I have a few close friends who identify themselves as homosexual. They know I openly disagree with their lifestyle and are well aware that I will make my beliefs known. Nevertheless, we remain close friends. When engaged with charity, we can dialogue with anyone, no matter how disparate our beliefs. It is certainly not bigotry.

A VERY INTERESTING thing is that gay “marriage” supporters call any opposition to gay “marriage” bigotry but opposition to polygamy non- bigotry without giving a REASON.

Polygamists can use the same arguments made by gay “marriage” supporters to promote polygamy:

“Society should allow people to marry if they are consenting adults (in case that no minor is involved) and want to marry”  “People who oppose polygamy are bigots….they are homophobic and discriminating polygamists.” People have the right to marry”…...etc…
 
Further, they would say:
 
“If the issue of unnaturalness inherent in gay ‘marriage’ is not a problem, why is the issue of the number of partners in polygamy a problem?” 

The legalization of gay ‘marriage’ would bring forth the legalization of polygamy (and other form of ‘marriage,’) and destroy marriage itself, because polygamists would rightly point out UNEQUAL treatment and ARBITRARY application.

I love how Msgr. Swetland compares divorce to homosexuality.  Is divorcee a protected class of citizen?  Are people born divorced?  This is like comparing apples and monkeys and does not pass as a valid argument. 

I’d really like to know what part of the bible he is referring to when he claims it says homosexuality is wrong.  If he is referring to Paul, I’ve seen arguments on both sides of this saying that he is denouncing homosexuality and that he is not, so I don’t think this is definitive.  If he is referring to Leviticus, I’m pretty sure that he is a hypocrite, unless he sacrifices specific live animals based on the severity of the sin as laid out in that some book of the bible.  Leviticus also demands that adulterers be put to death.  If one part of this chapter is out of date, then all of it is. 

Yeonglan, again, people are not born polygamist, but people are born gay.  Polygamists are not a protected class of citizen, homosexuals are.

There is not one homosexual person that does not have the right to Marry.  They just don’t want a member of the opposite sex.  If they wanted to be gay and marry a member of the opposite sex, no one would object.  They do not “Choose” to marry.  They choose to have a sexual relationship that is opposing the natural gift of creation that God has bestowed upon man.  Marriage is a union between two people who have the heart of God in their intentions to unite with another.  The heart of a creator of life.  Yes, some people can not pro-create, but they were designed with a role in procreation which cannot be changed by preferences to members of the opposite sex.  This isn’t bigotry it is following the design for optimum effect, which is procreation and natural complimentarity.  I pray for the homosexual that they may find peace in a life that is chaste and serving of God’s will.

It always amazes me that you compare homosexuality to everything that it is not.  Homosexuality does not at all begin with sex.  It begins not just with ones intrinsic sexuality, but also one’s outlook towards loving companionship.  In that light how cannot it not be anything but condemnatory.  Well, of course, you don’t care to see it in that light….

Wow!  Marcos, I’m sure that you have no idea how wrong you are. 

1. Do you choose to be straight?  All of your life have you woken up each morning and had to decide “should I date a man or a woman today”?  Of course, not.  You were born with your sexual identity.  If straight people are born straight, then gay people are born gay.  You shouldn’t comment on things that you don’t know about.  Search Google and read up on what scientists’ theories are.

2. I’m glad that people didn’t have your attitude in the sixties.  By your logic black people were never barred from marrying.  They just had to marry their own race.  They just had to choose not to fall in love with a white person.  (Don’t anyone tell Marcos that sometimes we fall in love without planning it and really don’t have a choice). 

3. Marriage has NOTHING to do with god.  Marriage is a legally binding contract issued by the State that grants somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,600 rights.  I’ll let you draw your own conclusion on the legal issues involved.

4.  Marcos, just because you throw Allah around doesn’t…what?  You didn’t mean Allah?  (Don’t anyone tell Marcos that the whole U.S. doesn’t believe in his god if they believe in a god at all.)

I hope this has opened some eyes, and I didn’t cast my seeds on stone or in the weeds.  Looking back, I now realize that I was gay in my mind at the age of 8, and I grew up in a very straight household.

One other thing.  I thought that the National Catholic Register was not going to post my comments when I saw that my post had to be reviewed by a moderator.  I was very wrong. 

Thank you for letting the public have an open and honest conversation and for showing both sides of this argument.

The Church, in the most broad sense, is at a real turning point, where it can choose to refuse to accept that our understanding of the world and all that is in it is changing, or it can try and force us into another Dark Age.

I would say that the Catholic teaching on homosexuality isn’t bigoted. It is people who refuse to ask questions about how teaching is applied that can be the bigots. At one time, the Church said that the Sun traveled around the Earth, and even persecuted those who knew this not to be the case. Today, what we are learning about genetics, development, identity, and biology- and more importantly- what we don’t yet know, but Science will discover- suggests that a Biblical notion of “naturalness” may need to be re-examined, just as astronomy forced the Church to re-examine other ideas.

What I think get missed in the debate over homosexuality, is God. That God is bigger and more complex and more incomprehensible than we have ever imagined, and that we stop people from having Faith, because we are too busy trying to battle science. The Church got up to speed with Astronomy, and now it is time that the Church get up to speed with Biology and Genetics, or risk continuing to alienate many people who need Faith.

The Church is destroying itself by failing to recognize that we must always re-examne and come to be aware of a greater truth than we knew before.

Yes- in case you hadn’t noticed Toby- our species *is* constituted in exactly two complementary genders. There is no amount of Federal civil rights litigation that is going to change this. Only one of the genders is capable of bearing children. No amount of Federal civil rights legislation is going to change that either. It requires exactly one woman (mother) and exactly one man (father) to produce a human child. No amount of Federal civil rights legislation is going to change that either. Society has recognized its interest in preferentially fostering the union of exactly one man and exactly one woman (it is called “marriage”), since it is from within these unions that children commonly result, and *it is within these unions (they are called “marriages”) they are best nurtured*. The radically evil judicial tyrant Vaughan Walker (may he be impeached for the sanity and liberty of us all) cynically argues that it is a “fact” that children have no right or need to their own mother and father. He is insane. There is no chance we will allow his insanity to be upheld. And yes, Toby- there is no Federal civil rights court decision that is going to change that. The SCOTUS will slap this insane gay rights activist masquerading as an impartial judge down, and *hard*. Otherwise We the People will have no choice but to secure our liberties against insane judicial tyrants by other means, including, among other remedies, a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

Thomas Waters: God appears so vast that He is capable of being enlisted in the support of anything at all that might appeal to Thomas Waters. How convenient.

I don’t understand where your “logic” is going, Rik.  What does gender have to do with anything.  I think that someone changes their gender each day in the U.S.  Perhaps, Rik, you hadn’t noticed that homosexuality has been documented in thousands of animal species.  Doesn’t that make it natural?  Perhaps you hadn’t noticed that science is theorizing (and the American Psychiatric Association agrees) that people are born with their sexual orientation.  Doesn’t that mean that god creates gay people?  What’s with all this children talk?  If a man and a woman can’t or won’t have children are they denied marriage?  This year the rate of children born to unwed mothers went to 40% according to The Heritage Foundation, so I don’t think that marriage is a requirement.  It is in the benefit of society to allow homosexuals to marry and enter into stable, loving, lasting relationships.  Thank you for weighing in, Rik, but I don’t think that you make any really compelling arguments.  Learn before you comment.

Rick,
It just isn’t true to say “our species *is* constituted in exactly two complementary genders.” Babies are born everyday who are gender ambiguous and surgery is performed, often directly at birth or shortly after to assign a sex/ gender to the baby. Additionally, babies are born who have hormone and other biological markers that are not consistent with the perceived gender based on some anatomy parts. THIS, the the first and biggest fiction. That our species is made up of exactly two distinct genders.

You are wholly true to say that on;y one sex (more accurate term to use than gender) can physically give birth. But there is no evidence that shows that children raised by same-sex parents are not exactly the same as children raised by opposite sex parents.  The second fiction is that children can only be adequately raised by their birth mother and birth father. Even the Catholic Church has recognized that non-biolgical parents can make great parents, since there are Catholic-associated adoption agencies. So if non-biological parents can raise acceptable children, and there is no difference scientifically in children raised by same-sex or opposite sex parents, then parenting can not alone, serve as a basis for marriage.

BUT, the issue of marriage and the issue of homosexuality, are two separate and not connected issues. The article was addressing the Church’s teachings on homosexuality.

I believe the Church has every right to believe that marriage must be between a man and a woman, and that each Church (or denomination) should have the right to decide to either perform or not perform same-sex marriages. In other words, no Church should ever be forced to hold a same-sex marriage. But, the marriage license, is a government issued, non-religious, non-denominational document, and the State has no interest in keeping same-sex couples from forming life-long commitments to one another.

The Catholic Church doesn’t “own” the word or concept of “Marriage.” In fact the contract of marriage dates back to pre-Christian pagan times and rituals. Gay and Lesbian couples seek the right to a marriage license which is a government issued document. This is a matter that the Church should have no say in.

“What does gender have to do with anything”. Remarkable question, Toby. I thank you for providing us with a simply, one sentence education on why the arguments for pseudo-marriage are all predicated, in the end, on a form of self-imposed mental illness. May God help that nation which tolerates judicial activists who, like Toby, ask “what does gender have to do with anything”.

Tobey, you are free to hold any faith or opinion. Here we are dealing with the Church’s views on homosexual acts. Catholic Church holds that marriage is only between a man and a woman and is a sacred sacrament. You are free to be a non catholic and hold that it is only a contract. Also the Church holds that homosexuality is not sinful, but homosexual act is sinful.  Those who do not agree or believe in the Catholic Church teaching are free to leave the Church The Church does not force anyone to follow its teachings. Those who accepts Jesus learn more about him, about God and about the Church He founded

Tobey, you’re on an Orthodox Catholic website.  You are the one out of step with the main line beliefs of the people who follow this blog.  How about doing the honorable thing and exercising a little more virtue and not make comments to imply that someone else who opposes your views should “Learn before (they) comment”.  How rude.  What’s more, how can you possibly expect anyone to thoughtfully consider your comments when you come in here with such an enormous chip on your shoulder?  Are you looking for a fight?

It’s amazing how about two percent of the population (estimated number of homosexuals)can so dominate the national agenda to the point where presumably educated judges come under their sway.  Who actually is intolerant?  Civilized people have had heterosexual marriage for thousands of years.  In Ancient Pagan Rome,prospective married couples had to sign a document promising to try to have children. Was it intolerant to exclude those who could not sign the document?

Today, homosexuals, abetted by misguided judges and politicians, attack this institution.  The defenders are called intolerant.  It’s the game of “Give me demand I want, or I’ll call you bad names.”  Some courts and politicians, and the frightened media, accept this demand because it is framed as a right.

Tobey, maybe you should take your own advice and learn before you post. The APA most certainly does NOT agree that people are born with their sexual orientation. There may individuals within the APA who espouse that view but it is not agreed upon. In fact, there are a great many studies that show that practicing homosexuals are more likely to suffer from depression, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, STD’s, physical abuse at the hands of their partners, as well as lower overall life expectancy.And even if homosexuality has been documented in animals, so what? Does that mean that because some animals kill and eat their young that humans should do the same, or condone the behavior as natural if it were to occur? Of course not. Your arguments are just as unconvincing.

@ Rick.  Do you remember when water was discovered on Mars?  I truly appreciated Kristor Stendahl’s(sp??) response- that it simply proved that God was bigger than anyone had imagined. This while other theologians were decrying the find as if it meant the end of Faith. Once we think we have all the answers about God, we have missed God entirely. Perhaps you are suggesting that Church teachings are more important than God?

@ Raymond. The figure of 2% is not very accurate. It is believed to be somewhere between 2 and 10%, however, if we are to believe research such as from Kinsey, nearly 50% of the population has had some homosexual experience. I personally have no idea where the number is between these parameters. But this raises another interesting question. If homosexuals make up only 2%, why care? If homosexuals will go to hell, does it matter what happens in this life? Who is hurt by allowing them to to visit each other in the hospital, share inheritance, and the over 1100 benefits that heterosexuals enjoy? Society will go n just fine as the 98% majority.

You ask: was it intolerant to deny marriage to roman couples who could not have children?  I would say, yes. But I don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with double standards. If Marriage (in the Catholic sense of the term) is all about procreation, then marriage today, should also be denied to anyone who can not have children. Marriage should also be denied to anyone who has had a divorce. Gay Rights activists look at these inconsistencies, and from that deduce who is acting like a bigot. If you remove the inconsistencies and contradictions, it changes the picture entirely.

I find it amazing that no one here has actually commented on the one statistic that my formarly lesbian, now celebate, sister also concluded about the gay community. She could not find one person that was not sexually abused as a child. It is not a politically correct statement, but I have known many homosexual individuals and have yet to be disappointed from this position. Your not born this way, it is a way of hiding abuse.

quick comment:

I believe it was Tobey who made the comment that marriage has nothing to do with God, that it is a legal contract of the state.  With respect sir, you are incorrect.  Marriage is a sacrament given to humanity by our Creator.  The contractual aspect applied to it by the state simply is a means for the state to recognize this union for the purposes of familial obligations such as estate litigation and the responsibility of parents for their children’s upbringing within an organized society.

You also stated “By your logic black people were never barred from marrying.  They just had to marry their own race.  They just had to choose not to fall in love with a white person.”  Nowhere in either the Roman Catholic tradition, nor in the Protestant faith has anything kept people of one ethnicity from marrying another.  While it is true that it is less likely, I would attribute this to personal preferences of the individual over any sort of logic you offer.  I might also observe that while a black person cannot decide to become white or another ethnicity, those who have chosen a homosexual lifestyle CAN choose to either be celibate or through help from organizations such as Exodus.org or through counseling to turn away from their homosexual lifestyle.

Conclusion:  It amazes me when people are given clear evidence that something is wrong, and yet rather than following what is right, they find ways to excuse their actions because it is what they WANT to do, rather than what they SHOULD do.

Also, though I am a Protestant (Born Again Christian), I am finding more than a few things that I am in agreement with my friends in the Roman Catholic faith.

@scottr that isn’t a statistic, it is anecdotal information, that’s all. I know many many lesbians and gay men who were not abused. Oh, wait, isn’t the Catholic Church, the largest producer of child abusers?

@Ron. If Marriage was handed down by the Creator, do you wish to explain how monogamous marriage was begun in a pagan culture, which is where it did begin? Marriage in the Biblical sense, allowed men to have multiple wives, however, I’m sure you are not advocating for polygamy.

Any idiot knows that revealed scriptures contradicts itself all the time.  This cherry picking of scripture in order to support bigotry is the cornerstone of most relgions.

We can use our human reasoning to this argument. Look at a female and look at a male. The parts fit. The woman’s bodies when aroused prepares itself for what? A man’s body when aroused prepares to do what? The truth is plainly evident through natural law. It doesn’t matter if a woman arouses another women. Her body is preparing for the acceptance of something and the man’s body is preparing for the giving of something.

Tom Waters, you hit on something for me, the problem is perception vs. reality.  You made a comment about inconsistencies and contradictions.  And this really highlights for me what is a major problem in dialoging about this subject.  The constant misrepresentations and misperceptions so many people have about what marriage means to some of us makes it impossible for others to understand why we believe what we believe.  I agree with you that people should have the right to close associations that confer legal and financial rights to each other.  The problem for me occurs when something which is an act (a behavior) is used to classify people and then special protections are given to that group for the protection of their acts/ behaviors, and then it’s declared a “civil right”.  I see no reason on earth even in a completely secular society (all religion set aside) why anyone can demand that I condone (a behavior) something some else wants to do that is none of my business in the first place and should be kept in the privacy of their own home.  Don’t teach my kids this; don’t put it in our faces.  If you believe what you are doing is okay and you want to behave like that and do those things, go ahead.  But just as I don’t put my bedroom behavior out there for your condonement or to indoctrinate your kids, for the love of freedom and supremacy of conscience, don’t try to force me to condone your behavior and indoctrinate my kids.  And if 2 to 10 percent of the population along with all the politicians and judges can’t find a way to get all of the legal rights of marriage without using it as an avenue to force thought control and behavior condonement on the rest of the population, then maybe they shouldn’t be given those rights.

@Mark,
I wish it were really that simple, but as I stated earlier, there are many many babies born every day, who do not have either male or female genitals, and the doctor makes a decision as to what sex he thinks the baby should be and does surgery on the baby. There are also individuals like the athlete Caster Samena(sp??) who would appear to be female by her genitals (as you describe) but who has many masculine traits and is actually has a male chromozone configuration. In other words, the genetic factors that make up sex identity do not always match the anatomy.  The truth is not “plainly evident through natural law.” To say that would be to suggest that there are no eskimos because I don’t see any in my neighborhood.

This is why the word “bigot” gets attached to some people (like some of the posters here. Rather than deal with the facts and reality, they use their own limited viewpoint and ignore reality. Maybe that term does not apply. Maybe it does.

I would respectfully submit that the very notion of a “homesexual” is a cultural construct.  There are people—including many “heterosexuals—who have be taught or taught themselves to enjoy depraved activities.  Human sexuality is very plastic, especially in and before puberty.  When something feels good, the resulting dopamine infusion reinforces the urge to do it again.  That doesn’t make the act acceptable.  Our modern western culture, where pornography can be found in plain view on every grocery store’s shelves, encourages depravity.  As Robert Bork said, we are defining degeneracy down.  I pray this will not continue much longer.  One can only imagine where we will find ourselves. 

Don Roberto
San Leandro, CA

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a “lifestyle”, that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice.  Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
“It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”

You can throw the word bigot around fairly easily. Using examples of babies who have a birth defect to bolster your argument for homosexual sex is not logical. What is the norm? The norm is full functioning males and females. Your argument is a non sequitur. This is the case of most people who try to use faulty logic with issues related to natural law. You can’t argue with truth so you try to change the subject. It won’t work.

@Jennifer,
Thanks for your long comment!  I think you are very correct when you identify the difference between perception and reality as a problem. I think this applies to part of your comment. Being gay, or as it has been used here, a homosexual is not about an act. It is about a sexual orientation. People are either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. So much of the confusion comes from the notion that people choose to be homosexual. They don’t.

If you look historically, when the good Christians of this country (including Catholics?) held slaves and blacks were understood to be less than human. but over time, we became more enlightened as a people, and see all of that differently. Most people are coming around to know that no one chooses to be gay, and that gays and lesbians deserve to be treated to the same rights as everyone else. Is marriage a right? That is a good question, but the supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases in ways that say, yes it is, such as Loving vs VA.

I don’t understand why you believe that you must condone homosexuality to allow gays and lesbians equal rights. If you don’t being homosexuality is acceptable, then don’t participate in it. It is that simple.

@Mark,
It isn’t a birth defect, any more than slanted eyes or skin color or other things are birth defects. These are real biological differences.  I think the “natural law” argument was the same one used to prove that the sun rotates around the earth?

It’s about CHASTITY, folks.

    The Catholic Church calls every believer to a chaste life, even married couples to “conjugal chastity.” The offenses against chastity, listed in the Catechism 2351-2357, are lust, masturbation, fornication, pornography, prostitution, rape and homosexual activity.  Everyone must avoid all of these, not only people with same-sex attraction.  The result is order and peace. 

    This teaching may seem harsh in our relativistic culture.  But Jesus Christ died for our sins and established the church through His act of supreme generosity.  In St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians 5:25, we are told, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.”  A marriage must be based on self-giving, in the same way Christ gave himself up for us.  Self-sacrifice involves openness to life and raising children, which is impossible in a natural way in a homosexual union. 

  Also in the Catechism 2358, we learn that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”  Is blocking gay marriage “unjust discrimination?”  No.  Denying them a sacrament of the church which is reserved for a man and a woman is not an absence of love, and certainly not hate.  That is just the way things have gotten twisted.

Tobey, it doesn’t matter if people undergo sex-change operations. You still have the chromosome pair of XX or XY.  Even if you have any additional chromosome, many of the disorders resultin from the additional chromosomeonly result in altered outward appearence (for example, males who undergo breast growth such as observed in females).  It is possible to have traits associated with the opposite gender or to have abnormal gentialia (tissue from both sets of genitalia), but to have otherwise normal sexual function.

There is a basic norm of human physiology. To be without genitals is a birth defect. You can keep writing that it isn’t all that you want. You can use it as an argument for the norm. Males prepare to give sperm when they are aroused. Women prepare to receive sperm when they are. It is the norm. To argue otherwise, is disingenuous.

Jennifer, you are correct, this is some catholic bloggy thing, however, it was polluting my Google News.  If you don’t want the public at large responding to these rants, don’t put it out there for the world to see. 
K.C. what you said was so beautiful, well said, and completely missing the point.  This article is written in the vein of being a response to gay marriage rulings and law in the United States.  Therefore, what the Catholic Church thinks is paramount to me when it leveraged to shape the laws of this wonderful country.
Willy, I wish you would cite a study or something concrete.  What I’m saying about the APA is something that they have posted on their website? http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Jennifer have you ever read anything about anything that was in the bible?  I’m pretty sure that people are gay, straight or bisexual before they engage in any kind of sexual activity.  When one speaks of homosexuality, we are not talking about sexual acts.  We are talking about who someone is at their very core.  If you did not have sex until you were married, as I think the church teaches, how did you know who you are attracted to?  Please think about this a bit.
Matt, yes it does matter if one changes his or her gender.  If a man and a woman who used to be a man want to get married they can.  The county clerk checks gender not chromosomes.  Also to the ambiguous gender argument (that I haven’t been able to follow the logic) now becomes very important, as a doctor could decided to make a baby born with both sexes a female regardless of the chromosomes.
No, I’m not trying to start a fight.  I’m trying to educate people wearing blinders.  As someone mentioned earlier, I’m trying to convince people that the world is not flat and that the sun does not revolve around the earth.

