J.R.R. Tolkien on Gay “Marriage”

J.R.R. Tolkien on Gay “Marriage” June 26, 2013

“I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ – though it contains some samples or glimpses of final victory.”

Can’t say I’m too surprised at SCOTUS. It generally reflects the culture broadly, whether with Dred Scot or Roe. Sometimes it runs a little ahead, sometimes lags behind where We the People have decided to stampede under the lash of pop culture and Big Think.

I will note that with this decision John Roberts does his bit to completely ice the crap cake of the Bush Administration. He was, of course, the reason we absolutely had to vote for W and support his catastrophic and unjust war and cheer for the Patriot Act and muscle down the mismanagement of the economy by him and Dick “Deficits Don’t Matter” Cheney and sell our souls to make excuses for torture. Because the far off carrot of Changing the Court has been dangled in front of us for 30 years. Indeed, we have viciously attacked those who refused voting for real evils today in the hope of some imaginary anti-Roe Court tomorrow. Actual real world result of “realistically” voting Republican instead of refusing to be played? Well, even though Roberts himself *said* “Roe is settled law” we told ourselves he didn’t really mean it and he was just saying that stuff to get past the Dems.

Since then, his three signal achievements have been approval of Obamacare, the Citizen’s United (“Giant Corporations are People Too!”) decision and now this. In short, O Social Conservatives, we sent our kids to suffer brain damage, a soaring military suicide rate, VA neglect, huge veteran unemployment rate from a grateful nation, and a bailed out corporatocracy for *this* guy.

I’m *so* done voting “realistically”. I’ll vote for people who do not tell me to do grave evil that good may come of it and nobody else. And if there are none. I will find some other way of engaging the culture than politically. As it is, I largely pay attention to politics for the same reason a general tries to be aware of enemy troop movements. Our Ruling Class is not your friend.

As to the gay “marriage” decision itself: If Caesar wants to lie to himself in his paperwork and pretend that there is such a thing as gay “marriage” I’ve never really believed I could stop him for long. And it’s not like Caesar doesn’t have a long habit of lying to himself and others. The problem, of course, will be when Caesar comes after those who refuse to join him in his lie by pretending that gay “marriage” exists. It has long been evident that the ruthless narcissism of the gay community will not be able to rest with mere tolerance. The whole reason for makeing gay “marriage” a matter of law and not of private pretend ceremonies in the first place is the demand that everybody in the universe be forced to agree to this narcissistic fantasy and punished if they do not. If some couple (or trio or quartet) wants to pretend to marry somebody of the same sex, or a warehouse, or a dolphin or a dog or a roller coaster or themselves (all of which have happened, Google it), it’s a free country. Nobody’s stopping you from playing pretend and you can indeed “define marriage however you like according to his or her conscience”. But be aware that when you do that, you are saying “marriage” means anything. And when you do that, you inevitably wind up meaning “marriage means nothing.”

And into the void left by the loss of all meaning for the word “marriage” can only step the assertion of raw power in order to force people to accept, not “what marriage means according to his or her conscience” but what Caesar forces us to believe at gunpoint, because that’s how Caesar imposes his will. But that seems to be okay with a Gay culture that has been rather clear that it *likes* the exercise of draconian power against those who refuse to believe in their hearts and profess with their mouths that homosex is the source and summit of all that noble, good, pure and righteous. So, for instance, this DOJ gay infomercial for employees instructs us that when a co-worker comes out silent tolerance is not enough. You. MUST. Approve! (“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”)

That is the shape of things to come. As a gay reader on another blog said, “You have to do what WE say now.” That’s where this is headed: toward finding a legal basis, not for tolerance, but for crushing those who will not join the pretense that there can ever be such a thing as gay “marriage” and who regard homosex as a sin.

Still and all, I will go ahead and say it: There is no such thing as gay “marriage”. Have all the trappings, enjoy all the civil benefits (I have no interest in trying to stop you). But just as baptizing a penguin does not make the penguin a Christian, so saying all the words and having the cake and the aesthetics does not make a marriage. I decline to pretend it does. And no one will ever make me.

""I cannot support a party who supports claims that there are more than two genders ..."

George Will and the Millstone of ..."
"No, Jack wouldn't agree. If abortion "went away" the real fight would then be between ..."

George Will and the Millstone of ..."
"You really are need to go read that all again. You got just about everything ..."

George Will and the Millstone of ..."
"Your Founding Fathers were either advocates of Englightenment "Deism" (or religious rationalists), practicing Christians. or ..."

George Will and the Millstone of ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • brian_in_brooklyn

    “Have all the trappings, enjoy all the civil benefits ” Thank you, because, despite all you say, that is all we ever wanted.

    • Stu

      No, it isn’t. (And if it were, what a shallow view of marriage in general.)

      This continues to be about acceptance and having society affirm a homosexual lifestyle.

      • brian_in_brooklyn

        Thanks for telling me what I think, Stu, I never would have know if you hadn’t told me.

        • Stu

          You were speaking for “we” above. That’s what I answered.

    • “Thank you, because, despite all you say, that is all we ever wanted.”

      No one thing is ever “all we ever wanted”, where progressive causes are concerned. There’s always something next. Always.

      Heck, just 10 years ago it was striking down sodomy laws that was “all we ever wanted”. In the very opinion that imposed this, in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy expressly denied that something like the DOMA decision (also authored by Kennedy) was where we were headed; similar denials were to be found everywhere at the time. Now that’s gone down the memory hole, of course, for what progressive person wants to be reminded that he once was (or pretended to be) an anti-marriage-equality bigot?

      • Newp Ort

        Care to document some of those denials? Not arguing, just curious wut people were saying.

        • I wish I had references close to hand, but I don’t…except to the Lawrence opinion itself, of course…and to the statements of many a politician who pretended to be opposed to same-sex marriage until the poll numbers swung far enough that way (see Obama, B.).

    • SteveP

      Regarding civil benefits, I am appalled that you think your “love”
      warrants an exemption from estate tax: why should my nephew, a college student, be penalized by the State for being my heritor? Do I not “love” him the correct way?

      • Newp Ort

        So go marry him, you whiner.

        • Stu

          Exactly. Just “marry” people to get around such obstacles. Now that it is becoming just state recognition of friendship, what do families, love or any of those things matter?

          • chezami

            Why, that’s like saying “marriage” is a word that now means nothing whatsoever. Who could have foreseen *that*?

      • I’ve yet to find a satisfactory answer to the two-part question:

        a) Is consummation required for a same-sex marriage to have full legal effect?
        b) If so, how do two people of the same sex effect consummation?

        My hunch is that these traditional considerations are to be abandoned; in which case, why not civilly marry a person you have no romantic interest in…at least until someone you do want to marry “for real” comes along (divorce being easy and cheap so long as emotions don’t get involved)?

        • Stu

          Yup. Civil marriage is now all about taxes and benefits.

        • Newp Ort

          Regarding b) I can recommend some videos, let me know if you’d like some links

          • Is that the answer you would have given the British Parliament when they couldn’t figure it out?

            “Because of legal difficulties in defining what acts constitute sex, the Coalition decided to omit the notion of adultery and consummation from the [same-sex marriage] bill.” — Daily Telegraph, 20 June

      • Newp Ort

        You could ask the same question of hetero married couples. are you arguing against gay marriage or estate law? both?

        • Stu

          Which brings up the question of what purpose does marriage serve and why does the state recognize it?

          Hint: It has nothing to do with taxes, health benefits or affirming your love to another.

          • chezami

            Ooh! Me! Me! Because the future of the species has something to do with the common good and the function of the state is to provide for the common good and not for the needs of narcissists to feel affirmed in their okayness?

            • Stu

              Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!

  • Stu


    Solid thought process from beginning to end.

  • Newp Ort

    “or a warehouse”

    Did you hear about the sailor on shore leave who couldn’t spell? He spent the night in a warehouse.

  • Robert Harris

    Regardless of what you think of gay marriage, DOMA was a farce, Mark, and anyone with half a brain knows it. DOMA would defend marriage insofar as the people wanting to get married would be limited to one man and one woman. Divorce? Still rampant, even among our brothers and sisters without and within the Church who would, were in their power, never suffer DOMA to be overturned. Ironically, the battle against that one thing which is often touted by the likes of you as being the true culprit in the attack against REAL marriages is nowhere to be found. In the words of Dolly Parton, get down off the cross, honey, someone needs the wood.

    • Stu

      “Ironically, the battle against that one thing which is often touted by the likes of you as being the true culprit in the attack against REAL marriages is nowhere to be found.”

      That’s because you usually go after the wolf closest to the sled. But indeed, the attack on marriage started with contraception and spread into this current assault.

      • Paxton Reis

        In the 1930s when the mainstream protestant denominations moved in favor of contraception, one point of argument in favor of their support was that access to birth control would strengthen marriages.

        • And one point of argument in favor of same-sex marriage has been that it would strengthen the institution of marriage. (See, for instance, the much-discussed article in the June issue of The Atlantic.)

          • Stu

            I have forgotten about that line of reasoning.

            Funny to see the parallels.

  • Robert Harris

    Also, the implication that the fight for gay marriage opened up the idea or even the inclination in one’s head to marry an inanimate object or an animal is beyond ludicrous. The ancestors of our species reached no end of God’s creation to stimulate himself sexually. The concept that one can create a contract with a non-consenting party doesn’t follow the concept of the license for action being consent (as you, Mark, are very keen to point out as a flaw in the current thinking of our popular culture) at all. Stop blaming and stigmatizing the gay community for things that have nothing to do with it.

  • KM

    My husband and I were talking about the following analogy last night: Dan White, who was raised Catholic, assassinated George Moscone and Harvey Milk in 1978, perhaps figuring that ridding the world of them would bring about good. However, White’s evil action resulted in the sainthood of Harvey Milk by California’s political elite to this day, and the long career of Democratic Mayor-turned-Senator Dianne Feinstein.

    So just as evil-for-good actions had their predictably bad consequences, so does voting-for-bad-so-that-we-may-have-good-results has had similarly bad consequences. I’m done with voting “realistically” as well.

    • KM

      Grammatical correction: So just as evil-for-good actions had their predictably bad consequences, voting for bad-so-that-we-may-have-good-results has had
      similarly bad consequences.

    • Newp Ort

      White committed the murders over a personal vendetta. Why would you presuppose any good intention?

      • KM

        I base this on his words. He had spoken of the corruption in city politics, and had intended to also kill two more. He had said “I was on a mission. I wanted four of them. Carol Ruth Silver, she was
        the biggest snake … and Willie Brown, he was masterminding the whole
        thing.” His personal vendetta was also a moral one. That’s how he justified (in his mind anyway) the killings.

  • David Curp

    I’m reminded of the Spartan response upon being informed Alexander the Great was calling himself the Son of Amon/a god – “If Alexander is a god, let him be a god.” This sums up my feeling on the court’s declaration – though as to other elements of your analysis you know I don’t entirely agree…

  • UAWildcatx2

    Over on the Register, Pat Archbold writes about how it won’t stop until the Church is being prosecuted for being a hate-organization. I can see this possibility. Cardinal George talked about this when he said “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his
    successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will
    pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild
    civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.” But even so, I have to turn to St. Thomas More, whose feast day we just observed, when he says that “nothing can come except what God wills. And I make me very sure that
    whatsoever that be, even if nothing has ever appeared so bad, it shall
    indeed be the best…” As much as forced approval in the name of justification seems to be the norm today, we remember that Caeser, Nero, Mao, and other opponents to the Church have come and gone, but the Church stands. And that in the end, we win.

  • Paulie

    You spent multiple paragraphs railing against John Roberts when he actually voted in dissent on the DOMA case.

    • Stu

      Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion vacating the Prop 8 Case.

      • Which Scalia joined. Because it was an entirely sound opinion–full of judicial restraint–on the issue of standing, which was the only issue it dealt with.

        It’s days like these when I want to tell everyone who hasn’t studied Constitutional law to put down their keyboards and walk away.

        • Stu

          I’m just pointing out the facts.

          • Paulie

            Yes, but without understanding what those facts mean.

            • Stu

              So says you.

          • Fair enough.

            Me, I’m just eagerly awaiting Mark’s forthcoming law review article pointing out precisely how the Citizens United decision went wrong in its interpretation of the First Amendment and its application of the common law concept of legal personhood.

        • KM

          BG, This is an honest question from a non-lawyer and is not meant to be argumentative: Who would have had proper standing on Prop 8 when all the political leaders from the Governor to the Attorney General (and so on) refused to defend it?

          • KM: Off the top of my head…I would think a state official who refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, citing Proposition 8, and was subsequently fired, might have standing.

            But in Federal court? As someone who takes a restrictive view of Federal powers, particularly the Judicial branch’s, I’m not convinced that there is any good way to get this into Federal court. If all three branches of the government of the State of California are united in flouting their own state Constitution, as duly amended by Proposition 8, there may be no solution unless the electorate imposes consequences.

            For the Federal Supreme Court to sweep in and fix this situation would, in my view, require them to become even more tyrannical than they already are, even if you could get a majority of the Supremes to agree to the solution you and I would prefer. Whereas, as paulzummo has already pointed out, it would instead be much more likely that the current Court would use the opportunity to impose same-sex marriage on every state of the Union.

            (Which Scalia has now openly predicted–in his dissent in the DOMA case today–will be the next move they make, possibly as early as next Term.)

            • KM

              BG, thanks for your helpful explanation. It helps me understand the whole convoluted process of Prop 8 better.

              • You’re welcome, KM. Do be aware, though, that that’s mostly an off-the-cuff stab at it. Genuine experts will be able to shed a better-informed light on where the Prop 8 mess now stands in the coming days.

        • The Deuce

          But note the pattern. Conservative justices decline to further conservative goals when given the chance, in favor of respecting the law. Liberal justices, on the other hand, take every opportunity they can to trash the law in favor of forcing their ideology on everyone.

          In other words, it’s like we’re bringing a knife to a gunfight. The system is fundamentally broken and is simply incapable of dealing with this problem. We’re guaranteed to lose more and more ground over time in the US court system, no matter what happens politically.

        • LSUStatman

          In the end, though, the Prop 8 decision means that it is not the citizens of California that have the power, but the ruling class. That’s the reverse of the intent of the California Constitution that created the proposition process in the first place.

          • Yes; but in the end, I believe that’s a California problem, not a U.S. Supreme Court problem.

            Unless we’re comfortable appointing SCOTUS as general overseers of the proper functioning of state governments. I would see that as trying to cure the problem of a lawless California ruling class with increased dosage of a lawless Federal judicial branch.

            (Which is a deal our society indeed chose to make, back when the lawless state governments were the segregationist South. It may have been a necessary deal with the unconstitutional devil then–I’m certainly not going to tell anyone who suffered under Jim Crow otherwise–but there were negative consequences to that choice, and we’re still reaping the whirlwind today.)

      • Paulie

        First of all, as Blog Goliard notes, Scalia also joined in the majority opinion. Second, considering the composition of the Court majority on the DOMA case and Kennedy’s reliance on substantive due process, had the Prop 8 case been decided on the merits, it’s likely that not only does Prop 8 get overturned, but we’re basically looking at the gay marriage equivalent of Roe v. Wade.

        • Stu

          Understand the thought process. Don’t necessarily agree with it, but it is valid reasoning. That being said, you seemed to wonder why Mark took on Roberts.

          I simply gave you the answer.

      • Dave P.

        If state officials have no interest in enforcing a state law or even a
        portion of the constitution particular to the state, then there is
        nothing the Feds can do about it. That’s what I got out of SCOTUS’s
        Prop 8 ruling. I also think that even if SCOTUS upheld DOMA and/or the
        California Supreme Court’s ruling on Prop 8, it wouldn’t have mattered.
        This is the one issue with which the Left is willing to defy the

  • Polemos

    Mark, I agree that court appointments aren’t reason enough to vote Republican, but the attack on Roberts is a little odd. He dissented on DOMA, for excellent legal reasons outlined by Scalia, and he sent Prop. 8 back for similarly good legal reasons. I don’t pretend that they were forced into the choice (unfortunately nothing really obliges the supreme court), but the standing issues were real and go to the heart of separation of powers, which in turn goes to the heart of the basic national Agreement that the liberals have been ignoring these two generations. And from a results-oriented point of view, Roberts’ choice was probably shrewd. Yes, Prop. 8 is apparently gone, but the question of a fundamental right to gay marriage gets kicked down the road where the volatile and self-righteous Kennedy can’t get it. It’s possible there were 5 votes to uphold Prop. 8, but Kennedy’s language in Windsor suggests that he was ready to swing for the home run–a new equality right. Today we are talking about hard and unpromising but yet winnable fights in many state legislatures, and the somewhat easier fight of keeping laws and constitutional provisions on the books in other states. Without someone like Roberts we might have been talking about a quixotic attempt at a constitutional amendment or begging for sad little religious exemptions.

    • BCSWowbagger

      I really wanted to find some way to add to your post, because it weirded me out how far off-base Mark was today and I wanted to go on the record saying so… but you really covered every base. Roberts probably just spared the country from a sweeping ruling redefining marriage. Can’t see why we’d be mad at him right now.

      I’m not totally sold on his thinking about standing yet, but (1) disagreeing about standing does not a devilish enemy of social conservatism make, and (2) he was consistent between the two decisions, which suggests that (unlike, say, Ginsburg, who appears to have been less than consistent) he ruled on standing in good faith, not out of political calculation.

