The Diocese of Rockford, Illinois has already made the decision to discontinue adoption services if this measure becomes law, saying it violates Catholic moral teaching to serve gay couples or unmarried hetrosexual couples through furnishing adoption services.

Catholic Charities of Boston (MA) went through the same situation several years ago. They operated an adoption agency that actually USED to have no problem placing children with adoptive Gay couples ... but then they abruptly decided to stop.

Massachusetts, of course, has a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation as a protected category. When it became well-known that Catholic Charities of Boston was being funded by the state to the tune of about $1 million per year, they were given a choice: Either stop discriminating against Gay couples, or give up your taxpayer funding. They chose to give up the funding.

Fine with me. If ANY Catholic Charity wants to discriminate against Gay couples ... or Muslim or Atheist couples for that matter ... so be it, but they absolutely will not do it on MY dime. I am a law-abiding, taxpaying Gay American, and I will not have MY tax dollars funding organizations that discriminate against me, any more than Catholics would want THEIR tax dollars funding organizations that discriminate against Catholics.

This is an excellent and courageous article.

Excellent article Mr. May.  As you alluded to, the focus of adoption must remain to find parents for the child, rather than a child for parents.  And the objective must be to find the child ideal parents, rather than his real parents, for his real parents may have been drug addicts or prostitutes.  While there is bound to be some variation in what people consider “ideal,” and no parents will ever fully achieve it, we cannot even pretend that a couple would make ideal parents if their very gender suggests that we could never expect them to be any kind of parents at all.

Beautifully written, thoughtful article.  Your voice is most appreciated.

Hundreds of words are required by the writer to explain the Catholic position.  This mirrors the moral and ethical contortions that one must go through to agree with him, and the Church, on this issue.  Allow me to counter with a much simpler position:  Having parents of two genders, rather than one, does not result in a better child or happier adult.  A more typically Catholic child, perhaps, but not a better one.  The Church is free to believe in otherwise, but it may not accept public monies to practice its belief. Mental health professionals and their professional organization dismiss the writer’s position wholesale. Taxpayers expect their money to be spent on proven and professionally accepted solutions to social problems, not vague and controversial beliefs based on tradition, faith, and religious texts.

Here we go again.  Another attempt to force Catholics to alter what they believe to be true in order to be politically correct.

Boston Catholic Charities was already allowing gay adoption a few years ago before gay marriage became this much of a debate and the Bishops decided it didn’t make the case against gay marriage look good.

“The implementation of the new civil-union law in Illinois is leading to a showdown between Catholic Charities as a provider of adoption services for children and a state law that places the private interest of adults over the human rights of children. Catholic Charities will actually be put in jeopardy of lawsuits and losing public funds to serve the poor if they refuse to deprive children they serve of married mothers and fathers. How crazy is that?”

Catholic Charities sought an exemption from the law for religious organizations as a matter of conscience, but the bill is bottled up in committee and not likely to pass before June 1, when the civil-union law takes effect. As the clock ticks down, the question remains as to whether Catholic Charities will be forced out of the adoption business in Illinois, as has been the case in Boston, San Francisco, Washington and other places.

To understand the issue, one must first consider who the client is when there is a child in need of adoption or foster care. Is this a service for the child or is it a service to adults seeking to acquire a child? The qualifications for the adoptive parents can be quite different depending on the answer to that question.

If the clients are the adults, the child then becomes a precious commodity. The qualification for the adoptive parent(s) is merely competence in parenting. However, if the client is the child, the process for qualifying the prospective parent is quite different, taking into account the human rights and dignity of the child.

First, let us consider the state of the child up for adoption — deprived of his or her mother and father who for some reason were not able to fulfill their responsibilities to the child. Nevertheless, the child carries the flesh of these people and is a witness to their union for all of eternity. The child has not only lost a very real primordial connection associated with his or her identity, but something that is common to every person without exception and important to human flourishing.

As the child grows in age, the awareness of loss increases. Not only the connection with the persons from whom the child originated is missing, but there are also questions about siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins, medical history, sense of family history and ethnic and cultural heritage. The ability, as far as possible, for a child to know and be cared for by his or her mother and father is so precious that it is an internationally recognized human right specified in the “U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

Considering the child’s status, adoption is really an accommodation for this privation. It is an act of charity in which strangers make an irrevocable promise to love, to stand in for and to represent the man and woman who gave the child life and who were not able to fulfill their responsibilities. In this sense, they are not only taking on responsibility to the child, but also to the parents of the child.

It is therefore common sense that only a man can stand in for the father and only a woman can stand in for the mother of which the child was deprived.”

This point is actually never argued. Where is it every proven that two parents of opposite genders are the only people who can step in for an adoptive child?
Certainly not in any social science, this has been proven over and over, there are plenty of single people who have raised healthy children as there are gay couples. This is backed up with numerous studies.

“matter of common sense and justice for the child to expect the adoptive man and woman to first make themselves irreplaceable to each other through marriage?”

How are civil unions not two people making themselves irreplaceable to each other? How are two civilly unioned people adoption a child not making a permanent irreplaceable family with the child?
To compare gays to people looking for pets is not realistic. If there are facts or reasoning to this conclusion, it is not stated.

““best interest of the child” in the abstract, the perceptions of that can be skewed by the interest and experience of the adults making the argument.”

With the lack of any substantive arguments, facts or logic provided, this entire article is based on perceptions skewed by the person writing it.

“Reflecting on the desire we have for connection with our own mother and father and recognizing that this is a common human experience”

And gays can’t do this? And again, there is not supportive data or logic to this conclusion. I will say that very few, if any, Catholics have done a good job in raising homosexual children. To tell a child for his/her entire childhood that what s/he would grow up to be is an “objectively disordered” individual who will never be able to gratify one of his/her most powerful drives, can never have children or know what romantic love is is not “in the best interest of the child” because that drive is aimed nontraditionally. Letting such child choose based in modern family structures and biblical teachings in reference to the time has shown to be a much more humane way of facing homosexuality.

Boston Catholic Charities was already allowing gay adoption a few years ago before gay marriage became this much of a debate and the Bishops decided it didn’t make the case against gay marriage look good.

“It is therefore common sense that only a man can stand in for the father and only a woman can stand in for the mother of which the child was deprived.”

This point is actually never argued in the article. Where is it every proven that two parents of opposite genders are the only people who can step in for an adoptive child?
Certainly not proven in any social science, this has been disproven over and over. There are plenty of single people who have raised healthy children as there are gay couples. This is backed up with numerous studies.

“matter of common sense and justice for the child to expect the adoptive man and woman to first make themselves irreplaceable to each other through marriage?”

How are civil unions not two people making themselves irreplaceable to each other? How are two civilly unioned people adopting a child not making a permanent irreplaceable family first with each other and then with the child?

To compare gays to people looking for pets is not realistic. If there are facts or reasoning to this conclusion, it is not stated.

““best interest of the child” in the abstract, the perceptions of that can be skewed by the interest and experience of the adults making the argument.”

With the lack of any substantive arguments, facts or logic provided, this entire article is based on skewed perceptions of the person writing it.

“Reflecting on the desire we have for connection with our own mother and father and recognizing that this is a common human experience”

And gays can’t do this? Again, there is not supportive data or logic to this conclusion. I will say that very few, if any, Catholics have done a good job in raising homosexual children. To tell a child throughout his/her entire childhood that who s/he would grow up to be is an “objectively disordered” individual who will never be able to gratify one of his/her most powerful drives, can never have children or know what romantic love is is not “in the best interest of the child” because that drive is aimed nontraditionally and any pursuit, even contemplation would be a sin. The child then has to walk around with stygma for his entire life while being deprived of his own family potential. Letting such child choose based on modern family structures and biblical teachings with reference to the time has shown to be a much more humane way of facing homosexuality. Contrary to the above article, there is overwhelming data making it very clear that this leads to severe emotional problems.

Have any readers here every known a stable gay couple or empathized with what a gay child goes through?

You can be sure that a homosexual “victim” will file the proper anti-discrimination suit. With individuals addicted to homosexual behavior, it is not about equal rights, it is about power.

The viewpoint expressed in this article is a sad reminder of the continuing presence of bias, intolerance and discrimination practiced by the catholic church against the majority of humanity which does not share their faith and mythology.  The facts are simple.  (1) Marriage is a union of two adults who devote themselves to eachother for better or for worse through a commitment of love.  Whether this is a woman and a man, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, is irrelevant (and none of the business of anyone other than the couple).  Only the couple, not the catholic church, has the right to determine whether they belong together in matrimony.  (2) The catholic church is not being forced to end adoption services, it is choosing to abandon placing the best interests of the children in need for adoption services because the leadership of the church wishes to engage in illegal and unconstitutional discrimination against all those who disagree with their faith and who instead choose belief based on reason and the basic human right of equality.  (3) The best interest of the adopted children is to be placed in a home with one or two loving parents.  Whether the parent(s) are male and/or female is irrelevant.  The only consideration which matters is whether the child is loved by those parent(s).  (4)  The catholic church certainly has the right to choose not to provide adoption services; perhaps this is the best outcome if the church continues to proselytize intolerance, bias, discrimination and the denial of the basic human right of equality.

As an adoptive mother of 9 and a professional working with adoptive families for more than thirty years, I agree with one point of the article: the purpose of adoption is to find families for children not children for families.
Neither is the purpose of adoption to promote religion or to permit agencies, be they religious or not, to practice discrimination of any kind.
To pretend—against all medical and social science to the contrary—that children thrive better in traditional catholic families than they do in single or same gender families is insulting to those children raised by single mothers or fathers or by same gender couples, married or not.
Perhaps the church,of which I have been a member for more than seventy years, would do well to focus on the real needs of children: for family, for safety from sexual predators,for protection from poverty and prejudice.
I have worked with several same sex couples who are parenting adopted children with love, compassion and devotion.

It is possible that one day a child, who is placed in a one-dimensional home by an agency, will sue the agency for failing to look for the best well-balanced home for his/her upbringing.

It is completely untrue that the Catholic Church is being penalized here. Rather, it is the Church that has penalized the children, by placing religious ideology above the interests of the children.

The best interests of the children demand that each child be placed with the best available prospective parents. The Bishops’ claim that the best parents are opposite sex couples is not supported by the scientific evidence - but even if it were true in general, it is certainly not true for every individual case. Some opposite sex couples are demonstrably ill-equipped for parenting (which is why so many children need adoption in the first place), while the adoption professionals have countless same sex couples on their books who have demonstrated superb parenting ability.

The bishops’ disregard for the genuine “best interests of the child” to protect their own flawed teaching on human sexuality is a scandal on the entire church.

It seems like the “gay” crowd has no problem in accepting public monies to support “their” position, but they have a big problem with any public monies going to organizations that are not in agreement with their position.
The state of Illinois is the bully here - not Catholic Charities.

Only thing is, they’re willing to place children in single-parent homes, from what I’ve heard (correct me if I’m wrong). It seems like common sense that two parents are better than one (or none) - but if they’re gay, apparently that logic goes out the window. Not that I’m all that surprised anymore.

I find it fascinating that the writer believes adopted children (and the adults they become) are deprived of a connection to their biological origins while the Catholic Conferences of Bishops of many states openly oppose allowing adults (adopted as children) access to their own original birth records. 

If it is truly detrimental to the child (and the adult) to be deprived of such a connection, and adoption can only partially ameliorate that deprivation, why the disconnect?  It would make the most sense to listen to Catholic Charities as that is the organization that is most closely associated with adoption.

With individuals addicted to homosexual behavior, it is not about equal rights, it is about power.

Are heterosexuals “addicted” to their lifestyle?

“Here we go again.  Another attempt to force Catholics to alter what they believe to be true in order to be politically correct.”

I think the key word is this quote is “believe”. You can believe whatever you want, but you can’t use public funding to use those beliefs to discriminate against people without objective facts. The catholic church does describe homosexuality as “objectively disordered” however they do so with no objective evidence.

Politically correct often means “fair” and “equal”. Is there something wrong with fair and equal?

It is best if Catholic Charities gets out of the business of adoption and instead gets in the business of keeping families together. A child deserves a mother and a father. Agreed. But not any mother and father. A child needs the mother and father that God blessed them with. When a woman comes to Catholic Charities with a crisis pregnancy she needs to be counseled on how much her child needs her. The old rhetoric of praising the mother for relinquishing her child to a married couple that can “better provide” for the child needs to be replaced. This happened to me in 1980. My mother, who was a good Roman Catholic woman, convinced me I was doing what was best for my child by placing her for adoption. In retrospect, this was horrendous for both my daughter and myself. The more I talk to other women who lost children to adoption, the more I realize the terrible effects that choice has on the mothers and their children.  Teens whose parents are not supportive need foster families that will help them get on their feet by getting their education and employment.  Women in financial distress need support with child care and employment. But most of all, these women need to know that they have a temporary problem that will be resolved. All pregnant women need to be reassured that this pregnancy will be a blessing. Relinquishing children to adoption is a life sentence for the mother. And we have learned that children separated from their natural families suffer a host of problems, too. ”(I)t is through the ...recognized relationship to his own parents that the child can discover his own identity and achieve his own proper human development.” (Instrument on Respect for Human Life, 1987.”  Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict

Mr. May writes eloquently about children carrying the flesh of their original parents.

He bemoans the fact that: “The child has not only lost a very real primordial connection associated with his or her identity, but something that is common to every person without exception and important to human flourishing,” and goes on to note that: “As the child grows in age, the awareness of loss increases. Not only the connection with the persons from whom the child originated is missing, but there are also questions about siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins, medical history, sense of family history and ethnic and cultural heritage. The ability, as far as possible, for a child to know and be cared for by his or her mother and father is so precious that it is an internationally recognized human right specified in the “U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

***All ironically hypocritical in face of the fact that it is the Catholic Conference (CC) which in IL and other states opposes the human and civil right of adoptees to access their own original birth certificate.***

May even says: “Human rights cannot be created or changed, only recognized” while the CC he represents stomps on the human rights of adopted persons. And why does the CC oppose adoptees right to be treated to all non-adopted citizens? Because of a very insulting pretense that mothers who lovingly - or under pressure - relinquish children they have carried for nine months for adoption would prefer to abort rather than risk being found! Does that ability to reverse time apply to mothers who have their rights terminated by the state years after their children were born?

Their argument is however contraray to the statistics which indicate that in status where adoptee access has bene restored there has bene no increase in abortions and no decrease in adoptions. And they know it!

So what is their REAL reason for fighting desperately to deny the rights of these children whose rights May speaks of? It is fear of priests and other men in high positions being found by children they fathered outside of their marriages.

How dare a representative of the Catholic Conference speak about the human rights of children and “the principle of irreplaceability” when they advocate erasing the truth of the adopted child’s identity, heritage and lineage and replacing it with a fraudulent birth certificate claiming adoptive parents as parents to whom the child was born. The church baptizes these children confirming these falsehoods….the same church that told thousands of mothers in the past to LIE about ever having had a child.

Hatred for homosexuals and homosexuality allows them to violate their own moral arguments, not to mention eliminating possible parents for children in foster care who cannot be reunified with their families and might benefit from caring parents, regardless of their gender.

Mirah Riben, author, THE STORK MARKET: America’s Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry

In the next time slot of seminars I visited Creating Family: Counseling GLBT Clients on Adoption with attorneys Debra Guston, Donald Cofsky, and Doulas Pine with Terry Petrone and Elaine Schwartz from Adoptions by the Heart.

I really found this to be an informative program about the difficulties and hurtles that GLBT clients must navigate on the path to adoption. Among the issues for these couples are insurance companies, cryobanks and embryo donation organizations that refuse to serve same-sex couples.

Insurance lags behind woefully, said the panelists. Insurance companies try at every turn to put language in insurance policies that eventually will lead to the insurance company denying the claim and not paying.

Panelists from Adoptions from the Heart said that same-gender couples are more willing to be open with birth parents than opposite sex parents. They come across more sincere with their promise of openness. They are finding that birth parents are more amenable to choosing a same-gender couple for their adoption as the right couple to adopt their child for just those reasons.

