Marriage is Dying Because We are Killing It

Remember this? 

This was the million-strong march in support of traditional marriage that took place in Paris a few weeks ago. President Hollande said at the time that he would push gay marriage through, anyway.

And he did it.

This Associated Press story describes the vote in his Cabinet on the bill legalizing gay marriage that took place shortly after this protest. The bill is not law at this point, but this vote puts it on the way to becoming law. The story reads in part:

PARIS (AP) — President Francois Hollande’s Cabinet pushed ahead with a controversial French bill Wednesday that could see gay marriage legalized early next year, defying vocal opposition in the majority Catholic country from religious leaders, the rural heartland and the conservative opposition.

The French leader’s top ministers approved the bill legalizing marriage and adoption for same-sex couples, sending it to the legislature for debate, only one day after two American states, Maine and Maryland, became the first in the U.S. to approve same-sex marriage in a popular vote.

Gay marriage has become a contentious issue in France, where Hollande made it a liberal cornerstone of his campaign, hoping it would create a clean break from his conservative predecessor. At the time, it appeared to have the backing of a majority of the population, but it has since turned into a politically sensitive issue.

Though France would become the 12th country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage if the bill passes, the country of 60 million people would become the biggest so far in terms of economic and diplomatic influence. (Read more here.)

Yesterday, the British House of Commons passed a bill that would redefine marriage so that it is no longer between one man and one woman.

These changes in the law will, if they pass, effectively destroy marriage as a cradle for raising children in both France and the United Kingdom. I am going to argue that this destruction of marriage — and the concomitant destruction of its ability to create and raise children who become stable, productive adults — did not begin with gay marriage.

But that is the subject of another post.

What I want to say here is simpler, and it is not a statement. It is a question.

What price will we  pay for destroying marriage? 

Where will the absolute destruction of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman — people who, by the nature of their being, are capable of producing new life together — lead us?

We have been steadily trashing our marriages and our homes for decades.

The result has been waves of feral young people who are increasingly emotionally incapable and unwilling to marry and provide stable homes for their own children. The young people we are producing as a result of our destruction of marriage also appear to have a frighteningly high number of violent psychopaths in their midst; young men are willing to commit mass murder in our theaters and in our schools.

The solution which is being offered for these mass murders — gun control — is an attempt to lock everyone in a box because we find we cannot control these psychopaths in our midst. No one – no one – is willing to make the obvious link between these mass murders and the crumbling moral and social structure of our society.

Gay marriage did not start the destruction of marriage. Heterosexuals have done a fine job of that up to now all on their own. Sadly, gay marriage is not even the end of the attacks on marriage.

There are other depths we will plumb if we legalize gay marriage in a universal fashion. That is because gay marriage utterly unhinges marriage from its moorings as an institution designed to facilitate the creation and nurture of children and makes it a matter of fashion. Once we’ve legally established that marriage has nothing to do with protecting our young, there is no limit to the “rights” for marital experimentation that will be claimed.

Marriage is dying because we are killing it.

We’re killing it, and we’re the only ones who can bring it back to life. We need to stand for traditional marriage under the law. But perhaps even more importantly, we need to start living it in our lives.

  • Bill S

    “These changes in the law will, if they pass, effectively destroy marriage as a cradle for raising children in both France and the United Kingdom.” – Really???

    Good article. My marriage wasn’t always perfect, although it is closer to perfect now than at any time before. We’ve had gay marriage in Massachusetts for a number of years now. I know of one case where a woman left her husband for another woman. Did it make me despair my own marriage? Did my wife run off with another woman? Did my best friend and I leave our wives to marry each other?

    My son is gay, though I have never known him to have a partner. My experience with him has been that he didn’t take to sports, was bullied and called a faggot, prefers to hang out with women (he even has a female roommate who has a boyfriend) and won’t come over on Sundays if he knows that there is a Patriots game on TV.

    I don’t want him to end his life alone. I expect to be long gone by the end of his life. Who will care for him the way my wife will care for me and visa versa? Therefore, if he married another man, that would be fine with me.

    Fortunately, no one cares what Pope Benedict or Cardinal Sean O’Malley think about gay marriage. It is here to stay in Massachusetts.

    • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

      I also have never taken to sports, been bullied and called a faggot. Most of my friends are women, and I don’t much care for football.