@Mark,
It may (or may not) be true that “To be without genitals is a birth defect.” but that doesn’t address the issue of being born with both, or with sexual organs that it isn’t clear if they are male or female. The point is, that gender doesn’t fit into 2 discreetly exclusive and easily determined categories, as it needs to for a “natural law” theory to work.

I don’t argue at all that human conception requires sperm from a male and an egg from a female. I don’t believe anyone anywhere in this discussion has said otherwise. That’s just biology. But the notion that because biology works that way, means that marriage can not be between two men or two women, is pretty crazy.

@All who are Missing…
This was a wonderful post. Thx for adding it to the discussion. For me, I think Catholics have every right to hold as tightly as they want to these teachings. I say more power to you! Here is where the problem comes in for me. When you say, the sacrament of marriage- are you talking about a ceremony and ritual, often within the church surrounding the covenant between two human beings where they become one?  I think the Church has every right to limit that to heterosexuals if they wish. Gays and Lesbians are talking about a marriage license, which is a government issued document that isn’t connected to the Church at all.  THIS is what Gays and Lesbians are talking about, the legal document of a marriage license. I think if the Catholic Church wants to deny a same-sex couple any sacrament, they have every right, but the Church does not have the right to stop same-sex couples from the legal arrangement that begins with a marriage license.

“If a man and a woman can’t or won’t have children are they denied marriage?” Marriage - what is it? It is an age old sociological institution. It is the foundation of society.

God told Adam and Eve - be fruitful and multiply and the man shall cleave to the woman and the two shall become one flesh.

Marriage has existed from the beginning. There are two pillars of moral truth with marriage - unity and procreation. Homosexuality cannot fulfill the second pillar. It is impossible. This is natural law. It even goes across cultures and religions. It is an age old function of society in order to propagate the species. Children being brought into the world with male and female parents. Children being brought into the world from an act of love to two people who love each other. It is the norm. The church has a job to do. To teach people the truth. This is the truth. You can slice and dice it all you want to fit your own purposes. It will not change the truth.

Tobey, we are not wearing blinders and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  (I can’t believe I said that.) 

There is a great deal of sense to the teachings of the Catholic church.  Our culture is in crisis because no one follows these teachings, be they heterosexual, homosexual, young, old, black, white, having certain sexual organs, not having them, whatever else has been mentioned on this blog.

Divorce is up, suicide is up, we kill our unborn children, whatever we feel like, we do it.  And I am referring to lust, fornication, pornography, etc., along with homosexual activity, all of the offenses against chastity that our church asks us to avoid. 

Our church calls us to master our impulses.  Everything is not about sex.  And those who say human beings are no better than animals and cannot be taught to master their sexual impulses are underrating human beings.  We are beautiful, we are children of God, and with His help, we can do anything. My 23 year old son is in a chaste relationship, and he has as much sex drive as anyone else.  He prays all the time that they will not give in to temptation, and will save it for marriage.  This is honorable and noble.

Marriage was made for the procreation of children.  God did not create Adam and Bruce, and when he said Be Fruitful and Multiply, he was not referring to in vitro fertilization (and that only works for women, men are out of luck. And besides, that is an offense against conjugal chastity, even if you were in a “marriage.”)

Think about it.

Mark, would you please define “natural law”?  If “natural law” = god, you are wrong based on evidence.  If “natural law” = what we see in nature, you are also wrong based on evidence.  There are thousands of animal species in which homosexuality has been documented.  This is natural law.  Either god created the gay animals or Darwin created the gay animals.  Either way, there are gay animals.  This is natural! 
Do you think that the world is dangerously under populated?  Aren’t there a lot of Chinese people?  Did god tell them to marry and multiply?  I’m pretty sure that most of them are Buddhists, so probably not. 
Follow this for a moment.  God creates mankind as Adam and Eve.  God makes 3% - 10% (those are the numbers I’ve heard both high and low) of people gay.  2 people on earth times 3% equals .06.  So .06 people are gay (let’s say just Adams pinky j/k).  Adam and Eve have Cain, Able and Seth, then Cain, Able and Seth have babies with Eve and their babies have babies until we have billions of people on the earth.  That .06 of a gay person was insignificant when there are only 2 people, but now we have an over populated planet with not enough resources for everyone, so the number of gay people is much higher and actually has an effect on the population.  I think this is a valve that god installed in our makeup in order to help control the number of humans on the planet.
God also said something to the effect of, “Thou shalt bring forth thy children in pain and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee.”  I don’t see that bantered about very often.

I write about the Biblical worldview a good deal (as a Biblical Anthropologist) and in this discussion homosex is discussed as something that the ancient Afro-Asiatics regarded as a willful rebellion against the divine order of creation with its binary distinctions of male and female. I’ve never been accused of hate speech. There’s more to this than meets the eye.

Church teachings on homosexuality haven’t been updated for quite a while.  The church will teach what it will on that, for now, on marriage and on human sexuality, in general. Lock the doors and close the windows?  We can do better. We recall that the young and future Pope John XXIII was black-balled for being interested in listening to a modern invention called the radio (the wireless). Infertile women were once divorced and abandoned by their husbands. Mentally challenged & handicapped persons were hidden in shame behind screens during mass. Black persons had to stand, out of sight, in the back of the church during mass. We don’t do those things anymore. All are part of the wounded Body of Christ. The sense of many faithful may be changing on the homosexuality issue, too.

A few point to remember here: The Catholic Church is the only legitimate interpreter of scripture; Marriage is defined by God alone not the State. The state can issue the marriage certificate but does not have the legitimate authority to define what marriage is. When it does, it oversteps its authority.

As a person who (though not atheist) has never belonged to any religion or believed any text to be “the Word of God”,and is completely opposed to the treatment of same-sex sexual relationships as if they were unobjectionable,I’d like to put in my opinion.

Marriage (civil marriage,the only kind I could enter into in good conscience) exists to further the compelling state interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships by granting them preferential treatment that their being opposite-sex entitles them to.There is absolutely no comparable state interest in there being same-sex relationships.Whether or not a particular opposite-sex relationship has an intent or capacity to produce children is a private detail,the public interest is a matter of who goes into the bedroom,not what they do inside.To permit same-sex relationships the protection a relationship can only deserve by being opposite-sex is to completely destroy its usefulness,turning it from part of the solution to the blight of homosexuality through the pressure it exerts against people idefensibly gratifying same-sex attraction into part of the problem,treating such relationships as if being same-sex did not make them wrong.

Neither homosexual orientation nor anything else can ever excuse homosexual activity.That it is legal does not make it right.Any comparison to race-based requirements is offensive…marriage exists to unite males to females,and racial barriers get in the way…the sex of the parties means everything and their skin color means nothing.Interracial marriage breaks down barriers while same-sex marriage creates them.

Laws against drunkenness are not discrimination against alcoholics,laws against stealing are not bigotry against kleptomaniacs.If there is a public interest in discouraging a behavior,desire to engage in that behavior can not enroll someone in a “protected class” against whom one may not enforce a standard of conduct uniformly disadvantaging that behavior for all.My driver’s license requires me to wear lenses that correct my objectively inferior vision to the only kind anyone ought to have…this is not a violation of my “equal right” to “see differently” but a proper acknowledgement of something being wrong with me.

Homosexual orientation is a flaw,like my nearsightedness or hearing loss.We all have flaws,and calling them what they are and acknowledging what they make us unfit for does not make us “second class citizens”.Rather we grow by renouncing the arrogance of claiming our flaws are not flaws.

“The Catholic Church is the only legitimate interpreter of scripture.”

And the Catholic Church recognizes that the Scriptures do not agree on every detail. The Vulgate and the Septuagint don’t always agree. If the Septuagint is correct, Abraham had 2 concubines as well as 2 wives and by these women he had a total of 9 sons. The Vulgate leaves out the second concubine and her son, Eliezar. Mostly Catholic scholars avoid interpreting this discrepancy.

Beside, no interpretation that grants legitimacy to homosex can be consistent with the biblical worldview.

Laws, in order to be just, must advance the common good. Our friend from the pseudo-marriage brigades insists that gender has nothing to do with marriage. Can one imagine what would happen to the common good, were our marriage laws to be surrendered to the ministrations of persons who insist that gender has “nothing to do” with marriage? Our friend likes to talk about what is uncommon, and unfortunate. Genetic defects, moral shortcomings, terrible intellectual shortcomings which are so grave as to render one incapable of understanding the simple and ineradicable truth that our species is constituted in two genders, that the genders are complementary, and that each and every child on the face of this Earth is the result of the union of exactly one man and exactly one woman…....the very first victim of pseudo-marriage is the child, who has its interest in being raised by its *very own mother and father* written out of the pseudo-marriage laws, since, you see, gender has ““nothing to do with it”. Fathers are not necessarily male, mothers not necessarily female, and children have no interest whatever in being raised by their own mother and father (without exception, that child’s mother is female, that child’s father is male, but pseudo-marriage will render that truth discriminatory). We are very close to the end of the line as a civilization. When a civilization no longer understands the meaning of gender, and it is willing to sacrifice its own future (its children) to the sexually disoriented and their morally and intellectually disoriented peanut gallery….it is time to prepare for a discontinuity. Either that, or stand up and fight. Pseudo-marriage is not merely wrong. It is insane.

Thomas Waters, you say “. That God is bigger and more complex and more incomprehensible than we have ever imagined.” that is precisely why we need the Church, in her wisdom, to teach us how we are to live. The Church instituted by Christ, guided by scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium, leads us to Truth. Christ says “pick up your cross and follow me.” He doesn’t need our advice.

I love how people when faced with the truth try changing the subject. Throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. Natural law = the truth that homosexual sex is an objectively disordered action deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and social dysfunction. Natural law = the order which governs the activities of the material universe. Natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by our Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us. Look at a woman and look at a man. Look at the biology of it all. Males when aroused are preparing to ejaculate sperm. What is the purpose of sperm? Women when aroused are preparing to accept the sperm from the male. It doesn’t matter if the person causing the arousal is the same sex or the opposite. Look at the body and use your human reasoning skills instead of your emotional justifications. Justifications to allow something that goes against nature. Man was not made to accept into their body another man but a female is made to do so. The truth is in the body. It is the truth. I don’t need the bible to show it.

Tobey writes: “Either god created the gay animals or Darwin created the gay animals.” In a sense, this is the strongest argument against the “born gay” argument. Evolutionarily speaking, this trait would obviously not be conducive to reproduction and so should have been bred out of humanity long ago if biology were at the heart of it. The only thing that could account for the resilience of the trait in the human species in Darwinian terms is ongoing bisexual behavior. Shadow_man has suggested “Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual”, which brings us back to choice. However, there is also the possibility that the opposite is at work - that there is a percentage of the species that are not wired for one or the other and are, rather, indiscriminate about the gender of their partner. The behavioral driver for these individuals goes no deeper than their own sexual gratification.

Here, then, is where I think we’ve missed the boat - in the confusion between “love” and “desire”; the first can abide in chastity, because it is based in a giving of the self, a sacrifice, whereas the latter finds tremendous tension in it, because it is at heart a contradiction in terms - the seeking of one’s own ends vs. restraint in doing so. Granted, both forces are at work in the sexual arena, but the Church would emphasize the primacy of giving of oneself in the union, with it’s end being - by design - new life. That is (among other things) at the heart of the rejection of the homosexual union as being part of sacramental marriage. Indeed, the Holy Father has cautioned even heterosexual couples against violating the sacrament by viewing each other primarily as sexual servants. Similarly, what is a loving homosexual relationship without the ongoing satisfaction of sexual appetites but simply a close friendship, one that also approaches the sacramental ideal of marriage, save for the utter impossibility - by design - for new life.

All that said, there is no reason that society can’t extend to any agreed-upon person similar rights that are currently enjoyed by married couples. That is, in fact, simply a contractual construct. If this is what homosexuals are really anxious about, then they should simply work toward that. The issue, as Jennifer pointed out, becomes when those so disposed insist on having the larger society embrace their predisposition (however arrived at) as “normal” and propagating it as such, when it is clearly a statistical and biological/psychological anomaly. Just because unique conditions occur in nature doesn’t give them the legitimacy to re-define natural law. This does not demean the individual with such a condition, any more than being being born blind or without a limb devalues an individual. We don’t call these conditions normal; but we try to extend to the individual the compassion and respect due them by virtue of their humanity. We don’t, however, encourage our children to blind or maim themselves under the delusion that it’s how we’re designed to be.

Thomas Waters, also note that they are now finding frogs born with six legs, or two heads, etc. Is that how god planned it? No, its the effects of something humans are doing or using here on earth. Homosexuality is an addiction, that is what I teach and will continue.

Rick, on what do you base your conclusion that we are at the end of civilization?  Look at what has happened to Canada who allows gay marriage throughout the country.  Canada has become a police state where people….what?  That hasn’t happened?  Okay, in very catholic Spain since same-sex marriage was passed, people have stopped working and are just running around molesting…what?  That didn’t happen either?  10 countries, 5 U.S. States and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage.  I will keep on looking, but I don’t see these jurisdictions falling apart and ending the world.  Gay people are living together, and I don’t see how giving us a piece of paper is going to end the world.
Mark, when you say, “ homosexual sex is an objectively disordered action deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and social dysfunction”, it would really be nice if you would cite your source.  The American Psychological Association seems to disagree with you.  http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx 
Joseph, let’s talk about genetics.  Obviously, you know more than I do, since you seem to believe in a gay gene that even scientists agree does not exist.  If this were true, then when the gays got together and impregnated their lesbian friends and divided the babies amongst themselves, those babies would grow up gay.  Do they?  No!  Babies born to the gays are no more or less likely to grow up gay.  This is not conjecture or faith, but is based in studies and fact:  http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx  The most accepted theory is that hormones in the womb and how the fetus reacts to them determines the sexual identity of children. ‘Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). “Sexual orientation and adolescents”. Pediatrics 113.’  This totally supports Darwinian theory in that if a percentage of the population is gay, then as that population increases and threatens to get too large, the number of gay animals increases as the percentage stays the same, and the population doesn’t grow as fast as it would otherwise.
Joseph, you are correct that gays should be working on getting the legal rights that they are wanting.  This is a contract issued by the U.S. Government, and it is called marriage.  When we talk about same-sex marriage, we are talking about U.S. law, not churchianity.

@Michael Stallman, I totally agree that we need the Church, or I would say Church in the broader sense, because I think many come to faith from denominations other than the Roman Catholic Church, but if someone feels that the RC is the only church, I wouldn’t really argue with them- not something I care to argue about. I think it is totally true that we see a breakdown in our society, but I would totally disagree it is about homosexuality. I believe it you read all of my posts here, I believe that Faith is critical, and I believe the Church has to not hold so tight to it’s own ideas, and be willing to see more about the fullness of creation. I don’t expect that idea to get much acceptance here, but I just want to state that I am not in any way anti-church, in the general sense.

What we are seeing now around biology, is exactly what was experienced centuries ago surrounding astronomy. The Church had its teachings that it held as untouchable, but at some point had to come to terms with the fact that Science revealed parts of God’s creation that humans hadn’t understood before Science made it visible to them. Then, the Church fought this for some time. Indeed Galileo wasn’t really let off the hook until quite recently, for being correct, even if his ideas were counter to Church teachings. I believe that down the road others will look back and wonder how the Church could have been so close minded to not have understood how what we are learning in biology, only shows the greatness of God’s creation even further. But this won’t be determined here, in a single thread. It will be a long and ongoing dialogue, and perhaps, people today will be like Galileo, who went centuries before the Church acknowledged it had been wrong.

It is bogus to think that science will justify your positions on homosexual sex. In fact, science proves the position of the church. Man was created by God to have sex with a female. Look at the biology of it all. The truth is staring at you in the face and you refuse to see it. Instead, people will look to find some protestant denomination or some Catholic priest who is teaching heresy and join those churches. This way you can feel good about following a lie.

As we have previously noted, Thomas Waters likes to assure us that God is so vast that He can be enlisted in service of whatever thing it is that Thomas Waters happens to find appealing at any given moment. The undeniably handy-dandy adaptability is particularly helpful, it appears, when what appeals to Thomas is the misrepresenting scientific truths and the Roman Catholic Church’s dogmas. First: Let us assume Galileo was right. How would this logically imply anything whatever about homosexuality? It wouldn’t, of course. Second: Galileo was wrong. Every argument he advanced as an alleghed “proof” heliocentricity has been subsequently scientifically *disproven*. If this shocks you, it is because you have failed to understand what the “Relativity” in our modern Theory of Relativity imposes upon our astrophysics. There are no absolute reference frames (so says Einstein), and therefore it is impossible *even in principle*, according to the Relativists, to establish by scientific experiment whether one or the other of the following assertions is true, and the other false: 1. The Sun goes round the Earth, 2. The Earth goes round the Sun. Now Thomas Waters is one of those fellows who is likely to find it very hard to accept that his indoctrination into this question is utterly false, so let us leave the last word to Albert Einstein himself, who I am told knows a thing or two about these alleged scientific advances to which Thomas alludes: “The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves’, or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest’, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”—-“The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

Toby: It requires spiritual discernment to understand that our civilization hangs by a thread. But even the sensual man can take note of the rapidly increasing frequency and amplitude of financial crises, the movement toward pagan police-state imposition of hate speech laws against Christians in, notably, Canada and the UK, and the widespread acceptance of homosexuality (always a marker of imminent civilizational collapse, as in both Greece and Rome). Of course, only the spiritual man can understand from Sacred Scripture and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’s teaching the degree to which homosexual activity offends God our Lord and Creator and Supreme Judge. The sensual man is left to grasp this by reason alone, and often his reason is darkened- so darkened that, for example, he will be unable to grasp the significance of our species having been constituted in two complementary genders. We certainly ought not expect much in the way of insight from such a darkened intellect.

This is my last post to this discussion. I have appreciated everyone who has been willing to be in dialogue, but it is starting to devolve into a faille to really respond to what has been said.

@Mark, we know from Science, that there are real biological differences between homosexual and heterosexuals. Some of these differences are brain morphology. Some are differences that are only now becoming clear. As we learn more about biology, we will have far greater understanding of these, but they exist and that really isn’t up for debate. You can choose to ignore the facts if you want.

@Rick. Sorry I wasn’t clear, or you have no desire to actually follow what I wrote. Gallileo and his ideas have no direct bearing on the subject at hand, ie homosexuality. He is important here, because dealing with him, was the last time the Church faced a major dilemma where doctrine (the earth is the center of the universe) was in conflict with what a growing Science sowed us to be true. The same will hold true for the issue of homosexuality. In time, as we study more and delve deeper into the details of biology, we will find that sexual orientation is as much a part of being human as eye color, left handedness, or any other innate difference.

Again, thanks for the dialogue, but it has stopped being a real exchange and dialogue.

In other words, Thomas has encountered someone who actually has access to what Einstein *wrote*, as opposed to what Thomas *believes*. Bad luck there, pardner :-)

The fact that there is so much commentary is very telling, and very troubling. As with all the threads dealing with homosexuality on this blog, you are witness to how falsehood decks itself out with the trappings of reason…and sounds oh so reasonable. And yet there are plenty of comments here that reflect truth and holiness. Sort of like getting tempted in the desert by that oh so reasonable fellow.

Stand firm, fellow Catholics. Vaya con Dios.

I guess dialogue means the dissenters feel like they are gaining traction, and a real exchange of ideas means that nobody knows logic *or* physics, much less theology….sorry Thomas, and Toby. There are Catholics about :-) A Catholic, btw, is someone who understands that God does not need Thomas or Toby or Galileo to help straighten Him out about homosexuality or heliocentrism. Cheers!

Curious to know how homosexual marriage threatens the common good?  Priests raping children threatens the common good - that’s fairly easy to see.  But homosexual marriage?  I don’t get it.  If you’re supposed to practice celibacy until marriage, then shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry so they don’t violate the no sex before marriage rule?

Homosexuality is not the same as eye color or skin color or any other human feature of the body. Homosexual sex is an action. To say this issue is similar to the civil rights movement of the 60’s is not accurate, but that is what people are trying to make it be. Society has a right to determine if certain actions are in the best interest of the common good. They can condone, promote or ban such actions as it relates to the common good. Homosexual sex has been banned in the past but it is impossible to follow through on this ban. Now, it is mostly condoned. By giving out civil license and allow the benefits that go with it, society would be promoting it as a good. This would be a mistake. Studies show that it is not a good. In fact, it is the opposite. Homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones. They tend to be ‘open’ relationships with little stability. It is not ideal for a child to be brought up in a home with two mothers or two fathers. Every child deserves to have both a mother and a father. It is for the common good that every child be brought up in a home with their biological parents. You only have to read the stories coming out of children who were conceived in a test tube. They spend their lives trying to find their other biological parent. They want to know who they are. It is not in the common good of society for it to promote homosexual partnerships as something to be attained. Yet, it is happening when that relationship is elevated to the equal of a marriage and given all the benefits. Marriage of a male and a female is the bedrock of society. It is the building block of our culture. Without marriage between a male and a female who are committed and love each other, our society ceases to exist.

This will probably be my last posting as well.  I have spent way too much time casting my seeds on rock.  I can’t get Mark to understand that we are talking about who someone is and not the act of sex.  Also, both Mark and Rick (who can’t even spell my name properly) never cite any sources, but continue an off topic rant based on feelings and supposed science of which I have never seen a source to verify.  Thank you all for the lively debate.

