It’s not just DOMA. It’s not just “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The Obama administration is quickly distinguishing itself not only as the most pro-abortion administration ever, but also the most hostile to the traditional family.
President Obama said recently that he believes the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal purposes as being between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. He instructed his Justice Department to stop defending the legislation against lawsuits.
In fact, he has spoken in support of repealing the act, but his directive to the Justice Department comes just two months after Obama signed a bill repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in which homosexuals serving in the U.S. military were barred from revealing their sexual orientation.
But there’s more. Obama outlined his plans last spring when he proclaimed June 2010 as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month”: “We must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring federal employees receive equal benefits. We must create safer schools, so all our children may learn in a supportive environment.”
And recently, the U.S. State Department issued guidelines that state non-governmental organizations that receive funding from the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration must serve “vulnerable and underserved refugees and other persons of concern,” including “lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals.”
And Obama can be credited for knocking down another precedent. His new White House social secretary, Jeremy Bernard, is not only the first man to hold that position, but also the first open homosexual to fill the role.
It does not help the cause of the traditional family one bit when the person in charge of the planning, coordination and execution of official social events in the White House, perhaps the highest-profile symbol of America, is a “gay activist.”
What are Catholics and other people of good will who believe in the sanctity of marriage to do? Certainly pray, for one thing. Certainly do whatever needs to be done to uphold traditional marriage.
But also, it’s not too early to start thinking about making this an issue in the next presidential election. We are entering a critical time period, with 2012 just coming up over the horizon. True, hardly anyone has officially announced his or her intentions to run for president yet. But of those who are thought to be interested, there seems to have been a lackluster response to Obama’s recent announcement about DOMA.
This is our chance as Catholics. Catholics have tended in recent years to vote for the winning side. Since 2000, ours has become more and more a vote that is sought after. We helped Republicans take back the House of Representatives last fall. We helped Obama win the White House in 2008. We helped the Democrats gain the majority in Congress in 2006. And we helped George W. Bush defeat challenger John Kerry in 2004.
Apparently, we’re pretty bipartisan, but there are issues that are of enduring concern — and life and family must top that list. Are we willing to settle for an eventual nominee who is wobbly on those issues? Now is the time to identify and work for candidates who are strong supporters of life and family. Let’s not miss the opportunity.
In the coming months, the Register will be profiling every declared candidate, looking at their backgrounds and beliefs — and stands they were willing to support and those they weren’t perhaps brave enough to stand up for. We hope to provide the background Catholics need to make informed choices. The rest is up to you.
Tom Hoopes: Why Catholics Are Grateful to George W. Bush
Jimmy Akin: Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis's Inaugural Mass?
Comments
Post a Comment
My dear good people. Why are you surprised at Obama’s fierce defence and protection of the abnormal sexually oriented minorities of homosexuals, lesbians and their misbegotten brethren - Bisexuals and Transgenders? Why be aghast at his onslaught against the Institution of Matrimony? His childhood and upbringing have made him what he is. His teenage mother - at only 17 years - was cheated by a polygamous philanderer who had no morals to speak about and who abandoned them forthwith without a backward glace. His mother re-married and shoved little rejected Obama to be brought up by his grand-parents. His professed Christian Religious beliefs are fallacious because he is, in fact, a Muslim. The man is one huge bundle of emotional and psychological contradictions with a nature of a person with a split personality. With such an upbringing, Obama is anti-family - because he never experience the love of a devoted father and mother. He is pro-sexual queers because he has no identity of a well-brought up child in a loving Family environment where integrity, healthy self-image, self-respect, respect and love of parents, siblings friends and peers are nurtured and Religious formation are cemented. In short,poor Americans elected a social misfit. A good orator who has no roots or morals. And for that grave mistake, you shall pay dearly because the route your Nation has taken is the Sodom and Gommorah cursed Highway.
Let all people of goodwill and especially Catholics in America, rise up to the occasion and protect the sanctity of life, the sacred Institution of Marriage as established by God and confirmed and upheld by Natural Law. Obama must not be allowed to destroy your good country with such a rich history as an advanced civilized Nation which protects human dignity. How sad that his policies have pushed your Nation to the filthy chesspit of accepting as normal, bestialities far lower than animals and plants who have adhered to, and continue to faithfully perform their reproductive activities as intended by our Creator.