      But I’m straight as an arrow. Most women I know have (for whatever reason) placed me solidly in the “friend zone.” My gay friends ask me, “Are you sure you’re not gay?” Some of them refuse to stop hitting on me, even after I’ve asked them to.

      I don’t particularly want to end my life alone. But I doubt I will, even if I never get married. I have a family that loves me, friends that care about me, and a broader support network that I can rely on. My life isn’t exactly as I’d ideally like it to be, but nobody’s is. Everybody’s life has aspects that they wish were different.

      Marriage is not essential to happiness, and is not a final solution to lonliness. It is one way – not the only way – to live a full and fulfilled human life. It has its own benefits and its own hardships. It is not a right that can be demanded in justice.

      • Bill S

        You sound exactly like my son. If you were living in Boston, you would probably just be assumed to be gay by default. When I say it is no big deal, I mean it is really no big deal.

        This might be presumptuous but I expect my two sons to be there for me when I am old. Niether is married and I wonder who will be there for them? One will probably get married and have kids if he ever gets out of law school. Maybe his kids will be there for both of them.

      • pagansister

        My husband was never into sports, nor is our son (who is married) or our son-in-law. None of them are gay. Many athletes have been homosexual, so the “into sports” really isn’t any way to measure whether a male (or female) is gay or not. In fact, my sister-in-law played basketball, and my husband could have cared less about any sports. Yes, she is married—and has 2 daughters, who played sports for a bit.

  • Sus

    There’s two issues that I see about marriage. One, people have the idea that when you are married, everything is hunky dory all the time. They don’t accept that you’ll have times in your relationship where it isn’t working. I’m not talking about about infidelity, substance abuse or domestic violence. I mean just living life. My marriage is pretty good but there have been times where I couldn’t stand my husband. I daydream about packing my car and driving west. I know there are times when I drive my husband nuts. You have to have the maturity to get through those times instead of divorcing. I’d probably be divorced 10 times by now if I gave in to those feelings.

    I hear that each person has to give 50/50. In my marriage, sometimes I’m giving 10% and he has to give 90. Other times I’m giving 90 and he’s giving 10 depending on what is happening in our lives. In the end, it will be 50/50 but day by day it isn’t.

    The second issue is that it’s now acceptable in society to make babies without being in a marriage. When I was growing up, it would have been the END OF THE WORLD if I came home pregnant and not married. My parents would have supported me in every single way but it still would have been the end of the world. That has changed.

    Our young people need every example they can get of a happy, loving and legal marriage between two people.

    • Bill S

      Well said.

    • pagansister

      Ditto to Bill S’s statement, Sus.

  • SteveP

    BillS: Contemporary arrogance is what suggests marriage as a remedy for loneliness. The trend in the US is for persons to dwell singly. That is their choice. Choosing a roommate is a different matter. Marriage, establishing a household that is multi-generational, is yet a third matter.

    • Bill S

      Well, the real question is “what is happening to marriage” and there is some confusion about:

      1. Gay marriage being as a result of the breakdown of traditional marriage.
      2. Gay marriage being a potential cause of the breakdown of traditional marriage.
      3. Any correlation at all between gay and traditional marriage.

      My answers to these are no, no and no.
      A multi-generational household is not in my son’s future. I expect that he will end up with a kind of long term roommate, male or female, that he may or may not choose to marry for reasons such as health care insurance, inheritence, taxes, etc. I can’t picture him adopting children. The most I could see him caring for is a cat (not even a dog).

      • Bill S

        “Another facet is, to be honest, a deep seated envy at the “privilege” accorded wife and husband.”

        Of course. When you say “envy” you could say a desire for the same. There is nothing wrong with wanting that privilege. Why should it be denied because people don’t want the definition of marriage to change?

        My two sons were raised Catholic, but I don’t think either would sense the presence of God. They did confirmation as if it was graduation.

        • SteveP

          BillS: “Privilege” is bad thing in the progressive mind as it is obtained only through oppression. To desire it is a sign a progressive is a closet conservative.

  • Mike

    “But perhaps even more importantly, we need to start living it in our lives.”
    Yup that about sums it up. Now, it’s time for us to act. Leah Libresco mentioned Covenant Marriage and I think she is on the right path there; so is Peter Hitchens.

