If Church Teaching on Marriage Interests You, Here It Is

I try as much as possible to give you the chance to read original sources. This summary of Church teachings on marriage is not an original source.

However, it is from the USCCB web site. That means it is authoritative teaching, coming as it does from our bishops.

I am going to put the whole article here rather than try to excerpt it or interpret it. Have a read and think it through for yourselves. To see the original article or to find more resources, go to the USCCB website here.

Between Man And Woman:

Questions And Answers About

Marriage And Same-Sex Unions

Introduction

A growing movement today favors making those relationships commonly called same-sex unions the legal equivalent of marriage. This situation challenges Catholics—and all who seek the truth—to think deeply about the meaning of marriage, its purposes, and its value to individuals, families, and society. This kind of reflection, using reason and faith, is an appropriate starting point and framework for the current debate.

We, the Catholic bishops of the United States, offer here some basic truths to assist people in understanding Catholic teaching about marriage and to enable them to promote marriage and its sacredness.

1. What is marriage?

Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (seeCatechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], nos. 1602-1605). These truths about marriageare present in the order ofnature and can be perceived by the light of human reason. They have been confirmed by divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture.

2. What does our faith tell us about marriage?

Marriage comes from the loving hand of God, who fashioned both male and female in the divine image (see Gn 1:27).  A man “leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body” (Gn 2:24). The man recognizes the woman as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2:23). God blesses the man and woman and commands them to “be fertile and multiply” (Gn 1:28). Jesus reiterates these teachings from Genesis, saying, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh’” (Mk 10:6-8).

These biblical passages help us to appreciate God’s plan for marriage. It is an intimate union in which the spouses give themselves, as equal persons, completely and lovingly to one another. By their mutual gift of self, they cooperate with God in bringing children to life and in caring for them.

Marriage is both a natural institution and a sacred union because it is rooted in the divine plan for creation. In addition, the Church teaches that the valid marriage of baptized Christians is a sacrament—a saving reality. Jesus Christ made marriage a symbol of his love for his Church (see Eph 5:25-33). This means that a sacramental marriage lets the world see, in human terms, something of the faithful, creative, abundant, and self-emptying love of Christ. A true marriage in the Lord with his grace will bring the spouses to holiness. Their love, manifested in fidelity, passion, fertility, generosity, sacrifice, forgiveness, and healing, makes known God’s love in their family, communities, and society. This Christian meaning confirms and strengthens the human value of a marital union (see CCC, nos. 1612-1617; 1641-1642).

3. Why can marriage exist only between a man and a woman?

The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife (see CCC, nos. 1639-1640).

In marriage, husband and wife give themselves totally to each other in their masculinity and femininity (see CCC, no. 1643). They are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, fulfilling each other through this natural difference. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage.

4. Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage?

For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is notbased on the natural complementarity of male and female;it cannot cooperate with Godto create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by asame-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

5. Why is it so important to society that marriage be preserved as the exclusive union of a man and a woman?

Across times, cultures, and very different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family. The family, in turn, is the basic unit of society. Thus, marriage is a personal relationship with public significance. Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other.

The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.

Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.

When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution ofmarriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost.

6. Does denying marriage to homosexual persons demonstrate unjust discrimination and a lack of respect for them as persons?

It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so. To uphold God’s intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons “be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (no. 2358). It also encourages chaste friendships. “Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one’s neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all” (no. 2347).

7. Should persons who live in same-sex relationships be entitled to some of the same social and economic benefits given to married couples?

The state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage. Therefore, it can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others. Ultimately, the stability and flourishing of society is dependent on the stability and flourishing of healthy family life. The legal recognition of marriage, including the benefits associated with it, is not only about personal commitment, but also about the social commitment that husband and wife make to the well-being of society. It would be wrong to redefine marriage for the sake of providing benefits to those who cannot rightfully enter into marriage. Some benefits currently sought by persons in homosexual unions can already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example, individuals can agree to own property jointly with another, and they can generally designate anyone they choose to be a beneficiary of their will or to make health care decisions in case they become incompetent.

