4 Ways The Gay Marriage Debate Has Been Rigged

Christians, Catholics, men and women with same-sex attraction, advocates of Gay Marriage and dissenters of the same:

The Gay Marriage debate is no debate. It has been rigged, framed and devalued into a series of pre-ordained slogans for each “side” to scream, to the point that entering into it now is less like having an argument and more like getting punched in the face by a Snorlax on crack.

There’s nothing quite as depressing, for the simple reason that everyone involved is obliged to defend abstractions and slogans instead of the Thing Itself; obliged to be awkward representations of “Movements” that don’t exist, instead of being human beings that do. Thus here’s 4 Ways the Gay Marriage Debate Has Been Rigged, so all said suckage may be sidestepped:

1. HATE!

This may come as a shock to you: Out of 28 states where constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman were put on the ballot in a voter referendum, voters in all 28 states voted to approve such amendments. Gay marriage has never been agreed to by the common people.

Now the reason this news might come as shocking is that, if you are at all engaged in the Great Fake Debate, you know that those who oppose gay marriage do so because they are brimming with Hate! for gay folks. We must conclude then, that the majority of Americans are hateful people.

Now I’m no optimist: I don’t have some overtly hopeful belief that all human beings are always their shiny-best. But the idea that the average man or woman who doesn’t support gay marriage does so out of hate (that is, “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury”) is just silly. No offense, but most folk don’t have the energy to maintain a sense of intense hostility over abstract concepts. Yet this moral absolutism is the modus operandi of the gay Marriage Debate. And thus:

Seriously, I could probably advocate the killing of Jews on this blog and never receive a fraction of the laughably intense insults I do when I mention the G-A-Y word. (If you get a chance, and want to learn precisely how to rage-quit, check out the combox in my last post.)

Now the answer to this sixth-grade silliness is simple, it just requires making a definition. If love is taken in its classical sense — wanting the good of the beloved — then it’s difficult to say that those opposing gay marriage are writhing in epileptic hate-fits.

For we know that the gay lifestyle leads to a higher risk of HIVdepression, substance abuse, and a generally lower life expectancy. To oppose the normalization of a lifestyle that leads to this degradation of the human person — specifically the same-sex attracted person — is no hate at all, but a love. Not a love most people want, but a desire for the good of the beloved nonetheless.

To be clear, I don’t believe the majority of Americans are making this argument when they oppose gay marriage. Most seem to have some general, innate, or religious concept of what works, and whether they’re wrong or right, they vote accordingly. And absolutely, many people are ignorant in their opposition of gay marriage — thus you get the “gay marriage isn’t in the Bible” non-argument, or the “homosexuality is unnatural” evasion.

But can we at least be honest, and admit that very few people who wish to retain the definition of marriage as the union between man and woman do so out of burning hatred? It’s entirely possible to love men and women with same-sex attraction and still oppose gay marriage. Shoot, it’s entirely possible to be a man with same-sex attraction and oppose gay marriage, as many following this blog will happily inform you.

But as it turns out, it’s easier to baptize your opponents into the Westboro Baptist Church than listen to them, just as it’s easier to christen people with same-sex attraction as “faggots” and “sinners” than it is to love them. And so it goes.

2. SCREW DEFINITIONS EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT I MEAN RIGHT YEAH WORDS WOOH!

I don’t know when it happened, but the language in which the Debate is currently framed has been entirely flushed of all meaning and significance. We are hollow men, stuffed man, and our words hold all the weight of whispers and straw.

The Christian says he supports “God’s plan for marriage”  and he will be rightly damned as a theocrat for the phrase. But the deeper issue is that — by and large — he has no idea what God’s plan for marriage is. For the Christian divorces and remarries at the same rate as everyone else, despite Christ making it absolutely clear “what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (Mark 10:9). We use the phrase, “God’s plan,” but we use it as an abstract concept. How often do we remember that God’s plan for marriage is the submission of woman and the crucifixion of man, an icon revealing the embrace of Christ and His Church?

Sorry, Catholic spasm. I’ll make it better:

Onwards then:

Now the Gay Marriage Advocate, on the other hand, will say marriage is about love, not gender. Again, the issue here isn’t that the super-hip phrase is true or false, it’s that it is entirely empty. It doesn’t have the capacity for truth or falsehood — an attempt to define any of the nouns involved would burn the whole thing to the ground.

Marriage is left undefined. For if marriage is determined to be mere union, the question rises: Why then isn’t any communion of person considered marriage? You could narrow marriage to be the recognition of mutual, consensual love between two people, but then you’d have define love. What is love? (Baby don’t hurt me.) If love is defined as it has always been defined — wanting the good of the beloved — it becomes difficult to justify the normalization of a lifestyle that has not (as I previously mentioned) been shown to lead human beings to the good.

If love is simply a feeling, then it is subjective as a feeling. Love might as well be x, if it’s something that “you just know when you feel it.” And then we’d have to say, hold up, what kind of love? Because there are brothers who feel feeling x towards each other. They call it love, a mutual, consensual feeling, regardless of gender. So we have to define love as specifically erotic love. But then you have to define the erotic.

For in this case the erotic can no longer mean the sexual, as sexual love — by its biological nature — contains the inherent goal of reproduction and unity. So sexuality must be redefined to only contain the unitive aspect of sex — not the procreative. And at this point there’s at least 20 ways one could go about defining what sex is divorced from procreation. (Mutual pleasure of genital areas? Self-gift made manifest in orgasm? Bodily union involving at least one reproductive organ?) The end result is that sexuality and sex are left largely undefined.

And then, at the end of all this, we’ve got to define Gender. It’s a hopeless task from the get-go: Gender has been expanded in the last few years to include Asexual, Bisexual, Heterosexual, Homosexual, Pansexual, Intersexual (I apologize for those I can’t remember), and it doesn’t look to be settling any time soon.

So the phrase becomes: Marriage (by which I mean the erotic union of two people, without a clear definition for the erotic, or for the union) is about love (by which I mean x) not gender (by which I mean y).

So the Christian screams about that Undefined Plan, the Advocate screams about that Undefined Love, and we all leave pissed off, back to our websites, forums, and friends who will affirm us in our pre-existing beliefs. If we’re lucky, they’ll even give us some new puffy-white slogans to hurl. Ah yes, didn’t you know? We are fighting the Great Marshmallow War, the modern meeting of opposing vagaries, and since no one’s words mean anything at all, we resort to name-calling to make something resembling a dent.

And this pretty much applies to anything that gets shouted at a rally: Equal Rights For All, Hate Is Not A Family Value, Pro-Family, Pro-Marriage, Love is Gender-Blind, Sanctity of Marriage, Gay is Normal — these are days in which all people really need to hear is:

3. Playing Pretend

As any good propagandist will tell you, a complicated fight is just no good. To achieve one’s goals, one must strip away all details and present a picture of black and white. Thus:

We’ve done precisely this with the gay marriage debate. The war has largely been painted — and please, stop me if it’s otherwise — like this: Gay folks want to get married, Christians aren’t letting them.

The first part is false. By and large, gay couples don’t want to get married. Obviously there isn’t universal data available yet, but from what we do know – based on studies from Hawaii, Massachusetts, Norway, Sweden and Holland — homosexual couples are less likely than heterosexual couples to get married or into any sort of civil-union-equivalent where available, and more likely to get divorced if they are.

Now one would think it’d be fair to say, “Well sure, not all gay couples want to get married, but all gay people want gay marriage to be legal,” and to a large extent:

But this implies that the desire to legalize gay marriage isn’t so much about letting people do what they deeply want, as it is about culturally normalizing a lifestyle. And that’s complex.

There are men and women with same-sex attraction who don’t want gay-marriage legalized for this reason. There are same-sex attracted men and women who don’t want gay marriage because it’s an oppressive, patriarchal institution that should have died in the 60′s. In short, men and women with same-sex attraction aren’t the poor, mindless sheep, we’d love to treat them as. But that’s complex, so we don’t talk about that.

Similarly, not all Christians are against gay marriage. But we can’t discuss all this. “Most same-sex attracted people want, not marriage, but the ability to marry, and some Christians oppose this, for a diverse number of reasons” just ain’t a slogan we can rally around. And what the hell would we do if we didn’t have slogans?

4. The Objectified Gay Man

I talked about this in depth in this post, and it’d probably benefit the discussion more if everyone read it. But in brief, we’re all either attacking or defending a ghost (with marshmallows).

His name is Gay Man. If we stand up to defend a Gay Man, we can’t do it without defending the impression of Gay Men branded on our minds by Hollywood — that cute, kooky, best-friend-of-female-protagonist, whose great for dating advice, shopping, and entirely-safe emotional affirmation. In other words, we stand up to defend something roughly resembling a pet.

We defend the Gay Best Friend, as if a man with same-sex attraction were anything but a Man, a unique, resplendent creation endowed by God with dominion over the Earth, destined for infinite love, exalted above the angels, not only equal to heterosexual man, but a man who screws up just as much as him.

Similarly, if we attack a Gay Man, we can’t seem to attack him without the big looming “Sinner!” sign above his head. It’s easy to attack a man for a sin we suffer no temptation to commit ourselves, and thus we do it with all the boldness we might tell a man, “Your desire to smoke meth is disordered.” (Hey good one straight, white Christian, way to put yourself out there.) All this as if the sinner with same-sex attraction is anything but a Man, no better or worse a sinner than ourselves, saving our souls by the weight of his cross.

But the issue moves beyond either objectification. The real slap in the face of men and women with same-sex attraction is that very title: Gay. Gay as the defining essence of one’s being. As I’ve said before, the unique identity of man is not defined by where he wants to put his genitals, and it never will be. No wonder any dissent from the precepts of Gay Marriage is met with a cry of “Hate!”

If we objectify a man, narrowing him down to the word Gay, than a rejection of Gay actions becomes a rejection of him. No wonder we can scarcely do anything but scream:

YouTube Preview Image

What To Do?

Here I can only speak to the Catholic — I’ve got no clue what everyone else is going to do. In fact, everyone else, feel free to stop reading. If you’re in disagreement with me over the issue of gay marriage, don’t do anything. It’s obvious that the abstractions are in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Just keep at it, make everything black and white, hate vs. love, bigotry vs. tolerance, and perhaps we’ll all accept the error of our ways.

But Catholics are in a remarkable position within this debate. Marriage is a sacrament, a sacrament that will always be between a man and a woman. The Catholic Church will never recognize the court marriages of the 21st century, whether they are between men and women of the same sex or between heterosexual couples. Thus the Catholic is not in the position of excluding a certain group — the sacrament remains the sacrament and all else is sham.

When we engage the Marshmallow War then, it can only be with love for the human person. What else do we have at stake? The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony will not change. The culture? Yes, the culture may be devalued, but what is a culture but a community of unique human persons?

It seems we must only ever bother speaking if we are speaking to the human person. This means, first and foremost, burning our slogans. A slogan only ever means selling out to an abstract idea rather than actually caring. “I Support Traditional Marriage,” “Marriage = One Man One Woman,” “It’s Adam and Even Not Adam and Steve” (in fairness, I’ve never seen this in real life) “God’s Plan For Marriage….” It’s not that these things aren’t true, it’s that these things do not come of you, but from the great abstraction that is People Who Support Traditional Values.

We must see the Thing for the first time, like little children. We must see marriage, man, woman, and love as God sees them, and express ourselves as reacting authentically to those Truths. In this certain sense, we must become Poets, expressing Truth beautifully. If your honest reaction to the fact of Gay Marriage is “Support God’s Plan For Marriage,” then fine. Make a sign. Otherwise, put some meditation and prayer into it and speak.

Then we must define our terms. Luckily, the Catholic Church invented half the damn words we use in the first place. When we say Love, we have to mean Charity. We have to mean “a divinely infused habit, inclining the human will to cherish God for his own sake above all things, and man for the sake of God” and thus desire every man’s ultimate good, which is God. We must be catechized. (Practical advice: If there’s a phrase you use often, look up every single noun it contains in the Catechism, or here. If marriage is a sacrament that unites a man and a woman in God, what is a sacrament? Man? Woman? God? From there, what is human sexuality?)

Above all things, we must Love. This isn’t the part where I say, “I love gay people! Here, look at all my gay friends!” Because simply put, I’m bad at loving, period. To love is die for others. To love our enemies is to die for our enemies. This is not the phrase we should use when speaking to others about the Catholic understanding of Gay Marriage. This is the orientation of beings we should strive for. “Because I would die for you, I tell you…”

Only when we have ceased to argue for Traditional Values, and have begun to argue for love of that singular, human person — only then will anything change.

Yours.

  • John Leek

    Good word. The debate appears to have some strong and ignorant presuppositions that you properly challenge. Thanks for sharing.

  • Cal-J

    Troll bait, served fresh.

    • Alexandra

      Srsly.

      But I’m out.

      RAAAAAGE QUIT!!

      • Lurk

        I seem to recall you saying that after the last post too.

        • Jake E

          Let’s be fair though. She’s out here everyday responding to everyone and maintains a fair amount of respectability. Certainly more than others who disagree (not pointing fingers). Conviction is generally an admirable trait, therefore Alexandra you are saluted.

  • Anne

    Wonderful :)

  • M.

    As usual, you win all the award. Thank you for another brilliant post; I will definitely be sharing it.

  • bcisaldb

    Here’s the thing, you pathetic little fuckwit: you’re all about you. You show ZERO humility, no capacity for human understanding, for compassion, for empathy. You derive pleasure from gloating over the suffering of others.

    You can titter and snigger with your silly, puerile little friends all you like, but you can’t hide the truth about who and what you are, what a spectactularly failed Christian you are, from God.

    You may find a few sad adults here at Patheos who think you’re just the cat’s meow, but the reality is those adults are as failed as you are. What have you got? A sad old hag who spends most of her time drinking and chatting up random men on Twitter? A has-been who lives through the lyrics of nostalgia-acts? An obese cow who has just proven herself the world’s greatest hypocrite?

    So post another long, loooooong, looooooooooooong ode to yourself, complete with photoshopped LOLZ pics, and keep on congratulating yourself on being the smartest, holiest thing ever. Here’s the truth, little boy — you’re nothing but a child, and life is gonna give you ten thousand times the “smackdown” you think you’ve given all the people you just love to look down on. And ain’t no cutesy little photoshopped pic or Twitter hashtag gonna save you from that. It’s going to be all about you, reduced to nothing, alone with God.

    Frankly, you don’t have the stones for that smackdown, kiddo. That’s the cold, hard truth.

    So snigger away with your untried and untested little playmates for now. Hope you think it’s all still so frickin’ hilarious when the lights have all gone down, there’s no blog or twitter or facebook, no cheap praise, no combox rah-rahs and you’ve got no one left to turn to but God. The real God, not the internet-as-god you’ve replaced Him with.

    Good luck with that…you’re gonna need it.

    • QDefenestration

      Admittedly Marc the photoshopped memes *are* getting a little tiring.

      They were funny images back when they were created for the sake of being funny. Nowadays, when instead they’re used to communicate “humorously,” they end up communicating in the opposite manner. Especially when you’re throwing them in the middle of a philosophical, political, or theological discussion

      • Elmtree01

        I rather like the memes. :)

        • bcisaldb

          Well, you would, wouldn’t you…?

          • Jared

            I never understood trolling. Exactly how bored are you, bcisaldb?

          • bcisaldb

            Not very. This takes seconds. In the 12 hours since you wrote that, I went out to dinner with my husband, had drinks afterwards with friends, had sex with my husband, read a good book, slept and then had breakfast, went downstairs and chatted with the doorman about a repairman who is coming today, and now I’m waiting for an email from my editor re line edits.

            What did you do?

          • STEVE

            also had sex with your husband

          • http://twitter.com/MostValuableMo Morgan M

            I mean, I understand you wanting to voice your disgust for Marc…that makes sense. You don’t like what he has to say, you give negative feedback. Sure, that’s why commenting exists. But to be obnoxious towards other readers? That’s just uncalled for.

            Say what you want about Marc and feel free to argue/discuss with other readers, but don’t be obnoxious towards us. That’s more annoying than your grandiose rant above.

        • QDefenestration

          (and to be fair, I am much more irritated with the way memes have shifted from fun things that are passed around the internet to vaguely “humorous” shorthand *in general,* not so much the way Marc *in particular* has followed that trend)

        • Korou

          Me too.

      • ds

        yeah mark you internet too much

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Angelo-Ocampo/100000081911147 Angelo Ocampo

          Like a boss.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003100628513 Matteo de Maule

      It never ceases to amaze me how the most hateful things posted on this blog are the comments detailing how hateful Marc is…
      You can call him wrong or misinformed (I certainly don’t think he is). But if someone was convinced (genuinely convinced) that drinking water was going to kill you, would you call him hateful for trying to get you to stop? Regarding the question of whether or not Marc is hateful, the question of whether he is correct really doesn’t matter.

      • Deven Kale

        [I]f someone was convinced (genuinely convinced) that drinking water was going to kill you, would you call him hateful for trying to get you to stop?

        No, I personally wouldn’t consider that hateful. However, after explaining to them exactly why the water was not going to kill me, and even testing the water to show that there was no danger, I would start to think there was a possible mental problem if they kept knocking the water out of my hands every time I tried to get a drink.

        There comes a point where, even if you love someone, you need to allow them to do things which you believe to be dangerous. Especially under conditions of religion or biblical interpretation where there is a very real possibility that you could be wrong.

    • Frederick Shoopdawoop

      “Because simply put, I’m bad at loving, period.”

      If that is showing “ZERO” humility, I don’t even want to consider performing an examination of conscience on myself. God knows what I might find. (But seriously, God does know what I might find)

    • Deven Kale

      I was planning on leaving you alone, but you’re honestly just starting to get annoying. If you really want to further the cause of gay marriage and end the bigotry, what you need to do is keep your mouth shut and stop making the homosexuality advocates look like rabid mouth-breathers.

      I don’t think you understand just how badly you’re making our position look. Now seriously, if you can’t have a civil debate about a topic, then the best thing to do is not join that debate at all. Leave it to those who are able to be civil and make rational, concise, consistent arguments in a reasonable way.

      If those on your side who are able to make logical arguments have the better argument, our side will win. No amount of foaming at the mouth is going to convince anybody of anything, other than your own possible insanity. So please, leave it to those of us who really can make an actual impact. Please.

      • bcisaldb

        Here’s the thing — I don’t really care about gay marriage one way or the other — something I’ve stated at least half a dozen times by now. I just can’t stand the kind of cheap, cheesy, self-satisfied, self-congratulatory crap this particular little prig plays at, all in the name of God.

        You do realize this is ALL about Marc and his ego, and NOTHING about the Catholic Church, or God, or faith, or any of that, right…?

        • Deven Kale

          You’re only looking at it from two very narrow perspectives: Yours, and Marc’s. There are hundreds (thousands?) of other perspectives here, those of every single person who follows this blog. Perhaps less, those who read the comments, and definitely less those who choose to make their own comments.

          Marc is quite likely here just to stroke his own ego, that’s one of the funny things about bloggers. The really interesting thing though is that the overall picture has very little to do with him. Anybody who reads his posts most likely takes away from it something different than what he actually intended, to varying degrees.

          Of those of us who read the comments, the most obvious conclusion is that you are possibly insane. The next most obvious conclusion is that this topic is what makes you so incensed. And if it’s not this topic that makes you so, may I ask that you leave so those of us who do care can actually have a reasonable discussion?

          My perspective is that, if you’re actually doing this in an attempt to somehow cause Marc to stop blogging, then you’re current tactic is doomed to fail. This is a Christian blog, if you keep up this behavior you’re very likely to get banned. Even if you’re not banned though, the only response your behavior is going to get is laughter, incredulity, and/or pity. Not only from Marc, but from nearly everybody else as well.

          • bcisaldb

            So what? Unlike Marc, I don’t live my life around what other people think.

          • Longinus

            You seem to care very much about what Mark thinks, and about what we think of him…

          • bcisaldb

            I don’t care what Marc thinks. I’m not surprised he has the hangers-on he has. I care how he represents Catholicism. This is not what it was ever meant to be.

            The pride and arrogance Marc has chosen to cultivate don’t belong to God…

          • Cal-J

            …I’m going to regret this, but what exactly was Catholicism “meant” to be?

          • Longinus

            Most likely it involves Secret Knowledge that is not meant for the eyes of us unenlightened folk.

          • Jake E

            If Marc lived as others thought, he would have given up this battle a while ago. After all, according to what you think he is the “embodiment of pure evil.” The fact is people like you and the Catholic Church have disagreed since an argument between the two could exist. There is no way people could hate us still AND Catholics care about what others think. Non-contradiction? Ring a bell?

        • enness

          Not really, because I don’t know Marc. All I have to go on is what’s here. Even if I did know him, and even if I thought I knew him quite well, I wouldn’t presume to be able to read his deepest motivations.

        • RHood2

          Why read it then? The Internets are vast. Find another place to spew.

        • QDefenestration

          If that’s really your problem with Marc, I can understand why you get so upset over his thoughts, the tone is kind of over the top cheesy and pleased with itself.

          But I honestly think you’re taking that cheesiness the wrong way. It’s origins seem much more likely to be from a young writer trying to adopt a style that is very confident, and very Chestertonian, rather than someone that’s a total egomaniac, as you take him.

          • bcisaldb

            Yeah, well maybe he should live life a little longer and develop his own voice. Stealing other people’s voices never leads to success. Copying other writers’ styles and trying to adopt their “voice” is one of the top five reasons manuscripts get rejected.

          • QDefenestration

            That’s ultimately true, yeah, but its fairly common advice among professional writers to fake it until you make it, that finding someone who’s writing you admire and trying to replicate it can lead you ultimately to finding the nuances in your own voice when you’re starting out and perfecting your craft.

            I worry that the least chestertonian, most original parts of these posts are those image macros *shudder*

          • bcisaldb

            I’ve certainly never heard nor given that advice, so I’m not sure how common it is. Relying on someone else’s style/voice, especially when one is very young, would actually deter the development of one’s own voice, IMO. And with the explosion of e-publishing these days, we can see just how much copycat dreck is being “published” by people doing exactly that. Actually, it’s that sort of advice that gave us the 50 Shades series.

          • QDefenestration

            I can’t find any links to contemporary authors, you’ll have to take my word that I’ve heard it often. I think neil gaiman most recently? Or someone like him. (I don’t think anyone who’s given that advice ever intended that said early-imitation should be *published* though.)

            A far more easily google-able statement to verify is that hunter s thompson would physically retype out classics just to get what he could out of their style.

            Anyway, getting worked up over a young writer’s style, only to be piled on by commenters that seem to be *much* more irritating, when that writer is just working within a very narrow tradition, and thus writing in a certain style, may not be worth it. (Unless you enjoy riling people up [which I can't judge as I most certainly do], in which case, cheers.)

          • Rachel K

            Young writers learn through imitation. There’s an entire textbook series on it. Go to Amazon and look up “sentence composing Killgallon.”

    • Karli

      Yeah, we are a lot of failed Christians here. All of us. Except you, it seems. You are a beacon of charity and humility. God bless you.

    • Alena Merimee

      bcialdb, please stop. I don’t really care what you think about Marc, or even whether it’s true or not, I just don’t want to have to read this vileness in the combox. You have the right to express your opinion, but this is just bordering on hate speech. You also should not be judging Marc in this way. Judgement is reserved for God, and it would be in your best interest to leave it to Him.

      Thanks, and God Bless.

      • bcisaldb

        Yes, only Marc gets to judge…and snigger…and titter…and chortle…and guffaw…

        If you don’t want to read it, don’t read it. Real simple.

        • Mark Kaschak

          “Frankly, you don’t have the stones for that smackdown, kiddo. That’s the cold, hard truth.”

          What with all the people in this world who would agree with him yet not have the courage to pull the issue into the light, I’d say he’s got mad stones. It’s people like you that make it hard for others to stand up for what they believe in. For him to not back down and not keep his belief in the dark despite your massive judgment on the presence of original sin within this believer (an original sin that resides just as much within you) is SEVERELY impressive and honorable. It’s funny to me; there’s a side of the argument that would say Catholics are intolerant and judging. Yet, the very second a Catholic brings up an issue you disagree with (mind you, brought up with the ultimate call to LOVE,) boom – intolerance. And it’s not coming from him.

          • Jake E

            Ah, well done.

          • guest

            VERY TRUE WORDS Mark. Thanks for that rebuttal. bcisaldb refuses to look at his own reflection.

          • bcisaldb

            This ridiculous, preening nonsense he plays at on the internet, all for a crowd of mindless, cheering fans requires courage…? Please. Like I said, he and his hangers-on are merely a bunch of untested, untried little schoolboys. His “belief” isn’t all that original or unusual. He’s hardly going out on a limb here.

          • Jared

            “His “belief” isn’t all that original or unusual.”

            Duh?

          • Nicholas Miehe

            bcisaldb, I am interested in being your friend. I would like to talk to you more, maybe Facebook if you calm down a bit? Please e-mail me at nicholas.miehe@yahoo.com

          • bcisaldb

            Sorry. I’m full-up on friends. Until one dies, can’t enlist another.

          • bcisaldb

            And don’t put your email on the internet. Sheesh. That’s beyond stupid.

          • Mark Kaschak

            Man, you really are out just to take a stab wherever you can, aren’t you?

          • bcisaldb

            I’m serious about the emal. It IS stupid. And dangerous. I meant that sincerely.

        • Buzz

          Here’s a better idea: If you can’t yap without being a jerk, don’t yap!

        • Caseydinaro

          He’s not judging, just stating facts as they are and his opinions as he sees them. If you find yourself reacting so adversely to this post, you need to sit down and ask yourself honestly what your motives for this malicious comment are. You may find that he’s striking a sore spot. Or you could just be trolling, in which case talking to you will do no good. Either way, I will pray for you.

          • bcisaldb

            Knock yourself out. “I’ll pray for you” , aka the Catholic “fuck you”. Why not just grow a pair and say it outright?

          • enness

            I rest my case…the Force is strong in this one…unfortunately, not the Light Side.

          • Gregory Arblaster

            I’ll pray for you too, I hope you are saying what you are saying out of care and love.

          • Cal-J

            Because nobody here wants anything to do with you sexually.