    Bill S. you’re son isn’t gay; he is attracted to other men. And that’s hard. I’d never wish that on anybody but it happens to some people. Love him but please try to find the courage to tell him the truth about his feelings. Namely that they have been corrupted somewhere along the way. It isn’t his fault or yours but it is something that I am sure if he could he’d get rid of. Maybe one day people with these feelings if they are unwanted will be able to rid themselves of them but until that day comes it will be hard.

    • pagansister

      Mike, telling Bill S or anyone else who has a son/daughter who is attracted to their own gender that he needs to tell his son that he has been “corrupted somewhere along the way?” Corrupted? Seriously? How is that? He happens to have a son who finds males preferable to women—that is a problem how? You are assuming that Bill’s son is not happy with his reality. And I think from what I have read that Bill S. does love and accept his son just as he is. I happen to have a very good friend who is a lesbian with a partner and she is very happy with who she is. It’s life.

  • Bill S

    Mike,

    “Namely that they have been corrupted somewhere along the way. It isn’t his fault or yours but it is something that I am sure if he could he’d get rid of. ” ????

    If this represents the attitude of the Catholic Church then there is a great abyss between the Church and the rest of society. We need to bring in professional psychologists to treat everyone from the Pope down to the clergy.

    • Mike

      If it hurts to hear that then I am sorry (I didn’t mean to imply your son is corrupt.). If a boy begins to develop romantic feelings for another boy but begins to feel nothing for girls, it means there is something wrong with that emotional response: it is in some way disordered. That is the moral appraisal of homosexual inclination of the RCC; I don’t really think it’s controversial. Not among faithful Catholics anyway, I don’t know if you are.

      As for your son or any other gay male: I’ve know a few and not one, not one chose it. It happened to them; they didn’t want it. Some come to accept it and take on a political identify called gay; some do not. Look if it stings too much to think that people don’t choose this and would if they could change then maybe it is you who should take a step back and think about it with a clear head. Again please don’t interpret corrupted to imply him in any way. Think about it like this: if you were attracted to only inanimate objects or to young people, your sexual response would be disordered.

      • pagansister

        “It happened to them” Mike. You make it sound as if they developed a disease or something. IMO, and that of many who are smarter than I am, homosexuals are born homosexual—heterosexuals are born heterosexual. Think about it, with the attitude many still hold towards gay and lesbian people, I expect that those who don’t “come to accept it” do so because of the attitude many still have towards them—from many churches and many governments. Thus they attempt to “change” to what is considered “not disordered” being heterosexual. I know you were responding to Bill S., but somehow I couldn’t let the ” it happened to them” statement regarding homosexuality just slide by.

        • Mike

          Well in some instances yes it is or can be like a disease. Honestly, seriously, if I started developing those feelings towards only men I’d go crazy and would do anything to have my life back. I’d think I’d been infected with something. Please don’t construe this to mean everyone sees it this way or that it is an infection I am just pointing out that in some instances sure it can feel that way legitimately.

    • Dan

      And we should care for Society’s will? There’ve been other times in which the Church, clergy and laity, were not in line with societal mores. Augustine said that society -the world-, in every day and age, will be in some way conflicted with the Church and magisterium; this day is no different.

      • Bill S

        “There’ve been other times in which the Church, clergy and laity, were not in line with societal mores.”

        Yeah, but it’s getting worse and worse. The Church once had a hand in or was the sole source of societal mores. But science and progress showed us a better way. Now the Church is just totally out of touch with the real world. Just look at issues like abortion, gay marriage, invitro fertilization, stem cell research and the biggest laugher of them all, contraception.

  • Bill S

    Mike,

    In a nutshell, the RCC’s teaching that homosexuality is disordered is of itself disordered. To understand this, one need only consult the experts in the field of psychology. If you accept the teaching of the RCC over the opinions of professional psychologists then you fall into a certain category of believers who place religious beliefs over scientific facts.

    I’m not offended by anything you have said but I strongly disagree with both you and the RCC. Those who sincerely believe that the Pope is infallible and that the RCC is guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot err on matters of morality are severely mistaken. And I am not saying that just because my son is gay. I am saying it based on the findings of professionals who know that your kind of approach to sexuality does more harm than good. Again I am not upset at you but I am at the RCC which is the source of you erroneous thinking.