I think a study of the history of marriage is in order.

Tobey, with all due respect, your argument that homosexuality is “natural” because it occurs in nature displays a serious confusion about what natural law theorists mean by the term “natural.” According to natural law theory, something isn’t natural simply because it occurs in nature. People can be born with clubfoot, but it doesn’t follow that it is “natural” for people to have clubfeet. The sense of “natural” at issue is determined by the nature of the species, and what is normal for a certain species isn’t changed by the fact that certain individual members of that species might deviate from it. You might balk at the notion of biological “normalcy”, but there is nothing in biology that falsifies this notion. It is biologically normal for humans to have 32 teeth, and this would be true even if the majority of actual humans do not have 32 teeth. Again, you can argue against this “normative” conception of the natural, but you really need to retire the “homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature” argument. It rests on a confusion about the concept of “natural” that the theory relies upon.

In great practical questions, it can be desirable for church theologians to consult with the faithful.  The Immaculate Conception was established as dogma based on the sense of the faithful.  Has the Magisterium consulted recently with those faithful who are dissenting on this issue?  Or more importantly, with the faithful who are homosexual? It is worrisome to think that the church is ignoring the reality that there are a wide range of families, with children, that need shepherding. Is it possible for us as a church to think with the blood-pumping organ that is inside each human chest? What message do we send to the world when we toss them on the rubbish heap?

Tobey writes:
Joseph, let’s talk about genetics.  Obviously, you know more than I do, since you seem to believe in a gay gene that even scientists agree does not exist.  If this were true, then when the gays got together and impregnated their lesbian friends and divided the babies amongst themselves, those babies would grow up gay.  Do they?  No!  Babies born to the gays are no more or less likely to grow up gay.  This is not conjecture or faith, but is based in studies and fact:  http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx  The most accepted theory is that hormones in the womb and how the fetus reacts to them determines the sexual identity of children. ‘Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). “Sexual orientation and adolescents”. Pediatrics 113.’  This totally supports Darwinian theory in that if a percentage of the population is gay, then as that population increases and threatens to get too large, the number of gay animals increases as the percentage stays the same, and the population doesn’t grow as fast as it would otherwise.
———
I don’t doubt that hormonal influences may play a role in sexual orientation predisposition, but such predisposition to these anomalies would, again, not be reproduced. You’re theorizing a constant biological “safeguard” but offer no theory on why it should continue to replicate itself, and you suggest that it somehow knows when the overall population of the society is “too large”.
——
Joseph, you are correct that gays should be working on getting the legal rights that they are wanting.  This is a contract issued by the U.S. Government, and it is called marriage.  When we talk about same-sex marriage, we are talking about U.S. law, not churchianity.
———
Marriage existed long before governments issued any laws or benefits to those in such an arrangement. Suggesting that “marriage” is the umbrella term of these benefits is a smokescreen to try to legitimize the homosexual relationship by hijacking the term most appropriately used for those relationships that are in conformity to the norms of natural law. Calling same-sex relationships a marriage is a desperate attempt to erect a facade giving the illusion that one’s relationship and “family” are as legitimate as those of the rest of the culture. But it will always be a weak facsimile because it is not rooted in life.

Nice point, Lachys. It is extremely gratifying to see both Thomas and Tobey have set out for greener (or would that be browner?) pastures. Who ever gave you guys the idea that we are interested in dialogue with confirmed opponents of Catholic teaching? We intend to prevail, not dialogue. Christus vincit!

Katrina…eternal truth is not something that gets “updated” to accord with trends in opinion.
Tobey…the American Psychiatric Association surrendered to a hysterical campaign of browbeating and intimidation from the homosexual lobby and since then has had no credibility on the issue.
Sandra Currie…the “no same-sex sex,ever,for anyone” rule is more important than the “no sex before marriage” rule,at least in terms of natural law as opposed to what Catholicism teaches.Only opposite-sex is capable of serving the common good.

Further to Tobey,this IS NOT about “who someone is”,anyone who thinks that his weakness for an irrational behavior is “who he is” is in need of self-esteem.People can and should rise above their bad habits and be confident that they can do so.The act of sex can never be justified except with someone of the opposite sex,and the intellectual capacity to realize that any hormonal attraction to the contrary is irrelevant is indeed found among those afflicted by same-sex attraction.

If you think all Jews can’t help but be usurers,you are bigoted against them.
If you think all Irish can’t help but be drunkards,you are bigoted against them.
If you think all Gypsies can’t help but be thieves,you are bigoted against them.
If you think all blacks can’t help but be shiftless fools…anything that assumes a class of persons helpless to resist stereotypical conduct,is bigotry.

If you respect those burdened with homosexual orientation enough to believe they CAN understand that NOTHING excuses homosexual ACTIVITY…then you are NOT bigoted against them.If you think them helpless slaves of their hormones then you ARE bigoted!

People are not born gay, or rapists, or murders, or anything else. The Creator gave us free will so we can love Him and by following His commandments be with Him for all eternity. He took the trouble,out of His great love for us, to send His son to share our human nature and teach us by word and example how to live our lives. His son left us His Church to proclaim His teaching to the generations born after He returned to the right hand of His father. The Catholic Church teaching on homosexual “behaviour” and human sexuality is the truth to be ignored at the peril of the loss of one’s soul.

Equating being gay with rapists and murderers?  That remark just shows how bigotted some Catholics are about homosexuals.  And the hate crimes continue against these children of God as a result of that bigotry.  I’m still waiting for someone on this site to tell me something Jesus said, or was purported to have said regarding the subject of homosexuality. 

The Church has changed it’s position on other issues - it can do the same on this one.  Stop the hatred!

for me i’m not agree with this coz god created a man and a woman to lived their lives happily ever after.

Scriptures on Homosexuality:
Matthew 10:15
Matthew 11:24
Luke 17: 20 - 29

Read Genesis 19 as a reminder of what Jesus is referring to in these passages.

From the recent Time magazine edition on Bl.Teresa of Calcutta. Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor in San Diego, writes, “The more you care about the powerless, the more power you have. The more you serve those with no influence, the more influence God gives you. The more you humble yourself, the more you’re honored by others.” A comment-Those who puff themselves up with pride on the church’s teaching on homosexuality as an eternal truth need to ask whether this teaching isn’t more about power and influence, than about caring humbly for the children of God.  Compassion and justice are holy. Repression, contempt, and preference for one child over another is not holy. I agree, become aware of and stop the hate in the church, for the love of God.

Hey Mark,
If you believe that every word of the bible was directly inspired by God, instead of interpretations of mere mortals with their own prejudices, flaws, and cultural biases, then there is no talking to you. 

If you carefully read each of the books in the NT, you can see each individuals biases - for instance, Paul had a real problem with women!

Thank you Katrina, for instilling some hope in me by your insightful remarks.  I believe it is important to inform Catholic Church members of the results of their imposing their beliefs on the laws of the land and on fellow human beings.  Freedom to believe what one wants is perfectly fine - it’s when you start imposing your beliefs on others than it causes real harm.  If Catholics faith is so weak that they are constantly tempted by how others live, then perhaps they need to pray for stronger faith. 

Dogmatic religious beliefs are the basis for most of the wars and strife in the world.  How is that being “Pro Life”????

To teach the truth is not hate. You have misdirected. It is hate to allow someone to stay in their ignorance of truth. To say that someone who is trying to express truth is hateful, is totally out of line. You can’t win the argument on homosexuality by accusing people of hate. To teach the truth so that all may live in the truth is the highest calling and allows people to accept their dignity. Every person is made in the image and likeness of God. We all have crosses to bear. We all need to recognize those crosses and accept them. We can’t delude ourselves. It is out of love that we must speak the truth so that we can move on and deal with the reality of homosexuality in the Christian church. It doesn’t mean that we should allow for sin just to make ourselves feel good. Homosexual sex is a sin. It is the truth and the truth will set you free.

As Catholics, we look at the Bible as a whole. It speaks Jesus. Did Jesus allow people to live in their sin? No, he challenged them to take up their cross and follow him. Does he take away every challenge? No, he will walk with us.

Catholics don’t impose beliefs. We speak the truth spelled out through sacred tradition, the bible and the bishops. We do it with love. People only have a problem when they don’t want to recognize the truth. Then, we are accused of hate.

Freedom to believe - yes. But freedom isn’t without limits. I have the freedom to drive to Florida. I can drive as fast as I want - with consequences. I can drive on the left side of the road - with consequences. I can drive off the road - with consequences. Yes, we have the freedom to believe but when we choose to believe a lie when presented with the truth - there are consequences.

A catholic would not be acting out of love if they chose to speak falsehoods.

Since when is Rick Warren an authority for Catholics? 

That’s the problem - many don’t know what is authoritative and what is not for followers of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I hear Christian pastors and priests quoting the Talmud and the Talmud is anti-Christ and calls the Virgin Mary a “!@#$%.”  The Talmud is NOT an authority for Christians.

The Bible is authoritative, as is the consensus of the Fathers and the Conciliar Councils. All these authorities agree that homosex is a sinful act, like witchcraft, adultery, murder, gossip and blasphemy.

We are all commanded by Jesus to love our neighbors.  If we love our neighbors, we will want them to get to Heaven for all eternity.  This is TRUE love.
We must not tolerate sin.

“Blessed be the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” - Jesus (Mt 5:7)
Four of the Spiritual Works of Mercy are:  to Admonish Sinners;  Instruct the uninformed;  Counsel the Doubtful;  Be patient with those in error.

Homosexual Acts are mortal (grave)sins.  See the CCC 2357 - 2359.
Also see: Bible Gen 19:1-29;  Rom 1:24-27;  1 Cor 6:10;  1 Tim 1:10.

The Church of today has very little to do with the early Christian communities.  In that community, women were equals, for example.  That tradition changed when men decided to form a church and make new rules, using the old testament, granting themselves authority, and abusing that authority.

So it’s difficult to take their counsel on the issue of homosexuality.  And for all this talk of loving your neighbour, the direct result of religions opinion (and that’s what it is, an opinion) has resulted in discrimination, suicides, and murder of homosexuals.  That’s the result of these “holy” teachings.  What is wrong with this picture.

It’s time to get back to Christianity!

“The Church of today has very little to do with the early Christian
communities. In that community, women were equals, for example. That
tradition changed when men decided to form a church and make new rules,
using the old testament, granting themselves authority, and abusing that
authority.”

Pure bunk!

Is the Church misogynistic? It should be easy to test the Feminist thesis that the Church is an institution that enshrines “guilt about sex,” “insistence on female subjection” and “dread of female seduction”. If this is indeed the case, we would see evidence of misogyny at the time of Christianity’s legal establishment under Emperor Justinian. Let us consider whether the Justinian Law Code increased the oppression of women in the Byzantine Empire. With the implementation of the Justinian Code the following practices quickly disappeared:

* Infanticide
* Polygymy (the practice of maintaining multiple wives)
* Incest
* Cultic prostitution
* The 3-tiered caste system that limited women’s marriage options
* The practice of fathers selling their daughters into slavery.

The Code also made it legal for:

* Slave owners to grant liberty to as many slaves as they wanted.
* Families to retain the estate in cases where the father died intestate.
* Noble women to exercise political power.

While it is evident that Christianity has not solved all societal problems, it has largely improved the conditions of women.

Wherever Christianity has spread, the treatment of women has improved. Allow me to cite but one example. My great grandfather was a pioneer missionary in India. He established a seminary there, but after time it became apparent that Christian men could not evangelize Indian women who lived sequestered lives. Therefore, my great grandfather decided to train women converts to be midwives and nurses so that they could minister to Indian women at a critical time. So he established a nurse training center and even today the majority of nurses in India are Christian females.

The church of today has everything to do with the early Christian church. The teachings of the church have not changed on this issue. You only have to read the scriptures quoted above by Anne to get a clear picture. The fact that people would commit suicide and experience discrimination points out the fact of the seriousness. It is a huge cross to bear and the christian community must be ever present to help. Thus, we must be clear on the truth and help them deal with the consequences of the truth. They are called to a life of chastity. Yes, it is loving your neighbor to tell them the truth. It would be foolish for the church to allow people to practice homosexual sex when it is an abomination to God. Just as it is an abomination for heterosexual people to have sex outside of marriage. There are two pillars to sexual intercourse - unity and procreation. Every conjugal act must be open to these two truths. You only have to look at the female and male bodies to see this truth.

Current and widely-known biblical scholarship tells us that the neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament says what the right wing of the church says it does about homosexual persons. Surely the church is aware of this. To knowingly twist the Sacred Word is to profane God.  To unknowingly twist the word, based on prior teachings, is simply shared ignorance. All in the church need to take responsibility for understanding the Word in all its fullness. Evolution of religious doctrine is healthy.
Alice—“All these authorities agree that homosex is a sinful act, like witchcraft, adultery, murder, gossip and blasphemy.” Comment: Let’s take a look at the opposite of what you wrote here. The opposite must then be true—heterosex is not sinful, like Christian hope, faithfulness, love of all life, discretion, and blessing what is of God.” Don’t you see that many homosexuals share these same values? Aren’t they asking to be allowed to live holy lives, according to who they are? God realized when He made us that “It is not Good to be alone.” If God loves all persons, why would he want some to be condemned to loneliness? Why would he want some to be driven to harm themselves when they cannot be other than who they are?

First, what biblical scholarship? This teaching is not the ‘right wing’ of the Catholic church. It is the teaching of the church. It has been the teaching of the church since the beginning. The church dogma is based on sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the bishops. There is no ‘evolution’ of church teaching.

Second, yes God made them male and female. It is not good for man to be alone so he found a suitable partner = Eve. Look at the human body. Males and females fit together. The truth is in the creation of the body. You have to look no further.

Third, every person is not condemned to a life of loneliness. Every person has the opportunity to be united with Christ. It is this uniting that will bring true peace, love and joy. It is this uniting that will bring holiness.

Fourth, every person has a cross to bear and Jesus will be with them through it all. The christian church has to help all live a life of holiness which for some will include abstaining from sex.

Katrina, biblical scholars are NOT an authority for Christians, even good ones!

“Don’t you see that many homosexuals share these same values? Aren’t they asking to be allowed to live holy lives, according to who they are? God realized when He made us that ‘It is not Good to be alone.’

To live a holy life a homosexual must abide by the teachings of the Church, as must heterosexuals to be holy. The issue isn’t homosexuality, some homosexuals live chaste lives (most don’t). The issue is homosex. The Genesis passage deals with the Man needing the Woman. Perhaps not the best passage to quote in support of your position.

Mark re: “It would be foolish for the church to allow people to practice homosexual sex when it is an abomination to God.” Brief linguistic research will reveal to you that the word “abomination” is an unfortunate mistranslation of the Hebrew.  The Hebrew word is “toevah.” One pretty explanation is, as follows: “Unlike what the English translation implies, “toevah” did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews,”...seemingly an act involving foreigners or unusual food.  As such, it was a low-level prohibition, as in having Egyptians eat with a group of Jewish shepherds. What is “toevah” would not be a matter for stoning, as along the lines of adultery or murder of another Jew. Today, it would be like poor person showing up at Sunday mass with unwashed hands. For this situation, we might give a questioning look, but we wouldn’t tell this person that they are going to hell, that God hates what they do.

katrina: Current and widely-known bible “scholarship”? Why should we allow Alinskyites with credentials the time of day, when what they chirrup is knowable balderdash? Take homosexuality for example. Your post alleges that the text of Scripture was “twisted”. But this is absurd, katrina, since every part of the Church East and West, ancient and undivided, without any exception whatever, has understood homosexual perversion to be exactly that- perversion- for as long as the Church has existed. Since the waffling piffle of your modernist birdbrain paper-chasers is unknown to the Church of all ages, we see with immediate and utter ease that your “current scholarship” is nothing but heresy, and of course we reject it completely. Always will. But nice try. As for the “cannot be other than who they are” gambit, it just shows how completely you have failed to grasp what it is that Christ DOES for us when we come to Him: “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.”

The NEWS MEDIA is NOT a SCIENTIFIC source for anything.
Unfortunately, Journalists do very little homework these days - and repeat someone else’s bias or their own bias.
To homosexuals disappointment - - - There is zero proven SCIENTIFIC information available that there is any biological or gene reason for homosexuality.  This has been studied for the last 30 years througout the world - including by the US CDC.
Homosexuality is a desire.
Check out PROTESTANT and Catholic editions of the Bible: Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10; Gen 19:1-29.  Catholics need to read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” #2357-#2359.
This is why the Church is not biased. - It does not pick on homosexuals.  In accord with the Bible - - - the Church has always taught that ALL sexual activity outside of marriage (-defined as between one man and one woman) is a Mortal sin.  Adultary, Fornication, as well as homosexual activity is a Mortal sin.

In addition to my post above which provides items that everyone needs to read himself, I would like to add the following quote.
——“In a world that often fails to discern the difference between what can change and what cannot, it is good to know that what we believe and are called to live in its essence has not and cannot change. The Truth is a Rock, and we built our house upon that Rock who is essentially Jesus Christ, the chief Cornerstone upon which the Church is built the Truth himself. The Catechism of the Catholic Church articulates what Catholics believe and are called to live and celebrate. With our house built solidly on this Rock of Truth we can say, let the rains of confusion come, let the storms of time and culture lash against our house, we shall not be swept away, for we have built our house upon solid Rock, not upon the shifting sands of mere personal opinions nor ideas that come and go with the passing of ages.” -Fr. John Corapi——

Katrina, homosex is not simply a matter of becoming ritually unclean. Were that so, the Old Testament would prescribe cleansing rituals for those who had homosex, the way it does for priests who have had sex or become defiled in some way during their time of service. Instead, the Old Testament prescribes death for those who engaged in homosex, adultery and witchcraft. Death was prescribed even for daughters of the ruler-priests who were found to be unchaste.

God calls His people to a very high moral standard. Sometimes we fail.  But true repentance leads to restoration, and to God’s love for the sinner is added abundant grace.

Katrina,people’s weaknesses for bad habits are not “who they are”.A “just and holy life” necessarily excludes same-sex sexual activity for ANYONE.Standards of conduct apply equally to all.And “toevah” is not equal to proper behavior for anyone.

“chirrup balderdash absurd waffling piffle modernist birdbrain paper-chasers gambit fornicators idolaters adulterers effeminate liers nor thieves covetous drunkards railers extortioners…” This is quite a rant. With over 7,900 wonderful verses to consider in the NT, you seek one of the most hateful, showing humanity in terrible circumstances. It reminds me of the cow who visits the Vatican. Finding itself surrounded by a wealth of beauty, mystery and holiness, the hungry cow lowers its eyes, soon to find an ant-covered rind of melon on the steps. The cow devours it with relish. Finding its way back to the barn, it recounts to the other cows the splendor of Vatican food. Your God is small and petty. Lift up your eyes. Let God do His work of love for all Catholics.

My response to the Anne’s quote from Fr.John Corapi - The certainty provided by the Catholic religion is for those who don’t have the courage to life their own lives - they need the security of an institution to tell them how to live.  And they need to try to force others to live that way so their security won’t be threatened.  Have courage, my brothers and sisters.  Live a good spiritual life and follow your own hearts and minds.  You don’t need the crutch of institutionalized faith in order to live a good and fruitful life.  When you get to the other side, you’ll find the happiest people are those who live their lifes like I suggest.  And the most unhappy, disappointed, and confused, are those who did not take responsibility for their own lives and followed the rules of organized religion.

Re: Bigotry as a religious pursuit. Take a look at the systematic persecution of women accused of witchcraft in Europe. Not a proud chapter in church history, we will all agree. The point is to notice the similar arc of history in the church’s treatment of homosexuals. The early church had denied the reality of witchcraft, concluding correctly that it was nothing worry about. Despite this reassurance, in remote backwater villages, various unpopular old women continued to be accused of witchcraft, being punished with a day of being laughed at in public stocks. Efforts at wide-spread organized witch persecution failed. In the 1400’s, however, a couple of men worried about the existence of witchcraft, after being unjustly scoffed at for their efforts to identify and stamp out witches, wrote an impressively detailed book. Malleus Maleficarum, an official-looking treatise, helped qualified Christians to recognize, classify, and dispose of witches. The men then requested and received a full papal bull in 1484, giving approval to the Inquisition to generally prosecute witchcraft, bringing back the pagan practice of witch-burning outlawed by the HRE. Including the papal bull in its preface. MM became the popular handbook for witch-hunters. With 15th century church approval of the definition of witchcraft as “a real and dangerous phenomenon,” the “burning time” began. My other point is the need to look carefully before buying into large law-books that are based on fear and hate.

katrina: I understand that logic is not your strong suit (it is so limiting, after all), but has it occurred to you that it is not likely to secure you much credibility to pontificate above: “To knowingly twist the Sacred Word is to profane God”, and then turn tail down here and equate the First Epistle to the Corinthians with a “hateful rant”, an “ant covered melon rind”?  You like to say “God is too small”, but it turns out even the New Testament is too big for you. Know what I think, katrina? I think you just don’t agree with God, the Catholic Church, the New Testament, or the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This is nothing especially unique. But doesn’t it bother you at all to find yourself compelled to be so dishonest about Who you really object to, hmmmmmm?

In addition to Lev 18:22 OT - 
With the exception of Genesis, the following are all from the New Testament.
Check out PROTESTANT and Catholic editions of the Bible: Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10; Gen 19:1-29.
In addition, Catholics read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” #2357-#2359. 
Sexual acts outside of Marriage (defined as between one man and one woman) are a Mortal Sin. - This includes Adultary, Fornication, as well as Homosexual Acts.