The agency looks for stability, committed relationships, the couples motivation to adopt, and their commitment to a stable home. More and more birth parents are choosing same-gender couples.

Another important point taken from this program is counseling GLBT clients about the stability of their relationship. The motto is “we’re never going to break up,” but reality is reality. Counsel clients in this regard and sit down and have them figure out,what do they want to accomplish? You may find out things that did not come to light at first.

I wouldn’t use the authority of any part of the “UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,” even if they happen to get something right, to argue for proper parenting of a child.  There’s too much mischief in that document to empower governments over parents.  That document hasn’t yet been rejected by the US Senate, and could still be ratified.  Join in the fight against this evil document, don’t call on it for support!

Wow. This article highlights the reason why so many people are turning away from religion…you’d rather have children continue to have no stability rather than provide them a home with loving parents. That’s a lovely way to preach Jesus’ message of love. As far as I’m concerned God biggest wish is for us to love our brothers and sisters and not use him as an excuse to divide and segregate groups of people, especially when the ones that you are ultimately hurting are children.

It is a matter of catechesis. Far too many people fail to understand that sexual expression of love is a privilege reserved to the married state, concomitant with the duty to raise a family if so given by God, NOT a universal right. We are all sinners and will fall short of the ideal, but this does not excuse us from trying to uphold it. Indeed, I AM a dreamer and an idealist. Someone has to be!

“Addicted to homosexual behavior”? Are you addicted to heterosexuality? How painful would it be to you to have to consider your heterosexuality? Should a few verses at the time rule our behavior 2-3 millenia later?

As a child deprived of a father, I can tell you the current secular lie that all children need is two people is a bunch of hooey.  I lived my entire life without a father.  I know that men and women are NOT the same.  And the rest of you do too, anytime you’ve ever laughed at or told a joke about the opposite sex.  (think about how women bash men as being lazy and inattentive, and men joke about women as someone they can’t live without but can’t stand living with.)  The jokes for the genders is endless fodder for every comedian out there because male and female are not the same.  With that said, I would just like to tell everyone and especially the idiot intellectuals of social science that I really hurt and will carry this damn wound with me for the rest of my life because some smarty smart pants had to tell lies about what children need in order to justify some self serving, self centered behavior on the part of the parent.  I praise God I have a father in Him, and a Mother in our Church.  By the way if God didn’t see it as necessary for a child to have a mother AND father, then why did He assign St. Joseph to care for the child Jesus?  She could have just as easily lived with her cousin Elizabeth and raised the child there, if a mother and a father aren’t necessary.  Just saying.

“Far too many people fail to understand that sexual expression of love is a privilege reserved to the married state, concomitant with the duty to raise a family if so given by God, NOT a universal right.”

This is an unrealistic ideal of your religion. To put this thinking into legislation and public policy, which is needed in order to rationalize using public funding for discrimination is way too much to ask of anyone let alone the American Tax Payer.

I will not be told by a church that I no longer belong to that I have no right to love.

There has been research conducted that clearly states that children from homosexual parents do not do well compared to having a mother and father in the home.  Boys learn to relate to girls through their mother and example of a father.  Girls learn to relate to boys through their father and example of their mother.  Only heterosexual couples can procreate; homosexual couples, as much as they say it doesn’t matter, it does.  The article was also approved and verified by homosexuals themselves.  They see the different outcomes.  We should not deny a child the normal development through relationship with a mom and dad.  That is what they deserve.

It’s really surprising to me that some people are shocked and amazed that Church-related organizations are trying to promote Catholic teaching!  After all, we’re NOT a social service agency.  That activity is just part of our witness to God’s love in action.  As part of our witness, we’re also witnessing to the Truth.  Some people “get it,” and come around to the Faith; some people react violently against it - probably because of “cognitive dissonance.”  They’re too heavily invested in their “lifestyle.”  But the truth remains the truth, no matter how much recently packaged “social science,” and unregenerate libertinism you want to bring to bear.  If you want to criticize the author’s logic by reason of verbosity, I’ll match you a 1-page flow chart to demonstrate the flaws in your own.

It’s one thing to promote the church teachings, it’s another to demand federal funding or any type of tax-related money to do so. A child deserves a home. If your instituion does the proper checks to make sure it’s a stable and loving home, what does it matter that it’s an unmarried couple or a homosexual couple. Children don’t have the prejudice that we do, they just want to be loved and feel safe.

Moreover, the US Constitution guarantees the free practice of religion.  Which is more than can be said for the astonishing variety of questionable “rights” which have been claimed by so many posters above.  If your self-described “right to love” were so self-evident, then why would voters in so many states react with such antipathy - even in California?  Maybe it’s a defect in their education.  In any event, the Lord teaches us to render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.  If the coin of the realm is going to be minted in two-headed versions, perhaps it’s better if they keep it to themselves.

“There has been research conducted that clearly states that children from homosexual parents do not do well compared to having a mother and father in the home.”

Please cite the studies. The only supporting data to be found for this statement has been conducted by institutions aiming to prove part of their particular philosophy. There is yet to date any objective institution that has ever been able to support this under scrutiny or reproduce the same result.

“After all, we’re NOT a social service agency.” Then don’t ask for public money in order to open a social service agency.

Placement of adoptive children in homosexual households may have the unintended benefit of reforming the behavior of the gay “parents.”  I know my son has had a marvelous effect on me - smoothing out a lot of my bad habits, and bringing out the better side of me.  And I’m not at all surprised that children are being used to experiment in the social science of sexual deviancy.  Wasn’t that the strategy in the sexual revolution, the war on drugs, pedophile priests?  Wherever social engineers are tinkering with tradition, you’ll find kids in the line of fire.  God bless you, my son.  I miss you.

Curiously absent from this post is the fact that these agencies CAN stay open, so long as they do not accept PUBLIC funding to give voice to discrimination.

Curiously absent from this post is the fact that there is a separation of church and state. Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists ... al can have whatever ideas they want. However, they cannot expect the government and taxpayer dollars to fund them.

Curiously, this post offers no evidence that placement with lesbian and gay individuals would cause any harm.

Curiously, the post does not include any references from the Child Welfare League of American, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association or any other organizations in the business of studying and reporting on the needs of children.

Curious .....

I think the key word is this quote is “believe”. You can believe whatever you want, but you can’t use public funding to use those beliefs to discriminate against people without objective facts. The catholic church does describe homosexuality as “objectively disordered” however they do so with no objective evidence.

Hmmmmm…I wonder why the same rules and thought processes only apply when placing living children in the homes of gay couples, but flies out the window when paying to kill children in the wombs of their mothers.

You can believe anything you want but taxpayers shouldn’t pay for those beliefs?  Why should I as a taxpayer pay for homosexual couples to adopt children if that goes against my beliefs?  Why should I as a taxpayer, pay for abortion through the taxpayer funding of planned parenthood?  It works, or in this case, doesn’t work, both ways.

Public adoption agencies in Illinois must be licensed.  It’s not clear that once the same-sex unions law goes into effect that it will be possible for an organization that refuses to involve children in paradoxical family relationships to obtain a license by simply passing on financial support from the state.  Regardless, however, the net effect has to be a greater violation of the First Amendment than permitting religious organizations to operate according to their beliefs, for it will essentially mean the state playing favorites among religions by granting licenses and/or financial support to some (that facilitate adoptions but ignore some of their teachings in order to avoid “discriminating unfairly”) but not others (that more faithfully adhere to those same teachings).
—
While those who oppose the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality seek to deconstruct the faith, it is really the whole business of legitimizing same-sex and other unions that is in need of deconstruction.  First of all, the idea that two people of the same sex makes a legitimate family union is itself only a stepping stone to the true objective many of the movers and shakers behind the push for same-sex “marriage,” which is polyamory (http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/166770/48/Polyamory-Redefining-loves-boundaries?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|t and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html).  Indeed, once you go beyond marriage being the union of a man and a woman, there’s really nothing special about the number 2.  I’ll leave it up to the reader to determine how the common argument that same-sex unions should be excused because they were “born that way” is affected by polyamory, which cannot be excused that way.
—
Second, when deconstructing arguments that same-sex unions are morally licit, the justification almost always ends with the assertion that the partners consent to their relationship.  Not only is this circular reasoning (it is good because they consent to it being good), but it’s incredibly fragile besides.  If no one ever consented to a same-sex relationship, then by their own definition they would be immoral.  This in contrast to the union of a man and a woman, which can be said to be good and necessary, even if no one ever consents to be part of one.
—
Finally, the root of the whole business is a practice that has been morally and socially problematic for some time - artificial contraception, and its attendant evils.  Artificial contraception creates the illusion that marriage can be separated from procreation, which is essential to the proposition of same-sex “marriage.”  Abortion destroys the evidence that would shatter that illusion.

Matt B wrote: Placement of adoptive children in homosexual households may have the unintended benefit of reforming the behavior of the gay “parents.”

GAWD I hope he’s wrong!I’d hate to think children IN NEED are being used as experiments to “fix” what’s wrong with people.

No one has a RIGHT to adopt! The children should have a right to the best parents possible and any agency can have whatever criteria they want. Ya’ just can’t discriminate on fed or state dollars! The Catholic Church is making a choice and PUTTING MONEY BEFORE THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN and closing the adoption and foster care programs. 

It PROVES that they were only in it for the money!!

Mirah Riben, author, THE STORK MARKET: America’s Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry

“Placement of adoptive children in homosexual households may have the unintended benefit of reforming the behavior of the gay “parents.”  I know my son has had a marvelous effect on me - smoothing out a lot of my bad habits, and bringing out the better side of me.

Loving someone is not a “bad habit”, that’s the first thing you got wrong and the rest follows it.

“wonder why the same rules and thought processes only apply when placing living children in the homes of gay couples, but flies out the window when paying to kill children in the wombs of their mothers.”

Abortion is an entirely separate issue that you should be contacting your legislators about.
“Why should I as a taxpayer pay for homosexual couples to adopt children if that goes against my beliefs?”

You do not.

Someone mentioned “While those who oppose the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality seek to deconstruct the faith”

Nobody’s trying to reconstruct your faith, just keeping it out of public policy. That post also included “the justification almost always ends with the assertion that the partners consent to their relationship”. Consent is only part of it, it’s the relationship itself is what matters, just like in a heterosexual marriage. Later in this post, just prior to another reference to abortion, which is again, off topic, it was stated that the real goal is polyamory. Although there may be some involved in a relationship like this, I would challenge anyone to give supporting information to back up this claim, not just on article with one particular instance.

The concept of “Putting ‘Best Interest of the Child’ First” has a way of putting Catholic Charities in a precarious position. While punctuating the need to consider “the child” as the primary client in the present situation, CC testifies against this very concept when bills that would grant adoptees access to their own birth certificates come before legislatures. There, CC’s primary client is the relinquishing mother, whose alleged “promise of confidentiality” trumps all the physical, emotional, legal and genealogical needs of the child.

“If the clients are the adults, the child then becomes a precious commodity.” Indeed. Great sums of money change hands in the commodification of adoptees, while denying them the basic rights enjoyed by all other U.S. citizens. But Catholic Charities will not admit, publicly, that the child’s needs and rights were never the primary concern. Beyond paying lip service to the clichéd “best interest” claim, CC stops dead in its tracks in looking beyond the adoptive placement to adulthood of its commodities and the life-long needs of their own children and grandchildren.

When adoption records were closed, it was to accommodate adoptive parents who wished to conceal their child’s adoptive status from him. It was never about protecting birthmothers, but even if it had been, that fact alone would validate what I said earlier: the child was never the primary client! The other two parties’ “needs” went front and center, and for the child - the devil take the hindmost.

Your paragraphs five and six are exactly the arguments we use in seeking to restore adoptee rights to documentation of their own live births - something even our President was forced to produce but is denied to adoptees. Read those two paragraphs over and over, please, until you realize what Catholic Charities has done, and continues to do, to adoptees by testifying against them when access-to-OBC bills are considered in their legislatures.

Make up your minds, Catholic Charities. Do you really believe the child must be the primary client in an adoptive placement? REALLY? If so, get behind us in our efforts to restore adoptee rights that were swept from under them decades ago without any representation. Start with New Jersey and New York. Add Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. And stand ready to support us in other states as we fight this battle to REALLY grant to adoptees what was stolen from them under the phony claim of “best interest of the child.”

Joseph R Yungk said, “Nobody’s trying to reconstruct your faith, just keeping it out of public policy.”
What exactly do you mean by that?  If you mean that a law should not be passed that is relevant only to those of a particular faith, I’m with you 100%.  If you mean that a law should not be passed that happens to coincide with the teachings of some faith, but that can otherwise be found perfectly reasonable by someone not of that faith (or of no faith at all), I say that there is no basis for such an idea in our country’s founding documents, or common sense.
—
Mr. Yungk also said, “Consent is only part of it, it’s the relationship itself is what matters, just like in a heterosexual marriage.”
The marital act is the singularly most powerful act that human beings can perform.  Heterosexual marriage exists to provide a proper and healthy context for the possible results of that act.  As such, marriage is not merely permitted, but demanded by a just and proper society.  In other words, it is not just the relationship between two people that justifies heterosexual marriage and makes it morally right, but the typical results of that relationship, which is the ultimate contribution to society - society itself.  So what is it about a same-sex relationship makes it morally licit, let alone of such value to society that we should demand that same-sex partners get married?
—
As well Mr. Yungk said, “...it was stated that the real goal is polyamory. Although there may be some involved in a relationship like this, I would challenge anyone to give supporting information to back up this claim, not just on article with one particular instance.”
You must have missed the second link I provided, which was to an opinion piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal almost two years ago.  From that column, written by Robert P. George:
‘Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.
Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S.’
—
And finally, Mr. Yungk suggested that “abortion…is again, off topic.”
I suggest that it is not, and that it not only parallels the push for same-sex “marriage” in the likelihood that the latter will result in court orders that claim to “settle” the issue but never actually will, but that abortion itself is intimately intertwined with the ideology behind same-sex “marriage.”

Jo, I think you’re missing an important point.  When a child is adopted, the people who adopt him or her, are the parents.  There really is too much talk in certain circles of birth parent/adoptive parent.  Your weeping over “childs need and rights” obscures a basic reality: the birth parents relinquished their parental rights in the adoption procedure.  You can imagine the personal anguish and emotional difficulty involved in such a decision.  I wonder if you can also understand the untenable position for all involved when the parental role is distributed across several sets of adults.  It doesn’t work with divorce; why should it work with adoption?  I’m aware that adopted children undergo a psychological trauma that affects them far into adulthood.  But your romance of the birth parents hardly helps.  CC is exercising a reasonable discretion in their delicate ministry.  Maybe you should stop regarding them as the bogey-men.

Joe, you have an interesting take on “faith.”  According to you, my faith should be secreted away in the privacy of my own closet.  That’s while your “loving” should be bruited about in the public square.  What a diabolical reverse.  But I don’t blame you for pressing your case to the max, no matter how absurd it might seem to an unbiased eye.  You’re entitled in this great land of ours to militate for every “right” you can get your hands on (advantages really).  And if you feel your “loving” deserves the accomodation of the law, who am I to put you down?  No, the real villains in this piece are the lukewarm faithful who allowed such “rights” to get beyond the laughing stage.  It’s like the overseer in “Gone with the Wind” who ends up owning Tara.  God bless you as you find your way.

“Why should I as a taxpayer pay for homosexual couples to adopt children if that goes against my beliefs?”

You do not.

Catholic Charities gets money from the government.
That means my tax money is going to help place children.
If Catholic Charities places children into the homes of homosexual couples, then my taxpayer money would indeed go towards something that was against my beliefs.

You don’t want your taxpayer money going to C.C.  I don’t want my taxpayer money helping to place children in homosexual homes.  Hence the question…

“Why should I as a taxpayer pay for homosexual couples to adopt children if that goes against my beliefs?”

You can believe whatever you want, but you can’t use public funding to use those beliefs to discriminate against people without objective facts.