    • Dan

      And our wondrous psychologists have said, what, exactly?
      They define a disorder as a condition that has the potential to cause serious inconvenience, injury or harm to the person who has it and those around them (given their environmental and social circumstances, etc.). They say *nothing* about homosexuality in regards to its moral character, nor how it may lead to acts that are immoral. The teaching of the Church in regards to homosexuality, that it is an inclination that is ordered towards a moral ill (and thus can be deemed a dis-order) is a plain statement regarding the nature of the inclination towards morality. That’s a field the APA has little standing in.

      The reasoning behind this stems from the concept of *Telos* which can be found in philosophical thought all the way from Aristotle through Aquinas, Scotus & the Scholastics, to the present day. Another thing you should know about the Church’s ethics is that they generally emphasize virtue ethics in contrast with utilitarian ethics. Perhaps you might take a while to read up on the concepts? I’d recommend *Aquinas* an Oxford Press Beginner’s Guide, if you’re not familiar with the subject.

      The professionals you speak of can only assert that the Church’s doctrines have some form of moderately adverse impact on the homosexual, but can in no way state that the position or the body expounding on it are wrong, right, moral, immoral, amoral, or what-have-you. They can say this of any institution that has policies that rub a certain subset of people the wrong way, but they cannot offer a moral judgement of “ordered” or “disordered” only normative and disruptive.

      Your upset at the Church finds its roots in psychological assessments that have moral meaning in utilitarian systems. My frustration arises when ‘activists’ in the Church conflate morality with temporal pleasure, and moral stances with tribulation; my irritation’s sparked when people try to use my sexuality and personal trials as means of passing judgement on the Church.

    • Rick

      You’re conflating two different definitions of disordered. The Catholic Church and the American Psychological Association define disordered in different ways. The Church is using a philosophical definition. It doesn’t make sense to me to argue against the Catholic concept by using a psychologist’s definition.

    • Mike

      It doesn’t matter to you I am sure, but my appraisal of the homosexual inclination has NOTHING to do with what the RCC says about it. Buddhists are vehemently against it. What led me to the conclusion was my own philosophical, moral reasoning about human bodies, purpose etc. etc. Really the RCC is only recognizing something that exists out there so to speak; it did not invite the judgement that homosexual inclinations are disordered. Actually if you think about it with a clear head it’s easy to see.

  • Bill S

    “BillS: “Privilege” is bad thing in the progressive mind as it is obtained only through oppression. To desire it is a sign a progressive is a closet conservative.”

    I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Your the one who used “privilege” in a sentence that I thought I understood quite well.

  • Bill S

    Dan,

    I had you up to:

    “my irritation’s sparked when people try to use my sexuality and personal trials as means of passing judgement on the Church”.

    I’m afraid I don’t know what you are saying. Are you saying that you are gay and you don’t appreciate my taking on the RCC in defense of gays? I should tell you that my morality is strictly utilitarian.

  • FW Ken

    I’ve not done a thorough study, but it seems from my limited reading that economic prosperity correlates positively with lower birth rates, including social tolerance towards contraception, abortion, and same-sex relationships. That makes intuitive sense, given that children are assets in a struggling society, and deficits when material comfort enables a society to turn to pleasure.

    In the modern world, acceptance of contraception by protestant and Orthodox churches began a process of which same-sex marriage is only the most recent symptom.

    • Bill S

      OK. The first paragraph was a great observation. The second however is somewhat slanted toward blaming contraception for same-sex marriage, which has no need for contraception. If you are pointing at the whole concept of marriage without children, then fine, it can work now in any kind of marriage. So, what is the problem. Are you afraid of a population implosion instead of the explosion that we do have?

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        We are actually already in a population implosion rather than an explosion (at least in the so-called First World) and that is a major part of our economic problems.