          • bcisaldb

            Thank God! Even thought of dirty, stinky little school boys and sex is enough to make me puke. Especially since I highly suspect you’ve all been, er, “experimenting” with each other…ugh.

          • Cal-J

            For someone who has an aversion to thinking of us in those terms, you seem to have been doing exactly that for a while.

          • bcisaldb

            No. Not at all. I promise you. Really.

        • Tally Marx

          Only Marc? Not at all! You are perfectly welcome to begin your own blog and titter, chortle, and snigger there as much as it pleases you to do so.

          • bcisaldb

            I’m not an unpaid freelancer, thanx.

          • Cal-J

            Doesn’t Patheos pay its bloggers?

          • bcisaldb

            I have no idea, but it’s probably a traffic-dependent metric, in which case I should be getting a piece of the action.

          • Cal-J

            You go do that, then.

        • Rachel K

          “Yes, only Marc gets to judge…and snigger…and titter…and chortle…and guffaw…”

          I don’t recall Marc calling anyone a fuckwit. It’s hard to take the moral high ground on trolling here.

          • bcisaldb

            There’s a moral high ground on trolling…?

    • Dicamiel

      All of your venomous hate aside, thank you. Thank you for reminding all of us, Marc, fellow commentors, and anyone who stumbles upon this, that we have a hell of a long way to go. Thank you for reminding us that we ARE often fail Christians that could do a hell of a whole lot better. Thank you for reminding us of the absolute reality of the God we so often only claim to Love and Trust and believe in. Thank you for reminding us that even when we think we’re on the right side, we may not always have the best view of the “OTHER SIDE,” and thank you for that well-deserved dose of humility. Thank you for reminding us that we need to do more than just talk and complain amongst ourselves, and thank you for reminding us to keep a solid check on ourselves, to be sure we aren’t looking down our noses at others, and to keep from spiritually wrecking ourselves, so to speak.
      I know that’s not how you meant any of it, but I’d figure I’d convey my gratitude to the mini-piphany you just provided me with.

      • bcisaldb

        You’re welcome. Anytime. And it’s exactly what Marc needs to be reminded of, instead of being showered with empty praise and high-fived, and having his ego stroked 24/7.

        He’s not anything special, and he hasn’t accomplished anything other than paraphrasing other people’s words and claiming them for his own. Hardly admirable.

        • Anthony Fink

          I don’t feel bad about praising Marc for his work when he gets more than repaid by people like you.

          • bcisaldb

            “Work”…?

            Like I said, untried, untested…silly little boys playing at being men…

          • guest

            You are sounding like a troll that used to troll around for fights by the name of EdinburgEye.

          • bcisaldb

            So I’m not alone here? Good to know.

          • Cal-J

            Yep. More people who favor insults instead of logic. Yaaaaaaay.

        • Redwards95

          So BadCatholic is an ironic name then…

        • Dicamiel

          I was hoping my mini-piphany would be spiritually useful to others, not that you would use it as an opportunity to belittle another person.

          • bcisaldb

            Oh…damn…belittling others is the norm for this blog. I thought it was totally expected here. My bad…

          • Cal-J

            We forgive you.

          • bcisaldb

            Would you like a trophy for that…?

          • Cal-J

            :D

            Well, most responses to you either ought to be fun or angry. I went with fun.

    • Needpeace911

      no idea what you’re ranting bout, I think the article is quite articulated

    • C. B.

      TL;DR

      • bcisaldb

        Okay, then you have nothing to say, but chose to respond anyway…so what does that make you…?

        • JAGreene86

          …that sounds a little bit like you.

        • Marcus Absent

          About as helpful as you’re being, more or less. (No offense, C.B.)

      • TheRealAaron

        This isn’t Reddit. If you didn’t read it, don’t feel obligated to comment.

    • CatholismRocks

      Haha, guys, take it easy on bcisaldb. Try to imagine the position he is in. He absolutely hates Marc, but cannot stop reading his posts! What a nightmare. Almost as soon as Marc posts something, he reads it and comments on it. He does not need angry words, but support. I say we start up a support team, the “I’m addicted to Bad Catholic blog but hate reading it but I can’t stop so I’m really really angry!!” group.

      Ok, that was probably not very loving. Guess I the same problem Marc does. My point is that if reading this blog makes you this agitated and upset, perhaps stop reading it? I have had to do that with multiple other blogs on this site.

      • bcisaldb

        I don’t hate Marc, although I find him a particularly contemptuous little prat, but I hate what he represents. I hate what he and his ilk have done to the Church. I hate how small and petty they make it, all for their own narcissistic purposes. There’s a lot I DON’T read on this blog. More than I actually do. So you couldn’t be more wrong.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joel-Penley/543252821 Joel Penley

          bcisaldb, are you Catholic? I am just trying to figure out what you mean by the “Church”?

          • guest

            Whatever he means by it, it’s definitely not the Roman Catholic Church in an orthodox sense. The true Church will never be “small and petty.” If merely defending the Church’s teaching implies that we are narcissistic, then you can be sure that his definition is not in communion with our 2,000 year old Apostolic history.

          • bcisaldb

            Right. The true Church is not the small, petty Church Marc is a member of.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joel-Penley/543252821 Joel Penley

            Then do you consider yourself Christian (meaning a follower of Christ)? I am just trying to figure out where you are coming from.

          • Jake E

            Small? Check your figures.

          • bcisaldb

            For which Church/church?

          • Cal-J

            We keep asking you that.

          • bcisaldb

            And I keep answering. Not my problem if you can’t figure it out.

          • Tally Marx

            That’s a really deep theological argument right there.

          • bcisaldb

            Who’s arguing?

        • Buzz

          You mean that you don’t like that he’s telling you the truth? That’s what he’s doing.

          • bcisaldb

            He’s not telling anyone the truth. He’s preening and posturing, all for his own personal glory on teh interwebs. He’s as shallow as it gets.

          • Longinus

            Can you provide any genuinely reasonable evidence for that, mate?

          • bcisaldb

            For what? That I think Marc is a detriment to the Church? It’s an opinion. I don’t have to have evidence.

          • Cal-J

            Sure you do. Not all opinions are inherently reasonable.

          • bcisaldb

            No. But that’s the nature of opinions. Get over it already.

          • Cal-J

            As long as we’ve established you have no desire to ground your opinions, then okay.

          • bcisaldb

            Good.

          • Tally Marx

            If you have never read the majority of his posts, then how would you know if they are shallow? To only read the posts you dislike and then say that the blog only has posts you dislike is rather circular.

            Out of curiosity…are you Catholic? You mentioned the Church as though you have some concern for her.

          • bcisaldb

            He’s pretty one-note. This silly presentation of his is all he’s got. I’ve never seen a single thoughtful, humble, introspective, honest, soul-baring post from him. Ever.

          • Frederick Shoopdawoop

            To save you the effort of actually looking for one yourself, here’s one of my recent favourites: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/04/the-scourging-at-the-pillar.html

          • guest

            That was a wonderful post. I also love his writing on the Eucharist.

        • Tally Marx

          “I hate what he and his ill have done to the Church.”
          No, dear, you hate the Church. Marc hasn’t done anything to the Church; she hasn’t changed, and that’s what you are griping about.

          • bcisaldb

            Nope. You’re dead wrong. God hasn’t changed. What passes itself off as the “Catholic Church” has.

          • Cal-J

            And this is where the evidence should come in.

          • bcisaldb

            Look around you…pay attention…figure it out for yourself. Do you even remember how to do that?

          • Cal-J

            So far, the only church you seem to belong to is the church of character assassination. Outside of vague references to God and “the Church” all you’ve managed to do is insult and deride, often with profanity.

        • Moochie

          bcisaldb: Who, exactly – by name, please – are those of Marc’s “ilk” & what, exactly – with specific examples – have they “done to the Church?” Are we talkin’ Benedict XVI? JPII? Who? Who are these other “contemptuous little prats” who represent what you hate? St Thomas Aquinas? St Augustine? St Peter? St Paul? I’m really curious, here. Again, please be specific. Please enlighten us about when the Church taught what you think it taught.

          And, can you clarify exactly what you think the Church taught? ‘Cos I’d like to know, for future reference. Please, also, back that up with specific historical evidence, OK. I just wanna make sure we’re all on the same playing field. Sound good?

          • bcisaldb

            Taught? Or teaches?

        • Cmatt

          Ok, I just figured it out (I am a bit slow). bcisaldb stands for “bad catholic is a lying duche bag”. ha ha, funny. Good thing he’s not obsessed or anything.

          • bcisaldb

            You actually thought that…? Oh my. And you’re one of his fans!

    • lesser

      Peace to you.

    • Jake E

      “Untested playmates”? Ma’am, your dead wrong.

      • bcisaldb

        The STD tests don’t count.

        • Jake E

          Satan, you’re being too hilarious for you’er own good. What point do you try to make? How can you call anyone judgmental and tell me I have not been tempted and tested in my life? It doesn’t really matter because I know you’re wrong but just putting it out there. After all, you’ve probably racked up a higher word count in the combox than Marc has in his entire blog.

          • QDefenestration

            Addressing the trolls as Satan is pretty much the least productive way to respond to them.

            This shouldn’t be a contest for who can sound the most insane.

          • Jake E

            Please, allow me to clarify. i was not addressing her as satan, I was addressing the satan influencing her speech.

          • QDefenestration

            OH well in that case, that sounds *completely* sane and productive. Carry on.

          • bcisaldb

            You’re finally getting it….lol!

    • Guest

      Hahaha, this is hilariously bitter.

    • enness

      Wow, someone is bitter and nasty. Either the person behind this comment has endured a great deal of pain and is not the better for it, or we are feeling the malicious breath of the devil himself.

      • enness

        Yeah, I’m beginning to believe it’s the latter. As I said above, they seem shrewdly crafted to capitalize on any self-doubts Marc and his readers already have…especially the ones regarding bodily appearance or general success in life, which are spectacularly below the belt.

    • Mark Kaschak

      “you pathetic little fuckwit” | “you can’t hide the truth about who and what you are, what a spectactularly failed Christian you are” | “So snigger away with your untried and untested little playmates for now” | “He’s not anything special” | ” I hate what he represents. I hate what he and his ilk have done to the Church. I hate how small and petty they make it, all for their own narcissistic purposes”

      Imagine for a second what your reaction would be to somebody who said that to/about supporters of same-sex marriage. It makes no sense to embed these phrases within an overall callout against somebody for not loving.

      • bcisaldb

        Yes, but they didn’t. I said it to Marc. For a reason. Deal with it. Or not. Your call.

    • Joseph

      Peace be with you.

    • JAGreene86

      You know…for one…someone who is so against hatred…you seem to have a lot of hatred against others.

      Another thing: If you are preaching Truth, and we are the opposite of Truth, therefore, you are Love and we are not…then we will hate, because it’s what we’re suppose to do. If you are love, and if you believe that the counter of love is hate, and you are for love, then we should be full of hate…so, in another words, Marc, as well as the majority of people who have responded to you, are doing exactly what they should be doing…hating you. Because of being persecuted by preaching Truth, you will be gladly rewarded in heaven and we will eventually face our inevitable doom.

      However, on the other hand, if you are not for Truth, and we are still hating you, then we are a kingdom divided, therefore, the hatred we have for each other will be the eventual end of every single one of us…because we all will die at some point, whether it’s in the hands of another or naturally.

      If we are both preaching truth (meaning you and Marc and everyone else), then we will all be rewarded in heaven.

      Since philosophy would state that any two contradicting arguments cannot possibly both be true, there presents a fourth and final scenario:

      If Marc, as well as others, are preaching Truth, and you are persecuting them for preaching Truth, then it will not be you who is rewarded in heaven, but yet to those who endured the persecution for God.

      So, either way, by law of contradiction (and Paschel’s Wager), there can only be one True belief, if there is any at all. The rest will perish. If none are correct, then all perish, no matter what they believe.

      “The idea of God is enough for me to search for God.”

      - J. A. Greene

      • bcisaldb

        Marc is not preaching “Truth”. The LAST thing on Marc’s tiny little mind when he posts this sophomoric blather is God.

        • BlueFox94

          … and the LAST thing that is in your even-more tiny little mind is saying something with even a tiny hint of Truth

        • JAGreene86

          I didn’t say who’s speaking Truth or not…but I’m saying, philosophically speaking…one of you is, and one of you isn’t, or neither one of you is…and that is not determined by anyone’s opinion, that is already determined.

          What I spoke was logic…everything after that is assumed opinion and is subject to be wrong.

    • RHood2

      I am so convinced by the response above. All the points he makes. The facts he lays out. The logical conclusions he makes. The deductions. The intellect on display in the above response is staggering. I am not quite sure if I can follow. I am a mere mortal.
      Wait,sorry.
      That was for another post. The response above was a moron who can’t attack the argument so he resorts to invective. But, unfortunately the only way to respond to a monkey throwing poop is to toss a little back. The monkey DOES understand that gesture.

      • bcisaldb

        ~yawn~ That was original……

        • Wunderbar

          Yeh, and so is each little Internet troll *pfft!!*

    • AttentionDeficitCatholic

      Alright, everybody else is being relatively polite with you, but I think I’ll just tell you in a language that you understand:

      You are a dick.

      Work on that beam, buddy, before worrying about Marc’s splinter.

      • bcisaldb

        Right back atcha…

        • CPE Gaebler

          Wow, is this a “I know you are but what am I?” style of comeback?
          DAAAAAANNG, burn ward, admitting one Catholic!

          • bcisaldb

            Exxxxactly…and it gets you every time! LOL!

      • Jake E

        Please, don’t throw yourself into the sewer, too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cheri-Reyes/727592678 Cheri Reyes

    Brilliant. Makes me cry. I have friends with same-sex attraction and I haven’t stopped loving them. I am praying for them.

  • Joseph A’Hearn

    Hate the sin. Love the sinner.

    • http://creativefidelity.wordpress.com/ Dan F.

      too cliche unless you have some concrete action that backs that up.

      • Andy

        That is the general rule.

      • JAGreene86

        Love creates…hate destroys.

        The sinner is a person, and a person is make in the image and likeness of God, and God is good, therefore, the creation and being of a person is good.

        Loving people is an attempt to create people.

        Sin is from the devil. Sin is an attempt to deceive and reject the goodness of God, therefore, it must be destroyed.

        Hating sin is an attempt to destroy it.

        Thus,

        Hate the sin (destroy sin). Love the sinner (create goodness).

  • Albert

    Instead of whining about why the odds are stacked against you, why don’t you meet the pro-gay-marriage folks where they are and explain rationally your position, instead of hiding snark behind memes? One can preach the Truth in Charity. Sometimes Charity means explaining things in a way that makes sense to the one in need of conversion. At all times charity means realizing that you yourself are the one in need of conversion.

    • Andy

      This is him explaining rationally his position…

      • Albert

        no, this is him complaining that nobody will listen to him while he continues to show that he’s not listening to others. I share his frustrations with the pro-gay marriage people. I mean, who WANTS to be called a bigot? But the truth is there are very real concerns that aren’t being addressed. He’s onto something when he says that we’re speaking at each other, not with each other on this issue. but he doesn’t go far enough to actually show he hears the other side.

        all these arguments here are fine if you already believe it. but they’re incomplete and ignorant if you don’t believe it. for instance, Marc claims that most Christians probably don’t hate gays. I believe this to be true. But then he goes about saying that what gays do, what their heart’s desire is, what they identify as, is wrong. the problem isn’t all Marc’s… the homosexual shouldn’t make “homosexual” his identity. but he does, and that’s what we have to deal with.

        So, instead of using language that one knows will rile up the trolls, one could instead simply address the issue of identity, and how ultimately any identity we make for ourselves is worthless but that which we find in Christ, as the Father’s adopted sons and daughters. You hook them on the glory of the truth: YES! i want to be God’s son! and then the details of the doctrine come later, once the foundation has been laid. That’s JPII’s advice on how to go about new evangelizing, at least: introduce people to Christ, and the rest will follow.

        do we maintain silence about these issues? no! but we shouldn’t do things that we know will only further souls from the Church that are already so far away. you can see the hardness of heart that has come across alexandra in the combox here… instead of the rational engagement she desires, she’s met with snarky cheerleaders! she genuinely seemed (seems?) interested in learning what the Church teaches (for instance, asking what purgatory was all about in a prior post). but now she seems put off to the whole idea of the faith. maybe not, hopefully not.

        in any case, if the goal of our lives is to lead souls to Christ, and we’re not, we better change something. ourselves.

  • Karli J Anderson

    Very insightful, I especially liked the end. But I have to add the question, how do we know that keeping civil gay marriage illegal is really the most loving (in a Catholic sense) thing to do? Is it not also loving to give a man freedom? God loves us perfectly, and yet He has granted us a great deal of freedom to make bad, or good decisions. You might wish to limit someone’s freedom out of real love and concern for them, and I do see where you are coming from. But where do we draw the line between loving action, and attempting to control other people’s lives?

    • http://twitter.com/MostValuableMo Morgan M

      I understand what you’re saying, and to a certain extent, yes. We are called to love our brothers and sisters regardless of whatever stance they take on any specific issue. However, it has been said that you can love someone while still disagreeing with them. And by making these restrictions it is the very purest form of love. A mother could say that by allowing her 16 year old to run around having promiscuous sex that she is allowing her to make her own choices and use her God-given freedom to do whatever it is that she pleases. But would this be the most loving thing for that mother to do? I think not.

      By allowing “gay marriage” to occur, it negates the very sanctity of marriage, which is meant to be between a man and a woman, which Marc addresses in the final portion of this post.

      Overall, this is a very difficult issue because it is heartbreaking to know friends and family who struggle with this very issue, but at the end of the day we must stand with the Church and her teachings. Period.

      • Karli

        But should we be taking the position of mother over other citizens? Is that really our place in a democracy? The Church is certainly Mother to us, but I’m not sure it’s right to think of ourselves as mothers to our neighbors. If it was, I would be rallying right now to push a mandate that everyone must eat their vegetables, for real :)

      • Kennedykemp

        Morgan, I completely respect your opinion. But… You used an analogy of a child of yours versus adults in your argument. You “allowing” in your context, makes you sound as though you have the right to police other adults. I know it wasn’t your direct intention, but the fact is that adults like you have freedom to do what they like (issue aside) so the metaphor gets muddled. Not attacking you, just saying…

  • Matticfrancis

    You, sir, are amazing.

  • Elestethane

    I wrote a blog post once, doing exactly what you’re challenging everyone to do.

    I lost three friends because of it.

    • JAGreene86

      Not to undermind their friendship, but I guess they weren’t good friends in the first place.

      Good friends stand up for the Truth, not run away from it. Anyone can have friends…but those who love (like Marc said… “dying for them”) is being a good friend.

      If you were in the wrong, they should’ve explained to you why you were in the wrong instead of just leaving you. If they loved you as a friend, they would take your confusion and frustration and continue to work with you until you found Truth. If you were in the right, then they have no justification for why they left you other than they value their opinions over their friendship with you…which, in my humble opinion, is not being a good friend in the first place.

      Nonetheless, I’m sorry for your loss. I’ve had several friends leave me because of my belief…on the flip side however, because of my belief, I have found people who are better friends to me than those beforehand.

    • http://twitter.com/CMysliwiec Christian

      Stay strong! You don’t know what seeds of Truth you may have planted.

  • anon

    This is great. Your Caritas is showing. ;)

    • Edge

      I agree – Marc hits the points, but reading the comments folks seem to miss it all together.

      This discussion is like this, to use an analogy. There is a huge hole that has been dug, it is huge, hundreds of feet across and hundreds of feet deep. People are walking and falling into the hole and dying. BUT every one is talking about the huge mountain of dirt next to the hole instead. Yes, the mountain of dirt came out of the hole, and is an issue as it impedes traffic, but they ignore the hole itself. The hole is the cause of the mountain of dirt next to the hole, as that is where the dirt came from. They ignore the hole even though it is the cause of death, pain and suffering. Take care of the hole, and the mountain of dirt disappears.

      Love of neighbor – that is what we are called to do. When those who (rightly) disagree with same sex marriage make their arguments as to why it is bad and should not, and cannot be, they are just talking about the mountain of dirt. The only conversation that will solve the problem is to talk about the hole and how to fix that problem. Same sex attraction is a disorder, and those who suffer from it need love and support to 1.) admit they have a problem, 2.) seek help to come to terms with the disorder, and 3.) to get past or cured of the disorder. They, (like those who suffer from any disorder) may struggle with it for the rest of their lives, but that disorder is no different than any other. To engage in the wrong discussion which makes the disorder glorified or normalized only hurts those who suffer from it as it prevents them from admitting they have a problem and need help. It is like arguing with the alcoholic about which is better for him to drink – scotch or gin. That argument does nothing to get help for the alcoholic. The only discussion that will help him is the one that leads to him abstaining from drinking altogether.

      So when Marc states “4 Ways The Gay Marriage Debate Has Been Rigged” – it is by design. We are forced into talking about the mountain of dirt (a non-issue if the real problem is addressed.) When someone attempts to address the real problem, they are inundated with talk about non-issues like same sex marriage vs. unmarried same sex – the same as arguing about scotch vs. gin with the alcoholic. Both are deadly to the one suffering from the disorder. If you think the lame stream media doesn’t drive towards evil agendas, and dictate what America talks about, just look at historic event from this week that they have intentionally withheld – 43 Catholic entities suing the administration for violation of their religious right. The broadcast network’s evening news thus far has dedicated less than 1/2 of one minute combined to the story since it happened on Monday.

      But the Lame stream media has told us that the disorder of same sex attraction has been removed from the list of psychological disorders and stating that it is is old fashioned and in error. Truth is that it is a fact that it should not have been removed from the list, and the person responsible for having it removed now thinks it is a disorder, a maladaptive coping method for childhood sexual abuse. (Much like women who have pushed “for” abortion until they become educated on the issue, or realize that their push for it was a cooperation of true evil in the murdering of innocent babies, and then come over to the side of truth and life, such as the original woman in Roe vs. Wade.) And of course as anyone with a disorder, those suffering from it are the first to deny that it is a problem. No one wants to be told that they are incorrect, wrong, or have a disorder. So rather than deal with the disorder, flight or fight instinct comes into play. When the evil agenda is laid out giving them ammunition (although it is only blanks as the information is false) that their disorder is normal, they then take that and exert their energies into fighting to make others call their disorder normal instead of seeking help. To not help someone with a disorder (same sex attraction, alcoholism, or any other disorder) is to say they are not worth helping, not worth saving, and all human beings are worth helping.

      Many doctors and psychological experts will tell you plainly that homosexuality “is” a disorder. Many who have suffered from it will tell you plainly that they are happy and relieved to have been treated for this disorder, and in many cases, cured. It is the ones who have gotten past this disorder that we need to hear. Look at how California is trying to make it a crime to help those who want to be cured of this disorder. Do you really think the lame stream media will report the truth about this when they do not report on the momentous and historic occasion of 43 Catholic entities suing Obama’s admin?

      Marc says “…if we attack a Gay Man, we can’t seem to attack him without the big looming “Sinner!” sign above his head. It’s easy to attack a man for a sin we suffer no temptation to commit ourselves, and thus we do it with all the boldness we might tell a man, “Your desire to smoke meth is disordered.” (Hey good one straight, white Christian, way to put yourself out there.) All this as if the sinner with same-sex attraction is anything but a Man, no better or worse a sinner than ourselves, saving our souls by the weight of his cross.”

      Here is where I think Marc misses the point – the action of same sex “is” a sin, the action of getting drunk “is” a sin, the action of smoking meth “is” a sin – but to not call it a disorder is “also” a sin. How could it be a sin you ask?? – to ignore the plight of the one who is suffering (whether suffering as with the disorder of homosexuality, alcoholism, drug addiction, or as a murdered babied in the womb), those sufferings are the cries that go up to God. If we fail to help them in their suffering, we are guilty of participating in their suffering. If you are told that what you suffer from is NOT a disorder, but normal – but just not accepted yet – you will NOT seek to be cured or learn to deal with it, and will continue to suffer from it. To call same sex attraction disorder “normal” is to hurt those who suffer from it; Arguing about same sex marriage just gives the unspoken message that homosexuality is OK – just as long as it doesn’t go too far – like calling it marriage – again hurting those suffer from it.

      • Deven Kale

        There’s really only one thing worth mentioning here, that homosexuality is nothing more than “a maladaptive coping method for childhood sexual abuse.”

        That’s easily disproven by the simple fact that there are many homosexuals who were never abused in any way throughout their entire childhood.

        • bcisaldb

          Yes, this seems to be the latest armchair analysis of the situation — we’ve gone from domineering mothers to absentee fathers to childhood sexual abuse.

          And, as usual, all discussion of homosexuality seems to focus on the homosexual male and ignores women who are attracted to members of the same sex. Statistically, girls who’ve been abused as children are more likely to act out sexually with members of the opposite sex than they are to become lesbians.

          • http://twitter.com/caesarjbsquitti Caesar J. B. Squitti

            One must question the discrimination against the opposite sex, as a behavior founded in abuse, or neglect.

            The proliferation of ‘cult-feminists’ of all men as bad, suggests perhaps the psychiatrists missed this, and made an error; they are not God.

        • Rachel K

          Deven–I agree that this is incorrect, but to be fair, Edge wasn’t saying that it was true. He or she was saying that it’s the current theory of the person who originally pushed to have homosexuality removed as a psychiatric disorder.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003100628513 Matteo de Maule

    But this is what all laws do. Giving freedom is not inherently loving, nor is the absence of law what makes man free. Man is free when he lives in keeping with (natural) law.

  • aksoprano

    …don’t hurt me…no more. Thanks for another great post. So insightful, as usual.

  • http://www.facebook.com/curtjester Jeff Miller

    Great post, once again.

    SF Author and Catholic convert John C. Wright had an excellent essay on the subject of “The usefulness of hate” in the context of the same-sex marriage debate. Charging hate makes them able to dismiss you and any defense is proof of your hate.

    http://johncwright.livejournal.com/510305.html

  • Deven Kale

    I must say Marc, I’m a bit offended, personally. For you to state that you honestly think that the gay-marriage debate is so easily refined into such small categories, and that no other arguments are possible, is an insult to my own intelligence, as well as yours.