I follow the comment threads on ncregister and find that Sandra Currie is often a commenter with views dissenting against the Catholic Church.

I have pointed out that the Church will always be full of sinners (some of them the worst kind, like the priests who molest children), but on issues of faith and morals, the Church will always be on the side of Truth.

Why, Sandra, do you insist upon coming to these forums and repeating yourself? Are you your own pope? Please answer.

If you are, then just leave the Church and form your own church, because, obviously, it is Sandra Currie who is led by the Holy Spirit.

Otherwise, I suggest you take the advice of Amy (another commenter, another thread) and humbly pray that you follow God’s will and God’s true Church.  Don’t give me prattle about your wonderful spiritual life and friends.  Humbly pray that you worship where God wills you to, and pray this everyday.

Despite your irritation, I will be praying for you, my sister in Christ.

Umm, katrina. Let us imagine for a moment that there were never any witches. That the entire phenomenon was a cooked-up patriarchal power grab. What would this logically demonstrate, one way or the other, about homosexuality? Why, nothing at all, of course. It is in fact true that the Catholic Church recognizes in both witchcraft and homosexuality objectively disordered orientations. I will go way out on a limb here and predict that neither of these points of Catholic teaching are in danger of abandonment, based upon the calibre of the “arguments” you have advanced here….....

Katrina,standards of conduct are not “discrimination” against,or motivated by “hatred” of,those who violate them.Again,my position is as a secular theist with no brief for any church or “scripture”,It’s just clear that because a species has two sexes opposite-sex relationships are the norm and enforcing that norm is a responsibility for the good of the species.You have to stop thinking in terms of “treatment of homosexuals”,laws against theft are not a thing we do to kleptomaniacs to give them a hard time.When a behavior is wrong,wanting to do it doesn’t make you specially entitled to break rules against it.

Rick—I am not entirely sure why you and some of the other posters are not only misreading the intention of my comments but also ignoring the content. Rather than continue talking past one another, I think we should simply acknowledge that we represent different aspects of the wider church. I am happy to follow and serve Christ as I do and you are happy with your ways. Peace be with you.

A prior comment was submitted but not posted here. Meanwhile, someone in the parish informed me that there is a Rick participating in several discussion topics who is highly trained in Catholic apologetics, although he doesn’t own up to it. This is a dishonesty of omission. The current topic represents target practice. Pontification and sneering at others is usual the ammo. Notice how he doesn’t own up to what he authors. Notice the misquotes. Nice try. Cheers.

DW
I comment here because the Church’s teachings foster hatred and are destructive and so I hope that there are people in the Church who are still using their brains and not blindly following those teachings.

Remember my name, DW.  I’d love to chat with you and others like you when we all get to the other side.  You’ll really need me help then!

And by the way, I don’t need or want your church or your prayers.

My my my imagine that. “‘Scuse me there pardner, I feel it would be dishonest of me to omit to inform you that I am highly trained in Catholic apologetics. Now that you have been informed, please back *away* from the heresies….” katrina you are hilarious. It’s been fun! Please tell your parish source that I am quite surprised to hear that I have apparently obtained a rep :-)

karina: I am not your bishop, so you certainly need not fear me. You do, however, reject Catholic Truth, and Scripture itself, and so I solemnly advise you to seek the grace of the sacrament of reconciliation in light of your public denial of Catholic dogma concerning the inerrancy of Scripture, and your public rejection of binding Catholic moral teaching concerning homosexual activity. Pax et bonum.

Church teaching is not fostering hatred for anyone. In fact, it pushes us to reach out to every person. Every person is created in the image and likeness of God. Thus, we are called to help every person get to heaven and be in right relationship with their creator. It is not hatred that we point out the truth. It is out of love and care.

Just because the teaching is hard to accept doesn’t make it out of hatred. Someone who believes that they have a homosexual orientation is called to a life of celibacy. It is hard. Matthew 19: 12 “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this (teaching on marriage)ought to accept it.”

Marriage is not easy. Every sexual intercourse act in marriage is supposed to be open to the possibility of children. There are many Christians/Catholics who use artificial birth control and thus are living in sin. There are many people who have divorced their spouse and have remarried without an annulment. They are living in sin too.

Marriage is a blood covenant between a man and a woman. A covenant which permanently changes each person.

Man is made in the image of God. God which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three persons in one God. The love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father is so powerful that it is a person = the Holy Spirit. We are made in this image. The love of the husband for his wife and the wife for the husband is so powerful it is a child. This is how God created us. This is our true destiny. Living outside of this image is not in conformity with our status as children of God.

Sandra Currie, I do not hate you, or women who have had abortions, or homosexuals.  Just the opposite- I love them.  I love them, as in, charity.  I want what is best for them in this life and the next.  Only Jesus knows what is best for us, and he left a Church to safeguard these teachings. Otherwise, if I say I know best, then I am calling myself pope.  I am saying *I* am my own authority.  I have asked you this before: are you your own authority?  Please answer. If so, form your own church guided by the Holy Spirit through Sandra Currie.

Even though you disdain my prayers, I will be praying for you even more, until you are back in the fold.

God Bless you.

If you think that the Church of today has anything to do with Christ’s teaching, you must be on drugs!

And thanks for the kind offer of forming my own church - I thought I mentioned earlier that I don’t need or want a church - any church.

And as for my own authority - yes, I believe I’m responsible for what I do.

And I do disdain your patronizing offer to pay for me.  Like I said - meet me on the other side.

Sandra,

I believe that I am responsible for what I do, too.  What I don’t believe is that I have the authority to decide Truth on teachings of faith and morals.  I believe that the Catholic Church has the authority to tell me what is Truth.  What I do with this information is up to me.
So I ask again: are you your own authority on Truth?  I didn’t ask if you were responsible for your decisions- that’s obvious, we all are.  I asked: do you, Sandra Currie, have the authority to decide what humanity should do with regards to faith and morals?  Please answer this question.

Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. He said whatever you bound on earth will be bound in heaven. Give me one teaching of Jesus that the church of today doesn’t believe to be true.

DW - You’re not even responsible enough to put your name on here!

I, Sandra Currie, have the authority to decide for Sandra Currie - not for humanity. 

Your patriarchal religion has created a world where spirit is split from body, humans from nature, and the natural from the divine.  This actually endangers humanity - seems to be a whole lot of blindness about what humanity is doing to the environment, for instance.  That’s responsibility?

Sorry Sandra truth doesn’t work that way. Sandra can decide whether or not to follow truth but you can’t make up your own truth and neither can I.

Our religion is not patriarchal. God is neither male nor female.

The Holy Spirit has been guiding the church from the beginning.

Human beings have a responsibility as stewards of all of creation. God is every where but God is not nature. The creator is not the creation.

It seems whenever people are faced with the truth. They change the subject to something else. They send out the whole kitchen sink of invective in order to distract from the truth.

You can change the argument to the environment if you want, but you still will be faced with the truth on the original topic. To be sure: Christians are called to take care of the environment. To be sure: The highest human being of honor in our church is a female. To be sure: The Catholic church has done more for female equality than ANY organization in the history of the world. Look it up in the history books if you don’t believe me.

Now, do you want to get back to the original topic?

Funny, I guessed you were a guy!

It’s all the same topic - the church is a patriarchy, and all of it’s so call truths stem from that.

And the Church has two views of women - madonna or !@#$%.  I did get a laugh out of you saying the church as done more for female equality than any organization in the history of the world.  That statement alone shows how deluded you are. 

Hope there are some women reading this stream and start to act on those niggling feelings that you’ve been had by this organization and it’s teachings. 

The church serves male privilege well, so I don’t expect too many converts from that group.

OK, Sandra, if you can decide what is right or wrong for Sandra, then I will decide what is right or wrong for me.  I, DW, decide that I want the keys to your car.  Oh wait, you say, that’s stealing!  I say, by who’s authority? I decide what’s right for me, and I decide I have a right to your car.
Do you see my point? We have an authority that says stealing is wrong.  By making yourself your own authority you are making Christ according to Sandra Currie.  I am saying that Christ’s teaching on right and wrong is founded in the authority He instituted: the Church.  You don’t *like* the Church and you *feel* it is bad-on your own authority-not Christ’s.
Change the subject if you like, call me names, create a straw man, I don’t care.  In the end only Christ’s Church stands.

Sandra—I appreciate your efforts and insights, as do many other 21st Century Catholics. Most—who got tired of waiting for an update on this or some of the other Medieval teachings of the church—have left. It is hard to stay, don’t you think, to be seen as a party to cruelty? (Are we? Our household struggles with the question of staying with the church.) Know, however, that here you are swimming with crocs. (nice pun, eh?) Search out some of the names using the internet. Are they cronies of the publisher? spies? To think we came to the water to participate in a rank-and-file discussion forum. Quite a disappointment. Here’s something to think about; that is, a heresy which claims that the Magisterium makes no mistakes. We have witnessed papal apologies in recent times and 180 degree turnabouts on some important issues. These are not, of course, presented as mistakes. Have you ever read through an official list of De Fide dogma? Seems that Catholics are being held to these dogma. None were presented to us during catechesis. What does the section say on the Sacrament of Matrimony? I’m curious. Thanks!

Marriage: the legal agreement to stay with a partner, have joint ownership of all assets, and if raising children, to do so together. Thats about it. Most arguments here seem to be invoking some kind of ‘eternal moral law’ or ‘the word of god’ to oppose homosexuality. Until someone can scientifically prove that your god exists, I’m afraid that those arguments can not be used, as there is an unproven assumption that is made.

I don’t have the time nor the space to write on women in the history of the church. But if you choose to open up your mind to the truth I suggest reading the following article: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea2.asp.

Being that this website is Catholic, I usually argue from a Catholic perspective. But If you want to argue from a sociological perspective, I would suggest reading the following: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245649/case-marriage-editors

The truth is hard to accept. Marriage is an institution that dates back to the beginning of time. It is built on the need to raise children. Why? Because every sexual intercourse act should be open to the possibility of conception. It is selfish love on the part of the couple to prevent life. Love isn’t love unless it is outreaching to others.

We are made in the image and likeness of God. Three persons in one God. The love of the Father for the Son and the love of the Son for the Father is so powerful it is a person = The Holy Spirit. The same must be true of us. The love of the husband for the wife and vice versa is so powerful that it a child.  Without this principle, our marriages are selfish. The two become one flesh. One entity. This entity can be selfish. It is this selfishness that breeds divorce. Every conjugal act must be open to life. Every child deserves the right to be brought into a home of a mother and father who love each other. It is in this home that this child will find God.

Katrina,
A voice of reason!
I was most dismayed when I came to this site.  As I mentioned earlier, in the 70’s, the NCR was the voice of progressive Catholics.

The US has all the socioeconomic conditions for fascism.  And if a large block of Catholics align themselves with the tea bagging, Glenn Becking, neocons, they will assist in bringing this about.  Concentrating on two issues - gay marriage and abortion, and supporting political candidates who are anti both, or who say they are in order to appeal to this segment of the population, means they probably supported Reagan, Bush, and the republican party.  Reagan deregulated the stock market and planted the seeds for the present economic mess.  Countless people lost their homes, and/or their life savings.    Bush attacked Iraq and killed over 100,000 Iraqi citizens (pro life?) because of 9/11.  His buddies have been wanting to do that since Reagan was in office, so they lied in order to do it.  (If they wanted to attack the source of 9/11, Saudi Arabia would have been the country to attack.  But Bush has lots of friends in the oil business these).  The net result of focusing on abortion and gay marriage means supporting unChristian political policies. 

For you brave souls who have stayed in the church and continue to fight for social justice for all, may your good works be successful in averting the tide of fundamentalism and hatred that is growing daily.

Hey DW,
Steal my car and I’ll call the cops.

Just because a group of people say that the Church is truth, eternal, etc, etc doesn’t make it so.  Your beliefs are just that, beliefs.  If it makes you feel safe and comfortable and righteous to have these beliefs, that’s your problem.  It becomes my problem when you deny my rights and beliefs.

katrina: Here is what the Church teaches authoritatively, with the Authority of Jesus Christ Himself (Mt 16:18-19), about the Sacrament of Matrimony: “1659 St. Paul said: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. . . . This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church” (Eph 5:25, 32).
1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).
1661 The sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1799). 1662 Marriage is based on the consent of the contracting parties, that is, on their will to give themselves, each to the other, mutually and definitively, in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love. 1663 Since marriage establishes the couple in a public state of life in the Church, it is fitting that its celebration be public, in the framework of a liturgical celebration, before the priest (or a witness authorized by the Church), the witnesses, and the assembly of the faithful. 1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (GS 50 § 1). 1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith. 1666 The Christian home is the place where children receive the first proclamation of the faith. For this reason the family home is rightly called “the domestic church,” a community of grace and prayer, a school of human virtues and of Christian charity.”

At the end of the day, when you remove all religious connotations from “marriage” you get a contract between one man, and one woman, to stay together until death. What I ask of you is that you forget any religious connotation related to marriage, just for one moment, while you read the following comment. Would it be fair to say that, a contract between one man, and another man, to stay together until death; is just as valid as a contract between one man, and one women, are they not both people of equal worth? and, at the end of the day, does it really effect you, in person, that two people, of the same gender, are entering into said contract? afterall, even if they do end up in hell, is it really your problem?.

Just my thoughts.

Alistair: “At the end of the day, when you remove all religious connotations from “marriage” you get a contract between one man and one woman to stay together until death.” The rest of your post proceeds to contradict this your original assertion, since you deny this very predicate of one man and one woman. But just to answer your claim: marriage is something other than friendship, sexual concubinage, economic partnership, or one-night-stand. That “something other” involves the long term, stable and enduring union of the two complementary genders of our species, in which union society recognizes *its own interest*, since it is from such stable unions that children commonly proceed, and it is within which stable unions they are best nurtured. To deny this gender-complementarity as an essential constitutive element of marriage is to reduce marriage to a Federal Friendship Registry, thus destroying it. The first and most poignant victims of such an instance of mass insanity would be the *children*, each and every one of whom is the product of exactly one man (male) and exactly one woman (female). Every one of these children has a right to expect society, in its marriage laws, to defend *their interest* in being raised by their own mother and father. The sane will notice that mothers are always female (it is in the nature of a mother to be female) and that fathers are always male (it is in the nature of a father to be male). To pass a marriage law eliminating gender references is to render it discriminatory to advocate for a child’s interest in being raised by their own mother (female) and father (male). Remember. Pseudo-marriage is not merely wrong. It is insane.

When you remove all of the connotations for marriage, which you can’t, but if you did it is still a man and a woman. If you look at the human body without any ‘religious connotation’ the man is designed to give sperm. The woman is designed to receive it. When a man is aroused in sex, the male body prepares to give sperm. It doesn’t matter if the male is aroused by a woman or a male. The same is true of a female. If a female is aroused by either a male or female, her body is preparing to accept sperm. I could get more graphic in detail but I won’t. I can use my human reasoning to see the truth of sex.

The institution of marriage goes back to the beginning of time. It is the building block of social order. It is the mechanism to bringing new life into the world and socializing that new life. In fact, until the advent of public and private schools, it was and still is the mechanism for educating children.

There is no specific ‘right’ spelled out in the constitution of the US nor is there any in natural law to give male/male nor female/female the right to marry. Civil authorities have little to gain to promote gay ‘marriage’.

So, Sandra likes to cast dispersions on anyone who defends the truth as if anyone who defends the truth is for war, is a racist, and wants to see a lot of people killed for fun and profit. Hmmm. Well, it is the same old game. If you can’t win the debate, try throwing out false and slanderous accusations.

Rick DeLano: I think what you are saying is incorrect. I was not raised by my father, I have never met him. I have turned out fine. I never denied that marriage didn’t involve something greater than friendship. my point being does it matter if it is two men, two women, or one of each, enter a marriage. if there are no children in their marriage, then your point is invalid. Even if there is, is it not better to be bought up by parents who love you dearly? It is my opinion that a marriage between two people of the same gender, means the same as one between composites. They love each other just like a man and a woman would, as I said, if you remove all religious connotations of marriage, why shouldn’t they enter a contract together? as for raising children, can a man, on his own, not raise a child without a mother present? then what difference does it make if two men, raise a child, together? chances are, that child will turn out just as bright and well rounded, as a child raised in a conventional relationship. I was raised in a single parent home, by my mother and aunt, and i’ll be completely honest, I think I have been better off with them, then if my father was around.

Sandra—I agree. the church has to stand for more than these two personal choice issues. Neither issue, at any rate, should be used as a litmus test for who is a good Catholic. Rank-and-file Catholics aren’t trained as canonical lawyers or church historians, except in a general way. Does anyone have a reliable web-site listing De Fide Catholic Dogma?  What I understand from two who are trained in canonical law is that sections of canonical law have essentially been stapled shut. In practice, dispensations are granted in order to serve justice more evenly throughout the church, aiming to practice the law but with more heart. Yes, the same could happen re: the divisive issues surrounding homosexuality. In the Aramaic, I’d like to think, the Rock section in Matthew emphasizes more the community gathered for love of His Name, and less a jailhouse of prisoners awaiting judgment. My parish is a loving community, or I wouldn’t be there. As for me, if I held St. Paul’s word at a higher level than Jesus Christ’s, I would have stayed in the Lutheran church.

Hey Mark, the word is aspersions, not dispersions.  And I’m not casting either, just pointing out the problems of saying that your truth is THE truth. 

Marriage has NOT existed since the beginning of time.  Even in the bible mythology, Adam and Eve weren’t married. 

And to say that the sex act is only for procreation, or the possibility thereof, men should only be allowed to have sex when a woman is fertile, a couple of days a month.  And infertile couples have no grounds for having sex at all.  There goes that argument.

People on this blog have been citing the bible and catechisms to defend their position.    If you choose to believe that the bible is written by, or inspired by God, and if you choose to believe that the RC Church as some special authority to speak the Truth, then by all means, believe
that. 

But the majority of the world is not RC.  If your faith is strong and true, then it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world believes, because you should practice what you believe and leave the rest of us out of it.

Gay Marriage doesn’t hurt you personally one tiny bit.  There are so many other unjust things you could be fighting to correct, as a true Christian, other than an issue that doesn’t affect you. 

Telling other people what they should believe, and how they should live and lobbying to get laws pass to support your beliefs - and using pseudo science to defend your position, is unacceptable.  You are infringing on my rights, my faith

Alistair: Please understand that laws must, if they are to be just, be based upon what is common and what is good. What does every child have in common? One mother and one father. What is good? For that child to be raised by his or her own mother and father. Now obviously circumstances arise where, due to death or incapacity, a child cannot be the beneficiary of that good, and in such cases others must step forward to parent. But the law must be that which advances what is common and what is good. To put it another way: it is common and it is good for us to have two arms and two legs. Needless to say, if one is deprived of this good, it does not reduce their humanity, but it also does not entitle them to insist upon laws which render the rest of us armless or legless. To redefine marriage in such a way as to deny what is common and what is good, is to destroy the interest of *every child*- even the ones deprived of the common good of being raised by their own mother and father- in having the marriage laws foster and preferentially advance that common good. Hope this helps.

Sorry, sandra. Two genders. One species. Every child is the consequence of the union of the two species. Marriage is the unique union of the two genders in a stable and enduring relationship, from which children commonly result and within which they are best nurtured. Not every marriage produces children, but society has an interest in seeing to it that marriage is preferentially fostered, since it is common that they should do so. If your faith is opposed to these simple scientific facts, then I am afraid we are at loggerheads, and we shall have no choice but to do political battle. I like our chances :-)

Marriage has existed from the beginning. It is the concern of all people because it impacts society. Anytime an issue impacts the whole everyone has a voice. We have laws that impact the welfare of children and families.

Yes, Adam and Eve were married. Genesis 4:1 “The man had relations with his wife Eve..”

Yes, every sex act has to be OPEN to children. No there is nothing said which tells us to have sex only when the women is fertile. Every sex act has to OPEN to the possibility of conception. Otherwise it is a selfish act not an act of love. The two are one flesh. Thus, it would be a selfish act on the part of the couple not to be open to a child.

Infertile couples only have to be OPEN to the possibility of a child and it happens all the time. My sister-in-law was supposed to be infertile. She has two children without any help from drugs or anything else.

Our laws are based on philisophy, truth, etc. The ten commandments are on the walls of the Supreme court building for a reason. For example, number 6 “Thou shall not commit adultery”. Until no fault divorce, the breaking of this commandment was one of the basis for legal divorce in our legal system.

Hey Rick,
Love your simplistic “science”.  I’m just happy I live in Canada, where gay marriage is legal. 

And on the other pet political issue of the fundamentalist right wing, of which some Catholics are members:

Canada’s abortion rate has been declining steadily since 1999, despite having no law. A similar phenomenon has been occurring in western Europe, which has the lowest abortion rates in the world and mostly liberal abortion laws.

The secret is simple: The more that society trusts women and truly supports their needs and rights, the fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions women have.

So, on that issue, once again, the RC church is wrong!

Rick DeLano: What is to say that is the best way? what is best for a person changes between people, it may be the so called, natural way, but nothing is to say, two people, of the same gender, bringing up a child. some people in society are open to less conventional versions of the nuclear family unit. The common good, cannot, and should not be decided by one group of individuals, the world is a diverse place, and was made in that way. I have a situation for you, If, for example, one, single father, with one child, moved into a home, with another single father, with one child. both parties are heterosexual. is that, an appropriate place to raise a child?

Rick DeLano: Also, to say a marriage is a stable and enduring relationship, is not always strictly true. some marriages wobble like a bellydancing fat man, just because a couple is married, does not mean stability is a given, my own parents marriage was certainly this way. Single parents, and same sex relationships, are just as stable as heterosexual couples.