  • Mark, I generally agree with your sentiments, but Roberts voted correctly on the DOMA case and probably on the Prop 8 case as well.

    • Stu

      Mark’s point still stands. Voting GOP because they ostensibly will appoint the right Justices to “carry the day” isn’t exactly panning out.

      • Newp Ort

        But shouldn’t SCOTUS’s first concern be the law?

        • Stu

          Aside from the fact that SCOTUS seems to show restraint selectively, concern for the law on their part does not mean we should be voting GOP simply because we think their appointments are going to further the cause. The notion that if we just pack the court full of GOP picks, “all will be well” is foolish.

      • Are Roberts and Alito no better than Kagan and Sotomayor, then?

        Of course Republican nominees are often disappointments. Of course there can be other considerations that make voting for a Republican for President unacceptable.

        That doesn’t mean we’re fools if we take Supreme Court nominations seriously, and if those nominations are a big part of our voting decisions. Every single Term, for years and years now, there has been no end of insanity and judicial tyranny that has been turned aside by a single Supreme Court vote. In fact, replace either of Bush’s nominees with any individual that could conceivably have been nominated by a President Kerry, and I guarantee you that today we would have seen the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage nationwide.

        The rule of law really does hang by a thread; and our many defeats and disappointments are no excuse for buying into a false “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” attitude; nor does the fear that we’re only delaying the inevitable mean we should just give up.

        • Stu

          No one said give up. What is being said is that the promise of salvation through judicial appointment is a false promise and should not be justification for voting GOP.

          • It’s not a false promise–nor is it a completely unacceptable justification–unless Roberts and Alito are no better than Kagan and Sotomayor.

            Whether it’s a sufficient justification…that’s a different question.

            • Stu

              Certainly they are better. But is that enough to get my support? Increasingly the answer is “no.”

              This battle is lost in the realm of the US Constitution. We have to now fight it locally through individual conversions. It is as if we woke up today to find ourselves in a pagan nation that needs to hear the Gospel.

              We aren’t going to win with Caesar.

              • I’m broadly in agreement with that, and don’t think we see things all that differently.

                The main thing I’d say is, if you think the Constitutional battles look lost *now*…well, look out if, heaven forfend, the current President gets to replace one of the non-liberal Justices. Or even Kennedy.

                But yes, even if by fighting the political and judicial fights we can keep things from getting quite as bad, quite as quickly, as they would otherwise (and electing Romney over Obama would have fit that description to a “T”)…unless hearts and minds are changing, unless the culture is moving back in the direction of sanity, all the rest will remain desperate rear-guard actions and nothing more.

        • The Deuce

          At this point, I don’t think there is any chance at all of this country turning itself around as a whole. The system is simply broken and guaranteed to produce more of the same, and malignant powers are entrenched like a cancer throughout. It’s far more likely that independent pockets of sanity will spring up if the country falls apart under the burden of its own debt, moral insanity, and increasing balkanization. And frankly, that’s the inevitable result of our trajectory.

  • contrarian

    Fantastic post.

    We must not become fatalists, though. I certainly fear what my (future) grandchildren’s world will look like. But we must nevertheless fight here in the present, despite the odds, to bring about these glimpses of the final victory.

    If anything, today’s SCOTUS decision is a good reminder that the battle for the Good cannot easily be fought using the sort of concepts and language given to us by the constitution. We must reconcile ourselves with the idea that true justice, right reason, and natural law are not necessarily (or perhaps rarely) operative in our country’s facile philosophical assumptions. Liberty is the god that failed, and we Catholics should not assume that a ‘correct reading’ of this country’s founding documents show continuity with Reason and the Good–and therefore the Faith–in the slightest.

    • UAWildcatx2

      Well said!

  • ivan_the_mad

    Indeed! And to complement the thought of one great man, here’s the thought of another, Russell Kirk: ““For a century and a half, conservatives have yielded ground in a manner which, except for occasionally successful rear-guard actions, must be described as a rout.” And yet, like Tolkien, like any Christian ought to be, Kirk is ultimately hopeful. Or as another hopeful Christian wrote:

    “… on you is fallen the shadow,
    And not upon the Name;
    That though we scatter and though we fly,
    And you hang over us like the sky,
    You are more tired of victory,
    Than we are tired of shame.”

    The SCOTUS decision doesn’t fix the underlying societal problem; as Kirk wrote, all social problems are at root ultimately religious or moral. Scalia reflects this in his dissent: “Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.”

  • Gustave

    Well said.

  • will

    Since you are disappointed with Justice Roberts, let me add that the decision on the Voting Rights Act could easily result in disenfranchisement for many voters.

    • Stu

      Or not.

    • Paulie

      Well it could, but probably not of anyone who otherwise had the legal right to vote.

    • Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act stands. Rates of black voter registration and turnout exceed white voter registration and turnout in most areas covered by Section 5 (which also still stands, even though a new formula needs to be constructed for invoking it).

      So your main errors were using the words “easily”, “disenfranchisement”, and “many”; and in implying that all the “voters” of which you speak are living U.S. citizens entitled to vote.

      • Will

        I disagree, but realize minds will not be changed.

        • (comment retracted by author on account of having already exceeded his snottiness quota for the day)

    • W. Randolph Steele

      will, I completely agree with you. I live in a city in the Midwest where, in the `1970’s moved polling place at the last minute, posted police cars out side Afican-American polling places and in general harassed black voters to keep them home. Think it’s changed? My wife and I worked the polls last fall as we as a couple have done for 10 years and that I have done for 40. My neighborhood and city have changed and now my home precinct went from 46% Dem when I moved in in 1979 to 75% last election. It has become more diverse with younger people and SOME minority folks moving in(about 15%) AND YET for first time since we moved in, a disgruntled voter at his 3rd wrong polling place after being told that he was again wrong screamed at my wife who is fair skinned “LET THE N—– HAVE IT THEN” When she told him that she African-American and she was offended, he screamed” BOTH YOU N——‘S SHOULD GO BACK TO AFRICA!” It took other poll workers to restrain her. IF I had been there I’d have punched his lights out. Howard
      Fineman has a great piece about Justice Roberts his agenda to make the US corporate friendly etc. So these other posters will excuse me if I don’t give a shit about gay marriage. NONE of the many gay people we know have EVER treated us that my wife was. However, we’ve been in plenty of suburban Catholic parishes at Mass where we were/are disrespected.

      • Well, okay. But nothing you wrote betrays any understanding of the Court’s actual holdings in Shelby County v. Holder.

  • “And if there are none. I will find some other way of engaging the culture than politically. ”

    The only thing that is saving me from despair right now, is being a Knight of Columbus.

  • Imp the Vladaler

    Others below have ably handled Mark’s misunderstanding of the important standing issues at play in the Prop 8 case. (Not that I necessarily agree that the outcome was right – it was a close call, and I’m still not sure if Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife was correctly decided – but the rule of decision had nothing to do with marriage). But I can’t let the Citizens United thing slide.

    Is Mark unaware that the dioceses in America are organized as corporations? What would he say to a law that prevented those corporations from speaking?

  • Imp the Vladaler

    Still and all, I will go ahead and say it: There is no such thing as
    gay “marriage”. Have all the trappings, enjoy all the civil benefits (I
    have no interest in trying to stop you).

    Wait, Mark is in favor of granting same-sex couples the same legal rights as opposite-sex married couples? When did this happen?

    • Newp Ort

      Yeah I had a similar thought as I read that. Pretty sure he’s been opposed to it in the past.

  • Pavel Chichikov

    The culture continues to disintegrate. “Same-sex” marriage is symptomatic. Moral law is adaptive, and societies which abandon it lose the ability to adapt and reproduce themselves.

    There is a transformation under way, and perhaps at some point something inhuman will arise.

    • John Schaefer

      And since we’re not reproducing, we will need new immigration to boost our population, and take the other 30 percent of prescription pills that aren’t being sold efficiently in the free market.

  • Pavel Chichikov
    • Imp the Vladaler

      What percentage of Americans should be taking prescription drugs, Dr. Chichikov?

      • Ideally: 0%. In our broken, broken society: as many as need them to function normally.

    • John Schaefer

      Yeah. And Obama is going to get that number to 100 percent.

      • Pavel Chichikov

        It’s part of a process that began a long time ago. It really does say something if many of us are on meds, perhaps a national nervous breakdown.

        It’s raining here in DC at dusk, almost, a warm fertile summer rain.

        We need a rain of grace.

        • John Schaefer

          This country, and it’s ‘Protestant work ethic’, lack of vacations, and food filled with crap, I’m amazed we are not on more meds.

          • Totally agree with this. I one-upped it, but it needed more emphasis.

  • Harry

    Mmm. I think this was inevitable. The culture at large simply does not have the same conception as marriage or sex as does the Church. Of course it would see nothing particularly wrong with gay marriage.
    But I think our arguments and reaction against it could have been better. To be honest Mark, the way you talk about gay people here makes it seem like they’re nothing more than a mass of sex-obsessed perverts, and that gay marriage is just a weapon to be used against their enemies has absolutely nothing to do with their feelings. And that goes for any number of orthodox Catholics who I’ve read on the subject – gays are creepy pervs looking to corrupt our society. End of.
    Of course many gay activists are trying to use gay marriage to better shift society to their point of view and will go on to use the law to make sure they get what they want, but it’s disingenuous to pretend that there aren’t gay couples who do genuinely love one another and simply can’t understand why (as they see it) others would wish to prevent them from getting married. What does everyone else think?

  • An Aaron, not The Aaron

    There are two things I find troubling about these rulings. First, the Court very narrowly construed the principle of standing in the Prop 8 case by essentially ruling that since the pro-Prop 8 citizens did not have the duty to enforce it, they were not harmed (had no particularized injury) and therefore had no standing. I would agree to this if not for the fact that Prop 8 was a voter initiative. They did, in fact, “enforce” the understanding that marriage was between one man and one woman through the initiative process that overcame a judicial ruling to the contrary. This fact unjustly glossed over by Roberts and Scalia and the rest. Prop 8 was expensive and time-consuming for a great many people in California. To pretend that they aren’t harmed when all their work is undone by one judge with a seriously tentative grasp on reality (did the Supremes even read his ruling? – they should have overturned it on insanity grounds, if nothing else) and one corrupt politician who doesn’t understand what a governor does, is manifestly ridiculous. This ruling will only continue to place more power in the hands of the ruling elite and deprive the people of any real chance to govern themselves.

    Second, Kennedy’s ruling was disgusting. He cast the whole DOMA case as the bigoted, hateful Congress versus the upright and noble Gay People. There was clearly no animus against people with SSA exhibited when enacting DOMA, but Kennedy didn’t let reality stop him from doing what pro-gay activitists have been doing all along, which is slandering (or in this case libelling) anyone who does not approve of gay marriage as homophobes. Obama said that with DOMA gone, discrimination is no longer enshrined in law. Kennedy, in his ruling, however, enshrined discrimination in case law, only faithful, educated American Catholics, who know what marriage is are now the ones painted by their own Supreme Court as hate-filled second class citizens.

  • John Schaefer

    You know what happens when you squeeze a balloon full of water too tightly? You get wet. That’s what DOMA was. What the right SHOULD have done, was embrace civil unions several years ago, without going down the marriage path. Not that it would have stopped it, but at least it would have reduced this adversarial relationship.

    Why would the right plant a flag on a mountain that was going to be difficult to defend – “The Defense of Marriage Act”. It was a law that was UNNECESSARY! It had all of the trappings of Custer’s last stand. It was an act that thumbed it’s nose at folks who not only wanted to live their life differently, but live it with the people they loved – and, not be punished by the state at the end of life over benefits. The result? The ruling today, as read in both the majority argument, and Scalia’s scathing rebuke. You did not need to read between the lines there.

    Frankly speaking, I’m just shocked by Cardinal Dolan’s rebuke of the ruling. Saying that marriage is there to protect kids. THAT’s his argument? Today? After the pedophilia scandal that rocked the church from the last pew to the altar??? Saying marriage is for the kids benefit???? Really…

    I saw this on my FB timeline this morning, and it really hit home. It was from a friend of a friend: “I just got this text message from my Dad: “Saw that Supreme Court struck down DOMA. Congrats. Love you, Dad.”” That Dad gets it. THAT is what this is about. It’s about acceptance. It’s about not living in fear. It’s about freedom – whether you morally agree, or not.

    It’s not about lamenting what MIGHT happen because the court essentially granted financial rights to these couples. They did NOT make same sex marriage the rule of the land. Here’s what Bryan Fischer said: “Sodomy-based marriage is an egregious violation of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” May God have mercy on us.” Not to be one upped, Mike Huckabee said “5 people in robes said they are bigger than the voters of CA and Congress combined. And bigger than God. May he forgive us all.” “5 people in robes”? “Sodomy Based Marriage”? WOW. And you wonder why people thought DOMA was a stick in the eye and lead pipe to the head. Those comments validate the ruling, and not the objection of Justice Scalia.

    I would like to point out that the “DOJ Memo” that Mark points out, is no government memo. It’s a pamphlet from gay DOJ employees. If I didn’t click the link and read it, I would have potentially bought into that. Why does some insidious, nefarious government plot have to seep into this? Mark, you said yesterday you’re not into conspiracy theories, but you have just started another. Why did you have to twist that? Why the word “homo-sex”? “the ruthless narcissism of the gay community.” Good lord! What are we doing here!

    I have a number of friends I am quite happy for today, and they are quite happy themselves. I’m proud to live in a country that allows me to choose for myself on so many levels. It’s NOT perfect. There is NO perfect candidate. I’m not perfect. I am not comfortable sitting in judgement from on high of all the real or perceived moral wrongs being committed around me…especially those people that I call my friends. I’ll leave those judgements to God…should he choose to.

    I’ll leave you with the following from the LA Times, because the Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America got it right: “The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, in its own statement, said its belief in marriage between one man and one woman was “unalterable” but bowed to the court’s ruling, stating that “Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals.”

    “We do not expect that secular law will always align with our
    viewpoint,” the union said. “Ultimately, decisions on social policy
    remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and
    we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.”

    • vox borealis

      THAT is what this is about. It’s about acceptance.

      Your entire comment could be reduced to this statement. Because that is what this all really about. And that is what Mark Shea is saying, if I read him correctly.

    • Imp the Vladaler

      “Why would the right plant a flag on a mountain that was going to be difficult to defend – “The Defense of Marriage Act”.

      If by “the right” you mean “86 Senators and Bill Clinton,” then yeah.

      • John Schaefer

        Your new combox name is Imp the Cherry Picker!

    • Cet animal est très méchant:
      Quand on l’attaque, il se défend.

      • John Schaefer

        Nice. But, that animal picked the battle…the defense of marriage. Regardless of who signed it, and for what political motivation. It was an aggressive offensive position.

        • Yes, I know that’s your position: that conservatives were, yet again, the aggressors in the culture war by refusing to go along with sudden unprecedented changes in the culture.

          Hence the quotation.

          • John Schaefer

            I disagree that it was sudden and unprecedented. DOMA signed in what…1996? Almost 20 years. If by sudden, it took African Americans almost 100 years. They were considered 3/5’s of a person for quite some time. This country has evolved quite a bit from 1776.

            • You do realize that, in the three-fifths controversy, it was the slaveholders who wanted to count slaves on par with free persons for purposes of apportionment, right?

              And yes, when marriage between human beings has involved a male and a female for thousands of years, 20 years is quite sudden.

              • John Schaefer

                So, does the time matter? Should they have to wait 1,000 years until we are all comfortable with it? The fact that they negotiated how much these people were worth was the issue, Blog. It was the North that wanted to count them at full status. The south did not.

                • You’re still turning the three-fifths compromise on its head. I honestly can’t tell whether this is a failure of education, or of reading comprehension, or of just not caring very much what the truth is.

                  Just as you’re turning the concept of an “aggressive offensive position” on its head. You’re condemning orthodox religious believers for not changing their position–or at least, for not acquiescing to a change in marriage laws unprecedented in human history–promptly upon the demand of the revolutionaries. If that makes them the ones on “offense” in the culture wars, I’m Napoleon Bonaparte.

                  It does seem that, deep down, people on your side don’t really believe that it is legitimate to try to oppose you, either in the political arena or the courts, once the bien-pensants have spoken as to what the latest innovation is that shall now be mandatory for all right-thinking people. The kinder among you try to patiently explain that if only the conservatives hadn’t tried standing their ground, they wouldn’t have lost, and that this “adversarial relationship” is therefore all their fault.

                  It is this, more than the question of same-sex marriage itself, that makes your side dangerous.

                  • John Schaefer

                    I’m confused. For legal purposes, the 3/5’s was used to determine the value of these citizens in society, as it relates to representation. Correct?

                    I’m not condemning orthodox religious believers for their beliefs, but for their lack of acknowledgement that we live in a secular, multi-cultural, multi-religious country. Maybe you don’t like it that this is the country we live. I don’t know. But, I acknowledge that the Orthodox Jewish Rabbis position is acceptable. We don’t agree, but respect the ruling.

                    Maybe your beliefs are right. Maybe they are not. Maybe you are right in your condescension toward me. But, when many religious leaders use terms that immediately demonize someone in a country built on freedom and liberty, based solely on their sexual relationship, I’ve got an issue with that. Are your relationships defined by the sex you have? How often, and with who? Do you refer to yourself as a heterosexual? Hello, I’m Blog, and I like girls.

