Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments for two closely watched marriage cases dealing with the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8.
Few legal experts will predict the likely outcome of either case, but the oral arguments are expected — if only briefly — to air opposing views on the meaning and purpose of marriage.
Is it an institution uniquely devoted to the procreation and education of children or a "committed, lifelong relationship," as one federal judge described it?
At present, most advocates of "marriage equality" frame their position as an effort to expand the benefits of marriage to a previously excluded group of people, and nothing more. President Barack Obama, in his 2013 inaugural address, echoed this claim when he endorsed additional rights for homosexual persons and asserted that "the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."
Meanwhile, one allegedly "conservative" argument for changing the nation’s marriage laws posits that matrimony will provide an antidote to the social pathologies associated with the "homosexual lifestyle" — a suggestion that also presents marriage as a one-size-fits-all relationship with no distinctive grounding in the mission of procreation.
In 2010, when Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated same-sex couples’ constitutional right to due process and equal protection, he concluded that the state had no rational basis or vested interest in barring same-sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses.
"Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough," stated Walker in a decision that explained his reasons for setting aside the will of California voters. "Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."
Walker’s decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a narrow ruling that backed the lower court’s decision.
On Jan. 29, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed amicus briefs in support of DOMA and Proposition 8. Both briefs cautioned that any change in the nation’s marriage laws posed a direct threat to the free exercise of religion, among other issues.
But the brief filed in the Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, also tackled Judge Walker’s assertion that opposition to same-sex "marriage" arose from unreasonable animus toward a minority group.
The USCCB brief countered that the "state may reasonably support and encourage marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, as distinguished from other relationships."
Catholic leaders and others who have resisted changes in the nation’s marriage laws have warned that if marriage is infinitely malleable — if it can be "anything" — then it is "nothing."
While the nation’s high divorce rate and a steep rise in non-marital births confirm that traditional marriage is in tough shape, the U.S. bishops’ Prop. 8 brief reminds the high court that marriage still matters, and it should be defended, not deconstructed.
"No other institution joins together persons with the natural ability to have children, to assure that those children are properly cared for. No other institution ensures that children will at least have the opportunity of being raised by their mother and father together," states the brief. "Societal ills that flow from the dissolution of marriage and family would not be addressed — indeed, they would only be aggravated — were the government to fail to reinforce the union of one man and one woman with the unique encouragement and support it deserves."
It is a testament to the moral incoherence of our times that the outcome of both marriages cases is by no means certain. Indeed, while a child’s need for a mother and father has long been viewed as the best argument for resisting changes to U.S. marriage laws, four separate victories for "marriage equality" forces during the 2012 election year indicate that we are in the middle of a sea change in public opinion.
The shift heralds the steady rise of individualistic norms that resist commonsense truths. And if the high court makes same-sex "marriage" the law of the land, that ruling is unlikely to assuage the demand for further accommodation to individual desires.
Can a nation survive when its courts, political leaders and citizens no longer agree on a child’s right to be raised by a mother and a father — or can no longer defend a once-established requirement for human flourishing?
When Church leaders defend that right, they are often accused of imposing their "religious views" on the rest of society. The Church and its allies reject that claim, noting that diverse cultures across the world uphold traditional marriage.
Rather, the Church asks a restless nation to pause and consider that marriage cannot be viewed in isolation of the common good, and it cannot be redefined without wrecking immense damage.
In the journal First Things, George Weigel warns that the battle over marriage marks an era of growing political instability.
"The marriage debate is thus about more than the legal definition of marriage, although that is serious enough," writes Weigel. "It’s a debate about whether there are any givens in the human condition or whether willfulness and self-assertion trump reality at every point. If they do, what happens to democracies built on self-evident truths?"
Comments
Post a Comment
Genesis 1: 27 to 28, So GOD created man in his own image, in the image of GOD he created him; male and female he created them. And GOD blessed them, and GOD said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it,. What cant’t these creatures created by GOD, not understand what he said from the beginning when GOD created the earth. GOD instituded marriage period. These black robed so call judges, are going to account to there Creator there actions, as all of us will havwe to do one day. The word is called SIN, or did they forget that. GOD mave mercy on us, for man wanting to break your laws oh GOD.
These words of God are frightful regardless of those who believe or do not believe. Truth is not dependent on one’s belief or non belief. Truth is absolute.
“And the Lord God created woman, wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply
[22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination…
Defile not yourselves with any of these things with which all the nations have been defiled, which I will cast out before you,...
And with which the land is defiled: the abominations of which I will visit,... that it may vomit out its inhabitants.
[29] Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people… [30] Keep my commandments. Do not the things which they have done, that have been before you, and be not defiled therein.
I am the Lord your God.
It’s amazing how, in arguing against marriage equity, a child being raised by a father and mother is a prime factor and yet there is no mention of divorce and how to reduce it. Fear of the unknown has superseded a real challenge to children’s welfare.
I have a grandaughter in a Catholic University and another in a Catholic HS. Neither have ever discussed this issue in class. I attend Mass every Sunday and very rarely hear this subject discussed. Both girls are quite liberal in their politics, yes and that includes abortion and same sex marraige. Our Church leaders at every level, especially at the parish level must discuss this and also that this president and the democratic party are behind it. Our Catholic educators must tackle these issues in class and let our catholic youth hear the truth.
Do we want to end up like Europe—below replacement birth rates,high entitlements, scripture and tradition without marriage. Give gays civil rights. Sustain DOMA
“and God said; let us make man in Our image….”