    No reasonable person would make an argument without having well-defined terms. Even illogical people would define their terms, although fallaciously defined they may be (such as yours, btw). You seem to be saying that, since I’m willing to put myself into this debate, that automatically makes me illogical. Which, as I said, I find highly insulting.

    If you really wish to put yourself into a real debate about this topic, poisoning the well as you have with this particular post is a sad, sad way of doing so. Attempting to preempt anybody who’s willing to join in by saying they automatically fit into any of these categories is completely preposterous.

    • Andy

      I think you misunderstood. He wasn’t saying that these are the only 4 ways the gay marriage debate leads to. “You seem to be saying that, since I’m willing to put myself into this debate, that automatically makes me illogical.” – he is not saying this in the slightest. What he is saying is that turning towards the 4 mentioned ways is in itself illogical.

      • Deven Kale

        Thus here’s 4 Ways the Gay Marriage Debate Has Been Rigged, so all said suckage may be sidestepped.

        You may be right. He doesn’t explicitly state that these are the only ways he sees the gay marriage debate proceeding, but the implication is still quite definitely there.

        • Anthony Fink

          Implication is in the eye of the beholder.

          • Deven Kale

            That’s sort of true. They’re much easier to see if you’re willing to see them. It’s much more difficult if you’re wearing blinders. ;)

          • Kennedykemp

            It could also be argued that narrowing the “lack of debate” to 4 bullet points is also making a “simpleton” of responders.

    • enness

      You just did it yourself. What is a “reasonable” person?

      • Deven Kale

        You see, that’s more proper. If you think something is vague, never be afraid to ask the question.

        I tend to use dictionary definitions from Merriam-Webster, but even those are often vague and confusing. I’m specifically using this definition of reasonable: being in accordance with reason (a rational ground or motive.)

        If you’d like, I could go even further and give you the definition of rational, but I assume this is far enough.

        • enness

          Fair enough. That particular word has been high on my list of pet peeves lately (see: No True Scotsman).

          • Deven Kale

            To be honest, I don’t like it either and try not to use it. the fact that I used it at all was an accident… The funniest part is that the definition of rational uses reasonable in it for some parts as well, so it’s a very circular definition that doesn’t actually mean much. lol

    • Lily

      Although I agree with you that a debate about gay marriage can be entered into logigically, I think what mark says about defining terms and such is really important for a lot of younger people who haven’t been brought up or taught in school to define terms or even to think about terms.

      Case in point, I once had an argument with one of my best friends about gay marriage, mostly defending why I myself was against it. I spent a hour of that time defining terms for her because she honestly had never thought about what marriage meant or why it having a meaning was important, or why any word having a meaning was important. Other times I debated a teenage on the same subject, and she began by basically telling ME what Christians though sex was for (her idea of what we believe was quite…. simplistic and also wrong). I had to backtrack and say what Christians actually believe and then go on from there, defining everything as I went since she was trying define what I thought rather than the terms we were both using.

      I agree that Marc is being a little too simplistic and maybe a little anti-intellectual (though I don’t think this is intentional), but I also think a lot of people really haven’t thought of “The Debate” in these terms before and I think it’s good for him to bring them up. It will probably make arguing with people in the future a lot easier and less frustrating :)

  • http://www.catholicdadsonline.org Rob Kaiser

    Lots of good stuff. You are right. We do need to humanize and treat the other as Man.

    I don’t think we should just withdrawl from the culture and play in our own sandbox. We may be forced to do that, but we are called to witness – this too is love.

    In the end, I am left … thinking. Thanks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501717079 Sarah Hamilton Karnouk

    I saw “the Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” being held up at a Pro- Life rally at the Nation’s Capital, this Pro -Life Rally was sponsored by the Catholic Church…it was really sad

    • Andy

      The Catholic Church is against same-sex “marriage”, so why is that sad?

      • bcisaldb

        It’s the cheap, degrading rhetoric that’s sad.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stringbeanjeanoo Kimberly Lenggiere

    After the last post I found myself just jumping straight to the comments…

  • rondonaghe

    For as long as I can remember, I’ve wanted to be in a marriage with a same-sex life partner, and now that I’ve achieved this (20 years, happy as hell), I would like to have the same benefits of marriage that heterosexual people do, including inheritance, and all the other automatic benefits that accrue to those who get a single marriage license, rather than having to craft over a thousand different contracts through a lawyer; further I want my partner to continue receiving my retirement, my social security, and have it be understood that when I pass, no one except him has the right to get their hands on my stuff. This author makes the outrageous claim that gays don’t, by and large want to get married. Bullshit.

    • Andy

      For the most part they don’t. You are one of the few that want to get “married”. He isn’t making things up.

    • Romanmissiles

      I would have suggested a durable and medical power of attorney, but why not redefine marriage? That’s not self-serving at all.

    • Silver

      Without trying, you actually just proved his point. Everything you just listed off has nothing to do with marriage. Of everything you listed not one of them was “I want to stand before God and be bound to my spouse for eternity.” A pension plan designee is not a marriage; not for heterosexual nor for homosexual partners.

      • Deven Kale

        Unfortunately, you just proved that there is a massive confusion in the anti-homosexual crowd as to exactly what it is that’s being asked for. Nobody is asking that homosexuals be allowed religious marriage (as far as I know). We’re asking them to be allowed a civil marriage, which does in fact entail everything that rondonaghe listed.

        • CVGS

          The problem is, once you ask for a civil marriage, it becomes law, and the churches would be breaking the law if they didn’t allow the marriage. Then you have clergy penalized by the government. In the 3 places where gay marriage is allowed, Catholic Charities adoptions were shut down because they were breaking the law by not allowing same sex couples to adopt. It wasn’t about state funding because even if the were funded privately they still would be shut down because they were breaking the law, according to the lawyers in the states. Even though for 30 years Catholic Charities had referred same sex couples to other agencies, now with the marriage law they were forced to shut down. The same thing could happen to churches who refuse to marry gay couples because it would become a hate crime and discriminatoo

          • Deven Kale

            Forcing a church to do anything within the direct realm of the church is against the constitution, regardless of the subject involved. There are already numerous exceptions to laws regarding churches in what they are allowed to do because of the first amendment. Even if there were a law enacted that would attempt to force churches to recognize homosexual couples, I guarantee you even the most liberal court would strike it down.

            Your example of the adoption centers being shut down is not the same thing. Adoption is not a purely religious enterprise and is therefore exempt from religious exclusions. Any adoption centers are still required to follow secular laws just like any other business. The fact that they refused to follow the law and allow homosexual parents was their own choice. This means that realistically they chose to shut themselves down, not that they were not done so forcefully. It’s a totally different beast in that case.

          • http://catholicgraymatters.blogspot.com/ Lightning Rod

            You said -> Even if there were a law enacted that would attempt to force churches to recognize homosexual couples, I guarantee you even the most liberal court would strike it down.

            Unfortunately, the facts do not seem to bear that interpretation.

            This was a case judged by Solomon Metzger, in New Jersey, about a Christian retreat house that banned a same-sex couple from conducting a ceremony on its own premises, on moral grounds. The judge ruled in favor of the same-sex couple.

            From his decision:

            I do not believe that the facts pose a true question of religious freedom, but were they to, the matter would not be governed by the high bar of “strict scrutiny,” but by a much lower standard that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.

            This part is the kicker: tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals. So where does one draw the line?

            Here’s a link to the judge’s decision:

            http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

            Here’s a summary article, admittedly biased, but it does recount the basic facts of the case.

            http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/

          • Deven Kale

            Unfortunately, this particular case does not set the precedent you’re implying that it does. I will read the entire judgement eventually (it’s nearly bedtime for me), but in the very first sentence there is very likely to be all the evidence I need that it was not in fact a de facto intrusion into religious freedom.

            This matter arises out of a decision [...] by respondent, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, to deny petitioners [...] the use of its Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil-union ceremony.

            The key phrase in this case is “civil-union ceremony.” They were not asking the court to force the church to recognize their union. There was no decision by the court to force the church to recognize it either.

            While I admit it seems odd that the court would decide the church should allow the use of their premises, I also admit I have yet to read the whole decision and don’t know the circumstances right now. Until then, I’ll reserve judgement on that particular point.

          • Deven Kale

            Okay, I read the decision (damn insomnia).

            The finding can be simplified very easily into two sentences. The judge was simply telling the church that they had to abide by the contract with the state which they had already agreed to. Since that contract required they allow the pavilion be open for public use without discrimination, disallowing the couple was a breach of contract and therefore illegal.

            Since then, they have now signed on with a new contract which allows them to make that choice for themselves, in spite of the fact that there is a law stating same-sex couples cannot be discriminated against in that state.

            This particular issue was just a failure by the church leaders to realize the laws had changed and that they needed to reassess their tax-exemption contract. Since they did not, they ended up suffering the consequences of their own neglect.

            Surprisingly this doesn’t seem to support your argument at all. To me it seems more like it actually supports my argument that the government can’t (and won’t) force a church into marrying a same sex couple. Especially once they have the proper contracts.

          • Kristen indallas

            Your dismissal of adoption shows just how little you understand what’s at stake. It’s not always a religious thing… but the ideas about how to best raise a child can certainly enter the sphere of religion. There are state adoption agencies who deal primarily with kids taken out of abusive or addictive homes, do I think a loving homosexual couple would make better parents than what they were originally dealt… most definately, and I’m not even opposed to single parent adoptions if all the care/love/ability criteria are met. However, as a woman who debated voluntary adption (I was a scared single girl who wanted my son to get the best upbringing he could) I can tell you the only adoption agency I would have considered is a Catholic one. Not because gay people aren’t good people, but because my only reason for doubting my own ability to raise him was that he wouldn’t have a father figure in his life. That was (and still is) a big deal for me. I regret that he doesn’t have a mom and dad around to shape him, but such is life. My point is, parents who give their children up for adoption, which is a tough enough choice in the first place, should absolutely have the right to require that the home their child is placed in is above and beyond what they could have given themselves. For some… that means a mom and a dad. Acting as if there is no difference between that and a same sex couple is, from a parents point of vew… pretty ridiculous

          • Deven Kale

            I didn’t mean to dismiss adoption at all. I think adoption is a great thing for children who do not have parents which are able to take care of them properly. If anybody was dismissive of the overall good of adoption, it was the church who decided it would rather leave those children on the streets or bouncing from foster home to foster home than allow a few of those children be adopted by an SS couple. If you’re going for the overall good of the most people (in this case children), then what that church did was not something I would call moral.

          • Deven Kale

            Also, the thing about putting up a child for adoption is that you’re literally giving up all your rights as the parent of that child. If you honestly believe that you have a better idea of how your child should be raised than what is required by state law, then you should by no means be giving up your child to the state (or state institution such as adoption agencies) as your proxy for finding good parents.

            Once you give that child to the state, your own right to make any decisions regarding that child whatsoever are voided. At that point you must abide by what the state says is good for your child, whether you like it or not. I know this firsthand.

            So if you really want to be sure your child is going to “good” parents, there are agencies you can go with that serve as middlemen, not proxies, that allow you to screen the families your child would be going to yourself. If you really insist that your child be going to a certain type of family, this is (and always has been) literally the only way to go about it.

          • Aaron Lopez

            No, unfortunately it’s not an entirely different beast, and this is exactly why the Catholic Church is fighting.

            You see, the Catholic Church isn’t confined to temples of worship. I’m not sure how other religions do it, but the reason we’re the only religion that has survived 300 years of intense persecution, half a millenium of heresy which lead to another half of secular upheaval is simply because we live our faith. It’s not hollow temple worship. And that entails a lot.

            Long story short, it means that the Catholic adoption agency, the Catholic hospital, and the Catholic education centre is part of the Catholic Church.

            The trap you’ve fallen into, and the trap that the American government has fallen into, is that both of you are defining on your own terms the things which constitute the Catholic Church.

            So, because such Catholic agencies are actually part of the Catholic Church, you’re going to have to revert to your first few lines:

            “Forcing a church to do anything within the direct realm of the church is against the constitution, regardless of the subject involved.”

            And if it is the case that the Church is discriminated against Her right to exercise Her beliefs e.g forcing immoral adoptions, forcing the provision of contraception to clients, then yeah, you’ve violated the Constitution.

            I’m guessing that’s what those 43 Catholic agencies around the U.S are suing the government for.

      • rondonaghe

        Actually I didn’t. I’m talking about civil marriage. there’s a difference. You want to get married in a church, without getting a marriage license, go ahead; but in the eyes of the law of the land, you won’t be married.

        • drummerboy

          ill be as honest as i can be in good conscience, my brother. As a Catholic, I am loathe to call any union coordinated by a government “marriage.” Marriage in my book is a Sacrament. Matrimony in this sense is a covenant. A covenant is a relationship of people loving and being loved. This is not what you want. What you want is a contract, a piece of paper, a binding agreement. In my mind, there is no problem in this action. Receiving a civil union as the contract it is should be no problem for me right? A couple of things first. Do not pretend to call it marriage. This is not consent for what you consider to be sex (If you want a thorough debate on my implication feel free to email me). This is saying that you are monetarily one group. You do not become one. You do not become husband and husband. You become 2 partners in an arguably “business” contract. That is fine in my opinion…

          Until the issue arises when you do the old in and out (I love Clockwork Orange). As a Catholic, I cannot accept it for 2 reasons. Reason number 1: you are willfully ejaculating out of wedlock. Once again, I cannot define it as sex. My apologies. As a member of my faith, I cannot stand for a relationship that does such a thing. Reason number 2: you are participating in an act that objectively wrong and detrimental to ones health. Poopoo in the urethra does awful things. So does poopoo in rectal tears. But enough talk about genitals. Our society is too Puritan for that. For the objectively wrong aspect, I must resort to Catholic marriage, which you dont really care about. However, I cannot support an action which I believe is sinful.

          So a contract devised purely for monetary sense, as you wanted, is not sinful. The sin is in the anal foreplay in which you either will or have already partaken in. Because of this, Catholics are unable to be for any union that promotes something that the Church considers sinful.

          Hopefully you are still reading it and havent decided that Im some old geezer with a Bible in his right hand and whip of chords in his other one. In truth, Im an 19 year old college student with loans in both hands and some heavy weight on his shoulders. I am not condemning you, nor do I hate you. I say these things because I care about you and I care about your soul.
          Have a nice day

          • rondonaghe

            Well, you see, that’s the thing. The civil laws of the United States cannot be framed by your religion. If that were the case, then you’re saying that catholicism should be the law of the land over and above the other religions. And last time I looked, this is a secular country of laws. So it does not matter what your personal definition of marriage is. Yours would be matrimony. In a civil ceremony mine would be a marriage. It matters so very little that you object on religious grounds. That’s your universe of ideas that don’t intersect with civil law. And I would dare say that many marriages are performed outside of a church setting in front of a justice of the peace. That’s what I’m talking about. Honestly, I think your Catholicism is laudable—for you. But it has nothing to do with me.

          • bcisaldb

            Not all gay men have anal sex, not all people who have anal sex are gay, and your descriptions of sexual activity describe a practice no lesbians are capable of engaging in.

            Anal sex is risky for anyone who engages in it, but then, so is vaginal intercourse in some circumstances. Even oral sex is risky, health-wise, depending on the health of the partners.

            This has NOTHING to do with the morality of gay sexual intimacy. Nothing. It doesn’t have anything to do with morality, period. Actions are not moral or immoral based on their riskiness.

            This is an immature, uninformed, uneducated view of gay sex.

          • drummerboy

            You made a great point. Not all homosexual couples participate in any anal play. However, as I was talking to a man, I felt like it made sense to discuss it.

            I call bullshit on your vaginal sex dangers. Vaginas are meant for urine, babies, and penises. In sex, the likelihood of hurting the woman in vaginal sex is negligible. Please give me proof of your statement. And please dont say STDs.

            Oral foreplay does have its complications. I will let you have that one.

            But what does risk have to do with morality? Alot. If my pleasure stands at the risk of my partner getting a rectal infection, how can I call that an act of love? This is a real threat. Sphincters are not biologically made for rapid movement in and out. Even with lubrication its not safe. Risk is very important in the choosing of a moral action. I can see no way around that.

            By the way, why would a homosexual person be just a lifetime friend with someone they are attracted to? Is it some type of Josephite Marriage? I dont think so because Josephite Marriage has a specific purpose that someone who has nothing to do with the Church wouldnt do. As a straight man, I can finally relate to something: the desire to be intimate with the one I am erotically attracted to. My body has a desire to be erotically intimate with a woman. Yes there may be a few, but for the average gay man who lives to be 57 with 47 partners in those years, this is how they interact.

            Let me do my best to give you a mature, informed, and educated view of gay erotic experiences.

            Option 1: Oral ejaculation or orgasm. Here, the two people who both desire solely pleasure (in best circumstance for the other as well) achieve orgasm in the mouth of his or her partner.

            Option 2: Anal ejaculation or orgasm. Here the two people with the same desire as before decide to put something in the rectal sphincter in order to produce pleasure and achieve orgasm.

            Option 3: Vaginal orgasm through penetration. Here, seeking the orgasm of one through the stimulus of the clitoris. This is done by fingers, a tongue, or inanimate objects.

            Option 4: Ejaculation or orgasm with no use of any orifice. Example: a hand. The desired orgasm is achieved through usage of an alternative to an orifice.

            All of these can be used as foreplay rather than the act the brings orgasm. None of these are morally wrong in themselves. Though I would wonder how one could lovingly participate in anal foreplay, homo or hetero. Since you used the term morality and not ethics, I can use the Catholic Church against you. If you would like I can give you many Catechism quotes, papal encyclicals, Post-synodal writings, Bible passages, and Theological scholarly writings that explain to you the Church’s teachings on this.
            Have a nice day

          • barry waterfield

            Yes I don’t doubt you can but you miss the point, these people are not Roman Catholic, they’re not in your club so why do they want to know your rules. Incidentally your descriptions of how sex is done with varying partners is hilarious, if I can say that without hurting your feelings. I think there is a book in you. If you write one you must send me a copy.

          • barry waterfield

            I think you make the common mistake of thinking that all gay people enjoy anal sex. An awful lot don’t do it apparently. The again a recent poll found that a growing number of heterosexuals do. Sorry to throw this spanner in the works. Other than that I don’t see people of either persuasion being too bothered about you going your own way. Carry on London.

    • JAGreene86

      This proves again that marriage is not a “right”, but a “privilege”.

      Your argument is not necessarily refined to “marriage”, but it is about government policy about inheritance, tax rebates, etc. This is defined by the government, who CHOOSES to administer those benefits under the institution of “marriage”…but it really has nothing to do with the basic idea and structure of marriage.

      If people are so ticked off about why homosexuals can’t have the ability to have those same “privileges” that heterosexual does, then talk to the government about changing inheritance and hospital visitation policy.

      Also, most people, homosexual and heterosexual couples alike, are more and more shying away from marriage…because they don’t want to get divorced. So, in essence, fighting for homosexual marriage is a losing battle…not against religious people, but against the trend of society as it is. The rate that it’s going, there will be more couples living together than married couples living together (I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s true right now). So, again, if getting married was such a great “privilege”, then why wouldn’t people want to take advantage of that privilege?

      Also, as you have proved, homosexuals don’t have to be married in order to be happy.

      • rondonaghe

        As I responded to another person on this chat, I’m not interested in religious marriage. You can have it. You’re welcome to it. But in this country where everyone is equal under the law, it damned well better not be a special privilege. I keep hearing conservatives scream about gays just want special privileges, like not being fired for being gay, not being discriminated against in the work place, being able to rent housing; and yet when it comes to marriage, Rick Santorum and you seem just fine with providing special privileges to heterosexuals.

        • JAGreene86

          But to say that marriage belongs to the government is like saying that the Declaration of Independence belongs to the Christian church because it was written by a Christian. Marriage should not be determined by the State much as Government policy should not be determined by the Church.

          Because of this, it is true that the Church has no control over how the Government decides to define “marriage” …however, the Church does control whether or not they honor that marriage, and that is their “right”. Agree with it or not, but it is within the right of an established organized religion to recognize or not recognize same-sex marriage.

          What Christians argue is that same-sex marriage is immoral, therefore, it should not be government policy, because the original purpose for government policy was to discover and enforce what is moral and immoral. This is why it says in the Constitution “inalienable rights”…rights that are not so much “created” but rather “discovered”…rights that have always been, just never properly enforced. Again, the argument that “gays have the right to be married” is not an “inalienable right” as I said earlier…

          My stance is that even if the government didn’t give special marital “privileges”, people would still get married. Why? Because they believe that marriage stands for something more than what the government defines it as. As I said in a different post, only a man and women together can CREATE naturally from their own bodies. Because of this, there is a special bond between the man and women, whether they want to accept it or not. Because of this act, that is why marriage means so much more. Sex and marriage should not be separated…when they are, they both lose their special value significantly. Marriage is the commitment that the man and women have devoted themselves to making the love between them go beyond their existence. That is why parents are extremely devastated when a child of them dies, because no parent wants to outlast their children. That child is the living, breathing legacy of the love they have for their spouse, and they know that legacy will go further than their death, thus, the “circle of life” continues on to the next generation.

          Marriage between male and male or female and female cannot possibly naturally go further than their life-span. Their love does not live on through in a physical and spiritual form. If you don’t like how heterosexuals have that special privilege, then I would take that up with God, or science…not Christians. We are just simply the messengers. We, nor any government, created that special “bond” between two heterosexuals who are married…we just seek to recognize it and protect it.

          • rondonaghe

            I’ve already made the distinction between civil marriage and holy matrimony. I want no part of your religious marriage. Fine for you, irrelevant to me.

          • mdk

            Tell me about married men and women who choose not to have children or cannot. They don’t have a “symbol” of their love for one another in the circle of life. Is their marriage not as spiritual or connected or as real as yours? Again, amazed by your arrogance. Using children to qualify someone’s marriage? Unbelievable. Nice that your children are just part of your legacy rather than human beings.

        • c matt

          When a gay marriage can provide the government the same incentive to extend benefits that heterosexual marriage does (propagation of the species on a wide scale basis leading to the creation of the next generation of citizens), then perhaps you may have an argument as to why the government should extend benefits to a SS couple. As it stands now, SSM does not provide government the same incentive, so why should it extend the same benefits?

          • rondonaghe

            As is clearly the case, it doesn’t take marriage to propagate the species. Many women have children out of wedlock, and further many heterosexuals marry without having children, and yet the government allows this. Elderly people who are beyond the child-bearing years also get married. Same sex couples also adopt children and do everyone the favor of giving unwanted children stable and loving homes. Are these children to be punished even more than they already are by denying the parents in their adoptive home no benefits. So what you’re advocating is a rule of law that only child-bearing OS couples should be allowed to marry. I would further contend that if these couples do not have children after marriage (according to your way of thinking) they should have their marriages annulled. The fact of the matter is, people get married for a variety of reasons, and one only among these is to have children.

          • Kennedykemp

            I am straight but don’t and wont have children. Your argument states however that you deserve a tax break (from me) for bearing children. Why? You pump out children and I should be grateful and pay with my tax dollars? Why? And I”m just guessing… mhmm… that you are a big advocate against illegals or welfare. But since it’s your baby, I should be glad to pay? Good grief…

          • gladis

            In case you have not noticed – you do not pay for your social security but for your fathers and mothers.
            If you prefer of course perhaps instead of a modest tax break for those of us with children – no social security for the childless. Of course the childless perhaps prefer to double their social security related payments – you do the math – I think you got yourself a decent deal with the current system and should not get to high up on your horse.

    • barry waterfield

      I would not take too much notice of someone who doesn’t even make it clear what his name is. Forget it, the world is going your way.

  • http://www.facebook.com/balf11 Brian Formica

    Great observations and, as usual, I like your gritty style.

    I find the internet very impersonal, though. Great way to reach a great number, but difficult to make an impact. I fear this “combox” is doing to degenerate into the same as before.

    Bottom Line:
    MARC, CAN I REQUEST A MARIAN ARTICLE? K TKS TTFN.

  • http://www.facebook.com/balf11 Brian Formica

    Yeah, I read through the comments. Give yourself a break, Marc. Write an article with beautiful images instead of memes.

    … … …

    WRITE A MARIAN PIECE!

    Mary, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us!

    • Tally Marx

      I second this motion! I can’t really remember the last Marian piece, and I have read all of Marc’s articles. Has he done one yet?

      • Jeremy

        The catholic tumblverse is already brimming with Marian pieces, so please don’t.

        • Person

          Exactly! This is his thing. If he wants to change it, he can; if not, it’s not like he’s the only blogger around.

  • Hoey2011

    “To oppose the normalization of a lifestyle that leads to this degradation of the human person — specifically the same-sex attracted person — is no hate at all, but a love. Not a love most people want, but a desire for the good of the beloved nonetheless.”

    - Does the alcoholic receive the same attention that gays do in this country? More damage is caused to society by alcohol than almost everything else cited in the book combined. Damage control, please. If this were the concordant of the American right-wing/Christian/patriot, we would not have ruined our economy by causing irreparable damage to our foreign image and allies, our monetary system, and our housing market. The most remarkable thing about religion and politics to me, is those involved in the former, find it increasingly easy to be fickle when involved in the latter, based on their own supposed “values systems”. Why is it so easy to apply this fervent fluster to a topic like gay marriage, when my 20-somethings friends are returning from the desert knowing at least 1 or 2 of their buddies who have perished for an objective that was supposedly accomplished in 2003, 9 years ago; something that was even promised to be ended (and was not kept, I did not vote for B.H.O.) upon a new presidency. I just see wasted effort in this area. Stopping the spread of civil rights is a losing battle. Just like the War on Drugs, this War through Marriage will fail.

    “And then, at the end of all this, we’ve got to define Gender. It’s a hopeless task from the get-go: Gender has been expanded in the last few years to include Asexual, Bisexual, Heterosexual, Homosexual, Pansexual, Intersexual (I apologize for those I can’t remember), and it doesn’t look to be settling any time soon.”

    - This in no way defines gender. There are male, female, and transgender (male-to-female, female-to-male), and hermaphrodite (male and female genitalia).