Abortion and Adoption might be two different issues, but what my tax money goes to is the issue that was being discussed.
The statement was made that you cannot use public funding to discriminate against people without objective facts.  I countered with, we do it with abortion.  Why should adoption be different.  If this statement applies to adoption, then it should also apply to abortion. ESPECIALLY given the objective facts.

Nobody’s trying to reconstruct your faith, just keeping it out of public policy.

Why?  Aren’t people of faith part of the public?  Do we not get a vote, or have a voice, simply because we belong to a particular religion?  Are our opinions somehow less valuable than yours, because we believe in God???

Speaking as an adult who was adopted at 6 months I feel able to comment on this piece. No organisation has a right to pose their doctrine on anyone else. For the catholic church to take a moral high ground considering their recent difficulties makes me think this view is outdated, hypocritical and destined to be consigned to the annals of a particularly well ignored history book. Personally I welcome articles like this as it will accelerate the rate that the public will reject Catholicism and hopefully a more tolerant view will prevail.

Relying on public funding puts Catholic ministries in a precarious position.
-John

“Are our opinions somehow less valuable than yours, because we believe in God???”

Are you implying that anyone who supports marriage equality and/or adoption by single persons, unmarried couples or married same-sex couples does NOT believe in God?  Is society divided solely between Catholics and everyone else, with the Catholic Church holding the ONLY moral authority?

Does Catholic Charities also object to adoption by heterosexual couples who have married after a divorce?  According to Catholic doctrine, they aren’t REALLY married.  Or does Catholic Charities let them slide because this is really all about the opposition to marriage equality?

David,

First, the Truth cannot be outdated.  Period.  Second, the flaws of the men within the Church have nothing to do with what the Church stands for.  The beauty of the story of salvation is that it is not meant to save the worthy, but the unworthy.  It is precisely those who fall the farthest, that need the Church the most.  Third, the Catholic Church, in choosing not to place children into the homes of homosexual couples, is NOT imposing their doctrine on anyone but themselves.  Ironically, you seem perfectly content with the idea “anyone else” imposing their doctrine on the Catholic Church.  How forward thinking of you.  And lastly, the Catholic Church, which is not an organization, is the most openly welcoming institution on the face of the earth.  Long before it became fashionable to cry “racism” and “sexism” the Catholic Church was welcoming those of all ethnicity, sex, age, political views, monetary circumstance and behavior into the fold.  While we have never excluded homosexuals, feminists or atheists from our embrace and aid, it seems that your more tolerant view would exclude anyone who doesn’t embrace your agenda.  Tolerance will be death of us yet.

with the Catholic Church holding the ONLY moral authority?

Authority?  Actually, yes. I believe the Catholic Church has that sole Authority, because it is the Church that God instituted, and that ultimately makes God the Authority.  Are Catholics the only ones able to act morally? No. Morality is objective.  Anyone can discover it and follow it.  Regardless, the point was made that it was not appreciated that the Catholic Church was imposing their position on the Public, implying that people who believe in God (be they Catholic or otherwise, tho I’m assuming since this is about Catholic Charities, Catholics were meant) were not part of the Public.  That is all.

I’ve been reading and trying to follow the logic from both sides but I still see one side making the claim that we have to follow their own tradition and nobody else’s.

I think the last post I see starting with “First, the Truth cannot be outdated.  Period.” 

If one is counting on a three thousand rule from a text that otherwise includes rules that nobody follows anymore is not something that one should be held to by society or government. To use public funds to treat others as less than capable in the face of vast evidence to the contrary is unjustly discriminatory.

Gaye, “marriage equality,” I thought that was when both me and the quarterback of the high school football team had an equal chance to marry the homecoming queen.  Although you’re using it in the wrong way, your reference to divorce is quite telling.  Divorce forms, along with gay distortion of marriage and others, a cluster of issues surrounding the erosion of this most fundamental social structure.  If I were an economist, I’d be detecting a downward trend.  What can we expect from this trend?  I hate to be a chicken little, but my gut instinct tells me “nothing good.”  Lots of gay advocates bridle at the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, but is it apt?  I suspect that the gay allusion found in the relevant passage in Genesis was just scriptural shorthand for a particularly heinous excrescence to what was a generally perverse and corrupt society.  “The cry has gone up.”  Isn’t that much like our world today?  Isn’t this whole discussion on “marriage equality” just the final cherry on top of the whipped cream on top of the chocolate sauce on top of the ice cream on top of the banana of our whole twisted world?  Is the god of this world the god you make reference to in your post?  Is this the moral authority you’re positing against Catholic teaching?  I always wondered how those peculiar Israelites could wander off into the worship of strange gods, after witnessing the wonder of the real One.  I guess life is teaching me that lesson.  God bless you!

I’m surprised at the claim that they feel they are putting the child’s needs first when the children need loving homes yet they are not being offered so many homes.
Since the idea that gays can’t raise children has proven to be subjective, and despite claims that homosexuality is “objectively disordered” when it’s not considered disordered by any professional organization draws into question the legitimacy of discriminatory practices under the guise of “faith”. I believe in the faith of family over orphan-hood. If this really is against a church’s beliefs they can use their own funds.

Jimmy J,

I guess the first thing you need to do then, is discern the difference between tradition and Truth.  Traditions change.  Truth does not.  The Old Testament “rules” as you call them, were written for a specific people, at a specific time, to bring about a specific result.  It was necessary then, it is not necessary now.  Truth, however, is eternal.  Time, place and people make no difference.  Tradition with a small “t” is not to be confused with Tradition with a capital “T”, also known as Sacred Tradition, also know as Truth. 

Truth does not change.  Period. 

I agree.  To use public funds to treat others as less than capable in the face of vast evidence to the contrary is unjustly discriminatory.

This is why abortion is so very, very wrong. It unjustly discriminates against a population that is viewed as less than capable, less than valuable…and public funds are used to treat them as if they are so much garbage.  Again, it is dishonest to cry foul when it is the gay community that is being discriminated against using public funds, but turn a blind eye when it is the unborn being discriminated against using public funds.  One is denied parenthood, the other is denied life.

Jayne,

And I believe in the right to life for the unborn.  If a person want to get an abortion, they should use their own funds.

er53

Since the idea that gays can’t raise children has proven to be subjective, and despite claims that homosexuality is “objectively disordered” when it’s not considered disordered by any professional organization draws into question the legitimacy of discriminatory practices under the guise of “faith”.

Well there you go.  Truth vs Sentiment Du Jour.  20 years ago homosexuality was indeed viewed as a “disorder”.  Today it is not.  Today, pedophilia is considered a disorder.  Tomorrow it may not be.  Then what will you say about the priests who molested young boys?  That it is their right and the government should help fund their behavior?  Yesterday in Chile it was declared that legally, there are not THREE recognized genders.  Male, female and other.  10 years from now pedophilia may simply be considered another “gender”.  Truth does not change.  Feelings do.

For example, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an upcoming edition of the group’s psychiatric manual of mental disorders. At about the same time, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published a special edition in December 2002 discussing whether pedophilia should remain classified as a mental disorder. [35]

As early as 1988, a leading American psychological journal, Behavior Today, claimed that “Pedophilia may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation. This raises the question as to whether pedophiles may have rights.” [36]

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100424

if the truth never changes why did Jesus Christ come here and reprioritize every thing? And while he was here, why did he never once mention homosexuality?

And why is abortion mentioned in response to my post? I never mentioned that and see no connection.

Well it’s pretty obvious that whatever the Catholic Church agrees with is the Truth but anything else in the Bible is merely tradition including things that God says are abominations.

Things like eating shellfish and pork.  Must be some lesser kinds of abomination.

Gaye,

Perhaps you didn’t see my comment about the difference between Truth and traditions?  It’s right up there.

Jayne,

Because of this comment:
If this really is against a church’s beliefs they can use their own funds.

if the truth never changes why did Jesus Christ come here and reprioritize every thing?

Perhaps because we were no longer living by the Truth?  The history of salvation is a long one.  God had to take a group of people and basically “train” them.  They were a stubborn people.  It took a long time to get them to a place where God could incarnate.  Truth doesn’t change.  That doesn’t mean people accept or recognize the Truth.  A thing is not true because the Catholic Church says it is.  The Catholic Church says it is true, because it is.  She doesn’t invent Truth.  She defends and protects Truth.

Jesus didn’t mention hitting people over the head with hammers either, but using our reasoning skills, we can know that this would be considered wrong from what He DID say.

Using those same reasoning skills, we can ascertain that marriage and sexual relations were meant to be between a man and a woman.  From simple biology to the explanations of marriage in the New Testament…it’s not rocket science.

I understand that your morality is based on what you feel.  We see it differently.  For us, it is not subjective.  Our premises are different, our conclusions are different.  I might be wrong.  You might be wrong.  We cannot both be right.  I discern moral behavior using my brain.  I suspect you discern moral behavior using your emotions.  Emotions lie.

Gaye,

You have that backwards.  It’s not “whatever the Catholic Church agrees with is the Truth”.  It’s whatever is the Truth, the Catholic Church agrees with.

mk - and who determines what is Truth and what is merely tradition?  It’s not based upon what is in the Bible because you’ve already said that many of the “Old Testament rules” (your terminology) are no longer necessary.

So who decided which parts of the inerrant eternal Word of God could be discarded?

Gaye,

We, meaning Catholics, do not believe that scripture is “true” in the same way that many protestants do.  All of Truth is in Scripture, but not every “word” is meant to be taken literally or as eternal Truth.  We read scripture as a whole.  While those rules might have applied and been necessary for those people at that time in that place, this doesn’t make them and “Eternal Truth”.  In the New Testament, Jesus handed over the keys to the Kingdom on Earth to one of the apostles.  Peter. We know historically, that when a King would be gone for a time, he would leave the “keys to the kingdom” with his Royal Steward.  The keys represented authority.  Whoever had the keys, had the authority.  If the Royal Stewart died in the kings absence, the keys would be passed on to the next in line.  When Jesus handed the keys to Peter, he in essence named Peter as the Royal Steward.  Those keys have been passed down through the years and are now in Pope Benedicts hands.  We believe, that along with those keys came the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide and protect the Church, the Keepers of the Keys and the Truth until the “King” came again.

This is why the Church has the Authority.  It was, we believe, God given.  Many great minds have been utilized in determining which parts of Scripture are Eternal Truths and which are traditions, customs or temporary edicts.  The bible is not one book.  It is many books.  Each book is a different genre.  There is everything from Mythology, to Love Songs, to History to Letters.  Each must be read as it was meant to be read.  What we call the literal sense.  (Which is not the same as many protestants mean when they read the words “literally”)  Who was it being written for? Where was it written?  What was going on in the world at the time?  Who wrote it?  What genre was it written in?  All of these things are kept in mind when reading Scritpure.

Leviticus was written specifically for the Jews during a time period when the Jews were just coming into freedom.  They needed very detailed laws on how to live, and what it meant to be a Jew.  They were being trained.  It was also a book that outlined the hundreds of rules that priests had to follow when performing their sacrifices.  Those rules no longer apply, because the old law no longer applies. That was the whole point of Jesus’ appearance.  To end the old law and bring in the new.  The ten commandments, however, are eternal truths.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with eating a lobster.  There is something very wrong with committing adultery.  One of the commandments is about purity, chastity.  Homosexuality is, we believe intrinsically disordered and does not fit the understanding of “Chaste”.  Any time a human being is turned into an object, used for self gratification, it is an offense against Chastity or Purity.  It’s not that we think sex is icky.  It’s that we think it is Sacred.  It is SO beautiful, SO awesome, SO amazing, that great care must be taken, lest it be defiled. 

Of course I realize you think this is just a bunch of hooey, and that’s fine.  Well, not fine, but it is what it is.  I’m just trying to answer your question as honestly and fully as I am able.  Peace.

Standing back and looking at this broadly, I see an escalation of biblical “knowledge” being the only source of reference. Many of those same references do not apply in any way today. If every religion was able to say what their “Truth” is and have it imposed on everyone else, we’d have nonstop conflicts in every way shape and form. This is why we have religious freedom, within the church and one’s own life. In the public sector is a very different arena. There favorites can’t be chosen with something as arguable as same sex preference.  Sure, some ethics from a biblical source can guide anyone, but to use that to justify treating others as inferior is directly contrary to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

“I suspect you discern moral behavior using your emotions.  Emotions lie.”

This entire discussion is about emotions. The child’s emotional needs for a loving home and the rights of any two people who love each other to have the love legitimized and provide a home for such a child.

Is it moral to control emotions in such a way? If this was not about emotions, the church would never have had a problem with any of this. They may have even reasoned about how obsolete ancient dessert practices are today.

“not every “word” is meant to be taken literally or as eternal Truth.”

Then why is Leviticus, except when it comes to homosexuality, being taken literally? Nobody pays any attention to any of the other stuff there as we know it’s unnecessary. Could not Romans have been about debauchery? That’s how I take it. Why is it only Catholic “Truth” that’s expected of others?

Is it really necessary to forbid some from expressing love and having a family because of something that was not to be taken literally? And why are they doing this when the homes of children are at stake? The “best interests of the child” is getting them a capable, loving family. The only testament to the incapability of gays is from a “Truth” that does not seem to be followed anymore.

Gaye, I sense there’s a big misunderstanding here.  This entire string moves ahead under the assumption that people like mk are trying to subject gay people to unhappiness by depriving them of their right to marry, have children, etc.  It may seem as if mk is being doctinaire and judgmental, but only because he or she has been cast in that position.  The Truth is indeed the Truth.  But it’s not a hard rock like the 10 commandments.  The Truth is vital, giving life, happiness, peace - to everybody.  I myself find it very unfair and untrue that as a Catholic, it is assumed that I hate gay people, or consider them “second-class citizens.”  I think the very opposite is true: Catholics are concerned for the authentic good of gay people and all people.  We believe that everybody, not just gays, should seek and find the higher things, and at least avoid real traps like adultery, fornication, divorce etc.  It also means that there is a right and wrong, which we have relied heavily on God to define for us.  I don’t see why that presents such a political problem.  Don’t we have laws against murder, theft, and perjury?  Yet all of these are grounded in the Old Testament Law.  One more thing that may be hard for some to take:  The facilitators of “gay marriage,” “gay adoption,” and the “gay lifestyle” itself are more the enemies of gay people than the Catholic Church.  They’re selling you a lie.  I’ve used the word “gay” many times in this comment, but I do it reluctantly.  The entire construct of “gay” is a misnomer and a lie.  You should thank mk that someone has the courage to witness to the this Truth.  When the fog has lifted, you’ll be glad.  I love you.

I don’t believe that the Catholic Church hates gay people but I do think that Catholic Charities discriminates against them.

The Catholic Church also objects to adultery, divorce, most assisted reproductive technologies and abortion but I don’t see Catholic Charities NOT allowing people who indulge in those practices the opportunity to adopt.

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question:  If Catholic doctrine does not recognize the subsequent marriage of a divorced person, does Catholic Charities allow divorced persons in a subsequent civil marriage the opportunity to adopt?  In the eyes of the Church, they are not married to each other AND are committing adultery.  I’d like an answer.

Since when did charity require government funding? It would seem if the Church really wanted to protect the interests of children it would pony up the money that they are losing themselves.  Arguments that the Catholic Church can’t afford it are pure folly.

Thank you Matt.  You are exactly right.

Freye,

As I have tried to explain, we trust the Church to muddle through much of the Scriptures. I am soooo not qualified to understand much of what is in there.  I certainly wasn’t around in 800BC, and I most definitely have never been a Jewish High Priest.  So much of what is in Scripture must be understood in context.  I don’t have a lot of that context.  Scholars withing the Catholic Church do.  I trust them.

But beyond that, as I said, most of Leviticus is passe’ precisely because it did not contain Eternal Truths, but temporal laws for a specific people living in a specific time.