                    I did not choose labels like homo sex, and sodomy based marriage. How insulting, and trivializing of these people. They focus purely on the sexual nature of the relationship…not the personal relationship. Feel free to minimize my thoughts, and words, based on not meeting your educational standards. I’m not sure what side you believe me to be on, which to me is more dangerous than anything I could say. You seem more intent on pontificating, than listening. If you listened with your ears and your heart, you would hear it.

                    • Well, clearly we don’t understand each other, at all; and I’m sorry that one of the consequences of that is that I have come off as condescending.

                      I hold no brief for those who use labels such as “sodomy based marriage”. They’re welcome to defend their own choice of words; but such phrasing certainly seems to me to be needlessly offensive.

                      That said, questions of sex are of course central to questions of marriage. Hence the term “marital act”. Hence the concepts of consummation, fornication (or premature consummation, in many cases), and adultery…all of which refer in some way to relationships–and moral questions–that are, in fact, determined by the sex one has.

                      I would genuinely be interested in reading a reasoned account of how these concepts are to be adjusted with the implementation of same-sex marriage (or perhaps they’re simply to be abandoned, particularly the fornication and adultery bits?). I have also long been curious to learn precisely how one possibly constructs an alternative Christian sexual ethics–something that is more than a mere restatement of the Wiccan Rede–that can justify blessing at least some same-sex relationships that involve sexual conduct. I’ve never found anything that addresses these questions in a remotely satisfactory way; but perhaps I just haven’t stumbled across the right books or articles yet.

                      As for what I hear when I listen to my ears and my heart, I hear that big trouble is coming. I do hope I am wrong.

                    • John Schaefer

                      Here’s my problem, Blog. It’s personal to me. Fortunately, I have a number of friends, who are VERY good people, and contribute to society. The problem is, that they generally are defined by their sexual relationship. I make no claim to understand the sexual relationship. But, i do understand their personal relationship, and respect it. I’ve grown to feel that if they love each other for as long as several of them have, why should they not receive the same benefits?

                      What has happened, and why it has appeared to move so fast, is that so many of us have come to know gay and lesbians. It became personal. We have become aware of the people, and not just the sexual act associated with it. Emotion has trumped moral logic.

                    • Dave

                      “Emotion has trumped moral logic.”

                      Not just for you….this is by design. One could almost boil down the whole problem with our society to the fact that, for a vast number of people, feelings trump truth (if they even believe in truth any more.)

                    • John Schaefer

                      Maybe you’re right Dave. But, I can not look in judgement upon them with my truth, or your truth. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

                    • Dave

                      This quotation does not mean that we should not judge actions as being right or wrong. If so, Jesus would have violated His own statement.

                    • sjay1956

                      “For legal purposes, the 3/5’s was used to determine the value of these citizens in society, as it relates to representation. Correct?”

                      Not quite — the 3/5 of a person was the compromise between the slave holding states, which wanted their slaves to be counted as equal to whites for the purpose of representation, and the free states, which would have preferred slaves not be counted at all. In other words, the states that treated blacks the worst, were the ones that wanted them to be given the highest value for purposes of representation.

                    • introvert_prof

                      For legal purposes, the 3/5’s was used to determine the value of these
                      citizens in society, as it relates to representation. Correct?

                      Sort of. The slaveholders wanted to use their entire slave population, which would not be represented nor permitted to vote, to give their white male selves more seats in Congress. Because deep southern states — notably South Carolina — had huge populations of slaves, this would distort Congressional representation.

                      It’s not quite the same as using (non-voting) free women and children for apportionment, because on average no state(s) would gain a representational advantage thereby.

                      The 3/5 compromise was a way to keep the slave states on board without unduly disadvantaging free states. It was not a comment on the perceived worth of slaves, which were universally conceded to be legal chattels rather than legal persons, even by those who opposed such status.

                      I’ll let Blog Goliard chip in about where I have missed the boat.

                  • Stu

                    The old 3/5ths compromise does indeed continue to be misunderstood.

    • “Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken…”

      A handful of lawyers in robes (oh, sorry; apparently that entirely accurate description gives you the vapors for some reason) just struck down a law passed by 85 Senators and the President of the United States. And enabled–at least for now–the continued unaccountable contravention of a Constitutional Amendment duly approved by the electorate of a state.

      I’m presuming that “democratic process” is a term of art that means something completely different in Orthodox Judaism than it does elsewhere?

      • John Schaefer

        THAT is what 5 people in robes do. They strike down, uphold, or punt. The sarcasm of Mr. Huckabee dripped through his tweet. “One nation under God”, never defined God. It was left to interpretation, much like our bill of rights and constitution. In a secular society, one does not always have to agree with the law, but respect it. The Orthodox Jewish Organization, respectfully pointed out their point of difference, while respecting the ruling. Using terms like homo-sex, and sodomy based marriage, while defending a law which had no point, other than to harass, and defend ones own view of marriage is the point. It had its day.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Frankly speaking, I’m just shocked by Cardinal Dolan’s rebuke of the
      ruling. Saying that marriage is there to protect kids. THAT’s his
      argument? Today? After the pedophilia scandal that rocked the church
      from the last pew to the altar??? Saying marriage is for the kids
      benefit???? Really…

      DING DING DING! It only took 60+ comments to bring up the abuse scandal! Not bad, but I think we can do better…

      • John Schaefer

        The Cardinal made it about the kids…I’m just shocked he chose that approach when speaking of this issue. Make sure you thank him.

        • Andy, Bad Person

          Is Cardinal Dolan personally responsible for the abuse scandal? I had no idea he was so powerful.

          • John Schaefer

            Nope. But, he chose that angle when speaking.

            • Andy, Bad Person

              Do you want to address what he actually said, or continue making ad hominem attacks?

              • John Schaefer

                Was I critiquing the Cardinal personally, or critiquing his choice of words? I thought it was his poor choice of words.

                • Andy, Bad Person

                  You have nothing substantive to critique about his words. You are critiquing that he is the one who said them, which is the genetic fallacy, a type of ad hominem.

                  • Or alternately, perhaps he’s taking the position that Roman Catholic bishops should, for the time being, avoid saying anything about children and what might be in their best interest, in any context, as much as is humanly possible.

                    I would still disagree with that…but at least it’s not a fallacy.

                    • Andy, Bad Person

                      It’s absolutely a fallacy. He didn’t address the content of what Dolan is saying at all, instead arguing that he, as a bishop, shouldn’t say it. Dolan’s argument stands or falls regardless of who makes it.

                    • John Schaefer

                      Andy, that would assume that the history has nothing to do with what was said. I contend that when you are speaking of sexual behavior (which at its heart same sex marriage and the church’s view is about), and children, the Cardinal exposes his flank to that attack. So I don’t see it as a genetic fallacy.

                      I also agree with Blog…the TIMING is NOT GOOD, especially in the context of discussing sexual relationships, which the church views as disordered. Further, there has been no apparent conclusion to the issue with the disordered priests. So there is context, and a direct correlation. It is a an argument he shouldn’t have used.

                    • Dave

                      “it is an argument he shouldn’t have used.”

                      Well, then, someone else needs to use it, because the facts of the matter are that the purpose of marriage, primordially, is to protect children.

                    • John Schaefer

                      Isn’t there a built in assumption that two same sex parents can’t protect a child?

                    • Dave

                      Yes, it takes a man and a woman to create a child. Presumably, God (or evolution, if one prefers) had good reasons for that. It isn’t like it’s rocket science to figure out why a child might need both a mom and a dad, as opposed to any random two adults.

                    • John Schaefer

                      You know Dave, I’ve met a number of bad parents in my life. Men. Women. They come in all shapes and sizes. Being a natural father, or mother, doesn’t make them inherently good parents.

                      But, you were talking of protecting a child, not creating a child. You will receive no argument from me on the creation of the child.

                    • Stu

                      It’s a child’s right to have a father and mother. Intentionally disrupting that is simply wrong.

                      Indeed, that doesn’t mean life is always perfect. But in realizing that we don’t always meet the ideal doesn’t seem like justification for throwing out the ideal.

                    • Dave

                      So the existence of bad parents proves that the man/woman template is null and void? Under that argument, a quarterback who throws too many interceptions proves that the quarterback position is unnecessary to football.

                    • John Schaefer

                      Nope. Not my point. My point is being the natural father or natural mother doesn’t make you an inherently good parent. Some children are just better off with one parent, than the two they have. At the same time, it also doesn’t rule out, that two men, or two women can’t be good parents, or bad parents for that matter.

                      Stu, “It’s a child’s right to have a father and mother.” I’ve never heard that one. Not that it makes it invalid, but I’ve never seen that right defined.

                    • Andy, Bad Person

                      The DoMA ruling was released yesterday. When would be a better time to comment?

    • The Deuce

      It was a law that was UNNECESSARY!

      Interesting. So when a weak dam breaks, that proves it was UNNECESSARY!

      “Sodomy Based Marriage”? WOW.

      Yeah, totally unacceptable to point out that sodomy based marriages are sodomy based. It’s all about using euphemism, cause truth makes people feel bad.

      THAT is what this is about. It’s about acceptance. It’s about not
      living in fear. It’s about freedom – whether you morally agree, or not.

      Bullcrap. You and I both know that we’re going to start seeing government employees, churches, and other individuals prosecuted, fired, or otherwise pressured for exercising their freedom to not get on board with “freedom.”

      Of course, you’ve just blatantly begged the question here. What you’ve said boils down to “You have to accept that gay marriage is morally right, whether you morally agree or not”

      Saying that marriage is there to protect kids. THAT’s his argument?

      Yeah, it’s not like all the research on the matter demonstrates that stable marriages protect kids, or that dissolution seriously harms them for life, or anything crazy like that. Besides, even if all the research did show that (which it does), your emotional reaction to it totally overrules reality.

      I’m proud to live in a country that allows me to choose for myself on so many levels

      No you’re not. Democracy in this country is a lame joke, and you’re quite happy with that fact.

      I am not comfortable sitting in judgement from on high of all the real or perceived moral wrongs being committed around me

      Apparently you’re not comfortable with anyone acknowledging reality or failing to be sufficiently enthused about five logically-incompetent robed emperors denying it.

      • John Schaefer

        I do not say that anyone has to agree that it is morally right. Is your relationship with your wife, should you have one, be defined by the sex you have with her? Is your relationship more than the sex? I’m sure she would like it to be, as you would too.

        I did make the point at the end, that there is a way, in a civilized discussion, to agree or disagree. Frankly, I personally don’t understand the sexual portion of the same sex relationship. BUT, I do understand the relationship on a personal level. Morally? I’m not going to judge. Not my job.

        The reality you want me to acknowledge is your reality. I just want my friends, and family, to have some respect, and acknowledgement that their reality, while different from yours and mine receive at least human consideration. They deserve that. Or you can keep discussing sodomy based marriage. Because too many seem obsessed with the sex aspect of same sex relationships.

      • Question. if my child chooses to engage in adultery on the basis that cheating on his or her spouse is what makes him or her happy, am I an intolerant bigot if I tell them I believe adultery is wrong, and that I absolutely cannot condone their behavior?

  • brian_in_brooklyn

    “Faithful Catholics”™ are amazing: where people like Justice Kennedy sees real couples–real families raising real children–see people marrying inanimate objects, people willing to live a lifelong lie in order to evade estate taxes, fascists who only get married so that they can call you a bigot, and uber-narcissists who crave your approval–all while you gain the uncanny ability to read the real thoughts and intentions of people you don’t know and have never met.

    All y’all need to get out more

    • Barfly_Kokhba

      While I’m out, can you recommend a bookstore where I can pick up something to help me translate that utterly incoherent sentence you just wrote?

      • brian_in_brooklyn

        Read the other posts Barfly_Kokhba, even you will be able to understand the references.

        • Barfly_Kokhba

          Really? Even me? ‘Cuz I’m pretty dumb.

        • Chesire11

          No, your comment was pretty incoherent. I think I managed to tease out your meaning, but you really should go back and clarify it.

    • All y’all need to get out more

      This utter unwillingness to take reason seriously as a principle of human action is so frustrating. The reason people make the reductio ad absurdum is to point out that there is no reason to exclude the conclusions they draw. Thus people, being the naturally reasoning beings they are, will eventually draw them.

      And all the other side can say is, “My friends don’t act like that.”

      • brian_in_brooklyn

        To paraphrase Jon, “Why are you arguing facts when my theories are way cooler?”

        • Anecdotes ≠ facts

          Sentiments ≠ facts

          Blithe assurances that what logically follows will never follow ≠ facts

        • “Everyone I know treats their negroes just fine,” said the fine, Southern gentleman in 1853. “Don’t give me ‘theories’ about ‘equality’ and ‘the brotherhood of man’. The facts are that negroes need the oversight of decent, white men, and I and the folks I know do just that for ’em.”

          These arguments were made, brian in brooklyn. They even had a certain amount of plausibility, since people raised from childhood to be slaves never got the chance to develop the kind of virtue needed to be self-directing, flourishing individuals capable of making their way in Southern society.

          No, theories and reasons for acting are tremendously important. People do particular things because of the reason. And if the reason is wrong, they do wrong things.

    • Pavel Chichikov

      I’m in my eighth decade, Brian. I see desperation. Most of the people I meet who don’t feel that way or act that way come here from and with other cultures. With them there is still social solidarity, and faith in God is still alive.

    • Stu

      So given you attempted to speak for ALL homosexuals in your opening post, you don’t have an issue with the ability to “read the real thoughts and intentions of people you don’t know and have never met,” but rather with anyone else possibly invoking that ability.

      You are uncanny.

  • Daniel G. Fink

    “Fascists who only get married so that they can call you a bigot”…

    …which was the motivation for the Court’s decision, cited in Justice Scalia’s dissent.

    “It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race”, i.e., “haters”.

    And no basis for fear regarding religious liberty? Again, Justice Scalia…

    “When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with ‘whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.’ “

  • Pavel Chichikov

    It became apparent today that this culture has suffered mortal wounds. No doubt same-sex couples are doing the best they can given the social environment. Most relationships feel as if they are far better than no relationship.

    But same-sex marriage will never be more than a parody. The best that can be obtained under the circumstances. A sign of a culture’s senescence and of its morbidity.

    Something else will arise from this wreckage, and it may be something inhuman. This is only early times. Don’t you sense the trajectory? I’m old enough to be able to trace quite a lot of it, and it goes back a long way.

    • John Schaefer

      Why does that trajectory have to be negative? Wreckage? This country reinvents itself all the time. It’s just different.

      • Pavel Chichikov

        It’s just what I see, John. do you see something different?

        • John Schaefer

          I try to be more of a realist, and play the available cards. Certainly, from my own ideological perspective, I would like to see things differently. Whatever we are going through now, is no different than before. It’s just put on our plate 24/7, without context now.

    • Chesire11

      The wound was suffered back when the culture bought into the lie that love and marriage are about the self, rather than the gift of the self. When marriage became a means to self-gratification, rather than sacrifice and service, when contraception decoupled it from procreation, when it became dissoluble at will, same-sex unions became inevitable.

      • Pavel Chichikov

        Probably so. I don’t disagree. But I think that Solzhenitsyn summed it up in this phrase: Man has abandoned God.

      • Noah Nehm

        Exactly. The final die was cast in 1930. As Elizabeth Anscombe in 1972 rightly put it : “If contraceptive intercourse is permissible, then what objection could there be after all to mutual masturbation, or copulation in vase indebito, sodomy, buggery (I should perhaps remark that I am using a legal term here – not indulging in bad language), when normal copulation is impossible or inadvisable (or in any case, according to taste)? It can’t be the mere pattern of bodily behaviour in which the stimulation is procured that makes all the difference! But if such things are all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse, for example. I am not saying: if you think contraception all right you will do these other things; not at all. The habit of respectability persists and old prejudices die hard. But I am saying: you will have no solid reason against these things. You will have no answer to someone who proclaims as many do that they are good too. You cannot point to the known fact that Christianity drew people out of the pagan world, always saying no to these things. Because, if you are defending contraception, you will have rejected Christian tradition.”

  • obpoet

    This is all just so much of a side show for freaks. So now can all of us in Utah finally get back to marrying our 13 wives?

  • Name

    At least maybe now we ALL know where we stand: marriage is dead and moms and dads = bigotry. Good luck West.

  • Jeremiah

    Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.

    Sir Thomas More: I do.

    Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner’s silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace’s title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court – is there a man in this country! – who does not know Sir Thomas More’s opinion of this title?

    Crowd in court gallery: No!

    Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!

    Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is “Qui tacet consentire”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

    Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?

    Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

    -A Man for All Seasons (1966)

  • Tom Locker

    Regarding the Supreme Court’s Proposition 8 decision – didn’t the Court essentially say that if a referendum on some subject is passed and then challenged and struck down at the trial-court level, the people have no right to appeal? That only the Executive branch has that right?

    Are they really saying that if the executive branch decides they don’t like the public’s expressed policy choice they can ignore it, and there’s nothing a single member of the public can do about it — even though many millions of voters voted directly to enact the law?

    Could this be the case? Has the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no rights against politicians when they choose to ignore the people’s will as expressed through the voting process (initiatives and referendums)?