  • pagansister

    There have always been same gender couples who have lived together for centuries. Many would just say they were “good friends”. Many of them were probably lovers as well as friends. As it was unacceptable, it was “hush-hush”. It’s true that same gender couples can’t biologically reproduce, but marriage doesn’t automatically mean that children are a requirement—many heterosexual couples choose to not have children. Some of those same gender couples have been together longer than many heterosexual couples. I have no fear that there is going to be a lack of children being born in this world—and if 2 consenting adults wish to marry, who really cares whether they are heterosexual or homosexual? If same gender couples wish to adopt or have a child some other way—to love and raise—why is that a problem? Children need love as well as food, clothing and shelter to live—–loving couples can hopefully provide that. Good for France and the other countries as well as the states here that allow 2 consenting people to marry—never mind the gender combination.

  • FW Ken

    But being born with a condition means it did “just happen to you”. And in a born where babies are born without brains, how do we assume a genetic cause (which had no basis in science anyway) is somehow good and normal?

    I’m fact, people who live out their homosexual urges are more prone to physical and mental problems and generally live shorter lives. I haven’t seen statistics, but the older gay men I know (and I know a fair few) are desperately lonely and unhappy. Their sex lives consist of such tricks as they can find for a reasonable price. Their social lives are limited to a few gay friends who are as miserable as they are. That’s the reality behind all the cockamamie social theories that are based on pity and defensiveness rather than facts.

    • Bill S

      “And in a born where babies are born without brains, how do we assume a genetic cause (which had no basis in science anyway) is somehow good and normal?”

      What???? Now we are comparing people born gay to babies born without brains?

      “I haven’t seen statistics, but…”

      No, you haven’t and your whole last paragragh is bigotted and insulting.

      “Their sex lives consist of such tricks as they can find for a reasonable price.”

      Yeah, and we’re going to pay attention to your posts why?

    • pagansister

      And then there are the older “gay” men (and women) who have been with their partners for over 40-50 years, longer than a lot of heterosexual marriages. How many older heterosexual men(women0 are lonely etc? That point didn’t seem to make any sense to me.

  • SteveP

    Rebecca:
    This paragraph is sobering:

    The result has been waves of feral young people who are increasingly emotionally incapable and unwilling to marry and provide stable homes for their own children. The young people we are producing as a result of our destruction of marriage also appear to have a frighteningly high number of violent psychopaths in their midst; young men are willing to commit mass murder in our theaters and in our schools.

    I’ve no answer having pondered it for a bit.

  • FW Ken

    BillS-

    I take it you lack a rational response to my point, but then you have shown yourself repeatedly to lack wit and honesty to deal with facts. You have nothing healthy or constructive to add, so feel free to ignore me.

    The problem is that you are peddling poison, which is killing people I like. I suppose it makes you feel good to be so superior to the rest of us, but your sick ideology is hurting people.

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

    Sometimes I wonder if I’m coming to Rebeeca’s blogs or Bill S’s blogs. Does he hijack all your blogs?

    • pagansister

      Such a problem. :-)

  • FW Ken

    The manipulation in BillS’ shock and disgust is worth noting. Of course, I didn’t compare anencephaly and same-sex attraction, but noted that “born that way” doesn’t necessarily mean “normal”. But moral righteousness is so much fun, eh, Bill.

    You almost got the second part right. Anecdotes are not proof of a statement. However, gays not driven to fit into heterosexual social norms are quite honest about tricking. Certainly my gay friends are.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I’m just throwing this out there. People with bi-polar disorder and paranoid schizophrenics certainly didn’t “ask” for their problems. They may very well have been “born that way.” There is much more evidence that they were, indeed, “born that way” than there is for homosexuality being an inherited problem.

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        I’m putting this in a separate combox for clarity. There is no evidence I know of that homosexuality is an inherited disorder. In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. One study I’ve read about, of identical twins who were raised apart, showed that there was a small increase in the incidence in both twins being homosexual if one was, (I can’t remember the number right now) but most of the time, if one twin was homosexual, the other was not.

        What that implies is that there may be a set of inheritable personality traits that make a child susceptible to this disorder (and yes, I do think it is a sexual/emotional disorder, albeit a widespread disorder that does not stop people who fall prey to it from being productive citizens) but while the child may be susceptible due to heredity, the fact that identical twins who are raised apart are not both homosexual if one is, indicates that there are other factors in the child’s history and environment that lead to the development of homosexuality.

        None of what I’m saying is to gainsay that homosexuals do not “ask” for their homosexuality. I think that’s absolutely true.