The whole issue of modern thinking is complicated.  Every subject seems to overlap every other subject.  We could talk for years and only touch on the “problems” of today.  Moral relativism, and inability to know right from wrong, acceptance of things like abortion, homosexual marriage, co habitating, drug use, assisted suicide…all of these things that the Catholic Church views as intrinsically wrong…(intrinsically wrong means that there is NO circumstance in which the action could EVER be viewed as morally acceptable)are being touted not only as morally acceptable, but morally good.  And most of it is based on “feelings”.  Our entire culture centers around the words “How do you FEEL about it”.  We, the Church, do not view morality as something that is based on feelings.  While we sympathize, and sometimes empathize, with those in difficult moral situations, the Church is clear on what can be tolerated and what cannot.

We kill sick people because they don’t FEEL good.  We kill our children because the mother FEELS incapable of carrying/raising a child.  We want to legalize drugs because they make us FEEL good.  We live with partners because it makes a FEEL good.  We get divorced because we dont’ FEEL the love anymore. 

But Catholics, who by the way DO follow the Truth, yes, even today, do not judge good and bad by temporal standards.  We believe that God has shown us the “RIGHT” way to live, and we struggle every day to do just that.

For instance, here is a quote from Thorton Wilder’s “Skin of Our Teeth” that I enclose in every wedding card that I send.  It shows you what we mean by the difference between what one FEELS and what one knows is right and DOES.

I didn’t marry you because you were perfect. I didn’t even marry you because I loved you. I married you because you gave me a promise. That promise made up for your faults. And the promise I gave you made up for mine. Two imperfect people got married and it was the promise that made the marriage. And when our children were growing up, it wasn’t a house that protected them; and it wasn’t our love that protected them - it was that promise.

Granted, quoting from a Gay Author, to prove that Gay couples should not be allowed to get married, might seem ironic.  But the Truth is the Truth and the Catholic Church does not own it.  The point of the quote is that marriages (and no moral decisions) can be based on feelings alone. 

Again, we are not interested in Temporal rewards.  Feeling good is fleeting.  Our business is souls.  Eternal Life.  How in good conscience, can I truly “LOVE” my gay brothers and sisters, if I allow them to condemn themselves?  That would make me a hypocrite.  I wouldn’t condone a drug addict for using drugs.  I wouldn’t cheer an alcoholic on when he was on a binge.  I wouldn’t pat my adulterous neighbor on the back for cheating on his wife.  I don’t reward my children for lying.  I don’t give a medal to a thief.

I know you’ll take offense at my placing homosexuals in the same category as drug addicts and thief, but the point is not to label them, but to point out the sinful nature of their actions.  IF, and we do, we believe, that homosexual behavior is intrinsically morally wrong, then what kind of people would we be to allow those that we love to practice it?  I have sons.  They have girlfriends.  I’m pretty darn sure they are intimate with those girlfriends.  I cannot stop them, but I love them, and so I have made them aware of my disapproval of their behavior.  I haven’t thrown them out of the house, I haven’t cornered them and lectured them, I haven’t withheld my love from them…but I’ll be damned if I’ll congratulate them.  If I did, THEN I would have ceased to “LOVE” them.  Loving someone authentically, does not mean honoring all of their wishes, as any parent will tell you.  Sometimes, loving someone, means doing things that on the surface can appear very unloving. 

Morality is pretty simple.  Practicing it in a culture that no longer recognizes it, is very, very complicated.

“We believe that everybody, not just gays, should seek and find the higher things, and at least avoid real traps like adultery, fornication, divorce etc.  It also means that there is a right and wrong, which we have relied heavily on God to define for us.  I don’t see why that presents such a political problem.”

The “problem” is that you are trying to legislate, under a constitution where all are created equal and have the same protections under the law, entirely your own religion which directly conflicts with other people’s rights.

When looked at objectively, those other people do not affect you. To only look at one interpretation and expect the government to force everyone to follow one religious standard is exactly what our founders were trying to avoid and the reason so many came here. Nobody should be telling anyone who they can and can’t love. There is no parallel in the New Testament for such actions.

“I believe the Catholic Church has that sole Authority, because it is the Church that God instituted”

This is what it all comes down to, the church has no authority when it comes to any kind of legislation, only influence in the context of being just one of many religions.

The church may have authority over your morals but everyone has the choice in what church and what teaching they will follow.

”  The Truth is indeed the Truth.  But it’s not a hard rock like the 10 commandments.  The Truth is vital, giving life, happiness, peace - to everybody.”

The catholic “Truth”, as presented to me over the entire course of my life has been threats, stigma, disdain, loneliness, ignorance and far too many negativity to go into in one post.

I have yet to see anyone on this site to actually show some empathy for what it is like to be gay and imposed on by your church. It’s already been discussed that this is about emotions: the emotional need for family, love and support. To claim to take the high road denying others that opportunity by denying them such a societal staple, verified in every catholic critique, it not in any way sound. One cannot impose on someone what s/he could not tolerate and still call is Christian.

“As I have tried to explain, we trust the Church to muddle through much of the Scriptures.”

So that’s for you and your church. To say that we should be looking to your clergy to guide our legislature, we already have a constitution saying it’s wrong.

Hey Joseph, they will never try to understand how any of this feels, it’s too easy to brand it as evil. I’ve never heard any heterosexual say they would just sit back and take it if another church tried to impose what the catholics are imposing on gays. Why they think that something they’d never consider should be settled by popular vote or a religion is never explained other than saying “we’re right because our priests are right.”

Joseph R Yungk said, ‘The “problem” is that you are trying to legislate, under a constitution where all are created equal and have the same protections under the law, entirely your own religion which directly conflicts with other people’s rights.’
Actually, what has been legislated regarding marriage is that the state is to recognize as marriage something in particular, rather than anything in general.  It is not the exclusive domain of religion to define things, though as a practical matter I will concede that it increasingly appears so.
—
Mr. Yungk also said, ‘When looked at objectively, those other people do not affect you.’
Tell that to Eunice and Owen Johns of Derby, England, whose application to be foster parents was recently denied on the grounds that their Christian faith’s teachings on homosexual practice are “inimical to the interests of children.”  Same-sex “marriage” and polyamory are nothing short of a tyranny.

Freye,

Try to follow.  The Catholic Church is made up of PEOPLE.  The United States is made up of PEOPLE.  PEOPLE decide what they want and do not want, what they’ll accept and what they will not accept, in our country.  IF, I, a person who happens to be Catholic vote against you, I have that right.  Whether I am Catholic or not, I get an opinion.  IF my opinion is the same as the Churches what difference does that make?  The Church is not persecuting you.  The People of the United States of America are speaking, and some of them happen to be Catholic.  YOU are the one trying to tell the CHURCH what to do, not the other way around.

If you have such a problem with The Catholic Church, then why in the name of all that is reasonable, would you WANT to adopt from them?  They are not the only game in town, they are simply the only game that won’t kowtow to your bullying.

“It is not the exclusive domain of religion to define things, though as a practical matter I will concede that it increasingly appears so.”

But it is a group of churches that is insisting that the term marriage not be “redefined”.

As for Eunice and Owen Johns, I’m going to address every single case not in this country, but I can say that the church’s teachings on homosexuality causes homosexual adolescents great pain and torment, showing a complete incapability of raising a homosexual child.

I think it’s high time that homosexual adolescents are not going to be degraded by being told there is something gravely wrong with them. If you look at the language in these very posts, I think one could agree that a child with budding same sex attraction is not going to adjust to that attitude in any positive way at all.

I’m not sure why England is pertinent as whatever regulations that my be going on there are not necessarily going on here. But the catholic church has been wanting to place children in specific households, discriminating against gays in the process.

As for what happens here, a catholic agency could do this, but not using state money. If I was going to allow a child to be in foster care on a temporary basis, I would not want any religion to be telling that child that s/he has something wrong with their moral character just for an attraction. The Johns were not adopting by the way. They do not have any legal reason to be convincing their children of the need to continue the social tyranny of telling people they are inferior.

The Archdiocese of Boston had no problem with letting gays adopt. But they did once it became a political tool. It’s a real shame the children have to suffer…. when they are used in such a way by a church.

As long as the majority opposes same-sex marriage, those opposed will say that it is “The Will of the People”.  When the majority SUPPORTS same-sex marriage, what will those opposed say then?

Don’t think this hasn’t come up before.  The majority once supported slavery (it’s even in the US Constitution).  The majority once opposed women’s suffrage.  The majority once opposed to interracial marriage.  Now the majority supports it even though SOME people still think it’s wrong and even against God’s Law.

“When a child is adopted, the people who adopt him or her, are the parents.  There really is too much talk in certain circles of birth parent/adoptive parent.  Your weeping over “childs need and rights” obscures a basic reality: the birth parents relinquished their parental rights in the adoption procedure.  You can imagine the personal anguish and emotional difficulty involved in such a decision.”

That “personal anguish and emotional difficulty” is made that much worse by the knowledge that the relinquishing parent can fully expect never to see that child again or even know what became of him.

“I wonder if you can also understand the untenable position for all involved when the parental role is distributed across several sets of adults.  It doesn’t work with divorce; why should it work with adoption?”

How does one get to “several sets of parents” just by acknowledging the right of the child to know WHO his biological parents are?  We are talking about adoption, not co-parenting.  In divorce, would you prefer that one of the parents simply disappeared?  That would seem to go along with the idea behind sealed records - which seal even in step-parent adoptions.

“I’m aware that adopted children undergo a psychological trauma that affects them far into adulthood.  But your romance of the birth parents hardly helps.  CC is exercising a reasonable discretion in their delicate ministry.  Maybe you should stop regarding them as the bogey-men.”

I know far too many people for whom Catholic Charities is indeed the bogey-man.  Too many stories of coercion and far too many where the reluctant “birth mother” was simply told her child was stillborn.

The fight for adoptee rights is not about any “romance of the birth parents”.  We are far too old to hold any illusion that finding our family will make us whole, happy and productive.  It is simply about rights.  People have the right to trace their genetic roots as far back as effort and records will take them.  For the adoptee, there is no right to even know who gave them life.

What is even more ridiculous is that adoptees do not have a right to their original records if they were adopted by a step-parent, if it is an “open” adoption, if they know every item on their birth certificates, and even with permission from both sets of parents.

But it is a group of churches that is insisting that the term marriage not be “redefined”.

How can you say in one breath that the Catholic Church has no legislative ability and can only influence, and in the next say that She is INSISTING.

She is not insisting.  She doesn’t have the power to insist.  What She is doing, is what every other American is doing…speaking her mind and trying to sway people to Her side.  Did the democrats INSIST that Obama be president?  Did the Republicans INSIST that Bush be president?  I hate Planned Parenthood with an intense passion, but I wouldn’t even say that THEY INSIST on taking government money.  They play the game.  They wheedle and opine and do what it takes to get the people to see it their way.  (Hopefully, that will change and they will soon see it OUR way, but I digress).

As for the Catholic Church damaging every adolescent homosexual…PLEEEEASE!  Get real!  Muslims think I shouldn’t show my hair in public.  I don’t lose any sleep over it.  Jews think we shouldn’t eat pork.  So what?  Why should any adolescent care WHAT the Catholic Church teaches, unless they are Catholic?  And if they ARE Catholic, then they should be willing to abide by the Churches teachings.

Finally, the Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH that there is something gravely wrong with Homosexuals.  DOES NOT, DOES NOT, DOES NOT.  So please stop saying She does, because it’s a serious misunderstanding at best, and a flat out lie at worst.

What She does believe, is that homosexuality is disordered, as in not in the NATURAL order of things, (not as in unnatural which an entirely different thing altogether), that it goes against Natural Law.  She also believes that homosexual BEHAVIOR is a grave sin.  But nowhere, NOWHERE I tell you, does She teach that homosexualS are bad, or evil or anything of the sort.  We don’t judge people.  We judge behavior.

“How can you say in one breath that the Catholic Church has no legislative ability and can only influence, and in the next say that She is INSISTING.”

Have you read any of what is posted above or anything that bishops are saying to their legislators?

How do you not call this insisting? That doesn’t make it right for them to control others’ sex or home lives.

“Finally, the Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH that there is something gravely wrong with Homosexuals.”

Here is what the Catechism says ““Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”
Um, you are wrong. Hard to respect much more analyses. For the masses to then slur gays is only to be expected when you drill this type of fear into people.

I never deserved any of what your church has heaped on me and others.

Gaye,

When the majority SUPPORTS same-sex marriage, what will those opposed say then?

We’ll say the same thing we say now about abortion.  That it’s wrong.  And then we’ll continue to try to put the toothpaste back in the tube.  Sure, slavery was once legal.  Now it’s not, as it shouldn’t be.  This is what I keep trying to tell you…It’s about the TRUTH, not the Catholic Church.  Slavery was wrong.  Abortion is wrong.  Homosexual marriage is wrong.  Objectively.  At different times in history, wrong things have been accepted and people have fought to make them unaccepted.  Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose.  But we keep fighting because that’s what you do!  You’re problem is that we are winning, not that we are fighting.  In the future we might be winning the abortion debate and losing the same sex marriage debate.  It’s called life.

Gaye,

It is simply about rights.  People have the right to trace their genetic roots as far back as effort and records will take them.  For the adoptee, there is no right to even know who gave them life.

What is even more ridiculous is that adoptees do not have a right to their original records if they were adopted by a step-parent, if it is an “open” adoption, if they know every item on their birth certificates, and even with permission from both sets of parents.

That IS changing. Illinois has just passed a law that says you can get your birth records UNLESS your birth mother SPECIFICALLY writes a letter requesting otherwise.

http://www.newillinoisadoptionlaw.com/

I actually had a very small hand in getting that done. See?  You and I DO agree on somethings!  :)

“When the majority SUPPORTS same-sex marriage, what will those opposed say then?”

Well, statistics show that the majority is slowly turning to gay marriage. And when it happens, they won’t have the perceived normalcy of others discriminating to fall back on. It’s much easier to rationalize oppression and discrimination when others are behind you. It worked in the south for quite some time.

Joseph R Yungk said, “Well, statistics show that the majority is slowly turning to gay marriage. And when it happens, they won’t have the perceived normalcy of others discriminating to fall back on.”
If our opposition to state recognition of same-sex “marriage” were merely discrimination rather than the principled opposition that it is, you’d probably be right.  If you think things will change once the Supreme Court “settles” the matter, I suggest you look at the results of a decision like Roe v. Wade rather than Loving v. Virginia to see what the future holds.

Joseph,

“Finally, the Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH that there is something gravely wrong with Homosexuals.”

Here is what the Catechism says ““Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”
Um, you are wrong.

First you chastise me for not reading the above and then you write that???? 

Let’s try that again.

The Church DOES NOT, DOES NOT, DOES NOT look down on homosexualS
The Church DOES, DOES, DOES teach that homosexual ACTS are intrinsically disordered.

Then you show me the catechism that states EXACTLY what I have just stated. 

“Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents HOMOSEXUAL ACTS as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

I say we view Homosexual ACTS, not HOMOSEXUALS, as intrinsically disordered and to prove me wrong you post the catechism that says we view HOMOSEXUAL ACTS as intrinsically disordered??????

If you have this much trouble with the Catechism, I suggest it is not the Catholic Church that is at fault, but the chip on your shoulder that is blinding you.  I hear the pain behind your words, and I don’t want to make light of that.  I certainly don’t want to get into a contest with you.  What I’d like to know is why you care what the Catholic Church teaches, and precisely has it (not individual persons, but the CHURCH herself) done to upset you so.  I am being sincere.  Tell me how you have been hurt.  Because so far you have not shown me any Catholic Teaching that disparages you or puts you down.

The Catechism also says:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, <B?if they are Christians,</B> to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

As for legislating…again, did the democrats INSIST on Obama becoming president or did the public vote for him?  Since when does the United States Government take it’s marching orders from the Catholic or any other Church????

Wow, I may have forgotten one part of the quote, “This inclination, which is objectively disordered”
But what I find interesting is the vehemence of your response. The hate behind some of what I read here, that is a disorder and it is consuming you.

After the part about avoiding discrimination and loving us it says: “These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.”

