (b) statements about homosexuals, then all hope of rational discussion is over. That is a textbook move of the chronically offended: Any criticism of actions becomes hatred toward persons, and pointing out the difference is dismissed as “hairsplitting.”

Popularly elected leaders can hideously misuse their authority—Hitler was popularly elected, after all—and in this case they certainly did. The New York Times article I linked to in part 1 reported on how Governor Cuomo overtly induced representatives to vote contrary to the will of their constituency, promising them that his friendship would be worth more than the vote would be a liability. In other words, they traded their votes for favors and promises. The deciding vote, ironically, was cast by a Republican representative who had specifically run campaigning against same-sex marriage.

Coming from Protestantism where everyone with a bible wants to be their own Pope I choose to follow the lead of the Pope, the magisterium and The Tradition. The meaning of the incarnation is fully appreciated in the Catholic church.
In the Catechism #2335- Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity: “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. All human generations proceed from this union.

Rhonda, welcome to the Church, and thanks for the reminder from the CCC.

All these interpretations from the bible may give you some guidance but there’s still no compelling reason why anyone else should practice catholicism.
It was asked further up “Can you please quote an excerpt from SGD’s article, or official Catholic teaching, that you consider to be “hateful” toward homosexuals?”

I think that if you don’t even know when you just read an article blaming gays who want to emulate your lifestyle for the very erosion of that lifestyle.
Then there’s the cathechism that reads more like a propaganda for feelings of superiority for heterosexuals, defining others in ways that are insulting, the pope claiming that we’re one of the two most dangerous threats to society, comparisons to drinking out of sewers commonly being mentioned and supported by the author…
Need anyone go on?

Seriously, the fact that you think that this is just what we need to influence our lives through legislating it while using these slurs really convinces me as to the level of hate involved.
Hope that answers your question.

ok, steven, so if i accuse radical heterosexual activists of using nazi tactics to prevent same gender marriage and being intent on destroying society, you won’t take it as hateful. good to know.

it’s also good to know that nom’s threat of a $2M campaign to oust those voted for marriage equality does not constitute political pressure.  it seems to only apply to radical homosexual activists and their supporters.

lisieux, not hiding behind anything.  the governemnt is not going to step in and interfere with marital decision making.  nor is it going to split spousal survival benefits multiple ways, possibly impoverishing all survivors, nor decide that one spouse gets benefits and the other does not.  there are over 1000 benefits associated with civil marriages.  most of these would have to be rethought and re-altered to accommodate plural marriages, and still would not solve the problem of making the government into a referee of which powers of attorney are valid, which supercedes which, does the introduction of a new spouse require all new powers of attorney, etc.  it’s a far more complicated process than simply changing male and female to people or persons.  and, as i stated before, the basis for denial is predicated on a behavior, not on a status.

rhonda…you have every right to abide by the catholic catechism.  glad it’s working for you.  but not everyone is bound by it. nor should they be forced to do so.

john

I think that they “argued” themselves into a corner already when it comes to their attitude and behavior toward others. Just let them demonstrate their hypocrisy. Trust me—they’ve said enough for onlookers to see.

jayne…i am really sorry you feel the way you do.  i know what a struggle it can be.  fortunately, the comments you are reading here are not reflective of either most catholics or catholic priests.  polls show majorities of catholics (and strong majorites of those under 45) support marriage equality.  even for those who argue that the polls (which have asked the question the same way for the last two decades) are now inaccurate and there isn’t majority support can’t argue against the reality that catholics support marriage equality more than the population as a whole.  add to that the significant number of catholic office holders who have been pivotal in making marriage equality a reality, and you hopefully will get a picture of a flock that is far more compassionate and fair-minded than the rhetoric you hear.

Oh dear.  It seems homosexual males don’t *really* want to be married.  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/guys_reluctant_to_say_do_RydPUmKHqalYq5NYAX6IjM That reminds me of the Greek word for play-acting . . . what is it again?

Jayne,

What compelling interest does the government have in allowing homosexuals to emulate marriage?

Please QUOTE an excerpt from this article or the catechism that you consider hateful, and PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY. How is calling a specific INCLINATION sinful acting hateful toward a PERSON? DHman beings are persons with with intrinsic value and dignity despite any sinful inclinations they may have. How is that hateful?

John,

It’s important to differentiate between practicing Catholics and Catholics in name only. The former are very much against same sex marriage, contraception, etc. The CINOS who don’t know their faith and are in it for the society and culture are in favor. The polls are skewed because they don’t differentiate between faithful Catholics and cultural Catholics.

stevep:  some do, some don’t.  now they’ll have a choice. like they should.

joanna…the government does not need a compelling reason to allow gay marriage.  it needs a compelling marriage to deny it.  being gay is a status, not an inclination or a behavior.  gay people are oriented to people of the same gender, heterosexuals are oriented to people of the opposite gender.  it is wrong to use medical terms to make religious arguments.  if the church wants to say it is “spiritually intrinsically disordered,” I’d defend the right to say it even though i couldn’t disagree more.

it is not up to either you, or me, to decide who the “real Catholics” are.  only our God who made us can determine that.  and God doesn’t share that information with others.

“It needs a compelling marriage to deny it.”

What does that mean?

John, I encourage you to read this paper from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. It makes the secular case against same-sex marriage: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155

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, here’s the thing. The fact that contraception began the breakdown of marriage is so widely known by informed Catholics that it’s not often discussed as anything new or revolutionary. Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical about it years and years ago (google “Humane Vitae”). Pope John Paul II wrote a series of documents about it (google “Theology of the Body”).

As for Catholic opposition to abortion and birth control nazis, you must be out of the loop! Catholics are very opposed to Margaret Sanger’s brainchild and legacy, Planned Parenthood, and their ilk.

well, then, joanna, i don’t understand why they don’t talk about it (birth control) more often and why no one is trying to get legislatures and voters to outlaw it.  is it because over 75% of catholic couples use it?  or is it because the real anger and venom is reserved for gays and lesbians who want to be treated equally.  all you have to do is follow the posts to get your answer.

Perhaps, John, because such laws would be nearly impossible to enforce. We’ve already lost the legal battle in that arena and it’d be a waste of time and energy to try and win it right now. We’re working on changing hearts and minds first; maybe someday we can revisit the issue.

FAITHFUL Catholics do talk about the birth control issue, quite often. Check out Contraception: Why Not? for example - http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

The SSM debate gets ratings, so of course you hear about it. The problem is that the secular media has no interest in reporting about Catholic efforts to promote NFP and warn about contraception, so that’s why you “don’t hear about it.” You need to start reading faithful Catholic sources and I guarantee you’ll “hear about it”!

“Jayne,

“What compelling interest does the government have in allowing homosexuals to emulate marriage?”

The state’s interest is that they would be treating everyone equally as is outlined in the constitution. They would also benefit from the mere fact that they are not letting just one or even a few religions set standards for those outside their flock.

“Please QUOTE an excerpt from this article or the catechism that you consider hateful, and PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY. How is calling a specific INCLINATION sinful acting hateful toward”

I think she put it quite clearly. Certainly going on comparing gays with drinking out of sewer pipes is “over the top”. Just so you know, there are heterosexuals who have anal sex. And if you think an “inclination” is sinful, I’d call that hateful, your own clergy would disagree with that. So much for treating homosexuals with “dignity and respect”.