    ” There are same-sex attracted men and women who don’t want gay marriage because it’s an oppressive, patriarchal institution that should have died in the 60′s. In short, men and women with same-sex attraction aren’t the poor, mindless sheep, we’d love to treat them as. But that’s complex, so we don’t talk about that.”

    -Just how would you transfer the qualifier patriarchal to a female-female marriage? I just think when all of the arguments you have been decrying on both sides are stripped away, one side (anti-gay-marriage) is determining with certainty that the other (pro-gay-marriage) cannot and will not behave in a manner that is in line with their best interest or the “overall good”. I love how “overall good” is used in ways like this to stop a person from gaining their rights to equal another, who may or may not be better off than one another. Then, we hear the same phrase uttered for preemptive strikes on other nations and perpetual war. It’s odd how a phrase with the word “good” in it is used all to often to cause harm. The only harm caused here by allowing gays to marry is a personal inability to allow others their freedom.

    • http://romanmissiles.blogspot.com/ Romanmissiles

      Freedom to practice one’s religion is just as noble to those of us on the other side of this issue. If marriage is between a man and a woman then it would not be marriage if that where changed to include same sex couples. These are basic premises to this arguement, I am surprised you have missed them to this point.
      To assume that one could not transfer a patriarchal qualifier to a female-female marriage seems rather bigoted and closed-minded in the context of your arguement; it’s as if you are caught in your own confused reality, thus the gender issue stated in the post. The LBGT community has caused the need to extrapolate not those who subscribe to an altruistic, as opposed to objective, and natural law position.
      There are legal avenues for same-sex couples to have legal unity; for instance if one where to make their partner their durable and medical power of attorney and your parnter where hospitalized or incapacitated the hospital would have a legal obligation to contact you and let you make medical decisions for your parnter.
      It’s just not as superfiscal as you would make all marriage. Marriage is the cornerstone of family life. My children would not be well served if I replaced my wife with a male companion as men and women are so different; but it’s not about them it’s about we who write comments on blogs.

    • JAGreene86

      We talk about it, because the media inundates us with it.

      If you had an enemy 200 feet away, and another 2 feet away, which one would you fight first? The “fight for gay marriage” is the enemy that’s 2 feet away from us, even though we have older enemies, like unjust war and the like. If you want to start talking about alcoholics and the war in Iraq…please bring that to the media. Believe it or not, but the Catholic Church does not control secular media.

      So what is gender then in your definition?

      Ah, there lies the trick…what is good? Just because we SAY it’s good…doesn’t mean it IS good…however, no one wants to debate that there is no such thing as “good”…so, how do we find out what’s “good” or not?

      In lies the fallacy of your argument. You say “gay marriage is a good thing”, but yet you admit that “overall good” is used in not-so-good ways. What argument is there to say that you are the exception? Let’s explore if you are the exception: Is it “good” for someone to get married? Not necessarily, because people can live completely healthy and happy lives without getting married, while on the reverse, there are at least 50% of people who were unsatisfied with being married (if not more). So, even the argument of “marriage is good” is not backed up by at least half of the people who do get married. Even when we add the word “gay marriage”, what makes people believe that “gays” are exempt from having a bad marriage? If they are, the only reason to justify that is to say that they are better people then heterosexuals…and if that is your claim, then your argument about “defending people’s rights” is a lie.

      Although it seems that I have shown to have a bleak outlook on marriage, I agree with Marc about his section on what “love” is. Those who “love” as they should, marriage is good. Those who do not “love” as they should, marriage is horrible. Those who think they “love” as they should are deceiving themselves, for a love between man and man and women and women cannot spiritual and physically go further than the two of them…and the “love” that is reserved for marriage is meant to transfer further than the two of them. I may love my best friend, but my love for him is between the two of us…however, if I love my wife, that love can manifest itself into a living, breathing, spiritual creation. ONLY that intimate expression of love between man and women can naturally CREATE something physical and meaningful. No other expression of love can make that claim. This is the beauty of marriage, and I would hate for it to get devalued into something that I can have with just “anyone”. This is why sex and marriage shouldn’t be separated, but society has. They want sex, not marriage…they want casual love, instead of creation love…and by separating the two of them, both lose value, which leads to many broken and unhappy families.

      This is what Marc means by “overall good”. He doesn’t want the divorce rate to keep increasing, because he knows the side effects of that. He doesn’t want homosexuals to cage themselves into the addiction of sex and live sexually and emotionally unhealthy lives. He wants people to free themselves from the idea that because everyone else is doing it, they should do it. He wants people to really think about “what is best?” instead of “what is best for me?”. It can be argued, that “what is best” is best not only for the individual, but for the people and society around them. Again, this is Marc’s argument. Unless you can prove him otherwise with results, Marc is using the best argument available based on his observation and result of the world.

      “The idea of God is enough for me to search for God”

      • mdk

        How dare you assume that “they” want sex and casual love, not marriage. It’s very lucky for your that your natural instincts are those that are deemed worthy of knowing “love” in your world. How pompous of you to decide what type of relationship can create something phsyical and meaningful. I am going to assume every time you engage in sex in your perfect marriage is not for the purpose of procreation. Or maybe it is. I’m sorry for both of you. Ha, “the result of the world”. It never ceases to amaze me the pure arrogance of people like you.

        • JAGreene86

          Whoever said I was married?

          …and whoever said I was isolating “they”? We are all subject to that, including and especially myself. I have been honest with myself enough to realize that I am aware of it and struggle with it.

          Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should do something. I struggle with this everyday, because I want to know the effects of my actions, because I care about myself and others so much that I’m willing to protect them from something that they don’t even see as dangerous. They will fight me, they may insult me, call me “pompous”, but I have a desire to know what is right and what is not. Others decide to not bother. That doesn’t make me better, but it puts the burden on me to educate them BECAUSE I care about them. If I didn’t care about them, my mouth would be silent, because that’s the easy way.

          If you take offense and try to attack me personally, I will take that in stride. I won’t ignore it, but I will understand where it’s coming from. Also, personal attacks from strangers mean nothing to me, because they don’t know me. It is best to beat me at my own game, because then and only then can you truly see my intention.

          If you want me to be pompous to fulfill your stereotype of “people like me”, I’m more than willing to fit the bill, since you have the authority to tell me what I am…but be careful for what you wish for…

          …because sometimes the worst thing for is to receive the thing we want instead of receiving what we need.

      • Kennedykemp

        I as a straight man find your post ridiculous. I can’t help but say that. You are confusing gay sex (as would be regular clean fun teen straight sex by your standards) as the same as gay marriage. Get this… gay people are having sex, both casually and exclusively. From your post, it is clear your belief is any gay sex must be some weird lust sex. Some is, btw. But your generalization only helps foster the argument that religious people hate gays. I’m seriously getting sick of reading posts of people that say they are helping the ‘Gays’, whatever that means by telling them who they can or can’t love. If I could do that, I would have stopped countless fatty nerd couples at our church from procreating. (Oh wait, that’s politically incorrect, but saying that about an easy gay target isn’t). If we as straight people are SO concerned about the divorce rates, maybe we should look to our own splinter 1st… you know the rest, right… ?

  • Peggy

    Yeah, define terms. Great. Look what happened to poor Loki! (I’m ashamed to admit, I cracked up at that part in the film.)Right now Maryland is in the thick of the marriage fight, we need to fight the battle like it or not – but thank you for articulating why the phrase “traditional marriage” sets my teeth on edge.

  • Lisa

    Brilliant post. I would have preferred a quote on the beauty of marriage as opposed to a Richard Dawkings quote. Or, um anything rather than Richard Dawkins. Anyway..spot on. Bravo.

    • enness

      Re: Dawkins, as I was reading the quote I wondered to myself if he has the same condescension for atheist children of atheist parents.

    • Skercarroll

      Richard Dawkins is a twit ( pregnant goldfish) but I wonder why he thinks we no longer worship Zeus, Wotan, Thor, or in my case, Cernunnos.

      • Deven Kale

        Ever hear of the Inquisition or the crusades?

        • Longinus

          I have. Apparently they were the most infamous, most devastating, most horrendous events in human history.

          • Deven Kale

            I wouldn’t say that. Top 10 maybe, if you include “war” as a single topic.

            Although it turns out I was wrong anyway (that’s what I get for assuming). It wasn’t the crusades or the inquisition. It was due to persecution by Christians though, particularly starting with Constantus II by enacting laws against it’s practice, and then off and on after that. It’s not that people chose to stop believing in polytheism, it’s that they were either forced into not practicing it or killed.

          • Longinus

            The Inquisition killed about 5,000 people at most over a period of several decades. I can think of many far more damaging events.

            Your point about the Constantus II laws is well taken, on the other hand. Doesn’t seem to have been a very nice fellow at all. I wouldn’t mind seeing some accounts as to how often those punishments were actually carried out, however.

        • Dplunkt

          Ever heard of Stalin, Mao, PaoPot, Hitler, Lenin, etc., etc. etc….
          200,000,000 dead and that’s just since secular atheism took over this last century.

          Ever heard of hosptials, universities, great art and music,,oops those are Catholic, sorry.

          • Deven Kale

            Your examples are not secular atheism (at least one isn’t even an atheist), which is by design tolerant of religion of any type. You’re talking about enforced (lack of) religion and thought control. I agree, it’s reprehensible, immoral, and I hope things around the world will eventually reach the point where governments enforcing a thought system or worldview no longer happen. Secular governments such as the United States where any religion is tolerated and any person can choose whichever faith (or lack of it) that allows them to become the best person they can be.

  • enness

    Marc, I think some would like to sow doubt and discouragement in your mind. I sense these remarks are crafted to exploit your weaknesses, which you may already keenly perceive. Fortunately I don’t think you’re all that susceptible.

    Insults to a blog author are somewhat par for the course, but insults to readers — well, I have no idea whether they actually know the people of whom they speak so nastily; either way, it’s hard to believe your audience deserve below-the-belt punches.

  • Elmtree01

    Very logical argument that cuts to the heart of things (and justly smacks folks from various ‘sides’ upside the head)

    • bcisaldb

      Yes. It’s all about “smacking folks from various “sides” upside the head…and getting cheered on by saggy, old hags like you, Elmtree, who have LIVED on the internet for YEARS now. Don’t you have a Hobbit poster to masturbate to, or something?

      • QDefenestration

        Wait, have they already started selling posters for the Hobbit?!

        • bcisaldb

          Not selling. But they’re available.

  • guest

    OHHHH.

    Everyone, I get it now! The troll is just a plant from Marc, right? To illustrate his four points? Maybe it IS Marc under a different name! And he just wants to give his readers an example of something an argument we might see that commits the errors he’s talking about in this post! That Marc, being creative ;)

    • bcisaldb

      Wrong yet again…

      • JAGreene86

        …can you prove him wrong? Or are we just basing this off of the philosophy that you’re always right?

        • bcisaldb

          Can I prove that I’m not a plant by Marc? Ask Marc. I’m not.

          • Cal-J

            She’s right, folks. Marc has a bad habit of good humor and decent logic. They’re his telltale signs.

          • JAGreene86

            Thank you for taking out of context.

            I meant, can you prove the “guest”, in whom you responded to with his post, wrong?

  • hassie64

    This post absolutely touches every salient point that I have been struggling to explain to my husband about this topic. We ourselves were not married in the Catholic Church, though we were cradle Catholics. After my husband’s annulment was granted, we had our marriage blessed and sanctified in the Catholic church. Thus, today we celebrated our ‘civil union’, and on November 11th, we will celebrate our sacramental marriage.

  • enness

    Crickets, eh? Was I more correct than even I thought? Someone’s cover has been blown and he is hoping we don’t notice. (Go ahead, make an excuse NOW.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=886795053 Anna Ahlbin

    Yo. I love your snark, your memes, and your philosophy. Keep it up, don’t let ‘em get you down!!

    • bcisaldb

      Satan loves his snark, too.

  • http://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com/ Florentius

    Outstanding post. You’ve got perfect pitch when it comes to the “gay” “marriage” debate. This bit is worth repeating over and over:

    “But the real issue moves beyond either objectification. The real slap in the face of men and women with same-sex attraction is that very title: Gay. Gay as the defining essence of one’s being. As I’ve said before, the unique identity of man is not defined by where he wants to put his genitals, and it never will be. No wonder any dissent from the precepts of Gay Marriage is met with a cry of “Hate!””

    That is 100% exactly right and that is why I refuse to call anyone “gay” — it devalues them as a person and relegates them to a purely sexual being.

    • Kennedykemp

      This makes no sense though… If you say you refuse the argument of “gay” then how can you make any other part of your argument? I do like the post, but this sounds to me like my “high” friends discussing a debate as though they somehow were some wizard with insights above all the “fools” that comment on it. In religious terms, I must direct you to stories on the pharisies (as a self and outside professed fool myself)

  • http://twitter.com/Stceolfrithtx Cheff

    “The Catholic Church will never recognize the court marriages of the 21st century” Marc, I’m kind of curious what you meant here. My understanding is that (1) the Church presumes even non-Catholic marriages between a man and a woman to be valid until proven otherwise and that (2) the Vatican congregation that deals with annulments has recently rebuked any notion that people in the 21st century are increasingly unable (or decreasingly able?) to validly make wedding vows.

  • StudentDoc

    Your contention that the “gay lifestyle,” which you leave undefined, leads to “degradation of the human person” is entirely unfounded. First, there is no single “lifestyle” that characterizes an LGB person. Gay and bisexual men do have a higher incidence and prevalence of HIV in Canada, as well as other developed nations, but so do heterosexuals engaged in high risk sexual behaviors as well as certain population groups, like Aboriginal peoples, which were among the populations at risk in your first link. Additionally, your assertion that the “gay lifestyle” causes increased HIV would only apply to gay men. Lesbians have one of the LOWEST transmission rates for HIV. In this case, the “gay lifestyle” would be protective. Regardless, a monogamous, same-sex couple would have the same risk of HIV infection as a heterosexual one.
    Likewise, your claim that increased depression and substance abuse is a consequence of the “gay lifestyle” is also unfounded. Even the article you cited mentions that “there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is itself a disorder that is thereby subject to a higher co-morbidity than is found in heterosexuals.” Research actually suggests that the increased rate of depression and substance abuse among LBG individuals is secondary to social hostility, stigma, and discrimination that most LGB people experience.
    Finally, the paper you used to demonstrate a decreased life expectancy for gay men (again, ignoring lesbians entirely) is skewed since the data is obtained from 1987-1992. HAART (high activity anti-retroviral therapy) was not introduced until 1996, which revolutionized the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Currently, HIV-positive patients (regardless of sexual orientation) have a life expectancy approaching that of HIV negative individuals.
    Rather than attempting to find sources to uphold your misconceptions regarding LGB people and then misusing the data you obtain, your time might be better spent researching the actual relevant literature regarding this topic.

    • Constanza

      I agree- It isn’t fair to focus only on the people with SSA, but the message is for all humanity to value the sexuality of their bodies; to encourage the development of new generations to value the human person, their bodies, and the actions they choose to take. Our culture Today encourages us to do whatever makes us feel good as long as we don’t hurt anyone. This is not the true wisdom that will lead us to maturity, personal growth, fulfillment, greater love of neighbor and trying to improve our shared existence. Our humanity is hurting because we are slaves to our desires. If we continually follow into action the desires that we know will hurt us and the lives of others we are slaves to our desires. If we live our lives proclaiming our individual happiness as a priority, we will encourage the development of an individual centered world. Our choices should teach others that our human dignity is worth our self-sacrifice. All the reasons you state above are the very reasons we need to elevate humanity to a true understanding of our sexuality, of our worth. It is sacred. It’s purpose is life not an infinite source of pleasure. True happiness and maturity comes from the act of self-sacrifice & self-control.

    • http://www.facebook.com/DeaconJasonMiller Jason Miller

      You are saying certain claims are “unfounded,” yet you have not cited a single source. The author of this article has cited multiple sources. So objectively, what you are stating is “unfounded.” When you claim something, back it up. Otherwise, why bother?

      • StudentDoc

        My original intent was to point out how the author misused cited sources, not provide counter-evidence. However, to reinforce my claims:

        http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm – CDC page that discusses how negative attitudes toward LGB youth contribute to increased risk of depression, suicide, and substance abuse

        http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-12/sfsu-sff120110.php – summary of a study showing that family acceptance of LGBT is a protective factor against suicide, depression, and substance abuse. This lends credibility to the argument that it is social stigma

        And while not countering any of Marc’s claims concerning LGB individuals living the “gay lifestyle,” these articles further reinforce the fact that there’s nothing wrong with gay people and addresses the fear of many opponents of gay rights: that gay people have a negative effect on children.

        http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids – USA Today article that reviews a systematic review of 81 studies concerning outcomes in single-parent, and two-parent homes, including same-sex parents. They found that “children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes.”

        http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html – Time article on a paper that analyzed children raised by lesbian mothers from birth through adolescence. “The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior.” Most interestingly: “children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting – also, you could read the wiki article to more familiarize yourself with the topic (and check its sources if you feel so inclined)

        • Don Corleone

          StudentDoc: I appreciate your appeal to reason and gentle temperament. But I must disagree with your analysis and conclusions.

          First, I will define the “gay lifestyle” the way most people would – consistent consensual sexual activity between people of the same gender. That is distinct from people who experience same-sex attraction but do not choose to live their passion in a genital fashion.

          Second, Marc’s point can be made deductively. All of individuals long to be treated as persons; as ends in themselves. The sexual instinct is subject to passion more than, perhaps, any other human instinct. That renders it highly subject to selfishness, the opposite of love, where one person “uses” another for an end other than the best interests of the sexual partner. In the modern cultural sense, sex typically involves two people “using” each other [as objects] using “The Ten Greatest Moves for the Best Sex Ever.”

          The most likely way to break this cycle is through a proper respect for the sexual faculty, and through learning genuine self-sacrifice. People learn to respect the sexual faculty by recognizing its purpose in nature – union and procreation. And, there may be no better teacher of self sacrifice than children. Any sexual activity that deliberately separates union from procreation, that deliberately excludes the possibility of procreation (and does not involve union) disrespects sex. Among other reasons, treating sex as consequence-free is to treat is like a game of ping-pong. This increases the odds that the people involved are interested in using each other. Any use of one person by another is beneath the dignity of the one doing the using. That’s the definition of degrading.

          Finally, Marc is generally correct that degrading human conduct will eventually be identified by social science studies. (And your presumed point is also correct that enough social science evidence can establish the incorrect assumptions behind a set of perceived objective principles.) But unlike a wide range of hard and soft science issues, the jury is very out on the “gay lifestyle.” The studies you cite are too small in number, too small in sample size, lacking in underlying data and devoid of evidence for causation rather than correlation. I checked every one and they are woefully inadequate to establish the points asserted. Some of them don’t even assert a comparison between homo and heterosexuals. Even the USA Today report is so vague as to be unreliable. In ten or twenty years the evidence may prove Marc wrong, but not yet. Until then, I will evaluate this issue deductively.

          Thank you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/maryliziz Mary Liz Bartell

    God bless my gay friends. God bless Marc, and God Bless Bad Catholic for putting the word out there. It’s a very scary thing from some of the remarks to see the hate, the vile un-Christian behavior by some… we have to strive to be loving of neighbor, not JUDGING those who are gay or straight or what have you. I hope that some one has the guts to draw the line in the sand with Gay Marriage being changed to something else because Marc’s right, the Sacrament of Marriage will always be defined as Jesus put it out there, and so many others, as between a Man and a Woman for the purpose of procreation and LOVE. Agape Love, not EROS. Feelings can be strange things. So many of my gay friends were straight first, got burned in bad relationship after bad relationship, or had things happen that made their feelings of inadequacy in a straight relationship seek companionship with partners of the same gender. I have witnessed countless fights, break ups, hook ups, and re-break ups, even after they began to live openly homosexual relationships.

  • http://www.facebook.com/maryliziz Mary Liz Bartell

    It’s quite obvious that they aren’t ready for “marriage” in those gay relationships if they aren’t even able to get along for 4 months. Yet very quickly after meeting when the State talks about legalizing “gay marriage” they are hurrying to get hitched… regardless of the children’s feelings, regardless of their neighbors’ feelings, according to them, the only feelings that count are theirs between each other. Right or wrong, they are like – “Don’t judge us, we’re in love!” When the dust settles they are soon having cat fights and drama and tears and then some suspicious infidelity pops up and overnight another relationship has bit the dust, and I ask “Is it worth it” to put so many people out of your life for that one person who ends up betraying you, you forsake your kid, you forsake your parent’s upbringing… all for the thrill of sexual partnering with a person who is using you for their sexual desire pin cushion. I tell you this, I see lust, I see selfishness and pride taking over the gay movement… and whipping out the old law books so many were about proper open displays of affection vs deviant behavior especially pointed at gay men and women. You need not watch Moll Flanders or other such trash to see that wounded souls are turning to these lifestyles from scars in their pasts. Such deep abuse, miserable relationships that were all sex and no substance, being dumped, being pimped, being used for a sex toy… all for what??? I seek self esteem issues in so many of my gay friends. They aren’t seeking “Marriage” as believing Catholics see it… they are simply looking for LOVE in all the wrong places. What I see is a need for laws to protect the sanctity of Christian Marriage, and laws to protect the human rights of gays. Civil unions are not ever going to qualify as a sacrament. The love that goes into a real heterosexual marriage of Sacrament of Marriage quality totally depends on the spouses’ realization of the Grace of God working in that union, to unite into one flesh, two distinct souls are attached in a new deeper web with God. Working with his plan for procreation or for the salvation of the world by living the Gospel and the Love of the Trinity in their union.

    • StudentDoc

      Actually, the divorce rate is lower among same-sex couples in the UK (although this is comparing civil unions to marriages, but the two institutions are identical in everything but name) and the overall divorce rate (including heterosexual couples) is lower in states that have legalized same-sex marriage. Also, when you say, “those gay relationships,” to which ones are you referring? Is this a cohort within a study analyzing the stability of same-sex relationships, or simply a personal group of gays and lesbians you know? Your generalization of “gay relationships” based on your prejudice, assumptions, and lack of factual information is a perfect example of stereotyping a heterogeneous group of people in order to justify and simplify your position on a complex issue.

  • http://www.facebook.com/maryliziz Mary Liz Bartell

    True I never understood the depth of God’s love for me until I experienced the Sanctity of the Marriage covenant with my husband. As our love grows deeper, stronger, more focused on the pleasing of other before self we see the Love of God magnified through our Partner like a Prism intensifying the colors of a rainbow, the beauty of God’s covenant is in the very act of making love, and we hope for the fruit of that union to come forth in 9 months.
    Adam and Adam will never physically be able to realize that type of union for sodomy will never create a life. Eve and Eve are missing the sperm from partner to spouse’s egg. There will not be a full relationship in Christ in a gay union because the focus is not on GOD, or on honoring Christ in their contract to unite property and person.

    My covenant with my husband isn’t just a civil contract, it is a pledge of fidelity to God as well. My other is one flesh with me, and all the differences we have or frustrations we have we will face, together. I will carry his crosses with him, and he helps me carry mine. We are Lovers in Christ. I don’t know if you can understand it if you’ve never experienced a loving marriage. But Matrimony is more than a contract, more than a vow. Covenants are not an equal exchange… for God loves us far more than we deserve and he takes us in our weakness as his children. Can you see the call for us to deny ourselves and come follow him?
    Are you willing to deny your sexual desires in order to avoid committing a mortal sin? Well? Straight or Gay many couples out there are living in sin and they don’t care. Selfishness hurts others. And Lust destroys souls ability to see the human dignity of partners, they become a means to an end, an object of pleasure and sexual desire only. Once you take away their humanity and their dignity and reduce them to nothing then you begin to resent them and hate them, and will seek others to fulfill your fantasies, and they go on and on until you die. Jesus will call you to account for the wake of damage you left in your sexually depraved life… be it straight or gay… and he’s going to say WHY DID YOU WASTE THE GIFT THAT I GAVE YOU? This relationship was meant for your salvation and you threw it away, this person was going to do great things, and when you cheated on them and they committed suicide this destroyed the lives of their kids, and their families! See the carnage of lustful living? Think about it before you be putting sex before God. And putting laws that legalize sinful living will never keep you from facing judgement in the end for the fruit of sin is damnation. Pray for forgiveness and seek chastity, purity, and holiness whether you be gay or straight.

    • Angela Joyce

      OMGoodness! How beautifully written this is! May I copy and use this at Theology of the Body for our teens?
      Thank you, Mary Liz Bartell!

    • musiciangirl591

      i love this post, i hope if me and my boyfriend get married (as of yesterday we’ve been together 3 months), we can grow in love like you and your husband did! this is beautifully written, God bless!

      • barry waterfield

        Well good luck, I hope you can.

    • guest

      I find your post problematic on a few grounds:
      1.) by defining pro-creation as the only means of marriage, or at least the greatest part of love, you erase the identities of sterile couples who are heterosexual. should these people not get married? or maybe just adopt a child, and realize all the wonders of parenting. If this be the case, are their love of an adopted child any less than you’re love for your biological child. if that be the case why wouldn’t a same-sex couple be any different?
      2.) Gay relationships are as much about sex as a heterosexual couple. by only equating gay couples= only are in it for the lustful kai kai, you are cheapening the entire concept love, empathy, and beauty that Romantic relationships. Maybe you should actually talk to a same-sex couple before you judge them as fornicators.

      • barry waterfield

        I think we should all get to know people of opposite viewpoints as a part of life in general.I think America, surprisingly for its size, can become very insular especially compared to Europe where they have to learn to tolerate not only different viewpoints but entirely different religions.It is possible to appear smug and Bible secure without truly understanding the message of those words ”love one another”. Christians are far too hung up on the poor old gays in general. There is a lot of Christ’s work to be done, feeding the poor, helping the sick, comforting the bereaved and I would say in all earnestness ‘please forget who’s in bed with who and get out there and do it”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KDQFQTMD56CJAKMLXRFYUDNCPQ Montague

    Tell you what, Marc. You are not alone. don’t even even try to think you are alone. That’s what the Saints are there for, are they not? That’s what GOD is there for. Anyway, it’s less bitter and more biting when you adopt a sort of Chestertonian meekness that leaves the readers feeling condescended to justly, not unfairly. “Like the serpent and the dove” not that I do well at that XD

    Keep up the good work.