Alastair…to remove all cultural and religious connotations from marriage,you can’t limit it to the common modern form of ONE man and ONE woman,it has historically included polygynous,polyandrous,and group forms as well as monogamous.But the CENTRAL function has ALWAYS been to unite MALES TO FEMALES,in a way that can only be proper for opposite-sex relationships.And a civil,secular state ONLY has a legitimate interest in promoting or protecting OPPOSITE-sex relationships.To require (as some churches do) that the sexual relations be strictly procreative is unreasonably restrictive,and to permit (as some churches do) same-sex relationships to be treated as if they were not,because they are of same sex,of lesser worth is unreasonably permissive.If all same-sex relationships stopped tomorrow society would be better off.If all opposite-sex relationships stopped we’d be doomed.

It is a truth that the ideal place to raise a child is with a mother and a father. It is not in the interest of society to promote any other situation as ideal. To put into law gay ‘marriage’ is beyond condoning but promoting it. There is nothing stopping two men or two women from living their life together now in this country. Society has even allowed it without penalty. To put it on equal footing as marriage would be an additional step towards promoting it as an ideal set-up for children. It is not. Single parenting is not the ideal. Does it happen? Yes. Is it the best place? No. Can a single parent successfully raise a child? Yes, but it is very difficult. Society would not want to hold it up as something to shoot for. Marriage of a man and a woman is a foundational element of any culture.

“When it comes to how they raise their children, mothers today tend to follow the same practices their own mothers did, according to a new study that looked at parenting practices across two generations.” from the ASA

Females learn to be female from both parents in different ways. Males learn to be males from both parents in different ways. It is ideal for children to be brought up in a home with a mother and a father.

Just because “that’s they way it has always been done” does not mean its the only correct way to do things. Just because I always clean my bathroom with bleach, doesn’t mean there isn’t another way of doing it. I fail to see how legalising same sex marriage is promoting it…I see it as giving same sex couples, the same union, the same, basic rights as hetrosexual couples, if by promote you mean show that gay people can, and do lead perfectly happy, fulfilling lives, and letting them get on with their lifes just like their heterosexual friends. Then yes, it does promote it. does it really matter if two men want to spend their lifes together, the same as a hetrosexual couple? Does it really matter if gay people have the same rights as hetrosexual people? I think not, they are people too, and should be treated equally. we aren’t in a position to judge them. Just because a situation isn’t ideal, doesn’t make it wrong. sometimes, something isn’t ideal at face value, but you get used to it, and realise you wouldn’t have it any other way. If a single parent can raise a child successfully, then surely in theory, a same sex couple can too, and achieve the same results.

Sandra: Obviously, abortion is an unspeakable crime, truly the most demonic and foul form of evil imaginable, since it not only represents murder, but murder of the most satanic kind: the murder of a child by the poor child’s own mother. Needless to say future generations will correctly look back on us with the same sense of moral outrage that we (once) reserved for the pagan savages who practiced human sacrifice to their idols of wood and stone. It does indeed bear repeating that a darkened conscience will, ultimately, so deprive some of light that even natural reason departs, and some begin to conceive of ripping unborn children out of the womb as a “choice”. Their condemnation is just.

Alastair: Same answer. Laws must be based on what is common and what is good, not on what is uncommon and unfortunate. In this way, we see that one does not consider medicine a failure, only because some patients do not recover, nor do we consider marriage a failure, only because some couples divorce. In all such cases, we certainly extend all the help we can to those who have been deprived of what is common and what is good, but we never confuse these situations with the common good basis of just lawmaking. Hope this helps.

Alastair: While it is possible to think of better ways to do things, it is impossible to conceive of destroying the thing we have always done in order to “improve” it. Marriage, as we have conclusively demonstrated, is distinct from the myriad other types of relationships which humans form, and it is distinct in precisely this way: marriage is the unique union of the *two complementary genders* of our species. It is fostered and protected by society for this reason: because society recognizes *its own interest* in these types of stable, enduring, gender-uniting relationships- because they are the relationships from which children commonly result, and within which children are best nurtured. Therefore the pseudo-marriage movement is not merely wrong, it is insane. It desires to destroy marriage by redefining it as nothing more than a Federal Friendship Registry, which has the immediate and awful effect of depriving children of any societal protection at law for *their* interest in being raised by their own father and mother. It ought not come as much of a surprise, Alastair, that your neighbors here in the US have, each and every time they have been given the opportunity to assess our relative arguments, rejected yours. Pseudo-marriage is, alas, insane.

What makes something wrong? What makes something true? The truth - man was created to have sex with a female. Look at the human body. It speaks truth. It would be foolish for society to put into law something that it knows to be wrong. Allow it? maybe. It allows people to smoke but it doesn’t hold it up as something to do. There are certain things that are hard to control. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is hard to police so it allows certain things that it knows to be wrong. Homosexual sex is not the norm. Look at the human body.

It is not ideal for a child to be brought up in the home with two male parents or two female parents. Can it be done? yes, but it is not something to promote.

We celebrate and regulate married life. Why? First, it is the foundation of society. Second, it affects the good of society. Thus, civic society has played a role in regulating married life for a very long time. You only have to look at the historical books of the Old Testament which date back thousands of years to see marriage law already in place. The oldest canons of Catholic law were marriage law. Why? Because it affects the good of society. It is the foundations of the continuation of social order.

Alastair,everyone is harmed by the treatment of same-sex relationships as if they were just as legitimate as opposite-sex relationships.It’s like telling alcoholics it’s OK to get drunk whenever they please and not be forbidden anything sober people can do because of it.Wise and foolish life choices must NOT be treated as if “equal”,and the General Welfare Clause should be seen as prohibiting this.All people have the equal right to the only kind of sexual relationship that should exist,and to be protected from any tendency they may have toward the WRONG kind.
Rick,while your church is correct on homosexuality,I disagree totally with its denial of women’s right to abortion.Again,there are fundamentally unequal things that must NOT be treated as equal.All the born are harmed by the treatment of the unborn as if already entitled to rights.But that’s not the topic here.

As I have said, what is common and good ,cannot, and should not be dictated by a single group of people, but as society as a whole, and the society in which we live, is changing, and therefore, so will what is common and good. what is common and good is a matter of opinion rather than fact. People are becoming more accepting of other people, and that is a good thing, people are also becoming less concerned with other peoples lives, also a good thing, afterall, do we not all have our own lives to lead, without messing with other peoples and telling them that what they do is wrong…when what they do, obviously works great for them, and that is what should matter.

this is not about redefining marriage, its about making marriage inclusive. Big deal if children do not occur in a homosexual relationship, its not a huge hardship, it wont cause the world to end single-handedly. The homosexuals are not planning in invasion, they do not want people to follow in their footsteps. It angers me that people do not see this. we are all equal is this world, we all enter in the same way, and leave the same way. By letting homosexuals marry, you are not redefining, you are including a previously excluded group of individuals, should the world not do their best to accommodate homosexuals? they deserve the same as anybody else, they have done nothing wrong, its the way they were made, accept it, move on, be happy for them, its not your problem.

And who married Adam & Eve?

Talked to any theologians lately?  They’ll tell you that Genesis is a creation MYTH - not unlike several other creation myths created by other peoples.

Louis: At what point, precisely, does the inhuman “preborn” become a human being? This is a very important question for you to consider, since life and death, ,murder itself, and the eternal destiny of a soul depend upon it. Is it….when the first breath is drawn? Does that first breath make us human, and grant us the rights of the human person? Is it when the air is drawn in, or when it is let out? Perhaps it is when the leg is out of the birth canal? Or the arms? Maybe when the head is out but before the first breath? How long are you prepared to countenance the destruction of this living thing on the grounds that it is “not yet human”, Louis? Let me say that the evil of abortion is so profound, so overarching, so comprehensive, as to represent the defining moral issue of this age. Abortion is the slavery of our time, and you, I am sorry to have to say Louis, are on the wrong side of this one. God be with you.

Sandra: Your creation myth is….......let me guess. Nothing gathered itself up into an infinitely dense point mass and exploded, coalescing randomly, over time, into all that exists, including Sandra’s typing little pinkies? Ah. How profoundly sophisticated.

Alastair: I wonder if it has occurred to you that your argument above is the very same one we who worked so hard to pass Prop 8 make. Here, let’s have you make it for us: “As I have said, what is common and good ,cannot, and should not be dictated by a single group of people, but as society as a whole”. This is precisely what has happened, Alastair, thirty one consecutive times. We have both had our arguments examined by society as a whole, society has voted. You have lost. I am glad that we are on the same page now. One last note: every form of government has its shortcomings. The tremendous shortcoming of democracy is that it is prepared to abandon what is *knowably true* apart from any and all opinion (for example, that the human species is constituted in two complementary genders, each of which is necessary for the continuation of the race) just so long as 51% of the society says so. In this case, democracy has *not* failed. Overwhelming majorities of your neighbors have heard your arguments, Alastair, and they have heard ours. Ours have prevailed. Thanks be to God.

Have I talked to a Theologian lately? Hmmm. Well, the Pope is a theologian. He is probably the leading theologian in the world. Jesus said: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,‘and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Hmmm Jesus quoting the Adam and Eve story. Myth? I think not.

Jesus didn’t say male and male or female and female. God and Adam looked for a suitable partner for him. He created Eve - a female. Look at the body. It tells the story. Male and females fit together. They were made for each other to be one flesh.

Who marries anyone? Everyone at a wedding is a witness. The couple stand before witnesses to make a covenant. Adam and Eve were married in Genesis 2: 22 - 25.

Alastair…it is,always has been,and always will be a FACT that your opinion that “what is good is a matter of opinion rather than fact” is incorrect,no matter how many people wrongly believe it.It is important to exclude wrong decisions from treatment as if respectable.To claim that one is “made” entitled to defy the essential nature of human sexuality (and the important thing is NOT reproduction,a quiet side effect,but that ONLY opposite-sex matings ever occur) is reprehensible and deserves constant negative pressure.It angers me that you see wrongdoing as “equal” to responsibility.
Rick,YOU are on the wrong side on abortion.A zygote totally dependent on outside sustenance from a particular individual can only have “rights” at the undeserved expense of that individual.A mother’s love must be what decides whether or not a child is born.Not a legal requirement.

Can same-sex couples successfully raise healthy children? Yes, they can and do. Catholics who don’t know any of these couples need to get to know some of them. My husband and I have known quite a few over the years through community activities. A common scenario is that the two mothers have walked away, leaving the children to the two fathers. Other male couples have adopted physically or mentally challenged children that no one else will adopt. Another couple, two former priests, foster children-at-risk.  Another pair of former sisters religious are raising the children of deceased relatives. Of the twenty-five children we know in these families, only one happens to be gay. All have finished their schooling, embarked on having their own families and pursuing careers such as military service or education. All of these families have done well, despite the attitude of the church and without the benefit of social approval.

Oh dear; Louis, I am afraid that a newborn baby is also totally dependent upon outside sustenance, and so the question remains: are we to deny humanity to those who are incapable of obtaining their own sustenance? If we were to do this, then it would be a very large number of living persons subject to being terminated at your whim, (including the comatose, the handicapped, the mentally ill, and the very old, along with every single newborn) and I submit that this is an indefensible argument you have advanced. To actually suggest that a child should be subject to death if the mother decides not to love it is…..well. Louis, frankly, it is terrifying that you should advance such a notion. This framework would result in grotesque evil and injustice- just like abortion, the foundational moral issue of our age, the one that most definitively bears witness to our moral disorientation and our terrible failure to think carefully about just what it is that makes us “human”.

Rick: Society is brainwashed into believeing a certain thing, thus are not enabled to build their own view, I have been fortunate that I have been allowed to build my own set of views, based on what I, personally, believe to be “good”,this, in my eyes, in an action, which causes no physical or mental harm to others. Homosexuality causes me no problems, it doesnt interfear with my day to day life, it causes me no pain. I am obviously in a minority of the population, that does not feel the need to enforce their own beliefs on others, my way is what is right for me, and I accept that other people dissagree with me, and that doesnt bother me, what bothers me is descrimination against another person, just because of their sexual preferance. It does not effect YOU or your family, DIRECTLY? so why make it your problem? you cant MAKE people conform to what you believe, that, is not “good” Just because two men, or two women werent “ment for each other” doesnt mean they dont work well together… if the union between two people works, why mess that up? it may not be “natural”, it may not be what YOU considder to be “common and good” but it works for THEM, like your marriage or partnership works for YOU. It amazes me how people believe they have the right to medle with other peoples private lifes, afterall, is this whole arguement not about control? having control over the population, to force them live in the way set out in your belief system? afterall, if you say something often enough, people start to believe it, and all fool them, i’m just glad I have been bought up to have a mind of my own. I feel proud of the fact I live in a society that is open and free, where it doesnt matter who or what you are, you are treated as an equal being, of the same standard, value and worth as any other. I darent go deeper into my full beliefs, i’m sure I would cause deep offence, but at least I refrain from doing so….ever think you cause offence to others? think about it, is that good?

Louis: you cannot ever call an opinion incorrect, something being “good” is down to the eye of the beholder, I do not considder what you call “fact” to be just that, therefore, it is opinion; any thing, situation or act, that can be SHOWN or DEBATED as either good or bad, is opinion.
as this subject, can, and is being debated, it is therefore, opinion. I personally feel that it is not “good” that you persecute another being, just because their belief is different. But, afterall, that is my opinion, and it works for me, I dont expect you to follow it, I have mine and you have yours, doesnt make either of the right or “good”.

Alastair, it appears that your argument boils down to: ‘if you disagree with me it is discrimination’. Indeed, this is what all pseudo-marriage arguments will ultimately boil down to, in my (extensive) experience. Thankfully, it is not a very compelling or persuasive argument, which is why it continually loses at the polls. Thanks for presenting it though, it is helpful to go through this process again and again, in order to allow the observer an opportunity to assess the relative merits of our arguments. Homosexuals can always marry, just like everybody else, and under the same conditions and requirements as everybody else. If they choose to engage in some of the many kinds of relationships which are *not* marriages, then that’s their business. But these other kinds of relationships *are not marriages*, and your neighbors will never be persuaded otherwise. All the best to you.

Yes, children will be raised in non-ideal situations. You are asking society to make it a law. To make it something that they not only allow but promote. It is not in the best interest of society. It is ideal for a child to be brought up in a home with a mother and a father. Thus, society would want to promote this over other things that it merely tolerates. Yes, single mothers and single father bring up children every day. It doesn’t make it something that society would want to promote. It tolerates it. Obviously, gay couples are already raising children. As a society, we have allowed to happen but we shouldn’t promote it. It is not ideal.

Getting back to the main point of this article. The church has a job to do. It has a job to teach truth. The truth: Homosexual sex is a sin. Someone who is feels that they are gay is called to a life of celibacy. The church speaks the truth. Look at the human body. The male body was made to have sex with the female body even if it is being aroused by the same gender. It is the truth. We as Catholics are obligated to speak the truth.

The logic that a male and a male can marry is false logic. Yes, they can be together their whole lives. No one is denying it. Yet, it isn’t marriage.

I left the Episcopal priesthood on the Sunday that Gene Robinson was made a bishop, after 18 years in ministry. I explored the possibility of joining the Roman Catholic Church. I’ve always admired Catholic scholarship. When I entered catechesis I was given a book to read by a progressive Catholic priest. I read it with increasing dismay. Here were all the seeds that had grown to bear such bad fruit in the Episcopal Church. Reading the comments here, I’m glad I didn’t go that direction.  I fought in the Anglican wars and watched how the Episcopal Church declined in membership as gay activists took over that church.

“When it comes to how they raise their children, mothers today tend to follow the same practices their own mothers did, according to a new study that looked at parenting practices across two generations.” from the ASA”

Sadly, this is true.  Women who have been sexually abused as children all too often select mates who will sexually abuse their children.  Alcoholic parents will often have alcoholic children.  And parents who are Catholic will have Catholic children.  We are all victims of our parents, good, bad, or indifferent.  It is only when we take responsibility for our lives and discover what we have taught to believe, and believe about ourselves, may not be really be true. 
As long as our beliefs are unexamined, and we believe because we were taught to believe, then we are not living a responsible life - not using our God given faculties in order to be the best that we can be.

The burdens of being homosexual are direct results of hateful and bigoted religious teachings.  Once we are enlightened, then people who are homosexual can live full and rewarding lives without constantly having to deal with hate and prejudice. 

And the person who said katrina isn’t logical needs to look in the mirror to get a good look at an illogical person!

And if the sex act has to always be open to procreation, then there is no excuse for sex after menopause.  Unless, of course, one of you knows someone who had a baby after menopause.  Men who are so concerned about fertilized ovum, need to put their sexual organs where their mouth is and stop having sexual intercourse until they are prepared to take full responsibility for any child which may result.  And coughing up financially isn’t taking full responsibility!

How come people who are so concerned for children are often the same people who vote against legislation that would provide support and health care for those same children.  I attempted to get the “pro life” organization on my city to provide foster care for the children of parents who cannot look after them.  NO ONE offered.  Not one! 
I did get homosexual individuals and couples to provide nurture, nourishment and security for several of these children - and no, they didn’t recruit them to be homosexual.

  The problem with prejudice is that people who suffer from it make up all kinds of fantasy boogey men to support their sick attitudes. 

Once again, those of you who want to believe the myths of Catholicism, be my guest - don’t engage in homosexual acts, don’t have abortions.  And keep you definition of “love”, saving others from their sins by legislating against homosexuality and abortions, to yourself.  You have a serious problem with child sexual abuse in your own ranks - deal wit that.  And ensure that the church makes amends to the thousands and thousands of victims who have had their lives ruined - and then been revictimized by the disgusting response of the Church to those victims.  There is much work to be done there.  Clean up your own house!

And again, it’s time to look up the history of marriage and the nuclear family - too long to go into here.  I think you’ll be quite surprised.

Thank you for the lively discussions! Back to the topic. Cardinal Schonborn of Austria as been quoted as saying that it is time to consider homosexual relationships with consideration of their quality. Does the absence of a rebuke of the Cardinal from the Pope herald a long-awaited change of direction for the church?  Would God that this teaching Pope can find a loving way to end division in the church over this issue! We need to close this unbearably painful chapter. We hope and pray.

Crossing the Line of Reason:
http://www.spreadshirt.com/line-of-reason-prolife-t-shirt-C3376A6465902

Sandra-

You forget, you can’t call the police because stealing is no longer wrong.  Remember, we all are smart enough to decide right and wrong for ourselves- you said so.  I’m just following your logic.
You don’t want a final authority on faith and morals because to do so, one must humble oneself.  I understand, I find it difficult to humble myself.  I will be praying for you and for all of us to humbly know and accept Christ’s True Church- His Mystical Body.

But Alistair, it is you, also, who has been “brainwashed” into believing a certain thing, as your beliefs regarding homosexuality are exactly in line with the way the world has been indoctrinated to believe these last 20+ years or so by those who are pushing the homosexual agenda on the rest of society. And I do mean pushing as well as forcing. You claim that those of us who believe exactly what the Catholic Church says she is and therefore abide by her teachings on faith and morals as the absolute Truth of God for humankind are forcing our beliefs on others to make them live the way we want. When the fact is that it is those with the homosexual agenda (and many of these are not just gay, but straight people as well)who are in our faces and seek to have not just tolerance from others, but our approval of their behavior as well.
They want to indoctrinate our children in school that homosexuality is to be embraced instead of that we should treat others as human beings and show respect for all-that does not mean we have to accept everything that another person does as good, just because they think it is. Does anyone here think it is good to steal from others? Yet, I am sure that robbers and thieves think it is good, for them. You and some on here say that homosexuals are not hurting us, mind our own business. But yet they are to have free reign over our children in school to be brainwashed into thinking that they may be gay and that it is normal and good, when their parents do not believe that way. How dare a homosexual impose their beliefs onto my child, and then say that I am a bigot and forcing my beliefs onto them, when all I do is say that I do not agree with their beliefs and choices? And when the gay agenda forces the issue of marriage to be put on a ballot, we as citizens have a right and duty to vote, and we have a right to vote as we wish, without be bullied or called bigots. I am so sick of the double standard perpetrated by those on the left-in so many various areas in politics and society-it has got to stop.

Part of the problem is that terminology gets all mixed up when speaking of marriage.  People view marriage as a right.  Marriage is not a right…it is a sacrament and a vocation.  It is a sacrament because it absolutely involves God.  People that don’t understand this point don’t understand it because they look at civil unions performed by the state and call these unions marriage.  A justice of the peace does not actually marry people because he does not have the authority to marry people.  What he performs is actually a civil union.  A civil union can easily end in divorce because it is simply a legal contract of the state. 

Marriage is a sacrament which means a spiritual (and civil also)union of two people by God in a covenant agreement.  A covenant is much stronger than a contract, though.  Notice that marriage is a union by God.  This is why jp’s do not have the authority to perform a marriage.  A civil union is not cohabitation as most people misunderstand.  It is what jp’s perform.  Once these terms are properly understood.  It is easy to see why so-called “gay marriage” is wrong.  It is not what God intended in creating Adam and Eve and telling them to be fruitful and multiply.  If something is not in accordance with God’s plan for marriage, no amount of protesting or name calling or court rulings will change the reality that so-called “gay marriage” is not truly marriage no matter who tries to make it so.