That is the correct interpretation; use of the plural. There has been much discussion in this regard…using singular; in his image, over in our image.
http://bible.cc/genesis/1-26.htm
to
Jesuitical graduate of Boston College on Sunday, Feb 10, 2013 12:25 PM (EDT):“and God said; let us make man in Our image….”
I agree and thus conclude that the image of God is a committed relationship.
We are attacked because we consistently use scripture as basis for our argument that marriage is a relationship established by God. What we need to ADD to our argument are the research studies supporting this unique relationship as the basis for society. Secular people dismiss faith-based arguments and Catholic laity, who work and live in the secular world, need this data to get through to non-believers and cultural Catholics alike…. And yes, we need everyone to talk about this issue: dialogue, question, investigate the truth about marriage, share the truth with others. If the priest isn’t speaking, ask him to do so and give him your support. If he won’t, then you offer to speak. GET INVOLVED!
The problems of this nation and the world can be solved if people go back to God’s Word. Divorce, same-sex-marriage, non-marital births and so much more are addressed in His Word. Our country needs to get back to God or I fear our country will be no more.
has anyone here ever considered, even for a moment, that people have heard both sides of this argument and simply concluded that marriage equality trumps irrational fears (and up until now, wholly unproven fears in the many countries and states where marriage equality is law) advanced by those who want to exclude committed gay couples from marriage? the “cultural war” is over. let’s move on.
Marriage is far more than a promise.
Marriage is far more than a contract.
Marriage is a Covenant.
Promises can be broken by the individual or individuals.
Contracts can be annulled by proper authority.
Covenant changes who we are. Only death can make it disappear.
It has been so since time immemorial.
To change, modify meaning of marriage is to change who we are.
Within this absolute commitment and truth, inspired by love, children are born.
Distorting marriage, we won’t know who we really are; nothing will be sacred, nothing absolute, not even love.
I pity modern ignorance, wilful confusion by modern media, institutions, including governments and courts.
Marriage became a sick entertainment. Children became possession, cheap toys, easily discarded.
Indeed children are the ultimate victims. And no one speaks for them. Are we cowards?
Is this the society, the world my great grandson will inherit?
Let us have a great weekend. I leave it to God. It is His world.
In reading Sacred Scripture, i find that we are on the same path as the Israelites were in the Old Testament. When they, the Israelites, strayed from God and his Commandments, they would be taken over by superior forces like the Assyrians or Babylonians. History repeats itself when we do not obey our Creator and do not listen to the Truth, He will permit other forces to punish us for our transgressions by taking away our freedoms, such as we will experience as this country will never be the same again.
I totally agree with you Paul B! And Peter, where has all the catechesis gone? It has been my experience that Catholics have not had any real catechism since the 1960’s, Catholic school or not! I am not one of those Catholics who blame everything on Vatican II, but what happened to us? Satan sure had easy pickings since the birth of the baby boomers.
I wish my local Bishop and priests would get on board the Defense of Marriage. So far, I haven’t heard a word from the pulpit. I guess they don’t care. Don’t look for the Supreme Court to defend Marriage. They ruled in favor of Obamacare. So what makes anyone believe they will rule in favor of Marriage.
We seem to have a gross distortion of truth. It was the Son of God that said I am the way, the truth, and the life. God has ruled that marriage is between a man and a woman. Do the American voters and the the current executive branch seek to flaunt a godless agenda on a nation that once trusted God? Roe v Wade was strike One. Gay marriage would be strike two. Denying God will ultimately destroy the City on a Hill.
‘Is it an institution uniquely devoted to the procreation and education of children or a “committed, lifelong relationship,” as one federal judge described it?’
I don’t know how any judge could describe it as “lifelong” with a straight face, no pun intended. We have failed pretty miserably at that part.
-
Drew Conneen: Did you read the whole article—in fact, did you read it *at all*?
John: not really, given that when I articulate my argument, people have an overwhelming tendency to tell me that they have never heard it before. When they do, they are at least not at likely to tar it as “irrational fear.”
John,
People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. Moral relativism is their god.
I am 78 years old and I never thought I would see the day when the courts in this country would be defining what marriage is! One would think that some things, by their very nature, need no defination. When I think of far we have regressed with our high divorce rate, the “hook up” culture of our young people, the astronomical rate of illegitimate births, the acceptance of the gay life style, the sexually transmitted diseases that plague us, the jeopardizing of our religious freedom and the unconscienable killing of approximately 55 million children in the womb since 1973, I truly fear for our country. Our God is a God of love, but we must not forget that he is also a God of justice! We must turn to Him while there is still time. We must seek his forgiveness and mercy of I truly think that we shall perish.
A celibate clergy appears to have a difficult time openly discussing what constitutes “marriage.”
Clearly, this will be unpopular—but I agree with John. I’ve discussed this issue with dozens of people and all of them seem to understand the RCC’s position. They just reject it. In fact, many of them have told me that if God really wants gays & lesbians to be denied marriage, they can’t imagine why they’d worship such a being. The RCC *can* change its position on same-sex marriage and get in line with global human rights initiatives. At one time, the fathers of the Church called for the deaths of all Jews who didn’t convert and called Galileo a heretic for espousing a heliocentric model of the solar system—clearly, the Church can change. I can’t imagine the Catholic who thinks we’re going to reverse the recent leaps forward for same-sex marriage in the U.S. The DOMA is on borrowed time and no amount of rallying the troops will save it. I’m sorry that for some, this is an indication that we’ve somehow become Sodom.
God bless you, Sam Santucci! It is truly unbelievable that we have fallen so far in such a short time. I cannot believe that GOD will withhold his punishment for much longer. Perhaps his chastisement will bring people back to their senses. Pray, pray, pray! And remember me when you come into HIS kingdom!