    @Kevin I find it insulting that you think Marc thinks everyone is dumb. Please be a bit more understanding, even if it IS the internet. I don’t feel insulted by Marc. That’s because (I hope) both Marc and I have got the real idea in our heads, so we are not able to be shamed (except in praxis. One is always shamed in praxis : P )

  • Mary

    Amazing…..OK, marshmellos…I mean, marshmAllows & poetry…I can totally handle that….it would be so funny if I just whipped out a bag of marshmallows & started pegging them at my liberal “gay” marriage supporting tolerant accepting friends. I could be like, “You know, this is the great marshmAllow war, dontcha know!?” (I’m from minnesoooota)(excuse me, I am in a bit of a silly mood) It would be so much more fun then getting that blinding buzzing chaotic pain in my brain whenever I hear them hurl their tired meaningless slogans at me!

    Seriously, it’s so hard to intelligently speak truth to people who don’t want to hear it, or even care. They have such big hearts, but were never properly catechized, or have just made it up as they went along. Yep, that whole playing God thing is so “in” right now!

    I always go back to prayer. I feel like it’s all I can really do that I know works. The Big Guy wants us all to be happy…but at what cost? With love, comes responsibiliy, & us humans REBEL at the thought! I pray for peace, authentic love, & understanding!
    Keep up the good work…..you make people really think!

  • Laura

    I think treating the subject from an all sanitary aspect isn’t the best idea since there are other things IMO (like the role of family in society and the bearing and rearing of children) that are more important to the debate.

  • Jane Hartman

    Sin – that’s where we want to whitewash everything. Most of sexuality, starting from thinking about it, to actually engaging in it, is sinful. It’s God’s gift of marriage that actually gives it dignity and worth as a procreative/unitive aspect in Holy Matrimony. So all of us need to argue for the Holiness of it and strive to align ourselves with God’s stance on marriage. Repentance is necessary for all of us again and again, no matter what we believe about this overrated cultural unwholesome trend.

    • albert

      no, sexuality is good. God intended it from the beginning, and it’s taking it outside of marriage that’s bad. we’re Catholic, we’re not afraid of the material!

      it’s not ‘sex is bad but marriage makes it ok,’ it’s ‘sex is good but sex outside of marriage makes it sinful.’

  • Joyfully

    “Luckily, the Catholic Chuch invented half the damn words we use in the first place.”

    Marc, I only want whats best for you …

  • TimJohn

    Really, really great stuff Marc. Especially the closing. God bless you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ray-Marshall/649358473 Ray Marshall

    Richard Dawkins is not very smart is he? He says “almost everybody has the ssame religion as their parents.”

    Yet ex-Catholics are the second largest denomination in this country. Protestants have upwards of 50,000 denominations and many of them are regularly shopping for a new preacher, music group, etc.

    • bcisaldb

      “ex-Catholics” are not a denomination. Many of those ex-Catholics now belong to other Christian denominations, or practice no religion at all.

    • Deven Kale

      Richard Dawkins is actually quite smart, he’s just not always all too clear. What he means in this case is this: Most people who are Christian were born into Christian families, most people who are Muslim were born into Muslim families, most people who are Hindu were born into Hindu families, most people with no religion were born into non-religious families, and so forth. It’s not the specific sub-religion that he’s talking about like Protestant or Catholic or JW. It’s the basic stuff like who their god is, the history of that god, and which scriptures are valid.

      I only make this assumption because it’s a point he makes often, sometimes more clearly but then the longer quotes don’t fit very nicely onto a smallish picture.

  • Angela Joyce

    Marc,
    I am a Catholic mom of two boys. I am also a sister of a lesbian, a sister-in-law of a lesbian and have blessed friendship with a “gay” man. I’m like you, Marc. I don’t like to use that term to describe him. He is a wonderful Catholic man with SSA, however, he lives devoutly the sacrament of single/celibate.

    My sister-in-law… one of my dearest and best friends… has been in so many “unions” that I’ve lost count. She has a “wedding” ring to commemorate each relationship. I think she may have met her limit on marriage, but I’m not sure. I love her dearly but cannot condone the fact that she is living a sinful life. I don’t judge her… that’s for God alone… but she knows that I do not agree with her choice. Her current “significant other”, I love her as well. She is a wonderful woman… very loving and caring and a very good person. However…

    My sister… she lives a single/celibate life. I love her beyond all comprehension, yet I know and she knows… acting on those feelings (sex) with another woman is the sin. Just as having sex without the sacrament of marriage is a sin. No greater… no less.

    I don’t hate any one of my family or my friends for having SSA. I don’t hate anyone. However… as a Catholic Christian… I know how the Church feels about the sin of homosexual sin (not the homosexual himself/herself). I know how I feel and my heart breaks for them. Still, I will remain faithful to the teachings of the Church and of Jesus Christ himself, as well as St. Paul and St. Peter, as well as God’s word from the Old Testament.

    It’s just very frustrating to be called a hater, intolerant, etc… just because I do not uphold the opinions of those who do wish for SS Marriages, etc… Resorting to name-calling truly defeats the purpose of what they are fighting for.

    So… all you Catholics and Christians… uphold 1 Peter 3:15. I encourage you to read all of 1 Peter 3. It is a wonderful piece of Sacred Scripture.

    Peace and blessings to you, Marc. Continue the fight!

    • Edge

      Angela – I read your post and immediately thought of yesterday’s Vortex. From the description: “The concept of TOLERANCE is one of the biggest smokescreens that modernists in the Church use today.” He discusses Bishop Fulton Sheen’s take on the word.

      This is the shortest vortex I have seen – only 1:27, and worth a look.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G1k0R6TMUU

      • Angela Joyce

        Thank you. I will check it out. I really enjoy the Vortex and Michael Voris. We all need to stand up and fight, but fight with love and understanding. Not always easy… but is what is expected of us by Christ.
        Peace!

      • Pattymelt

        Thank you for sharing Bishop Sheen through the Vortex.

        “Tolerance only applies to persons, never to principles.
        Intolerance only applies to principles, never to persons.”

        A great saying to keep in mind and heart.

    • http://lacydelagarza.wordpress.com/ Lacy de la Garza

      Keep the good fight. Hearts will only change with love and compassion – which it sounds like you dole out in needed increments. My prayers are with your situation.

      • Angela Joyce

        Thank you! Let us all continue to pray for one another. We are Christ’s hands and feet… He has no voice but ours… let us speak with love and understanding, but continue to stand firm in the faith and the teachings of the Church. May we continue to hold each other up!
        Peace!

        • barry waterfield

          I don’t think Christ ever really lived, he’s a nice idea but he is a fiction so I suppose you can be whatever part you want. Good luck.

        • barry waterfield

          I don’t think Christ ever really lived, he’s a nice idea but he is a fiction so I suppose you can be whatever part you want. Good luck.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sean.flynn.90663 Sean Flynn

            The first- and second-century historians of his geographic region might disagree with you.

    • barry waterfield

      Speaking as someone who has no problems with gay people or I hope heterosexual people, who if they’re anything like me, are the opposite of gay, ”miserable’ . I think it is important to bring in the terrible stress that can build up in an unhappy marriage, and your article didn’t touch on that, I guess because you didn’t want to, am I right. You’re a bit like a car salesman, you don’t want to hylight the slipping clutch or the confined cabin. Marriage is very often a sad case of learning to live with each other, if you make it work you become old together if you don’t you get divorced.That’s no way for a man to live.

      Now here’s the point of my post, I don’t believe males were ever designed for just one partner be that partner male or female, it’s just not biologically how we are designed. We are the Bumble Bee designed to go round the flowers not sit in the greenhouse. Yet a lot of apparently perfectly ”normal” boys allow themselves to be married off into the world of one partner, mainly I suspect, to please mum and dad. Now why would the gays do that, they are the prototype born free to wander un-henpecked non churched male. In short the gays must be mad to want to get married with all the bunk that that implies. Stay free you boys, I’m going to be gay next time.

      • Deven Kale

        ^^ This is one of the major problems of people assuming everybody else is like them. I’m straight, and a male, and I couldn’t imagine having more than one relationship at a time, purely physical or otherwise. It’s just not something of which I’m capable of doing. To paraphrase your own wording, I am biologically designed for monogamy, it’s just in my nature to be so. Not only is polyamory not in my nature, but I couldn’t trust a partner who is polyamorous themselves.

        All you can say for sure is that you yourself are a Bumble bee, but don’t try and put all males into that same mold. There are many of us who simply do not fit, and to try and force everybody into it just makes you look silly.

        • barry waterfield

          Good point.

          • barry waterfield

            Deven. I just been re-reading your comment. It’s very good. Of course I have no right to infer all men are like the Bumble Bee, and I was implicitly doing so, your quite right and I exempt you from this inclusion. However at the same time, I would not want you to form the impression that my life is one long bacchanalian orgy.It isn’t. You seem to infer that I might be wandering from house to house looking for fresh excitement. Whilst there is a part of me that is ”adventurous” I hope I don’t give you the impression that I go quite that far. My point is that there are many of us that don’t want to be stuck with the same partner for life, particularly if we are no longer in love, or as in my case we never were.. You don’t always grow toward people , sometimes you drift apart. That’s why I do not like the formal arrangement of marriage or the strangle grip that the church can have..

          • Donovan

            Barry your part on “moving on” is the part that is wrong. Marriage (the Sacrament) is an eternal spiritual thing, not repeated hardly broken. The Church makes you know you love your partner before you marry. You must be engaged and go through classes for over a year. The “strangled grip” is just an outside view characterized by critics. Marriage is a sacrament not a tax deduction.

  • Rick DeLano

    Let me try and simplify things.

    Marriage is the first and indispensable institution of the human species.

    Children depend upon it for generation and nurture.

    Lucifer knows this.

    The gay marriage movement is his all-in bet that we will decide to do something other than defeat it.

    Write poetry, for example.

    Now.

    If gay “marriage” is imposed on this nation the Church will be finished as an institutional entity.

    Legally speaking, it will be over.

    All necessary legal predicates for persecution will be in place.

    Most Catholics (like many posters on this thread) will apostatize and continue to go to their apostatized parishes on Sundays.

    The Catholics will be in prison or underground.

    Vote accordingly.

    • Michael

      I’m not sure I follow how ‘the church will be finished as an institutional entity’?

      • Rick DeLano

        See Canada.

        Oh, and Massachusetts.

        • Deven Kale

          I just did a quick search trying to figure out what is going wrong with the Catholic church in Canada and MA, and I wasn’t able to find anything at all. Usually I can find anything, so I’m pretty confused. What exactly is it that’s going wrong in Canada and MA beyond legalized SS unions (not that I agree that’s a problem)?

          • Rick DeLano

            As to Canada:

            http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Anti-bullying_Bill_13

            As to Massachusetts:

            http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html

            Anywhere Lucifer is able to secure an imposition of pseudo-marriage, the choice between apostasy and persecution is immediate and inescapable.

            Apostasy, of course, is the generally chosen option.

            It is, after all, historically the path most chosen in times such as these.

          • Deven Kale

            Pertaining to your first link:

            All schools, including Catholic, [must] permit openly homosexual student clubs.

            This is not singling out the catholic church, as you implied. It’s simply a mandate that all schools no longer deny clubs which cater to gays, such as the GSA, catholic schools just happen to fall under that umbrella. It does not mean that every school must have one of these clubs, but they must allow them if a student wishes it.

            The example they used of the Dalton HS assembly speaker was also not a problem with the GSA, but an increasing trend within the Catholic church itself: preachers promoting tolerance of homosexuality. If that issue didn’t exist, the problem with the assembly would have never arisen in the first place.

            The accusation that there will be no respect for Catholic students with traditional values is completely unfounded, they are still able to say or do anything they want, as long as those statements or actions do not extend to the level of hate, violence, or both. This law does not change that by even one bit. (according to your link, that is)

            I do find it odd that the law being proposed mandates that all schools participate in Gay Pride parades though, that seems like an unnecessary imposition on the schools. I’d be surprised if there was any other mandated parade participation, why single this one out?

            For the rest of this, you can easily counteract these teachings within your own church, as is your right. That is exactly what freedom of religion is about. I know it’s not specifically protected in Canada, but it’s still allowed in any case.

            In regards to your second link:

            This is controversial? I would hope this is the same type of thing you’d be teaching inside your own churches: Love the sinner. They are not forcing these children to be gay, they are not telling them it’s okay to be having homosexual sex, or even anything about sex at all. If this is really the worst of this program, one day out of the year saying things like this, I must admit you seem to be completely over-reacting.

          • Rick DeLano

            Well, Deven, it is certainly clear that you have no problem with apostasy (assuming you were ever Catholic in the first place).

            The Catholics who do not intend to burn incense to Caesar will see you in November.

            Ciao.

          • Deven Kale

            Catholic? Nope, I was raised Mormon, now proudly atheistic.

            I came here for a number of reasons. Any good blog needs a polite, well spoken dissenter, I am here to be that. I came here to better understand the Catholic worldview, because it’s completely foreign. And in the interest of full disclosure, I came here to find the most vulnerable flaws in Catholicism.

            Is there a possibility I may be instead converted by what I do learn? Most definitely yes, but not if people aren’t willing to have a real conversation and instead run with their tails between their legs such as you have.

            Ciao.

          • Emk

            Insightful and enriching comment, Deven. May the Holy Spirit guide you to peace and love on your journey. My hope is that more people would live in love as Jesus loved. Loving our neighbor seems to go by the wayside, even though we are to love God, ourselves, and our neighbor before anything else. My opinion is that if the Catholic church as a denomination has not been demolished by the molestation convictions and years of scandal then I don’t think gay marriage or abortion will be the end of Christianity or the Catholic Church. FYI I’m an Episcopalian/Christian Mystic, my belief is very Libertarian in approach; how is it my business what people do in their personal lives or who they love in a romantic way? Is it hurting me or them, really? No(of course their are exceptions). How does a high divorce rate and adultery of man and women relationships uphold “God’s plan”, yet those who are of the same sex and want to get married are not apart of God’s plan. I guess the eunichs Jesus spoke of don’t apply to this or anything… I don’t see how other people loving each other in a committed relationship has any relevance on my personal relationship with God whatsoever. Or how being in fellowship with people different than myself is not what we are supposed to do. Wouldn’t Jesus himself be dining with who society considers the “least of or lepers “? Frankly, I’m tired of being told what to do and what not to do by dogmatic rules from the __ century that have nothing to do with Christ and His love and teachings of the New Covenant. I have been drawn to translate the Scriptures and if one does this they will see for themselves the misconception and real perversion of this issue as a whole, as well as many others. **steps off soap box**

          • http://elizabethk-fthnfort.blogspot.com/ Elizabeth K.

            Serious question, Devin: Why should a Catholic school, a private entity, not be able to prohibit any kind of club it wants to prohibit? Would a Baptist school allow a Catholic club on its campus, for instance? While you’re right that no one is forcing the school to institute said club, isn’t it an unnecessary intrusion by the government to tie the hands of the school in this way?

          • Deven Kale

            A catholic school, by law, is a public school just like any other if it receives public funding. They’re still required to take in any children that wish to attend. In some places (parts of Canada only, so far as I know) it’s the only school in the area and people therefore have no choice. This means they’re subject to non-discrimination laws just like any other.

            In terms of religious clubs, by law they have two choices: a) allow all religious clubs regardless of affiliation, or b) deny all religious clubs altogether.

            To be honest, I don’t know exactly why Gay clubs are singled out by law such as they are. I have a couple ideas though. 1) It’s a place where LGBT youth can go to feel safe and less alone, where they can find friends without worrying about discrimination. 2) It allows kids who aren’t LGBT to see just how many people are, and maybe they’ll become less hostile towards those people. Some schools don’t want them to feel safe and disallowed the clubs, so now they’re required to allow them.

            I have to question whether or not there have been other similar laws historically regarding other minority groups, such as Blacks, Mexicans, or Irish. Is there a precedent for this or is this the first time such a law has been passed? I’m not a law expert, so I don’t know where to find out.

    • Djrogers

      Oh yes the sky is falling. See how all the churches have been closed in MA and the good christian folk have been rounded up and tossed into jails. Eight years later and have yet to see that happen. On the other hand, schools in MA are handing out condoms to young children.

    • Kennedykemp

      I’m not catholic or gay. However, I’m just not getting how gay people sleeping together will destroy your religion. I would hope I’m reading it wrong but do you honestly believe if gay people do what they already have been doing, but under some ‘marriage’ definition, it will immediately destroy the catholic church? I’m not catholic, but I would like to believe you all are more resilient than that.

      • Rick DeLano

        Nothing on earth, in hell, or in heaven can destroy the Catholic Church, Kennedy.

        But nonetheless the Savior of the world chillingly asks:

        “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?”

        Many, many will apostatize, and burn incense to Caesar.

        It is the nature of men to do this.

        Only supernatural grace will prevent it.

        • Korou

          Nothing?

          An interesting thought.

          I mean, surely there are things that COULD destroy it?

          • Rick DeLano

            Many things “could”.

            None *will*.

            “I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

          • Korou

            Because it’s an interesting argument you have here. On the one hand, the Catholic Church is invincible, because God protects it. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is in danger of being destroyed (if you think that having its members all imprisoned for their beliefs counts) if Obama gets re-elected. Which is what you said would happen.

            Seriously now – you may not agree with some of Obama’s policies, and nor do I – but he’s had four years already to put you into prison or drive you underground.

            And the Catholic Church has survived plenty of other setbacks. Other changes in policy haven’t mortally wounded it before. Why should this?

          • http://elizabethk-fthnfort.blogspot.com/ Elizabeth K.

            There’s a difference between saying that the Church as a whole will be destroyed–it won’t–and concern that real persecution and apostasy may lie ahead if gay marriage becomes legal. Now, I’m not sure that Kennedy is correct–but think of it this way: if gay marriage is the equivalent in the public square of marriage between members of different races, and is legalized as such, then the RCC (and a few other churches) become the equivalent of churches who won’t allow blacks and whites to marry. At best, this marginalizes us a little bit more-oh well. At worst, though, it will cause an internal breakdown the likes of which we haven’t really seen in the American church (note I’m not talking about the RCC as a whole). Total destruction? No. Extremely destructive, though? Yes, absolutely.

          • Elizabeth K.

            Sorry, I referred to Kennedy’s argument above, when I meant Rick’s.

          • Korou

            An internal breakdown doesn’t mean that Catholics are in danger of being arrested, though. Rick is just fearmongering when he says that Obama is going to put Catholics in jail.

            I hope that the Catholic Church will come to accept gay marriage. If it doesn’t, and ends up marginalising itself then that would, to me, be quite a good outcome too.

            But if Catholics end up getting persecuted for their beliefs – as in being arrested for not allowing gays to marry in their churches, not as in being called names on blogs – then secularists will be on your side.

          • barry waterfield

            Well said. Sensible fellow.

          • barry waterfield

            Child abuse is destroying it.

      • http://twitter.com/caesarjbsquitti Caesar J. B. Squitti

        Here in Canada, these cancerous cells’, and now trying to put their ‘education’ into Catholic Schools, trying to equate homosexuality with normality, ‘the new normal’…to children who know very little about their future identity….is this confusing them ?

        Is this a cult trying to ‘promote itself” ?

        Question to ask yourselves ?

        • guest

          Answer: maybe they’re just trying to teach kids that gay people..you know.. exist.

          question to ask yourself: isn’t education about teaching children about the world? if that be the case, why would you not teach them about homesexuality, and about how people live happy lives, outside of the catholic church, and conduct themselves in every way as any other people, except they love people of the same sex.

          the “cult” is trying to promote itself the same way people of color, women, and basically any group in the world ” promotes itself”, by wanting their existence to be acknowledged.

      • EddieJoe

        You are right, gay people have been doing what they have been doing, and the reality is no one is trying to legally stop this activity. But if the relation between two of the same sex is legally deemed “marriage”, anyone who makes a distinction or shows a preference between traditional marriage and SSM will be held civilly liable for criminal discrimination. They will be put in the position to comply with pretending these arrangements are equivalent, or be sued into bankruptcy or worse.

        • Deven Kale

          A person cannot be sued for simply stating an opinion, there is plenty of legal precedent stating this through cases where people have attempted to do so. This is protected by the first amendment.

          The ability to sue comes from prejudicial actions. Groups which require marriage for entry refusing SS couples. Companies refusing access to goods and services because the couple is homosexual. Individuals inflicting violence on another due to their homosexuality. Things like these.

          Churches are exempt from this. If they refuse to offer their sacrament to a SS couple, that is directly within the realm of the church and therefore legal. If they do manage to get married within one church, no church will be forced to recognize their marriage for any later sacraments. Within the churches walls, they will still even be able to preach things like corralling all the gays and lesbians into two separate 150 mile fences and letting them all die off, without fear of prosecution.

          This is all guaranteed by the constitution. We can argue all we like about what goes on outside the churches walls, but what goes on inside is still not any governments jurisdiction: state, federal, or local. I don’t see gay marriage changing that.

          • EddieJoe

            I would agree with you, we cannot be sued for “simply stating an opinion”, but as you point out we can be sued for what you call”prejudicial actions”. Many of us would call it making an important distiction, and in good conscience cannot simply treat SSM as the same in our businesses, our schools, our public dealings.

          • Deven Kale

            If you cannot do business without inflicting your belief system on others, then yes, there will definitely be a problem when SS Marriage is allowed in your area.

          • Ezbs

            Does that mean you will be forcing Muslims to marry two men? Good luck! Or Orthodox Jewish Rabbi marry two women? Come on!

            I only see the Christian putting themselves on the train tracks and having this dialogue. Who else has the guts to defend marriage?

            You can’t force a religion to redefine marriage like you force the politician du jour to change the law to change it’s definition.

            That in itself is prejudice, discrimination and force.

            This is where the problem lies and supporters of gay “marriage” don’t see past their noses on the issue.

            And even if the Catholic Church was forced to marry two gay people by decree of the law, it’s not marriage in the eyes of God. His rules not the men of the Church. It’s a fact of life that you can’t always have your way by stamping your feet and throwing tantrums like a toddler. Life is not like that.

            I must add though that I find it bizarre comparing the gay right movement to that of the African-American Civil Right Movement. Gay rights activists have never and will never conduct themselves with the humility and eloquence, love and respect that Martin Luther King and Co. did. The black man suffered with love, the gay activist insults/mocks to get his point across. Been doing it for years eg. Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Sydney Australia.
            MLK wasn’t fighting for who to have sex with. He was fighting for basic human rights for an entire race. The white gay man has never had to fight for the right to be even considered human- But the black man did. The right to be seen as a man with red blood running through his veins like the white man. Its a sacred part of American History- Please don’t compare.

          • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

            Ummm, what? I don’t see how that rant is connected to anything I’ve said at all, much less the comment it’s connected to. There is hardly anything worth responding to here, but I’ll do it anyway.

            Does that mean you will be forcing Muslims to marry two men? Good luck! Or Orthodox Jewish Rabbi marry two women? Come on!

            I’m not advocating forcing any church to marry (or even recognize the marriage of) homosexuals. I’m advocating that they have equal rights as heterosexuals under the law. Churches should still be free to discriminate any way they please.

            Whatever happens within the walls of a church is now and always has been purely that churches domain, not any US government, federal or otherwise. If that wasn’t the case, I guarantee you many churches would be closed or preachers arrested for inciting/encouraging hateful acts.

            MLK wasn’t fighting for who to have sex with.

            Neither are Gay rights activists. That battle was won a long time ago with the general abolition of sex laws. We’re fighting for the rights of Gay people to have the same legal benefits of marriage with those whom they wish to share their lives that heterosexuals do (among a few other things).

            It’s a fact of life that you can’t always have your way by stamping your feet and throwing tantrums like a toddler. Life is not like that.

            Funny, that’s exactly how I see Christians acting when speaking on this subject, for the most part. There is a smallish group of outliers though, which does not include you.

          • Ezbs

            “Whatever happens within the walls of a church is now and always has been purely that churches domain, not any US government…” no it’s not- Obama and the HHS Mandate. Get your facts straight.

            And underneath you wrote “if you cannot do business without inflicting your belief system on others, then yes, there will definitely be a problem when SS marriage is allowed in your area”….what??!

            Make up your mind Deven, you contradict yourself.

            Btw, I’m waiting for the hidden camera taken into the church office by two gay men, to gather “evidence” for the next 60 minutes story. A gay journalists did exactly that to a Psychiatrist who he asked, HE ASKED, to help him with his SSA. The psychiatrist lost her accreditaion.

            So, it’s a slippery slope. And I don’t think just because YOU think the Church, Mosque, Synangogue will be immune from lawsuits, that they will be protected. You don’t make the laws Deven. You just give opinions on blog posts….

            Oh, and so I’m glad you agree MLK fought for the basic right of human dignity and the LGBT fight for the right to have sex..haha, sorry sounds like a song coming on.

            Christians aren’t the ones stamping their feet saying “I want to be married too! I want that token child to adopt from China! I wanna use a surrogate! Not fair I wanna, I WANNA!”. so get the picture.

          • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

            Obama and the HHS Mandate. Get your facts straight.

            You mean the one with specific exemptions for churches? Yeah, I’m aware of it. How is exempting churches from it forcing them to do anything? The mandate is for businesses not churches.

            A gay journalists did exactly that to a Psychiatrist who he asked, HE ASKED, to help him with his SSA. The psychiatrist lost her accreditaion.

            If that happened how you say it did, I agree that it shouldn’t have. Without knowing more than the facts you’ve just given me, it sounds wrong.

            And I don’t think just because YOU think the Church, Mosque, Synangogue will be immune from lawsuits, that they will be protected.

            I’m not speaking my opinion about this. I’m speaking from historical precedent, and constitutional interpretation. Churches are protected from governmental interference just as government is protected from church interference, that’s the intent of the first amendment. Any laws infringing either side have always been thrown out by the supreme court. I defy you to find even one exception to that.

            MLK fought for the basic right of human dignity and the LGBT fight for the right to have sex.

            Don’t be ridiculous. MLK fought for black rights, not gay rights. Just because there’s a correlation doesn’t mean the key figures fought for both causes. Plus, they already have the right to have sex. The only thing they’re fighting for now is the ability to marry those whom they wish to spend their lives with, and be granted the same benefits of that (secular/civil) marriage that straight people have.