I am a single person and come from a strong Catholic and family background. As a single person, I became aware of the homosexual agenda at least 20 years ago by reading Don Wildmon’s magazine on family life and the homosexual agenda. I founded a lay pro-life organization in my diocese and tried to awaken our Catholics to the danger of the push for recognition of the homosexual lifestyle to marriage and family life. Litte attention was paid to my effort. In fact, I was repriminded by a reader for reporting that Don Wildmon said that “homosexuals recruit”. I knew for a fact that they did as several young men pretending to be devout Catholics joined my youth group and later on I found out “they were recruiting.” They used me! I hope it is not too late for Catholics to wake up and realize what they and the country are facing in the misguided acceptance of blatant homosexual behaviour.
Really? Jesus would have been Republican? Really?
I think the editors are missing an important point about this. I feel it’s not so much about being pro-gay as it is helping people be insured. I’m not so much pro-gay as I am pro-human. I don’t know what’s in people’s hearts, but if somebody loves somebody and want to spend their life with them, it seems that one of the large hurdles is being able to have insurance and other aspects of spending your life with someone (hospital visiting rights, etc.).
And I’ve not yet seen answers to two very important questions: HOW does a gay marriage threaten heterosexual marriage? WHY does a gay marriage threaten heterosexual marriage? My wife and I have never had a gay man or woman try to break up our marriage. The number of available women was not diminished (when I was single) noticeably back when I was dating. So how and why does gay marriage pose a threat to my marriage or the solid marriages of all the other men and women?
We hear time and time again from our leaders in the church that gay marriage is a threat. So, leaders, please respond: HOW and WHY?
This is also a direct assault on the right of conscience and the free exercise thereof as defined in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 1st Amendment guarantees our right to vote our faith by insuring that our votes will be counted as equal to every other vote cast regardless of Race, Religion, and Gender - the three classes protected as immutable under the U.S. Constitution. Is there any wonder that a pervert Federal jurist from California ruled that it is inappropriate for us to base our opinions on our faith.
When we take a step back we see that the second freedom protected under the 1st Amendment of the United States is the freedom of speech; which explains why Obama’s Marxist and Communist supporters are such big fans of what the perversion activists are trying to accomplish. By undermining/destroying the 1st Amendment’s protection of faith these miscreants will in effect open the door to frontal assault on the freedom of speech; a freedom Marxists and Communist must suppress in order to force their vision on our nation.
Mr. Obama was hired to lead this great country and to uphold the laws we have established through legislation. By picking and choosing which laws he will enforce he sounds less like a president and more like a dictator. Where is the outcry and call for impeachment? He is defiantly not doing the job he was hired to do.
In response to Rick Reed: Respectfully, there are many reasons. I am including a link to an article called “10 reasons why homosexual ‘marriage’ is harmful” from the TFP Student Action website that offers some great points on the issue. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html
Hope it’s helpful for you and others. Please remember, hate the sin, but love the sinner. Just like God does for us all.
I strongly disagree. I want to comment on at least one issue you bring up: DOMA and gays. I speak from personal experience when I say that old, harmful laws and religious (Catholic) attitudes toward gays have actively harmed families. If people stopped vilifying gay people, gay teens, and children of gays, there would be fewer “Christian” families kicking their gay kids out on the street, fewer sham marriages between gay and straight spouses that end in divorce, and higher rates of responsible relationships in the US. The greatest threat to the traditional family (however you define it) are the forces that divide and destroy good people, and that is not Obama for sure.
“most hostile to the traditional family”
Hmmm, treating ALL families equally = “hostile” according to the catholic mind.
Strange musings indeed.
Mary,
The President is enforcing almost all the laws. He is enforcing DOMA, he is not defending it. If a Policeman doesn’t think Jay walking is a crime, he will still write tickets, but he might not think it a good law.
The President is NOT enforcing the law against Crimes against Humanity by not bringing President Bush up on crimes of Waterboarding. The Nuremburg trials specify that no lawyers judgment can protect the criminal act of torture.
I would support impeachment of Obama to force him to prosecute this admitted criminal.
Rover.
There is no justification for hurting gay people through anti-equality legislation.
The American principles of freedom of equality, religion, and individual choice are paramount to having disapproval of gay relationships.
I am not one bit surprised at anything this stupid president would do. I will be glad to help get him out of office.