8. In light of the Church’s teaching about the truth and beauty of marriage, what should Catholics do?

There is to be no separation between one’s faith and life in either public or private realms. All Catholics should act on their beliefs with a well-formed conscience based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition. They should be a community of conscience within society. By their voice and their vote, they should contribute to society’s welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason and Gospel truth. Responsible citizenship is a virtue. Participation in the political process is a moral obligation. This is particularly urgent in light of the need to defend marriage and to oppose the legalization of same-sex unions as marriages. Married couples themselves, by the witness of their faithful, life-giving love, are the best advocates for marriage. By their example, they are the first teachers of the next generation about the dignity of marriage and the need to uphold it. As leaders of their family—which the Second Vatican Council called a “domestic church” (

Lumen Gentium, no. 11)—couples should bring their gifts as well as their needs to the larger Church. There, with the help of other couples and their pastors and collaborators, they can strengthen their commitment and sustain their sacrament over a lifetime.

Conclusion

Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage. Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children. The union of husband and wife becomes, over a lifetime

, a great good for themselves, their family, communities, and society. Marriage is a gift to be cherished and protected.For Further Reading

Second Vatican Council. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World(Gaudium et Spes), nos. 47-52. December 1965. Available online at www.vatican.va.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 369-373, nos. 1601-1666, and nos. 2331-2400. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops–Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000.

Pope John Paul II. On the Family (Familiaris Consortio). Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1982.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. July 2003. Available online at www.vatican.va.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Follow the Way of Love: A Pastoral Message of the U.S. Catholic Bishops to Families. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1993.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2003.


Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions was developed by the Committee on Marriage and Family Life of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their November 2003 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.

Msgr. William P. Fay
General Secretary, USCCB

Scripture texts used in this work are taken from the New American Bible, copyright © 1991, 1986, and 1970 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. 20017, and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.

Excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, copyright © 2000, Libreria Editrice Vaticana-United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc., Washington, D.C., are used with permission. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2003, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc., Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.

  • Pingback: If Church Teaching on Marriage Interests You, Here It Is | Love Advice

  • Sus

    Thank you for posting this Rebecca. I’ve read it and need to continue to read it.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      You’re welcome Sus. I’m glad you found it useful.

  • Bill S

    “In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.”

    Yes. That’s exactly what should happen. Psychologists do not consider homosexual activity to be disordered. It is accepted by society. There are homosexuals in government and in all walks of life.

    It is the Catholic Church’s teaching that is disordered. It is presumptuous to claim to be representing a supreme moral authority. Most Americans know that this is not the case.

    It is immoral for the Church to indoctrinate its members to condemn homosexuality. It is similar to parents passing on their prejudices to their children.

    The USCCB is wrong to pressure obedient American Catholics to vote against SSM. Its statements are nothing but self-righteous, bigoted propaganda.

    • SteveP

      BillS: You may want to be careful with the labels. “Same-sex marriage” does not have the consent of the governed in any state but two. What do you call it when an action is taken without consent? Why is it, for a certain set of people, “no” does not mean no?

      Of course you are free to call Catholics bigots if you wish. But you will need to concede that equally odious labels can be applied to “same-sex marriage” advocates. Likewise, given the unchanging bigotry you detect, you’ll need to embrace that bigots might be “born that way.”

      • Bill S

        “What do you call it when an action is taken without consent?”

        I suppose that it all depends on the action. The way the question is worded, it could be anything from a teenager going on a date without the permission of her parents to rape of some sort. Given the topic, without any more information, are you referring to homosexual acts that are performed outside of gay marriage which is only allowed in two states? Sorry, I lost you.

        As far as bigots being born that way, no one is born a bigot. It is a learned prejudice. I used to wonder why my father-in-law was so bigoted against blacks until I met his mother. The same type of prejudice exists against gays. And, sad to say, the Catholic Church not only doesn’t do anything to reverse this prejudice, but it encourages it. It is one of many Church scandals, along with the pedophile practices of the supposedly celibate clergy. The Church can condemn the homosexual acts performed by priests without attacking legitimately homosexual men and women who desire to be married.