So I’m diagnosed, defined and given a lifelong prescription from your church.

Not what I call “just” discrimination when I’ve got a constitution saying I’m equal.

As for the ” contest”, I see the reaction from you yet it’s myself who has been branded by your Christian institution as someone with a grave disorder. Your church continues to lobby for legislation to limit my rights as a human being. That’s not a chip on my shoulder as much as a fight for fair treatment, what is your excuse? Why do you spend so much time trying to rationalize this kind of treatment and attitude toward God’s children?

“with the Catholic Church holding the ONLY moral authority?

Authority?  Actually, yes. I believe the Catholic Church has that sole Authority, because it is the Church that God instituted, and that ultimately makes God the Authority.

You can “believe” that, but everything about what you have written here is to impose that on everyone. That is, as you put it, your belief, not everyone’s, including some of the adoptive parents seeking a suitable home for their children. Not all of those looking to adopt too. Not necessarily the public who is partially funding these organizations or the legislators who are looking out for the rights of everyone, not just the Catholic Church.

“the Catholic Church, in choosing not to place children into the homes of homosexual couples, is NOT imposing their doctrine on anyone but themselves.”

How can that be when they are insisting on turning away people and leaving children without loving homes? They are after all, using doctrine to do this.

Yes, just what is it about others’ sexual interests that motivates all this with this kind of voracity?

M germaine said, “How can that be when they are insisting on turning away people and leaving children without loving homes? They are after all, using doctrine to do this.”
If this debate has anything to do with the number of children placed in loving homes, then the relevant factors are clearly stacked against those who would impose the requirement that Church-run adoption agencies place children with same-sex couples, for the number of children without loving homes will be far greater now that those agencies have been forced to close their doors than it would have been had they been allowed to continue operating in accordance with Church doctrine.

Kevin, it is the Church’s choice to close those doors. Sounding more like a political move. Boston had no problem with this until relatively recently.

Joseph,

Vehemence is not the same as anger.  Yes, I vehemently defend the Church’s position because it is so often misrepresented.  You accuse me of rationalizing, yet it is you that takes plain words and twists them to fit what you want them to say.  Yes, I do think you have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the Church.  Otherwise, you wouldn’t be so set on mangling the Catechism, claiming that it is somehow making you seem like less of a human.  We view Homosexual acts as sinful.  We view adultery as sinful also.  Do you think we have singled out adulterers and made them feel like less of human beings?  How about couples who are cohabitating?  The rest of the world doesn’t view that as sinful, but we do.  Are we “pickin’ on them” too?  So it’s not okay for Catholics to have a voice in government policy, but you feel justified telling the Catholic Church how to view what it considers sinful behavior? 

God loves you.  God loves everyone.  God IS love.  There is a Natural Order to our world however, and when we don’t accept that, it displeases God.  BEING homosexual is not a sin.  I realize that no matter how many times I say this, you’ll refuse to hear it, but it is what the Church teaches.  BEING homosexual is NOT a sin.  ACTING on the homosexuality is a sin.  Being a sexual person of ANY sort is not a sin.  ACTING on that sexuality, in certain circumstances, IS a sin.  Sex outside of marriage, with someone other than your marital partner, with yourself, pornography…all of these come from lust, not love.  All of them are sinful acts. 

Again, why do you care what the Catholic Church thinks?  If you care, then you’d probably be a believer.  If you are a believer, then you’d follow Church teaching.  If you don’t believe, then why does it matter so much to you?  What are these “rights” that the Church has taken away from you???

You can “believe” that, but everything about what you have written here is to impose that on everyone. That is, as you put it, your belief, not everyone’s, including some of the adoptive parents seeking a suitable home for their children. Not all of those looking to adopt too. Not necessarily the public who is partially funding these organizations or the legislators who are looking out for the rights of everyone, not just the Catholic Church.

First, children are not something that are “owed” to people.  NOBODY has the RIGHT to a child.  People keep bringing up slavery.  You speak of children as if they are property.  Second, you are imposing your beliefs on everyone also.  You want homosexuals to be able to adopt.  You are doing everything in your power to make that happen.  How is that different than the Catholic Church doing everything in her power to see that it doesn’t?  If floors me that every single person in this country seems to have the right to impose (perhaps I should say insist, since that seems to be the word du jour) on their beliefs, EXCEPT Catholics/Christians.  For some reason, when the Catholic Church’s name is attached to a set of “beliefs”, belief becomes a four letter word.  When you “believe” something, (that homosexuals should get married, be allowed to adopt, woman have the right to an abortion) it is some sort of heroic action…when we believe something, it’s tyranny.  Why is that?  Why can’t you see that you are doing the very thing you accuse us of doing, and claim that it is something to be admired?  Yet, when we do it we are to be berated?  Sounds like a case of black kettle and black pot.

MK, first: I never said anyone was entitled to adopt nor that anyone is “owed” a child.
The difference between myself and your church is that your church is using it’s own doctrine to label people as inferior. You say yourself that our love is not love but “lust”. No better way to dehumanize someone than to take what makes them human and claim it’s something else. You and your church can believe that all you want. You can run your lives by it, but you can not run others’ lives with dogma through legislation, public policy or public funding.
That is what you keep saying your church has a right to do, but we have a constitution saying we are created equal. Yelling, (by chat room standards: repeating yourself, using all caps, italics or bold script, does not make that any more true, nor does saying I’m twisting your words.
If you are only capable of falling back on a church doctrine to use public funding to deny others a family, it will not hold up to legal scrutiny. You may want to form a foundation that would allow grants to catholic charities, but you cannot use my money to tell me my love is a lie.

Regarding this: “We view Homosexual acts as sinful.  We view adultery as sinful also.  Do you think we have singled out adulterers and made them feel like less of human beings?  How about couples who are cohabitating?  The rest of the world doesn’t view that as sinful, but we do.  Are we “pickin’ on them” too?”

I have to wonder why you are not. Your church has chosen to claim that homosexuals are incapable of a full range of love and has gone on a focused campaign to spread those thoughts. Sounds like an attack to me. To defend oneself from such dehumanizing claims is merely self defense. There is nothing wrong with defending oneself from an organization that makes these claims and attempts to put it into public policy.
If you can come up with a rationale that does not include doctrine, get back to me, otherwise there is nothing here that can really carry any weight.
You may not like me being your equal, but that is what our constitution is all about.

Joseph,
MK, first: I never said anyone was entitled to adopt nor that anyone is “owed” a child.

That’s why my comment wasn’t addressed to you. I can understand the confusion.  It was in response to M.Germaine, but I didn’t address it so.

The Church does not label anyone inferior.  That is you inference.  The Church labels BEHAVIOR as sinful or not sinful.  People are flawed.  Not inferior.  Everyone sins.  Everyone is flawed.  We are not in the business of judging souls.  But we DO judge behavior.  And yes, of course, we use our doctrine to do so.  Be kind of silly if we didn’t.

I do not say that your love is not love.  I say the homosexual act of EXPRESSING that love is lust.  Not only can men love each other, but they are called to do so.  There is more than one type of love.  Platonic love, or agape love are “loves” that anyone can share at anytime.  Eros is saved for married couples consisting of one man and one woman.  Any time sexual relations are shared outside of those bonds of marriage, it is lust.  And lust can exist within those bonds of marriage also.  I know you’re not a believer so a lot of this reasoning is not resonating with you.  But it is “reason”.  If I truly believe, and I do, that every soul is precious to God and that His greatest desire is to spend eternity with each and every one of us, then I would be failing as a Christian to stand by and condone behavior that I knew would keep a person from that destiny.  Charitable love demands that I care about the state of mans soul more than I care about his physical pleasure.  I must speak out, I must stand on the side of good and right, or forfeit my own claim to the Kingdom.  I cannot force you to do or not do anything.  But I am obligated by my Faith, to speak out. 

You keep saying that I cannot RUN other people through legislation and I keep asking you when the government started taking it’s marching orders from the Church.  As yet, you have not given me an answer.  We speak up.  We influence.  We argue.  We present our side.  NONE of these things are any different than what you yourself do.  Are you trying to tell me that the gay community is just sitting back and letting things fall where they may?  The gay community is every bit as active in the political sphere, advocating for what THEY want, as the Catholic Church.  Why do you get a pass? 

I use caps because I am lazy, not because I am yelling.  If that is truly offensive to you, I’ll take the time to use italics.  But know that not one word I have typed has been typed in anger.  That’s the TRUTH…lol. 

I am not falling back on doctrine to use public funding for anything. That’s the whole point of this thread.  The CC ceased doing adoptions because it didn’t want to take public funding and be beholden to public whims. 

We are very clear on adultery, non marital sex and pornography.  But none of those groups are advocating what you are.  We don’t give couples who are cohabitating children either.  Porn addicts are not asking us to put pictures of naked women in our bulletin.  Adulterers are not asking us to sanction polygamy.  You, however, are in the spotlight because you have put yourself there.  That is why you are hearing from us.  We aren’t the ones trying to change the definition of the time honored institution of marriage.  To suggest that we are picking on you for no reason is insanity.  We are defending something that is being attacked.  You are the attacker.  If gay marriage had been accepted all along, and the Church suddenly wanted to change it to mean only men and women, you’d be the ones defending marriage. 

Lastly, no one here thinks of you as unequal.  That is all in your head.  Again, it is something you are inferring, not something we are implying.  Equal does not mean you get to do whatever you want.  It means you have a voice. It also means we have a voice.  Right now, I’d say our voices are pretty equal.  Which is saying something considering there are billions of us, while you make up only 4% of the general population.  Statistically, I’d say you were getting a pretty fair platform to speak your mind.

Joseph,

If you can come up with a rationale that does not include doctrine, get back to me, otherwise there is nothing here that can really carry any weight.
You may not like me being your equal, but that is what our constitution is all about.

Well, if you can come up with a rationale to change the definition of marriage, enabling you to adopt children, based on something other than your feelings, feel free to do the same.  Sentiment vs Doctrine?  I’ll take Doctrine any day.  At least Doctrine is based on reasoning and not emotions.

Joseph - I too would like to know if Catholic Charities allows people who are divorced and remarried to adopt since homosexuality and adultery are both sins in the eyes of the Church.

Gaye,

I don’t know the answer to that question, and don’t really know how to find it out.  However, it would only be viewed as a “sin” if the couple were first married in the Church, if the marriage was considered “Sacramental”.  I’m pretty sure that Catholic Charities allows non Catholics to adopt.  It is not intrinsically evil to divorce and remarry.  Part of the issue with a homosexual couple is the obstacles the child would have to face.  Coupled with the fact that homosexuality would be presented to the child as just one more option, and treated as equal to a marriage between a man and a woman.  It would be like telling the child that homosexuality was “good”.  It would affect the child.  A divorced/remarried couple would not have the same impact on the child as a homosexual home.  At least not from “our” perspective.

MK, You say you do not judge souls but you say I"m gravely disordered whether I act on sex or not.
You say we are equal, but you say we can’t love each other romantically as you do.
You say you don’t use church doctrine to limit rights or wedge into people’s lives but you clearly want legislation to prevent that. And you want such legislation based on your religion.
You say you don’t think homosexuals are inferior but you back a church that says our love is not the same or equal.  Without word mincing, you are saying that homosexual love is not love, it is lust. Read what you wrote. I have platonic love and I’ve had romantic love, it is my right to seek both. It should be my right to form a family out of it too, just as it is yours.
Every point you have made is based on doctrine.

When a church calls for legislation that sacrifices the basic right to have a family for a specific group of people it is gone too far into people’s personal lives.

A lot of words but not a lot of reason.

I want equal rights, you are against that based on what your church tells you. Pretty simple and that’s what I’ve seen from you over and over including your last entry.
  When you church breaks public policy by discriminating against individuals using public money, it’s against the law. Individuals of the catholic faith have the same protection. The state has expressed an interest in treating people equally, your church is against that and can’t use state money to do so.

Joseph,

MK, You say you do not judge souls but you say I"m gravely disordered whether I act on sex or not.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the term “gravely disordered”.
A blind person is gravely disordered also.  Blindness is not “how it is supposed to be”.  To be blind is serious.  Grave.  It is out of order…disordered.  Seriously out of order.  Gravely disordered.  Not sinful.  There is no morality involved in blindness or sexual orientation or cerebral palsy.  They are neutral.  The difference is that one does not have the temptation to act immorally because he is blind.  This is not true when dealing with sexuality.  There is no possibility of sinning due to blindness, but there is a very real possibility of sinning due to sexual orientation.  Just as it is not disordered to be male and attracted to females, but the temptation to use that attraction immorally is there.

I think you are taking something “personally” which is not meant to be taken personally.  We are talking about Natural Law.  Anything that doesn’t follow Natural Law is disordered.  Color blindness is a disorder.  But I wouldn’t call it a grave disorder.  Full out blindness I would consider very grave indeed.  But saying a persons eyes don’t work as they were meant to is not saying anything derogatory about the person himself.  Does that make sense?  This is why I say that you are inferring a lot of stuff that we are not implying.  It’s a misunderstanding of our view of homosexuality.

And you want such legislation based on your religion.

No.  I want such legislation based on what I believe.  I chose my religion because I think it reflects the Truth.  I have said before, but I don’t think you’re getting it, that the Catholic Church does not invent Truth.  If you search for Truth…with an open mind and an open heart…you will inevitably find that the Catholic Church, more than any other religion, contains that Truth.  I believe homosexuality is wrong because I believe that is the Truth.  I belong to the Catholic Church because She agrees.  I don’t agree because I belong to the Catholic Church.  This is why Anglicans are coming home to the CC.  They joined the Anglican Faith believing that it contained the Truth. They are now finding out otherwise.  So they looked around and said “Aha…the Catholic Church still believes in and defends the Truth” and they are coming home in large numbers.  It’s all about the Truth, and not about the Religion.

It should be my right to form a family out of it too, just as it is yours.

First, as I said before and you denied saying it, children are not a commodity.  You are not “owed” a child.  You don’t have a “right” to a child.  When I pointed that out to M.Germaine you scoffed.  Now you are saying the same thing.  No one has the “right” to have children.  The very fact that you think so, tells me that you might not be the greatest of parents.  People today are locked into a mind set of “Entitlement”.  For whatever reason, you are under the impression that everything you want is owed you.  But it isn’t.  Nobody “owes” you another person.  And as for nobody should stop you…Catholic Charities is only one institution that places children in adoptive homes.  Apparently, it doesn’t even do that anymore in Boston, San Francisco and Washington.  So adopt from someone else.  I just don’t get it.  Why is it so important that you adopt from Catholic Charities or that Catholic Charities be forced to place children in homosexual homes?  It doesn’t make any sense to me.

But it is about emotion. The emotional capacity to provide a home with adult emotional support of both a man and a woman.

How is this not about emotion when you clearly say that homosexuals don’t love but lust for one another?
Sounds like all this is about emotion. Clearly MK is reacting emotionally when I read what’s been referred to as vehemence.

By the way, do heterosexual couples not feel lust for each other?

Joseph R Yungk said, “You say you do not judge souls but you say I’m gravely disordered whether I act on sex or not.”
There’s a difference between saying that you as a person are “disordered” and saying that your particular feelings in one area of your life are disordered.  And even in that more limited sense it is not that your particular attractions are somehow targeted by the Church, despite how the headlines might make it seem.  No, the Church recognizes that the sexual faculties have a particular order to them - that there is indeed a particular purpose for and a right way to use them.  Once you accept that there is a right order to something, then all other uses are by definition disordered.  When it comes to the sexual faculties, that means that all sorts of acts that people might argue they ought to be able to indulge in are disordered, regardless of whether they are attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, no other persons at all, or something other than persons.
—
“You say we are equal, but you say we can’t love each other romantically as you do.”
I don’t see how you could.  The love between a man a woman involves the most powerful act known to man - an act that may result in the creation of a new human being.  No same-sex relationship could ever involve that act.
—
“You say you don’t use church doctrine to limit rights or wedge into people’s lives but you clearly want legislation to prevent that.”
I refuted the idea that the Church or religious persons are somehow doing something wrong in regard to promoting or opposing legislation in my first comment to you several days ago.  I don’t know why you keep bringing it up - it’s just a red herring.