        • SteveP

          The “homosexuality is innate” tactic is solely to push an equivalence with race, specifically in the United States, to equate the experience of homosexuals and the experience of persons of color.
          .
          This tactic, to wrap yourself in another person’s struggle, is incredibly insensitive, self-centered, and just plain rude. Biological materialism has the same contemporary standing as phrenology did 120 years ago: its adherents are fanatics. Call them on it.

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

          I’m familiar with that study Rebecca. I’m going by memory but I think the results were the following: Fraternal twins had a 25% chance of both being gay while identical twins had a 50% chance of both being gay. That is a very interesting outcome. The 25% chance of fraternal twins being gay is way higher than any two people in the general population (which I think is 1.7%). That would suggest a environmental component to being gay. However 50% of identical twins being double that of fraternal twins suggests that there is a genetic component to being gay. The fact that identical twins are NOT a 100% definitely proves it is not all genetic. Take all that together and it means there are both environmental and genetic components to a complex phenomena. It’s not clear what those environmental conditions have to be.

          It is my contention (and take this as only my theory) that the more we make homosexuality acceptable in the culture, the more the environmental conditions allow for those with the genetic predisposition to express itself. I think it has been shown that adopted children with homosexual parents have a higher incidence of homosexuality than the general population.

        • Mike

          True well probably like 95% of people don’t ask for it, although some do, but some also volunteer for it in the sense that they choose to act on certain impulses rather than try to make them go away. Percentages, well who knows, most by far do not like you say ask for this but that’s really beside the point as to its moral character.

  • Bill S

    ” There is much more evidence that they were, indeed, “born that way” than there is for homosexuality being an inherited problem.”

    Problem. Really. My 31 year old son who has a degree from Berkelee School of Music, who has gotten all kinds of rewards and promotions, who wouldn’t hurt a fly, who is taking lessons in improv and standup comedy, who wanted to be a priest when he was 7, has a problem? I don’t think so.

    The Catholic Church, which tries to tell everyone how they must live their own lives but can’t control but harbors pedophiles, that’s the one with the problem.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Bill, your son sounds like a wonderful person in very many ways and it’s really great that you love him so much (and I mean that sincerely), but it is completely illogical to say, “Because person X has proven to be extremely successful as evidenced by Exhibit A, B & C, and because he is funny and peaceful, he can’t possibly have any serious problem.” I would think that history has provided abundant counterexamples to that.

      In fact, I will tell you straight up: we all have problems. If we try to say that we (or someone else) are perfect, we are only kidding ourselves.

      • Bill S

        Even if he has problems, being gay isn’t one of them. You are just going with the Catholic teachings and not even the advice of professionals would convince you to do otherwise. I drank the Kool-Aid a long time ago but I survived it. You’ve swallowed the Church teachings hook, line and sinker. You’re really not able to reason something like this out because you know up front what the conclusion of your reasoning has to be. Thanks for trying to help, but I don’t need your help.

        • Dave

          Bill, it is true. I will “swallow” anything that Jesus proposes to me through the Church. Anyway, I have made my point. You don’t believe that there is anything wrong with homosexual activity. Fine…but the reason you believe that isn’t (or shouldn’t be) because he is a good person in many other ways.

          • Bill S

            The reason that I believe, as well as qualified experts on the subject, that sexual activity between consenting adults, of the same or different sex, is between them and no one elses business and there is nothing disordered about it despite what some religious leaders might have to say on the matter. And, as I said before, the Church’s condemnation of homosexual acts is in and of itself disordered what some might call evil. Not to mention hypocritical since it is rampant in supposedly celebate religious men and women.

            • Bill S

              Sorry, Again:

              The reason that I believe, as well as qualified experts on the subject, that sexual activity between consenting adults, of the same or different sex, is between them and no one elses business and there is nothing disordered about it despite what some religious leaders might have to say on the matter, has nothing to do with whether I think they are good or not. And, as I said before, the Church’s condemnation of homosexual acts is in and of itself disordered what some might call evil. Not to mention hypocritical since it is rampant in supposedly celebate religious men and women.

  • pagansister

    Bill S., it sounds like your son is indeed a talented fellow! I know you are rightfully proud! :-)

    • Bill S

      How did you pick pagansister for a name?