    This ruling essentially kills the referendum/initiative process. If the politicians don’t like the way the people vote they just don’t have to show up in court to defend it and it loses. Want to pass a tax cut initiative like Prop 13 – the politicians will just not defend it when some pro-government spending group sues and presto – no tax cut!

    Or how about this – pass an initiative outlawing late term abortions. Planned Parenthood sues, the government refuses to defend – court rules in favor of Planned Parenthood – end of story. This is a very dangerous ruling – it ties the hands of the public and puts almost all the power of changing laws in the hands of the government.

    Now that I’ve thought about this more, I think it’s even worse than I originally thought. If the Executive doesn’t like any law which is currently under litigation, he can make sure that it is nullified by the courts just by refusing to defend it.

    That would apply to laws enacted under a previous administration, or a law passed over the Executives veto.

    • KM

      Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said something similar today.

      “I think there are going to be groups on the left and right – environmental groups, labor groups – who are going to be very concerned about their ability to defend initiatives in the courts,” Coupal said. “It’s very concerning that the validity of their sponsored initiative would depend on an adequate defense by an elected official when the whole reason for the initiative process is to bypass the political structure … The initiative process is the people’s process, and this really shifts the defense of that process to those that are, on the natural, hostile to it.”

      Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2013/06/26/2780830/capitol-alert-taxpayers-group.html#storylink=cpy

    • Chesire11

      Yes, that is precisely the situation. Under the law, unless you are directly affected by a law, you have no standing to file suit. that is why many of the challenges to the HHS mandate have been dismissed by the courts. Not yet having actually suffered any harm from the mandate, the plaintiffs have no standing upon which to file a case.

      As a point of law, the SCOTUS appears to have ruled correctly.

      Personally, I believe that if the executive (whether a state governor or the POTUS) is unwilling to defend a law passed by the legislature or by referendum, it should be required to delegate the job to a third party, the legislature or a petitioning group (in the case of a ballot initiative).

  • cml

    All this means is that the “rights” of marriage have already begun to disappear. Already, a wife doesn’t have default say on her husband’s fate in the hospital without the husband granting an explicit power-of-attorney. This has happened legally because there are too many cases where the family believes the spouse does not necessarily have the best interest of the patient at heart. The cheapening of marriage via high divorce rates, children born out-of-wedlock, etc., has meant that the “spoils” of marriage are not granted automatically. Gay marriage will be no exception.

  • Chesire11

    The point of politics in a democracy is to make the government reflect the culture. That means that neither the voting booth, nor the courthouse is the decisive field of battle. The battle over abortion was lost before Roe v. Wade, and same-sex marriage before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts legalized it.

    Whether the issue is abortion, same-sex marriage, religious freedom, or any other issue the battle is won or lost in the means by which the culture imagines and then defines itself. Blessed John Paul II saw this clearly when he encouraged the Polish people to reject communism in their hearts, and insist on God.

    Same-sex marriage is being accepted because it’s proponents have succeeded in associating opposition to it with hatred and violence against people with same sex attractions. In a culture that defines “good” in terms of self-gratification, telling someone he or she cannot have whatever he or she wants is “oppressive.”

    If we want to prevail on any of these issues, we need to offer a true definition of “good” as something rooted in objective truth, not in subjective appetite. Good is about love, it is about the benefit of others, it is about the gift of the self, by which we reach beyond the prison of the self. It is about freedom from the tyranny of appetites and urges, freedom to become fully human, fully alive.

    No successful, fruitful, healthy marriage is about gratification, it is about sacrifice. Gay “marriage” threatens the institution of marriage because it reiterates the corrosive lie that marriage is about the self, rather than the gift of the self. As soon as we, as a culture, accepted that original sin of marriage as a selfish act, dissociated from procreation, and dissoluble at will, same-sex marriage became inevitable.

    Offer a better, truer, more compelling vision. Live it publicly and unashamedly. Demonstrate the beauty of a life lived selflessly, and the culture will reconsider. Until then, we will blame our politicians for the sin of being a mirror of our own corruption.

    • Katherine Harms

      It is important to recognize that the USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, or at least, that is the plan. In fact, it is becoming an autocracy.
      The good and the bad of such a government is on display in yesterday’s SCOTUS decision.
      The Constitution says that a Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life. That rule is supposed to isolate him/her from cultural and political pressures, but we know very well that those nine justices are isolated from nothing. The decisions rendered recently make that very clear. The bad of this state of affairs is that when a justice or several justices demonstrate that they do not have the Constitution itself in mind when they act, there is no recourse. The President cannot simply cancel the appointment, and the people cannot do anything, either. The justices are not isolated from activist influence in either culture or politics, but they are isolated from any penalty for not doing their jobs well.
      We who trust God with our lives both here and hereafter must remember that even when it appears that good has lost the day, God has not lost. God still wins, but his perspective is different from ours. He doesn’t have to win this round, but we do have to live with this outcome.
      That is the big challenge of a life lived by faith.

  • Erin Manning

    Mark: Amen. That’s all I can say.

  • jeannette

    fantastic!!! keep contending for HIS WORD!!!!

  • Stu

    Template for legalizing polygamy.

    1. Collect all arguments for redefining marriage to include same sex couples.
    2. Use “Remove and Replace” to replace “same sex” with “polygamist.”
    3. When challenged on the fittingness of polygamy, reply with one or more of the following:
    a. How does my marriage to five women affect your homosexual marriage?
    b. Why does it matter to you what two or more consenting adults do?
    c. HATER!
    4. Point out that there are hundreds of thousands of polygamist families raising children.
    5. Say “HATER” again for good measure.

    • John Schaefer

      I think you missed a couple.

      1. Congress needs to pass a law to define that marriage is between two people. If for no other reason than to protect the sanctity of their view of marriage from attack by those who might want to change it.

      2. Have a polygamist file suit to say that he/she didn’t receive benefits from the government, or paid estate tax on a deceased wife/husband, because he was a polygamist, and not viewed equally under the law.

      • Stu

        I’m confident that your #2 (???yikes???) is already in the works.

    • Zeke

      One way that didn’t work:
      1. Nominate a Mormon from a polygamist family to run against a Christian for president.
      2. Strongly assert that the Christian is really a Muslim who hates America.
      3. Win election.
      4. Realize too late that people aren’t that stupid.

  • Loren

    Can you imagine such a pamphlet with Christian enforcement? Being able, even encouraged, to wear shirts or have logos around work that say something like “Jesus is my Savior! On His Word I won’t waver! Get used to it!”? And encourage non Christian employees to show off colorful Christian logos? How about encouragement in said pamphlet such as “Don’t refer to your Christian co workers with any derogatory remarks” or “Do ask the Christian ‘how was Church last Sunday’ “? Oh the outcry there would be! You can’t even stay silent about something contrary to your belief?! Plbbttt! The job be damned. It’s not worth it. Where’s the acceptance for those of us born with a heart for God?! It’s in our blood. We couldn’t fight loving our God! For many years I tried to deny Him. I fought that pull for a long time but finally came out of the closet. Except when I pray, which thankfully Jesus says we should do. There’s little acceptance for Christians in this world, but Jesus says to not be surprised by it. Not once have I ever expected an employer (or in any situation) to make sure my co workers accept that I’m a Christian, encourage my choice for God, etc… For crying out loud… THEY should practice what THEY preach… acceptance is a two way street! Keep up the good fight Mark!

  • John Schaefer

    Some Thursday afternoon reading….



    “If DOMA is faulty as an instrument, would a measure more deftly drawn
    accomplish the same end in a more defensible way? If marriage as we know
    it cannot be defended without running afoul of the Constitution, does
    that mark, for the critics, a serious moral fault in marriage itself? Or
    do they earnestly think that something in the Constitution itself
    inhibits the defense of marriage?”


  • Quid

    Excellent post. It reminds me why we’re still Catholic

  • James H, London

    All hail!

  • John

    thanks, Mark. You give a perfect riposte to this insanity.

  • kwdayboise

    I “feel your pain” insofar as it shows how a lot of Christians have been led into politics with wedge issues by a handful of demagogues and allowed wishful thinking to replace activism and sense. I think the best a Catholic can say, however, is that a same-sex marriage will never be sacramental. That is also true of the large majority of other marriages in America. All of which we manage to tolerate. As for the comments complaining about political correctness, I’ve normally interpreted that as general irritation that they feel constrained from being as rude as they want to be.

  • bob

    Any day now Mr. Obama should issue an apology to Utah for having imposed rigid polygamophobic rules on the Mormons. I wonder if there will be more paleomormons or if monogamy has set in for so long it won’t go away?

  • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

    What a very sad, anti Christian, reductionist, and idolatrous understanding he has of marriage. The fact is, gay marriage DOES exist. In fact, even without ‘all the civil benefits’, and the legal paperwork, there are many marriages comprising of same-sex couples already in existence. Whether you like it or not, it is not your prejudice thoughts, the contracts of law, or a ceremony, which defines whether one is married, but reality. In reality, and in the eyes of God, many gay people are already married. LOVE NOT GENDER, makes a marriage. The heterosexist ideal of the man-woman couple being the only form a marriage can take, is nothing but reductionism, and gender idolatry. It is love and commitment that makes a marriage, not a man and a woman and procreation. The unitive is primary, and first and foremost, for there is no procreation without unity. Many do not procreate, straight or gay. Marriage is not about gender combination, or procreation necessarily, but about LOVE. God is love, and the most important lesson and commandment of all, is love. 1 JOHN 4.16, ‘ WHOEVER, lives in love lives in God, and God in them’. Start reading the Bible without gender idolatrous, patriarchal minds, and perhaps you will learn the truth, that gay marriage does in fact exist – whether you like it or not.

    • Philip Maguire

      Rebekah. Define love for us will you? Because if it is love that makes a marriage then we should actually know what love is. Frankly, I doubt that you can actually define love and I think that what you are saying is that infatuation is what makes a marriage. I suspect that you are unable to distinguish between love and infatuation. I don’t want to marry every one I love and in saying that I acknowledge that love is not the sole criterion for marriage.

      • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

        Philip, you make a greatly ignorant presumption. I am most certainly not saying that ‘infatuation makes a marriage’. I said love makes a marriage. The former is fickle, and not the glue which binds two people together for life. Love makes a marriage; in the words of St Paul on love in Corinthians 13: 4-8 ‘Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.’ This is the love that makes a marriage. It is about long suffering, enduring, un ending care for one’s significant other. Loving them as yourself; as two have become one flesh. The life-long nurture and care, through sickness and health. For better, for worse. It is companionship, friendship, emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual solidarity and intimacy. It is a choice – a decision to love – not an emotional whim of infatuation. True love is far, far removed from infatuation as you so ignorantly proposed I might define love in such a fickle way. It is very sad that you presume gay people are unable to love & must only be capable of infatuation. It is quite frankly farcical. Opposite gender, does not define marriage. Two women, or two men, are just as capable of selfless, Christ eminating, marital love, as one man and one woman. May God help you to open your eyes to see, and your ears to hear, as you have presented yourself with an astounding level of ignorance. Your last comment is also illogical, making no sense at all. No, you don’t ‘marry everyone you love’, but if you think marriage is defined by opposite genders (which I should add is gender idolatry), in the same logic of your comment, you don’t marry every person of the opposite sex either! It is about the choice to love one significant other, in the way that is natural to one’s design, i.e. homo or hetero, for life, in Christ-like love – far from mere ‘infatuation’.

        • Philip Maguire

          Rebekah, while your reply has a certain pathos before you abuse the words of St Paul in your defence of homosexual behaviour you should refresh your knowledge of his opinions on that topic. What you have offered is not a definition of love as I requested but a summary of its qualities. If you are going to make love the sole criterion for marriage you must be able to define what it is is in a legal sense. Far from my comments being illogical or not making sense it is your own that come under under the spotlight. The following quote from you makes no sense at all in relation to same sex relationships. “Loving them as yourself; as two have become one flesh.” That concept which comes from Our Lord himself can in no way be applied to a homosexual coupling as it is a reference to the procreative aspects of marriage. You talk about farce and then make this utterly farcical statement. “Two women, or two men, are just as capable of selfless, Christ eminating, marital love as one man and one woman.” What manner of nonsensical twaddle is that? Marriage has to be redefined before you can speak of marital love between same sex partners. The fact is, however, that same sex marriage abolishes what marriage is. Therefore your concept of marital love is totally removed from reality. You are speaking of something you are out to destroy. In conclusion my closing comments in my initial reply to you made perfect sense. I don’t marry everyone I love. Indeed I cannot marry everyone I love. Therefore, how is it that love can be the sole criterion for marriage? Of course marriage is defined by opposite genders because men and women complement each other? That is the way God created us. As Genesis says “male and female He created them.” You with your talk of gender idolatry are verging on sheer madness. What a crazed and ridiculous statement. You are skilled in the art of gay sophistry, Rebekah, but you know nothing of love in Christ. You fail to see the self centeredness in defining yourself in terms of your sexual preference. That is your personal tragedy. If gender idolatry exists it can be only be found in the narcissistic world of the homosexual.

          • Philip Maguire

            In addition, Rebekah, how could a same sex “marriage” be consummated? Sodomy for example is not a form of sexual intercourse. That requires complementary sexual organs and while I have no desire to overstate the obvious the anal canal is not a sex organ. The facts about marriage remain as they have always been and “gay marriage” legal or otherwise remains an oxymoron.

            • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

              ‘Sodomy’ is a false terminology used to refer to anal sex. The Sodomites wished to gang rape the angels visiting Lot, in order to display hate and humiliation to the stranger. A common practice in Biblical times, and even today, in times of war. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. The practice of anal sex is something not necessarily present in a marriage between two men. Firstly, it can not be used to refer to gay women, and secondly, a ‘sodomite’, is in actual fact a citizen of Sodom – just as a Roman is a citizen of Rome. An oxymoron is a square circle. Marriage is not defined by gender, but by a life-long, loving commitment that represents the triune unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Two people + the love between them (the source of which is God, as God is love) = marriage. Therefore gay marriage is not an oxymoron. In fact, marriage is marriage, whether it consists of two people of the same or opposite gender. Gay people don’t have ‘gay marriage’, they have marriage. Just as gay people don’t gay drive, or gay eat, they just drive. or eat. Monogamous LOVE not the created gender, is what = marriage. Your heterosexist ideology is idolatry. To try to define marriage by sex and gender is nothing but a debased, reductionist, and literally dehumanising insult to the human person. The human person finds their identity in Christ, not in their gender.The image of God is Christ, who is love – not male and female. In Christ there is no longer male and female. Therefore it is marital love, which is in and of itself is monogamous, that represents Christ. Therefore true ‘consummation’ of a marriage is love – not heterosexual intercourse, and sex organs. A marriage may be consummated through the primary purpose of sex, which is unity. Sexual consummation between a man and a woman does not have to involve intercourse. Sex is not dependent upon the joining of male and female sex organs. Once again, you are displaying a debased reductionism of sex. Sadly your idea of marriage is also subject to the same, in that you reduce it to sex and procreation… Not all are called to procreate; in the New Covenant we have New Life in Christ, and no longer rely on new life through one’s progeny, which is the Covenant of Old.

              • Philip Maguire

                What is anal sex, Rebekah? You can’t call it sexual intercourse because the anal canal is not, as I explained to you previously, a sexual organ.

                Secondly, marriage has always been defined as the union of man and a woman. Homosexual relationships, no matter how long they may have endured and no matter that they may have been monogamous were never defined as marriage.

                Therefore the term gay marriage or homosexual marriage is an oxymoron or as you say a square circle. That it doesn’t present a problem to you is because you have become adept at forcing square pegs into round holes.

                It’s true that marriage reflects the unity of the Godhead but this is accomplished exclusively through the union of a man and women and their ability to procreate – to become parents – something which in God’s plan cannot be accomplished by same sex partners.

                As has been said before on this thread the two sexes only exist as complementary roles in sexual reproduction.

                • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                  Once again reducing marriage to sex. Sexual intercourse between two men, does not have to involve ‘anal sex’, as you seem to think. There is more to a loving, physical union than you are capable of thinking.

                  Secondly, same-sex marriage is nothing new. The Church performed same-sex marriages called the ‘Office for Same-Sex Union, in the 11th-18th Centuries. Do some research into the documents discovered by Prof John Boswell.

                  The term gay marriage is NOT an oxymoron, because marriage is not defined by gender. It is a one flesh union, defined by love.One leaves their father and mother (as David did when he joined to Jonathan) and they became one flesh. This is written right there in 1 Samuel 18:1-4. This is also what happens to many individuals when they grow up, leave home, and join to a significant other. Gender is irrelevant in defining the union as marriage. What makes marriage marriage is the life-long, loving aspect of it. NOT GENDER. MONOGAMOUS LIFE-LONG LOVE.

                  Marriage reflects the triune unity of God not because of procreation, but because it is supposed to emanate the love of Christ. Not all procreate, and I am sure that heterosexual couples in non biologically procreative relationships would take great offense to this prejudiced nonsense. The image of God is love, not male & female.

                  Once again, we are not to be defined by our genders. People complement one another in many ways apart from gender. ‘There is no longer male and female, you are all one in Christ’. Galatians 3.28.