Grace said,
What’s to reject? The Catholic Church, like the vast majority of people of all faiths or no faith at all throughout history, including 70% of Americans as recently as 1969, expects a man and woman to make a public commitment to each other before they begin an intimate relationship. The reasons to have this expectation remain as real and valid as they ever were, despite the fact that so few people today still have it. But those reasons simply don’t apply to a same-sex couple. Whatever same-sex relationships are, it is clear that they are a fundamentally different thing than the union of a man and a woman, with a drastically different impact on society and warranting an entirely different set of expectations. To insist that the law treat them the same as the marriage of a man a woman is a travesty of reason. Let alone insisting that the Church also treat them that way.
Grace, you really do need to spend a little more time learning the facts before espousing the same old contrite nonsense about Galileo. There’s nothing natural or revered about sodomy. It’s dirty and causes disease. The earliest Christians went to their deaths because they thought this common practice (among many others) in the pagan world were not things to be embraced and celebrated. The Apostles wrote about the evils of this as well as abortion.
No consequaences to same sex marriage? LOL, two Catholic adoption agencies in Mass. had to shut down as well as one in Washington, DC. I’m sure we’ll be seeing a push for more “education” as well. And, why does it seem that people who abuse pre-teenaged children are, most of the time, men with a same sex attraction?
None of this nonsense is going to stand the test of time. Abortion, artificial contraception, same sex “marriage”, etc are evils that will end up destroying themselves. You don’t believe me? Then why is Europe’s birth rates so far below replacement level? Why has ours also dipped this low? Answer, because fools like you have managed to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in saying that these things are so wonderful.
The RC Church will NEVER change it’s position on this topic. So go ahead and hold your breath.
I love Matt 19 where Jesus was asked about Moses allowing divorce and Jesus says that “in the beginning it was not so”. It was because of the hardness of hearts that Moses allowed divorce. In Hebrews Paul says that Jesus is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. These laws on marriage are natural laws and should not be changed. The secular society has true freedom very confused with “do whatever you want, whatever makes you feel good”. True believers have to hold fast and “let the chips fall where they may”. Good will win out over evil in the long wrong. Keep the faith! And pray that our priests and Bishops will teach from the pulpit!
I find it ridiculous that the fake term “baby boomers” factors into this. As a Wall Street Journal article recently pointed out, the 1960s and 1970s were the time of the dissidents, inside the Church and out. In 1968, at the start of the ‘sex without love revolution,’ Pope Paul VI had Humanae Vitae published and it resulted in an outcry from theologians who took out a full page in the New York Times in protest and even encouraged the lay faithful to not follow what the Pope said! It was rightly called “an event unprecedented in the history of the Church.” Then the new ‘opium dens’ opened: Adult bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars. This all cost millions of dollars, and resulted in the planned addiction pattern. Most of the problems in the West revolve around the misuse of human sexuality.
interesting how the one, and only, empirical, example of how marriage equality affects anyone other than gay couples are the decisions by some catholic adoption agencies to pass their files to other agencies who agree not to discriminate with taxpayer dollars (including the tax dollars of gay taxpayers). the “best” rationale for prohibiting marriage equality, as stated by the author, is a child’s “right” to be raised by a mother and father, meaning catholic adoption agencies believe they would be doing children a disservice by placing them with married gay couples. strange. none of the catholic adoption agencies that quit had a policy of turning away prospective single parents. nor have i ever seen the church waging campaigns to outlaw single-parent adoptions or enshrine constitutional amendments in state constitutions barring single parents from adopting. could it be that maybe, just maybe, the church suffers from anti-gay animus after all? hmm.
anony—i can’t resist this. are you seriously suggesting that marriage equality is going to cause an increase in the number of child sex offenders? has this been the case since marriage equality became law in massachusetts, ct, vt, nh, me, ia, md, wa, ny, the netherlands, belgium, spain, portugal, south africa, argentina, brazil, mexico and on and on? do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
and can you please cite for me the passages in the bible where any one of the 12 apostles talked about abortion or homosexuality? this is news to me (and probably just about all of us).
Some have suggested that if one thinks about this issue seriously, one would have to agree with the idea of gay marriage.One thing that bothers me is that, in truth, there is a difference in responsibilities between a couple that through their sexual relations has the potential to bring forth children and one whose sexual relations do not have that potential. Being raised by one’s biological parents in a stable, loving enviroment is in the best interest of children and society. Just ask my daughter and her husband, who are wonderful parents to their internationally adopted daughter, who on a regular basis face the anger and shame of this beautiful child whose heart has a big hole from those missing biological parents. There are many persons besides homosexuals living in committed, loving relationships. I think of two women I know , a childless widow and a younger woman, who bought a house together and took care of each other for 20 years until the older woman’s death. Are people like this any less deserving of rights? Yet it would make little sense to call their relationship a marriage (and they would be the first to say so). There are many benefits, such as hospital visitation, inheritance, taxes, that could be extended to a much broader group than same sex couples, and to extend these rights to one group and not to the broader group would be a form of discrimination.Broadening rights makes sense to me. Redefining marriage does not.
“There’s nothing natural or revered about sodomy. It’s dirty and causes disease.” Wow, Anony. One more example of the NCR’s readers being woefully ignorant about basic biology. No wonder non-Catholics often view the Church as backward. (Hint: diseases are spread through any means of sexual contact.) You go on waiting for “God’s punishment” to strike. You’d think it would’ve happened as a result of a whole slew of other sins but nope, He’s waiting to use anal sex as a reason to smite us. What a bizarre, unloving image you have of God.