        • SteveP

          BillS: Biological materialism, “born that way,” is an all-or-nothing proposition. What you observed as learning, according to biological determinism, is the manifestation of a genome. Or, in folksy terms, “the apple does not fall far from the tree.” In other words your father-in-law had no choice but to respond to his repulsion just as homosexual persons have no choice but to respond to their attraction.

          Regarding your charge of prejudice, I think you missed the sentence above: “Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.”

          • Bill S

            The opposition of homosexual acts is just something that we (including myself) have been conditioned to feel. We have to learn to move beyond this aversion and accept homosexuality, whether we like it or not. It is not our call. I am not a homosexual, so I don’t understand how someone can be attracted to someone of the same sex. But if there are people that are attracted to the same sex, who am I to try to deny them of their rights to marry? Internally, I myself may have a prejudice. But I don’t allow that prejudice to cause me to discriminate against people who are not like me.

            • SteveP

              BillS: There is a federal program called Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) supplying food to at-risk citizens. It has been known that some women will continue to use that program well after they stop lactating and well after post-partum.

              Suppose a man, seeing the benefit the woman received, argued that his exclusion from the program is discrimination – after all they are the same, the female has completed pregnancy and breastfeeding – what would your response be regarding the charge of discrimination?

              • Sus

                Steve, at-risk citizens can receive WIC whether they breastfeed or not. The program is for both the mom and the children. I think after the child turns 4, the program ends, unless the mom has another baby.

                Men can be eligible for the program if they are raising an infant without a mom.

                I’m not a WIC expert but from what I’ve read, I think what I wrote is true.

                • SteveP

                  Sus – Thanks. I agree with your assessment. I was attempting to point out that the W in WIC refers to pregnant or lactating females receiving nutrition support. A male will never be pregnant or lactating hence will never be eligible for WIC. Of course parents, male or female, can receive the benefit to spend on the infant or child as they are the guardian of the infant or child (the IC in WIC).

                  Does that help better reveal the parallel attempted? That is “same-sex unions” are to marriage as males are to WIC.

                  Cheers!

                  • Sus

                    I see the parallel now.

                    There’s a small exception. I don’t want to gross you out but men can lactate if they use a breast pump. It’s takes a long time and doesn’t always work, but there are cases of men breastfeeding. There’s a small faction of feminists who think all men should try to breastfeed their babies.

                    • SteveP

                      Now I know . . . I can say that I learned something today! I’ll modify “pregnant or lactating” to just pregnant in the future.

                      I do wonder why breastfeeding – creation or selection – was not divvied up between males and females; it seems to me that reproductive success requires getting the child to adulthood and doubling the number of persons who can feed an infant increases the likelihood the infant will survive. Just idle thoughts on my part.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        Bill has traded in the Magisterium of the Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit for the Magisterium of the “consensus of psychologists.” That’s like trading in a new Lamborghini for a 1985 Yugo.

        • Bill S

          You believe in the infallability of “the Magisterium of the Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit”. Many people do not. Our Founding Fathers were more removed from the Catholic Church than they were from King George III. The Church of England was far removed from the Pope and the Founding Fathers were far removed from having any church influencing its government. This country has at least two degrees of separation from the Catholic Church. Nothing that the Catholic Church wants carries any weight in the governing of this nation.

          Catholic aversion to gay marriage will not influence the decisions of either the majority of voters or the courts. I have decided not to live my life according to Church teachings but according to my conscience. In that regard, I see discrimination against gays as an “intrinsic evil” to quote an oft used phrase.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            Sorry, but there’s no such thing as “intrinsic evil” if there is no God. At best, there is a consensus among people that something is defined as “evil”

            Anyway, even if you don’t believe in the Magisterium of the Church, the “consensus of psychologists” is sure to disappoint. These same psychologists believed homosexuality was wrong 50 years ago, and 30 years ago they were advising Catholic bishops that serial abusers simply needed some therapy and they could be returned to parish work.

            The Founding Fathers did not want to institute a state church, and that’s good. But to say that they didn’t want any church “influencing its government” is going too far. They counted on contributions from individuals formed by the various churches. In fact, John Adams went so far as to say, “Our constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind.” Many other Founding Fathers said similar things.