                  • Philip Maguire

                    Oh please spare us anymore of your banal nonsense. I am not going to be dragged down into debating shameful fake scholarship by an activist American academic who died of AIDS. John Boswell, was a person after your own heart who used outrageously false mistranslations to twist ancient documents to fit a modern agenda.

                    You are a seriously spiritually ill fanatic, Rebekah, just as John Boswell was. Adelphopoiesis, literally brother making, not spouse making, is no way related to marriage. It is merely formal Church recognition of the friendship between two men. What a tragedy it is when creatures like you demean true and valued friendship and try to transform it into something evil and disordered.

                    You are no better than those degraded activists who try to portray the great love between Cardinal John Henry Newman and Fr Ambrose St John as a homosexual relationship. The great Cardinal recorded that before he died Fr St. John expressed the hope that during his priesthood he had not committed one mortal sin. That can only be viewed as a definitive statement for a man of his time and culture.

                    No Catholic I know, certainly not I, objects to chaste spiritual love between men and men and women and women. There is no reason to object to it and many reasons to celebrate it. It was such love, not homosexuality, that moved Cardinal Newman to write thus on the death of Fr St John.

                    “I have always thought no bereavement was equal to a husband’s or wife’s, but I feel it difficult to believe that anyone’s sorrow can be greater than mine.”

                    As I have said before homosexuality is nothing more than a perverted form of sexual behaviour. It is not a sexual orientation or state of being. A chaste spiritual friendship between two people of the same sex is not a homosexual relationship nor is it an excuse for claiming the existence of gay marriage and your verbose sophistic rambling swill will never make it so.

                    • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                      ‘shameful fake scholarship by an activist American academic’… Gosh you know nothing of John Boswell but propaganda promoted by the anti-gay lobby. He was a faithul Catholic, and an excellent historian. The documents are not fake, and they speak for themselves. The only mistranslations are those that entered the Bible as recently as 1958 when arsenakoitai was falsely, and deceitfully translated to homosexual. Seriously Philip, you need to stop being so hateful toward your gay brothers and sisters in Christ. Open your heart to the truth that you’ve been deceived by your own prejudice. God loves you, and he loves me, and he wants you to stop being so hateful toward the love between those of the same sex. Look deep into yourself and ask yourself why are you so insistent on being hareful and afraid of your gay brother and sisters, and the love between same-sex couples?

                    • Philip Maguire

                      Indeed Rebekah, God loves you. What is lacking is your love for God.

                    • chezami
                  • Philip Maguire

                    Rebekah. C. Joy wrote: “Secondly, same-sex marriage is nothing new. The Church performed same-sex marriages called the ‘Office for Same-Sex Union, in the 11th-18th Centuries.”

                    Marriage in the Catholic Church is the Sacrament of Matrimony. Show me where in any historical writings the Catholic Church solemnised marriages between same sex partners.

                    • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                      The Office of Same-Sex Unions. Official Church documents.

                  • Anthony

                    1/ There is no such thing as sexual intercourse between two men.

                    2/ Same sex marriage is not new, it does not exist.

                    3/ Marriage is defined by the existence of a husband (male) and wife ( female.)

                    4/ David did not join to Jonathan. They did not become one flesh. Jonathan was David’s brother-in-law and the love they bore for each other was non-sexual. Samuel 18: 1-5 says: “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.” That is no more than Christ commanding us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

                    5/ You say David was joined to Jonathan in a same sex marriage and define marriage as a monogamous life long love. Obviously you are wrong because David had wives and a relationship with Bathsheba.

                    6/ The unity of three divine persons gives us One God. When a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife they become one flesh so reflecting the unity of the Godhead. This unity is not and cannot be reflected by same sex relationships. Woman was created as a companion for man and all men are descended from our first parents. This makes all men brothers and brothers cannot be spouses.

                    8/ You have quoted Galatians 3:28 out of its clear and correct context, an offence you accuse others of committing with other scriptural references. The passage means that all those who are baptized into Christ have equal status, not that male and female, slave and free no longer exist.

                    • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                      Sexual intercourse exists between two men, and two women, whether you like it or not. Sex is about more than biological functions. Your statement reveals the reductionist, and debased tone of your thoughts.

                      Just because you say ‘marriage is defined by man and woman’ doesn’t make it true. You have no argument. What defines a marriage is life-long, monogamous love between two people. Man and woman can be brother and sister, father and daughter. So, gender is not what makes a marriage a marriage. Life-long, monogamous love is.

                      Same-sex marriage exists whether you like it or not. Even without a legal paper, it exists in nature. Two people, who join together for life, in love, are married in the eyes of God.

                      Galatians 3:28 is in the context of the Kingdom of Christ… As Christians, we are to be bring the Kingdom of Christ here to earth, as Jesus says ‘the Kingdom is within you’… & in Christ, there is no longer male and female.’ There is no taking this out of context. The context is quite clear.

                      By your ‘logic’ stating all men as brothers, what would follow is that all men and women are brothers and sisters too! My goodness. Use some common sense, We do not all descend from Adam and Eve. This is purely an example of the first people. Who do you think Cain took to be his wife?

                      The triune unity is reflected by love, not gender. Therefore same-sex couples can, and DO reflect this. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4, is also an example of a man leaving his father to join as one with another man. Naomi and Ruth are another example – they ‘cleaved together as one’. Women were created in the image of God, as an equal counterpart. Learnt the Hebrew meaning of ‘help meet’, from the ”ezer” meaning ‘to save’, and ”k’enegdo”, meaning ‘in front or ‘opposite’. Women are there to guide and lead men, not just as wives, but as equal counterparts. Not all women marry men, not all men marry women. This is evident in nature. You are denying God’s natural creation of gay men and women.

                      David had wives to fit with the culture of his day… Yet why was he never satisfied? Much like a gay man trying to be straight. But ‘Jonathan’s love surpassed that of women.’ (2 Sam 1:26).

                    • Philip Maguire

                      Sexual intercourse or coitus to give it another name can not be accomplished by same sex partners whether you like it or not. It requires two sets of complementary sexual organs. Whatever you call homosexual activity it is NOT intercourse. A dildo or strap on device is not a penis and the anal passage is not a sex organ. So let’s drop the pretence and proceed with the debate.

                      Marriage is defined by the presence of both sexes. God ordained it that way. Male and female he created them. As is written in Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

                      Marriage is a life-long monogamous love between a man and a woman. In Catholicism it is the Sacrament of Matrimony which will never be available to same sex partners.

                      The idea of same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Two people, joined together for life in love, are not necessarily married. The case of Cardinal John Henry Newman and Fr Ambrose St John has already been mentioned. They would have been most surprised to discover they were married given that they had both made a vow not to marry.

                      Galatians 3.28 is confirmation that all are equal in Christ. It cannot possibly be construed as meaning that in Christ males and females no longer exist. To be in Christ means to be a member of His Church. I see males and females all around me in every Christian environment I enter and the children of those Christians, born of their unity in marriage.

                      By my logic all men are brothers, distant brothers in the genetic sense and immediate brothers under God who is our Father. And yes, it follows that all men and women are brothers and sisters, too. Why do you have a problem with that? In contrast to your stated belief that “we don’t ALL decend from Adam and Eve” we do ALL descend from our first parents. Your apparent belief in polygenism is totally inconsistent with and at odds with Christian faith.

                      Pope Pius X11 in Humani Generis states that: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

                      Your claim to be a Christian is nothing more than a lie. Your “hermeneutics” threaten our entire understanding of the fall of man and and the story of our salvation.

                      The unity of God is reflected in the union through marriage of a man and a woman. But it is also reflected in the unity of the Church. Jesus prayed that His Apostles may be one even as He and The Father are one.

                      You write that not all women marry men and that not all men marry women. That is a self evident truth but it is no argument for gay marriage. There are men and women who make a vow never to marry and offer their virginity to God.

                      God did not create gay men and women. He created men and women and imbued them with human nature. Just as He did not create Lucifer to be evil, nor did He create man to be homosexual. That is a consequence of the fall which corrupted the natural order ordained by Him.

                      Naomi and Ruth were not same sex partners. They were mother-in-law and daughter in law. Ruth loved Naomi as a mother and clung to her. That is understandable. Naomi was Ruth’s greatest link to her deceased husband. Your case is that the word “dabaq” used when describing Ruth clinging to Naomi is the same Hebrew word used in Gen 2:24 to describe a man holding fast to his wife. You have no case. The world dabaq is used frequently in a non sexual context and here are some examples – Ezek 3:26, Deut 28:21, Jer 13:11, Psalm 22:15, Deut 11:22, Deut 30:20, 2 Kings 5:27 to name just a few. The same word is used when Ruth’s second husband, Boaz, (yes, she married again) tells her to stay close to the young men who are harvesting. Would you interpret that as an invitation to form a covenant union with them? You might, no sane Biblical scholar would – not that you’re a biblical scholar.

                      Now, let’s refresh ourselves of your arguments re marriage. “Marriage is a life-long monognamous love between two people.” You said that. You also claimed that David joined to Jonathan and that they became one flesh in a “life-long monogamous love between two people.” That must have been so because they were married, according to you and that is what marriage is, also according to you.

                      But now we strike a terrible inconsistency in your argument. David had wives. Oh, but that was just to fit in with the culture of his day. Really? Even if that were so it eliminates your concept of marriage entirely from this equation. But there’s more to it. David saw Bathsheba on the roof and he was filled with lust for her. And he acted upon his desires. I could go on and on disproving your silly theory about David and Jonathan but there’s enough just there to leave it a smouldering ruin.

                      So David said Jonathan’s love surpassed that of a woman. I know men who love their friends with a depth that perhaps in one sense exceeds their love for their wives but you will never convince them that they are homosexual because they are not. You suffer from an acute misunderstanding of love. I originally asked you to define love. You haven’t done so and you cannot. Nor can I. God is love and you cannot imprison him in your definitions. All we can do is our best to love Him in return and do His will.

                      People who may be sexually attracted to members of their own sex are called to celibacy and to live chaste lives unless they can overcome that attraction and live with and love a member of the opposite sex as a spouse.

                      That is how God has ordered the world through both His word and His natural law.

                      The words Jesus spoke to Saul echo down through the ages and speak to you now. I will paraphrase it.

                      “Rebekah, Rebekah, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.”

                • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                  There are no ‘square pegs’ or ’round holes’ in a same-sex relationship. Nonsense. There are only two of the same.

                  • Cait

                    Homosexual activity is likened to trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

                    • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                      Well this is a false likening, and utterly nonsensical. A square peg, and a round hole sounds more like a man and a woman! Opposites. Two of the same, is more like two round holes, or two square pegs, which may in fact go together like two peas in a pod!

                    • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                      Also, homosexulaity is natural. Therefore there is no ‘forcing’ of anything. Two gay people of the same-sex, who are attracted to one another, are naturally attracted to one another, in the same way as a man and a woman.

                    • chezami

                      You are equivocating on the word “Natural”. Cystic fibrosis, genetic predisposition to alcoholism, and criminal insanity can be “natural” too in the sense that some people are “born that way:” Doesn’t mean they should be fostered and encouraged. You’re dishonest. Goodbye.

          • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

            Philip, you speak of ‘homosexual behaviour’, but this is
            merely a false term in order to promote and project an anti-gay agenda. The only ‘sophistry’ is in your ‘arguments’, which are contrary to the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My arguments are in sync with Jesus Christ, and with Biblical Hermeneutical exegesis, thus upholding Biblical integrity. Therefore it is logic, not ‘pathos’. When two people love one another, their gender is irrelevant in defining that love.

            Gender does not define the righteousness of a relationship. Companionship, solidarity, faithfulness, Christ-like selflessness, care, nurture, friendship, and spiritual, intellectual, emotional and physical intimacy, are the ‘behaviours’ involved in a same-sex marriage, just as these things should be present in an opposite-sex marriage. Sadly, you seem only able to debase others relationships due to your own, un-Christ-like prejudice. Reducing the love of two people to ‘anal sex’, is not only reductionist, but is also something that is absent from many same-sex relationships, is not a homosexual act per se, and is most certainly absent from at least 50% of them. The fact that you feel the need to mention this, only shows the depravity of your thoughts. To reduce marital love to sex, or opposite gender combination (once again reducing marriage to sex) only makes clear that your own thoughts on the subject are utterly depraved. If your prejudice lies in the fact that you don’t like the idea of two people of the same-sex making love, to affrim the unitive purpose of sex, then logically, I should presume you are OK with those in celibate same-sex marriages then,such as Dr Rev. Jeffery John and his husband? When two people join together in love, they become one flesh, whether they are two women, one man & one woman, or two men. This is spoken of in Samuel 18 in reference to David and Jonathan. In reference to Jesus speaking of ‘male and female’, this is in response to the Pharisees question on divorce. They knew only of the common, Hebrew way in Patriarchal society, of male and female, and thus Jesus speaks about male and female. He states that because two become one flesh when they marry, they should not divorce. This is a response to a question on divorce, not a definition of marriage per se. The same one flesh union applies to any two formerly unrelated adults who join together. This is evident in Samuel 18 where it is stated that David will go to his father’s house no more, because his soul had become one with Jonathan. See 1 Samuel 18: 1-4:

            1. And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house 3. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 4. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

            To examine 1 Samuel 18:1 through a hermeneutical exegesis: …the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

            ‘Souls knit together’:- soul in Hebrew = nephesh also translated as body, heart, thyself and desire as opposed to spirit which is ruach, which can be translated to mind, air, or breath. ‘He ‘loved him as his own soul/self’. This verse shares familiar ground with 2nd part of Gen 2:24 …and they shall be one flesh.’

            In reference to St Paul, he speaks against the arsenakoitai,(etymology of the word = ‘male bedder’, and money) – evidently user of a prostitute, and the malakoi (slothful, or morally weak/soft’ – the prostitute
            or young male sex slave), who are the active and passive partners in male-male prostitution and pederasty, a common relationship socially accepted in the Greco-Roman world of St Paul – this is what he condemns… Far, far removed from loving, life-long relationships between two adult, consenting women, or men.

            Philip I am sad to say it but the truth is you speak with a forked tongue of prejudice, and present yourself with that which psychologists call ‘deflection’, when you spout false judgments such as ‘you know nothing of the love of Christ’. How could you possibly think yourself able to judge one’s heart; and someone you do not know anything about; it is only God’s place to do such a thing. God knows who the one displaying anti-Christian
            behaviour here is. I would be amazed if you had the audacity to call yourself a Christian, when you act so contrary to Christ. The tone of your comments speaks only lies, hate, prejudice, and deceit. Read the gospels and then you might learn something of the love of Christ. In particular I would urge you to remind yourself of Matthew 7: 21-23, where Jesus says ‘not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.’

            Finally, your previous comment does not make any logical sense whatsoever, when you state that because you don’t marry everyone you love, that love cannot be the sole criterion for marriage. You don’t marry every one of the opposite gender either, therefore in the same ‘logic’, gender cannot be the sole criterion for marriage. There are different kinds of love, and the love
            that makes a marriage is in and of itself a monogamous love, therefore this kind of love, of ONE significant other, is the sole criterion for marriage. Marital love by sheer definition means you can only marry ONE person – it is a monogamous love, That is why ‘polygamous marriage’ is not marriage at all. You speak of men and women complimenting one another, but you are defining.people by their genders. This is debasing and dehumanising to the human person, who is more than their gender. Many men complement one another, as do women, in many ways that do not involve gender. ‘…there is no longer male and female, we are all one in Christ’. Galatians 3:28. People complement one another in many ways other than gender. If you take Biblical ‘definitions of marriage’, then you will no doubt be promoting marriage of one’s rape victim (see Deuteronomy 22:28-29), marrying your brother’s widow regardless of one’s own marital status (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Genesis 38; Ruth 2-4), along with polygamy, and marriage for the uptake of property (see Deuteronomy).

            Now, to exalt an opposite gender combination as a necessity for marriage, over and above love, is idolatry, for it places the created (gender), over and above the Creator (Love) as the Creator IS love. See 1 John 4:16, ‘God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.’ Therefore it is idolatry to exalt gender over love. Not only that but you exalt gender so highly that is leads you to be absent from the love of Christ which Christians are called to emanate. You practice hate and prejudice towards others who are emanating the love of Christ through their marriages, which do in fact involve selfless love, where one loves their partner as their own self. Gender does not define the love of two people. The righteousness of a relationship does not depend upon gender – it depends upon love, and the definition of this love is that of Corinthians 13.4-8. Once again, ‘God is love. Whoever lives in love, lives in God, and God in them.’ 1 John 4:16.

            • Philip Maguire

              Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour not a sexual orientation or a state of being. When all is broken down into its proper place it is merely a mockery of God’s procreative gift and a product of the fall.

              The homosexual parody is merely infatuation and sexual expression for its own sake, proven by the prodigious number of sexual encounters of those who identify themselves as gay.

              Your boastful claim to knowledge of hermeneutics and biblical exegisis stops with knowledge of the terms.

              You talk about two people loving each other as if sex is always the end product of that love and that love between two men or two women is always homosexual love. That is a sign of your own perversion. How tragic!

              Your arguments are laughable and contradictory. In one post you refer to Our Lord’s comments about two becoming one flesh to defend your ideas of same sex marriage, which I answered in my previous post, and in another it’s merely Jesus responding to a question about divorce. You feign knowledge Rebekah but you are truly ignorant. You don’t even understand the meaning of celibate, referring to those in “celibate same sex marriages”. Celibacy is the state of not being married.