Let’s ask you a question: When to you or your church show dignity and respect for homosexuals and in what way.

i consider this publicatoin to be what you would refer to as a “faithful Catholic source.”  you see what gets them going.  it’s not contraception.

Jimmy J,

If that’s the case, why won’t the government recognize marriage between siblings? Or between more than two people? Or between humans and non-humans? Or between adults and children?

Clearly, there are limits to who can and cannot contract a marriage. Do you believe that all such restrictions violate someone’s rights?

“Certainly going on comparing gays with drinking out of sewer pipes is “over the top”

Huh? I have no idea what you’re talking about with this. When does the Catechism of the Catholic Church compare gays with drinking out of sewer pipes? I’ve read through SGD’s article again and I don’t see that comparison there, either. Can you clarify?

“When to you or your church show dignity and respect for homosexuals and in what way.”

Please read the following: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

John - please search this site with the keyword “contraception” and you’ll find plenty of discussion.

John: Choice?  You dare mention choice?  You have made it clear: YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.  YOU WERE BORN THAT WAY.  What a bold statement of hypocrisy.  Good luck to you and may God’s grace lead you into unity with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

“If that’s the case, why won’t the government recognize marriage between siblings? Or between more than two people? Or between humans and non-humans? Or between adults and children?”

Wow. You really don’t see it when you do it. You compare gays to animals and pedophiles yet you don’t think you’re insulting?
The author did agree in the above responses that gays drinking out of sewer pipes was an appropriate analogy.
The catechism does define, far beyond their scope that all homosexuals have a “grave disorder” and should be discriminated against in certain ways and that theirs are inferior to the relationships to heterosexuals.

Gee, do you really not think that is going on the offense toward others who just don’t hold your beliefs when you try to legislate it?

But there’s a question of mine and a number of others who have asked: if the church says they treat homosexuals with dignity and respect, when and how is this being done? Still not answered since reading a letter from twenty five years ago means nothing without supportive action.

“i don’t understand why they don’t talk about it (birth control) more often and why no one is trying to get legislatures and voters to outlaw it.  is it because over 75% of catholic couples use it?  or is it because the real anger and venom is reserved for gays and lesbians who want to be treated equally”

Gays and lesbians are a much easier target. But they underestimated the support they are getting from catholics who know homosexuality may not be right for them but it’s no reason to vote against another’s freedom. Then there are noncatholic heterosexuals who just find this kind of intrusion unacceptable. It’s not at all a far thought that if catholics can get a corner on defining other’s lives anyone can be subjected to this too. This is why we have religious freedom, not for one religion to be able to discriminate against someone else.
They kept away from the death penalty because they knew they’d lose much of their allies in the south.
This was what they thought a much better target. Turns out people don’t want that much intrusion on their own lives and see through it. They also are aware of the dubious judgement of many Bishops for the past few decades.
The lack of respect and dignity was evident when I heard of more than one bishop who wanted to prevent children who are perceived as homosexuals to be protected by their classmates in the event of bullying because that would mean being gay is ok. My son had been harassed like one of those kids. Denying physical protection to children is not respect.

How do you treat your homosexual children?

Jimmy J, I find your comments to be hateful and bigoted toward pedophiles and animals. How dare you judge them? Pedophiles claim they were “born that way.” How can you call their inclinations disordered if they were born that way?

What about siblings who wish to marry? Do you have any objection to that, or to polygamy or polyandry? If not, why not?

Thanks you JoAnna, for proving my point.

But please, some of us have been waiting to hear: how do you and the catholic church show dignity and respect for homosexuals?

@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.

So, Jimmy, you freely admit you are hateful and bigoted? Good to know. Wouldn’t that make you a hypocrite?

I already answered your question:

Please read the following: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Is that the “I know you are but what am I” sort of thing?

Still haven’t answered how this manifests in action, none of you have.

I ran across a passage written by G.K. Chesterton this morning that I believe is quite apropos in this context:

‘I myself hold a mystical view of marriage; but I am not going to debate it here. But merely in the interests of light and logic I would protest against the way in which it is frequently debated. The process cannot rationally be called a debate at all. It is a sort of chorus of sentimentalists in the sensational newspapers, perpetually intoning some such formula as this: “We respect marriage, we reverence marriage, holy, sacred, ineffably exquisite and ideal marriage. True marriage is love, and when love alters, marriage alters, and when love stops or begins again, marriage does the same; wonderful, beautiful, beatific marriage.”

Now, with all reasonable sympathy with everything sentimental, I may remark that all that talk is tosh. Marriage is an institution like any other, set up deliberately to have certain functions and limitations; it is an institution like private property, or conscription, or the legal liberties of the subject. To talk as if it were made or melted with certain changing moods is a mere waste of words. The object of private property is that as many citizens as possible should have a certain dignity and pleasure in being masters of material things. But suppose a dog-stealer were to say that as soon as a man was bored with his dog it ceased to be his dog, and he ceased to be responsible for it. Suppose he were to say that by merely coveting the dog, he could immediately morally possess the dog. The answer would be that the only way to make men responsible for dogs was to make the relation a legal one, apart from the likes and dislikes of the moment. Suppose a burglar were to say: “Private property I venerate, private property I revere; but I am convinced that Mr. Brown does not truly value his silver Apostle spoons as such sacred objects should be valued; they have therefore ceased to be his property; in reality they have already become my property, for I appreciate their precious character as nobody else can do.” Suppose a murderer were to say: “What can be more amiable and admirable than human life lived with a due sense of its priceless opportunity! But I regret to observe that Mr. Robinson has lately been looking decidedly tired and melancholy; life accepted in this depressing and demoralizing spirit can no longer truly be called life; it is rather my own exuberant and perhaps exaggerated joy of life which I must gratify by cutting his throat with a carving-knife.”

It is obvious that these philosophers would fail to understand what we mean by a rule, quite apart from the problem of its exceptions. They would fail to grasp what we mean by an institution, whether it be the institution of law, of property, or of marriage. A reasonable person will certainly reply to the burglar: “You will hardly soothe us by merely poetical praises of property; because your case would be much more convincing if you denied, as the Communists do, that property ought to exist at all. There may be, there certainly are, gross abuses in private property; but, so long as it is an institution at all, it cannot alter merely with moods and emotions. A farm cannot simply float away from a farmer, in proportion as his interest in it grows fainter than it was. A house cannot shift away by inches from a householder, by certain fine shades of feeling that he happens to have about it. A dog cannot drift away like a dream, and begin to belong to somebody else who happens just then to be dreaming of him. And neither can the serious social relation of husband and wife, of mother and father, or even of man and woman, be resolved in all its relations by passions and reactions of sentiment.” This question is quite apart from the question of whether there are exceptions to the rule of loyalty, or what they are. The primary point is that there is an institution to which to be loyal. If the new sentimentalists mean what they say, when they say they venerate that institution, they must not suggest that an institution can be actually identical with an emotion. And that is what their rhetoric does suggest, so far as it can be said to suggest anything.’

This is actually from a chapter about society’s reverence for divorce, which rivals its reverence for marriage, and which uncannily parallels its up and coming reverence for same-sex “marriage,” in both form and justification.  The chapter is called The Sentimentalism of Divorce, from the book Fancies versus Fads:  http://wikilivres.info/wiki/Fancies_Versus_Fads/Chapter_XVI

Jimmy J, no, it’s an observation that you see to be going for the speck in your neighbor’s eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

I’m sorry but I must not be understanding what you’re asking, as I’ve answered twice but it’s not good enough for you. Can you be more specific?