And you might want to investigate the birth rates of third-world countries, which are set to explode in the new century. That must be because there are no gays and lesbians in these countries, eh?
There are two different kinds of union that everyone seems to be forgetting. The spiritual union and the legal union. The legal union was implemented for the need to keep fathers from pregnating a woman and leaving her stranded with no means to support or raise a child. Homosexuals do not need this support as there will be no children. -except if Father gov. wants to step in and let them adopt.
If homosexuals are brought to this stage by a hormonal change (search wnd.com/2006/12/39253) through no fault of there own, I feel very sorry for them, as it is in most everyone’s nature to have a mate and rear offspring. BUT we all have our cross to bear and that is theirs. There are many who are living a single chaste life and there is no reason why all of them can’t do this. It’s their cross to bear.
Laws are made by very stupid men who do not fully investigate each situation but try to rule over others with their insufficient knowledge, just because someone gave them the gavel and right to do so.
PLEASE GOD ENLIGHTEN YOUR “SHEEP”
all good comments. clearly all of you are better informed than 99% of voters who are too busy tweeting, texting, watching videos, and reading cheap novels. What ARE our values? Shouldn’t they be timeless? Don’t we know right from wrong and good from bad from what we already know from history and education? We can’t blame all our current failures on gay ” marriage “, but doesn’t this concept undermine our ability to honor the sanctity of our own lives and those of our children? We are wasting resources on this crap instead of building productive people alliances and solving legitimate problems. let’s Leave more of it to individual states and let’s cut back federal $$$ and strangle the beast.
Momom—are you saying, then, that marriages involving post-menopausal women and sterile couples ought to be treated differently from those between fertile heterosexual couples? people seem to be using children as an excuse for discrimination. children are a frequent by-product of marriage. they are by no means central to it. if the issue is children, then the focus needs to be on adoption laws (that would apply equally to single parents seeking to adopt) and not marriage. there are no just reasons to deny gay couples the same rights afforded to childless heterosexual couples.
phyllis, it is not for you to decide what crosses other people should bear. if some people choose to believe they should remain alone all their lives because of how god made them, that is their choice. it is by no means up to you or anyone else to decide for them that it is required of them. maybe you should look to your own commentary: “Laws are made by very stupid men who do not fully investigate each situation but try to rule over others with their insufficient knowledge.”
I always am amazed at the pro “gay” nonsense I read. This is not a trivial issue. It has a tremendous impact on society. It will greatly damage our children in ways we cannot even imagine yet. Sloth, relativism, and hedonism have so infected us we no longer reason rationally.
Momom—are you saying, then, that marriages involving post-menopausal women and sterile couples ought to be treated differently from those between fertile heterosexual couples? people seem to be using children as an excuse for discrimination. children are a frequent by-product of marriage. they are by no means central to it. if the issue is children, then the focus needs to be on adoption laws (that would apply equally to single parents seeking to adopt) and not marriage. there are no just reasons to deny gay couples the same rights afforded to childless heterosexual couples.
phyllis, it is not for you to decide what crosses other people should bear. if some people choose to believe they should remain alone all their lives because of how god made them, that is their choice. it is by no means up to you or anyone else to decide for them that it is required of them. maybe you should look to your own commentary: “Laws are made by very stupid men who do not fully investigate each situation but try to rule over others with their insufficient knowledge.”
Momom—are you saying, then, that marriages involving post-menopausal women and sterile couples ought to be treated differently from those between fertile heterosexual couples? people seem to be using children as an excuse for discrimination. children are a frequent by-product of marriage. they are by no means central to it. if the issue is children, then the focus needs to be on adoption laws (that would apply equally to single parents seeking to adopt) and not marriage. there are no just reasons to deny gay couples the same rights afforded to childless heterosexual couples. phyllis, it is not for you to decide what crosses other people should bear. if some people choose to believe they should remain alone all their lives because of how god made them, that is their choice. it is by no means up to you or anyone else to decide for them that it is required of them. maybe you should look to your own commentary: “Laws are made by very stupid men who do not fully investigate each situation but try to rule over others with their insufficient knowledge.” funny how ‘ncr’ keeps trying to block my messages as ‘spam.’ i guess when your arguments are that weak, the best you can hope to do is block anybody who says differently.
John,
Sterile heterosexual couples have nothing in common with homosexuals. Heterosexuals belong to a class of persons that are fertile by design. Homosexuals couples are infertile by design. No analogy at all.
Marriage is about children and opposite sex persons by definition. This is logic and common sense. Homosexuals have no “right” to redefine reality so they may indulge their inclinations.
John, I agree with the Church on the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage. I also agree that not all heterosexual couples will have children, but that fact is often an unknown going into marriage. On the other hand, it is a known fact that by nature same sex sexual relationships are incapable of producing children. Although older couples who marry would not have the capacity to have children, how would one determine at which age is the cutoff? And even people who have been sterilized have had spontaneous or surgical reversals. I am not saying that the unitive purpose of marriage is not important, but the real interest to civilization is the stable, loving environment for raising children which the unitive purpose of marriage can help create and maintain. The other point I was making is how important biological parents are to children, as I have witnessed through my granddaughter. As loving and wonderful as adoptive parents can be, there still is something missing for that child. It is in the interest of society as much as possible to make the bond with biological parents a priority, and marriage serves that purpose.