            • Bill S

              Then I would venture to say that John Adams did not know enough irreligious people to understand that they too can be moral and can be governed by the same Constitution. Yes, immoral people are unsuited to be governed under the Constitution. But I don’t think anyone sincerely believes that irreligious people are unsuited.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      FWIW, psychologists did at one time consider homosexual tendencies to be disordered. They changed this, not due to any sort of scientific knowledge but in response to political pressure and as a result of a vote. For you to claim that the Church is immoral when it stands by 2,000 years of Christian teaching in this regard by saying that homosexual tendencies are a reflection of disordered sexuality is really over the top.

      If the Church doesn’t have the right of deciding what is moral or not, (your position, not mine) then exactly who are you to take this power onto yourself?

      • Bill S

        “FWIW, psychologists did at one time consider homosexual tendencies to be disordered. They changed this, not due to any sort of scientific knowledge but in response to political pressure and as a result of a vote.”

        All knowledge is more accurate today than in the past. We are always correcting ourselves. It’s not disordered now. That’s what matters.

        “For you to claim that the Church is immoral when it stands by 2,000 years of Christian teaching in this regard by saying that homosexual tendencies are a reflection of disordered sexuality is really over the top.”

        Unlike the psychologists who can correct themselves, the Church is unable to correct itself after 2,000 years of supposed infallable teaching. All you have to do is look at how many times the Church has been wrong over the centuries to see that 2,000 years means nothing. We are smarter today than we were years ago, let alone centuries ago. It is immoral to persist in wrongdoing. Condemning homosexuallity is wrong.

        “If the Church doesn’t have the right of deciding what is moral or not, (your position, not mine) then exactly who are you to take this power onto yourself?”

        This blog is all about stating opinions. I’m not trying to pontificate, which is what the Church does. I have dealt with Catholic morality for 60 years. I for one have had enough.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          “All knowledge is more accurate today than in the past. We are always correcting ourselves.”

          Did you miss the part about political pressure, not scientific knowledge? I’d say, among other things, you are very mistaken about “all knowledge is more accurate today than in the past.”
          And not just in matters of sexuality.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            I guess I need to follow up at least a little bit. Much of what passes as “knowledge” today is pushed on us by higher ups (whether that be big business or big government) for their own purposes (either $$$ or some other ulterior motive)

          • Bill S

            “Did you miss the part about political pressure, not scientific knowledge?”

            In a democratic society, political pressure is not necessarily a bad thing. And I doubt very much that psychologists changed their views based on political pressure and not the results of further study. Yes. New information supersedes old information and always for the better. We once thought of the world as flat and covered by a dome, then as the center of the universe with the sun and the planets revolving around it. We are always coming up with new and improved to replace old and outdated. They call it progress and religion almost always stands in its way.

            • SteveP

              2300 BC – Sodom; “No” does not mean no.
              2010 AD – Jerry Sandusky; “No” does not mean no.
              .
              Your belief in progress, BillS, is misguided.

  • Manny

    This was a great read. Thank you for posting it. It’s balanced and fair and makes perfect sense. One doesn’t even have to venture into religious beliefs to understand it. Genders are complementary based on natural design. Whatever causes homosexuality is no reason to discrimnate against them, but it de facto it rules out the possibility of marriage. If I were born with one leg it would de facto rule out that I could be a fireman.

    • Mike

      Manny, I suggest you google “one-legged fireman”. There’s more than one of them.
      I don’t know whether the comments support html, but you can cut and paste the following link to read a parable about one such fireman. In the parable, the magesterium is represented by the fireman’s chief.
      http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/1999/oct/07/feature-one-legged-professional-firefighter/?page=1&

      • Bill S

        Wow. That was a great story. Thank you for that link.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Well, ok, but you know the point I was making. There are certain characteristics which rule you out as qualified. As far as I’m concerned, two men or two women cannot constitute a marriage based on biology. If people of the same sex want to have a relationship, that’s their business.

        I also find it telling when people throw the word “bigot” around when something like this has thousands of years of common sense associated with it. If all you can do is throw inflamatory words around, it shows you there is no argument.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Thank you Manny.

  • SteveP

    Rebecca Hamilton: Thank you. I am always struck by:

    These truths about marriage are present in the order of nature and can be perceived by the light of human reason. They have been confirmed by divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture.