              Now let’s examine your next offering of nonsense. You told us the story of David and Jonathan and concluded that it was tantamount to a homosexual relationship because “he loved him as his own soul/self.” You claim that shares familiar ground with the second part of Genesis 2:24 ….and they shall be one flesh.” I say it has more in common with the words of Jesus in Matthew “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” If you worked hard enough, Rebekah, you could probably assign a gay meaning to that commandment, too, for our additional entertainment.

              You don’t stop there however. You proceed to a long convoluted explanation of St Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behaviour as being merely a condemnation of pederastic relationships in Greco-Roman times. The reason you didn’t quote St Paul, however, as we might have expected, given your penchant for quoting is because his words don’t support your interpretation of them.

              What did St Paul actually say on that topic?

              “Therefore God handed them over to impurity through the lust of their hearts – for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever, Amen. Therefore God handed them over the degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due reward for their perversity.”

              That’s just slightly more comprehensive a condemnation than you would have it, even condemning female homosexual behaviour which you conveniently neglected to mention.

              Now to your condemnation of me. It is not prejudice to condemn an unnatural, harmful and sinful behaviour as I have done, and indeed as St Paul did. If I say you are ignorant of the love of Christ it is because you have proven yourself so. You lack an informed conscience proven by the lengths you go to in denying your own sinfulness. We all sin, Rebekah. The difference between you and I is that I am always ready to acknowledge my sinfulness, repent of it and do penance for it. I am amazed that you have the audacity to call yourself a Christian given your willingness to pervert and deliberately misinterpret the word of God Himself.

              Your failure to grasp my meaning when I said I don’t marry everyone I love, nor could I, is again laughable. It is very simple to grasp, Rebekah. If love were to be the sole criterion for marriage I could marry everyone and everything I love. Why can’t I? Because love is not the sole criterion for marriage. This forced you to acknowledge that there are indeed different kinds of love, even though you haven’t quite got hold of the fact that love between men is not necessarily homosexual as you tried to imply in your retelling of the story of David and Jonathan. Yes, there are different kinds of love and the love that makes a marriage is in and of itself a monogamous and complementary love which is why it is reserved to male and female partners.

              Finally your preposterous claim that the defence of marriage is gender idolatry is breathtaking in the insult it offers to our Creator. I have not made war on legitimate love between two people of whatever sex they happen to be. Chaste love between two men or two women is not homosexual because homosexuality is merely a perverted sexual activity.

              Marriage is reserved by God for men and women because God created woman as a companion to man, made her complementary to him and joined them into one flesh through a physical union that creates new life.

              Your argument is not with me, Rebekah, it is with God. At this moment you are siding with his enemy. May He grant you the light and grace you need to escape from the terrible prison you have locked yourself in.

              • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                Love, can never be a ‘product of the fall’. Your behaviour, and prejudice towards it however, is a product of the fall. You seem unable to comprehend that gay people are capable of love. It is very sad that your mind is so depraved in its thinking, that you debase love, because of the gender combination of the couple. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is in fact an orientation, and the science (and the innately homosexual people) are there to prove it. It is that which drives one to reach out and connect to a significant other in love, friendship, and companionship, These things are not a product of the fall. Whether this is hetero, or homo, it is that which may lead one to a life-long marital love. Many heterosexual relationships are non-procreative in the biological sense; this does not make a ‘mockery of God’s procreative gift.’ Not all are called to procreate. There is such thing as procreation in the sense that two people give one another life, through their love.

                You seem to be confused about the difference between infatuation and love. I am not talking about infatuation, but life-long, Christ emanating love. All marital love should include agape love, as well as philia love, and eros. It is not merely ‘sexual love that leads to physical union’. The latter is not exclusive to male and female partners. This is evident in nature. The only parody is the heterosexist agenda. Many, many, many people who are gay (and not merely ‘define themselves that way’) live in monogamous life-long relationships. There is more promiscuity in the heterosexual world of relationship hopping, adulterous men, and divorce.

                My knowledge of hermeneutical exegesis is more than you will ever know. I am not even sure you understand this methodology.

                Sadly you have no argument so you resort to insults. You state that, I ‘talk about two people loving each other as if sex is always the end product of that love and that love between two men or two women is always homosexual love.’ Do I? No, I do not, clearly you haven’t read my posts carefully enough, but I am however discussing same-sex marriage here, therefore that is why this is the topic of discussion. Many same-sex marriages are in fact chaste… I even mentioned that in my last post. I know many gay people who are in celibate marriages and relationships, so you are entirely wrong. Same-sex marriage can in fact be the purest love. Once again you are making false presumptions. The fact that you cannot comprehend this is a sign of your perversion of mind, and overall depravity. The tragedy is on you, I am sorry to say. You have a lot of hatred toward gay people it seems, and I think you need to give that to God, and seek forgiveness.

                You have not been able to follow a simple argument, which makes me wonder why I am debating with you. I fear you are ill educated on this topic. Jesus is responding to a question on divorce. He then follows through by saying, that because two become one flesh, we should not divorce. This is not about male and female, but about two becoming one flesh, thus what God has joined together, let no man separate.

                Once again, another insult: ‘You feign knowledge Rebekah but you are truly ignorant.’ This comment shows that you are a highly ignorant, prejudice man, who does not know how to discuss a topic academically, or in Christian manner. Celibacy may in fact be present within a marriage. One may be in a chaste marriage, that is sexual in that the two are entwined in companionship and friendship, but may abstain from sex as in genitality.

                Your interpretation of this letter to the Romans is entirely incorrect. You have taken this passage out of its cultural-historical context, and also added to what it says (a condemnation of which the Bible ends with in Revelation). There is no mention of female homosexual ‘behaviour’ whatsoever. Pagans and there evil behaviours (promiscuity, murder, and rejection of God) have nothing to do with two Christians in a loving, committed, life-long marriage. Paul these condemns Pagans for rejecting God, and engaging in promiscuous sexual behaviour. Men left their wives (the usual), to engage in ‘para physin’ meaning ‘unusual’ behaviour. Paul provided a record of this, and condemns them for their rejection of God, which resulted in promiscuity, murder, and hatred. Read the whole letter and get some context. The word para physin has no ethical connotations. God is said to have behaved ‘para physin’, in scripture. Your knowledge of this letter is evidently verging on very little, as otherwise you would know that there is no mention of female homsoexual behaviour in this letter, if you had any knowledge of it. It simply says ‘women exchanged natural relations for ”para physin”…’ This could mean anything but the ‘missionary position’. What is sinful is the context. The Pagan rejection of God, worshipping the created over the Creator, (which is ironically what you are doing in your gender idolatry), and engaging in all manner of promiscuous behaviour. The fact that Paul witnessed this, provides enough evidence that these Pagans were involved in public sexual orgies, that were very common in the Greco-Roman world, and took place in Pagan Temples; sex worship, and the worship of other idols. If you read into the context, culture, and history when you attempt to interpret this verse, then you would know that.

                I would like to close in prayer, that God will lead you to the truth of this matter, and heal your heart from the prejudice and hatred that you express toward your gay brothers and sisters in Christ. I pray that God will give you wisdom to learn, and to love your neighbour as yourself, as Christ has called us to. I recommend a read by two heterosexual Christians, Myers and Saczoni – ‘What God Has Joined Together – The Christian Case for Gay Marriage.’ http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-God-Has-Joined-Together/dp/0060834544

                • Philip Maguire

                  Love is certainly not a product of the fall and I did not claim that it was. But that is a very good example of your misrepresentation. In my own life I am surrounded by love and I am a product of love, just as you are. How fortunate for you that your parents, male and female, were not inclined to homosexual behaviour.

                  Homosexuality is not love, Rebekah, and it is in no way representative of love. It is an intrinsically disordered behaviour that leads to evil consequences and as such I am utterly opposed to it.

                  Procreative love is sexual. Chaste love is not. Homosexuality does not involve love because it is merely a disordered sexual behaviour. You have proven your own depravity.

                  Homosexuality cannot be a sexual orientation because it lacks the capacity for partners to be truly intimate. Neither male nor female partnerships can participate in sexual intercourse because the complementary sexual organs required are not present.

                  While it is true that not all are called to procreate it is also true that none are called to mock or parody the act of procreation which is what homosexual activity does.

                  • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                    Homosuality in itself, is a sexual orientation, that may lead to love, just as heterosexual orientation may do. Same-sex couples have loving, holy relationships, and this fact is indisputable. The people are there to prove it. You can slander, and hate all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that there are many, many, same-sex couples emanating God’s love in their relationships.

                    Love is never an intrinsically disordered behaviour.

                    Many heterosexual people do not procreate, so your comment about my origins is nonsensical.

                    Same-sex partners can be more intimate than many opposite sex partners, purely because they cannot procreate, thus it leads them to a deeper level of spiritual intimacy then you will ever know. Sexual intercourse is more than Penises and Vaginas, to be blunt about it. Homoseuxlaity is natural, science proves this, and it is a sexuality that leads to love, in the same way heterosexuality does. It is not disordered, and one’s gender does not make their relationship void of love. Chaste love, most certainly can be sexual. A married couple may abstain from sex, yet there love is still sexual. You need to educate yourself on the theology of sexuality.

                    • Anthony

                      Same-sex couples have loving, holy relationships, and this fact is indisputable.

                      Only possible in the absence of any sexual activity.

                • Philip Maguire

                  Frankly I am fed up with your idiocy. Are you a Greek scholar? No you are not. Are you any kind of a scholar? No, you are not. But please give us your pseudo scholarly interpretation into English of Romans 1:26-30. Tell us why every reputable NT translation of those verses is wrong. Because if you are correct the translations have to be incorrect. Tell us also why Jesus says the following in His discourse on divorce:

                  “Jesus replied. 6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,b 8and the two will become one flesh.’c So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

                  Jesus here enshrines the principle that marriage is solely between men and women, an utterly devastating rebuttal of your case for same sex marriage.

                  I’ve also heard enough about your ridiculous concept of celibate same sex marriages. Are you really so ignorant that you don’t know that celibacy is the state of being unmarried and the associated refraining from sex is due to the unmarried state? For someone who places so much emphasis on the right use of words, correct translations and context you have a very cavalier attitude to the misuse of that word.

                  Chaste same sex relationships have nothing to do with homosexuality which is a sexual behaviour. Grasp that and you’ll be on the way to a brand new understanding of human relationships that transcend sexual activity.

                  • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                    You seem to lack understanding of the word ‘transcend’, as it is I who has been talking about relationships that transcend ‘sexual activity’. Married couples often refrain from sex, for times of spiritual discernment and prayer (Paul even speaks of this), along with the reasoning that marriage is about far more than sex and procreation! You also lack understanding of what ‘sexual activity’ is. What is kissing, hugging, and supporting for, caring for, and nurturing one’s loved one for life? Sexual activity is more than what is termed as genitality. The word sex comes from the latin ‘secare’ which means to be cut, or separate from. Therefore sexuality one’s God given ability reaches out to connect to a significant other whether to a man or woman, depending on one’s God given sexuality.

                    Celibacy is a term that does not only include singledom. One may abstain from sex in a marriage, and thus the term is a celibate marriage. Marriage is not only about sex and procreation as you seem to think.

                    I have studied Theology for over 10 years, and Hermeneutics for the last 5. I think you can guess what that makes me. But I would suppose that you would negate the educational status of anyone that disagrees with you, which makes clear your own status, or lack there of. I have studied the ancient Hebrew and Greek, languages for the last 5 years – have you? I think your false accusations, and negating remarks are highly un-Christlike. There is such a thing as having a civil, adult, academic discussion / debate.

                    Homosexuality is an orientation, and one may be such without acting out any ‘behaviour’. Just as one is heterosexual without necessarily acting out any behaviour. Otherwise, I should ask, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

                    Jesus speaks about male and female becoming one flesh, not as a definition of ,marriage per se, but as a reason not to divorce. This is a response to the Pharisees question on divorce. Read the passages before and after this verse, in order to ascertain the context. It starts with: Matthew 19:3:

                    ‘The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?’ Then Jesus goes onto say, no, because one leaves their father and mother to become one flesh with a significant other. (1Sam,1-5 is parallel to this passage). Jesus speaks of the most obvious common Hebrew way. If this was a text about defining marriage. Jesus would have said, there shall be no joining of those of the same. But instead, Jesus then goes on to speak about those who do not enter into heterosexual relationships. The eunuch, of which there are three kinds, was a term used to refer to gay men in other Greek literature of the time of Jesus. Jesus explicitly says in Matthew 19:12, ‘For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.’ ‘Born so from their mother’s womb, is a reference to gay people. Science also supports this. These are the facts – whether you like it or not.

                    Your utter disdain and disapproval of love between two people of the same-sex, is simply from your own fear of the feminine, which Wolfgang Lederer MD says, is deep within the male psyche (& is therefore no surprise then that studies show males, and the less educated to be the most homophobic). You see two women as a threat to the fallen male, patriarchal way. Female solidarity undermines fallen patriarchal society. In the same way, two men is a threat to what you see as ‘a man taking on the role of a woman’.You need to repent of your hatred. The fact is, love between same-sex couples does exist, and it is marriage when two people commit to a life-long covenant. You need to cleanse your brain from your depraved and debased thinking so that you can grasp thew fact that GENDER does NOT define love. Marital love is not all about sex and procreation. The love between two people of the same-sex, who join in marriage is Holy and Pure, and whether or not you approve, God does, for ‘God is love, and whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them’. (1 John 4.16).

                    • Philip Maguire

                      I well understand the meaning of transcend. You have spoken of relationships that transcend sexual activity and have insisted on calling them marriages. But, they are not marriages.

                      Married couples certainly refrain from sex at times for various reasons but that does not mean that marital sex is not an integral part of marriage. I don’t deny that marriage is about more than sex and procreation just as I say it is about more than love – unless we are viewing love as an all encompassing phenomenon that includes every aspect of marriage.

                      You accuse me of lacking understanding of what sexual activity is. My dear, I am the father of four children. I know what sexual activity is. Kissing, hugging, supporting for, caring for, and nurturing one’s loved ones for life is NOT essentially sexual activity. But we were not discussing sexual activity – we were discussing sexual intercourse. You’re trying to argue that the meaning of the word sex is limited to its etymology. Here’s the proof in your words.

                      “The word sex comes from the latin ‘secare’ which means to be cut, or separate from. Therefore sexuality one’s God given ability reaches out to connect to a significant other whether to a man or woman, depending on one’s God given sexuality.”

                      That doesn’t work. You’re not even making sense.

                      The word celibacy means to abstain from marriage. The term “celibate marriage” is a misnomer. You may speak of a chaste marriage but that is the exception, rather than the rule and in every case the potential exists for sex and procreation because the the husband and wife are male and female. That one or both partners may be infertile, for example, in no way breaches the rule.

                      You have studied Theology for 10 years. Goodness me. I could lay claim to a longer period than that. And my study was formal, too. At Melbourne’s Yarra Theological Union where Catholic orders send their students to study. I have studied Hermeneutics, too, and I can’t say I think much of yours.

                      And you have studied the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages for the past five years yet have no formal qualifications in them to boast of.

                      I think your boastfullness, empty as it is, is unChristlike. I think yours is the attitude of anti-Christ. I think yours is the theology of anti-Christ.

                      Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation and in reality there is no category of people called homosexual. Homosexuality is merely a disordered sexual behaviour and a homosexual is someone who participates in it.

                      Heterosexuality is the natural state into which human beings are born. We are not divided into separate categories of heterosexual and homosexual. Your argument is forlorn and and absurd.

                      Jesus certainly speaks about male and female becoming one flesh as a definition of marriage, using that example as a reason not to divorce in His response to the Pharisees. We’re all aware of the context of His comments but His meaning is not limited to the context. He takes His reply from Genesis where the context is not all related to divorce.

                      You can be unwttingly funny sometimes as you are here.

                      “The Jesus goes onto say, no, because one leaves their father and mother to become one flesh with a significant other.”

                      Here is what Jesus actually said.

                      “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

                      In the context of His words to His Apostles concerning eunuchs Jesus is not referring to gay men and it is mere silliness on your part to try and make that connection.

                      To begin with in those times there were no gay men. Homosexuality was then, as it really is now, a behaviour not a category of human being.

                      Jesus meant precisely what He said. Some were born eunuchs from their mother’s wombs, some were made eunuchs by men (i.e castrated) and some made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus was familiar with those who had chosen celibacy and chastity as a way of life for in His lifetime men spoke of the possibility of “marrying Torah,” that is, dedicating their whole life to the study of the Word. Don’t seize upon the use of the word marriage there and interpret it literally. Just to give another example the Jewish scholar, Philo of Alexandria, was a chaste ceibate. When Jesus speaks of eunuchs born from their mother’s wombs he is referring to those who were born infertile or with some kind of physical condition like hypospadias which rendered sexual intercourse impossible for them. To attempt to put a homosexual slant on the His words is an act of anti-Christ.

                      In conclusion science does not support the contention that homosexuals are born and not made. Those are the facts whether you like them or not!

                      Thank you so much for your psychological appraisal but again you are entirely wrong. I have no fear at all of the feminine and both recognise and embrace in myself what we would refer to as feminine aspects. That of nurturing and caring for children is one that I am extremely comfortable with and that I have practised as a Father.