Posted by Grace on Sunday, Feb 10, 2013 10:08 PM (EDT):
Clearly, this will be unpopular—but I agree with John. I’ve discussed this issue with dozens of people and all of them seem to understand the RCC’s position. They just reject it. In fact, many of them have told me that if God really wants gays & lesbians to be denied marriage, they can’t imagine why they’d worship such a being. The RCC *can* change its position on same-sex marriage and get in line with global human rights initiatives. At one time, the fathers of the Church called for the deaths of all Jews who didn’t convert and called Galileo a heretic for espousing a heliocentric model of the solar system—clearly, the Church can change. I can’t imagine the Catholic who thinks we’re going to reverse the recent leaps forward for same-sex marriage in the U.S. The DOMA is on borrowed time and no amount of rallying the troops will save it. I’m sorry that for some, this is an indication that we’ve somehow become Sodom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh boy, the usual incorrect propaganda.
“Oh boy, the usual incorrect propaganda.” Oh, boy—the usual bigotry hidden behind the Vatican’s shield.
In the first account of creation in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning…” Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.” In the second account of the creation, Genesis 2:18-24, God creates a companion for man because He saw it was not good for him to be alone so God built up a woman from his rib and brought her to him; so the man leaves all to cleave to his wife. Thus, God created the marriage of the man and woman. He did not make up another man to help him but a woman. He did not make the woman to join with another woman to be fruitful and multiply. The plan of God was for the union of a man and a woman to be the fruitful union of mankind.
Just because we (mankind) have the technology and ability to create without the need for male and female union in the traditional method does not make us more intelligent than God. Just because we have the “right” to be free in our sexuality does not give us the “right ” to override or redefine what God has established as a Law of Natural survival. Whether you believe in God or not it does not give anyone a right to demand a change in natural law. Survival of the species is dependent on the propagation of the species through male and female relationships.
If a human feels a proclivity to unite with the same sex that is not a marriage. It is an animalistic union of personal choice not God’s choice. Arguements will and have been made that animals have homosexual unions but I am human beaing with a higher intellectual understanding of relationships not a purely animal instinctual being. Your choice is not my choice! My choice is to believe in God and trust in His decisions for my life not what another human being who wants to go against God’s teaching may choose for themselves. Marriage is between a man and a woman period. Civil unions can be any combination the State may want to establish and the civil rights of all individuals should be maintained. But marriage is between God and a man and a woman!
Posted by Grace on Monday, Feb 11, 2013 1:20 PM (EDT):
Oh, boy—the usual bigotry hidden behind the Vatican’s shield.
Truth is hate to those who hate truth.
nor have i ever seen the church waging campaigns to outlaw single-parent adoptions or enshrine constitutional amendments in state constitutions barring single parents from adopting. could it be that maybe, just maybe, the church suffers from anti-gay animus after all? hmm.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is huge difference between a single heterosexual raising a child and two same sex persons pretending to be mom and dad. That should not even need to be pointed out.
BTW, rejecting evil acts and relationships is not prejudice or animus, but rather right reason in action.
anon, there is a ‘huge difference’ because you say so? or can you explain how, if children are “entitled” to a mother AND a father, one mother or one father is ok but two fathers or two mothers are not? your true colors come out when you talk about ‘rejecting evil acts and relationships.’ again, saying that those words do not reflect prejudice or animus does not make them any less so. you’ve proved both points for me.
momom…again, children are a byproduct of marriage and not central to it. the issue of parenting is a separate one from marriage. marriage does not exist just for children—proven by the reality that over 1/3 of married, heterosexual couples do not produce children of their own. most gay couples do not have children, like most post-menopausal women who get married or infertile couples. on the other hand, about 1/4 of gay couples DO have children, often from prior attempts at heterosexual relationships or through adoption or artificial insemination. these children would benefit equally from the benefits marriage provides children and they should not be denied those rights and benefits just because their parents are of the same gender. it makes no sense to argue, on the one hand, that marriage is about “protecting children” and, on the other, children of same sex couples are not entitled to that protection.
Posted by john on Monday, Feb 11, 2013 2:25 PM (EDT):
anon, there is a ‘huge difference’ because you say so? or can you explain how, if children are “entitled” to a mother AND a father, one mother or one father is ok but two fathers or two mothers are not? your true colors come out when you talk about ‘rejecting evil acts and relationships.’ again, saying that those words do not reflect prejudice or animus does not make them any less so. you’ve proved both points for me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because I say so? Seriously? Do you need proof of what is self evident? There is no such things as two men being a mother and father. That is impossible by nature and reason.
Homosexual acts are evil. That is a moral fact, not an opinion, nor prejudice.
What I have shown is that your moral relativism is not consistent with moral truth.
Homosexuals cannot produce children unless they engage in a heterosexual act, adopt, or contrive one out of illicit medical procedures.
The solution is not a pretend marriage to protect children. The solution is to stop these illicit procedures and behaviors. What a terrible thing to do to a child.
Jesuitical graduate, “much discussion” is not the authority of the Catholic Church.
CCC 396 “God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.”
so, anon, two men or two women can’t be a mother and a father but one mother or one father can be a mother and a father? is that what you are saying? and yes, i need proof. “it’s just common sense” is the response people give when they have no proof.
Homosexual marriage is a non-entity theologically and rationally.
.
Since homosexual acts are a serious depravity and rejected by the Church as disordered, the idea that same sex attracted people could in any way declare themselves a “couple” and be beneficial as a marriage union, or, of any use to children at all except as bad examples is without merit.
.