Jimmy J,

They don’t treat gays with any respect or dignity. They just keep using a quote that’s 25 years old.

They will never be able to say how this treat you with dignity and respect because they do not.

I’m sure that slavers said they treated their livestock really well too. Remember separate but “equal”. Let this be just one document of hypocrisy.

Jayne,

First, to what quote are you referring? Second, why does it matter how old a quote is? Does Truth change over time?

the quote you keep giving links to. Your sarcasm shows your hate by the way or are you just not reading the part of the discussion you’re participating in?

But to keep saying the same thing for twenty five years and not have any supporting evidence of it is the point.

But since you’re right there, how do you treat gays with dignity and respect? Other than paste a link please.

By the way Jimmy, I think the “speck in your neighbor’s eye” is your son being harassed and threatened and the “plank in your eye” is that you want to defend his physical safety.

Do you see the logic?

Jayne, I’m linking to an entire document, not just a quote. To what specific quote in the document are you referring?

Why are you accusing me of harassing and threatening Jimmy’s son?

Actually, I was referring to Jimmy’s self-admitted hatred and bigotry toward pedophiles, incestuous couples, and polygamists. It seems hypocritical to then accuse others of being hateful and bigoted toward homosexuals if he favors marriage restrictions for other groups of people.

That is a good question: how does one show respect and dignity to a male who parades around the street in his underwear thrusting his pelvis at any stationary object while at the same time pretending to lick anything that is faintly phallic?  When not doing that he is constantly yammering about how he is different, always knew he was different, and always will be different while everyone else is the same.  How does one show dignity and respect to one who had no biological clue as to what constitutes the excretory system, the reproductive system, or the circulatory system yet shouts all the louder “the AMA and APA agree with me!”  That is a good question – how does one show respect and dignity to one who is, in a phrase, perpetually offended?

from the National Catholic Reporter:

“To parents of a gay child, the idea that a group of men can claim to know the mind of God so perfectly that they can proclaim with unyielding certainty that God deems a significant portion of creation “disordered” is absurd. The label is not only demeaning but to contemporary Christians has no resonance with the heart of the Gospel.”

I guess this would apply to anyone: gay or straight catholics who actually see the reality of their “Truth” and how it affects the real truth of their lives.

2.5% of the population is “significant”? Huh.

NCR is a trash publication, as evidenced by the paragraph you quoted. CREATION IS DISORDERED. Cancer is disordered. Disabilities and birth defects are disordered. DEATH ITSELF is disordered. God did not create His creation to be that way; we made it so with original sin!

Jimmy J said, “how do you and the catholic church show dignity and respect for homosexuals?”

Perhaps an answer in the negative will make the Church’s position clearer.  One does not show a person dignity and respect by affirming acts to which that person is inclined that are themselves undignified and disrespectful.  Nor would it be showing them dignity and respect to affirm the inclination itself as positive or even neutral.  Only once one realizes this can they consider how to show true dignity and respect to such a person.

Jayne B wrote, ‘from the National Catholic Reporter:
“To parents of a gay child, the idea that a group of men can claim to know the mind of God so perfectly that they can proclaim with unyielding certainty that God deems a significant portion of creation “disordered” is absurd. The label is not only demeaning but to contemporary Christians has no resonance with the heart of the Gospel.”

About the same percentage of people experience pedophilic attractions as experience same-sex attractions, and in fact there’s nothing to suggest that they don’t have a similar genesis.  By the logic expressed above, we cannot consider those attractions disordered, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Prevalence_and_child_molestation

stevep…i do not have a clue what you are trying to say, starting with the fact that nowhere do i use the word “choice”

kevin and joanna…pedophilia is a crime not because of the predator’s disposition.  it is a crime because having sex with someone not yet of age is rape.  two consenting adults having sex is not the equivalent of rape. that should be obvious.

you can check multiple posts above for thorough discussions of the differences among status (something that just is but causes no objective harm,ie, homosexuality—go ask the American Medical Association or American Psychiatric Association if you don’t believe it is neither an illness nor something harmful), condition (something that is that causes harm if acted on, ie, raping a minor) and behavior (something that you cannot be unless you are engaged in it, such as incestuous, polygamous, etc)

jimmyj—hang in there.  let them keep digging themselves deeper in the hole.  my only hope is that there are multiple fence-sitters reading these posts and deciding for themselves who’s using scare tactics, who’s using insulting (if not outright hateful) language and who’s citing credible sources vs. youtube gurus and articles posted on chastity and bible sites that aren’t even peer-reviewed.

Kevin Rahe

I was quoting one of your catholic publications. I think your comparison is why they were talking about consent before but gays don’t harm children.

I guess that the “Truth” never changes but reality becomes increasingly clear.

Although it’s unfortunate that some would think that any number less than the proportion of catholics is insignificant but God and our Constitution would disagree.

Why so much energy is put into something with few consequences for the majority while so much is completely contradictory to Christianity is perplexing but it looks like their “Truth” is starting to crumble. Some just keep trying to hold it together with outdated glue that does not work in today’s world. Here it’s manifesting itself in pot shots toward character.
They are welcome to mourn their past but I don’t accept any blame when I’ve witnessed their cruelty.

I can only guess that the “plank in my eye” is wanting my son to be physically safe in the face of bigotry but I’m still at a loss as to what the “spec” is in JoAnna’s eye. I can point out a few but don’t see her accepting any. Despite a few objective transgressions I don’t see her taking any responsibility. Perhaps children being beaten up at school because they are different is acceptable under catholic doctrine now.
If you want to follow your absolutes equating every “a” with every “c” then you would be all for assaulting children.

John,

In your opinion, does legality equal morality? In other words, if something is illegal, that makes it immoral, and vice versa?

What about the “significant” members of the population (e.g., NABLA) who believe children CAN consent and want the age of consent lowered? Should we accommodate them as well?

Jayne, when have I ever supported children being beaten at school? When have I ever supported placing children in physical harm?

I don’t understand why you keep making these accusations of me. What proof do you have?

Brava Jayne

I didn’t realize you were in a similar situation. To see children aim like a pack of dogs is unacceptable for any reason, even if a priest says they don’t deserve the same treatment which has been done in at least three diocese I know of.

I learned the reality of catholic homophobia over the course of a couple of experiences that would probably do well for some of these people here. But they are blind to anything outside of what their church teaches even in the face of a completely different reality.

JoAnna:
I mentioned earlier you read it that there are a number of bishops who do not want any protection for children if they are accused of being gay by their classmates. This was stated quite clearly by more than one bishop in the face of children being called gay slurs while being attacked by classmates.

nobody and no group of people should have to sacrifice so much just for the perceived comfort of not being exposed to others who are different.

Jimmy J,

Why do you believe that Catholics support the physical abuse of children (or anyone)?

The Catholic Church *I* follow says this:

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

Jimmy J,

Can you cite evidence for your accusation at 2:47 PM? The quote I posted at the same time disproves it.

Yes Jim, I was seen in a sound bite practicing my first amendment right of freedom of speech by peacefully holding a sign saying I supported gay marriage.
The next thing I knew my son was being beaten up. He was too afraid to tell me and the neighbors didn’t bother. The school wanted nothing to do with it because the bus stop was not school property despite that being where he had to go to get to school. The bus driver claimed it was not her business. The local church said that it would mean it was ok if they stepped in so would not change their catechism program to say that violence is never appropriate, even for gays.