Check out my blog on what it is like for me to be both Catholic and homosexual.  Hint: I agree 100% with the Church’s teachings.  http://woundedlover.tumblr.com

For all of you who keep throwing scripture at me and telling me that their truth is THE truth - scripture is stories told by people who are limited by their biases, the culture and times that they lived and wrote.  All of the disciples saw Jesus differently, and interpreted what he taught differently.  And those who translated those stories were also limited by their biases, the culture and times that they lived in.

Homosexuals have not brainwashed me.  They are only trying to overcome the brainwashing of those who were taught to believe certain myths about them - harmful and hateful myths. 

My love goes out to all those brave homosexuals who have come out of the closet and struggle for their equal place in society.  Those who, despite the abuse, slander, and hate boldly stand together and reclaim their human dignity.

And to those of you who believe that someone else has to make rules for you as to how to live your life - there are millions of people who live good, productive, lives and don’t limit other people from becoming the best that they can be.  Hopefully, someday, you’ll have the courage to do the same.

To Wounded: what a courageous,beautiful, and insightful blog. Keep it up. You are blessed to be humble enough to be open to God’s Truth. I pray that Our Lord Jesus continues to bless you and give you the graces and strength that we need so much to take up our cross and follow Him daily.

Sandra Currie,I agree that “scripture” is not what it represents itself as.Neither are those who band together in defense of the unconscionable practice of same-sex sex.And helping them become the best that they can be requires never abandoning the effort to convince them that they must suppress their same-sex attraction rather than indulge it.It is same-sex sex that is harmful and hateful,not the understanding (painful to the hormone-driven ego that it may be) that a species having two sexes automatically makes opposite-sex sexual relationships the only defensible kind.A person’s equal place in society is not defined by his vice being treated as if it were equal to a virtue.And those who treat them as unable to overcome their flawed orientation are the ones who do NOT love them,taking the spineless path of telling them what they want to hear instead of the often thankless duty of telling them what they need to hear.

This is no ‘chapter’ in the church. The teaching in scripture on this matter go back to the beginning. The teaching is continued in Sacred Tradition. It is based on truth. Not mine and not yours. The pope has no authority to change it. Dogma is based on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. The Pope cannot teach something that is different than Sacred Tradition and Scripture. The truth goes back to Genesis. God was looking for an appropriate partner for Adam. He made Eve. ‘Bone of my bone’ Man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

The truth is in the body. It is confirmed in scripture and church teaching. It is also confirmed using human reasoning. It is also confirmed in natural law.

Is it a struggle? Yes, absolutely. Is it a hard truth for some? Yes!!

It is a fact that every sexual intercourse act has to be ‘open’ to the possibility of children. Open. It means that we do nothing to prevent it from happening. It doesn’t mean that an infertile couple is prevented from having sex. It means that they are doing nothing artificially from preventing conception from happening. Many infertile couples have had children ‘miraculously’. God’s grace.

Just a quick thank you to Wounded Lover: great blog, can’t wait to learn more. Praying for you. You have a profoundly important witness to make.

And by the way great posts from Louis E., from Joe, from Mark Herwaldt, Joan, DW….....- you guys got this thing down.

And ContraSign: great t shirt!

Speaking of personal experience, in mine, the people who protest the loudest and hardest about homosexuality are people who fear their own homosexuality.

And yes, there is a high incidence of addiction and suicide amongst gay people - a direct result of being despised, demeaned, hated, deemed sinful, sick, and any other nasty description you can think of.  Teaching children positive attitudes towards gay people stops the discrimination violence and hatred towards them. 

There are people who are homosexual because of sexual abuse, but there are also people who are born that way.  If you study homosexuality without the blinkers of religious bias, you will discover that many of your assumptions are just wrong!

Sandra, I don’t know who your post was addressing but in my post I stated that our children should be taught that we should treat others as human beings and show respect for all.We should be teaching our children that all people deserve our respect and that we should treat those who are homosexual with love and respect, not derision or insensitivity, etc.

However, in many public schools in this country, and I believe it is increasing, our children in school are taught way more than that, they are taught all about different sexual behaviors and even how to perform them. There are books for children with illustrations! This is not necessary to be taught in our schools. They do not need to go that far to instill the fact that people are different and should not be treated badly because of their differences. They are going way overboard to encourage homosexuality in our young people. It is propaganda and indoctrination by the homosexual agenda crowd.

And for those who still insist that people are born with same sex attraction: I still can find nothing that states that any Gay gene has been found, and even if it were so, that in and of itself does not make it a normal human condition. A person born without legs is born with a defect, it is not just another way to be, like different facial features, it is not how people are meant to be. That doesn’t mean that someone born with a birth defect is any less a human being, or deserves our contempt or discrimination. Heck, we are all born disordered to some extent or another. I believe the Catholic Church calls it Original Sin. We all come into this world far less than the perfect human beings God intended for us. It takes humility to accept that and to place our faith and trust in God to bring us up to His level, to the extent that he deems for us. It is called spiritual progress, and a journey we are all called to make.

I love it when you can’t win the argument on the truth so you cast people in categories or you claim bigotry or worse.

‘religious bias’ doesn’t tell me that a male body is designed to fit a female body. I can use my human reasoning to see it. It is called science. It is a truth that is taught in science since the beginning.

People who believe themselves to be gay will struggle because it is a cross that they have to bear. The church and society must be there to help them. It is no different than many other crosses that people have to bear in their lives. People discriminate against my nephew who has autism. People discriminate against people who have learning disabilities. People discriminate against people for various reasons under the sun. Life is hard. We have to have an impact on society in order to overcome these issues and help people live fulfilled lives.

You can live a fulfilled life and never have sex. People who believe that they are gay are called to a life of celibacy.

Jesus said “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Matthew 19:12

We need to help people who believe that they are gay to accept it and live in a way that is faithful to the gospel.

Sandra Currie,it’s one of the most cherished delusions of those who defend homosexual activity that no one can possibly be sincerely opposed to it.I am well aware that what sexual attraction I have is to the opposite sex only.I am not religious nor are my arguments religious.And why anyone may feel same-sex attraction is irrelevant…the fact is that nothing can justify fulfilling that attraction.That people feel better if told that there is nothing wrong with their desires does not excuse telling them what they want to hear when they need to hear the exact opposite until it sinks in.Again…it is their desires,not the people themselves,that should be criticized,and the taking of criticism of their weakness (homosexual orientation) for a bad habit (homosexual activity) as if it were a personal attack is unreasonable.

@Louis, Mark Joan,re: gays who feel that living faithfully to the gospel requires a lifetime of celibate loneliness. The ignorance and callousness I’m reading here are appalling. According to a friend of mine who is both a priest and a doctor of clinical psychology, only about 2% of human beings can actually thrive without a significant, intimate adult relationship. They are basically asexual in orientation. Perhaps the Wounded Lover is one of the 2%. If so, he is luckier than most. What about the rest? A 35-year-old homosexual man I knew from participation in community activities attempted to live his life as the church taught. He was no eunuch. He was not weak. He had no bad habits. He was an avid reader and a talented, delightful writer. His mother wrote me a note in June to say that her only son had killed himself. She thanked me for being his friend. I still have his last e-mail to me, apparently written not long before his death. It is nearly unbearable to read his description of painful self-rejection, despairing beseeching of God, and searing loneliness. His grieving mother will never set foot in a Catholic church again. Will you comfort her by saying, “Well, gosh, what can we do?—life is hard.” Shall we wait until it involves someone you know? I hope it never does. Come on. How many families have to be crushed before the church lifts this burden?

Louis E
Well that’s one way of making yourself you believe you won an argument - say that the other person who disagrees with the RC church’s teaching on homosexuality is deluded.  Guess that’s the end of the story.

As I’ve done on other threads - I’d be most happy to chat with anyone here after we’re dead - then we’ll see who’s beliefs come closest to the experience on the other side.

Katrina, I do have someone in my life who is same-sex attracted. Also, I have been alone for 2 years now, and have lived without sexual contact for many years. Sex is a secondary need, not a primary one.

Sandra, your arrogance is amazing. You are so sure that your beliefs are correct that you keep claiming that we will find that out in the afterlife. I wouldn’t be so smug if I were you. I would rather place my trust in God than in myself or any other person and I do. And I place that belief on 2000 years of the teaching of Christ’s Church, not on my own self will. That is something I am continually struggling with to conform to Christ’s.

P.S. By my last comment that I am alone,  I did not mean that a homosexual must learn to live and/or be alone. There is so much more to love than sex, and that type of real love and companionship and friendship is something that we all need and can have. By denying that people of the same sex can marry, we are not denying them the opportunity for real love, friendship and companionship in their lives. Yet, so many in today’s world falsely claim just that. That without that sexual relationship, their life is missing something great. That is just absolutely not true. And I am speaking from experience also.

Loneliness is not about being celibate. Many people in marriage are lonely. First, we have to develop an intimate relationship with God. We are called to be in union with God. This is the key to life. Sex is not the key to life. God is the key. People who kill themselves in short have no hope. There are many other reasons - medical etc, but in short they have no hope. We all must develop a personal intimate relationship with God. Then and only then will the rest make any sense. Every person has a cross to bear and it will only make sense with God. With God, everything is able to be dealt with in a way that gives hope.

katrina: I have to hand it to you- your post above is probably the most odious and dishonest attack on the Catholic Church I have ever read. You come on here and post about a suicide, a homosexual who, we are to understand, was driven to his suicide by Church teachings? Perhaps next we can hear how Adolf Hitler put a bullet in his brain because of the terrible conflicts engendered in his poor Bavarian childhood by the dark teachings of “the Church”- or how Josef Stalin would have been a wonderful fellow had not the Church twisted him all up…..maybe if the Church would simply stop denying communion to adulterers we could lower the suicide rate among them as well? You make me sick, katrina, both because you are a boll weevil advocating for the abandonment of Catholic moral teaching from inside the Church, but even much more so because you are the precise exemplification of the prophet’s awful warning, you who claim that if the Truth offends, then it is the responsibility of the Church to ditch the Truth so no one need ever struggle with their sins and temptations: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” Woe, woe, woe to you.

You lost me on the last sharp turn to the right. What is the connection of Wounded Lovers, who are awaiting the justice and affirming love of the church, to a pair of megalomaniacal psychopathic dictators who exterminated countless millions of people? Your bullying post is a dodge, nothing more. It is well known from previous posts that I accept the church’s teaching authority. With regard to church teachings on human sexualities, however, many Catholics now see a need for a positive update which would emphasize greater quality in intimate human relationships. Increasing numbers of faithful Catholics, pastoral clergy, and Cardinals share this view. Why fear this change? Jesus is the head of the church. With His love, we need not be afraid.

Oh. I’m sorry, it wasn’t well known to me from your posts that you accepted the Church’s teaching authority. Now that you have affirmed that you do, we can both agree. Here is the teaching of the Church, and as long as we both agree on Her Authority, we can have no basis for any further dispute, and blessed unity shall be restored: “2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I accept the above, and hence am not lying when I say I accept the teaching authority of the Church. If you can say the same, then this our debate is ended on felicitous terms.

Katrina, you stated: It is well known from previous posts that I accept the church’s teaching authority.
If you really accepted the Church’s teaching authority, then you would accept everything she teaches, not just some things.
It is pretty clear that you see the Church as a purely man-made organization based on your posts and that you write ‘church’ with a small ‘c’. But that is not what the Church says about herself. She claims that she is the True Church founded by Jesus Christ and that she is both human and divine. And that she is the keeper and teacher of God’s Truth. Yes, she is filled with weak, sinful human beings, but when it comes to teaching on faith and morals, the Church cannot err, because being guided by the Holy Spirit, God will not let her err and thus lead people astray. Doesn’t it make sense that God would have some sort of visible “leader” on earth to protect and teach His Truth? And that leader and protector is the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and led by the Pope and teaching magisterium? And that this Church is for all people of the world, if they will have her?
Believe as you will, Katrina, but just because there are some clergy and those who call themselves Catholics, who believe that the Church needs to change the Truths of Our Creator, please do not call them ‘faithful’. Since it is God’s Truth and not man’s, the Church cannot change those things that some may think should be changed.

A local priest taught our class on “Four Levels of Truth in the Church.”  Per this teaching, we Catholics are all clear on, and have not much trouble accepting, what we are taught at dogmatic, doctrinal, belief, scriptural levels. The rest of the teachings can change, and may change over time, due to the gift of our maturing understandings of the human or physical sciences. The boll weevil must seek out and clear away any tall cotton growing inside of ear canal, which prevent them from hearing cries of distress in the Church. Thank you for a lively debate. Peace be with you.

If you want to get your ‘truth’ from a local priest, that’s your loss. And you are vague on exactly what teachings you think can change. Disciplines can change, such as married or celibate priests, certain fasting requirements can and have changed, but those are not Church teachings. Just because a person is an ordained priest, it does not mean that he has been properly formed in the seminary, or does not dissent from Church teachings. I never heard that there are 4 levels of Truth in the Church-sounds suspect-as far as I understand, Truth is Truth or it isn’t. I will get my teachings directly from the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, the Magesterium which can easily be accessed through the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The church’s teaching doesn’t change. They may state it in more modern terms but they are not re-inventing the wheel. The teaching on homosexuality is not new. It goes back to the beginning. Look at Genesis 1 & 2. Look at Matthew 19. Jesus even quotes it.

The Church has been changing since it’s inception.  Early Christians understood God to be both masculine and feminine - then subsequently, the feminine was purged from the belief system.  And there are countless other examples.

And for all those who chose the catechism as the ultimate authority - which one?  The New Dutch Catechism?

We are the bride of Christ - female. Jesus is the groom - male. We receive God’s grace - female. God gives us his grace - male.

The church has one official Catechism, and every national one must be written off of it. They cannot contain anything that is contradictory to it.

Thank you, Sandra. If we were to bring up for consideration the possibility that Jesus’s Aramaic suggested both a kingdom and queendom, the Orthodox would go ballistic. Not only that. We have those who believe, thanks to wads of cotton and blinders, that the Church includes only the Orthodox, that these are the only ones invited to the table. Remember that we are debating with folks who like to run thought off the cliff. Notice how one of my priests, Vatican-educated with more than 35 years of both pastoral and teaching experience, was blithely dismissed by a prior poster. None of these folks had an empathetic word for the Catholic mother whose only son, a gay man, killed himself. (I won’t repeat that story here.) What did Jesus say about practicing the law without heart?  We recall that Jesus was happy, free, creative, when out among ordinary people, along the borders, ministering to the marginalized. He was especially kind to women. Clearly much more difficult in Jerusalem, right? I know you don’t like Bible study, so I ask your indulgence: when read carefully, Jesus’s commentary in Matthew 19 emphasizes not only the sanctity of marriage but the equality of the woman to the man. We have not yet sufficiently heard and actively lived this aspect of His teaching.

Jesus was asked if it was ok to divorce because Moses allowed it. Under Katrina’s thought, you would expect Jesus to side with the inquirer. Yet, he boldly quotes from Genesis and doesn’t give an inch. In fact, he goes on to say “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so…”. If homosexuals are born so, they are incapable of marriage under the scriptures that Jesus quotes: Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. It is in love that one must speak the truth. It would be faulty to allow others to continue to act in a sinful way and not correct their ignorance of truth. For any Catholic, including priests of 35 years, to teach that homosexual sex is of God, would be leading people astray. 

I look no further than the USCCB article: http://www.usccb.org/doctrine/Sexual_Person_2010-09-15.pdf

Mark - The New Dutch Catechism - a much more humanistic interpretation of Christianity, is still being debated in the Vatican, but has not been discounted. 

Katrina - you’re right - not really into reading the bible much anymore - I don’t trust the translations and interpretations of such biased, and politically motivated folks.

Thank goodness that there are still people like yourself in the Church - fighting the good fight!  I’m afraid your number is dwindling, though, and that institution will wither on the vine, tightly clinging to a mythology that is no longer relevant and definitely not a force for good in the world!

The US Council of Bishops is urging Catholics to vote for candidates who are anti-gay marriage, and anti-choice for women’s reproductive rights.  Never mind that those candidates are totally anti Christ’s teaching on virtually every other issue.

Time to make church’s pay their fair share of taxes now that they have become political lobby groups.

If the mother of the gay man who committed suicide was posting here, I would offer my sympathy and prayers. Please do not make judgments about our hearts because we did not comment on it.
The arrogance and self-righteousness coming from the two of you is nauseating. You are so sure that the Church’s teachings on various sexual matters is wrong and overly harsh. I have tried to address your comments, however you have yet to address the comments of others, except to dismiss them as unloving or ignore them altogether.
Your ignorance of Scripture and Church teaching and history is quite evident. A recent post spoke of the 4 levels of Truth in the Church, when it is really 4 levels of Church Teaching, an explanation of which can be found here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/4levels.txt.
No one believes that the Church belongs to the Orthodox-the Catholic Church is Universal, she is for all. Unfortunately, many do not believe this to be the True Church of Christ, nor do they want to accept her teachings or make the necessary changes of heart and lifestyle to follow Christ in His Church.
Lastly, Christians realize that God is not male nor female, period, but we do attribute masculine and feminine traits to Him. We primarily apply masculine traits I believe because Jesus himself, when he taught his disciples how to pray, called God Father.

Mark Herwaldt’s link is most welcome. It truly does appear that the katrinas of this world are about to come smack up against a resurgent erstwhile-endangered species: the Catholic Bishop. Pope Benedict is leading the way. I am sure katrina will find a willing shoulder to cry on in Sandra Currie. Perhaps they can have some tea and buck up for the struggle with a collector’s edition of the Dutch catechism….......

“I don’t read the bible much anymore”

“institution will wither on the vine, tightly clinging to a mythology that is no longer relevant and definitely not a force for good in the world!”

Wow, don’t care about the word of God?

If Jesus is the vine, the church will do just fine. It is people like yourself who are withering on the vine and are no longer relevant. You think that you are special. You have some new insight into truth that somehow previous generations missed. Well, the church has been smacking down people like you for centuries and still the church has survived. Not by any one person’s power, but by the Holy Spirit.

The truth is right in front of your face. Yet, you refuse to recognize it.

“While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds…therefore, God handed them over to impurity through lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator…their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned for lust for one another.” Romans 1:22- 27

It is amazing that our society has elevated man and animals above the worship of God and His truth. Self centered people who love animals and protect them over and above innocent human life. It is nothing new. It was happening in Paul’s time too. For those of you who don’t know history, homosexuality and abortion were the thing back then too.

Mark—Your post “For any Catholic, including priests of 35 years, to teach that homosexual sex is of God, would be leading people astray.” Let’s be clear on what was written in my post. My priest’s topic was on the four levels of truth, generally, not about the teaching on homosexuality. He received top honors for this study at the Vatican.(Please read more accurately.)     
Mark—Re: Matthew 19—we also know that Jesus’s teachings give rise to multiple levels of understanding. When He speaks of marriage, he is not only talking about human affairs, he is also communicating ideas about divine-human relationships. I agree—He is the Bridegroom and we, as Church, are the Bride. All of us who are baptized. No exclusions.
Mark—Yours post—“Well, the church has been smacking down people like you for centuries and still the church has survived.”  You take your vision for the Beloved Bride from the vintage novelty song, “Smack ‘er Down Again, Pa!” and women’s mud-wrestling? Are you serious?

Those who insist that homosexuality is sick, evil, a birth defect,are responsible for the gay bashing, suicides, self hatred, and addictions of our gay brothers and sisters.  You will have to answer for this someday.

Katrina-for the second time-there are NO Four levels of Truth-It is Four Levels of Church Teaching! I’m sure that is what your priest was teaching, not Four levels of truth.

Sandra, neither the Church, nor we who follow her teachings, claim that homosexuality is sick, evil or a birth defect. And I think you know that. The Church says that homosexual acts are gravely sinful, but to be homosexual in and of itself is not evil or sinful. Yes, the Church labels it a disorder, and rightly so, I believe, regardless of what the APA says. So what? There are many disorders out there. In fact, we are all disordered to some degree or other. The point is, we should be trying and helping others to rise above our disordered natures, and in cases where it is necessary like schizophrenia, medication may be needed; but it is not remotely loving to leave a person ‘where they are’, it is loving to help and encourage them to become the person God intended each of us to be.
Also, and I think you know this too, Sandra, the Church consistently calls for all to treat those with homosexuality with dignity, respect, and love. Do not blame anyone or anything for a person committing suicide-please!It is you who spew the venomous anger and hatred not the Church.

This was the posting that I am refering to in my smack down comment:

“fighting the good fight!  I’m afraid your number is dwindling, though, and that institution will wither on the vine, tightly clinging to a mythology that is no longer relevant and definitely not a force for good in the world!”

Calling the church a dwindling institution that is withering on the vine? It is no longer ‘relevant’? Clinging to a mythology?

Give me a break. Tearing apart the faith of billions of people and you expect me to just be nice and leave it alone. Sorry. When someone insults God and truth as much as been done on this thread, I will not stand still.

It is funny but sick. Lose an argument on truth and start throwing around insults and degrading people’s faith and accusing people of causing someone’s suicide.

Matthew 19 is a specific answer to a question about marriage. Yes, as with any scripture there are illusions to deeper truths ie male priesthood. The priest is in persona Christi. It would be inappropriate for a priest to be female since the priest is in place of Christ-the groom. So, It goes back to the truth about sex. Jesus - groom. Us - female. It is also a teaching on priesthood celibacy.

Your post on the four levels of truth;“Per this teaching, we Catholics are all clear on, and have not much trouble accepting, what we are taught at dogmatic, doctrinal, belief, scriptural levels. The rest of the teachings can change, and may change over time, due to the gift of our maturing understandings of the human or physical sciences. The boll weevil must seek out and clear away any tall cotton growing inside of ear canal, which prevent them from hearing cries of distress in the Church.”