The fact that SSA people don’t agree or that this seems to be the latest social togetherness issue (like sniffing cocaine), is irrelevant.
john—-wake up. god made man and woman to have babies. Something is missing when two of the same sex try to do it. it’s unnatural. You can’t see that? i am all for civl rights and zero discrimination, but this is not a grey area.
j stack
I am tired of gays bashing my Catholic Church and her laws on Catholic Moral and Theological Teaching passed down through two thousand years…
I guess human beings at some point after creation discovered a perverse way called sodomy.
Sodomy is one of the sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Sodomy was also what brought down the wrath of God: ‘… And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous….
“…men of the city called Lot and asked where are the men that came in to thee at night? Bring them out hither that we may know them. Lot said, Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil….”
Sodomy is evil.
The Catholic Church is not against gays or lesbians. The Catholic Church is against the sin of sodomy.
Why do you come on to Catholic websites and ask the Catholic Church to validate your abnormal, sinful actions? You hate the Catholic Church. Stay out.
There are thousands of Christian denominations that approve and bless so called acts of sodomy disguised under the names of union and marriage.
Marriage can only be between a man and a woman - between members of the opposite sex.
Christ entrusted the salvation of souls ransomed by His blood to His Church; that they attain eternal life by living out His teaching proclaimed by His Church passed down through His apostles through the ages. Mindful of this fact:
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL AND CAN NEVER CHANGE HER TEACHING ON FAITH AND MORALS ON:
Marriage between a man and a woman,
Common law copulation
Polygamy
Unnatural forms of contraception
Murdering children in the womb
Prohibition to marry divorced men or divorced women
Pedophilia,
Incest and rape
Sodomy
Bestiality
Married priests,
Women priests, etc…etc…etc…
You may argue that many Catholics including priests, nuns, bishops and even cardinals ignore these teachings and do some or all of these things. It is their grave sin committed freely at the peril of their immortal souls. It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Charity is Truth
Love is Truth
Truth is Absolute. It does not change with the times.
Celinedesilva, you said and took the words out of my mouth. I stand behind Holy Mother Church, and her teachings. These people always blame the Mother for the sins of the children. Praise Be Jesus Christ.now and forever Amen.
howard, the church has a right to teach whatever it wants. however, by classifying gay people as “objectively disordered,” they are in direct conflict with the mainstream medical, scientific, psychological and psychiatric communities. so while it can use whatever reasons it wants to deny the sacrament of marriage to gay couples, it can’t use that same basis to deny civil marriage licenses (which, i might add, say nothing about producing children.) celinedesilva, you are right that truth never changes. but our understanding of what truth really is, does. hence, we no longer consider slavery morally acceptable and mixing of the races immoral. theology doesn’t live in a vacuum. it’s meant to be in harmony with the other disciplines that are also gifts from god.
John,
A single parent is a mom or dad not both. Two sakes. Persons are pretending to be a mom and dad. Nothing in common.
John, “ celinedesilva, you are right that truth never changes. but our understanding of what truth really is, does. hence, we no longer consider slavery morally acceptable and mixing of the races immoral”
Please do not compare or confuse two men sodomising each other or two women probing each other with the emancipation of human beings from slavery and the mixed marriage of a black man to a white woman or a brown woman to a white man.
If you choose to fool yourself and deny what your eyes see, that, black is yellow because you want it to be yellow or deny reason and say that 2+2=8 instead of 2+2=4 because your understanding is flawed by choice then something is really wrong with you.
Do not equate sodomy with a man and a woman of whatever colour or race marrying each other. Marriage is between a man and a woman of the same species – human.
John, there is no conflict. Besides the political interference in medicine and the outrageous and embarrassing support for abortion, these bodies are in no position to dictate morality. The American Psychological Association allowed its members to participate in detainee interrogations opposing the views of American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. The debate over the Right and wrong has always been the province of philosophy.
.
“The term “objective disorder” is a philosophical term. It is used to describe homosexual attractions because such attractions can never lead to a morally good sexual act. It is objected that if a man lusts for a woman or vice versa, this too is an objective disorder. This latter example is not an objective disorder, because, if the man or woman learns to control their heterosexual attraction, and wills to express it in the natural state of marriage, it is a good thing.”
.
http://www.couragerc.net/FAQs.html
.
If you are Catholic the question is clear. If you are secular, the question can be debated with the same reasoning. What is the benefit to a family composed of children to be missing either a mother or a father? The studies are also clear here. This situation is a detriment to family life and mental health of the children. To the self-serving homosexual there is of course a desire for their acts to be accepted. This effort to change the character of marriage is just another manifestation of the “self interested” state we have deteriorated into.
anon..i take it logic wasn’t one of your stronger classes. where do you get your information that gay parents take on a roll of one being a “mother” and the other being a “father.” they either have two mothers or two fathers. neither “pretends” to be anything else. so again, if one mother and no father or one father and no mother can adopt, why shouldn’t gay couples be able to adopt? howard, i know of no mainstream philosophical organization that considers homosexuality an ‘objective disorder.’ it is a concept made up by the church with no basis in medicine, psychology, psychiatry or science or, for that matter, philosophy. and again, if your opposition to marriage equality is that the 1/4 of gay couples with children are denying their children either a mother or a father, how come you,and the church, are not spending millions of dollars on referenda to ban single parent adoptions? no catholic adoption agency denies service to single applicants solely on the basis of their being single. you can’t argue that the rationale for opposing marriage equality is rooted in children’s “rights” to a mother and father if you have no moral opposition to single parent adoptions.
John,
You are too funny. Two men pretending to be parents is illogical. They are not married and are not mother and father or father and father. Just typing this is absurd. Single parents are not pretending to be both parents .
There is no way to justify this abuse.