No, they do not show “dignity or respect” for homosexuals.

So JoAnna,
How does your church show dignity and respect for homosexuals? Is by beating up our children?

joanna…churches decide what is or isn’t moral.  governments decide what is and isn’t legal.  neither has the right to interfere with the other.  that’s why birth control, divorce and remarriage, etc are legal, even if the catholic church considers it immoral. 

your comment about accommodating pedophiles makes no sense.  each state determines the age of minority.  it varies from 15-18.  those laws are not in effect to accommodate adults, they are there to protect minors.  minors do not exist for the purpose of satisfying pedophiles.  that should be obvious.

“The Catholic Church *I* follow says this:”

We know what your church “says” but we’ve asked over and over how it does this in action.

Please let us know.

So JoAnna,
can you come up with more than one quote? Is there objective behavior that supports this? I have not seen any

joanna….where and when did the church characterize death as “disordered?”  and you need to put a little more research into the percentage of gays and lesbians.  you are low even if you are counting only those who identify as gay.  there are also studies that include those who engage in gay sex and those who fantasize about gay sex.

john,

stick with the question of how what they do and say treats gays with respect and dignity.
They can’t answer it because they do not. Look at how many times it’s been asked.
That shows the hypocrisy to all of us.

I know, jimmy, you are right.  the problem is, there is just so much absuridity what they are saying it is hard to let it all go without probing them.  and in the unlikely event there are ‘fence sitters’ out there, I don’t want them being mislead into thinking there is merit to any of it.

I, too, would like to know how the church puts its occasional “nice words” into action.  Is there one piece of legislation supporting the rights of gays and lesbians that the church has ever supported, let alone advocated for?  employment non-discrimination?  (no).  civil unions?  (no).  openly gay in the military?  (no).  anti-bullying legislation?  (no).  where is all this “compassion” being channeled?

john said, “pedophilia is a crime not because of the predator’s disposition.  it is a crime because having sex with someone not yet of age is rape.  two consenting adults having sex is not the equivalent of rape. that should be obvious.”

I was not answering a question about whether pedophilia should be considered a crime vs. homosexual activity.  Nor was I trying to equate or even discuss the effects of the two.

As for the separate topic of consent, I’ve already treated the problems of using that as a marker of the morality of an act in a comment on part 2 of this series (Jul 5, 2011 11:32 PM).

But still no answer as to have you treat homosexuals with dignity and respect.

john,

They’ve said more than enough to demonstrate the attitude and contradictions.
This question seems to be the stumper.

john wrote, “Is there one piece of legislation supporting the rights of gays and lesbians that the church has ever supported, let alone advocated for?  employment non-discrimination?  (no).”
Were their good effect of ending real discrimination to outweigh their evil effect of publicly affirming homosexual activity and relationships, I and I’m sure the Church would support such ordinances.  As they are usually promoted by groups who have an interest in making homosexual activity and unions acceptable and are often accompanied by scant evidence of the real discrimination they would eliminate, however, they almost always fail the test of the Principle of the Double Effect.
—
“civil unions?  (no).”
It is much more how we treat a thing than the name we give it that says what we really consider it to be.  civil unions = marriage
—
“openly gay in the military?  (no).”
I don’t think the Church would have a problem with someone in the military admitting that they have same-sex attractions, though it probably wouldn’t recommend they advertise this fact.  Accepting homosexual activity and relationships, however, is an entirely separate matter.
—
“anti-bullying legislation?  (no).”
I suggest that more instances of bullying occur where same-sex attractions are falsely ascribed to the victim than occur where they are truly ascribed. The availability of victims with a particular weakness (whether actual or only perceived) does not create a bully. Victims of bullying are targets of opportunity - if there is no one available with one particular weakness, then a bully will simply find someone with a different weakness to pick on. An anti-bullying initiative that focuses on a particular victim attribute is at the least wrong-headed and at worst purely political.
—
‘where is all this “compassion” being channeled?’
I’m sure there are many instances of priests assisting those with same-sex attractions that we’ll never hear about.  Beyond that there’s Courage, of course, though if chapters are too few and far between as may be the case, then there is certainly room for improvement.  Also, your previous characterizations of Courage attendees as a dismal bunch is a non-starter - the struggle against sin is difficult for many of us with or without same-sex attractions, and the beginning stages of that aren’t always pretty.

Jimmy J said, “But still no answer as to have you treat homosexuals with dignity and respect.”

I have worked for and with people who experienced same-sex attractions, including some who were actively involved in homosexual activity or relationships.  I have socialized with them and even vacationed them on multiple occasions.  I can quite honestly say that I’m sure that you wouldn’t find one of them who would say that I didn’t always treat them with dignity and respect.

“I suggest that more instances of bullying occur where same-sex attractions are falsely ascribed to the victim than occur where they are truly ascribed. The availability of victims with a particular weakness (whether actual or only perceived) does not create a bully. Victims of bullying are targets of opportunity - if there is no one available with one particular weakness, then a bully will simply find someone with a different weakness to pick on”

So the church encourages bullies to use perceived homosexuality as a “weakness”. After all they don’t follow your church’s teaching.

I too was bullied throughout one year in junior high school. No catholics wanted to get involved. As far as I can remember, my parents blamed me for being different. The neighbors, all catholic, did nothing for a month when it was in front of their homes before school.

I’ve never experience respect and dignity from the church.

Let’s get an answer:
How do you and your church treat us with respect and dignity?
Certainly calling our actions evil and lobbying against having relationships doesn’t show it. I’ve asked all New York Dioceses, Providence RI, Boston and Chicago after such campaigns and I do not get an answer. They do refer me to Courage which is kind of a token program that none of them know anything about. I would get my call transferred several times before I’d get that “resource”. But with bullying it continues to be struck down as it would mean that it’s “ok” to be homosexual. 

How is allowing children to be beaten up showing dignity and respect? Better yet, how is it even Christian?

kevin…from the end of your first comment, we’re talking about law, not morality.

“evil effect of publicly affirming homosexual activity and relationships”. no, not hateful.  any example of what you mean by ending “real discrimination?”  being fired for being gay isn’t “real” enough?  being denied housing for being gay isn’t “real?” 

it’s ok to be gay in the military - as long as you “keep quiet” about it?  don’t let anyone know.  lie when you have to.  that is morally superior than letting people know the truth about who you are.

bullying of gay kids can also be bullying of kids who are perceived to be gay, so that makes the bullying not about being gay?  and if there is some other group ‘waiting in the wings’ to be the next victim of bullies, i’m all for including them in the discussion as well.

so the church is “secretly” assisting gay people, just nobody ever talks about it.  courage, a “dismal bunch is a non-starter?”  how many meetings have you attended??  and what makes you think the people who show up are in the “beginning stages?”  most have been attending for years.  the longer they’ve been, the sadder they get.  you obviously don’t know anyone who’s been involved with courage to any significant degree.

Sorry guys, had to eat lunch. I’m eating for two!

Well, Jimmy, check out this apostolate: http://couragerc.net/ It’s supported by the Church and has chapters all over the world.

I do not support the physical abuse of anyone for any reason in any context. Neither does the Church. If individual Catholics sin by acting in a violent manner toward homosexuals, it is extremely sinful for them to do so. They should repent, and if they do not they will be held accountable to God.

I’m still at a loss as to how you expect me to “prove” that I treat homosexual people with respect and dignity. I try to treat ALL people so regardless of their sexual orientation.