@Rick Reed. Mr. Reed you are missing the whole point here. Homosexuality is a sin against God. It is a disordered act against God and nature. It goes against the teachings of The Church. The teachings of The Church aren’t like a restraunt menu. You can’t pick and choose the ones you agree with and call yours in full communion with The Church. It is wrong to practice it sexually and it is wrong to support politicians that support it.
As Catholics we have the Five Non-Negotionables. They are: 1)Abortion. 2)Euthenasia. 3)Homosexuality. 4)Embrionic stem-cell research. 5)cloning. We don’t support candidates that support these five issues no matter what party and no matter how much we agree with them on every other issue.
I’ve been debating the homosexual agenda in online forums and letters to the editor in local and national newspapers for two or three years now, and I don’t know if I’m the first or the last one to realize it, but I’m beginning to see that while the push for actual homosexual rights might have been what started it all, that’s not what it’s primarily about today.
—
A recent poll finds a little less than half of Americans in favor of same-sex “marriage.” While not all of them are actively involved in efforts to make it a reality, a number are rather vocal about it, as can be seen in the mainstream media every day. Given that the number of people who identify as homosexuals is rather small (2-3% of the population) and the fact that even where same-sex “marriage” has been permitted for some time only a small percentage of homosexuals have actually availed themselves of that option (less than 10% in the Netherlands, for example), it’s clear that only a tiny fraction of Americans in favor of it could be expected to be affected by the “legalization” of same-sex “marriage.”
—
The rest ostensibly support it as some kind of new civil right. However, almost without fail, the first tactic of those who actually argue in favor of it is to attack the religious positions against it. In fact, while I tend to argue against such things in secular terms, inevitably those I argue with want to pull religion into the argument. I used to think that the reason was that they can more easily dismiss a religious argument since they can then argue that someone is trying to “impose their religion” on someone else. However, since the news broke about the British foster parents whose Christian-inspired view that homosexual practice is wrong has been deemed “inimical to children,” I’m beginning to seriously suspect that a number of the people who argue in favor of same-sex “marriage” and other homosexual rights are much more interested in suppressing religion than granting particular rights to homosexuals. This could even include a significant percentage of those who identify as homosexual. In other words, the few homosexuals with possibly genuine desires to be “married” are being used as pawns by a great number of others to further what is for those others a completely unrelated agenda.
Here’s the answer!!!! Through MRIs, we now know that the brain activity of gay and lebisian people is slighlty different than the rest of the population. We can even today, “fix” the problem, just as we can now correct eyes through laser surgery and even help the deaf to hear…..think of it! All this talk about society changing to accomodate gays is a farce!!!
Laws & the legal profession that interpret them are very mechanical, very mathematical.
If A + B = C, and if A + D = C, then B MUST = D
It’s exactly like that. The DOJ defended DOMA in local courts, because local courts had a looser definition of “unconstitutional.” Now, the cases are moving to federal courts where the definition is more strict. Under the federal definition of “unconstitutional,” section 3 of DOMA fails.
The DOJ knows this. This, and only this reason, is why the DOJ has decided to stop defending DOMA.
I’ve been debating the homosexual agenda in online forums and letters to the editor in local and national newspapers for two or three years now, and I don’t know if I’m the first or the last one to realize it, but I’m beginning to see that while the push for actual homosexual rights might have been what started it all, that’s not what it’s primarily about today.
—
A recent poll finds a little less than half of Americans in favor of same-sex “marriage.” While not all of them are actively involved in efforts to make it a reality, a number are rather vocal about it, as can be seen in the mainstream media every day. Given that the number of people who identify as homosexuals is rather small (2-3% of the population) and the fact that even where same-sex “marriage” has been permitted for some time only a small percentage of homosexuals have actually availed themselves of that option (less than 10% in the Netherlands, for example), it’s clear that only a tiny fraction of Americans in favor of it could be expected to be affected by the “legalization” of same-sex “marriage.”