MK, I am entitle to form morals based on the constitution, both to the written meaning and the spirit. I am entitled to form morals on my experience. I’m also entitled to form them based on my own religion.

I never claimed I have a right to a child. I said I have the same rights to form a family “as you do”. You have a right to apply for adoption. You are asking to disallow gays. I’m am looking to ensure that gays do too. This is the kind of word mincing that I’m not going to engage in.

All your arguments continue to come back to your church’s doctrine. You use a lot of concentric logic, but despite all the verbiage, in the end religion is the bases for all of it and I will not pick through each sentence. And through this, you define me based on that doctrine, “seriously out of order” for an attraction. And that is the only basis for it. That right there is something that is intolerable under a free democratic society. And again, it’s direct from your specific religion, not mine.

You may be free to judge me, which yes, you have, but you cannot define me as a citizen or as a human being.

Oh Gaye,

You’re just goading me now.  I did not react emotionally.  I agreed that I was being vehement, but clarified that that was not a negative thing.

And if you would read my comments, you’d know that I said “Any time sexual relations are shared outside of those bonds of marriage, it is lust.  And lust can exist within those bonds of marriage also. “

You’d also know that I said “I do not say that your love is not love.  I say the homosexual act of EXPRESSING that love is lust.  Not only can men love each other, but they are called to do so.”

Sister S.

Yes of course emotions are involved.  My point is that decisions on serious moral matters should not be made based on emotions, not that having emotions is a bad thing.

Joseph,

All I can tell you is that I believe what I believe and joined a Church that believes the same.  I base my morality on what I believe to be Natural Law/The Truth, you base yours on emotions.  You can’t prove yours any more than I can prove mine.  I’ll fight for what I believe is right, you fight for what you believe is right.  It’s what makes us a free country.  It amazes me that you ask me/others to “tolerate” homosexual marriage, homosexual parenting, all based on your feelings, but find my right to believe in God and follow His laws, “intolerable”.  If that isn’t the most hypocritical statement I’ve ever read, I don’t know what is.  You seriously need to get a better understanding of what separation of church and state means.  It does not mean freedom from religion…it means freedom of religion.  I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Declaration of Indepence, but it clearly states that all of the freedoms you keep claiming you are entitled to, were endowed by our <i>creator<i>.  In other words, they were God given.  I’m afraid you’ll just have to “tolerate” that. 

How in the world you can say that you are entitled to a family the same as I am and then say that you don’t think you are owed children is beyond me.  No one is entitled to a family.  No one is entitled to a husband, a wife or a child.  You do have the right to love anyone that you want, but that is a whole lot different than being entitled to a family.

Joseph R Yungk said, “I am entitle to form morals based on the constitution, both to the written meaning and the spirit.”
You are entitled to do that, but good luck, since the Constitution is hardly a complete moral code or philosophy.  It is only a framework or a foundation for law intended to ensure that men have the freedom to do the right thing.  As such it is quite limited in preventing them from doing the wrong thing.  It doesn’t even proscribe murder (and I’m not talking about abortion).  With such a limited scope, it’s clear that our laws, let alone our morality, cannot flow from the Constitution itself, but must take their inspiration from some other source.
—
“I am entitled to form morals on my experience.”
That’s also true.  However, I don’t know that it’s wise to trust a single human being to determine what is right and what is wrong, even if that human being is oneself.  That’s a lesson you can take from the structure of our government if nothing else.
—
“I’m also entitled to form them based on my own religion.”
Absolutely.  Not only that, but that religion should not be purposely prohibited from having a voice in the public square, nor should its teachings be discounted as a basis for law merely because those ideas come from a religion, especially if they can be found reasonable by someone who doesn’t adhere to that religion, or who adheres to no religion at all.

Kevin,

Amen.

I’m certain at this point that many of my comments are wantonly over interpreted. Although I’m entitled to form a family, I never suggested that I’m owed a child. There are several ways to form a family. Various states feel a gay person if fully capable of raising a child. I do feel that a gay couple should be able to apply for adoption. Use of state money to discriminate should therefor be prohibited.
The church is imposing doctrine on others through pressure on legislators with a very persistent campaign. A campaign to limit rights to gays. Legislating your beliefs for others to conform to is an imposition to those who do not hold all of your beliefs. Although I have a right to my own beliefs, it’s still being imposed by your church.
The Constitution was not written by God. Nor was it specifically Catholic. There were more Deists participating in the Revolution than Catholics. Most of what was written was from Deists. A legitimate Deist belief would be that “natural” is what’s within the soul of the individual. Other well represented religions among our founding fathers feel similarly.
The one Catholic signing the Constitution came to America to avoid religious persecution from the English. Following this path, one would hesitate to think forcing religious ideals on everyone would be in keeping with that spirit.
The Constitution was, however, for the people and by the people where all men are created equal. Not just the Catholics nor the heterosexuals. If you want to keep your specific ideals for your adoption agencies, public funding just does not fit.

“especially if they can be found reasonable by someone who doesn’t adhere to that religion, or who adheres to no religion at all.”

So there you have it, Mr. Yungk, isn’t it perfectly reasonable that you forfeit any and all sexuality and a family for others’ “moral” comfort? Don’t you think that’s “reasonable”?

Joseph,

You don’t like when I repeat myself and yet no matter how many times I say something you don’t “hear” it…let’s try again.  And let’s keep it simple, okay?

You say:The church is imposing doctrine on others through pressure on legislators with a very persistent campaign. A campaign to limit rights to gays. Legislating your beliefs for others to conform to is an imposition to those who do not hold all of your beliefs.

I say:  The Gay community is imposing doctrine on others through pressure on legislators with a very persistent campaign.  A campaign to redefine marriage, place children in into homosexual homes, teach our children through public education that homosexuality is every bit as “normal” as heterosexuality, parade their sexual agenda down the main streets of the USA, insert their beliefs into the media, movies and music all in an attempt to garner special rights for gays.  Legislating your beliefs for other to conform is an imposition to those who do not hold all of your beliefs.

Do you get it now?

Joseph R Yungk said: “I do feel that a gay couple should be able to apply for adoption. Use of state money to discriminate should therefor be prohibited… If you want to keep your specific ideals for your adoption agencies, public funding just does not fit.”
The funding issue is a red herring.  In Massachusetts at least, simply rejecting state funds and contracts would still not permit Catholic Church-affiliated agencies to respect the Church’s teachings in performing adoption services.  I suspect the same is true elsewhere where the will of homosexual activists has been imposed on Church-run adoption agencies.
—
“The Constitution was not written by God. Nor was it specifically Catholic. There were more Deists participating in the Revolution than Catholics. Most of what was written was from Deists. A legitimate Deist belief would be that “natural” is what’s within the soul of the individual.”
Either you’re suggesting that the founders intended to impose Deism on the citizens - which based on your own statements you would have to disagree with, or you’re effectively making the case that beliefs should not be banished from public debate merely because they coincide with the teachings of some religion.

Putting aside the specifics of this debate, you have one side advocating equal rights (marriage, adoption) for a particular group and the other side saying that allowing that group to have equal rights is an affront to some deeply held beliefs.

Granting equal rights does not directly affect the opposition but NOT granting them DOES affect the members of the particular group.

sounds to me like Mr. Yungk is supposed to be wrong because he’s gay and others are right because they’re catholic.
Do I understand that correctly?

Oh, I get it. But the difference is that you don’t have to participate in any of what you describe. Nor do Catholic Charities. The alternative that would result from what you don’t want is one where gays are not allowed to participate in the first place. Not exactly constitutional or Christian.
I’m entitled to my beliefs just as you, but in no way should I be diagnosed and sanctioned in so many deeply personal ways by yours. The two just do not compare.
I’m sorry if you don’t get that.

freye, yes, you get it.

freye,

sounds to me like Mr. Yungk is supposed to be wrong because he’s gay and others are right because they’re catholic.
Do I understand that correctly?

No.

But I’m not surprised.

Gaye,

Granting equal rights does not directly affect the opposition but NOT granting them DOES affect the members of the particular group.

Make that “special” rights and you’ve got something.  Right now, as a woman, I am free to marry a man.  A man is free to marry me.  If I marry a man, then we are free to adopt.  I am not free to marry another woman.  We all have the same rights.  What you are asking for is “new” or “special” rights.  Based on feelings.  Sentiment.  Not reason.

Sounds to me like MK is asking for “special rights” in order to not be exposed to homosexuality.

Same logic, different decade:

Once upon a time, a white person was free to marry another white person and a colored person was free to marry another colored person.  Allowing a colored person to marry a white person would be considered “special rights”.

A colored person could go to a colored school, get served in a colored restaurant and use a colored bathroom and a colored drinking fountain.

It’s amazing how vapid some of the arguments are, you can marry someone but not someone you’re attracted to or you can’t have a relationship because a few that this does not apply to don’t think you’re love is equal.
Not really showing respect, compassion or equality. And not based on any fact but again, doctrine.
This just does not hold up guys.

There is nothing immoral about being black.  Or green for that matter.  It was wrong to discriminate against people of color.  Whether people acknowledged it or not.  It was never a matter of fighting for the right to marry.  It was always about fighting for the right to be considered a person.  Once black people were recognized as persons (as they should have been all along) then the right to marry inter-racially followed.  The immorality was in designating one group of people as non persons. (you know, like the unborn) No one is saying that gay people are not persons.  They have every right that I have.  Black people did not have the same rights that I had, whether it was marriage or riding a bus. 

Colored people had different rights, less rights.  That was the injustice.  Not that they couldn’t marry white people.  They fought to attain the same rights that you and I have.  Gay people want different rights.  Rights that no one has.  That’s the difference.  The two are not comparable.

freye,

Sounds to me like MK is asking for “special rights” in order to not be exposed to homosexuality.

I’m sure to you, that is exactly what it sounds like.  Again, I am not surprised.  Exposure to homosexuality is not the issue.  Having it shoved in my face and in the faces of my children is.  I’d be just as bent out of shape, oh wait, I AM just as bent out of shape, that I have contraception, abortion and ubersexuality of any kind shoved in my face on a daily basis.

I wouldn’t want to see heterosexuals riding in floats half naked, faux humping each other on Michigan Ave either.  I resent Victoria Secret and Abercrombie and Fitch flaunting half naked people to sell their wares (Who the hell advertises for clothing by showing people without clothing???  I resent viagra commercials, hunky Jesus contests and the fact that my 14 year old daughter can have an abortion without my permission, but I’m expected to foot the bill if anything should go “wrong”.  I resent a lot of things, and not all of them have to do with homosexuality.  We are a vulgar, crude and infantile society.  Wrapping my arms around the gay community and saying their lifestyle is “good” is simply above my pay grade.  I’d resent them a whole lot less if it wasn’t thrown in my face on a daily basis.  You want me to accept homosexuality as normal???  Then maybe acting and looking “normal” would be a good place to start!

Freye,

you can marry someone but not someone you’re attracted to…
Not really showing respect, compassion or equality. And not based on any fact but again, doctrine.
This just does not hold up guys.

Using that logic, what would you say if a 40 year old man wanted to marry an 11 year old boy?  Don’t say it wouldn’t happen.  Tell me why that would be a bad or good thing?  They love each other.  It’s what they want. And it’s all based on emotion.

Or how about a man marrying 6 women?  They all love each other.  It’s what they want.  And it’s all based on emotion.

Or how about a man marrying a 10 year old girl?  They love each other. It’s what they want.  And it’s all based on emotion.

Why should or shouldn’t these scenarios be allowed to take place?  According to your logic, they are perfectly acceptable.  The only thing needed is a professed love and a desire.

Joseph R Yungk said, “But the difference is that you don’t have to participate in any of what you describe. Nor do Catholic Charities.”
Nor do Catholic churches have to participate in civil marriage.  The state grants the church the privilege of legally certifying a marriage on its behalf, but as we’ve seen in other situations where the Church performs a service that forms family relationships that are legally recognized, the state can revoke that privilege.  You might try to label the suggestion that the government would discriminate against churches that refuse to solemnize same-sex unions as radical, but in principle the precedent has already been set for just that.
—
Gaye Tannenbaum said, “you have one side advocating equal rights (marriage, adoption) for a particular group and the other side saying that allowing that group to have equal rights is an affront to some deeply held beliefs.”
Such “rights” are an affront to deeply held beliefs, but the reasons for taking political action against them are much more concrete, being especially the fact that state recognition of same-sex “marriage,” adoption by same-sex couples and other “rights” constitute a tyranny against those who do not recognize such things.  Same-sex “marriage” and homosexual relationships are weak things, and the weaker a thing to be protected, the stronger that protection must be.  Hence their conflicts with free speech, religious expression, adoption services and foster parenting in this country and elsewhere.
—
“Same logic, different decade:  Once upon a time, a white person was free to marry another white person and a colored person was free to marry another colored person.  Allowing a colored person to marry a white person would be considered “special rights”
That’s really not a valid comparison.  Such laws were arbitrary and highly dependent on local demographics - they simply would make no sense at all in a place like India, for example.  18% of the states never had such laws, and 60% of those that did recognized their mistake and repealed them on their own before the courts mopped up the rest.
—
freye said, “you can marry someone but not someone you’re attracted to”
Is being attracted to someone an automatic license to marry them?  What about a man attracted to his sister, or a teacher attracted to her 14-year-old student, or a man attracted to a child?  Certainly society deserves some say in what is permissible that is not automatically trumped by someone’s particular attractions.  But same-sex partners can “consent” you say.  By itself, however, consent is worthless as a measure of the morality of an act.  First of all, the reasoning is circular (same-sex unions are good because they consent to it being good).  Second, a thing clearly doesn’t have to be good in order to earn someone’s consent.  I can offer you a bag of heroin and you can consent to consume it, but that doesn’t make my offer of it moral.  Third, basing the morality of something on consent alone means that even by your own definition it would immoral if no one ever consented to it - in other words, it is good not by its own merits, but only by the act of someone choosing to do it.

and every one of their arguments is based on suppositions specific to one interpretation of religion.

Not at all constitutional when you force others to adhere to it.

M.G.,

and every one of their arguments is based on suppositions specific to one interpretation of religion.

Not at all constitutional when you force others to adhere to it.

OR

and every one of your arguments is based on suppositions specific to one interpretation of sexuality and morality.  Not at all constitutional when you force others to adhere to it.

The bottom line is that you guys don’t think “morality” actually exists.  You base your morality on what feels good, appeases your whims and fulfills your desires.  That’s not morality.  That’s the behavior of adolescents.  We believe in an objective morality.  Something we aspire to, not something that is created by us.  If you’re under the age of 40, it’s not really your fault.  You’ve been indoctrinated to believe that only the physical world is real, morality is relative and you’re entitled to whatever you want.  Many of us didn’t get the same indoctrination.  Some of us went to Catholic Schools (yes, yes, I know, we were indoctrinated there…but the Theology of the CC is remarkably similar to the philosophies of the ancients and isn’t religious at all).  It’s only in the last 300 years or so that people have embraced humanism, atheism, rationalism and the like.  You guys don’t even realize what a number has been done on your heads.  As far back as you can go, humanity has believed in an objective moral reality.  The Catholic Church still does.  From our point of view, you younguns are just filled with a bunch of silly new fangled ideas.  Which would be fine, if they weren’t so dangerous.

Kevin,

I love you.

Gay people do not have the right to be gay.

DADT says they can’t serve in the military unless they “pass for straight”
Some laws prohibit them from teaching children
and this week in Hazard, Kentucky, gays cannot even swim in a public pool that their tax dollars pay for ... http://leosigh.com/?p=3284

Today it is easy to say, with hindsight, that discrimination against blacks is wrong.  Did the Church SUPPORT interracial marriage way back when?

Throwing the child bride or pedophilia card is a red herring.  Marriage equality is not about minors, it is about human adults.