John, you didn’t answer my question. If something is legal, does that mean it is moral? Was slavery moral when it was legal?

Kevin Rahe,
and your church? You’ve already attacked the intelligence of gays so I won’t really go further with you.

“I do not support the physical abuse of anyone for any reason in any context. Neither does the Church.”

And your church shows that by allowing children to be assaulted?

You show it by equating us with animals.

I think we deserve a little better than that to respect any response from you.

We’re all on the edge of our seats. Tell us what your church does to preserve the dignity of homosexuals. We’ve still not heard.

you’re misquoting me. I never asked you to “prove” anything, just state how you show it. So far here you have shown none. You are one of the people who has continued to put words in others mouths.

Interesting coming from someone who has been a stickler for such things.

They will not answer because they can’t come up with anything.

Jimmy, what are you talking about? I’ve asked you to prove that the Church supports and allows the physical abuse of children. You’ve yet to provide any such proof.

And how am I supposed to show you that I do my level best to treat everyone with dignity and respect regardless of their sexual orientation? Please tell me how I am supposed to do that, because I have no idea what you’re expecting of me.

Also, Joseph, where have I equated anyone with animals?

“Posted by JoAnna on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 11:12 PM (EDT):

“Jimmy J,

If that’s the case, why won’t the government recognize marriage between siblings? Or between more than two people? Or between humans and non-humans? Or between adults and children?”

I think we’ve all heard enough.

JoAnna,
Four of us have all asked the same question and you continue to avoid it. Answer and maybe we can understand.
I think we deserve and answer before you attend to you distractions.

Joseph, I’m sorry, I don’t see how that comment “equates [homosexuals] to animals.”  I’m asking you think it’s acceptable for the government to discriminate against those groups when it comes to marriage.

What question am I avoiding?

joanna, i answered your question.  something does not have to be legal to be moral. nor does something have to be moral to be legal. that’s the whole point.

and, joanna, the reason people have deep reservations about the concern the church has for protecting children is that because up until very recently, the bishops on up to the pope have swept accusations of abuse under the rug, reassigned priests who abused children multiple times, intimidated children into signing sworn oaths that they would never tell anybody about the abuse, failed to notify police when crimes were committed and fought paying compensation even to those whom they knew had valid claims.  lest you think this was all due to the “woes of vatican ii,” half of the claims of the last 20 years dated back to the 50s and early 60s.

John, okay. So just because homosexuality is legal, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s moral.

NAMBLA et al claim that just because pedophilia is illegal doesn’t mean its immoral.

So how do you discern what is the truth?

Can you please show proof that the Church (not individual bishops or priests, but the Church as a teaching authority) condoned, supported, and encouraged the abuse of children? Individual Catholics sin all the time, that’s no surprise. It’s a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints. Heck, one of Jesus’ handpicked disciples sinned in one of the worst ways possible, but I won’t leave Peter because of Judas.

Again, can you please show proof that the Church (not individual bishops or priests, but the Church as a teaching authority) condoned, supported, and encouraged the abuse of children?

Marriage serves several purposes for EVERYONE in society. It is a unique combination of opposites, it is the means for continuing the human race, it is a means for natural and dignified sexual communion based upon human biology, it models gender identity, and so on. It is intended to be a strong protection for the weakest members of society. (Not all homosexuals are adult.) 

As an analogy, two hydrogen atoms may unite to form a molecule of hydrogen, but you still have hydrogen. You do not have a unique combination with its own specific functions and properties. You have to add something different to the mix, like oxygen, to come up with water. Now you have a totally new and necessary element in the chemical universe. Part of this marriage debate is a hatred of the human race, a hatred of heterosexuals and homosexuals because we must have heterosexual unions to continue to have heterosexuals and homosexuals. Even the ancient pagans, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, were aware of how homosexual unions would lead to a (further) inequality between men and women and disaster for children.

We already have a term for homosexual unions. It’s called friendship. You can call it a sexual friendship to distinguish it further, but it serves the same basic purpose as friendship, even if it’s a committed, lifelong union. The best homosexual union cannot serve the same functions as marriage serves. Friendship has its own unique properties and functions in society.

A bad heterosexual marriage is bad for everyone, but there is still the possibility that a bad heterosexual marriage can become better and thus serve its purpose for the couple, any children of the union, and society.

joanna, you obviously know little about what you are talking about.  marriage is a contract.  for a contract to be valid, both sides have to consent.  animals can’t consent, which is why we don’t let them enter into contracts to purchase cars, buy houses, provide services, or any other contract.  to suggest that after allowing same gender marriage governments would have no argument to stop pets from entering into legal contracts is just absurd.

you also apparently do not understand that the law provides minors cannot consent to contracts, either, or that incest, like polygamy and bigamy, is a behavior rather than a status.  please, take a moment to think before you make such wild assertions with no basis in reality.

“I’m asking you think it’s acceptable for the government to discriminate against those groups when it comes to marriage.”

You say they are legislatively equivalent.
So you did equate same-sex marriage with bestiality hence my comment about animals.

You can now answer the question:
How does your church treat gays with respect and dignity.

John, you obviously know little about what you are talking about. Marriage is much more than a contract. Please read this article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, titled “What is Marriage?”: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155

Why is incest, polygamy, and bestiality “behaviors,” but homosexuality a “status”? Could you clarify where this terminology is codified in civil law? If two siblings promised to be celibate in their marriage, would that make it acceptable for them to marry?

“but the Church as a teaching authority) condoned, supported, and encouraged the abuse of children?”

When it’s standard practice for bishops to sweep the child abuse problem under the carpet in order to avoid embarrassment it does reflect on your church.

But please:
How does your church show us respect and dignity? Your avoidance and acting as if you don’t know the question has only discredited you.

More dissembling!  Perhaps habituation is at work; perhaps you were born that way and have no choice:
-
Posted by john on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 9:45 PM (EDT):stevep:  some do, some don’t.  now they’ll have a choice. like they should.
-
Posted by john on Friday, Jul 8, 2011 2:12 PM (EDT):stevep…i do not have a clue what you are trying to say, starting with the fact that nowhere do i use the word “choice”

Actually, Joseph, no they aren’t. But if you want to recognize homosexuality as legitimate, how is it fair to discriminate against those other groups when it comes to marriage? That does not mean that all of those groups are the SAME. It meas that they contain PARALLELS. Not exact parallels, but they are are disordered sexual inclinations.

Why is it fair to discriminate against some and not others?

How does your church treat gays with respect and dignity.

And my answer, yet again: How can I do this? Can you be more specific about how I can do this? I have already posted excerpts of Church teaching specifying that gays should be treated with dignity and respect. I have provided links to groups such as the Courage apostolate, a Church-sanctioned group that was formed in order to provide gays with support, dignity, and respect.

What more do you want?

I’ve gotten almost enough information here but I still want to know the answer as to how your church treats homosexuals with dignity and respect.

joanna, having sex with kids is statutory rape.  i believe rape is immoral because it is sex without consent.

When it’s standard practice for bishops to sweep the child abuse problem
under the carpet in order to avoid embarrassment it does reflect on your
church.

1. Please prove your assertion that this is “standard practice.” Church documents, please, that state child abuse is not only acceptable but condoned and encouraged.