            “I want to be married too! I want that token child to adopt from China! I wanna use a surrogate! Not fair I wanna, I WANNA!”

            Real mature. Next time you insult somebody, think of how most insults tend to backfire on those that make them. I guarantee you this, nobody adopts a child without wanting one. It’s an expensive process that takes a lot of time and paperwork to accomplish. If they happen to get one from China, it’s because they believe there’s a good reason to adopt one of them, not to have a “token child from China.” Show me one person (other than a celebrity, they’re just insane) that has adopted a “token child,” simply for the sake of saying they adopted one. I dare you.

          • Ezbs

            So Catholic agencies are not obliged under law to cover the Contraceptive Pill in their employees insurance?

            Read about what the gay journalist did here: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1606286

            I don’t see how you can protect the church from deceptive acts like those of the Gay journalist to the Psychiatrist, and in the case of the Church (not in the case of the psychiatrist- she went before the tribunal and lost her accreditation through the journalists deceptiveness) be sued for so -called prejudicial acts.

            You don’t be ridiculous- dont be on the front foot. Calm down and maybe you wont mis-read my comment. MLK fought for the right of a black man to sit on a bus, get a job, eat in a regular diner, not have a curfew. These are basic human rights. The gay man has never been denied any of these! Do your research and you will see the prominence and success of MANY gay figures in various professions- law, medicine, arts, design etc…throughout history. The gay man, essentially has fought for the right to sleep with another man- sex.

            I can’t prove another persons intention for adoption, celebrity or not. Except maybe the gay men that adopted the Korean girl on “Modern Family”. haha

            But, I am of the belief that although two gay men can provide immense love, time, financial stability etc.. to a child in a household like any human on this earth, I will always believe that 1. that child will miss out on knowing and being raised by his/her biological parents. 2. Miss out what a mum and a dad will bring to the child- the two bring uniquely separate things to their children, something a same sex couple cant do. Not because I think they are “unfit”, not “smart enough”, not “loving enough”, but for the mere fact that children need a mum and dad. That’s not to say anything about single mums (who wish the father was there), or single dads (who wish the mum was there), or for heterosexual couples who have adopted a child (the majority tried to conceive their own). I know examples of these in my own family and circle of friends.
            Supporters of this debate think that because gay people can’t be married (because of the essence of what marriage is), they cannot excel in the world in various professions, areas and communities- we are all human!
            This may be a very controversial concept to digest but: I can’t do many things in my life because my situation is not fit to have these things. I accept this. And I don’t think I’m discriminated against. I think to myself “that’s life”. I can’t have it all, if it isn’t my right to my situation to have it. And in no way am I of a lesser human being because of this. I know in our world today, there is this hysterical thinking that EVERYONE can have, and can be, absolutely EVERYTHING. But you can’t, it’s not true.

          • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

            So Catholic agencies are not obliged under law to cover the Contraceptive Pill in their employees insurance?

            Catholic churches aren’t. No churches are. All businesses are, regardless of who owns the business. If a church owns a business, they still have to follow the same rules as all the other businesses.

            I don’t see how you can protect the church from deceptive acts like those of the Gay journalist to the Psychiatrist

            Churches are allowed to be as prejudicial as they want already, without being sued. For example, the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church in Kentucky refused to recognize the marriage of an inter-racial couple. As far as I can tell, there was no lawsuit, probably because there cannot be. Constitutionally, the same must hold true for homosexual marriages.

            I will always believe that 1. that child will miss out on knowing and being raised by his/her biological parents. 2. Miss out what a mum and a dad will bring to the child- the two bring uniquely separate things to their children, something a same sex couple cant do.

            1. If the child’s up for adoption, that option is already off the table.

            2. There is no evidence that the sex of either parent makes any difference at all. The key is that there are two loving parents, no matter the sex of them. Two loving biological parents is definitely the best option, but when that’s not an option the second best is having two loving foster parents in their place, period.

            Supporters of this debate think that because gay people can’t be married (because of the essence of what marriage is), they cannot excel in the world in various professions, areas and communities- we are all human!

            I assume you’re married. Think of the benefits you have in your life because of that marriage. The things you and your spouse are allowed to do (civil, not religious) that you wouldn’t be able to do otherwise. Staying in their hospital room outside visiting hours is one common example. That’s really all it’s about these days, I can’t think of any other things right now.

            I can’t do many things in my life because my situation is not fit to have these things.

            But if you were fit to do so, you would still have the right to do so. Unless you’re implying that homosexuality is being “unfit” in and of itself, then you’re talking apples and oranges.

            BTW, I am calm. ;)

          • Ezbs

            Deven, I accept your points but I don’t agree with them, because my understanding is different from yours and my understanding is reflected through my beliefs.

            I just don’t see how you can compare a mum and dad with two mums or two dads.

            Yes, this is my opinion and will say it, homosexualilty is not fit to raise a child. Evidence and studies on this vary, and depends which ones you reference.
            Some do show negative impacts of the absence of one of the sexes in the raising of a child. I don’t have a reference website right now to link you to.
            But, for example off the top of my head, I have books on studies on the importance of a dad in a the daughters life- just as an example. Its vital to a young girls development and interaction with the future men in her life. He is the first male she knows. Are you to say that two women raising a girl will not be affected by the absence of a dad? Not a father-figure, but a dad that is present day-in day-out.

            My husband was raised by a single mum- and I can tell you the struggles, suffering that my husband and his 3brothers had to endure from the absence their dad. It’s heartbreaking, even into adulthood.

            Marriage is hard. Rather than supporting families in this day and age, we are presenting alternatives that aren’t tried and tested, and that are contrary to the biology of how a child is created. Why would you want to experiment based on the idea that the two women will love and nuture and two men will love and nuture. Yes they might do that indeed. But what about what the child needs? We need to be responsible for the next generation and support the family unit now, rather than, in my opinion, undermining it.

            Btw, look at my above comment about using “ridiculous”, “rant”, and “immature” to refer to my comments. I’m not disrespecting you, please don’t disrespect me.

          • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

            Look at my above comment about using “ridiculous”, “rant”, and “immature” to refer to my comments. I’m not disrespecting you, please don’t disrespect me.

            I apologize. If I remember right, most of your previous comments seemed to have an offensive tone, which put me on the defensive. When I get defensive I tend to be rather condescending.

            Evidence and studies on this vary, and depends which ones you reference. Some do show negative impacts of the absence of one of the sexes in the raising of a child.

            The majority of studies that show this (in fact, ALL of them that I know of) are only comparing (heterosexual) dual-parent and single-parent households. I’ve never seen one that says two Dads or two Moms are any worse than any other foster family or step/blended family. I was hoping you knew of one and where I could read it for myself.

            I admit, two Mom and two Dad households are new, and so we don’t know exactly what effects those type of homes have on children. The evidence we do have seems to be showing there isn’t really a substantial difference. Because this evidence is so preliminary though that conclusion may change, we’ll just have to wait and see.

            PS. I try not to take things out of context. If there is a particular point that I disagree with, I try and take the most important line or so from that point and then give my counterpoint. If this comes across as taking things out of context, I’m sorry. I really try not to do that — most of the time. ;)

          • Ezbs

            I’d like to think of my tone as blunt, not offensive. Offensive is name calling, and ridiculing.

            In reference to your comment about the HHS Mandate- this mandate forces a Catholic Agency (yes in your term a “business” of the Catholic Church), to be forced to provide coverage for the Pill in their employees health insurance. So it forces an agency who teaches and endorses NFP to provide insurance coverage for the Pill. How does that make sense?
            It will force these agencies to close down! It goes against the teachings of the Church that runs these agencies.
            It’s like forcing a Jewish butcher to sell pork. Or forcing a Hindu restaurant to serve meat. It’s forcing down the hand of the government on religious liberty- one of the points in the US Constitution. So starts the slippery slope previously mentioned. It makes no sense.

            Here is some studies that present the negative affects of same sex parents and flaws in current gathered studies (and don’t get defensive as they are not my studies, but rather independent scientific ones on the topic)

            1. UK sociologist Patricia Morgan has researched all the studies that have been done on same-sex parenting. She has found that many of the studies are flawed in their research methods and that many of the studies themselves actually show that there are detrimental effects for children brought up in these situations.
            Patricia has published all her findings in a book titled “Children as trophies”. You may actually find it online.

            2. Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.
            “A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias…..”

            3. Outcomes for Children born of Assisted Reproductive Technology in a Diverse Range of Families
            By Dr Ruth McNair, Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne (PDF 326KB).
            This is a Research Paper summarising the studies and outcomes written by Dr Ruth McNair – done for the Victorian Law Reform Commission in Australia, during their investigation of Artificial Reproductive Technology and Adoption. [The final report was handed to the Victorian government in April 2007.]
            BUT Ruth McNair was co-ordinator of the Fertility Rights Access Group of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group – and they were actively lobbying the government to allow IVF for lesbians! She favourably quotes all the pro-homosexual research!
            Including the multiple studies by Charlotte Patterson – another lesbian!

            4. Personal stories from people raised by homosexuals also tell an important story about same-sex parenting…one good example is:
            Dawn Stefanowicz has written Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. She describes the negative effects from being raised by a homosexual father – his partners, the violence, the disease, the sex.

            5. New Lesbian Parenting Study Makes Claims Unsupported by the Evidence by A Dean Byrd, PhD, MBA,MPH.
            Dr Byrd analyses a recent study on lesbian parenting. He begins ‘The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) published by American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) offers the following conclusion: “Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment (p. 28).” ‘

            These are samples of studies as well as critics of current studies that show flaws and bias in the research.

            You can go further if you like by simply googling “negative impact on children of same sex parents”. There is a great deal of research that shows that the best environment for raising children is in a home with their biological mother and father who are married. This is not necessarily politically correct, but it is true. A child needs a mother and a father. Which puzzles me when you say all the data you have read shows no negative impact.

          • Ezbs

            I’d like to think of my tone as blunt rather than offensive. Offensive is name calling and ridiculing.

            1. UK sociologist Patricia Morgan has researched all the studies that have been done on same-sex parenting. She has found that many of the studies are flawed in their research methods and that many of the studies themselves actually show that there are detrimental effects for children brought up in these situations.
            Patricia has published all her findings in a book titled “Children as trophies”. I think it’s available to read online

            2. August 2010 – Analysis of AAP lesbian parenting study
            New Lesbian Parenting Study Makes Claims Unsupported by the Evidence by A Dean Byrd, PhD, MBA,MPH.
            Dr Byrd refers to the recent research about the negative effect on children who are born through a sperm donation (by Marquardt, Glenn and Clark, titled, “My Daddy’s Name is ‘Donor’: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation.”) you”ll probably have to find a book version, not sure if available online.

            3. Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.
            “A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias…..”

            4. Outcomes for Children born of Assisted Reproductive Technology in a Diverse Range of Families
            By Dr Ruth McNair, Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne (PDF 326KB).
            This is a Research Paper summarising the studies and outcomes written by Dr Ruth McNair – done for the Victorian Law Reform Commission during their investigation of Artificial Reproductive Technology and Adoption. [The final report was handed to the Victorian government in April 2007.]
            BUT Ruth McNair was co-ordinator of the Fertility Rights Access Group of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group – and they were actively lobbying the government to allow IVF for lesbians! She favourably quotes all the pro-homosexual research!
            Including the multiple studies by Charlotte Patterson – another lesbian!

            5. Personal stories from people raised by homosexuals also tell an important story about same-sex parenting…an example
            Dawn Stefanowicz has written Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. She describes the negative effects from being raised by a homosexual father – his partners, the violence, the disease, the sex.

            Just google “negative affects on children with same-sex parents”, if you want to go further. The research is easy to find even online.

            I don’t want to “wait and see” to see if it ok in the end. Children are not guinea pigs for experiments. The biology, human nature of how a child is created, is enough to tell me if it’s right or not.

            Btw, the Catholic Agencies, who you refer to as “business” must provide coverage for Pill under HHS Mandate. So essentially it’s telling agencies financially supported purely by the Church, who teach NFP, must now cover the Pill. That ludicrous. It’s like telling a Jewish butcher to sell pork- “suck it or close down”. That’s forcing the hand of government over religious liberty. Who am I, a Catholic, going to go to if I need to learn NFP? Its taught by paid NFP teachers, not priests. And for a reason.
            St Vincent de Paul a Catholic charity that helps the homeless will close. Whose gonna take over the charity work- the government? They need charities like St Vinnies, the government can’t cope to pick up the slack.

            Catholic Agencies will shut down in an effort not to go against their Catholic faith. Some agenciesthat even the government needs. It’s a dangerous slippery slope you advocate. Where does it end.

          • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

            Patricia has published all her findings in a book titled “Children as trophies”.

            I found it. I’ll give it a read, but 162 pages of PDF is going to take quite a while. Reading on a computer tends to give me severe eyestrain if I read for more than an hour or so.

            Personal stories from people raised by homosexuals also tell an important story about same-sex parenting.

            This info will suffer from the same self-reporting and sample size issues as many of the studies you’re claiming are invalid. I’ll look into the rest of them and see if I come to the same conclusions as you do.

            I admit that the example of Dawn Stefanowicz is shocking, but there are also plenty of similar stories from children of single straight parents as well. Her fathers homosexuality wasn’t the problem, it was all of his vices, which he could have had even if he were straight.

            So essentially it’s telling agencies financially supported purely by the Church, who teach NFP, must now cover the Pill.

            I can imagine a possible exemption for businesses that are owned and run by a church and have a super-majority of employees who are also church members, somewhere around 80-95%, depending on company size. To me, that would seem reasonable, something I would be willing to vote for.

            The “HHS Mandate” is there for those who have no choice in their insurance carriers, since most people are forced into using their employer policies due to the expense of private insurance. If more than a few of those employees are not members of that church, I wouldn’t feel okay in making it harder for them to acquire what should be simple in any other situation.

            I really don’t quite understand why this is a big deal though. If the church does it’s job in teaching people not to use contraception, then they would not be using it. The fact that it’s available through insurance wouldn’t even matter. My thought on this is that it scares churches because it makes it harder to control their constituents, but I don’t expect you to agree with that. ;)

            It’s like telling a Jewish butcher to sell pork- “suck it or close down”.

            That only compares if people were somehow allowed to use only that butcher and pork had health benefits lacking in all other meats. Pork also goes bad if it’s not used by that butcher, where contraceptives still get used even if they’re not used by the employees of one specific company. The analogy isn’t quite accurate.

          • Ezbs

            Your comments gave me a chuckle- print it out and take your time reading.

            I think personal accounts hold a lot of weight when giving witness to this topic of same-sex. Parenting- even the positive stories make you sit up and listen.

            The Church cant be sure Catholics are not using contraceptives, but they need to ensure they set good examples and uphold the teachings. They cant be made into hypocrites. So, yes, that’s a problem.

            Its a shame you think the Church is peering into my bedroom and “controlling” me. Haha The Pope does not and can not possibly “control” its constituents. I’m not brain-washed into my beliefs, I choose as an adult to believe them, I can throw my faith out of the window tomorrow if I wanted. But I don’t want to, because what I believe I have come to beleive through question, reason and this mysterious thing called faith.

            Mis information on negative effects of Pill, it’s abortificient effects (going against the Truth that life begins at conception) to name a few, is a challenge Church faces in addressing. Many Catholics that use it don’t know why it’s wrong (in wrong I mean by the above reasons, not wrong cause the Pope says so).
            It is like teacher that teaches children that smoking is bad, yet the school has a cigarette vending machine….yes I know what you are going to say, the Church is our teacher, and we the pupils. Yes they are!
            The Church teaches it’s faithful. It’s not forcing anything. But the government seems to have no regard for this (it doesn’t threaten the government for the Church to teach this, but maybe the pharmaceutical companies and supporters of population control whom the government might financially benefit from……?) I hold the cynical view that money forces many decisions in this world. So, my issue why put a mandate on everyone, when it goes against their belief. Why? The Pill is not life saving? Nor is it mandatory to living. There is an underlying reason and I don’t know we will “really” know. Anyway, this topics for another blog post. Stick to the gay debate. Haha

            Lastly, The Jewish butcher has every right to not sell Pork even if he were the only butcher around and Pork was a super food. It’s his belief. He thinks it’s a sin. He has a right to do this. Freedom of Religion. So I don’t agree with you. You can’t force a person into doing something they feel intrinsically wrong.

            All the best Deven, it was god conversing with you. God Bless.

          • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

            Sorry, forgot about this bit of ridiculousness:

            Make up your mind Deven, you contradict yourself.

            No I do not. If you’re wanting to restrict the explicitly granted rights of a protected minority based on a religious belief, and are unable to do business without doing so, then you will have a problem. You are trying to use your religious ideas about homosexuality to disallow homosexuals the equal ability to marry as heterosexuals. You are trying to use your religious beliefs about sex to restrict the rights of others to control their own sexual behavior and fertility.

            You are not allowed to act that way. Your religious freedom stops where it infringes on the rights of others. I am not attempting to use my “religious beliefs” to infringe on anybody’s right, I’m trying to help allow people who are different from me to have the same rights as me. Generally speaking, when it’s recognized that rights of a group are being restricted, they’re granted to them in spite of the religious beliefs of some. It went that way with women, it went that way with blacks, and it will go that way with gays. It’s how this country works. If you don’t like that, your only option is to move to another country that doesn’t work this way.

          • Ezbs

            Deven, you called me ridiculous multiple times, referred to my comments as a “rant”, called me immature (because you fail to have a sense of humor) and all your comments do is dissect other people sentences, usually taken out of context.
            Ive stated my opinion, as you have yours and find “conversing” with you disrespectful, and not really that enjoyable. I’ve stated my opinion to the best of my ability. All you seem to want yo do is attack me. I don’t like to be caught up in our frustrations.
            Go dissect someone else’s comments.

          • guest

            um..look up malcom X, angela davis, huey P newton and get back to me. I’m not comparing, just saying you can’t over-simplify civil rights movements, and the Afican-American Civil rights movement was not all peaceful as you state.

            Also “Gay rights activists have never and will never conduct themselves with the humility and eloquence,”

            do you have any facts to back that up? or are you simply a heterosexist who is distorting the definition of God’s love to conveniently suite you’re own ends?

          • Ezbs

            Umm..malcom X was an Islamic extremist. Angela Davis was in the communist party and a murderer! Huey p newton was a vigilante youth who had a string of crimes since a teenager. How can you compare these 3 with MLK and the civil rights movement?
            These 3 had an agenda based on hatred that used the AF-Am cause as an EXCUSE to spread their personal hatred. Their aim was never to achieve the equality and dignity that the black man/woman deserved. They wanted to hate. There is no oversimplification here. Get YOUR facts straight. You hypocritically shoot off names to suit your narrow-minded argument.

            On the other hand, go look up the Gay and Lesbian Mardi GRAS in Sydney Australia (the worlds largest LGBT “protest”), and get back to me. To paint a visual picture for you- it’s half naked Gay and Lesbian men and women parading down Oxford Street in the middle of the City. It’s held annually. It’s the biggest tourist drawcard for the Australian Government bringing in millions of dollars in revenue (and illegal ecstasy tablets), and it’s conveniently held during the Catholic season of Lent. It is televised LIVE on national television and the City blocks the street off for them because it’s $$$$$$ for the government. They mock everyone from prominent figures, religious, politicians, anyone they feel like. They even dress up as the order of nuns who care for their own dying gay men who have full-blown AIDS, doing vulgar gestures. Is this dignified to you?!
            Look at Harry Knox and his chummy chummy friendship with Obama. And I’ll give you more “facts” if you need them.
            These gay activists aren’t criminal, they aren’t vigilantes, they aren’t Islamic extremists, communist members…..Most are law abiding educated, members of society. What reason do they have, except out if bigotry and hate, to conduct themselves like this in organized acts of protest? It doesn’t “conveniently” suit my argument. It’s fact.
            Try posting under a real name Mr anon “guest”.

        • barry waterfield

          Not at all. You should read the proposal properly.

      • barry waterfield

        You’ll get a great deal of waffle asking a question like that, because the truth is they don’t have an answer for you other than to quote and hypothesise. Like you I would like to think that these people had enough strength to carry on but the truth is they are hung up on this homosexuality rant because they have been wound up quite deliberately by their clergy. With Hitler the Jews served as bonding with the church particularly in America I’m afraid, the gays serve the same purpose. It focuses the ordinary following type mind. As I’ve said before they have far more to fear from divorce and adultery than they have from the gays.

    • Korou

      Well said! That’s just the kind of fearmongering Mitt Romney will need more of if he is going to win.

      Look: we all know nobody’s going to send you to prison for saying gays are evil. Fred Phelps may not have many uses, but he does have this one: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2009/04/20/one-cheer-for-fred-phelps/

    • barry waterfield

      Oh this really is nonsense. The gays do not represent such a threat as that. There are, at a rough estimate, approximately ten percent in any given population that are exclusively gay. If ten per cent can pose such a threat to the remaining ninety percent then the ninety percent are simply the seed thrown amongst the thorns, they are not worth considering, they have shallow roots and would have died off in any circumstance. Quite why the gays want to associate with the Christian church I don’t yet know, but obviously some of them do. They can only strengthen your fellowship if you let them. Do not be afraid, learn to love your fellow human being, after all a gay man is never going to inspire adultery and that is the main threat to the Christian church not homosexuality.

  • Steven Dillon

    I’ve never seen so great a word-game as that deployed by anti-gay marriage advocates. dictionary.com says semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues.

    Supposing that ‘marriage’ refers to a relation that can only obtain between a male and a female resolves no substantial issue at stake.

    We’d still understand the gay spousal relationship as we had, we’d still be debating about whether it should be as legally dignified as the straight spousal relationship, etc.

    Such arguments against gay marriage from the definition of marriage (etc.) revolve entirely around the mere word ‘marriage’ rather than any of the significant issues.

    • Rick DeLano

      “Supposing that ‘marriage’ refers to a relation that can only obtain between a male and a female resolves no substantial issue at stake.”

      That’s because there is no substantial issue at stake, other than the intention of the pseudo-marriage propagandists to redefine the word “marriage”.

      Next.

      • Steven Dillon

        This is a good example of the ignorance that gives rise to these silly word-game objections. Keep the work up, you’re making my job easier.

        • Rick DeLano

          Steve:

          Your first job- the job which must precede all others- is to learn this:

          Words have meanings.

          • Steven Dillon

            My job here, if any, is to expose ignoramus’ such as yourself. Run along now and find out how words get meaning.

          • Rick DeLano

            They get meaning, Steven, by expressing a reality.

            The word “marriage”, for example, expresses the reality:

            “That stable, long term union of the genders from within which children commonly proceed, and within which they are best nurtured”.

            The entire focus and intention of the marriage corruption movement is to engage in propaganda by redefinition of the word “marriage”.

            We have one chance remaining to defeat these Alinskyite radical anti-Christian social engineers.

            If Obama is defeated, then it will be morning.

            If he is reelected, then……to the catacombs.

          • Korou

            Cheer up. We didn’t give up when George Bush was re-elected, did we?

  • http://www.recoveredcatholic.com/ Recovered Catholic

    You’re really on a roll with this topic lately. You go well beyond the whole “God says so!” and really bring deeper logic to the table. You’re making waves but maybe someone is listening.

  • Jay E.

    This is honestly probably the best thing I’ve seen on the subject. Way to cut to the heart of the issues, side-stepping the “abstractions”.

  • Andrea Maciejewski

    (“Who’s”…otherwise, EXCEPTIONAL! Sorry if some other grammar cop caught this earlier, your are WAY too Mr. Popular and I simply can’t read all the comments in one sitting!)

    Spot on, especially #4. I am going to encourage as many as I can on Facebook to take a look. After all, God’s love for us is always that of a singular, human person, right? Each one of us. This is the philosophy we adopt at our local PRC – Not an ideological ABORTION IS HORRIBLE attitude (granted, it is…), but the concept of here you are, a poor sinner like myself, in need of help and healing, and I am here to help you find that if you want me to…

    • Andrea Maciejewski

      EEEEKKKK!!!! “YOU are”!!! Yes, folks, God does have a sense of humor :D

  • Djrogers

    Could someone please explain to me why if marriage is a holy union that you even allow states and the federal government to use the term for legal reasons? Shouldn’t you be off protesting that? And protesting any marriage where God is not involved? After all, there is no requirement for the man and woman being married to even believe in God. Maybe the ballots should have been written to say between one religious man and one religious woman? Don’t think that would fly?

    • Rick DeLano

      Could someone please explain to me why if marriage is a holy union that you even allow states and the federal government to use the term for legal reasons?

      >>Ummm, maybe because states and federal governments have guns, and prisons? And make laws binding on all of society?

      Shouldn’t you be off protesting that?

      >> We protested that back when the Bastille was stormed. We lost. We now live in a secular society. The battle must be fought on that terrain.

      And protesting any marriage where God is not involved?

      >>The idea is to keep the civilization afloat long enough to swing it back toward God, not to substitute a completely impossible strategy, for a winnable one.

      After all, there is no requirement for the man and woman being married to even believe in God. Maybe the ballots should have been written to say between one religious man and one religious woman? Don’t think that would fly?

      >> Sure. Back in the 18th century, maybe.

      And maybe again in the 22nd.

      • Djrogers

        So you’re arguing because of something that happened eons ago the troops can’t be rallied to remove the word marriage from government forms and documents? Why is that any less absurd that telling a group of people they can’t have a civil marriage because it’s against your religion?

        >>The idea is to keep the civilization afloat long enough to swing it back toward God, not to substitute a completely impossible strategy, for a winnable one.

        Considering a majority of americans are religious, why would it not be fair to disqualify those from marriage who don’t believe in God? There would still be no issue of the species continuing and christian teachings would still be passed down.

  • Denise

    Let’s be clear, we are talking about gay marriage, which is a political issue precisely because it is either the government or the people deciding to re-define marriage as something different than its current legal defenition. And the question is whether by opposing gay marriage we are discriminating, hateful, evil people (or even worse based on some of the responses to this post). We are not talking about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, really nobody wants to know. If the concern is for certain rights for SS couples such as healthcare and deciding who they want to leave their money to when they die, many states already allow for this. In fact, many states allow for everything but marriage, meaning SS couples are guaranteed the same privileges as any civil marriage, so prove where there is a real discrimination or injustice if you think there is one.