                      I don’t see two same sex attracted women as a threat to the “fallen patriarchal way.” LOL

                      I see same sex attracted women with a political agenda like you as a threat to God’s natural order and I have good reason for it. But, I have no objection to chaste love between same sex attracted people. What I object to is homosexual behaviour and the reductionist approach to marriage of people like you to whom the door of marriage is closed unless your overcome your same sex attractions.

                      Marital love is not all about sex and procreation but those are elements integral to marriage. Marriage is a complementary relationship, it is between men and women and it was ordained that way by God.

                      I have no objection to the rite of Adelphopoiesis understood as a rite of brotherhood celebrating the love between brothers in Christ.

                      There can be great good in that. But it is not marriage and can never be marriage.

                    • rj

                      I have spoken of relationships that are about MORE than sexual activity, rather than entirely transcending it. You need to look into the theology of sexulity. One can be celibate, yet still a sexual person in that they reach out and connect to others. Celibacy is not all about singledom. Your understanding of sexuality is limited to practice by the sounds of it. Kissing, hugging, etc. when between a married couple, is in fact sexual activity.

                      I did not argue that the meaning of the word sex is limited to its etymology. Where have I said that? No Once again misreading my posts as you do the Bible. I have presented you the etymology of the word, in order to try to bring you closer to understanding that sexuality is not merely about practice, or genitality to be precise.

                      Marriage should never be about anything outside of love. Love is the source of all goodness. God is love. Therefore if marriage is about is about more than love, then you are in danger of bringing an absence of good into marriage. Whilst marriage does involve that which falls outside of goodness and love, when there is struggle, and strife, it should, in theory, be about emanating the love of Christ. In everything we do, it should be done in love. Marriage, and the emanating of love that arises through its primary purpose of unity (and procreation which is secondary and not a necessity or possibility for all) is not dependent upon gender. Marriage is not marriage because of gender combination. What makes marriage marriage, is the life-long, monogamous aspect of this form of love.

                      Now Philip, there was nothing boastful in saying how long I have formally studied theology and hermeneutics for, in defense of your previous accusation that I am ‘not a scholar’. What are your credentials may I ask?. I could have boasted and presented you with my credentials, but I have not. But as we are on the subject, I am currently studying towards my doctorate. I have an honours degree in Theology & Religious studies including Biblical Hermeneutics. I also have a Postgraduate degree in Christian Theology from a specialist Theology college of the University of London. Now, you say you ‘don’t think much of my hermeneutics’, which I don’t find surprising as you don;t seem to know what it is. FYI, if I were to boast I would tell you the fact that I obtained the highest mark in Biblical Hermeneutics that had been seen in several years at my University (a well known place of study for theology in London). But I didn’t – until now. God forgive me for getting boastful now in order to defend myself from the likes of vipers like yourself – & Jesus was quite blunt when it came to labelling vipers as vipers. See Matthew 23:33. At least I am implementing some hermeneutical exegesis. You appear to entirely ignore this methodology and read the Bible out of context with tunnel vision, and no regard for the integrity of what the passage is actually saying. I don’t think you have studied hermeneutics at all, as you completely ignore the cultural-historical context of scripture.

                      On Celibacy: It is not exclusive to singledom. Celibacy may exist within a marriage. Marriage is not suddenly not a marriage if the couple abstains from genitality.

                      On marriage: Marriage is not a marriage because of an opposite gender combination. Marriage is marriage because of the life-long covenant between two formerly unrelated people who join together as one. Marriage is not exclusive to men and women. This is evident in nature. Complementarity is not restrained to one’s gender. Also evident in the marriages of people both hetero and homo, who complement one another beautifully through their different strengths, talents, and gifts. Marriage should be egalitarian in nature if it is to emanate Christ. For in Christ, there is no longer male and female. Gal. 3:28.

                      The anti-Christ slant is the slant of homophobia, the twisting of scripture to support an anti-homosexual agenda, and the mistranslating and misinterpreting that people such as yourself insist upon in order to support your prejudice. It is this prejudice that causes the suicide of, ostracisation of, and injustice toward gay people everyday across the world. Whereas homosexuality itself is that which leads people to love.

                      On Adelphopoiesis: ‘Brothers in Christ’ was a term used to refer to married couples in antiquity. All throughout scripture we see that married couples often referred to one another as ‘my brother’ or ‘my sister’. It is a term of endearment used in antiquity to refer to one’s spouse. Read the official document of the ‘Office of Same Union’, and you will see it was an identical ceremony to that of what is now called Holy Matrimony.

                      There is no political agenda from ‘people like me’. The only agenda I have is to uphold and bring forth the integrity of the Bible – and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which promotes love, and therefore justice, and equality. I am no ‘threat to God’s natural order’, I have been created within God’s natural order, which includes the creation of homosexuals. It is simply a natural part of God’s beautiful and diverse creation.

                      Deep in your male psyche Phillip my dear, is a fear of the feminine (as there is in every heterosexual male psyche), and the fact that you say you see ‘women like me as a threat to ”God’s natural order” ‘ provides me with all the evidence I need to show that you do in fact find the solidarity between two women, as a threat to patriarchal society. What you mean by ‘God’s natural order’, is actually patriarchal society or heterosexism. This heterosexist ideology that you promote, is fallen patriarchal society, and not God’s natural order.

                      Nurturing and caring for Children is not a feminine quality per se. It is false social engineering that would have people believe this in order to promote a this fallen system of the patriarch. To nurture and care, is Christlike, and should not only be called a feminine trait, but a masculine trait also. Men and women should care for their children equally.

                      I think it’s funny how you quote my paraphrasing as though I presented it as a quote from the Bible. Once again, twisting things, and misquoting me. I said:

                      ‘Then Jesus goes onto say, no (in response to the Pharisees – why one should not divorce) etc. & here is why…

                      You insist upon ignoring the context of Matthew 19, and try to whittle a definition of marriage where there isn’t one. If this was a definition of marriage, there would have been a condemnation of homosexuality here, but you are trying to make something out of something Jesus doesn’t say. This is a response to why people should not divorce – not an exclusive definition of marriage. When Jesus speaks of ‘eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb’, he is in fact referring to gay men and women. The term eunuch was often used to refer to gay men in these times. The evidence is in the literature of the time. Read it. Even the anti-gay evangelical Dr. Robert Gagnon, admits that the term ‘eunuchs born from their mother’s womb’ is in reference to gay men and women.

                      On the science: Science does in fact support the fact that homosexuality is innate. The evidence is insurmountable. Perhaps you should research this before you make false claims such as ‘science does not support the contention that homosexuals are born and not made’. This is a false statement. Everyone knows that homosexuality is natural, inborn. It is a fact – whether you accept it or not.

                      An analogy of two marriages: Juliet and Rose, love one another in the same way as Bob and Sally. Each couple has been married for 20 years. They stick together through thick and thin, good and bad. Both couples support one another, care for one another, encourage one another. Each couple shares the household chores, and each earns a living through admirable vocations. They celebrate each others’ joys, and nurse each others’ failures.They each work at their local church, bringing up children for the Kingdom of God, in the way that St Augustine taught us to. One couple has opposite biological functions below the waist. The other the same. Neither has children, Bob and Sally chose not to. Juliet and Rose physically can’t. But the love between the each couple is life giving to the other. The gender of the couples, makes no difference to the love that they share. The relationship of both, is marriage.

                      Until you stop worshiping gender, and realise that what makes a marriage is not gender, but monogamous life-long, covenantal love, there is no hope for you to stop with false condemnations, and anti-Christian prejudice. I pray that you will open your heart to at least contemplate the fact that you don’t always get it right, and you might be wrong. Start with some basic hermeneutical principles – cultural-historical context of the text. Meaning of the original language, and is this in sync with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Good luck, and God bless. In Christ, Rebekah

                    • Philip Maguire

                      I did not argue that the meaning of the word sex is limited to its etymology. Where have I said that? No Once again misreading my posts as you do the Bible.

                      Oh yes you did argue that. You didn’t make that statement of course, but you made the argument. You used the word secare to define the word derived from it.

                      You said The word sex comes from the latin ‘secare’ which means to be cut, or separate from. Therefore sexuality one’s God given ability reaches out to connect to a significant other whether to a man or woman, depending on one’s God given sexuality.

                    • Philip Maguire

                      You’re a liar, Rebekah. I’m not interested in debating with a liar and a fraud.

                    • John

                      Are you a Christian Philip? I have read the posts between you & Rebekah & I have to say you sound like the only liar here. You are a bully, & despite Rebekah’s intelligent, reasonable arguments you just respond with name calling & insults. She is right in her description of love – being that of the description in Corinthians – patient, kind, long suffering etc. Rebekah has given a clear, & accurate description of what love is, & she is right – it is not dependent upon gender, & there is such a thing as celibacy within a marriage. You appear to have a very limited understanding of marriage.

                      Rebekah is in fact your sister in Christ, and from the sound of her writings she is far, far more intelligent, and more Christian than you. I am very surprised to see thaws nasty, infantile, bully style messages from a grown man who calls himself a Christian. Nobody chooses a ‘sexual preference’, and Rebekah is right – marriage is not defined by gender – but by the life-long aspect of covenantal love. This is not restricted to those of a heterosexual orientation.

                      It is quite obvious who the fraud here is – anyone can see that Mr Maguire. Your writing has a nasty, contentious tone to it, and I think you have an unhealthy hatred of homosexuals. It’s very sad, and I feel ashamed that the word Christian (as a Christian myself) is hijacked by folk like you. Are you one of the Westboro Baptist church lot?

                      When it comes down to it, after all is said, no matter which side of the fence you are on, nobody chooses to be gay. The science does support the claim that homosexuality is natural. Rebekah is right there. Eunuch is debated, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the term was used in reference to gay people in Jesus’ time.

                      Now you cannot negate someone’s education just because you disagree with them. Hundreds of Christian Bible scholars believe that through a contextual exegesis of the Bible, there is no condemnation of loving same-sex relationships

                      There is however condemnation against the kind of hateful behaviour your displaying Mr Maguire. If you can’t have a reasonable discussion then you shouldn’t be ‘trolling’ these sites. As a heterosexual Christian myself, I have to agree with the majority of what Rebekah has said. The likes of folk like you should be ashamed of yourselves for the evil behaviour you display in the name of Christ.

                    • Philip Maguire

                      Rebekah’s arguments are not reasonable. They are false, they are lies and could lead people to lose eternal life with Christ. All you can condemn me for is a little rudeness, but I don’t threaten the salvation of souls as she does. If you don’t like the fact that I’ve called her on lies and deceit, bad luck!

                    • Lou

                      Rebekah hasn’t been rude to anyone? Come come, John. Go and re-read her posts. I have and she has certainly been rude. Rebekah is herself a bully and is supercilious and boastful.

                    • Philip Maguire

                      I have been charitable to Rebekah. I have refrained from embarrassing her academically for her terrible grasp of hermeneutics despite her claims about my alleged lack of knowledge on the discipline.

                      She practices the Hermeneutics of Rupture. Her criticism of my interpretation of Matthew 19 being a good case in point. To interpret the example given by Jesus to the Pharisees differently to the way it is understood in Genesis is a false hermeneutic. The correct interpretation is always the one which allows for the truth of all the relevant Scriptural texts.

                      Ever since that that era called “the enlightenment” Western intellectual life has been dominated more and more by the “hermeneutic of rupture”, which essentially dismisses tradition and instead takes on the latest ideas, whatever is fashionable, as if these ideas must be superior because they are new —a misconception if ever there was one.

                      Truth is always truth but the hermeneutic of rupture seeks to manipulate truth and turn it upon itself. This is what Rebekah does. That is evil behaviour.

                      A mild display of annoyance on my part is not evil behaviour.

                      Rebekah has called me debased and depraved among other things but you fail to call her to account. That makes you a hypocrite and I can happily ignore your pointless contribution to this discussion.

                    • Philip Maguire

                      At least I am implementing some hermeneutical exegesis.

                      You are not and you have not. You speak with the tongue of the serpent. You are an ignorant, verbose and boastful liar. I don’t believe you have a degree in anything. What you are is a Professor of Comparative Nonsense .

                      Celibacy is the state of being unmarried so one cannot be in a celibate marriage. If kissing and hugging between a husband and wife was always sexual activity then it would always be sexual activity between any two people who participated in it.

                      You say that marriage should never be about anything outside of love yet you do not even know what love is and have not been able to define it despite being asked.

                      The qualities associated with love that you mentioned in a previous post are all part of marriage, but marriage is not limited to them and its other aspects include the requirement to be open to the transmission of life and the complementarity of the partners due to their opposite sexes.

                      You are so ignorant you don’t even understand the context in which complementarity is being used here.

                      On Adelphopoiesis: ‘Brothers in Christ’ was a term used to refer to married couples in antiquity. All throughout scripture we see that married couples often referred to one another as ‘my brother’ or ‘my sister’. It is a term of endearment used in antiquity to refer to one’s spouse.

                      Absolute nonsense. The fact that a married man may refer to his wife as his sister in no way points to the term “brothers in Christ” as being representative of a marriage. To claim that “brothers in Christ” was a term used to refer to married couples is an outrageous lie.

                      Read the official document of the ‘Office of Same Union’, and you will see it was an identical ceremony to that of what is now called Holy Matrimony.

                      Another lie. It is not identical and if it was Holy Matrimony that is what it would have been called.

                      Jimmy Akin, a far more intelligent human being than you, demolishes it here and there is no shortage of other Catholic sources which do the same job.


                      You have a politico/social agenda. There is ample proof of that in your writings here.

                      Re Matthew 19. The context is clear and so is the consequence of the answer Jesus gave the Pharisees which confirms that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no escaping this and resort to your pseudo academic persona is not going to save your position.

                      Your claim that Jesus used the word eunuch to describe “homosexuals” is ludicrous. At that time the concept of a “homosexual” did not exist. It was seen merely as an unnatural and sinful behaviour. Jesus could not have been referring to something that didn’t exist.

                      Science does not support the theory that homosexual behaviour is innate. There is no such scientific consensus. You would have presented this “insurmountable evidence” if it existed. Just more lies on your part.

                      I don’t worship gender. And as for your claims about marriage it’s quite incredible that an individual who has adopted a sexual preference that has never been open to marriage, should lecture those who have been marrying for millennia on what marriage actually it is.

                      Please don’t try and identify yourself as a sister in Christ. You are not. I hope that one day you may be but right now you are a sacreligious blasphemer and liar.

                    • John

                      If kissing and hugging between a married couple is sexual, that doesn’t mean that kissing and hugging anyone is sexual. There is platonic kissing and hugging between friends and genetic relations. But within a marriage it is sexual. You must have a very limited understanding of sexuality if you think that hugging and kissing between couples isn’t sexual. If something is sexual, it doesn’t have to mean there are genitals involved. Sexuality is the all encompassing gift that, (as Rebekah rightly says) drives us outward to connect to a significant other. It is not good for man to be alone, as God says in Genesis. The unique thing about the human person, is that sex isn’t just there as a drive to procreate, and thus there is a love that goes beyond procreation. I think homosexuals are God’s way of showing us that sexuality in human nature, is rather distinct from the rest of the animal Kingdom – even when people can’t procreate – they are still naturally attracted to one another. It is the love beyond procreation. This is a good argument against the Darwinian idea that love is merely a mechanism to help us procreate. Love is a gift from God – God is love himself. Love is never a sin, and gender doesn’t define it. Rebekah is most certainly right there Philip. She has described love exactly as it is described in the Bible. I recommend you have read to remind yourself sir.

                    • Philip Maguire

                      If kissing and hugging between a husband and wife is always sexual then it follows that it is the same for everyone. But I don’t believe that. It’s not a sexual act every time I kiss or hug my wife. When I offer her the sign of peace with a hug at Mass that is not a sexual act. It’s yourself and Rebekah who have a limited understanding of sexuality.

                      It may well be the gift that drives us to connect to another, but a sexual connection with a member of the same sex is a consequence of a disordered sex drive. That is not a gift. It is the perversion of a gift.

                      The unique thing about the human person, is that sex isn’t just there as a drive to procreate, and thus there is a love that goes beyond procreation.

                      You’re wrong. Procreation is an integral, essential and intrinsic aspect of sexuality. It is its primary function. It is why God created us male and female.

                      Homosexuality is not God’s way of showing us that sexuality in human nature is distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is a perversion of the gift of sexuality and the procreative drive. If it was of God it would not have such deadly consequences. Are you going to claim that sodomy comes from God? Really? That’s a bridge too far, to be polite about it.

                      Love is never a sin. Homosexual activity is not love. If two members of the same sex love each other then they will respect the law of God and not drag each other down into sinful behaviour. Their love will be chaste.

                    • Anthony

                      Marriage is about more than sexual activity. Of course – it’s about family and the consequences of martial love in the children of the marriage. Marriage is about love, procreation and the establishment and nurturing of a family all of which exist soley in the context of love between a man and woman.

                      Sexuality is not limited to sexual activity. Those are two different things.

                      The Latin term sexus from which sex is derived means the state of being either male or female. It is incorrect to use the Kinseyan claim that sex is derived from secare, a Latin verb meaning to cut or sever. In the Christian context secare can be taken to mean that God divides the human race into male and female.