—
The rest ostensibly support it as some kind of new civil right. However, almost without fail, the first tactic of those who actually argue in favor of it is to attack the religious positions against it. In fact, while I tend to argue against such things in secular terms, inevitably those I argue with want to pull religion into the argument. I used to think that the reason was that they can more easily dismiss a religious argument since they can then argue that someone is trying to “impose their religion” on someone else. However, my experiences since the news broke about the British foster parents whose Christianity-inspired view that homosexual practice is wrong has been deemed “inimical to children,” has led me to a different conclusion. The admittedly few with whom I’ve been able to debate that particular decision have been utterly opposed to religion altogether. Based on that and looking back at the character of many of the debates I’ve had in the past, I’m beginning to seriously suspect that a number of the people who argue in favor of same-sex “marriage” and other homosexual rights are much more interested in suppressing religion than granting particular rights to homosexuals. This could even include a significant percentage of those who identify as homosexual. In other words, the few homosexuals with possibly genuine desires to be “married” are being used as pawns by a great number of others to further what is for those others a completely unrelated agenda.
Get over it. Not all beings should be subjected to live by your religion’s rules.
Love,
Jess
The Obama Administration is getting a lot of criticism from social conservatives for ending its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). However, if part of President Obama’s job is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” he made the right call.
There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as DOMA. This law sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples, thus violating the 14th Amendment. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security.
Also, unlike married Straight couples, married Gay couples become “UN-married” if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the “Full Faith & Credit” clause.
Heck, even a lawyer with the American Family Association has admitted that DOMA is “probably unconstitutional.” Details are here:
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/01/AFAs_Lawyer_Says_DOMA_Is_Unconstitutional
By its own actions, the federal government has made marriage a federal issue. Most of the legal benefits of marriage are bestowed by the federal government. You can argue about religion and parenthood until the cows come home, and it will not negate the fact that there is simply no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
We “helped Obama win the White House”??? True, he could not have won without the Catholic vote and that is our shame, our indictment. Let’s pray that Catholics actually vote Catholic in 2012. As far as the contenders go, we should get behind Rick Santorum. A true Catholic and a good man. He is not shy about defending Life and marriage, and is not ashamed of his faith.
Thank you Kevin Rahe, for exposing the hidden Agenda of the defenders of the unfortunate sexually disordered persons.
And you don’t have to be so rude, Jess. Homosexuality is an abnormal sexual orientation, rejected by all cultures of the world, not just by Religion, or - to be exact - the Catholic Church. And Marriage is strictly between and man and a woman, FULL STOP. Male animals mate with female animals as decreed by the Creator. Homosexuality, lesbianism and all other sexual bestialities are against the Natural Law even before we throw in the Cardinal God’s Law. Kevin Rahe’s Post is very well balanced and has revealed the truth behind the vehement push for recognition of same-sex liaisons as Marriages.
“In other words, the few homosexuals with possibly genuine desires to be “married” are being used as pawns by a great number of others to further what is for those others a completely unrelated agenda”.
I believe,Jess, this last sentence of his Post, says it all and no doubt, that is what has annoyed you so much. Well, truth does hurt, especially when those pushing a lie for ulterior motives have been exposed for what they are. All I can assure you, Jess is that, no matter how hard the “world” fights the Church of Christ, She will overcome “the powers of the Evil One” and remain strong and faithful to the Truth of God until the end of time. Jesus promised that and He is The Way, the Truth and the Life.
@Kevin Rahe: My own observations agree with yours. I think homosexuals are being used as cannon fodder by cultural elites who regard the Church as the biggest threat to their statist dreams, and a lot of people have been taken in by the propaganda. Of all the people I’ve met who favor gay “marriage,” exactly one of them doesn’t express hatred Christians as well. (And that lone exception is a lesbian studying to be a minister.) That’s what I think the real problem is. Almost half the people in this country, as a result of incessant demonization of Christians in all media forms over many years, hate us. And that number includes some Christians. (Yes, that’s a contradiction, but we’re postmodern now.) On some level I think that gay “marriage” has become symbolic of a struggle over whether we want our society to be not just post-Christian but anti-Christian. It’s not “live and let live” anymore but increasingly coerced conformity.
—-
As to the 2012 election, we are again faced with two choices. We can vote for the party that promotes gay “marriage,” abortion, extreme secularism and fiscal irresponsibility. Or we can vote for the party that pretends to be against those things and hopes that we forget their track record. I’d really, really like another option.