    Which gives primacy to observation and contemplation to be confirmed by, or guided by, scripture.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Thank you Steve. I knew that people didn’t need their thinking pre-disgested for them, that they could think for themselves if they were given the chance to read original sources. Thank you — and the other commenters — for showing me I was right.

      • Bill S

        “These truths about marriage are present in the order of nature and can be perceived by the light of human reason.”

        That is an interesting stance. I’m not so sure about that.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          “That is an interesting stance. I’m not so sure about that.”

          I think you need to take some more biology courses then.

          • Bill S

            I understand the biological advantage that heterosexual marriage has over homosexual marriage, but I don’t see that as a reason for making the latter illegal. Why is the former so threatened by the latter? I don’t see it.

            • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

              Bill,
              “Why is the former so threatened by the latter?”

              I think the bishops did a pretty good job answering that in their answers to questions 4 and 5.

              To expand a bit, I think that children really need that stable environment of a mother and a father. The biological parents are the best (generally speaking – of course some biological parents are not fit to be parents at all) because a bond is formed with them in utero, and very early on in their infancy. Our society now is seeing the increasing ill effects of generations formed in a culture of divorce and general devaluation of children.

              To redefine marriage such that it is simply any romantic attachment is another step reinforcing that culture of narcissism. It means that the children are just an optional accessory according to whether they are wanted or not, and that marriage itself is temporary by nature and based on the continued romantic feelings. In other words, you could almost say that contraception + divorce = same-sex marriage.

              • Bill S

                “In other words, you could almost say that contraception + divorce = same-sex marriage”.

                Boy, you are really grasping at straws with that equation!

                Dave,
                I don’t think that either you or I think that the government exists to micro-manage people’s lives. You may feel that it is important for a child to have a mother and a father, but that can’t be required by the government. Look at all the single parent households. There are perfectly qualified same sex couples who can raise children with the same proficiency as heterosexual couples. Jillian Michaels on The Biggest Loser is raising two children with another woman. No one would say that she is incapable of being a loving parent.

                This is just a Catholic prejudice that you are defending because you have no other choice.

                • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

                  OK, Bill, if you don’t agree that it’s important that a child have a mother and a father (much less that the ideal is the biological parents) then I’d say you need to study child development, or maybe study prison statistics as far as what percentage of those prisoners were raised in fatherless homes. But, I concede that I cannot convince you, if you do not think these things are important.

                • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

                  oh, and by the way, I wouldn’t put forward Jillian Michaels as your representative. I’d sooner be raised by an orangutan than have her as my parent. I’ve watched that show, and my brother-in-law was on the show(!), and that girl’s got issues…

                  • Bill S

                    Dave,

                    There are cases where children are better off without say an abusive father. There are also cases where same sex couples are just as qualified as opposite sex couples to raise children. The question is: Should the government have a right to insist that children not be raised by same sex couples. My answer to that is no.

                    • Bill S

                      Jillian Michaels can be tough, but she can also be gentle. Many people whose lives have been changed will swear by her. She can be very compassionate when that is the proper approach, then she can be like a drill seargent at other times.

                      I think she will be an excellent parent.

                    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

                      Yes, Bill, there are cases of almost anything, but that doesn’t change the norm or what is best. Neither of us can judge Jillian Michaels, so I don’t want to continue that tangent, but all I will say is that there’s a lot more to many celebrities than what you see on screen, and a lot of it is not good.

  • FW Ken

    After a long propaganda program, 47% of psychologists voted against removing same-sex attraction from the DSM (3, maybe?). I think that supports Rebecca’s contention that no science is actually involved. The early studies were not replicated, claims are made without foundation that gay people are born that way, as though birth defects don’t exist. The bait and switch tactics are endless.

  • Pingback: If Church Teaching on Marriage Interests You, Here It Is | Marriage Building California

  • FW Ken

    Actually, BillS, your history is as bogus as your science. The world was known to be round 1000s of years ago. Not everyone agreed, including our specific forebears. I suspect western fondness for Aristotle brought that on.

    Anyway, your opinions might matter if you made rational arguments. You would be more interesting at least.