As far as polygamy goes, I don’t have a problem with it in theory - it’s the forced marriage part that needs to be prohibited.

Per mk: “Then maybe acting and looking “normal” would be a good place to start!”

You rail against the ubersexuality of society but do not consider heterosexuality to be the underlying problem.  Why do you consider overt homosexual actions to be evidence that homosexuality IS the problem, rather than simply additional extreme actions of a sexual nature?

Re: objective moral reality

Can someone be moral without being Catholic?

Is morality beliefs or actions or both?

Gaye, the role played by religion provides an interesting contrast between the fight for interracial marriage and the push for same-sex “marriage.”  Unlike its function in the latter, it seems that religion - especially the Catholic Church - was very much an ally in challenges to anti-miscegenation laws, as can be seen in the sidebar to this article:  http://www.catholicvoiceoakland.org/2010/03-08/inthisissue1.htm
—
Unlike what would be necessary to approve of same-sex “marriage,” no Catholic doctrine had to change to permit interracial marriage.

Gaye,

Throwing the child bride or pedophilia card is a red herring.  Marriage equality is not about minors, it is about human adults.

Why?  Why can a 14 year old girl be mature enough to choose an abortion, or have sex so she needs an abortion, but is not mature enough to know if she wants to spend the rest of her life with a 40 year old man?  Your criteria for gay marriage is that two people love each other and regardless of their “circumstances” should be allowed to express that love in the act of marriage.  You say I have no right or authority to stop them.  Why do you have the right, where do you get the authority to stop a 14 or 12 or whatever year old girl from doing the same?  Or a 40 year old man? 

What if a brother wants to marry his sister?  And they are both over 18?  Or a father wants to marry his daughter and she is of age?  Why would that be a problem?  Or would it be?

DADT says they can’t serve in the military unless they “pass for straight”

There are purely practical reasons for that. 

As for the swimming pool incident, obviously that lifeguard was way out of line.  That’s a random incident.  Individuals do stupid things all the time.  Shame on them.  We are talking about laws here, not individual incidents.  I’d be the first person to say that what happened at that pool was horrible.  The Catholic Church would back me up. 

I understand that your misunderstanding of the Catholic Churches teaching is leading you to believe that we “hate all gay people”, but your wrong.  Period.  We’ve already posted what the Catechism says and that is what the Church teaches.  We do not discriminate against persons for who they are.  We don’t judge people, we just behaviors.  You seem hell bent on proving that the Catholic Church is out to burn gay people at the stake.  It’s getting ludicrous.  I wouldn’t lump you in with Joseph Stalin because you are an atheist…I’d like to think you aren’t going to pull out every example of gay bashing that takes place and try to pin it on the Catholic Church. 

To us, marriage is sacred.  Objectively.  To us, children are sacred.  Objectively.  We believe there is a Natural Order to both the physical world AND the spiritual world.  We believe in the seen and unseen.  We acknowledge something called “sin” no matter how out of fashion that may be.  We believe that the author of our very being has set out moral laws, and we do our best to follow them.  One of those laws is that He created them male and female.  No matter how clever it sounds, Adam and Steve were not meant to “be” together…objectively.  Our difference comes not from a misunderstanding of what is right and what is wrong, but from an absence on your part to call anything at all objectively wrong.  That is the heart of the whole debate.  Not whether gays should get married…but whether or not morality is objective or subjective.  If it is subjective then anyone can do whatever the heck they want to do and everyone else be damned…if it is objective, then we are obligated to recognize it and obey it.  We can on yappin’ from now til people live on Jupiter and the argument will never progress, until we agree on that one thing.  Is morality relative?  Or is it objective?

Gaye,

Why do you consider overt homosexual actions to be evidence that homosexuality IS the problem, rather than simply additional extreme actions of a sexual nature?

I can only hope that this is an indication that you are finally hearing what we have been saying.  I do, emphatically, believe, as you say, that homosexuality is A problem, not THE problem…and that the real problem is, also, as you say, a failure to put sexuality in it’s proper perspective.  Our entire society is hyper focused on sex.  Of all kinds.  Homosexuality, pornography, children having sex, abortion, contraception…these are all equally offensive.  And equally sinful.  Homosexuality is simply one more abuse among many abuses.  Yes!  It is an additional extreme action of a sexual nature and I find it sad that something so beautiful has been perverted and turned into the likes of a tennis game or a hot fudge sundae!  Again, this is because I view morality as objective. 

My point earlier was that if you say that homosexuals can get married, then you forfeit the right to tell anybody that they cannot marry whom they wish.  If it’s all about feelings, and subjectivity, then none of us has the right to demand any kind of behavior at all.  Nietzche was right. It all comes down to might vs right.  Whoever wields the biggest stick wins.  I believe we call this tyranny.  Only when we view morality as something objective, something outside of ourselves, can we hope to have freedom.  True freedom.

Right now, people are so sex saturated that they really aren’t free.  Like a drug addict they believe they are free to have sex whenever they want, but the question is, are they free NOT to have sex?  Have biological urges and emotions become what drives us?  This is how animals behave.  They follow their instincts, their urges.  They must, because they are not free to do anything else.  But we are not animals.  We are human beings.  We have free will.  We can choose to do or not to do.  UNLESS, we give up that ability by becoming slaves to our desires.

Here’s a question.  Do you find it weird that a priest would willingly give up the option to have sex…ever?  Do you find that “perverse”?  I’m not asking if you’d outlaw it, I’m asking if, in your opinion, forgoing sex for the sake of “God” is unnatural?

Then answer me this…if you were looking at a picture that offended you, would you poke your eye out?  I know that sounds like a strange question, but there is a point to it.  Would you poke out your eye in order not to have to see the picture?

Gaye,
Can someone be moral without being Catholic?

Is morality beliefs or actions or both?

First, I’m sorry we keep talking over each other…having to wait for the comments to be posted is difficult.  I find that I write paragraphs only to see that you’ve addressed what I’ve written but it hadn’t posted yet…so forgive my wordiness…

Those are excellent questions.  Yes.  Absolutely a person can be moral without being Catholic. IF they believe that morality is objective.  Even if they believe it is subjective they are bound to get it right sometimes.  Following their emotions will inevitably cause them to choose correctly, even if inadvertently.  This is why I keep saying that the Catholic Church does not invent, create or dictate Truth.  It recognizes it.  The Truth is the Truth and anyone is free to see it.

Second, morality is not belief or actions.  It just is.  We either acknowledge it, or we don’t.  If we do, then actions are moral based on whether they adhere to that Truth.

Obviously, I believe that God is the author of those Truths.  But you don’t have to believe in God to know them.  I don’t know how a television works, but I can watch it.  I don’t have to know who wrote a book to read it.  Heck, I follow civil laws all the time and I certainly couldn’t tell you who implemented them or when.  We follow speed limits…but I don’t know who said we have to drive at 60 mph. 

So if you accept that there is a moral law that governs our “souls” or our persons, and that it is objective, then you don’t need to believe in God, just the Truth.  I’m not a philosopher, but I know that one of the ways you come to know moral Truth is by learning first principles.  Everything else is built on that.  Ancient Greeks, Romans, Jews, Egyptians…all through history, every civilization that thrived, followed objective moral law. 

You’ll probably say that some societies at some times did not follow all of the objective moral laws, and you would be right.  Obviously, being part of the “unseen” those laws are not as clear cut as say, 1 + 1 = 2.

BUT, while you might find some societies that did not follow all of the Objective Moral Laws, you’ll never find one that followed none of them. 

Notice that it was when Greece and Rome stopped following Natural Law, that they fell.  When they started to view morality as subjective.  When morality falls, so does the society.  It’s like trying to play baseball when everyone has different rules.

And as mentioned, it does keep coming from one interpretation of the bible which just does not hold up when there are so many ways to interpret it. And it’s still asking others to conform to you religion, whereas the only thing a catholic has to do is be aware of the fact that gays exist.

Not really a fair trade. Your “religious freedom” does not include being able to “prescribe” as has been mentioned. “Whoever wields the biggest stick wins.  I believe we call this tyranny.” Oh yes, it’s tyranny when a church gets to tell people who they can and can’t love. I don’t see the gay community asking for anything of the sort from anyone else.

I was on here a while ago, checked back and…

It’s that whole “as long as your still just like me” type of thing still and that just does not happen anywhere in the real world. Not in a democracy with equal protection under the law. My rights aren’t protected if I go into a hospital. All so you don’t have to refer to my partner as a spouse.
To compare gays to pedophiles is really just an incendiary slur. To claim to know a group of people so intimately so as to say what they should do with their own attraction is far beyond reasonable.

When I hear “It’s like trying to play baseball when everyone has different rules” I can’t understand why they can’t just play in their own field and ignore what’s happening in the next. That’s what’s been expected of gays all our lives. But now we don’t care if others gawk. They have to tell everyone else how to play and with who while it costs them nothing to just have their own game. Your pope is not my umpire. Reminds me of the two cartoon characters who used to argue over how many Star Treck episodes there were when they could have just left each other alone on it. One could just honor his 79 episode saga and the other the 80. Does it matter what the other thinks? Does it matter that they at least get to watch them?

But in this particular case an institution wants enough control to actually govern the most personal aspects of those not even within that institution. An awfully ambition stick to be trying to carry. And there are constitutional protections all over their path. 

The reference to Rome isn’t really even enough. Different times and more like debauchery as opposed to a couple of gay guys settling down in the burbs with an adopted baby.

It’s way too much of a reach to say that gays are trampling anyone’s rights when the expectations and comparisons from the other side look like this. To commoditize something family is really just reaching for control.

“a failure to put sexuality in it’s proper perspective. “

So would you be willing to give up heterosexual sex because someone else’s church dictates it?
you’d have all the same arguments we have.

M.G,

And as mentioned, it does keep coming from one interpretation of the bible which just does not hold up when there are so many ways to interpret it.

I don’t know why you keep saying that.  Our Doctrine does not come from an interpretation of the bible.  It comes from a number of things, Scripture being only one of them.  We are not Protestant Evangelicals. We don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura.  As I’ve pointed out, many of these Truths were known and understood by societies that never heard of the God of Abraham let alone Jesus Christ.  These are eternal Truths…The Catholic Church doesn’t own them.  We were entrusted with them, and we have held on tight to them through many, many different time periods.  We have not always been perfect, but by God, we’re still here and we’re still defending them. But they do not all come from Scripture.

To claim to know a group of people so intimately so as to say what they should do with their own attraction is far beyond reasonable.

I don’t claim to know anybody.  I don’t have to know the person.  The person could be wonderful, or awful or have a yen for sweet potatoes.  I’ve gone out of my way to say that it is not the person I am judging.  It’s the behavior. 

As for not allowing you to visit your “spouse” in the hospital…work to change those things.  A sign of intelligence is thinking outside the box.  There’s more than one way to skin a cat. 

So would you be willing to give up heterosexual sex because someone else’s church dictates it?
you’d have all the same arguments we have.

Reaaaaaaally?  And what arguments would those be? 

But in this particular case an institution wants enough control to actually govern the most personal aspects of those not even within that institution. An awfully ambition stick to be trying to carry. And there are constitutional protections all over their path.

And again I could say:  “But in this particular case a very small percentage of the population wants enough control to actually govern the most personal aspects of my life, my childrens lives, and all of society when we aren’t even gay!”

It all comes down to you want something that I don’t, and I want something that you don’t.  So we each speak our piece and wait for the outcome.  That’s called the American Way.  I’m not gettin’ all over your case because you are fighting FOR gay marriage.  I’m against gay marriage but I’m all for your right to fight for it.

Gays are not telling everyone else who the can and can’t have relationships with nor who the can have sex with. To claim you know us well enough to do so is exactly what is wrong with this argument—you are still judging us after all.
And you do, just look at what you guys have written.

The comparisons just do not match. Mentioning trivial aspects of living in a diverse world ain’t going to make that argument any stronger. Whatever the perceived inconveniences, you’ve yet to come up with anything that at all compares with what you are demanding of the personal lives of gays.

But to reiterate Jayne’s question, would you let someone use their religion to control the most personal aspects of you life?
The first amendment would prevent that and you know it.

These are things you really need to address if you’re going to keep anyone’s interest. I mean, even over 50% of your flock is losing interest in supporting this campaign.

“very small percentage of the population wants enough control to actually govern the most personal aspects of my life, my childrens lives, and all of society when we aren’t even gay!”

Um, but we’re not.

Gays are not telling everyone else who the can and can’t have relationships with nor who the can have sex with

Actually, you are.  When you try to normalize something that many of us are teaching our kids is immoral, then you are influencing them.  When schools promote homosexuality, when television shows promote it…you are in essence telling my kids and all of society that this is a “good” thing, that there is nothing wrong with it.  And before you get you knickers in a knot, I feel, as I have said, the same way about promoting birth control, abortion and sex outside of marriage.  Kids who are young and impressionable, who are just figuring out who they are as sexual beings, are being told that the homosexual lifestyle is a viable option.

It’s not just homosexuality.  It’s cross dressing, and bisexuality, and multiple partners…all of it.  You’re not just asking us to accept the extraordinary couple who is in a monogamous, committed relationship.  It goes waaaaaay beyond that.  I know you’d like to believe, or tell me, that the only homosexuals in the world are wonderful upstanding people who love one other person and will stay with them for the rest of their life…but that’s a lie.  Those couple are the exception, not the rule. 

You have 4% of the population.  Of that 4% what percentage do you think is in a monogamous, completely monogamous relationship, is not bi sexual, doesn’t have multiple partners and doesn’t cross dress…that’s a legitimate question.  And it’s not only the homosexual population that is wreaking havoc on marriage and family.  The entire population has gone nuts.  Here’s a question.  When less than 20% of homes have a mother, father and children in them, why in the world would you want to get married anyway?  More than half the population has chosen to forgo marriage to live with each other sans the wedding.  It’s ironic that at a time when marriage in general is waning, you guys want to tie the knot…!

But to reiterate Jayne’s question, would you let someone use their religion to control the most personal aspects of you life?

Religion is not trying to control the most personal aspects of your life.  I don’t know why you keep saying that.  People, most people, believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.  That’s just a fact.  Some of those people are Catholic, some are evangelical, some are Jewish, some are Mormon and some are atheists.  Heck, some are even gay! 

Now here’s a question for you…what should the definition of marriage be?  What is your definition of marriage?

“Religion is not trying to control the most personal aspects of your life.”

these guys just cannot see how the same principles apply to everyone, as has been said, “not just the catholics”.  They in no way can comprehend what they are keeping from others. The question about how they would react if the tables were diametrically opposed will not be answered. That information would be too powerful.

Saying who you can’t marry and who is “disordered” enough to forgo any kind of romantic relationship is control, this cannot be denied. you’re children are not forced to explore any type of relationship. But the homosexual children are taught there is something gravely wrong with them. That kind of pressure is yours to live with.

And if you’re so worried about your kids, you can and have taught them yourself. Look at the way they’re reacting here. Can you tell us about all the support you give your homosexually inclined teens and adults?

Joseph R Yungk said, “But to reiterate Jayne’s question, would you let someone use their religion to control the most personal aspects of you life?”

The Catholic Church doesn’t seek to “control” the personal aspects of your life.  It doesn’t even seek to control the personal aspects of Catholics’ lives.  It merely holds up the Truth for all the world to see in the hope that we will recognize it and strive to make it part of our own lives, and thereby gain ultimate redemption.  Is there any other institution that dares to do that, let alone succeeds at it?

I believe that when it comes to homosexuality being a taboo subject as MK suggests, it’s then proving the far reaches of exploiting one’s freedom of speech in order to infringe on another’s.

I’m sure if one looks at the sacrifices already from your homosexual acquaintances you would understand something about the emotional needs of that 4% you pass off as insignificant.

“Religion is not trying to control the most personal aspects of your life.  I don’t know why you keep saying that.”

Because your church is lobbying to prevent gays from legitimizing their strongest relationships. How do you not see that?