You are using it to prove your point about the church’s teaching on this issue so it is relevant. You seem to allude that your priest taught you that this teaching could change. This teaching has been promulgated for centuries - over and again. You have to look no farther than JPII’s teaching on the Theology of the Body. It is found in scripture, the Catechism, and the teaching of the Magisterium.

I only care what the Church teaches, (and incidentally, I reject many of its teachings because I don’t like the results of those teachings), when it discriminates against a whole group of people, and tells them they are sinful for being who they are.  Or if they behave in the natural way that nature created them.  So, while most Catholics may not abuse or discriminate against homosexuals, the fact that some religions say these people are disordered, sinful, whatever, is the basis for the abuse and discriminate that they suffer.  And for that those who teach and believe these teachings have some responsibility for that.  And if that is christianity, I want no part of it.  (I don’t believe it is, however).

Sandra, again you are wrong when you say: the fact that some religions say these people are disordered, sinful, whatever, is the basis for the abuse…
The Catholic Church does NOT say these people are disordered, but that they HAVE a disorder-big difference. And, it does NOT say that homosexuals are sinful people, but that to engage in sex with a person of the same sex is sinful, as is adultery, and a whole slew of heterosexual sins as well.
You build up a straw man as the basis for your argument.

..............and if you don’t believe me, please go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfZhjUVlWE
and hear the stories from the people who suffered the abuse to which I refer.  I find it hard to believe that anyone would be unmoved by these stories!  Or who could continue their attitudes and behaviors and call themselves Christians.

.......no, I’m just echoing the remarks of the bloggers here.

Sandra: You seem conflicted. On the one hand, you want to follow Christian teaching but when it gets hard to follow, you want to reject it. There are many hard teachings that impact every person’s life. We all want to do what we feel like doing when we feel like doing it, but it isn’t freedom. People seem to be born with all kinds of inclinations. It doesn’t make it right to follow them just because we feel like it.

The church, us, must help everyone come to follow Christ. The problem lies in people who want no help and accept sinful acts as a right. Right now, the majority view homosexual sex as ok and no one can tell you otherwise. I will choose to reject that belief. I will be accused of discrimination. So be it. I reject people teaching that choosing to follow the flesh is ok when those choices conflict with the truth.

On the other hand, we must treat everyone with respect and dignity. So, I try to respectfully disagree with the common belief of today’s culture.

Homosexuals are incapable of marriage. It is a truth of the church and of God. Marriage was designed by God from the beginning as male and female. The truth, using human reasoning, can be found in the body. They are called to a life of celibacy or a life as a heterosexual.

Joan—I heard you the first time. The priest’s class topic was the four levels of truth. The priest did the work. I have the notes. You weren’t in attendance.
Mark—“Yes, as with any scripture there are   illusions   to deeper truths ie male priesthood.” You must have meant to write “allusions,” although I prefer what you wrote! A good chuckle. :-)
Mark, Joan—Due to the political nature of the same-sex marriage issue, it is now hard to trust that new studies of suicide rates among gay people, especially gay teens, are impartial. Prior to this issue becoming a political hot potato, however, the statistics pointed to a disproportionately high rate among gay teens, that is, one gay per three teen suicides. Personal witness—During the initial AIDS crisis, while working in health care, I was disturbed to observe how many gays died without the presence of family or even a priest. If any family came they stood in the doorway for a while, then left without a word. (Visits are documented, by the way.) Per the medical record, many of the dying listed themselves as Catholic, I am sorry to say.

Sandra Curie,those who claim that same-sex attraction is not a sickness or a birth defect are responsible for a great deal of harm to society.People afflicted by same-sex attraction need to hate their same-sex attraction and affirm themselves as able to overcome it…not allow it to enslave them.Encouraging the latter course is no less morally culpable than encouraging drug or alcohol addiction.There is no “discrimination against a group of people” to complain about when the group is defined by desire to engage in indefensible behavior,and people can freely leave that group by abandoning their intention to engage in that behavior and apologizing for having felt entitled.

Sandra—thanks for pointing out an excellent youtube video.  It’s very moving, and much in line with what I learned while working in health care, except in this case, the families here ultimately embraced their children! That’s what good parents do. More recently, I still see the ugly effects of bigotry while volunteering for community activities. Knowing what’s happening in the world is one reason why I participate in this blog. Unfortunately, the creators of anti-gay rhetoric are ubiquitous and well-financed, taking no responsibility for resultant violence. Internet witness helps give voice to the voiceless, however, and will make it more difficult to get away, endlessly, with anti-gay rhetoric.  In the long run, however, I believe that justice will be done. THX

Katrina,the promoters of “gay rights” are ubiquitous,well-organized,and well-financed.Justice,however,requires that they be defeated.For a parent to abandon hope of a child abandoning same-sex sex is not to “embrace their child” but to write the child off as beyond cure.A good parent will never abandon hope.

Well, I never claim to be a word smith. :)

Equating homosexuality with drug and alcohol addiction - how ignorant!

What is really well financed is the Catholic Church and the religious right.  Of course, there is no transparency, so we’ll never know how filty rich they are.

And the political interference of these organizations means that they are lobby groups and should be required to pay taxes!

Joan’s recent post says that “neither the Church, nor we who follow her teachings, claim that homosexuality is sick, evil or a birth defect.” Joan is clearly trying to live up to her Catholic faith, however challenging that can be today. We disagree on this particular issue of Church teaching, but I admire her sincere effort to live seamlessly & faithfully.
Meanwhile, however, Louis E. posts that “those who claim that same-sex attraction is not a sickness or a birth defect are responsible for a great deal of harm to society”...that they need a ‘cure”, and that those “afflicted by same-sex attraction need to hate their same-sex attraction, etc.”
Joan & Louis E.—I’m not sure how to phrase my next question, since it isn’t clear whether Louis E. is a confirmed Catholic: According to Catholic teaching, is homosexuality an evil, a sickness, a birth defect, a menace to society—or not?
After the debate, Louis E.—Please explain what is meant by saying that the defeat of gay-activists is required to bring about “justice.” Justice for whom and in what cause? You have the floor.

Katrina, regardless of what your priest taught-the fact is there is no such thing as Four levels of Truth in Church teaching, it is Four Levels of Teaching. There are 3 levels of truth (not inside of church teaching) that are recognized: cultural, conscience and Scriptural/Canon. The first two are subjective and may not necessarily be true. The third one is regarding Truth that is Absolute, and really true.
My point is, if you are under the assumption that there are different levels of Truth regarding Church teaching, you are mistaken (and so is your priest if he did indeed claim that),and this is no doubt why you believe that there is some Church teaching that does not have to be followed.

Regarding the you tube videos-many students are bullied in high school, it is disgusting. But it is not just homosexual students. Many other students get bullied as well, myself included-it is not a phenomenon unique only to gays. And bullying can and has led to some students committing suicide, not just gay students. But please do not blame the teaching of the Church on bullying or suicides. I rather doubt that the bullies even know Church teaching, and the fact is that the Teaching of the Church on homosexuality is merciful and loving. If some of these students were Catholic,it either had nothing to do with their suicide, or they were sadly subjected to false and misguided teachings.

Katrina asked-Joan & Louis E.—I’m not sure how to phrase my next question, since it isn’t clear whether Louis E. is a confirmed Catholic: According to Catholic teaching, is homosexuality an evil, a sickness, a birth defect, a menace to society—or not?

I will try to address your question, as it is very valid. I base what I said on the Catechism of the Catholic Church that was produced by the Vatican and published in 1994, I believe. Louis is calling it a birth defect based on the fact that the Church calls homosexual acts as disordered. It states that the acts are disordered, not homosexuals, however, it can be said that if the act is disordered, then homosexuality is a disorder-and I agree. Is it a disorder from birth, I do not know, and I do not believe a gay gene has been found, so we cannot say for sure.
Para. 2357 of the CCC calls homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity. I agree, although I can understand how some would consider that to be very harsh language indeed. But, the truth can hurt sometimes. I have had to accept some harsh truths about myself- but I do not let the ‘harshness’ of that particular truth keep me from rising above it and seeking the Lord’s help to overcome whatever defects I have.
Para. 2358 and 2359 are beautifully and lovingly expressed. It states that for those with homosexual tendencies, one does not choose this and that it is a trial. These persons are to be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity and unjust discrimination must be avoided, and that homosexual persons are called to chastity thru support, prayer and the sacraments.
Regarding unjust discrimination, I do not consider the fact that 2 men or 2 women cannot marry as unjust discrimination. Just discrimination takes place all the time. I expect that I could not, for example, be hired to be a firefighter, if I do not have the required strength and stamina needed for the job. For me to cry “unfair” would be absurd.
Anyway, Katrina, the Church does not specifically teach that homosexuality is evil but that the ACTS are gravely depraved, which could be considered close to being evil. But it is the activity, not BEING homosexual that is so wrong. A person with homosexual tendencies is not called evil or depraved by the Church, but yes, they do have a disorder, a sickness if you choose to use that word. Does the Church consider homosexuality a ‘menace to society’? Again, it does not state that in the Catechism, however, it can be argued that homosexual acts are certainly not a benefit to society at all.

Katrina,I spelled out from the beginning of my participation here (August 31) that I am not nor have I ever been a member of any religion.I have likened the incidental correctness of Catholic teaching on homosexuality to that of “a stopped clock twice a day”.Yes,there has to be a God,but no,there is no evidence God writes books or has an official fan club.
Homosexual orientation is a defect,I am not convinced enough by the “born that way” argument to specify that is a birth defect and not an acquired impairment.Homosexual activity is wrongdoing in no way excused by that defect.If you favor the born-that-way argument,look to my mention of my inferior vision making me justly subject to restrictions on my being allowed to drive,permitted only if I wear lenses that correct it to the superior kind that ought to be the only kind anyone has.If you are more in the acquired-state camp,look to the limitations on what may do when drunk making no exception for alcoholics.

“Gay activists” seek to reinforce people’s tendency toward irrational behavior and spare them the richly deserved adverse consequences of wilful persistence in that behavior,while punishing those who make any effort to correct those intent on that misbehavior.That is the opposite of justice.A well-ordered society must promote the exclusively normative status of opposite-sex relationships.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Louis E. 
Thanks for sharing your OPINIONS, because that’s what they are - merely opinions.

Those of you who grew up with a gay sibling probably already know that, even as small children, they were different - had different interests, thought differently, behaved differently, than their straight siblings.  Of course, these children aren’t “unnatural”, yet, because they haven’t engaged in sexual activity with themselves, or anyone else.

The “gay agenda” and “gay activists” are spoken about as if they were some big conspiracy to bring down society, or degrade it in some way.  I don’t understand why you can’t hold your own personal beliefs, and not engage in homosexual behavior.  Why do you have to demonize people who are merely fighting for what they perceive as their rightful place in society - just as racial minorities and women have done and are doing?

The difference between racial minorities/women and the homosexual agenda is action. Skin color and gender are not the same thing as action. Society has the right to call an action moral or immoral. The truth is homosexual sex is immoral. It is outside natural law. It has been judged so for thousands of years. The truth is found in the body. Human beings can use their human reasoning skills to know the truth.

Louis, you are comparing apples to oranges. Sorry. It is not the same.

Sandra, and you think your comments are not opinions? Well, they are opinions nevertheless. It is you who make absurd claims, ie: “these children aren’t ‘unnatural’, yet because they haven’t engaged in sexual activity…” . Who would call them unnatural even if they were engaging in homosexual activity? We do not call persons ‘unnatural’, although our behaviors may be. There is a difference and a distinction that you choose to ignore.
And to compare people who choose to engage in certain behaviors to racial minorities and women is disingenuous. Again, it is the behaviors and activities, not what a person is that matters. We can choose our behavior, for the most part, but we cannot choose our sex or race.
Because I choose to smoke, I am not out here demanding that restaurants and places of business accommodate me and allow me to smoke when and where I choose. It is the same with those pushing for marriage between homosexuals. It is not just their business-they are making it our business, and it does have an negative effect on society, just as no-fault divorce does: it denigrates marriage as a sacrament and holy, leaving children without both a mother and a father which is found to be the best situation for raising productive members of a society. Also, if marriage for homosexuals became the law of the land, what about those ministers, etc. who do not believe in it? Will they be forced to marry couples that they do not feel in their conscience is right? What about their rights to follow their conscience and their religious teachings?

Take a deep breath, Joan, and don’t engage in homosexual activities if you believe they are sinful.

Forcing your religious beliefs on others is just plain wrong.  There are thousands of other religions and traditions in the world and just because the RC claims it is the only true Church does not make it so, and should not force the rest of us to believe what you believe.  Again, I made the offer to chat about this with me when we both get to the other side.  You’ll need someone to help you deal with your confusion and disillusionment, believe me!

Church ministers aren’t forced to marry people they don’t want to marry.  The RC Church has refused to marry people who are not baptized Catholics.  No one is suggesting otherwise.

Gays are talking about the legal institution of marriage.  The one that brings legal rights.  It’s not skin off your nose if they have it.  We have legal marriage for gays in Canada,and not one Christian, heterosexual family has been diminished one iota because of it.  No one person has been forced to be gay, not one family has broken up because of it. 
Are your religious beliefs so weak that they require everyone to abide by them?

@Louis E. With reference to your post “Gay activists” seek to reinforce people’s tendency toward irrational behavior and spare them the richly deserved adverse consequences of wilful persistence in that behavior,while punishing those who make any effort to correct those intent on that misbehavior.That is the opposite of justice. A well-ordered society, etc.”
@Louis E—The social policy you recommend has already been implemented, and defeated, in Nazi Germany. Take a look at the shaming, coercive, and brutal techniques used to punish homosexuals, or anyone accused of being homosexual, who were required by law to wear the pink triangle in public, and finally in Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Homosexual guards, who hated both themselves and other homosexuals, made the best guards. they had the law on their side to commit unspeakable violence.
Is this where you want the United States to go in public policy?

@Dear & Faithful Catholics—I already understand what you are saying, since I too am Catholic. Take your eyes out of the Catechism for a moment. Here’s the question—Can we observe & understand how this particular Church teaching can be reworked to fill an agenda of hate?  Take a closer look at your dangerous, un-churched bedfellow, Louis E. When I listen to his words, I am left with no other choice than to speak out on behalf of the homosexual, a human being whom God has also created. When the law and the church fails to uplift the least of us, we must go directly to God who has tried to give each of us a conscience.

“Are your religious beliefs so weak that they require everyone to abide by them?”

Quite the opposite. The force of truth wins out in the end. One only needs to look at the history of the world. This is not a new issue. The world has been grappling with this issue for centuries. It matters to people when other people try to force feed immorality. It isn’t some ‘private’ matter. It is being forced fed to children as early as kindergarten. It is one thing to make it a private matter in the bedroom. It is quite another to force civil society to promote it as truth. It impacts every level. Already, Catholic Charities has had to abandon its adoption program in several states and countries because of it. Employers are forced to recognize it. It is not some private matter. It impacts all of society at its foundations. It has had an impact on the fertility rates of the world which impacts our economy. It is not a private matter.

Sandra Currie,that some people’s OPINION is that society is not degraded by their usurping what they wrongly,offensively see as their rightful place in society is just that…those of us who correctly understand the facts they self-servingly deny are responsible for giving them the correction they need rather than the undeserved validation they want.I have already shown how nonsensical your “minority” arguments are…bigotry is based on falsely claiming a target group automatically engage in a harmful behavior (be it Jews stereotyped as usurers,Gypsies as thieves,Irish as drunkards,blacks as what have you).The claim of the homosexual lobby is that those afflicted by homosexual orientation are helpless slaves to their hormones who are NOT capable of understanding that being same-sex makes same-sex sex wrong…and somehow those of us who think they ARE smart enough to be convinced of that fact “hate them’.
Forcing your belief that homosexual activity is unobjectionable on others is just plain wrong.
And the useful purpose of marriage to society is completely destroyed if same-sex couples are not excluded from it…the compelling state interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships (which are needed to perpetuate humanity) has no analogue at all in same-sex relationships (which are useless to society at best,and more generally harmful).This is NOT a religious issue even if the Catholics here see it as one…same-sex relationships are an outrage to secular common sense that you appear to lack.And no,no opposite-sex relationship is required to be procreative…the state’s legitimate interest (and obligation to the general welfare) is in requiring marriage partners to be of opposite sexes,and goes no further than that.

Sandra, having a discussion or debate is not forcing our beliefs on each other. Or do you think that those who vote against gay marriage are forcing our beliefs on others? Then in that case, any time something is on the ballot, whether a candidate or proposition, we are all forcing our beliefs on each other when we vote. Ridiculous! And marriage is a sacrament-there are civil unions, done outside of a church and without a church blessing. If a state wants to allow civil unions for homosexuals, that is a different matter than demanding that they be allowed to marry within a church and with the blessing of the Church.
If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe that a person’s faith must be weak if they try to live out the gospel and adhere to the Truth, and live that Truth in every aspect of our lives, private and public,then be my guest, it doesn’t affect my faith whatsoever. As to your offer to speak with us in the afterlife, to assist us in our ‘confusion’? I wouldn’t be so arrogant to presume that it is we who will be confused or disillusioned.

Lastly, Mark: it was not Louis who was comparing sexual activity to race and gender. God Bless.

But, Katrina,it is precisely the Church’s teaching on homosexual behavior that is uplifting people, unfortunately so many refuse to see it as such because they do not want to change their behavior or make the sacrifices required. They would rather serve themselves instead of Christ. The Church is constantly trying to lift us up, to raise society above our lower, weak and sinful nature-not leave us to rot in the pit of our own making or beyond our control. And please don’t think that we need to ‘get our noses out of the catechism in order to see what is going on in the ‘real’ world. Perhaps it is you who needs to read the Catechism and not just go by what you see and hear in the world. It is by following the Church and her teaching and scripture that people are better able to really see and understand what God, as our creator, intends for us as human beings. It is the manual so to speak given to us by God, just as we get manuals when we buy a car or electronics-so we know how to use and take care of the product properly. God never intended for us to be in the dark about Him or ourselves, who and what we are. So He gave us a visible, real guide, The Church. I wish you could believe what the Church claims to be and not just some man-made organization run by a bunch of men in Rome.

Ok, so if I were to believe most of the bloggers here, I am disillusioned, arrogant, can’t recognize the one truth (as proclaimed by the Catholic Church, which incidentally, happened to coincide with homophobia), and not knowing marriage law. 
People who go to court and are married by a justice of the peace are married!  They can do a church ceremony or not, but they are still legally, officially married.
My offer still stands - I’d love to chat with you after our mutual deaths.  You shouldn’t find that threatening or challenging - since you are right and I’m so misguided, right?
And I agree - having a different opinion on this site is not forcing your beliefs, nor am I forcing mine.  But when the council of Bishops with the moral authority given them by followers of the RC religion, state that they want people to vote for anti-choice, anti gay marriage candidates, no matter how unChristian the rest of their political agenda is, then that is using the power of a huge, well funded organization to impose it’s beliefs on the rest of us.  And it’s not the well a tax-exempted organization gets to act.  Wouldn’t be so darn rich and powerful if the Church, with all it’s political activity, had to pay the taxes that are due.

Mark H
“It has had an impact on the fertility rates of the world which impacts our economy. It is not a private matter”
Let me get this straight - you’re worried that there are too few people being born in the world?  How about worrying about the fact that so many of them die from lack of food, and water.  And the Almighty economy - whose economy?

Sandra: Yes, there are too few people being born in the world. Yes, the economy is important because it keeps people out of poverty. People have a lack of water and food not for a lack of food and water but from a lack of people willing to do something about it.

The truth is not just proclaimed by the Catholic church. This is a truth that is recognized across the world for thousands of years: Jewish, Christianity, Islam. It is in natural law. It has been built into civic law from the beginning.

Marriage is an institution that goes back to the beginning. It has been and is described as a covenant between a man and a woman.

There is no political party that the church pushes for people to vote for in elections. There are principles to look for in a candidate. The church has never pushed any political party. Some individual leaders may have done so but not the official church. Every leader has failings. We are called to vote for the best possible candidate who holds positions that are as close as possible to the common good of all human beings including the unborn, poor, sick, elderly, etc. Then, we are called to lobby them where they fall short. So, it is a lie that you push this agenda that the church is for evil and pushes people to vote for evil. You can’t stand that the church has teachings that you disagree with and so you paint the church as some kind of evil organization. I am the church, so when you cast derogatory statements on the church you are casting them on me. I find it very offensive.

Abortion is murder of a human being. It is a fact and anyone who promotes it or encourages it is committing a grave sin.

I was going to respond, but Mark did a great job so I will just second what he said.

The population of the world will hit 7 billion in 2012.  While fertility rates are decreasing in countries where women have more access to education, the world’s population is still increasing beyond sustainable levels.

But the good news is - due largely to the exploitation of third world countries by industrialized countries, and the resulting degradation of the environment - particularly in the African continent, millions of people will die of thirst, disease, and starvation. 

It is time for all of us to take off our ideological blinkers whatever they are - and take a look at the facts and the likely consequences, and begin to stop the exploitation, stop consumerism, redistribute resources, and provide access to education for those who do not have it. 

A wonderful read is “Three Cups of Tea” by Greg Mortenson.  It’s about an American mountain climber who has had a huge impact in Afhghanistan and Pakistan by helping to build schools and build bridges between traditionally warring factors to work for the common goal - the good of the children.  Very inspiring book!

Abortions will no longer be necessary when women have the resources to care for their children and control over how many they are able to care for.