2. Please take a look at this site to rid yourself of misconceptions about sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy: http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm

And my answer, yet again: How can I do this? Can you be more specific about how I can do this? I have already posted excerpts of Church teaching specifying that gays should be treated with dignity and respect. I have provided links to groups such as the Courage apostolate, a Church-sanctioned group that was formed in order to provide gays with support, dignity, and respect.

What more do you want?

John,

Why is consent the sole criterion of the good?

Also, how do you codify this? If the age of consent in State A is 16, and the age of consent in State B is 17, does that mean it’s immoral for a 20-year-old to have sex with the 16-year-old in State A, but not in State B?

I’ve gotten almost enough information here but I still want to know the answer as to how your church treats homosexuals with dignity and respect. M

And my answer, yet again: How can I do this? Can you be more specific about how I can do this? I have already posted excerpts of Church teaching specifying that gays should be treated with dignity and respect. I have provided links to groups such as the Courage apostolate, a Church-sanctioned group that was formed in order to provide gays with support, dignity, and respect.

What more do you want?

I believe your own church’s commissioned study from the John Jay institute proved this along with multiple public records.

But I think if the church has done anything to support gays in the face of violence and discrimination you would be able to say something.

so please tell us what it is that your church does to protect our dignity.

@Jimmy J “We’re all on the edge of our seats. Tell us what your church does to preserve the dignity of homosexuals. We’ve still not heard.” 

We feed them when they can no longer feed themselves, we nurse their wounds, we give them a place to stay when they’ve been abandoned (sometimes by a lover, sometimes by family), we adopt the little ones, we hold them as they are dying.

When was that?  why is it you can’t give a “for instance”?

You really can’t make up for the violence I’ve seen with a cliche.

“How does your church show us respect and dignity?”  Tell us when was the last time you were barred from participating from the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper?  Is it not respectful that Our Lord and Savior instituted a memorial of His Passion that all may attend regardless of their spiritual perfection?  Your question shows a deep sense of fracture; you clearly define Catholics as the despised other.  Go ahead and vent your impotent rage against Christ—he’s handled worse than you.

I believe your own church’s commissioned study from the John Jay institute proved this along with multiple public records.

Really? I read that report and it did not say that the Catholic Church, as a teaching institution, condoned, supported, and encouraged the abuse of children. Can you please cite and quote the relevant portion of the report where they state this?

Even this secular, non-Catholic source does not make that claim: http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm

Jimmy,
Of course she can’t come up with an example. She didn’t even include any form of protection from violence in her statement.

JOANNA- LEGAL MARRIAGE IS FUNDAMENTALLY A CONTRACT.  IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT ANIMALS CANNOT ENTER INTO CONTRACTS, I DO NOT KNOW HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.  I NEVER SAID MARRIAGE IS ONLY A CONTRACT!  I SAID FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IT IS A CONTRACT AND ANIMALS CAN’T ENTER INTO CONTRACTS!

homosexuality is a status because it does not require behavior.  someone can be celibate all of his or her life and still be gay.  someone cannot be polygamous, incestuous or bigamous without being in a polygamous, incestuous or bigamous relationship.  that is the difference!

STEVEP:  a choice to be married or not…not a choice to be gay.

Why do you guys keep saying I can’t come up with an example? Before I can do that, I need clarification from you as to what exactly you are looking for.

And what “statement” are you talking about?

joanna, consent does not alone determine if something is moral or not, good or not.  but it does determine if something is legal or not.

John, I think your caps lock key is stuck.

No, marriage is much more than a contract. Please read the following from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155

Neither incest, bestiality, or pedophilia require behavior. Incestuous couples are still attracted to one another even if they are not sexually active. Same with those attracted to animals. 

Another example—pedophiles are often required to register as sex offenders after they leave jail regardless if they are sexually active with children or not. They are often restricted from living with or near children regardless if they are sexually active with children or not. If pedophilia was merely a behavior instead of a status, why don’t those restrictions require proof of sexual activity?

joanna, consent does not alone determine if something is moral or not, good or not.  but it does determine if something is legal or not.

It follows, then, that just because homosexuality is legal does not mean it is moral.

The John Jay study clearly said the bishops were not reporting the abuse as they should.

Regarding when someone was barred from liturgy, it took me seconds to verify a mass was canceled in a gay neighborhood with the message “all are welcome” because it would mean it was ok to be gay.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-11/news/29647582_1_gay-pride-week-lgbt-community-diocese-bans

Now tell us how you treat us with dignity and respect.

SteveP
You didn’t answer that question either. Recently in Boston, Bishop

Joseph,

But that’s not what you said! You said that the Church AS A WHOLE condoned the abuse of children, not “individual bishops.”

I absolutely agree that individual bishops acted incredibly sinfully and despicably in certain abuse cases. Those bishops acted AGAINST Church teaching, not in obedience to it. But as I said before, individual sinners exist in the Church and have since the time of Jesus. And to its credit, the Church has made great strides in recent years in implementing policies, procedures, and programs so that individuals within the Church report any suspicious people or suspected crimes to the proper authorities.

joanna, do you REALLY need evidence that diocese all over the world were covering up abuses for decades??  have you not picked up a newspaper in the last 15 years?  do you not know of the ongoing turmoil in dioceses like philadelphia, milwaukee, portland(one of several that’s had to file for bankruptcy) and los angeles, just to name a few in this country?  and what about ireland, chile, brazil, mexico (the legionnaires of christ—john paul protected its founder despite a plethora of proven abuses)?

SANDRA:
are you seriously reducing humans and marriage to molecules?  have we not evolved beyond animals, who mate merely for the purposes of procreating?

it’s nice to know the church won’t deny gay people the same treatment when they are sick and ill.  but what about while they’re still healthy and vibrant?  what does the church offer then?

Joseph R Yungk: I doubt you are even a Catholic.  More likely just a bully.  John is a liar.  Quite a pair you make.  And yet you could participate in Mass if you were so disposed – isn’t the Church Divine?!?

“have we not evolved beyond animals, who mate merely for the purposes of procreating”  Again ignorance of biology rears its ugly head:  animals mate because they are attracted.  A female mammal, in estrus, emits pheromones which start the breeding response in the male.  In other words: THEY CAN’T HELP IT—THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY!

John,

Might I suggest you look at actual facts and statistics regarding the abuse crisis before buying into all the media hype?

This is a secular, non-Catholic resource that looks at the issue very fairly: http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm

Did you know that the abuse crisis within the public school system is worse than the abuse crisis ever was in the Catholic Church? Do you go to education blogs and decry this, too? Also, I’d encourage you to check out www.reformation.com and www.stopbaptistpredators.org. No human institution is free from sinners.

joanna—forgive me.  i understand i need to be more patient with you.  please show me where i said marriage is ONLY a contract.  then we’ll work on getting you to understand that animals can’t enter into contracts.

and you do know that the reason pedophiles have to register as sex offenders is because THEY ALREADY HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME??  what that means is, the behavior has already occurred and the proof already exists. 
and, no, inspite of what you may think, incest requires behavior.  go look it up in the webster dictionary:
incest:  sexual intercourse between persons closely related
homosexuality: the quality or state of being homosexual

stevep:  exactly.  they don’t enter into a loving, committed relationship like humans do.

stevep….i’m a liar?  what have i “lied” about?

and joanna, i think you must have missed my earlier responses.  just because something is moral, that does not make it legal.  just because something is legal, that does not make it moral.

John, you’re repeated over and over: Marriage is a contract. Marriage is a contract. You even put it in all caps once.