      • pagansister

        Long story short, Bill S: My 2 (younger) sisters and I were brought up in the Methodist church. I started to have doubts as to the divinity of Jesus—the existence of a god, around the age of 17, but never expressed any doubts—things were fine—no problems. Went to college, meeting my husband to be there in our freshman year. He was born and raised in the UU church—his father the same, all the way back to England. Anyhow, he introduced me to another way of thinking—-which immediately made sense to me. We married in our 2nd year of college, in the church to please my folks—otherwise, secular would have been fine, finished college , had our children 4 & 7 years later. Raised them UU’s. Both my sisters have remained Christian. I never told my children that there was a god, as I didn’t want to lie to them. They got the Christian prospective from my parents, in Vacation bible School, when we visited in the summer. (different state). My lack of belief in the divinity of Jesus, and lack of certainly in a god (or goddess for that matter) and both my sisters being devote Christians (one more liberal than the other) I decided to call myself “pagansister” on line. I have been described by my more liberal sister as SBNR. I tend to agree. I attempt to respect other faiths and those that follow them. (doesn’t always work, depending). I do not worship gods or goddesses. TMI? Hope not–longer than I planned! Thanks for asking, BTW. :-)

        • Bill S

          Interesting. I was Catholic for 60 years but turned atheist after a long feud with my athiest brother over religion. I was so sure that I was right and I researched all of his sources to be able to anticipate his arguments. I ran into the four horsemen of the New Atheist Appocolypse and eventually was converted. I went through a deep depression and was even hospitalized. That’s how drastic a change it has been.

          • pagansister

            Your transition was much more traumatic than mine, Bill. Mine was gradual, and not having been immersed for 60 years in the Christian faith, it was perhaps easier too. I can understand, I think, that finding out that what you had been taught as “fact” and the only “true way” was indeed, not as advertized, if you will. I’m so pleased that you seem to have come thru it, with help. You’ve earned your atheist strips!

            • pagansister

              That should be “stripes” not strips! :-)

  • Sven

    Curses! I said “your” instead of “you’re”!

    • Sven

      And “define” instead of “defining”. I really should proofread my comments.

  • SteveP

    Sven: You might make a case that there is no correlation between mental illness in young men and the breakdown in marriage. You might make a case as to why a man has the right to another man’s pension. Outrage is so out of fashion.

  • Pingback: What Causes Homosexuality?

  • Ailina

    Marriage is dying because heterosexuals have been killing it for decades. No fault divorce. Premarital sex. Extramarital sex. Open marriages, swinging, polyamory. Common law relationships. Pornography. Artificial fertility methods. Artificial contraception that makes children completely optional. There is no moral compass when individual rights reign over any other kind of rights.

    All these have been practiced by heterosexuals long before the homosexual population started to insist on the property rights of marriage being recognized in their relationships. That is what the fight for marriage “equality” boils down to: property rights and privileges.

    As for the modern version of homosexuality…well, that is just a big social construct based on modern notions of romantic love. In the ancient world of the Old Testament, pederasty was the common form of homosexuality: sex between men and pubescent boys, in the army barracks where training took place. Men were the mentors; sex was expected with the boys under their charge. Then the men would go home and produce off-spring with their wives.

    Sexual orientation is fluid and entirely based on the views of the culture of the time.

    • pagansister

      Wow! Interesting prospective. :-(

  • Georgine

    Have you ever considered that the glorification of marriage might, in part, be the cause of the crisis that we are facing today? Perhaps if young Catholics were not taught from birth that the only desirable vocation was married, then it would not be that hard for those not called to be married to accept who they are? I will say that as a single person I have struggled long and hard with feelings of self-loathing to accept the fact that I was simply called by God to serve him as a single person. I have struggled mostly against the prejudices and pharisaical self-righteousness of married Catholics, despite the fact that they are supposedly my brothers and sisters in Christ. I was given, since birth, the impression that religious life, life without a husband, was the saddest life that anyone could ever live.

    Do you think the world could have been different if we, as Christians, had listened intently to the words of St. Paul when he said that the single life was superior because it gave one more freedom to serve God? When will the married persons in our church stop accusing and blaming others and start to look at the biases within themselves that might have contributed to this current crises?

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Georgine this sounds more like a problem with your choice of friends and your family than with the Church. Single life is a respectable and positive state. There is nothing wrong with it.