If you’re going to keep asking questions, perhaps you should actually answer the one that’s been asked several times, would you let another church tell you your marriage was illegitimate and that you cannot ever marry or have a relationship with the opposite sex?

“The Catholic Church doesn’t seek to “control” the personal aspects of your life.”

This has been asked too, how is lobbying to limit the rights of gays, telling them through legislation who they can have a family with? That IS control over one’s personal life. And most are not in your church.

This is wantonly not even acknowledging one’s actions.

by the way, most cross dressing men are heterosexual. if you want to suppress any kind of presence from your homosexual neighbors, that would clearly be violating their first amendment rights for freedom of speech. That is not going to be allowed. You’re also violating their first amendment rights to practice their religion. Anyway, if that’s the kind of control you want, and yes, what you describe is control, it’s unconstitutional. How do you do this to your children?

I’ve tried for years for heterosexuals to answer some of these questions. I’ve had anyone tell me what it must be like to be expected to suppress all sexual behavior or thought.

Looking at this, I can’t imagine how someone who refuses to grant such a request can feel at all righteous in legislating a relationships.

I’ve done the same in return, but it does not compare. Heterosexuals have to deal with knowing there are gays and that they may be visible. I get it, you’re uncomfortable.
Trust me, you’ve made countless feel much much worse.

Jimmy J,

If you’re going to keep asking questions, perhaps you should actually answer the one that’s been asked several times, would you let another church tell you your marriage was illegitimate and that you cannot ever marry or have a relationship with the opposite sex

Why would I care if some church told me my marriage is illegitimate?  Seriously?  Why would I care what another church thought?  I wouldn’t lift a finger to stop another church or person for that matter, from “telling” me that my marriage was illegitimate. 

Unless of course you mean that a church was forcing me to call my marriage illegitimate.  In which case I would be the first to speak up.  The problem with your analogy is that you either mean “telling” as you say, and then it wouldn’t make any difference to me whatsoever, or you mean “forcing”, in which case your scenario falls apart, as the Catholic Church isn’t “forcing” anything on anyone.
 

Lobbying is not forcing.  People lobby for all sorts of stuff that I think is wrong.  Oh, wait a minute, the Gay community is lobbying for something that I think is wrong…

I’ve answered your question, now answer mine.  Can a mother marry her son?  A sister marry her brother?  A brother marry his brother?  A father marry his daughter?  A 40 year old man marry a 13 year old girl?  A 40 year old man marry a 13 year old boy? 

Do you find it weird that a priest would willingly give up the option to have sex…ever?  Do you find that “perverse”?  I’m not asking if you’d outlaw it, I’m asking if, in your opinion, forgoing sex for the sake of “God” is unnatural?

Saying who you can’t marry and who is “disordered” enough to forgo any kind of romantic relationship is control, this cannot be denied.

Again, it amazes me how you go from “saying”, “telling”, to Controlling.

The Catholic Church “says” that abortion is wrong.  The Catholic Church “says” that contraception is wrong.  The Catholic Church “says” that cohabitating is wrong.  The Catholic Church “says” that divorce is wrong.  Saying is not forcing.  Saying is not controlling.  Abortion is legal, contraception is legal, cohabitating is legal.  50% of marriages end in divorce.  Claiming that what the Catholic Church “says” is the law, is ridiculous!  Would that we were that powerful!

The Catholic Church says that murder is wrong.  Do you think that murder is illegal only because the Catholic Church says it is?  The Catholic Church says that rape is wrong.  Do you think that rape is wrong only because the Catholic Church says so?  Do you say “Why should the Catholic Church get to tell us we can’t murder or rape people?”  No, of course not, because the Catholic Church is just one voice among many that say these things are wrong.  They are not wrong because the Catholic Church says so.  In the same way, most people believe that homosexual marriage is wrong.  The Catholic Church is one of those voices.  But it isn’t wrong because the Catholic Church says so, any more than torturing small animals is wrong because the Catholic Church says so.  You make this huge leap from “The Catholic Church views homosexuality as wrong” to “The Catholic Church is the ONLY voice that says it is wrong and they control us”...

I’m leaving on vacation for the next week and won’t have access to a computer…I’ll check in when I get back and if anyone is still here I’ll pick it up then.  Just didn’t want you to think I’d “quit”...you know us Catholics…we don’t give up…  ;)

Jayne B said, “would you let another church tell you your marriage was illegitimate and that you cannot ever marry or have a relationship with the opposite sex?”
No, because not only would such a teaching be arbitrary and without reason, it would contradict what is objectively good and necessary for the continued existence of our species.  In other words, it would violate common sense.

“Actually, you are.  When you try to normalize something ....  you are in essence telling my kids and all of society that this is a “good” thing, that there is nothing wrong with it. “

Apparently it really is that some just don’t want homosexuals to exist in any visible way. Not in keeping with the first amendment. This won’t stop with a prohibition on gay marriage.

What has gone on over the last hundred years is gays have always found a way to exist but have been pushed into anonymous fringe sections of society. You could say that the “gay lifestyle” is just what’s left over when the heterosexual anti-gays say where gays can’t be or at least show themselves even though we’re right under your noses all the time. Having a ban on identifying oneself is unconstitutional. Having marriage however would allow gays to have the same “lifestyle” as you—I think you should be flattered.
But the true motives are now stated.
I thought that the church loved homosexuals with compassion and understanding. The goal of having everyone in hiding is not a very welcoming prospect either. If the church really does want help homosexuals, how is this supposed to be accomplished?

“Why would I care if some church told me my marriage is illegitimate?  Seriously?  Why would I care what another church thought?  I wouldn’t lift a finger to stop another church or person for that matter, from “telling” me that my marriage was illegitimate.”

Because they could, as your church is, lobby to make it law, or as pass it as I understood the point.

I’ve just been lurking on this and I have to say, the pro-gay side is right about one thing, the other side just does not, in any way, want to see or understand anything that’s written by anyone else.

“No, because not only would such a teaching be arbitrary and without reason, it would contradict what is objectively good and necessary for the continued existence of our species.  In other words, it would violate common sense.
“Lobbying is not forcing.”
when it becomes law, it is. Do any of you hear yourselves?

and this is exactly how it feels to someone who has accepted his/her “nmature” as attracted to the same sex. Not having the religious objections, they accept this.
but nobody actually answered this.
nor has anyone said what kind of pressure this puts on homosexuals whether they act on it or not.

It’s ok to put the pressure on others as long as someone doesn’t have to feel it. There’s a clear avoidance of any empathy which would make the idea of knowing what’s good for one’s neighbor dubious at best.

This is not the kind of influence that at all should be in government when it is based on religion. It’s gotten in they way of others’ rights for far longer and in more severe ways throughout history. Look at how many wars have gone on because of dogma in government.

To rationalize, without a second thought, the kind of ostracism that is put to homosexuals, whether they act on it or not, is not at all responsible as a Christian or a citizen in a democratic society.
Evading with “we’re not forcing anyone”.... we just want to control legislation’ is refusing to even look at what one’s behavior does.

If you really want to be a guiding force in humanity, truth or morals, it takes more than just commitment to criticize others, it takes the responsibility to relate to that person. I have never seen this happen in the context of catholicism and this series of posts outlines this pattern quite well.

I have never even heard of how you do help out homosexuals who do want to stay in the church. To my knowledge, they all leave.

emhicl, it may appear that those opposed to same-sex “marriage” don’t listen to the other side, but in reality we’ve heard all their arguments before, and none of them are possibly as compelling as our own - that marriage is something in particular rather than anything in general, and that the most compelling reason for society to expect people to marry is that intimate relationships tend to result in the birth of children, and married parents are best-suited to raising them.  This reason simply cannot exist in any other kind of relationship, no matter how vehemently one might argue that we should consider those relationships “equal” to the union of a man and a woman.

we’re not forcing anything on anyone, just persistently executing a campaign to legislate it into you life, that’s all. You on the other hand are forcing us to accept you because you are there.

I think I get it now.

“and that the most compelling reason for society to expect people to marry is that intimate relationships tend to result in the birth of children, and married parents are best-suited to raising them.”

So your “particular” vision of marriage is expressly for two to get pregnant and have a child. I suppose all those adopted children only go to couples who are not sterile. We can do this for years, not every couple marries to have children. Some marry to adopt children, some for other reasons. That is a fact, and a very well known fact, nothing “particular” about the motives of the couple and nothing general either. Each marriage and family is different.

Again, to have your church telling anyone that leads us right back to constitutional rights to practice a religion other than yours.

freye wrote, ‘So your “particular” vision of marriage is expressly for two to get pregnant and have a child. I suppose all those adopted children only go to couples who are not sterile. We can do this for years, not every couple marries to have children. Some marry to adopt children, some for other reasons. That is a fact, and a very well known fact, nothing “particular” about the motives of the couple and nothing general either. Each marriage and family is different.”
An infertile couple is an exception to the rule, and a typically unforeseen one at that.  For same-sex couples, infertility is neither an exception or unforeseen because for them the rule is different.  In fact, the rule and the exception are exactly reversed from what they are for opposite-sex couples, proving that they are at the least two very different things.
—
“Again, to have your church telling anyone that leads us right back to constitutional rights to practice a religion other than yours.”
If you’re suggesting that those of other religions or no religion at all cannot arrive at the same conclusion the Catholic Church has through nothing but human reason, then I say that you have insulted their intelligence.

“If you’re suggesting that those of other religions or no religion at all cannot arrive at the same conclusion the Catholic Church has through nothing but human reason, then I say that you have insulted their intelligence.”

But the point is, they don’t have to.

Since when are post menopausal brides “unforeseen?” In all contexts, those heterosexuals who are not capable of conceiving a child, sterility is never a factor in denying a marriage.
No reason why another faith or government can’t apply this to any other couple.

“If you’re suggesting that those of other religions or no religion at all cannot arrive at the same conclusion the Catholic Church has through nothing but human reason, then I say that you have insulted their intelligence.”

I saw the point as being that another religion might not arrive at the same conclusion, and that’s really all that’s needed. To judge so conclusively that one’s religion is right, defending other religions with similar beliefs, it’s strange that one would not defend other religions with different views. We do have freedom of religion here. It would then be an insult to uphold one’s own religious beliefs while completely dismissing other religions. This is one of the reasons our country was founded.

So have you “insulted” the religions that do not have the same sexual taboos?  Would they not think so?

You’re still only seeing this as something with just your religious explanation and nothing else. Not good enough for legislation.

Kevin Rahe,
So it is an insult to say that other religions have it wrong. And it would therefor be an insult to call others sinners and incapable of having a relationship if their religion came to another conclusion.

Why is it then that you are making every attempt at making your rule law?

If it really is a matter of one view of religion under our constitution, then one would need to look at damages.
Catholics, as said, would have to live in a world where gays are open about their lives while catholics would have to know that. The alternative is gays have to give up any chance at solemnizing their marriage and/or family.
Sounds like a no-brainer to me if one looks at the weight of each others’ beliefs and how it affects them. Gays would be insulted, (which you just verified) ostracized, oppressed and sentenced to loneliness while catholics have to know homosexuality exists which is already apparent and will always be apparent.
We are not going away either way.

“In all contexts, those heterosexuals who are not capable of conceiving a child, sterility is never a factor in denying a marriage.
No reason why another faith or government can’t apply this to any other couple.”
What is at issue are benefits and privileges granted by government legislation.  These benefits and privileges are granted to married couples as a group with some purpose in mind - some expectation that they will result in a benefit to society as a whole.  They are conferred on a couple regardless of that couple’s individual merits - known or unknown - as they relate to that purpose.  In other words, they’re structured as an incentive to encourage the fulfillment of a purpose rather than as a reward for having done so.  If, however, you wish to confer those same benefits and privileges on a group for which they were not originally intended, is it not reasonable to demand them to show that they can be expected to fulfill the original purpose of those benefits and privileges?
—
“It would then be an insult to uphold one’s own religious beliefs while completely dismissing other religions. This is one of the reasons our country was founded.”
Your logic is simply twisted, I’m sure quite intentionally.  The statement I was replying to implied that a law that recognizes marriage as only between a man and a woman is imposing a religion (i.e. Christianity) on everyone else.  That is only true if you could not expect someone not of that faith to also find such a law reasonable.  You have not shown this to be the case, nor have you shown that same-sex unions are equal (as a group) to traditional marriages (as a group), which would be the most compelling basis for rescinding such a law.
—
This is not in any way, shape or form a war between religious faiths, and to suggest it is is a red herring.  I believe that every religion deserves to have a voice in the public square, which is a claim that you cannot make.

“What is at issue are benefits and privileges granted by government legislation.  These benefits and privileges are granted to married couples as a group with some purpose in mind - some expectation that they will result in a benefit to society as a whole.  They are conferred on a couple regardless of that couple’s individual merits”

But I’ve heard over and over again from the church that marriage is not just about the benefits. Which is it?
And by putting it this way, since gays can and do adopt, you really are just discriminating against us. If you think that gay couples can’t benefit society, the government has every right to disagree. As a matter of fact, they have an obligation to if “all men are created equal” and entitled to “equal protection under the law”, “regardless of the “couple’s individual merits”.

“That is only true if you could not expect someone not of that faith to also find such a law reasonable. “

There are other religions, Judeo-Christian and otherwise who do recognize marriage. That is exactly what the post you wrote and referred to was saying. If it can be recognized by a religion, if the religion has a reasonable way of coming to that conclusion.
It’s conceivable that Christians can completely dismiss Leviticus.
It’s also very conceivable to have another religion such as Buddhism or Universalism accepting same-sex marriage in the first place.

And it’s also quite reasonable to apply no religion to marriage. It’s the law.

That one religion gets to make all these determinations is exactly what the USA is NOT about. There is extensive material to back up this view.

“This is not in any way, shape or form a war between religious faiths, and to suggest it is is a red herring.”

I think when you have one of your leaders comparing the supposed intrusion of gay marriage existing in the same state as catholics is similar to North Korea, it certainly sounds like your church is way on the offensive to me.

“But I’ve heard over and over again from the church that marriage is not just about the benefits. Which is it?”
Actually, the article is about the government discriminating against religious institutions that refuse to recognize couples on which it has conferred certain benefits.
—
‘since gays can and do adopt, you really are just discriminating against us. If you think that gay couples can’t benefit society, the government has every right to disagree.’
I suggest that more children are adopted by married couples who had hoped to be able to have their own biological children but for some reason could not than are adopted by same-sex couples, who realistically could never have had such a hope.  That aside, while adoption is certainly a benefit to society, I don’t know that you can say that the privileges and rights conferred on married couples by the government could have been justified when they were first instituted if their only expected benefit was more adoptions.  The more obvious benefits - to encourage people to have enough children to result in at least a stable population and help ensure the viability and security of the families into which most children are born - can only be expected from traditionally-married couples.  Same-sex couples, as a group, simply could not be expected to achieve those same benefits, even when their smaller numbers are taken into account, so the cost of providing them the same privileges and rights granted to opposite-sex couples would have to be justified some other way.  I’ve not seen anyone try to do that.
—
“It’s conceivable that Christians can completely dismiss Leviticus.”
I presume you’re implying that Christians could be “okay” with same-sex “marriage” if they only ignore Leviticus.  Actually, there are New Testament passages that also proscribe homosexuality, as well as admonitions against licentiousness and unchastity which could also apply to homosexual acts.  And the passages in both the Old and New Testaments that affirm marriage don’t allow for it to be anything but the union of a man and a woman.  Most important, however, is the fact that the Catholic Church assembled the Bible to support her teachings.  If you think that the Bible contradicts Catholic teaching, there are only two possibilities:  1) You are wrong; or 2) the Church made a mistake by including the offending book in the Bible in the first place.
—
“And it’s also quite reasonable to apply no religion to marriage. It’s the law.”<i>
Actually, it’s much more reasonable to apply no <i>government to marriage, which was exactly the case for the first hundred-odd years of our country’s existence.

Actually, it’s much more reasonable to apply no government to marriage, which was exactly the case for the first hundred-odd years of our country’s existence.

Along with slavery, which is also condoned in the Bible.