Now you’re saying marriage is not ONLY a contract. Which is it?

As for pedophiles, yes, they committed the crime and served their time. If that’s the case, why are they being penalized for PAST behavior (sex offender registries, housing restrictions, etc.) if they are not committing said behavior in the PRESENT? If they are not engaging in that behavior, isn’t it a status instead?

John, the talk about homosexuality being a status, therefore, homosexuals can marry carries no weight.

Two homosexuals married in Hawaii. Now they want to marry a third partner- a man.  His status is a heterosexual who wants to have the same tax benefits in the marriage as the lesbians.

Why would you deny these three individuals who all hold respective “statuses” the same marital benefits you seek?

AND…. don’t give the excuse that govt. doesn’t want to get involved with this type of union. If they can get involved with unnatural pairings of two men with all types of legal hoops, they can do the same and more with triads.

Plus…. polygamy has more of a cultural foundation than has homosexual marriage.

So, why no marriage for the triads, John?

joanna, are you unable to grasp that marriage can be both a legal contract and something else, too?  civil marriage is predicated upon a civil contract.  when you are in the realm of civil law, marriage is a contract.  when you are talking about what marriage means to people, it is obviously more than a contract.  at least you seem to understand now that animals cannot enter into contracts of any kind.  that’s how the discussion originated, when you were worried governments were on the verge of allowing pets to enter into contracts.

being in prison is punishment.  registering as a sex offender is not a punishment.  if you look at my earlier posts, i explained the difference between a status and a condition.  a condition is something that by acting on it, you are hurting yourself or another person.  go look at what the american medical association and american psychiatric association have to say about homosexuality.  then look and what they have to say about pedophelia.  maybe, then, you’ll understand the difference.

lisieux, asked and answered.  status v. behavior and ramifications.  the government would not be intruding into the marriage of a gay couple.  it would be intruding in the marriages of plural couples.

joanna, are you unable to grasp that marriage can be both a legal contract and something else, too?

The Catholic Church has taught this for centuries, John.

Can two consenting siblings enter into a marriage contract? Why should the government deny them marriage?

GOOD! SO NOW YOU UNDERSTAND WHY PETS CAN’T MARRY PEOPLE!

already answered your second question.  behavior. not status.  go check with the ama and apa to understand the difference.

Actually, John, if the definition of marriage changes to “two beings who love each other and want to be committed for life,” it’s very possible that pets may be able to marry people some day.

John, asked and not answered.

Your “status” point of view doesn’t hold water. That’s a made up cognition you are using to further your homosexual agenda.

You say,
“The government would not be intruding into the marriage of a gay couple.  it would be intruding in the marriages of plural couples.”

That is preposterous. If the government intervenes to change birth certificates for babies adopted by homosexuals and is willing to mutate the definition of marriage—-

there is nothing to stop them to do the same for triads.

Why the double standard, John?

lol, joanna.  really?  i hope EVERYBODY is reading this.  joanna believes that the government will one day decide pets may enter into contracts to buy houses, provide labor, get married and start businesses.  you do know that “dr. doolittle” is fictional?

excuse me, fictitious.

John, people have to be married to do all those things? Really? My father-in-law was able to buy a house when he wasn’t married. How can that be? Can you explain?

Yes, I believe that marriage will be redefined to a point someday where it will be utterly meaningless as any sort of legal contract. We’re already going down that road.

TMR:  why the blockage in the brain?  status, condition, behavior.  go ask the AMA and APA and ABA to explain it to you.

Because of homosexual marriage being accepted in Hawaii, this triad is an example of other groups who want the same “benefits of marriage”:

“Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another. Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet, 55—were legally married in 2000. Rather, this public commitment ceremony was designed to also bind them to Shivaya, their new 60-something “husband.” Says Sasha: “I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”

And even better:
“And buoyed by an increasing acceptance of same-sex unions, others want more legal protections. “We should have every right to inherit from each other and visit each other—I don’t care what you call it, we’re not second-class citizens!” says Janet Lessin. “Any people who wish to form a marriage with all the rights and duties of a marriage should have the legal right to. The spurious arguments of marriage being for procreation of children is ridiculous.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/07/threesome-marriages.html

Did you hear that, John?  They don’t want to be second-class citizens.  Why would you not mutate the definition of marriage further to include these individuals?

joanna, please get back on your medication.  or is your father a schnauser and your point is that pets can already enter into contracts and i just don’t know about it.

lisieux:  wake up call.  hawaii neither performs nor recognizes same gender marriages.  and again, status v. behavior.

John, I am grossly offended that you would call my father an animal. I’m going to assume that you are unable to counter my points given that you are resorting to personal insults. Who is hateful, again?

The AMA and all their cohorts have politically correct and contrived labels aimed at furthering an agenda.

How many genders do you think there are, John?  Are you going to assign a label and a status for each one?  If you open up marriage to homosexuals, eventually, different so-called genders will have to be included as well.

Or it’s discrimination! 

What you miss is that as you use the terms, you are discriminating against other segments of society: homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals who want the same benefits you want.

joanna, your father buying a house before getting married was intended to mean what?  how is that in any way relevant to the issue you raised of pets being able to enter into contracts.  if you can’t explain what you meant, maybe someone else can.  please, anybody who can figure out the logic of that question, please, please explain it to me.

John, how dare you compare my father to an animal. (It was my father-in-law I was originally speaking of, by the way.) I’m grossly offended. Why are you so hateful?

You claimed that marriage was necessary to buy a house, start a business, etc. I disputed that and asked for clarification, and you chose to respond by calling my father an animal.

i NEVER said marriage was necessary to enter into any of those other contracts!  where are you getting that from??  i listed all of the different kinds of contracts that animals would be able to enter into if the government were to decide animals could enter into contracts. i never said anything about having to get married to enter other contracts.  it’s so illogical i found it hard to believe you were being serious.

John, you are correct. The article I quote does say, however, that these two lesbians were married “legally.” It doesn’t say where. I understood Hawaii:

“Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another. Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet, 55—were legally married in 2000.”

Now they want to include in their marriage a third partner.

I’ll play your word game for now.

He has a status as a heterosexual who wants to marry two women. They have the status of lesbians who, for now, want to include a man in their marriage.

Why do you discriminate against the threesome, all who have proper and pedigreed “statuses” from your APA, PPP, and ABA, etc.?

lisieux, since two people will be allowed to get married irrespective of gender, it makes no difference.

NOTE: @ Joseph R Yungk, Jimmy J, Jayne B, freye:

Sock puppetry is dishonest and against combox rules. Please pick a single handle for any given combox and stick with it. Commenters who break this rule may have their comments removed.

threesome is not a status. it’s a behavior.  the government will not step into a marriage to arbitrate among spouses.

Not at all true, Steven.  You are making that up.  Tell me, what country am I in right now?

Just for kicks, do you both realize that there are people out there trying to marry animals?

“Brit Jew Marries Dolphin”

“I’m the happiest girl on earth,” the bride said as she chocked back tears of emotion. “I made a dream come true, and I am not a pervert,” she stressed.

Tendler said she and her newly wed husband will probably spend their wedding night bowling.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3191923,00.html

Tell you what, it two men can marry and the state can redefine marriage, we will see more and more of this type of thing happening.

or are you looking for a reason to remove my comments since no one can seem to counter them?

Steven, you should just ban the guy for deception….

by the tone of the title, ‘brit jew,’ i’d rather stay away.

steven, my apologies.  i mis read and thought you were accusing me of using several different names.