      What I am talking about is the societal sea-change we’ve seen where young people refuse to marry in mass because they have been emotionally and functionally damaged by our divorce culture and instead opt for cohabiting, unwed birth, hooking up and other self and societally destructive behaviors.

      I also am not speaking of the many young people who cannot find suitable Christian mates in our increasingly secular, anti-Christian society.

      These situations have nothing to do with a celibate single person who feels called to that life by God. If you feel truly called to the single life, you might look into the Consecrated Virgins. You can find their website here.

      • Georgine

        Rebecca,

        My “friends” are mostly devout Catholics. Oddly enough, the only time I feel accepted and valued is by people who are very non-religious. There is a severe intolerance and judgmental attitude in the Catholic church, particularly those who practice regularly.

        By the way, the hardest time of my life, in terms of accepting the fact that I was called to be single, was when I went to a Catholic university. The only time I feel accepted and okay with who I am is when I am around non-Catholics. Yes, I choose non-Catholics as my friends because I don’t like feeling constantly judged and non-valued.

        • Georgine

          I would also like to add that yes there are vocations like Consecrated Virgins but that does not necessarily mean that those vocations are celebrated by Catholics at large. Have you ever heard a priest say, “stand up consecrated single people and be acknowledged?” like they do for mother’s day, father’s day and marriage anniversaries? No, of course not, because as a corporate body, I do not believe those vocations are valued by the Catholic Church.

          At my university, the other girls treated the “single gals” like pariahs and acted like single-hood was a contagious horrible disease like the plague. I am sure that it is human nature to think that your vocation is the best one, but married people have no idea what it is like to be in the minority and to have your vocation insulted and spit upon your entire life by some of your closest friends and most practicing Catholics in general. As some commenter stated earlier, he feels sorry for his homosexual son because he doesn’t want to be lonely and alone. Again, the single life is the saddest thing ever for most Catholics.

          As for my family, they accept me. I haven’t really come out of the “single” closet yet and told them for sure that I am thinking of dedicating my single life to God. But my sister has told me that she and her husband would be there for me no matter what. I also believe that my other family members would be also. I do not believe that anyone among practicing Catholics in my parish would be, however. I think their attitude would be a long the lines of “find your own man” or something.

          • Bill S

            It does seem that Catholics fully expect that everyone should either be consecrated or get married and have lots of Catholic children to keep filling the collection baskets. When I learned (for certain) that my son was gay, the first thing I thought about was grandchildren and how I still have one more son to carry on the family name. It was a purely instinctive, Darwian reaction based on a sense of duty to pass on the genes.

            I have since told both my sons that the only thing I care about is their happiness and not to feel that they need to pass on my genes. Nature conditions us to act a certain way, but the secret to life is overcoming nature and seeking and finding happiness. Don’t listen to people who try to steer you in another direction.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            Georgine,
            I’m sorry for the bizarre set of people you apparently have around you. God calls some people to the single life, and so obviously, there is nothing wrong with it, and in fact it is the most beautiful state of life for those called to it. We should all dedicate our lives to God, whatever the state (married, single, consecrated) in which we find ourselves. I’m glad you have at least SOME people around you who support you.

            Single people, like consecrated, have something important to teach all of us – what we ultimately need is God and Him alone, and our ultimate fulfillment is not in another human being.

  • http://thomascwaters.com Thomas Waters

    I am trying to grasp the sentiments expressed here, and I just can’t get past how simplistic and flawed they are. Allowing same-sex couples the right to a civil marriage license isn’t “killing marriage as a cradle for raising children.” Divorce has been killing that for decades and decades and before divorce the way husbands owned their wives as property did it’s share of the damage. Ad, during slavery in the US, slave children where ripped from their mothers, precisely so that no attachments could be formed. Many of those babies were conceived as slave owners raped or had consensual sex with slaves. They could do whatever they wanted with their property. There is no such thing- nor never has been of some perfect marriage as a cradle for raising children.

    Catholics are trying to solve a problem that they can’t fix by keeping same-sex couples from equality in our Civil government. Catholics have every right to their theological views but our government is a civil thing, not a religious one.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Thomas, you’re new to this board. Why don’t you move on up to the more recent posts where you’re more likely to get a response to your comments?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X