    So if a SS couple is guaranteed all the privileges as any civil marriage, as is the case in the State of Washington, and there is no discrimination or injustice why then do we need to re-define marriage? Is it to look politically correct so a politician can say we are doing the right thing and get votes? Is is the need to “normalize” the SSA, and why exactly is it the role of government to do so? Is it to eventually silence/punish anyone who says anything differently? Is it to advance curriculum in schools that reflect this new law – hey it’s now legal so it should be taught as such in a school and to hell with you parents who want the option of your child “opting out” of such classes – just look at what’s going on in Massachusetts’ schools to see the ramifications of this.

    Simply put we cannot re-define marriage because it is what is and it can’t be anything different. Marriage is the reality of the unique, fruitful, lifelong union that is only possible between a man and a woman. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman because of its unique ends, purpose and place in society. The ends and purpose of marriage is for the spouses (the love) and the children (the pro-creation). I understand this sounds like BLAH, BLAH, BLAH to many people, Catholic included, because as Marc said many people don’t know what they heck the Church actually says abut marriage in the first place.

    The church is just being consistent in Her entire teaching on marriage and sexuality. This teaching includes fornication, adultery (even in the heart), pornography, masturbation, artificial contraception, the objectification of people for one’s own personal pleasure, and homosexuality (did I leave anything out). And the Church does not say that one of these sins is more or less offensive than another. This is not hateful or evil, but rather a call to holiness for all of us sinners, an act of love.

    • Djrogers

      You want proof of real discrimination then look no further than the IRS. DOMA prevents them from recognizing legal ssm or civil unions. So with all other things being equal, a SS couple pays more in taxes then their heterosexual counterpart.

      Again if marriage is a religious institution then why are you letting the states use it for legal purposes?

      • Rick DeLano

        What possible justification is there for granting tax benefits to unmarried couples?

        Such lunacy simply destroys the reason we preferentially recognize marriage in the first place; that is, because of its benefits to *everyone else*; this is, the next generation, nurtured in a family headed by a Mom and a Dad.

        Which is of course the whole idea.

        Destroy this and we have reduced marriage to a federal Friendship Registry with benefits.

        Not to mention humanity’s most ancient and indispensable institution.

        • Djrogers

          First of all the OP was stating where is their proof of any injustice for people who are given the same “rights” as married couples. I would assume she’s referring to people who’s state either let’s them obtain a civil marriage or union. Egro, as far as the state is concerned at tax time you are in fact married. It is only the federal government because of DOMA that won’t allow the use of the marriage box for SSM/Unions. Once that is gone so is a majority of the argument.

          So everyone pays taxes but only married couples with children benefit? Lunacy? I’d say absurdity. Perhaps the child credit should be removed so single parents can’t claim it. Childless couples should also have their own special box, say married no kids so they would get less of a tax break as well. Ever hear of the marriage penalty?

          You must hate the fact that fertility treatments are available to whomever wants to use them. In some states, the insurance companies are required to cover them and in a strange twist of fate, unmarried women can have the standard wait times waived since there isn’t a male counterpart to attempt pregnancy for 12 months. Too bad you can’t get a ballot measure stating only married man/woman couples can use them. The court already beat you to it.

          • Rick DeLano

            “So everyone pays taxes but only married couples with children benefit? Lunacy? I’d say absurdity.”

            >> OK then. That’s why we have elections. See you in November.

            “Perhaps the child credit should be removed so single parents can’t claim it.”

            >> Whatever makes you think that either serves the common good, or has anything to do with marriage?

            I certainly would support an entire array of preferential benefits for married couples, and the strengthening of the ones which already exist.

            That comes after we defeat SS”M”, which is the mortal and immediate threat.

      • Denise

        I believe the Obama administration is overlooking the whole tax issue so they won’t be penalized. There is a difference between a civil marriage or domestic partnership and re-defining marriage, which historically is a religious institution. The states can decide privileges guaranteed to people, such as in the everything but marriage laws, but it is not in the realm of the state to re-define marriage.

        If it really is about live and let live, and tolerate each other, the current law serves that. Currently, in Washington there is no difference in privileges between my marriage and a civil union/ domestic partnership, ergo no discrimination. So why is there a need to pass another law that re-defines marriage? And why did our legislature changed the law and re-defined marriage without putting it to a vote by the people? Why didn’t they let us vote? Why do we need to gather a bunch of signatures to get the referendum on the ballot?

        • Djrogers

          You are 100% incorrect in your assumption that Obama is overlooking the whole tax issue. There are no federal benefits to any SSM/union. http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm The IRS is tied with DOMA. The Obama administration stated DOMA is unconstitutional and that the DOJ should no longer defend it in court. He has not done away with it and is letting it go through the court system.

          Why was marriage part of legal jargon to begin with? The overarching argument is rights. Most of the anti arguments could have said the same exact thing in the 60s when it was illegal for mixed marriage. If that was put to a vote back then do you think the majority would uphold it? They would put to ballot that a marriage is between a man and the woman of the same race. How absurd does that sound now? People could argue their children would be mixed and have serious mental issues as such. Etc etc etc.

          • Denise

            So if the tax laws were neutral, or even penalized married persons, would same sex couples still be arguing for the redefinition of marriage? Tax laws are constantly changing and this is entirely possible.

            In regards to the historical movement to allow interracial couples to marry the analogy is not valid. Previous bans on interracial marriage were certainly wrong in trying to preserve some kind of racial purity, but they didn’t change the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The essence of marriage remained unchanged both before and after these unjust prohibitions were lifted. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman because of its unique ends, purpose and place in society. The ends and purpose of marriage is for the spouses (the love) and the children (the pro-creation).

          • Djrogers

            I specifically pointed out the tax example since it was something pretty much anyone could grasp. It is but one of many benefits on the federal level that are not given to SSM/SSU regardless of what the state law is. Also remember from history in regards to segregation, separate but equal didn’t fly either.

            I can not speak for an entire group but I have personally never heard nor seen nor read of anyone trying to redefine religious marriage. It seems part of the issue is understanding of what people really want. I haven’t personally heard one person say I want my church to marry me and recognize my marriage. What the church does or does not do is no concern of mine and I have no right to demand anything. On the other hand, when my government where I am a citizen and taxpayer says a group is to be treated different under the law because their relationship is not valid is a point I would and will continue to argue. People demanding marriage licenses are looking for civil marriages for the benefits that license will give them. Maybe some people are looking at it as a validation of lifestyle but I have never heard anyone I know say that. As far as the government is concerned, your license is a contract and no religion or possibility of children are needed to have it granted. If the government issued union licenses to two people SS or hetero and the church performed marriages for only hetero couples there would no longer be an argument. Look back at history and read the arguments that were used against mixed raced couples. You will see an overlap.

            As far as the end purpose of marriage, I would point out it is discourteous of you to assume that two ss people can not love each other as much as hetro couples. As far as children, ss couples are having them all the time. For lesbians, it only takes a trip to the doctor’s office to procreate. Men can find a surrogate. If you think that isn’t valid then what about hetero couples who have to go to treatments in a doctors office to get pregnant? In some cases, the woman’s eggs are bad in others it’s the man and they would use donors. Does that mean their marriage is less valid than yours? And what of couples that marry with no intention of having children or couples past child bearing years getting married? Is it fine then because they still love each other? But as far as the government, none of that matters. Really the word marriage should be removed from government forms and documents and replaced with something else. I’d be willing to bet though, we’d be having the same argument regardless of what it was called.

            Cases are working through the court system and it is only a matter of time before DOMA is stricken down and in the states that added between a man and a woman that too will be ruled unconstitutional.

        • Kennedykemp

          The biggest and most aweful part of this country is that pesky ‘bill of rights’ thing that protects minorities from the majority. I live in the south. I also remember history. By your logic, why are you even posting, I never remember a vote asking about women being allowed to form public opinions by law. You may pass it now, but would you have passed it 50 years ago. I live in Ga. Why weren’t they given a slave vote, which right after the Civil War surely would have passed. Oh yeah… your idea of democracy (mob rule) is put in check by that pesky bill of rights we have. I honestly do respect your opinion, but if you impend on govt (not religious, govt) rights, then I become “that” liberal.

          • Denise

            Thanks for your comments. I live in the State of Washington where the voters voted for Everything but Marriage for SS couples, so they have all the privileges as any other union in our state. I have no problem with guaranteeing them these privileges and obviously, by the passage of this law that was voted on, neither do most Washingtonians. And if the only reason is to allow them the federal tax break then that can be done through a change in the current tax law, which changes every year, and does not require a re-definition of marriage. I am compelled then to question why we need to re-define marriage in the State of Washington, which our legislature did, if SS couples are guaranteed by law these privileges. I think there is more to their motives.

            And as a side note I hate labeling people liberal or conservative, and as a Catholic I fall somewhere in between and have issues with both sides as well as praise for both sides, so you won’t here me calling you “that” liberal.

          • Denise

            I’m not sure which of the Bill of Rights you are referring to or how this impedes on government. I hope we are still living in a democratic Republic that allows “Power to the People” not a mob rule, but also not a rule of factions.

            I should clarify and say the majority of voters in Washington, not I, did not have a problem with guaranteeing SS couples all the privileges of a domestic partnership, because domestic partnership is not the same thing as marriage and actually it diminishes the meaning of marriage in society.

            Treating different things differently is not unjust discrimination. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. There’s nothing else like it. Only a man and a woman are capable of giving themselves to each other so that “the two become one flesh.” And only a man and a woman are capable of sexual activity that may yield children. So a person can argue that SS couples have a right to enter a relation, but it is a different relation than marriage and should be treated as such.

            This being said SS couples enjoy all the privileges of any civil union in the State of Washington, so I do think there are other motives behind the movement to re-define marriage in my state.

      • Michelle Thuldanin

        “Letting the states”? Since when do we make the laws? We as Catholics have the obligation to vote by the creed and morals we profess, and act upon them as well. If the majority votes with us, then it becomes a law. We have been decrying No fault divorce since it came out (as a Church) and still don’t allow it despite social pressure. This is not the first time in 2000 a government has gone against what we believe. I would say it is probably not the 1000th time. Yet here we are, standing up for and rallying behind the same teachings. Marc is just putting it in the context of our current social world. Read the saints, you will find them fighting the same fight over similar issues in a way pertinent to their social and governmental realities.

        • Djrogers

          I said letting the states since I have yet to see anyone opposing the use of the word by the government by attempting to have it removed. Considering the vast majority of americans are religious then it would seem that it would be feasible to have put to a ballot some measure that removes the word marriage from say state tax forms etc and replaces it with something more on the lines of union or what have you. In the eyes of the government, it doesn’t care if you are religious or not, it’s just a legal contract.

          I will leave it with this comment:

          “The problem is that marriage has traditionally been interpreted as having both a civic and a religious function. Perhaps it is time for a change.

          I feel that the best solution is to separate the civic and religious functions of marriage. Then any two people could register their relationship with the government as a civil marriage, pay a fee, and get all of the approximately 300 state and 1,100 federal rights, privileges, responsibilities and protections that have been associated with marriage. If a state refused to allow same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage, the former could be sued in federal court under the equal access clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Finally, if a couple wished, they could apply to a religious group and ask for a religious marriage.”

          http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

  • Centurion 9.41

    In spiritual and intellectual battle, one NEVER has to give up control of where the battle is to be fought. To do so is to implicitly signal you’re on the wrong ground.
    Likewise Marc, do not listen to the counsel of sycophants.

    First off, most of the arguments you make are grounded in the “truths” of the other religion; humanism. E.g. by citing homosexual rates of illness, etc. Really? You are going to argue a spiritual and intellectual principal on data that is not only specious at best, but also whose causes are not at all certain? Really?

    Second, you completely and incorrectly frame the question and issue. The issue is one of fundamental human Rights. Do heterosexuals have a Right for their Sacramental relationship to be formally recognized by the political system? Of course not, nor could they ever, because it is not a Right. Likewise homosexuals do not have a Right to such recognition.

    Of course this leads to the discussion of the “equal justice” and “due process” perversions of Constitutional Law. These are of course, when a fundamental human Right is not in question, are balanced against society’s right to build the orderly society they desire – so long as the politics do not deny fundamental human Rights. Since the recognition of a relationship as a “marriage” is not a fundamental human Right, denying such recognition is not a denial of a Right.

    It’s that simple, and so simply principled.

    Now, if society wants to recognize a relationship, be it a man and doll, a man and a dog, etc., and give it legal status, that is its Right – as long as in doing so it does not deny the fundamental human Rights all men received from God.

    So, “The Catholic Church will never recognize the court marriages of the 21st century, whether they are between men and women of the same sex or between heterosexual couples. Thus the Catholic is not in the position of excluding a certain group — the sacrament remains the sacrament and all else is sham.”… great. That’s exactly the Right of the Catholic Church to hold.

    But to engage in the kind of “argument” and apologetics you do, is to only hurt the Truth and the Catholic Church, Catholic Faith, and Catholics.

    AMDG

  • Matt

    Marc, I also think our generation got suckered in by the media (Elton John, Million Man March, the movie Philadelphia, and now Glee and other things). Everyone saw the dangerous and truly degrading elements of a homosexual lifestyle during the AIDS crisis. Remember, dear Cardinal O’Connor was one of the few willing to minister to dying AIDS patients in NYC hospitals. But now that is behind us, so emotions have overpowered our sense of right and wrong.

    • Rick DeLano

      No.

      As essentially mush minded, Tavistock-Institute dupes, we were programmed by our Media Masters with well-conceived and executed brainwashing campaigns, which have worked quite well.

      The good news is the marriage corruption brainwashing campaign needed about five more years to fully boil the frogs, and there is still a chance to defeat it.

      It all essentially hinges on defeating Obama this November.

  • TonyL

    Marc is right. We’ve stumbled upon a time when words, abstractions, and ideas have replaced the realities once solidified behind them.
    However, haven’t we also seen Jesus and Christianity turn into an abstraction with such shallow ideologies as “Love like Jesus,” “God loves/created me just the way I am,” “God has a plan?”

  • Virtusophia

    BEAUTIFUL! Thank you for posting and sharing! I think this is an excellent and GROUNDING post for anyone who TRULY wants to LOVE and who truly LOVES the TRUTH. Thank you for your thought-provoking posts! GOD bless you and keep you! You’ll be in my prayers! May the PEACE of CHRIST be with you!!!

  • Jcoop

    Unfortunately, the debate over gay marriage got rigged a long time ago when marriage became associated only solely with the couple. Today, most people simply see marriage as a ceremony re-affirming their relationship with each other, and when the work required to maintain that relationship becomes too different, they can get divorced.

    Today, a simple relationship is no different than marriage. A couple in a relationship is expected to have sex with each other, many live together, and some even have children together. The way things are, it is natural for a gay couple in a relationship to want to take it to the next level and get married. As such, it has turned into a debate about an individual’s rights, and those who disagree with this right are labeled “bigots.”

    Also, for a society that thinks that it is overpopulated, it is natural for it to want to allow two men who cannot procreate together to get married. Marriage is a norm, and extending it to gay couples normalizes their behavior, thus ensuring that the world won’t get overpopulated.

    If we want to save marriage, we need to start with getting rid of the Vegas wedding and Britney Spears-type marriages, discourage cohabitation and defeat the overpopulation myth. Until then, the secular side of society will lean towards allowing gay marriage, leaving Catholics in a small minority.

    • Rick DeLano

      You have it exactly backwards.

      We need to start defending marriage by defeating the SS”M” movement.

      This being accomplished, we need to turn the attention of the resultant coalition to the evils you enumerate.

      • Jcoop

        I don’t see how I have it backwards. The disease is an overall declining in sexual mores and the gay marriage debate is simply a symptom of that. Other symptoms (contraception, divorce, etc.) were around well before the gay marriage debate started. In order to defeat the SS”M” movement, we need to go after the symptoms that paved the way for it to happen.

        I’ve always found it difficult to argue with some of my friends about gay marriage because they don’t see how marriage is connected to procreation. I try to explain to them that marriage is about a family and they don’t see it that way; they simply see marriage as being about two people. To them, marriage is simply about sex, and if you can have sex with another man (regardless of if you can procreate), why can’t you be allowed to marry him?

        In order to win the debate, we have to change how they think, since people like them are representative of most young people in this country. The way to change their perception starts with defeating the things I mentioned in my first post.

        • Rick DeLano

          If SS”M” is to be understood as simply another, comparable symptom of the decline of sexual morality, please be sure to note that it is the terminal symptom, and hence must be alleviated first.

          “I’ve always found it difficult to argue with some of my friends about gay marriage because they don’t see how marriage is connected to procreation”

          >> Why argue with someone who doesn’t understand that apples are connected to nutrition?

          It’s long past time for this kind of pointlessness.

          This is a culture war.

          One side will win.

          If Obama is reelected in November, then the laws of this nation will be written according to those who “don’t see how marriage is connected to procreation”.

          I suggest the idea is to reach out to those who *can*.

          • Djrogers

            So it’s either Obama who’s a Christian or the guy who belongs to a cult that believes they can become their own gods? Oh and did you forget he was also governor of MA when SSM were legalized.

          • Deven Kale

            You forget, we’re now looking at (at least) the third version of Mittens, or Romney 3.0. He could do very different things now than he did back then.

          • Rick DeLano

            Mitt has signed the marriage pledge. Obama has sworn not to defend the law of the land (DOMA).

            Why is this difficult for you to grasp?

          • Deven Kale

            Two points:
            1) My comment was in direct response to what Djrogers said about Mittens being the Governor of MA that allowed same-sex marriage.

            2) The fact that any politician signs anything means absolutely nothing to me. They’ll all say or sign anything in order to get into office, and then conveniently forget it once they’re there. At least, until re-election time comes around. That includes not only Mittens, but Obama as well.

          • Djrogers

            Yes and politicians never lie. What part of that is hard for you to grasp? Mitty would say and do anything to get elected. Even his own party really doesn’t want him. That should tell you something.

          • Korou

            You could say that marriage is connected to procreation, but not based on it. We do not prohibit people who cannot procreate from marrying, and we should not forbid gays from marrying either.

        • Deven Kale

          To them, marriage is simply about sex.

          I just want to comment on this particular point. I’m what you might consider a “young person,” although I’m getting close to middle-aged now. Even since I was in my teens, I never considered marriage to be just about sex, that was generally the belief of the most religious people I knew. They were always saying that you should never have sex out of wedlock, and if you really wanted to have sex with somebody you must marry them first. Quite a few of them seemed to consider this the only reason for marriage, in conformance with your own claims.

          I always understood that sex was a part of marriage, but in no way is it the main part. Sex is about sex, marriage is about devotion. If you just want to have sex with a person be extremely careful. However, if you are able to commit yourself wholeheartedly to a single person, then that is the person you should marry. Sometimes people change though, and if they change to the point that you can no longer be around them, divorce is an option. That’s just the way I’ve always seen marriage.

          Apparently this is a common view among atheists such as myself, which is quite likely why we share the lowest divorce rate in the country with Catholics and Lutherans. Removing gods from the picture forces a more detailed look at the specifics of a marriage, beyond the focus on sex and generalities so often spoken of in religious circumstances.

          The problem among the religious is the focus on the connection of sex and marriage. Very little attention seems to be spent on explaining that marriage is about so much more, especially the relationship between spouses. Teach children how to reconcile their differences, make compromises, forgive each other, and that sex is only a small part of marriage, and your divorce rates will be guaranteed to go down.

          • Mary

            As a Catholic faith formation teacher for both private & public school kids, I can tell you that we teach a great deal about conflict resolution, forgivenes & respecting the sacredness of marriage & family life. We teach kids to view love & family life as a tremendous gift from God, that requires much attention, respect & responsibility. We teach them that it is not beneficial & yes, even sinful, to squander & misuse or abuse God’s very generous & undeserving gift. We teach kids to respect their bodies, as it also is a gift & houses the divine Spirit. But, there is really only so much teachers can do, if it isn’t reinforced at home & in society.

  • catholicboyrichard

    As an SSA man who follows the teachings of Rome, a couple points in this post disturb me more than a bit. One, you start out by saying the following:

    “Christians, Catholics, men and women with same-sex attraction, advocates of Gay Marriage and dissenters of the same:

    The Gay Marriage debate is no debate.”

    In other words you are generalizing to the extreme here. Every reader fits one category or another in that list, and I do not think all of your points apply equally to all. I clearly do not support same-gender marriage (as evidenced by my recent re-post “Sashers and Social Justice,” which I originally wrote in 2008 but updated a month or so ago on my site), sobelieve me when I say that I am on your side regarding the legalization of what some call “marriage equality.”

    http://catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/sashers-and-social-justice-revisited/

    Having said that, though, I have a number of points that are a long ways from the abstractions you accuse us all of in that post, and I think you are incorrect to blatantly place the whole argument on a “what if” basis .It is far from that in my opinion. In places where this has become law, very concretely negative things have occurred, in Canada, one can barely speak out against homosexuality even within their own parishes, in Massachusetts a nearly 100 year old Catholic Charities operation had to shut down or be forced to adopt to LGBT couples, and it is not even legal in most of our United States as of yet.What will happen when it is? Those are not abstract examples. My article lists a few more for those who wish to peruse it, as well as my experiences on both sides of the issue over the years. This is a topic I know fairly well.

    My point is this–wildly flung generalizations, which you seem to be against and rightly so, are the very thing you use here to attempt proving your point. On the converse side, stating such things such as “To oppose the normalization of a lifestyle that leads to this degradation of the human person — specifically the same-sex attracted person — is no hate at all, but a love. Not a love most people want, but a desire for the good of the beloved nonetheless.”

    You are far from a Fred Phelps type, Marc, but the above statement has a smack or two of that attitude, even if you do not mean it to be so. Smoking for instance is bad, and few would argue that point, but one of the most conservative/traditional Catholic men’s groups here in the Twin Cities, the “Argument of the Month” club, just recently had a discussion on same-gender marriage and gave out free cigars and beer at the event! How “manly” of them–as if none of them were in the least aware that encouraging smoking of any kind could, just as you said about LGBT folks, give them shorter life spans and the like. Should we then quit treating HIV positive people because after all it was “their fault?” Because it is “for their own good” and someone may be deterred from gay sex because we are no longer enabling them by saving their lives due to bad life choices? How far does that thinking go? What about the future cancer patients who were regular Argument of the Month attenders and started smoking and perhaps become alcoholics to boot? Should we deny them health care too then? I think that the word “normalization” there (another vague generality) is what bothers me most in that statement. We can treat people as normal, which they are, give them basic, not special, rights, which they deserve, such as health care, hospital visitation to loved ones, and “live and let live” without normalizing anything. And that is not the same thing as supporting same-sex marriage. Bishop Tobin of PA, quite conservative I might add, would agree. He has proposed something called “reciprocal benefits” which fall short of supporting anyone’s lifestyle but keep the dignity of all people, whether SSA, actively LGBT, or straight. And I agree.

    Anyway I am one of your big fans in every way. But I think you are stepping into territory you may not have fully researched this time, Marc. OR–perhaps you were up too late studying for finals when you wrote this one. I agree with some of the readers who suggested to give this a rest for the moment. Not forever. Just for a bit. God bless.

    You are still my hero.

    • Rick DeLano

      “Should we then quit treating HIV positive people because after all it was “their fault?”

      >> What an absurdity. Not one syllable in the author’s post so much as suggests such a thing.

      I believe the term is “straw man”.

      • catholicboyrichard

        I agree that it is absurd. And that was my point. Marc’s posts, usually very concise, while not suggesting my particular scenario, was full of so many generalities that he basically at least SEEMED to be saying that neither side had concrete arguments. I took it one step further in my tongue-in-cheek remark about HIV, knowing full well neither Marc nor most of the readers would deny such treatment, but my point was and is that there are many concrete arguments being used in this discussion, which he at least appeared to be denying or at least minimizing the efforts of those of us who are attempting to fight this battle.

        BTW I am old enough when that argument was not considered absurd at all regarding HIV. It was said constantly and still is in some circles. Sad, isn’t it? And again, as I said, Marc is great, heroic, and I am a supporter of him. I just did not feel his points came across as clearly this time around as they needed to, which is very unusual for him. He does a phenomenal job of blogging. I said so as well. But please do not focus on that one sentence and miss my point here. My point is that there are many clear reasons out there to lovingly but firmly find alternatives to so-called “gay marriage.” And while the religious argument of marriage being a sacrament works for those of us who are Catholic Christians, it may not be the ones that outsiders will hear or listen to. Thanks for responding.

        • Rick DeLano

          CBR: I agree that it is absurd.

          >> Good.

          And that was my point. Marc’s posts, usually very concise, while not suggesting my particular scenario, was full of so many generalities that he basically at least SEEMED to be saying that neither side had concrete arguments.

          >> They said nothing even remotely approximating this.

          I took it one step further in my tongue-in-cheek remark about HIV, knowing full well neither Marc nor most of the readers would deny such treatment, but my point was and is that there are many concrete arguments being used in this discussion, which he at least appeared to be denying or at least minimizing the efforts of those of us who are attempting to fight this battle.

          >> To the extent that this is coherent, it seems to boil down to “some SSA’s are fighting to be Catholic”.

          To the extent they are doing so they can hope for eternal glory.

          But this has nothing at all to do with the subject of the piece.

          The piece has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the struggle of the victims of SSA who are attempting to be Catholic.

          It has to do with the Luciferian assault on humanity and civilization called same sex “marriage”.