@torpedovino. Thanks for the link. I read over it a few times and can see how those very same arguments should be used by Catholics to ban divorce (and remarriage). After all, a stepdad is not a natural father. Also, it would appear that all those desiring to be married must be tested to assure their capability to be part of the reproduction process, for if a couple doesn’t produce children, they have violated the purpose of marriage. I would also suggest that these statements be used to shut down “natural” family planning, as this Church supported program also prevents conception. Unfortunately, although this web link appears to be well-intentioned, they use a bit of circle logic and some poor reasoning, which hurts their goal. Still, the effort’s there.
People need to realize that religious beliefs cannot dictate law. In the USA there is no right or reason to discriminate against people for religious convictions. The USA doesnt belong to just the religious or the heterosexual community, it belongs to all of its citizens. Heterosexuals, and the religious are not the only ones who pay taxes, all of the citizens of the USA do. Everyone who pays there taxes deserves the same rights as the next person. Homosexuals are not seeking special rights, they are seeking equal rights that they are entitled to by law. The religious can have their beliefs, but when that belief discriminates against people, thats when its gone too far. Gay people have every right to live their lives peacefully, to not have to worry about being discriminated in their own country. Why should only the religious and straight people have rights? Oh and another thing, supporting same sex marriage IS supporting families, opposing it is only working to destroy families.
Same sex unions are not families connect by a biology; they are a partnership connected by gentleman’s agreement. The fact the perversion activists need to redefine words just to lend the appearance of acceptability to their depravity speaks volumes of this corruption.
Our laws came from the Ten Commandments; to ignore this fact is to ignore the intent of the laws. First you generously say “the religious” can have their beliefs, but then you make the ridiculous assertion that they can only practice their faith with in an artificial construct that does not interfere with your perversion.
The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of conscience and THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Only a complete moron would argue that the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. constitution renders the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution un-Constitutional.
Perverts need to pervert the world around them in order to lend the appearance of acceptability to their depravity.
Same sex activist need to realize that our laws come from our faith; that the Freedom OF religion and the free exercise thereof enshrines the right to vote our conscience and insures that religious Bigots can not deny our vote just because our conscience stands in opposition to theirs.
The USA does not just belong to sexual deviants; it belongs to all citizens regardless of Race, Religion, or Gender - the (3) classes with immutable protection under the U.S. Constitution.
The notion that laws are somehow unconstitutional merely because they align with the principles espoused by a particular religion is silly. The Constitution itself, including the Bill of Rights, is but a framework or a foundation for law, rather than a philosophy or a moral code. It is intended only to ensure that men have the freedom to do what is right. As such, it is quite limited in its ability to prevent them from doing what is wrong. This is quite plain from the fact that it doesn’t even proscribe first-degree murder. (Yes, murder is Constitutional!) All it says about such things is that whatever laws are enacted regarding murder, they must apply equally to everyone. Because it says nothing about what is right or what is wrong, by itself it cannot be used to justify anything.
—
While laws must pass the Constitutional test, they do not flow from the Constitution itself, for there is simply not enough there to determine what our laws should be. Therefore, the principles on which our laws are based must come from elsewhere, the obvious ones being the principles men have lived by since before our government was invented. To say that these must be ignored merely because they are often passed on from one generation to another in the form of religious teachings is completely absurd. While no religious teaching ought to become law without reasonable public debate, including and especially debate that involves those who don’t subscribe to that religious teaching, a law that is informed by a particular religious teaching is no less valid than one drawn up by a secular committee. In fact, I have yet to see someone suggest a moral code or set of principles that could be used as a foundation for law that does not align with SOMEONE’s religious understanding of the world. John Adams probably said it best: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
—
The present debate over same-sex “marriage” is not about whether two equal things are being treated alike by the law, but rather whether two things are equal. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that we must accept that one thing is equal to another merely because some minority says they’re the same thing. The argument that same-sex “marriage” is equal to traditional marriage is far weaker than the argument that a tomato is a fruit, yet even in the latter case the Supreme Court decided that for the purposes of taxation a tomato is considered a vegetable.