Joan—if you don’t get what I’m saying, can you at all see the implications of last Sunday’s Gospel parable: i.e., Lazarus, ignored by other people and licked by dogs, and the rich man, who walked past him every day without so much as a word?  How is this situation uplifting for Lazarus? Why doesn’t the rich man feel a call to responsibility? Only Abraham, the hospitable, wise, and welcoming, chooses to lift up Lazarus. The rich man, failing to act with charity which is the heart of the law, ends up, clueless, and in hell. He’s got the rest of eternity to think about what might have been done differently. I prefer to think about this obligation now.
How are gays uplifted by a teaching that describes their way of being as “grave depravity”?
Mark—It is the Church’s problem when bigots fall in behind well-catechized Catholics in the anti-gay crusade. Bigots are quite comfortable marching in on the coat-tails of the Church’s contingent. What bigots bring to the political debate, in which the Church has involved itself, is hate, ridicule, fear-mongering, prejudice, & dehumanization of gays.
When the Church makes no rebuke of bigotry, I find this very troubling, as a Catholic. Compare this to the swift rebuke of prejudice against Hispanic immigrants following the passage of anti-immigrant laws in Arizona. Where’s Church leadership when it comes to the gays? Could it be that there is silence when the means justifies the end.

Mark H -
Please tell me which candidates are anti-choice, anti-homosexual marriage and for health care for everyone,  unemployment insurance, and social assistance.  The first two issues are the ones that the US Council of Bishops refer to in order to direct Catholics to vote as a political bloc.  “What you do unto the least of my brethren, you do unto me” JC
I would like to spread the word to everyone I know so that they can support such candidates. 

The most recent statistics on the economy show that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.  Where is the Catholic outrage about that injustice?  Or do they share the fundamentalists belief that God makes good people rich and bad people poor.

Katrina, how can you compare the Church’s teaching to the actions, or inactions rather, of the rich man toward Lazarus? And I hope you are not comparing me to the rich man because I stand by Church teaching?
You obviously see only what you want to see. Are you incapable of seeing how the teaching of the Church is full of love and mercy toward sinners, which includes us all I might add? Do you refuse to even consider that the Catholic Church, both Roman and Eastern Rites were founded by Jesus and are guided by the Holy Spirit when it is teaching on faith and morals? That is what the Church claims about herself. Why do you belong to a church that you do not follow or hold to all of her teachings? Do you really think it is just a man-made organization that may not always have the right answer because it is only humans coming up with this stuff instead of the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit ensuring that the Magisterium does not lead us astray? Why can’t you in all humility believe what the Church claims about her own authority as given by Jesus Christ? I would not be asking these questions of a non-believer or a non-Catholic, but you are a self proclaimed Catholic Christian, right?

Joan: If you want to read a document from the church on this issue, I would suggest the following - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

It is not a bigoted stand to say that homosexual sex is disordered. It is not a bigoted stand to make choices based on the knowledge that a person is engaging in those activities. Anymore if I knew of someone who was living together as a heterosexual couple outside of marriage or teens having sex or any other action that is considered a sin. We can discriminate based on peoples actions.

It is a poverty that woman would kill her own child in order to survive.

The world is not over populated. The world is not at the brink of any great calamity. They have been talking about the world at the brink for 40 years and it isn’t even close. The fertility in the US has been declining since 1776. The fertility rates in Central America are getting close to below replacement rates. The only think keeping America afloat for the last 30 years has been immigration. Given the fact that the rates in Central America are getting down to 2, we will not have the immigration to this country that we have had over the last 30 years. We are heading towards the same problems that Japan has had. Our economy is headed for decline no matter the policies in Washington. People have stop having children. People see children as some sort of commodity or right. Then, once they are born, they are a burden. Children are the fruit of a marriage. The love that the man has for his wife and the woman for her husband is supposed to be so powerful that it becomes a child. Instead, most Catholic marriages are self-centered. They put off children until they are ‘ready’. Then, they only have one or two because having any more would be a burden. Yet, we are called to lay down our lives so that others may live. How many people are never born because of our self-centeredness.

It is not the belief of the Catholic church that every social problem be solved in Washington. Any social problem must be solved at the lowest level possible. Most social problems must be solved at the local level. One on one. Since the 60’s most Catholics have this belief that Washington and their tax dollars are going to solve the problems of the homeless, hungry and the sick. This is a wrong conclusion.

If you want health care for all, donate 10% of your income to your local Catholic hospital.  It would be the most efficient way to get health care to the poor. If you want to help with the problem of homelessness, donate your time and money to local agencies that are building housing for the poor.

The federal government has had a war on poverty for over 50 years. We have spent billions. We have wasted billions. The church has a long history of people working directly with the poor. This is the solution. If more Catholics would get off their butts and off their couches, we could make a huge dent. The fact is most Catholics have never had a close encounter with the poor. I am not talking about giving a dollar to someone on the street. I am talking about a real relationship with someone who is poor and making a difference in their life.

Catholics need to stop experiencing their faith in a superficial way and really live it by making a difference. There enough Catholics in this country to total transform it. But, we sit on our couches and watch Dancing with the Stars or have a teen in every sport imaginable and wonder why they grow up self centered. The federal government is not the solution. We expect to support candidates would understand the principle of subsidiary.

Katrina,insisting that those afflicted by homosexual orientation have the same capacity to understand that homosexual activity must be rejected as indefensible as everyone else is not dehumanizing them,any more than it dehumanizes alcoholics to treat them as capable of sobering up.There’s no “way of being” excuse.

The Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s did not address the areas covered in the Church documents listed above. The entire Church was called in for updating, as you know, by then Pope John XXIII.  We know that there was, and still is an unvoiced, dissenting & growing minority, among those seated and observing the Council, and today, on various issues of human sexuality. After Pope John XXIII’s death, the momentum and commitment was lost. Documents written later by one person in the Church use the royal “we” but have not included the minority view. Where is the opportunity to respond to these documents by other Cardinals, pastors & laity? Do you think we have all turned our thoughts into pretzels? How do you know that it isn’t the Holy Spirit that keeps knocking at the door of the Chruch until the issues are fully, and collegially, addressed?

Mark, thanks for the link. However, I am on your side-I agree with you and we both agree with all that the Church teaches. I think my posts have been very clear on that. :)

No religion can be credible if it is caught changing its views on eternal,unchangeable divine law.If you want commitment to the principles of John XXIII why aren’t you demanding that seminaries implement his apostolic consititution Veterum Sapientia,promulgated at the start of the Council?

Louis, where has the Church changed its teaching on divine law? As for Veterum Sapienta, it seems that many in the Church in the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” made changes on their own, apart from what the Church documents actually called for. That many seminaries at least in the U.S. stopped teaching Latin is a shame, but that is being rectified by some very good seminaries now.

Vatican II was not a dogma council. It was a pastoral council. It looked at reinvigorating her evangelical spirit. What is church? What is the liturgy? The outcomes impacted the updating of the Catechism and the updating of the divine liturgy. The pope updated the Code of Canon Law. These are the things that came out of the council. We have seen much fruit especially in the laity. We have more lay leadership across the board. The laity are empowered to share their faith with others. In addition, we are still seeing continued growth in the evangelistic spirit of the church through lay movements throughout the world.

The ‘growing’ minority on human sexuality is a direct result of a self-centered attitude about sexuality. Human beings were made in the image of God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. Their love is so powerful it is a person = the Holy Spirit. Man and woman are made in the same image. The love of the husband for the wife and the wife for the husband is supposed to be so powerful that it is a person = a child. Every act of sexual intercourse is about a total giving of self to another. The two become one. One entity. This entity cannot be selfish if it is acting in the image of God. Yet, it is this ‘growing’ minority who have made it a self-centered enterprise. When a husband and wife act outside of their true destiny, they act selfishly. This selfishness leads to divorce among other things. Children are the fruit of the love of the husband and the wife. Each child is created out of love. It is in this giving that man and woman experience God and holiness.

Again, if Catholics believe that homosexual sex is disordered, then don’t engage in it.  If Catholics believe that abortion is evil, then don’t have any.  If Catholics believe that contraception is evil, then don’t use contraception.  There are people in the world who believe otherwise.  The Catholic Church is not the moral leader of the world, does not have a corner on the truth, and isn’t doing a great job of reflecting Christ’s teachings in the world.  People need to have the integrity to follow their own beliefs and leave other the opportunity for the same integrity.

Mark H - all the shoulds in the world don’t feed or protect the poor.  That’s why the money that we give the government should be used to create jobs,educate,  and care for the sick, the infirm, and the poor.  So if you vote for candidates who’s priority is “fighting terrorism”, instead of progressive social policy, I contend that you are not being very Christian.  And a huge percentage of the world’s population does not have the necessities to sustain life - what’s pro-life about that?  And candidates that support corporations who exploit third world countries so we have cheap !@#$% we don’t need are not supporting Christian values.  And candidates that support tax cuts for the rich are not following Christian values.  The poor we shall always have with us - but forcing more people into poverty is against Christian values. 

And in case you didn’t know it, Catholic hospitals get government funding.

OK - I have an idea of how the Church could prove that their attitude towards gays is not bigoted.  40% of gay students polled say they are the victims of physical abuse.  That number goes up to 82.5 for verbal abuse.  And heterosexual students who are perceived as gay also are victims of abuse.  There have been 4 recent suicides of gay students whose parents tried to get the school to deal with the bullying that their children were suffering.  So, how about Catholics making a lot of public noise against this abuse.  That would prove that the beliefs of the Church are not bigoted, right?  How about petitioning the US Council of Bishops to make a public statement?

When it comes to voting for candidates, above all else to be considered is their views on abortion. Why? Because unborn babies are the most vulnerable and voiceless of anyone. A society that cannot protect and preserve the life of it’s unborn is in my opinion being hypocritical. Any other act of charity or social reform is meaningless if we are violently sucking babies out of mother’s wombs, dismembering them in the process. At least the poor and marginalized have more of a voice than the unborn-because they are ALIVE. Without life in the first place, all the other concerns of poverty, abuse, etc. take second place. Let’s work on preserving life in all cases, then we can validly work to correct all the other injustices.
You will probably bring up overpopulation and starving people (not the problem-distribution of food and resources is)and unwanted children who are abused. So they are better off dead? How about men and women practicing self control and some discipline? How about viewing sex as so much more than recreation? There would be much less unwanted/crisis pregnancies. But the mindset that screams out about these children born to unfit parents/families is the same one that promotes sex at any cost and as a form of recreation.

But the mindset that screams out about these children born to unfit parents/families is the same one that promotes sex at any cost and as a form of recreation.

Excuse me?  What is the basis of that statement.  Your credibility just dropped 90 points.  That statement is simply untrue. 

The Catholic Church believes that using birth control and abortion are sinful.  But lots of other people do not.  Virtually every Catholic couple that I knew when I was one was using birth control, because they didn’t want to have a lot of children.  Maybe they couldn’t afford to have a lot of children or maybe they didn’t think that they could care for a lot of children.  So, the Catholic Church isn’t able to force it’s own beliefs on it’s own people, why do you think they should/could do it on non-believers.

Keeping on the abortion one-note when voting and ignoring all the other precepts that Christ taught seems insane to me.  It leaves you wide open to candidates to pander to the Catholic voting bloc by saying they are anti abortion just to get your vote. 

Be realistic - if you want to cut down on the incidents of abortion, as I do also, then lets ensure that our youth get good birth control education - not just abstinence, because that approach doesn’t work, and let’s make birth control methods affordable.  And the countries that have the most accessible abortions have the lowest rates per capita.  Think of all the babies you could save if you supported the latter. 
But that’s not what this is really about, is it?

Every culture has to determine what philisophy rules. Our founding was based on certain truths. You can see it spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, speeches, books, etc. For example, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” All men are created equal. What does that mean? Endowed by their creator with inalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What does that mean? We have spent over 200 years building a country based on these principles. We even went to a war over them. To say that a Catholic should shut up is against the freedom of religion. I have the right in the public square to share my faith and have it impact the laws that are passed in this country. It is part of our founding. To say that I have to shut up is a principle of fascism. You are trying to suppress the opposition which is exactly the strategy of people like Hitler. I have the right to share my faith in the public square and have it impact public policy. We will continue to do so. To speak the truth even if it makes people queasy.

Homosexual sex is contrary to truth. Teens who are struggling with their sexuality need the support of family, friends, community and church. The suicides that have occurred are horrible. People in their circle of influence dropped the ball big time. The two college students who taped the sexual encounter and put it on the web should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What they did is repugnant.

Sandra Currie,truth is a monopoly commodity,and right and wrong are fixed entities.In the case of homosexuality,the Catholic teaching happens to be right,and all those in and outside that church who dissent from it are wrong.In the case of abortion,the Church and all who agree with it are wrong,and all dissenters are right.There’s only one truth to go around just as there is only one God.There is no “integrity” in saying there is no objective truth in what one believes,.

Joan,only the born are entitled to a voice.If you want to protect the most vulnerable who actually deserve protection,,fight against the “Groningen Protocol”.The rights of born are irreparably harmed by the unborn having rights.We must all live in a world where we know our mothers wanted us,not were forced to carry us by the state.

Sandra, I don’t really care what my credibility is in your view.
Louis, the Catholic Church is not wrong on its stance on abortion-but that is your opinion.
The Catholics who used birth control were wrong, and there is such a thing as self control, and very good natural family planning methods out there that do not require ABC. The Church is not in the business of forcing anything on anyone, believers and non-believers alike. The Church can only propose-it can only proclaim the Truth-it cannot force anyone to accept it.

Why are all of you people wasting your time arguing with Sandra.  She obviously has an axe to grind against Christianity even though she doesn’t begin to understand it.  St. Augustine wrote that “Understanding begins with faith.  Those who do not begin with faith will never come to understanding.”  This is the case with many people in our world today.  They resort to hatred and judgment, name calling and irrational arguments just because they are angry about something that happened in their life and want to lash out.  Beating her over the head with the truth is not going to accomplish anything.  You should all put an end to these pointless arguments and just pray for her.

Louis E-who says that only the born are entitled to a voice? Millions of people worldwide would disagree. Please state your source and/or reasoning behind this statement?  When people or the state decide what rights are and who gets them, we are all in trouble, as history can attest to.

Joan,I say again that it is irreparable harm to the rights of the born for the unborn to be seen as entitled to rights.I agree that if the state treats the unborn as entitled to rights,we (we are the born!) are all in trouble.
Joe,I’m not a Christian either.I see same-sex sex as an outrage to secular common sense,and that’s probably the fact Sandra is most desperate to hide from.

First, women are only fertile for a certain number of days per month. If you abstain from sex during those days, in all likelihood, she will not be pregnant. My wife and I have been using this method for 23 years. It has worked perfectly. We have as many children as we determined through prayer and discernment.

Second, the world including many Catholics doesn’t understand the basic truth = we are made in the image of God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father loves the Son so powerfully and the Son loves the Father so powerfully it is a person = the Holy Spirit. We are made to live in that image. The love of the husband for his wife and the love of the wife for her husband is so powerful = it is a child, a person. Three persons in one God. Three persons in one family. It is a truth.

The two become one flesh. One entity. Artificial birth control brings selfishness and something artificial into the relationship. The relationship becomes self-centered. As a result, the rate of divorce of couples who use artificial birth control is substantially higher than ones who don’t. There are many reasons for this difference but the one over arching reason is selfishness. The couple wants to put off kids. Why? Because they have a selfish agenda ie career, want to travel etc.

Abortion is contrary to truth in every way possible. Just as we are against the death penalty. We are also against the death penalty for innocent children. There is no reason to kill a child not even for the actions of the father. Children should not pay with their lives. To be killed because they are sick or deformed in some way is repugnant. All human life is sacred.

The culture has reduced sex to an action of pleasure only. Sex is part of a sacrament. To have sex outside of the marriage sacrament is a desecration of the sacrament. Marriage is a covenant between two people. Sex seals that covenant. In fact, you are not married in the church until you have sex with your spouse. Sex is the sign of the covenant. In fact, it is a blood covenant. It is not by accident that the woman should be a virgin and that blood is spilled on that first night. This covenant is permanent. It changes the couple for life. Just ordination changes the man for life. They are forever a priest. Marriage is the same.

“I agree that if the state treats the unborn as entitled to rights,we (we are the born!) are all in trouble.”

How so?

Wow - nasty people on this site - and a lot of amateur psychologists.  It’s pretty simplistic to have to name call and pseudo diagnose those who disagree with you.  And talk about anger issues….............

Very well said, Mark.
Joe, I don’t see it as a waste of time, nor arguing, with regard to Sandra. It is an opportunity for me to speak the Truth as we are called to do as Catholic Christians. If, perhaps, a seed is sown somewhere down the road because of those who clearly and lovingly proclaim the Church’s teaching, then all the better.
Louis, I do not agree with you, the state should see the unborn as entitled to the right to Life and Protection. And there are many laws out there that do just that. I find it ironic, however, that states that will charge someone with the murder of two people if a pregnant woman is murdered (and they should), that these same states have abortion as legal. Sound irrational to me.

Joan,the fundamental issue is that no one gets to violate the woman’s decision as to whether she wants to give birth…whether she wants an abortion or not.To murder her is to violate that just as much as preventing her from getting an abortion she demands.I would not want a law to treat her embryo as a separate person,but it is still an aggravating factor whether she is murdered,or assaulted in such a fashion that she can not have the child she wants.“Protection” however is a matter she chooses to provide it,and it can not be entitled to from her.
Anyway,this thread is about homosexuality,an issue on which your church happens to be right,not abortion,on which it is sadly very wrong.

Well, Louis, I and million others disagree. You are correct, however, that this is the comment section on an article regarding homosexuality, and we have strayed off topic. I was responding to the abortion comments initiated by Sandra around Sept. 30th or so.
Sandra, so you are calling the people on this site ‘nasty’, how judgmental! The posters’ comments here have all been quite civil, you are reading into these messages what isn’t there simply because you do not agree with them, and have responded with some angry comments yourself. Yet you choose to judge the whole person instead of their comment.

During the fall of ancient Rome the government would sponsor feast in the auditoriums. The people would come and eat all they could and would go out to the entrance below the seats and purge themselves. Yes they would vomit right there and then go back to the feast and have a go at it again. That is why the entry under the seats in auditoriums today are called vomitorys.  Well what is the point? Well I know that we all can agree that what they were doing was gross and vulgar. Today if we caught a friend doing this we would say that they are bulimic, correct? We would get them psychiatric help wouldn’t we? Why? I don’t know who the first to identify this thought is but someone makes the argument that every act has a nature. I believe this argument is older than the church itself. They would say that this bulimic behavior would go against the “nature” of the act of eating. I am sure that we can agree that the primary end to the act eating is nurturing the body. Giving it strength and keeping it alive and well. But there can be other ends also. Eating a meal with ones friends and family can be unitive and have social ends.
Earlier in the posts someone talks about homosexual behavior as being unnatural. When the church is speaking about it being unnatural it means that it goes against of the “nature” of the act. In the Catechism of the church it admits the unfortunate fact that some are born with a homosexual bent. She does not argue that point and asks us to love them where they are at. She only calls the homosexual act as disordered. She believes that the nature of the sexual act is that it is both unitive and open to pro-creation and both being of equal importance. Sex can be unitive in the homosexual act but it can not be pro-creative. It can not be open to pro-creation. Therefore it is unnatural. With this understanding she also defines masturbation as disordered. This a layman’s understanding of it all.
Earlier someone stated that heterosexual marriages have more benefits than persons who live together in homosexual unions. Well really since we are raising tomorrow’s citizens then I think that we should have more benefits. Maybe we need to rethink situations where hospitals visits are concerned.
I once heard about an old dying priest who said that he knew that he might not have been a holy priest but that he did not make friends with his sins. I think that is what we are being asked as a society to do to make friends with our sins and if we do we invite the growth of the culture of death. Homosexual acts are an end in themselves. Just because they don’t have kids and have allot of time and money to lobby and be politically active we have to have this debate.
In reality why can’t persons with homosexual bents just live together? I don’t care what happens behind their closed doors. As long as my children will not be exposed to this life style from the outside, I am ok with it. If, without influence from outside sources with homosexual teachings, they come to me at the age of 28 and say they are gay, I will be ok with it. I still will think that their act is a sin. I will definitely be disappointed because I want my culture to be handed down to future generations through “Grandchildren!!”. That is definitely a purpose and the nature of society is to hand down its’ culture. I would definitely miss being a grandfather of many grandchildren. I would be accepting of them as long as they did not promote their life style and would not be “open/ out” in my house or around my grandchildren. I would be the same way with them if they were living with someone in a heterosexual union outside of marriage too. I just would want to encourage right behavior in society, my family being a small cell of it.

Very well said, Ben. And how true what you stated about the fact that because homosexuals have the time and money to lobby and be politically active that we even have to have this debate. Others will claim that it is people who believe as you and I do that are causing the “problem” and keeping the debate alive. When in fact it is those who have been lobbying so loudly and successfully to force society to accept a certain sexual activity, that has been considered unnatural and immoral to most for the entire history of humanity, normal and moral and therefore acceptable to society. It is they who brought this entire issue into the political forum and will not let it rest until they get everything they want and to hell with how that affects others.

Just to clarify the purpose of the Church for all those who have a problem with its teachings.  Jesus instituted the Church here on Earth to help those who accept His teachings get to Heaven.  Nothing more and nothing less.  If you follow His example and accept these handed on down teachings on how to best live your short stay here on Earth, you will be rewarded upon your passing.  He didn’t say it would be easy.  However, He did say it is your own choice to make.  You can take it or leave it.  Many choose to follow the Way, the Truth and the Light and many don’t.  Clear enough?