                      On celibacy. Celibacy cannot exist within a marriage because it is the state of being unmarried. Celibacy is not a synomym for chastity.

                      On marriage. Marriage is marriage because of the life-long covenant between a man and woman. Marital complementarity exists in the complementary natures of male and female.

                      The perverting and twisting of scripture to support an activist homosexual agenda is blasphemous.

                      On Adelphopoiesis. “Brothers in Christ” has NEVER been a term to used to refer to same sex marriage. There is and never has been such a thing in Christian history. The middle ages or medieval era in which you allege this happened is not antiquity, which refers to the classic civilisations which preceded it. I would expect ed someone so allegedly learned as yourself to have known that.

                      The Church has never married members of the same sex to each other. The rites associated with Adelphopoiesis do not purport to bestow the Sacrament of Matrimony on the participants. Adelphopoiesis is not and never was a sacramental union.

                      Your claim that your only agenda is to uphold and bring forth the integrity of the Bible is a lie. You pervert the Word of God. You were not created to practice homosexuality.

                      Your accusation that men fear the feminine is an inversion. It is radical feminist psychobabble. Men love the feminine which is why they are attracted to women. Normal men, as in men of normal sexual persuasion, do not form themselves into groups to oppose and belittle women and make war on them. They love and protect them. Remember The Titanic and those brave men who sacrificed themselves on behalf of the women and children? This theme is repeated over and over throughout history.

                      Radical feminists do make war on men and also on women who don’t share you perverted view of human relationships. You are a poison to all humanity.

                      Nurturing and caring for children in the primary sense is a feminine quality. That is not even debatable. But the radical feminists in whose ranks you are counted have led countless women so far from the law of God that their murder of their own children has become the biggest and most tragic holocaust in history, foreshadowed in the Gospel of Matthew:

                      “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more. Matthew 2:18

                      In Matthew 19 Jesus answers a question about divorce. But what we learn from his reply is not limited to the context of the question. He touches upon a basic truth of God’s natural law and defines what marriage is, limiting it to male and female partners.

                      When He speaks of eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb he is not referring to “homosexuals” because He, in the same way as Paul after Him, did not recognise a class of people defined by sexual preference.

                      In addition men born eunuchs from birth are dysfunctional in that they cannot reproduce, but that is not true of most men who suffer from same sex attraction. They can reproduce if they choose to.

                      On the science. Science neither supports nor dismisses the theory that homosexuality is innate. There is no scientific consensus on the issue, much less proof that it is so. But even if it was a fact – so what? A predisposition for same sex attraction would not represent the only sexual affliction human beings could be born with.

                      If it proves to be true no doubt it will be able to be detected through pre-natal testing such as amniocentisis and tragically children will be aborted in huge numbers because of it.

                      Your kindergarten story of two marriages is hardly worth commenting on. Suffice it to say that Juliet and Rose are not married.

                      Everyone here has seen through you. You mounted a case that marriage is defined soley by love. Then you tried to describe Adelphopioesis, literally brother making, as a form of chaste marriage but still equivalent to the marriage between a man and woman.

                      The next step is to argue that because sexual activity can be part of marriage, and because Adelphoioesis is a marriage, it too can feature sexual activity and be transformed from a chaste union into a sexual one.

                      Clever? No. Successful? No. Will it ever happen? No!

                  • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                    I should also add, the only version of the Bible that will give you an accurate reading of the texts, is the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures. 1 Romans is plain and simple. It is about Pagans rejecting God. The text speaks for itself. What have Pagans engaging in promiscuity got to do with Christians in loving, life-long marriages? Absolutely nothing. You entirely ignore the context of scriptures in order to make up hatful spiel to slander your gay bothers and sisters. May God help you to see the light is all I can say.

                    • Philip Maguire

                      Given that 1 Romans is about rejecting God let’s see what Paul says of them. It’s important because it is plain that what is wrong for pagans is also wrong for Christians.

                      24 That is why God abandoned them in their inmost cravings to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies-

                      25 because they exchanged God’s truth for a lie and have worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

                      26 That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:

                      27 why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.

                      28 In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour.

                      So now it is appropriate to ask you why you defend the very practices that Paul condemns?

                      And I must correct you. Promiscuity doesn’t rate a mention in the above text and I dare say the translators of The New Jerusalem Bible are more adept at their craft than you.

                      What Paul condemns are degrading passions – women trading natural intercourse for unnatural practices and men giving up natural relations with women, being consumed with passion for each other, doing shameful things with other men and receiving in themselves the due reward for their perversion.

                      In short Paul is condemning homosexual behaviour and it matters little who the people practicing it are. That is crystal clear. It is as plain as the nose on your face and no amount of your casuistry will change it. Drop the chicanery – it doesn’t work here.

                      I conclusion I don’t have any gay brothers or sisters.

                      There is no category of human beings called either gay or homosexual. They are merely terms for the behaviour of some of my brothers and sisters of which I disapprove because it is as Paul described above. Tragic. I disapprove but it does not mean I don’t love them.

                    • Philip Maguire

                      the first par should read Given that 1 Romans is about Pagans rejecting God let’s see what Paul says of them.

                    • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                      Once again Philip, you are wrong. This letter by St Paul to the Romans, is quite obviously, and quite clearly about Pagan promiscuity. Men (plural) LEFT the usual use of the woman, meaning that these were first of all, heterosexuals, and second of all men is the plural for man, meaning many of them (promiscuity) engaging in sexual acts with other men. Homosexuals don’t leave heterosexuality to become homosexual. Homosexuality is innate, inborn, natural, God given – FACT. The science is indisputable, and even Jesus supports this fact in Matthew 19:12, ‘eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb’. Eunuch was a term used to refer to gay men, as well as celibates and Priests. But clearly you ignore everything Jesus says. Therefore this passage has absolutely 0 to do with natural born homosexuals in monogamous relationships. It also doesn’t mention women with women at all.

                      Science shows us evidently, that there are both homosexuals, as well as heterosexuals in nature. This is indisputable. You can deny it all you want, but it is a fact. Paul condemns the Pagans for rejecting God, and quite clearly witnesses these sexual practices, meaning they took place in public. Looking into the cultural-historical context, we can grasp that the context was one of temple sex orgies that took place frequently in the Greco-Roman world of Paul. God abandoned them for worshipping idols. Exactly what you are doing… Oh the irony.

                      Now, women engaging in unnatural (or para physin to be precise, meaning unusual), could mean anything other than marital, missionary position sex. He witnessed sexual practices taking place between many people – evidently a sexual orgy. This is what he condemns. Far from loving, monogamous relationships between gay Christians. Once again, there is also no moral connotation to the word for unnatural/unusual which is ‘para physin’ in Greek. God acts ‘par physin’ in scripture. See Romans 11:24.

                      You present yourself with hatred, and prejudice, and are only showing yourself to be absent of love.You are unwilling to look at the facts, and insist on a false, interpretation of the Bible, in order to support your own androcentric, prejudice agenda. Your disapproval comes from the lie of homophobia – a lie from the devil. That which Christ condemns is homophobia, i.e. hatred and prejudice towards those who are different. Homosexuality is not a sin – it is a God given sexuality, as is heterosexuality.

                      Whether you like it or not, you DO have gay brothers and sisters. Many people are single, and still gay. What makes someone heterosexual or homosexual is not dependent upon behaviour.

                      Romans is crystal clear that is has absolutely nothing to do with monogamous gay Christians, as opposed to heterosexual Pagans engaging in all manner of para physin behaviour.

                • Sienna

                  There is mention of female homosexuality in Romans. Para physin is properly rendered unnatural in the context of the passage. There is no doubt that Paul condemns both female and male homosexual behaviour. Arsenokoites” means literally “to lie with a man.” Formed by the association of two words present in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, it quite probably appeared in the Judeo-Hellenistic context. Rabbis used the Hebrew expression “lie with a man,” taken from the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, to express the homosexual relationship.

                  • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                    No there is no mention of female homosexulity in Romans 1.. The passage reads in Romans 1:26 ‘women turned from the usual way to the ‘para physin’, meaning literally ‘unusual’.This could mean anything that according to Paul was ‘unusual’, i.e. anything but the ‘missionary position’. It does not say women were with women at all. Either way, there is also no ethical connotation to the word para physin. The context is what is wrong. Men and women left their wives, to engage in promiscuous behaviour. Paul witnessed this, meaning this was a public event. Looking into the cultural-historical context, we can ascertain that these were sex orgies that took place in Pagan temples. Even if women and women were together in this context, it is agreed that this would be wrong. However, it is not homosexuality per se that is wrong, but the promiscuous context of the Pagan cult temple sex that Paul witnessed and recorded in his letter to the Romans. There are many instances recorded in scripture of immoral heterosexul sex, but that doesn’t make all hetrerosexual relationshsips wrong. God is also said to behave para physin in scripture. making it quite clear that Paul did not mean natural in an ethical sense, but in a sense of what is usual, or unusual as opposed to unnatural. The precise transalton of ‘para physin’ is unusual. Also, Pagans engaging in promiscuous behaviour, have nothing whatsoever to do with Christians in a monogamous covenantal marriage.

                    Arsenokoites means literally ‘male bedder’ and the term ‘money’ is also coined from this word. Clearly male, prostitution. Very common in the Greco-Roman world of Paul. This word was not translated to homosexual until 1958 to bring in sync with the prejudice of the day.

                    Lev. 18:22 speaks of man not lying with man ‘as with a woman’, referring to penetrative sex, hence the ‘as with a woman’ terminology, as opposed to just man don’t lie with man full stop. This was considered ‘toevah’ meaning against tradition and culture, as the patriarchs believed it was such a great privilege to be a man that for a man to take on a ‘woman’s submissive, passive role’ was an insult to men. This was also a matter of procreation. They believed the entirety of life was in a man’s seed, and thus believed that ‘God put Onan to death for spilling his seed outside of a woman.’ (Genesis 38:9). There is also no moral connotation in the word ‘teovah’.

            • Anthony

              My goodness how is “homosexual behaviour” a false term? Homosexual behaviour exists so the term can’t possibly be false. When two people love each other their gender is highly relevant in defining that love. Homosexuals use the fact that David and Jonathan were male to define their love as a homosexual relationship. Gender does define the rightness of a sexual relationship. A heterosexual relationship is complementary and potentially fruitful. A homosexual relationship is neither. Companionship, solidarity, faithfulness, Christ-like selflessness, care, nurture etc are the hallmarks of all good relationships, including same sex friendships but excluding homosexual relationships which are most often based solely on lust. I don’t want to make this a post of biblical proportions so I will finish with this. There is no such thing as a celibate marriage. Your claim that to exalt a heterosexual partnership as a necessity for marriage is idolatry is verging on insanity. No one in their right mind exalts heterosexuality as necessary for marriage, they just accept the fact that it is. It is only partly true that the rightness of a relationship does not depend upon gender because according to scripture a a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is wrong.

              • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

                There is no more ‘homosexual behaviour’ than heterosexual behaviour. The true term is sexual orientation, and the love that flows from it, whether hetero or homo. If one is single, they are still either homo or hetero. It is not ‘behaviour’ that defines one’s orientation. It is innate, God given. One can either use their sexuality for love, or for lust, irrelevant of the gender of their partner. The gender combination of a couple DOES NOT define whether one’s relationship is righteousness or not. How they treat one another, and whether it is selfless or not, defines the righteousness of a relationship. How on earth do you think one’s biological functions below the waist, or lack there of, defines how loving and therefore righteous their relationship is?! What absurdity you speak… ‘Christ-like selflessness, care, nurture etc are the hallmarks of all good relationships, including same sex friendships but excluding homosexual relationships which are most often based solely on lust’ …

                Wow! What an ignorant, depraved remark…. ‘Homosexual relationships are most often based solely on lust’? NO they are most often based on LOVE, in the same way that heterosexual relationships should be. How can a relationship be based solely on lust, when it is holy and chaste, and has agape love at the centre? Or when it is based upon mutual love, nurture, solidarity, support, and companionship… This is the fruit produced by many same-sex couples. A same-sex relationship is no different to an opposite sex relationship, other than that it is often more equal, and thus has the potential to be more reflective of the triune unity than many patriarchal flawed opposite-sex marriages where a man tries to rule over the woman, as God warned Eve of in Genesis.

                You clearly do not know any same-sex couples, as if you did, you would see the fruitfulness that they produce. I think you will find most female homosexual relationships are entirely selfless, and many chaste. Same-sex relationships are both complimentary and fruitful. The fruit they bear is that of Christ-like selflessness, care, nurture, joy, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and love etc. These are fruits of the Spirit. The fact that you so ignorantly claim that ‘homosexual relationships are based on lust’, only shows the depravity of your mind. People compliment each other in ways other than their gender. To define complementarity by gender, is dehumanising and reductionist. In Christ there is no longer male and female. Galatians 3.28.

                According to scripture, there is no such condemnation of loving same-sex relationship – quite the contrary. A marriage, may in fact be celibate. It is still sexual, as it is one’s sexuality that drives them to reach out in love and companionship to a significant other, but may be free from genitality. Your own idea of marriage is purely reductionist, and debased.

                The Bible is quite clear, and Jesus Christ, is quite clear, that there is no condemnation of a loving same-sex relationship. It is love, not gender that makes a marriage. The two become one flesh, and love one another as their own self. You completely deny what scripture says in relationship to David and Jonathan. The word used to describe their union is ‘nephesh’ which means body and soul. The ‘nephesh’ (body & soul) of Jonathan was knit with the ‘nephesh’ of David (1 Sam. 18 ). If this was purely a friendship then the word ‘ruach’ would have been used. You need to remember that ‘God is love, and Whoever lives in love, lives in God, and God in them.’ 1 John 4.16.

                • Anthony

                  A homosexual orientation does not exist. What exists is a disordered desire to mate with a member of the same sex. It’s as simple as that. We don’t need to waste any more words on it.

  • Will

    A little dose of reality for those who promote same-sex “marriage”……

    The sexes only exist as two complementary roles in sexual reproduction. That is what male and female are. The male is that which provides the sperm and the female is that which provides the egg.

    This means that each of the sexes, being intrinsically complementary in nature, have no meaning without the other. They only exist and have meaning for the role they play together; thus it takes a man to make a woman truly feel like a woman, and a woman to make a man truly feel like a man.

    It also means that heterosexuality can be recognised as the “default setting”, as
    sexual reproduction is intrinsically and inescapably heterosexual in nature, and that anything other than heterosexuality by definition misses the whole point, nature and context of the sexes.

    Simply put, outside of heterosexuality, both the sexes themselves, and the sexual
    functionings (ie: sperm for men and periods for women), are rendered utterly meaningless. They have no purpose outside of heterosexuality, because it is only by their roles in (hetero)sexual reproduction that they have any meaning. Outside of heterosexuality the sexes and that which it is the role of each to produce (men with sperm, women with eggs), and the processes of that (such as periods), have NO meaning whatsoever.

    What this means, in practice, is that there are only two “sexualities”; Heterosexuality, which is the “default setting” in which the sexes and their functionings have real meaning, and a kind of eroticised Asexuality, in which the sexes themselves (and the reproductive functionings of sperm and periods) are utterly meaningless and inconsequential. The latter, in denying something as
    intrinsic to human identity as the sexes, is then a pathological and literally dehumanising deviant “sexuality”, utterly disconnected from the purpose embedded in the sexes and their functionings, that in no way should be accepted as ‘normal’ and should never be regarded as the basis for marriage.

    • Rebekah C. Reville Joy

      Entirely wrong. We are no longer to be defined by our sexuality, but in Christ Jesus. In Christ, there is no longer male and female. Galatians 3:28. This is also an entirely reductionst explantion of sexuality, which reduces it to the procreative end, and ignores the primary end – which is the unitive. In Christ, we are not to be defined by our genders – this is the way of fallen, patriarchal culture. Not all are called to procreate. We are now in the New Covenant – the Covenant of New Life in Christ. There is no longer the necessity of new life through one’s progeny. God has created people homo as well as hetero. Even Jesus Christ himself states in Matthew 19:12 ‘for their are eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb. Whoever can accept this teaching should accept it.’ Not all are called to procreate. To define humans by their procreative ability, is literally ‘dehumanising’, for it turns the human person into a means to an end – that end being procreation. In truth, the human person is an end in and of themselves. The human person should not therefore be defined by procreative ability, but by their humanity in Christ, and their abilty to love, and their need to be loved in return. Once again, ‘there is no longer male and female, we are all one in Christ Jesus.’ Galatians 3:28.

  • Philip Maguire

    What about the bisexual chick who has a spouse of each sex and whose spouses also have a spouse of each sex? No complications in that is there?

  • Benson

    Have fun going down in the wrong side of history and have the people
    of tomorrow mocking you, just as we do now with the people who opposed
    interracial marriage.

    Also, could you people stop pretending that private “pretend”
    ceremonies equal equality? There have been several absolutely
    heartbreaking stories of same-sex couples in which a partner was
    forbidden from standing at their beloved’s deathbed because they were
    not married — the tip of the iceberg.

    Willfully short-sighted creatures, you folk.

    • Mo86

      “Have fun going down in the wrong side of history and have the people
      of tomorrow mocking you, just as we do now with the people who opposed
      interracial marriage.”

      Can you tell me what equality there is between skin color/race and deviant sexual acts?

      How dare you compare my race or anyone else to deviant sexual behaviors.