I was just reading it without the intention of making a comment ...but I had too! I am homossexual, I was raised by a strong and loving catholic family,I went to church when I was little, I had all the good values taught during my child life, why I didn’t become a straight person and chose to marry a woman? Explain me? I never chose to be treated with disrespect from other people, and to have less rights than the others, to be called so many names during my teenager life in high school… To have a miserable life Trying to find out what was wrong with me when I was really little and couldn’t figure why I liked the same things and games that only girls like…. The Answer: I WAS BORN THIS WAY! Things that most people dont understand is that WE don’t choose to be like this, yes- we learn to love who we are, the way we are, than live a life of lies, lying to ourselfs and to the world, STOP! Live your lives, love yourself, then maybe you will learn to love every other human being with their differences ... we don’t judge straight people, why you judge US? My question now is, would you choose to have a life of a homosexual being reject from many and many people, having less rights according to the government just for sexual pleasures? I know your answer is not! Then respect the way we ARE, and you will learn to respect yourselves ...we above all are the same as you, we are human beings ... Not less! equal! Equality NOW!
You chose your lifestyle, but the thing you may have been interested in did not make you a sexual deviant. You opened yourself up to the possibility and then you embraced it as if it were a unique characteristic of who you are.
Society may have given you the impression that if you liked certain things it made you a certain way, but that impression is false; your very biology testifies against you. As I read the comments above I see no name calling save the names made up by those who embrace your lifestyle as their own. There are descriptive that do shine a very bright light on your activity though:
Pervert:
A unusual, or unnatural sexual act performed repeatedly
Deviant:
Diverging sharply from a customary, traditional, or generally accepted standard, or displaying such divergent behavior
Miscreant:
Somebody whose religious faith is frowned upon or loathed
Depravity:
a state of moral corruption
You folks are nothing more then a well healed organized horde of miscreants who pooled their resources to obtain a special class status for everybody that embraces your perversion as their own. When you have to redefine words and coin phrases just to lend the appearance of acceptability to your depravity then you have to know you are on the wrong side of this fight.
Marriage:
The joining of opposites
Bruno, thanks for your post. I’ve never felt my marriage threatened by a gay person, male or female. Come to think of it, straight people are more of a threat to my marriage than gay people. As one who has been working in the arts most of my life and around people of all inclinations, habits, and lifestyles, I’ve learned not to judge people based on with whom they sleep or engage in intimate relations. Americans in general seem to be scared of anything to do with sex, so lashing out against the “homosexual agenda” (equality? what, are you kidding? in America?) is an extension of that. I’ve heard it described as the roots of the original Puritans who helped found this country that are still reaching out.
What if I am not catholic? Do I have to rule my live YOUR WAY. Catholicism has been, is and will always be the demise of the world!
@Bruno, as someone who as a teenager was called probably the same names that you were even though I was not homosexual, I’ll be the first to say that you certainly didn’t deserve to be called those names and treated disrespectfully, especially if at the time you had not acted on your homosexual feelings.
—
While you assert that you were “born that way” and indeed organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA) at one time asserted that homosexuality might be explained chiefly by biology, the evidence to support that presumption hasn’t materialized, and the APA has had to back away from that position. Regardless of its genesis, however, you are correct in that you need to learn to love who you are. But that doesn’t mean that everything you might desire is automatically lovable or even acceptable. After all, the feelings of someone with an undesired attraction to children or animals might be just as honest and may even have a similar genesis as homosexuality, yet I don’t think any of us would consider it acceptable for them to act on those feelings. And someone’s willingness to consent to a bad thing does not automatically make it a good thing.
—
As for not wanting to “live a life of lies,” it’s not clear what lies you’re talking about. And while you haven’t indicated whether you advocate going so far as to permit adoption by same-sex couples, if you do, wouldn’t two people of the same sex claiming to be the “parents” of a child not also be living a lie, on an entirely different level than any other type of adoption could be said to be a “lie?”
—
You ask for respect, yet you imply that sex is just for pleasure, which is a view I don’t respect regardless of the sexual orientation of the person espousing it. The reason that sex is pleasurable is clear, which has something to do with the continuation of the human race. While it has other purposes as well, when you try to separate those purposes or emphasize one purpose by squelching or eliminating the other, it leads to debauchery, complexity and ultimately misery.
—
Finally, you suggest that the government ought to recognize same-sex relationships as the “equal” of traditional marriage, yet you’ve offered no evidence that they are truly equal. Despite suggestions that traditional married couples and families won’t be harmed by it, when the government tries to force such a contrived “equality,” it tends to permeate all of society and become a tyranny. We saw this just last week in the UK, where it was determined that the practice of Christianity by foster parents is “inimical to children.”
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.