  • ds

    From Mark Shea’s excellent “Christian Brownshirts on the March” post

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/05/christian-brownshirts-on-the-march.html

    he quotes a reader, I think this speaks to your point #4:

    A word about identity: I call myself gay. I am NOT defining myself on the basis of the fact that I’m sexually attracted to men instead of women. I’m defining myself by what makes me different from you. From the time I became aware of my fellow believers talking about this, the message has been clear: “Gays are not worthy of anything but death. You are contemptible, you are disgusting, you are loathsome. Because of WHAT you are (not what your temptations might lead you to do) you should die. I want to kill you.” Now I’m sure that if they knew I was gay, they wouldn’t have said such things (at least in front of me), but I’m equally certain that it would be because of social embarrassment rather than a change of heart. The point is that everyone else in my experience, when they spoke of gays, defined it as the most important thing about us. The fact that it’s now become fashionable for christians to claim that calling yourself gay is “so narrow and limiting” would be funny if it weren’t so sickening. Who the hell do you think created and imposed that definition, in the first place? It wasn’t me. My part in it was believing it for far too long. My part was taking you at your word. Hmmm, what do you suppose that does to trust? Does thinking that, what people say about gays is what they’re saying about me, make me a narcissist?

    • Gail Finke

      If that is an actual comment by a reader of Shea’s, he has a lot more problems than being gay. Being paranoid comes to mind.

      • Andiron

        Dear Gail,
        Sometimes, the best thing to say is nothing at all.
        Andiron

  • Guest

    Amazing that in 2012, someone would have the audacity to write something like this.

    Luckily, the internet is forever.

    Securing Marc’s deserved place in history.

    • Rick DeLano

      Speaking of places in history, I notice right off the bat that Marc posts under his own name.

      Your place in history is, I guess, the shadows.

      • Korou

        Won’t it be interesting to look at what smart Catholic commentators like Marc are saying in, say, another fifty years?

        In another fifty years, maybe people like Marc will be saying, “Gay Catholics getting married? Of course! Why would we be against that? What are you, some kind of fundamentalist?”

        Cultures change, and religions change with them.

  • Bjcub13

    Good article and well written. Finally, I meet somebody who understands that love is BOTH objective and subjective!

  • http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus

    In the early part of the 20th century there were no homosexuals, no heterosexuals, only men and women who behaved homosexually or heterosexually. If you were a man that we today call “gay” then back then you would have been a “man who engages in homosexual activities”. Objectification of these people and reducing their entire identity to a solitary, highly specific word has never been anything more than a ploy to sloganize and polarize the whole debate and reduce it to two sides shouting catchwords at each other as you state.

    • Korou

      In the early part of the twentieth century people who engaged in homosexual activities could only do so in secret, because if you were a man that we today call “gay” you would have been arrested and imprisoned if it was discovered that you were. Fortunately, by the early part of the twenty-first century there is no longer this danger, in many parts of the world.

      Hopefully by the early part of the twenty-second century being gay will no longer be an issue, and the people who are gay will no longer have to point out this part of themselves to combat prejudice against it – and will then be able to be humans who simply have a different sexual preference to normal people.

      Objectification of these people has been a “ploy” to make people aware that they are real humans, deserving of human rights and dignities like all of us; to make people aware that the people they know and respect in their daily lives are gay, and that that’s okay.

  • Mary Combs

    With all the defining insisted upon, there was never a clear distinction made between the sacrament of marriage and the civil marriage contract. Yes, the word is the same, but they are different things. As Marc said, the Church will never recognize millions of civil marriages because they take place between people who were previously in valid marriages and then procured divorces. In the eyes of the Church they could not remarry because they were still married to their first spouse. Although I’ve never heard of a Catholic hospital refusing to take the health insurance money from a spouse’s policy because in the eyes of the Church their marriage is not licit. They’re willing to reap the benefits from evil divorce laws.

    So, the sacrament of marriage is controlled by the Church, and the civil marriage contract is controlled by the state. Oddly, the Church in the U.S. will not marry a couple unless they have a civil marriage license, as though the Church does not have the courage of its own convictions. Perhaps this is why the Church thinks its doctrine should be enshrined in civil law.

    The current struggle is an excellent time to cut the final ties between the sacrament and the contract. You sign your contract at city hall. You are married in the eyes of the state. You go to church and make your vows. You are married in the eyes of the Church. End of turf wars. And why not marry couples in the Church alone if they meet Church requirements? It won’t get them any tax breaks of inheritance rights, but they have all the benefits of the sacrament.

  • Anonymous

    I’m curious if you’ve seen this: http://matthewvines.tumblr.com/ , and what your reaction to his arguments would be.

    • Korou

      So far I’ve really only worked my way through the first half. But I think it could do a lot of good in the world.

      I liked the bit where he said that Eve was made for Adam because she was a suitable mate for him – but this was because Adam happened to be a heterosexual. If he had been gay, God would have made a man to be his partner.

      Never thought of it that way before. Good point!

      To which of course you could say, “Yes, and then the human race would have ended with them.” Well, in that case, maybe God would have created some heterosexual people to be with them. And why not?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509610938 Brett Salkeld

    Sorry if someone has already commented on this, but I can’t read all 349 comments.
    I think it is a mistake to suggest that homosexuality is about where one wants to put one’s genitals. I agree with your attempt to avoid objectification, but I wonder if this implication is not counter-productive in that regard. Homosexual desire is for persons, not acts. Heterosexuals can put their genitals in the same places as homosexuals. “Homosexual acts,” then, does not mean things like anal sex in abstraction. Heterosexual people are perfectly capable of such acts. Homosexuals are attracted to persons with whom only certain acts are possible. They don’t want to “put their genitals” anywhere specific. I think this is an important distinction if we are to genuinely avoid objectifying.

  • http://twitter.com/caesarjbsquitti Caesar J. B. Squitti

    People in America are ‘free’ to engage in the behaviors they so chose as long as they are ‘legal’. That might be the stumbling block.

    Words should discriminate ? Do gay men discriminate against gay women ?

    As the devil’s advocate, tell me how many people would be in a marriage of bi-sexuals ?

  • http://twitter.com/caesarjbsquitti Caesar J. B. Squitti

    According to Judy Rebick, a very noted and powerful American born Canadian feminist, with strong ties in Canada’s National TV Network, she claims that ‘lesbians were at the heart of the feminist movement, even though they did not pursue their issues…”

    Well that seems logical, for in a day and age of equality we have such half-truths as, ‘stop violence against women’, and ‘child abuse, men who abuse, women and children victims’….so much for equality ?

  • http://twitter.com/caesarjbsquitti Caesar J. B. Squitti

    We must thank feminism, in particular ‘cult-feminism’ for showing us the way to the dark side of truth, you see truths can lie, (half-truth #2 not in your books) when the are part of the whole truth….perhaps confirmed the deception of Eve by the snake in the garden.

    Half-truths (#3) Literal half of a truth, sees, ‘we are all equal before God or the Law ” is miraculously transformed to ‘we are all equal’….consistent with Communist Ideology, and other agendas…

    We are all beautifully equal. No two men are equals, no two women are equals, women and mother are different and men and women are different.

    All men (and women) were born of woman, except Adam and Eve….so be careful ‘truths can lie’…in the form of half-truths of the types not in your dictionary, yet.

    (You can see the new forms on wikipedia, or in the research book, The Jesus Christ Code)

  • http://twitter.com/caesarjbsquitti Caesar J. B. Squitti

    The ‘media’ was made aware of these ‘half-truths’, truths that lie, some 20 years ago, and they have not only kept it their secret, but perhaps exposed an interest in promoting non-traditional values.

  • http://twitter.com/caesarjbsquitti Caesar J. B. Squitti

    The hidden network ?

    It becomes questionable how “The Church” has been over run by a hidden agenda. You can tell one’s color, one’s sex, but orientation ?

    Inside information suggests some Bishops, Cardinals, and others were part of the secrecy to protect ‘their own kind”…?

  • http://twitter.com/caesarjbsquitti Caesar J. B. Squitti

    We live in a day and space where generalized non-critical thinking has been ‘educated’ into our masses.

    The Truth is simply that; it is. We are all sinners, for sin comes in all colors of the rainbow, not to target one sin, at the exclusion of all others, further polarizing ourselves in society.

    Christianity comes with it a special rule, that brings this full circle. That which you do unto the least of mine, you do unto me…there is no room for disrespect in Christianity.

  • Billy Bean

    I wish I had this in a printable format.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marit.C.G Marit Gookin

    So, I have this friend who enthusiastically shares your blog entries on Facebook, &, as I told her, while I very rarely agree with you I enjoy reading them nonetheless. Your arguments are generally well-articulated and thought-provoking, making me consider why, where, and how I disagree. (This entry being an exception–you are completely correct, it’s time to stop shouting and start talking.)

  • Randy Caudill

    To anyone reading this article who might actually believe the propaganda about the gay lifestyle being “unhealthy”, remember to always check the sources. The actual study from BMC concluded that gay people (which includes all people who experience same-sex attraction, NOT just those who act on it) are at higher risk of depression and other mental disorders as a result of:
    - Institutionalized prejudice.
    - Social stress.
    - Social exclusion (even within families).
    - Anti-homosexual hatred and violence.

    This article is blatantly twisting the study for an anti-gay political agenda. The real problem is not “the gay lifestyle” — it’s hatred, prejudice, and dehumanization.

    The funny thing about this article is that it attacks “gay marriage advocates” but tries to pretend that it isn’t directly attacking gay people. In reality, most advocates of gay marriage are gay people who want to get married and would like equal treatment under the law. It’s that simple.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dnaaden Douglas J. Naaden

      The “hatred, prejudice, and dehumanization” that Christianity under went when it first started, which included:
      - Institutionalized prejudice.
      - Social stress.
      - Social exclusion (even within families).
      - Anti-Christian hatred and violence.

      Didn’t cause depression and substance abuse… There is a book that is well researched and footnoted, “Sexual Wisdom” that talks more about a wider spectrum of things (mostly medical) that are harmful in sexually active same-sex relationships. Closing your eyes to the harm that is inherent with the gay lifestyle and screaming anti-gay! anti-gay! hate! hate! doesn’t help anyone. Not the gay guy, not the Christian, not anyone. It’s not love.

      • Randy Caudill

        In response to your first paragraph, I fail to understand how persecution of Christians is relevant to a conversation about sexual orientation. However, it’s highly likely that religious persecution does cause severe depression and other mental disorders. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/u0720u266780586x/, http://mpmedia.xpr.ca/media/The_Overlooked_Demographic_-_A_Report_on_the_Impact_of_Religious_Persecution_on_Children.pdf, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014521349190068O)

        Please elaborate on what is inherently harmful about the “gay lifestyle”. The APA (and many other psychological research organizations) have concluded that homosexuality is not inherently linked to any psychopathology and that it represents a completely normal form of human bonding. If you’d like to go against the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus on the subject, you may want to present some credible evidence to support your point of view.

        Oh… and please don’t start by mentioning HIV/AIDS. That’s just as offensive as claiming that African people groups are inferior because of the high epidemiology of AIDS in some of their communities. Let’s just be nice and not go there.

        • barry waterfield

          As I have said earlier, this obsession with homosexuality is fairly common amongst religious groups particularly in America. I don’t share their views and I think it’s fairly safe to say that the majority of people don’t feel drawn to this the least attractive of all Christian characteristics. The gays have their place and it is for God to decide who has fulfilled his promise on this earth. The task has not been allotted to any preacher on either side of the Atlantic. One interesting point for Heterosexual people to consider is the latest facts concerning cervical cancer, one of the triggers can be the male sexual disposition. I’ll go no further with that but most medical journals have details. Something for the ”normal ” boys to worry about I think.

      • barry waterfield

        There are things inherent in a gay lifestyle that can cause problems but then there are problems in a smokers lifestyle, or a drinkers, a motor racers, or a boxers. You are being patronising sir and it is detectable. These people are as loved by God as you have no doubt . There used to be a book when I was a boy that preached about the harm done by masturbation, I never believed a word of it but strangely my father did, well we now know who got it right I think. Leave the gays alone and look to the moat in your own eye.

    • Erombal

      Actually in mine and my friend’s experience the gay marriage advocates have been mostly straight people that view this debate as on par with the African American civil rights movement WHICH IT SO IS NOT.

      • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

        It may not be equal, as in the numbers aren’t quite the same, but there’s a very obvious corollary between the two which makes them worth comparing.

      • barry waterfield

        I don’t view it that way. I view it from a different perspective. God, and only God, however or whoever you perceive God to be, knows the secrets of all our hearts. I think the Gays are silly to want to get married, after all it so frequently is a most unhappy and, outside of its earthly context , unnatural state, but if they wish to, it is impossible to stop them. You see marriage, or true partnership, is not demonstrated by a piece of paper or indeed a fancy ceremony with preacher, music and fine words. A true bonding, is made in heaven, and it is quite impossible resist or to ” put asunder ” If God intends two people to be together that is how they will be. People who rely too much on a book, be it the Bible or even something as simple as the highway code, are usually unable to understand or be ready to interpret the unexpected in Gods wonderful world.Judge not lest you yourself be judged.

    • barry waterfield

      I don’t have a problem with the gays but I take your point a lot of Christians do and, it is the number one obsession with religious America. The points you raise make sense. I think you will find that the writer of this article is very much as a ship flying under false colours. They have deliberately made themselves seem tolerant but underneath I sense a fairly harsh totalitarian. Something of a wolf in sheeps clothing if I’m not mistaken. I have for a long time considered that the gays may well in fact be beloved in Christ for they are persecuted without good cause. God is the only one who knows the secrets of all our hearts or indeed which of us will enter the kingdom of heaven. We may get some surprises.

  • kittylu

    All Americans should be allowed to marry, it might actually lower the divorce rate.

  • http://twitter.com/RyanNX211 Thomas J. Ryan

    Let’s start by stop using the word “Gender.”
    Words have gender, not people

  • Estragon

    If its a sacrament, then don’t let atheists get married, they certainly arn’t man for the sake of God. Its backwards logic to say marriage, although spawned from religion, is innately and organically religious in the current culture. Which makes it an entirely political issue. Which makes it an entirely stupid political issue.

    Love is realizing that the afterlife is intangible to a living human. Recognizing that you can believe with all of your being, due to the limitations of your existence, can’t honestly know. Know is absolute, and unyielding. Doubt will cause acceptance, and perhaps down the road the love.

  • musiciangirl591

    my best friend sent me a message yesterday congratulating me and my boyfriend’s three month anniversary, it said this “I wish you gayfullness(old sense of the word) in your relationship.”, i prefer calling “gay and lesbians” men and women with SSA, because in my mind, gay means happy

  • Gail Finke

    Is anybody but me bothered by the fact that this topic consistently brings out bizarre comments about the meaning of marriage, the legal aspects of marriage, the benefits granted by society to married couples, etc., that have nothing at all to do with what one would have discussed about marriage for… say… ALL OF TIME before the last 20 years or so? People profess to be bewildered by the idea that marriage ever had a definition in the first place, and to be incensed by anyone’s quaint ideas that it has anything at all to do with procreation. The definition of marriage is quite clear to anyone in the world except a highly educated Western person, to whom it seems to have become unspeakably complicated, so complicated that no mortal can hope to understand it. Give me a break.

  • Miss Doyle

    Funny thing is, the legal definition doesn’t actually stipulate that you have to be straight to get married. It only says you’ve got to have one man, and one woman. Doesn’t actually require you to be straight.
    So technically a same-sex attracted person CAN get married legally – just not to someone of the same sex.
    The state has never cared about feelings either. The law doesn’t state that you have to be ‘in love’ to get married. So a legal marriage isn’t about feelings – despite what some SSA people say. Feelings just don’t cut it.

  • Peter Seebach

    Problem #1: People who are denied basic civil rights are often sad.
    Problem #2: People who are killed for being who they are tend not to live as long.
    Solution: Support continued denial of basic rights for these people, and endorse hostility and contempt towards them, so we can say that we are protecting them from being sad or dying young.

    Seriously, there is a fundamental disconnect here, not least in the totally implausible assumption that recognizing gay relationships legally will somehow increase the number of gays. It won’t. It would, however, reduce the risks they face.

    These are not inherent qualities of “gayness”; they are what our society does to gays, and you’re contributing to it. Not out of hate, perhaps, but certainly out of lack of careful consideration.

  • http://kirikili.livejournal.com/ Mimi C.

    It wasn’t my intention for this response to come off as angry or combative, but if it does it’s because I care strongly about the issue. Besides the first bit I am critiquing your use of outside sources and pointing out parts of the argument you ignored or misrepresented, but it might not have come off as such.

    First of all, and perhaps foremost of all, the issue of Gay Marriage, in capitals because it has become Important and such, and capitalized phrases seem to be in vogue around these parts of the Internet, is the subset of a larger body of issues that focusing on marriage equality seems to ignore. Simply, people who are attracted to people of their own gender are a lesser-privileged group who are discriminated against, and shouldn’t be. Gay rights groups aren’t defining these people solely by their sexuality, they’re saying that because of this specific characteristic they are being discriminated against, just as Women’s rights and POC rights groups don’t expect these characteristics to define the people they’re defending.

    On top of that I take issue with your fact-finding:
    1) HIV/AIDS statistics: yours stem from findings that focus on the first epidemic waves of the 1980s and ’90s, where, yes, the young, urban, male, gay lifestyle of the time led to a high rate of HIV infection. That doesn’t take into account that lesbians were and are one of the least at-risk groups for HIV/AIDS, and they might want to be included in this ‘gay people’s rights’ debate.
    I will return to the lesbian issue later, because you know who else is disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS? African-Americans and Latino-Americans, even more so at this point because gay communities have received education and prevention methods that have decreased their rates. Saying that being gay alone, simply liking someone of your own gender, leads to a greater chance of catching HIV/AIDS is ignorant, and weakens any argument put forth. There are high-risk behaviors that leads to HIV/AIDS, and they are more widespread than the gay community.
    2) Depression Statistics: I will state now that the cause of depression among gay people could do with the fact that part of who they are – a part they can do nothing to change – is considered unnatural, deviant, and ‘disordered’. That the words used to describe them are also insults. That people who don’t know them don’t want them to marry, or go to the prom with, or hold the hands of the people they love in public. That they can be denied a job or housing because of what they are.
    This is a list of the privilege heterosexual people enjoy that gay people do not: Straight Privilege
    So I don’t think it’s necessarily being attracted to your own gender that’s the problem, it’s being attracted to your own gender in today’s society. And just in case anyone wants to point out this is why the ‘gay lifestyle’ shouldn’t be defended, here is a list of the privilege white people enjoy that people of color do not: White Privilege. It’s ridiculous to say the ‘people of color lifestyle’ shouldn’t be defended when this is a clear sign of injustice on the part of society, not the minority group.
    3) Lower Life Expectancy: when I searched for corresponding statistics, I found this article from the authors of the one you mentioned explicitly saying they never meant for it to be used in an argument against gay rights and also mentioning that those statistics specifically concerned the initial outbreaks when casual sex among all sexualities was common and HIV/AIDS was a relatively unknown disease that had been incubating for a decade or so before being discovered. Not modern lifestyles.

    Also lesbians. Your whole post seems to ignore their existence. And as a person who has a lesbian mother in a long-term committed relationship with another woman, I think that they do, in fact, exist, and should have a say in whether or not they can have a binding ceremony which transfers legal rights to their coupling.

    I do agree that marriage has become a tangled issue, and while I am in favor of transferring all legal powers to civil unions, making them available to any consenting couple of age who wants them, and making ‘marriage’ specifically a religion affair, I must point out that it has been separate from religion for centuries. This article, among others, shows that for much of history marriage was a civil and business affair, and only became sanctified by the Christian church in the 1500s-ish era. Also some of the early notions of religious marriage treated women literally as property to be transferred from one man to the next, so I agree with those who think it could do with some re-writing. But in today’s society it isn’t simply a joining of a man and woman in order to procreate, not with the legal standing attached to it, and to treat it as such comes off as naive and close-minded.

    Also, you refer to gender as sexuality. Asexual, pansexual, and the others are sexualities, not genders. You can have a transgender male-to-female woman who is a lesbian, and a trangender female-to-male man who likes women and identifies as straight.

  • Tandava

    Hey Marc, by your logic, none of the following were ever hateful: Laws banning interracial marriage and criminalizing interracial sex, laws prohibiting Catholics from holding office or worshipping in public, laws restricting Jews from certain trades or to certain locations, etcetera. Why not? Because at some point in time, they had majority support. Therefore, it was never done out of hatred, but out of “love” for the people ensnared in sinful relationships and religions. Protestants burned Catholics out of love, Marc, and out of a fierce desire to prevent them from leading millions more into a sinful, heretical lifestyle that would result in eternal hellfire. Wow, your post here is so enlightening, I am sure it changed many minds.

  • Wyle

    Marc, you throw around scientific articles as if you understand research methods.

    You posted this “For we know that the gay lifestyle leads to a higher risk of HIV, depression, substance abuse, and a generally lower life expectancy.”

    1. “The gay lifestyle leads to a higher risk of HIV”
    While this could be biologically true, it doesn’t account for the history of HIV in human populations (the virus entering their smaller population earlier than heterosexual population). From the same source your cited, we should not allow aboriginal people to get married because “Aboriginal persons account for a disproportionately high percentage of the individuals living with HIV infections in Canada.”

    Your statement is also lacking the acknowledgement that lesbians don’t transmit HIV to their partners. They seem superior to heterosexual couples in that regard. Should we allow lesbians to marry in regard to their superiority in STD prevention? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm

    2. In response to “depression, substance abuse”, i’ll let the author respond with their “Explanations for Our Findings” section.

    ” Unfortunately prospective studies were unusual among the 25 reviewed here and thus we cannot say much with certainty about the risk factors for mental disorder in LGB people. Nevertheless, it is likely that the social hostility, stigma and discrimination that most LGB people experience is at least part of the reason for the higher rates of psychological morbidity observed. This may be aggravated by easy access to alcohol and drugs in gay venues that LGB people frequent both to find the company of others who will accept them less critically and to meet potential partners.”

    3 “Generally lower life expectancy”, apply the first and second points here.

  • Barry Waterfield

    This has been an interesting column to read. I read through it late last night, – I live in England by the way, so my time frame may not be the same as yours – and I found it all very engaging. The one thing that I couldn’t find was the name of the person who wrote the introduction, perhaps I overlooked it, but I was most impressed with his clever and provocative style. Seemingly unconcerned and laid back ( smooth I think the modern term is ) but with an agenda forged in hardened steel never the less.

    Gay marriage seems to obsess the Christian church at the moment and tempers run high. I think marriage is a very selective and mutually exclusive thing, and whilst it may suit some I think there are others – such as myself and many many more – that find it claustrophobic. Marriages are made in heaven I believe, not on earth, no matter who presides at the ceremony, and ultimately God decides whether two people are made for each other, even two people of the same sex. Yes I believe that is very possible for two people of the same sex to be designed to work together, we none of us know the mind of God, not even the preacher.. I was conditioned from boyhood, mainly by my mother, to think in terms of being married one day, and the implication was that of course I would love it, with the right girl naturally. And the right girl turned out to be a catch clause, it was taken for granted that I would find the right girl to be exactly the same girl that my parents had in mind. There was no religious pressure in our home, just parental.

    Well, you can no doubt guess the rest. Mother and father have been long dead and I like a dutiful son am still living with their dream – a perfectly happy marriage – only it isn’t . Marriage is simply not for me but I’ve gone along with it. There are many, men perhaps rather more than women, that are like me, some, unlike me, were sure it would work, others were just led into it. They have tried to work with someone else’s dream and come unstuck. Are the Gays chasing a similar pipe dream I wonder ? They think they have a right to happiness,and they do, but will it be happiness? Most religions have a vested interest in marriage and it does have to be admitted that marriage is the best way to bring up a family, but they don’t have a family and frankly without that you can live as faithfully together regardless of a paper commitment or the opinion of a clergyman. My own view is, outside of the legal advantages, that it has a limited attraction for a great many men, it’s like moving from under one woman’s domination ( your mothers ) to the domination of another ( your wife, I accept it’s not quite that simple for the gays but you get my drift ),.I caution the Gays to think long and hard, sometimes what you wish for is what you get. I want your happiness but are you going the right way about it , I don’t

    know.,

  • BellaBeca

    I do not buy that you are coming from a place of love. As a bisexual woman (by the way, gender = male, female, intersex, transgender. sexuality = homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc. gender and sexuality are not terms that can be used interchangeably …quite frankly, this glaring oversight lends me to think that you have literally no idea where to even begin engaging intelligently in this issue), I simply cannot accept that you really “love” me, when you say that if I marry a man I get:

    -Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
    -Creating a “family partnership” under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
    -Inheriting a share of your spouse’s estate.
    -Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
    -Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
    -Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse — that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
    -Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
    -Receiving veterans’ and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
    -Receiving public assistance benefits.
    -Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse’s employer.
    -Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
    -Receiving wages, workers’ compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
    -Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
    -Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
    -Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
    -Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
    -Making burial or other final arrangements.
    -Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
    -Applying for joint foster care rights.
    -Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
    -Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
    -Living in neighborhoods zoned for “families only.”
    -Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
    -Receiving family rates for health, homeowners’, auto, and other types of insurance.
    -Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
    -Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
    -Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
    -Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
    -Receiving crime victims’ recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
    -Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
    -Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

    …..but not if I marry a woman? Denying me those things because you don’t like the kind of sex that I would engage in with a woman is wrong, and hurtful. It is hurtful when I hear priests say that homosexuality is an abomination. It hurts when people say “It’s ok to be gay, you just have to be celibate and never have a romantic relationship. That’s just you’re cross to bear!” And then how much it hurts when people compare it to drug abuse or alcoholism? How, how, HOW does that look like love? How does that honestly look like you want what is in the best interest of people? I get it….you think that people who are anything other than straight are hurting their souls with their sins. Would it make you feel better if we stopped calling it “marriage”? That you can have your sacrament and feel all special, but then all those things I listed above only come about by filling out paperwork at the courthouse? What HONESTLY would change about your church and your own marriage if this happend? If the countless countries who have already legalized gay marriage are any indication, I’m going to guess nothing.

  • Guest

    Marc – You said “Gay marriage has never been agreed to by the common people.” This is either a flat out lie or ignorance talking, but gay marriage was approved by popular vote in at least two states: Maine and Maryland

  • gell

    Hello every body,I just want to let you all know that having a broken heart is not an easy thing, but no matter how bad your situation may be, I want to let you all know that there is a way to get your ex chasing you around again,wanting to be with you, because this is exactly what I did when my boyfriend left me for someone else and I am happy today cause he is back. winexbackspell@gmail.com was were I got the chance to get my boyfriend back and I will also want you all to give it a try. I am so pleased with this help.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X