They are being countered quite well, John.

If the goverment mutates marriage to include two men, it can do so for three men. Polygamy has a greater cultural background than homosexual “marriage” has ever had.

You are willing to deny the same benefits you want to other people.

That is discrimination, which the homosexuals have cried for decades now.

Sounds like the oppressed will become the oppressors.

Hey, it’s the headline writer’s doings, and I believe it is a Hebrew news service, though I could be wrong.

John, what’s wrong? Do you balk at nnatural “marriages” ?

@SDG—Thanks for the info on IP addresses, I would have never thought of that.

that should be “unnatural” marriages

SDG: “Sock puppetry is dishonest . . .”  A sincere question: how can we expect those who lie with their bodies to be honest in anything?  Is this not another consequence of the contraceptive culture?

@ John: Okay, reading further, I see you corrected yourself. I’ll revise my previous note. In fact, I’ll remove it altogether.

@ SteveP: Unfortunately, people on all sides lie out of strong feeling. Catholics lie to help their cause too. It’s inexcusable and wrong, but it happens. Words to live by from Saint Augustine: “God does not need my lie.”

@ John:
 

“threesome is not a status. it’s a behavior.”

 
Marriage itself is a “behavior,” then, isn’t it?

@ John:
 
Looking back, I see you have asked why combox discussion has revolved around same-sex marriage and not the main topic of my posts to date, which are primarily about heterosexual bad behavior. The answer is simple, and not as compromising as you would suggest. Discussion around same-sex marriage has exploded over hundreds of comments very largely because you and one other person are here defending it. No one here is going on for comment after comment defending contraception, divorce, cohabitation, etc. Very largely, you have determined the course, if not the tone or the play, of this combox.

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

SDG: Thank you for the answer and the quote.

@SDG—Exactly.. Everyone here mostly is having His conversation.

I’d still like to know how the catholic church is treating others with respect and dignity.

I stopped paying attention sometime around comment 100, but Larry’s comment caught my attention.  Perhaps I just want to play devil’s advocate, but by the logic in your comment it would seem that private, discreet encounters with young people are better than stable homosexual relationships.  I’m not prepared to defend that position.

SDG, I still like the analysis that had very little to do with homosexual marriage and had more to do with fatherless children and other cultural factors.  After reading many of the comments, though, I’m more convinced than ever that shouting the dogmatic Catholic position louder than anyone else is shouting their own position is the absolute worst way to spread the Good News.  I may need to stop reading these comments - they seem to bring out the worst in me.

Blessings to all.

How is it that the church shows dignity and respect toward homosexuals? I see it’s still not answered.

And my answer, yet again: How can I do this? Can you be more specific about how I can do this? I have already posted excerpts of Church teaching specifying that gays should be treated with dignity and respect. I have provided links to groups such as the Courage apostolate, a Church-sanctioned group that was formed in order to provide gays with support, dignity, and respect.

What more do you want?

@john

“...and, no, inspite of what you may think, incest requires behavior.  go look it up in the webster dictionary:
incest:  sexual intercourse between persons closely related
homosexuality: the quality or state of being homosexual.”

Also known as “behavior” called “LICENTIOUS.”  Go look up licentious in the dictionary and see for yourself.

This is brilliant and well-argued. When gay marriage started becoming a key issue about ten years ago, I had a strong sense that it was wrong but I couldn’t articulate why. Many opponents of gay marriage, particularly conservative Protestants, claimed that it would destroy marriage and the family, or create more divorce. Although I sensed there was a connection between these trends their logic wasn’t convincing. But as I turned the issue over and over in my mind, one question stuck out: why now? What is different about society right now, in the 2000s, that has made gay marriage acceptable? In other words, how did we get here? I realized that before we as a society could get here, marriage had to be so broken and fraught with disillusionment that nobody could be bothered to defend it anymore. The Christian fundamentalists had it backwards: gay marriage didn’t lead to the destruction of marriage; rather, the destruction of marriage has led to gay marriage.  This is a trend that holds globally: wherever gay marriage has become a prominent issue or has been legalized, marriage is in deep trouble. You don’t hear about “the battle for same-sex marriage in Thailand,” for example. Not because it’s a theocracy (it’s not) but because in Thailand, marriage and having children are too highly esteemed for gay marriage to even be seriously entertained.

Contrast that with the West, where marriage is in shambles. When something is seen as a lost cause to begin with, how can you muster up the strength to keep it from becoming even more lost? When a neighborhood is seen as hopelessly impoverished and crime-ridden, what’s one more drive-by? When a car is falling apart from dents and rust damage, what’s one more fender-bender? It is the same logic here. Even gay marriage advocates give themselves away: “if Britney Spears can have a wild weekend which features a spur-of-the-moment Vegas-style wedding and ends in divorce 72 hours later,” they say, “how can we claim that marriage is sacred?” 

Thanks again for writing this; I wish I saw more articles like these contributing to the debate!

john said, “from the end of your first comment [regarding consent as a factor that determines the morality of an act], we’re talking about law, not morality.”

<em>“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.”

“Catholic values” are concerned with morality, not law.  If you’re going to claim that “Catholic values” allow for homosexual activity and relationships, you cannot escape the obligation to show that such things are morally good.

Part 4 is up.

Why was the lady dismissed from grad school? First, it was a school of Counseling. She showed a rigid attitude to those she calls “homosexuals” and would have done a lot of damage to vulnerable adolescents in the role of counselor. Would you entrust your own gay son or daughter to her? She will probably end up working for some weird ex-gay organization, doing untold damage.

Part 5 is up.

I arrived late to this conversation, so I not sure if this idea has been considered.  If some smart Christian attorney doesn’t attempt to add a constitutional admendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, while our general population is still in our favor, the gay community (think ACLU) will.  Then that will be the end of our Christian country.

@Sharon Elizabeth, California citizens did pass an Amendment to the State Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.  It passed 54 to 46.  The Constitutional Amendment was brought about when the State Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to not allow marriage between two people of the same gender.  That State Supreme Court ruling was a split ruling, with the Chief Justice being the deciding vote, a judge that was thought to be moderate to conservative.  He announced his retirement a few months later.

The Amendment to the State Constitution stating marriage was between one man and one woman was placed on the ballot by the people and was called Proposition 8.  After winning, it was challenged in State Courts and went up to the State Supreme Court which ruled that the Prop 8 Constitutional Amendment was constitutional, so marriage was finally said to be between one man and one woman.  The opponents then appealed the state ruling to Federal Court where a Federal Judge ruled Prop. 8 was unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.  A month later that Federal Judge announced his retirement and also stated publicly he was in a same sex live-in relationship with a man for the past 10 years.  He did not excuse himself from having a personal interest in the case before him, as he should have.  The proponents of Prop 8 are appealing the decision in federal court.  This will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court at some point with the expected decision to be 5-4 with Justice Kennedy making the deciding vote.  He could go either way. Pray!

Sharon Elizabeth, the Congress did pass a bill (The Defensive Marriage Act, I think) and Bill Clinton signed it which authorized the Federal Government to defend marriage to be between one man and one woman in legal challenges of traditional marriage.  President Obama recently ordered his AG to not defend traditional marriage in court cases.

<a >Part 6</a> is now up.

Wonderful comment, Maire.

Part 7 is now up.

Aside to John: Is declassifying hebephilia as a disorder in the upcoming DSM a possibility?

Part 10 is now up.