BTW, medicine does not determine morality. That some thing can be done does not mean it ought to be done. Credentialed misfits do not invent right and wrong.
john on Monday, Feb 11, 2013 1:27 AM (EDT): “…and can you please cite for me the passages in the bible where any one of the 12 apostles talked about abortion or homosexuality? this is news to me (and probably just about all of us).”
JOHN, HERE IS WHERE IT IS TALKED ABOUT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
Paul to the Romans:
21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[26] God delivered them up: Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.
[31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
“i know of no mainstream philosophical organization that considers homosexuality an ‘objective disorder.”
.
John, Christianity!
.
The Catholic Church teaches FAITH and REASON. Logic which is a formalization of reason is basic to all Philosophy. You give to medicine a faculty that it is not able to support. It is based in material concerns. Any group that sets aside the Hypocratic oath in favor of supporting the murder of children in the womb cannot be trusted with the future of human life at all.
.
From the USCCB: “When placing children with couples, Catholic Charities makes sure those children enjoy the advantage of having a mom and a dad who are married.”
http://tinyurl.com/ajn4ozp
.
The denial of the benefits to children of marriage by heterosexual couples that the homosexual supporters promote is the deadly danger to family life. Polygamy, bestiality, and any other thing goes when you change what marriage is.
Anon, you make absolutely no sense. Nobody is pretending to be anything. An adoptive mother or two adoptive mothers are parents to the children they adopt. There simply is no argument that children are ok being raised by a single mom but not by two mothers. Celineetc, Paul was not an original apostle but you could technically argue he became the functional equivalent. However, his references were to formal temple worship practices and rituals, not to marital relationships among adults. Howard, Christianity is a religion, not a philosophy. Philosophers ask questions. Religions reflexively defend old ways of thinking no matter what new context discoveries present. And go look into polygamy and bestiality. They are behaviors, not a status (ie, someone can be gay and celibate, but you can’t be polygamous or bestial without actually engaging in the behavior). Rules associated with behaviors are very different from rules discriminating based on status.
John, you are trying to be legalistic and show a very naive understanding of world history.
.
If you read St. Thomas Aquinas he brings Aristotle’s thinking into the understanding God and Christianity. Philosophy from the beginning of recorded history has concerned itself with reasoning. Theology discusses Christianity in a reasoned manner. When you mention “religion” and “discoveries” you attempt to mix science and spirituality. The limits of science are seen in the material world. A very basic study of spirituality reveals that which cannot be investigated with a microscope, but can with reason and experience.
.
Having homosexual tendencies and acting on them are different things. As is having a desire for multiple marriage partners and not doing it, or, wanting marriage and sex with a dolphin and not doing it. There is no difference.
Howard, it is not John who is naive. It seems all those who have no science must go back to Aristotle and Aquinas, which predates science. Then, what did they have to go on but reason and reason alone. If not for science we would remain enmeshed in myth and superstition. Fortunately, we have the Renaissance and the Enlightenment which did away with the folly of faith, replacing it with science and the reason which accompanies it.
The never ending error is the continued attempt to separate science from spirituality. Not that I am endorsing any spirits. But, if a spirit can impact the material world, science can measure that impact. To date there is no impact recognized by science. The thrust of an argument is forever lost with absurd analogies e.g. wanting sex with a dolphin or multiple partners. An argument is examined on its on merits, not with cats and dogs.
.
J.G.
.
Boston College was a big waste of money wasn’t it?
.
Let us start with beginning ancient history and work our way to the present day. Along the way you will find Catholic priests involved in scientific research including in the recent past the formulation of the “Big Bang’ theory. As you look at the picture note the Roman collar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
.
Archimedes would be a good start for your second attempt at education.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes
.
As you read this article on sex with dolphins, keep in mind that you cannot ignore the ramifications of the insane desire to change what marriage has been.
.
http://tinyurl.com/q8jh3q
.
Basically you express only wishes and dreams and opinions. Bring substance to argument and you may have a chance. For now you are just boring.
Howard, it is the ‘wishes and dreams and opinions’ that I oppose and that you are immersed in…do you hold the same standards for yourself e.g bring substance.
Everyone knows George Lemaitre as credited with postulating that if the universe is expanding a regression would bring it back to a beginning. In fact George had to warn Pius XII not to use this as proof of a creation. George stating we cannot afford another Galileo incident. The finding of one Catholic clergy an argument does not make. Or then use Bruno Giordano, who proposed an infinite universe with other creatures…oh he was bent over with a rod through his back and burned alive. The issue is not to find a solitary figure but to scrutinize the legacy of the church toward science. I don’t think the brilliant Archimedes would benefit your argument in anyway.
The point, as always, is proof and evidence in concomitance with a search for truth. Without science there is no such endeavor. For you to bounce around floundering from man’s early beginnings and mixing it up through the ages of learning, speculating with philosophy and religious input and
thinking your onto science lands you with ‘sex and dolphins’.
howard, the very fact that you refer to gay people as “those with homosexual tendencies” says it all. it presumes everyone is heterosexual but some people have “homosexual tendencies” on top of an underlying heterosexuality. this notion has been studied and roundly rejected by the medical, scientific, psychiatric and psychological communities. if you look at the earlier writings of fr harvey, the founder of courage, he, too rejected this. eventually, recognizing the logical conclusion of that reality forced him to invent a different theory (his term was ‘same sex attraction’). sexual orientation is far more than sex (though the far right seems unusually fixated on the sex part). it is how people emotionally and romantically relate to members of the same gender—whether they ever have sex or not. ask any number of the high percentage of gay priests (the one thing the right and left agree on is the over representation of gay men in the priesthood) who have remained celibate and you might understand better the difference.
JG,
Get your money back. Science does not prove moral truth. Unbelievable.
J.G.
.
You should have been able to put it together yourself. I will try and make it simpler. You made a very foolish statement:
“…those who have no science must go back to Aristotle and Aquinas, which predates science.”
Archimedes, one of the oldest if not the greatest scientists of antiquity, lived 200 years before Christ, Aristotle about 300 B.C. and Aquinas died in 1274. Scientific inquiry does not “predate” Aquinas and is contemporary to Aristotle.
.
The Church HAS science in that it has always and is now immersed in scientific pursuits. I gave evidence to that effect.
.
I am familiar with “Humani Generus” of Pius XII, having just re-read it recently for another conversation. A slight reference to disregarding scientific speculation here:
.
“It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning;….. It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of God…..With regard to new questions, which modern culture and progress have brought to the foreground, let them engage in most careful research, but with the necessary prudence and caution.”
.
It has never been necessary for a priest to warn a Pope of anything. This Pope was very aware of attacks in his day on the Church, and very prepared intellectually to combat them.
.
Science does not provide truth, it only provides facts of the material world at best, and speculation at the least. Interpretation of this information provides conclusions and judgements. Science does not conclude or judge, men do using reason either faulty or true. I am well aware of your belief that science should be an ideology replacing any other, but it is I am afraid, only a tool for investigating Gods creation.
.
Sex and dolphins, if you had read the article, leads us to the future where if you insist on the only thing necessary to be married is “love” (as homosexuals insist) then animals qualify and multiple persons qualify.
.
Ask for a refund of tuition, and quit trying to associate yourself with a Catholic institution when you are obviously not a Catholic or a Jesuit.
John, “sexual orientation is far more than sex” is a nonsense statement. If you mean that a man can have feelings of love or feelings of infatuation for another man without the immediate desire for genital sex, I do not deny that can be true and this is not exactly a revelation. Just as love is experienced in many other ways. Love of a pet, a family member, love of chocolate, etc. Expressing your feelings towards that person in a sexual way makes you obviously not suitable for what marriage has always been. What you experience or how it is described to suit you is not my concern, it is between you and God. The redefinition of marriage is.
.
If love is the only criterion then you are faced with the total ridiculous disintegration of what marriage means and it’s value to society.
Howard, once again, you do what I asked you not to do; meander into the past, confuse science with a scientist and worse ancient philosophy and roll it all into a ball. There is a big difference taking a renowned genius Archimedes and jumping into a postulation of science. What Archimedes accomplished reflects his genius, not science. Science is a method of study, observation, investigation, organized thought tested by peer review, falsification, and must garner the same results each time by any user. Aristotle and Aquinas, spare me from one philosopher who developed a system of logic, and a father and doctor of the church who reviled women.
Francis Bacon is the father of inductive reasoning, which no reputed scientist would use today. Galileo is the scientist who promoted experimental study, and Descarte methodology. Age of Enlightenment paved the way to science and reason, which our enlightened founding fathers brought forth into our Constitution. I realize none of this matters to you since you prefer to use the verbiage ‘nonsense’ to all critical thought save the folly of your own.
Without science, man would be enmeshed with witches, myths, superstitions and unable to separate magical thinking from truth. Whatever the limitation of science, it is the best tool man has to observe and test impact on the material world…where we happen to be.
Since, all discussion with you bounces in quick return to your circumlocution, it is best that I leave your beliefs (not truths)rendered to you. Belief is a way of life, albeit a stranger to science, but serves a life principle to most.
J.G., you miss the point. I am not denigrating science. The Church does not denigrate science, it embraces it. The way you describe science, is what the Church invented as the “scientific method”. The exposition of the laws of physicality or mathematics (going back to Pythagoras about 400 BC) is all what we call science. Any kind of investigation up to the present day, it builds on itself and corrects itself. If you disregard the past you automatically disregard the present. Your list of names and cute little opinions reveals your self centered approach to the world. There is no creation in pure investigation, it is already there to discover.
.
“Belief is a way of life, albeit a stranger to science.”
.
The magic you like to give to modern science and the worship you have for it is not because of what it is, but, in the mistaken belief that the material world is all there is to existence - the classic atheist position, A BELIEF. Admit it, you are an atheist.
.
Again, why do you pretend to be what you are not? No one cares where you went to school. I am now doubt that you even graduated
.
We are way off the subject. So this is enough. Save it for a “Does God exist” discussion.
Jesus was, is and always will be in total control. We as Christians know through our faith that patience is his teacher and we also know of the wrath he can deliver at any moment if he so chooses. We Christians must be bold and speak the word of truth to try and change the hearts and minds of unbelievers. In India I hear that people marry dogs. Do you think that dog or that person understands what marraige is at all?? It is similar to marrying a chocolate bar or a bag of chips. Marraige has a special meaning. This ridiculous issue reminds me of a person who has to have everything that their neighbour has just to keep up. I suppose that is the way of the world as it is today. This breaks all the commandments and Our Lord already knew this was going to happen. He has always tried and continues to show us the right path to lead our life. Woe to those who don’t take heed. We must all pray for conversions.
JG,
It took you several paragraphs to say nothing. Science does not determine moral truth. You have a significant category error.
This is one guide you SHOULD NOT MISS! work from home http://easybinarycash.com/youtube/
I like this post, enjoyed this one thankyou for posting . Jones sabo from your open http://lis490it.sunahsuh.com/node/119#comment-6097549
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.