The Prophet GKC on the Culture of Polymorphous Perversity

The Prophet GKC on the Culture of Polymorphous Perversity June 27, 2015

“THE next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality; and especially on sexual morality. And it is coming, not from a few Socialists surviving from the Fabian Society, but from the living exultant energy of the rich resolved to enjoy themselves at last, with neither Popery nor Puritanism nor Socialism to hold them back… The roots of the new heresy, God knows, are as deep as nature itself, whose flower is the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eye and the pride of life. I say that the man who cannot see this cannot see the signs of the times; cannot see even the skysigns in the street that are the new sort of signs in heaven. The madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow but much more in Manhattan — but most of what was in Broadway is already in Piccadilly.”

~G.K. Chesterton: “G.K.’s Weekly,” June 19, 1926.

"Observing history and the magisterium's own teaching isn't "hate."Wow.The Catholic Church did abuse Native Americans. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Perhaps read the piece on hell by Avery Cardinal Dulles. A quick sound bite simply ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Please see my accidental response to Neko."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Sorry--this was meant for Othobide."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Stephen J.

    And this was before even Lambeth.

    Still, fan of old Gilbert Keith as I am, it doesn’t take divine inspiration to see that betting on “Things will get worse” is very seldom a long shot.

    • Love Won

      Your God, apparently, allowed legal birth control to happen. Then he allowed Roe. Now he’s allowed nationwide gay marriage.

      This, despite all your prayers, all your psalms, all your petitions to your god, all the confessions and professions of creeds…all for naught. Your God lets you lose and lose and lose. Ever wonder why that’s so? Ever wonder what it would be like if you stopped hating people different from you and proclaiming that they are “disordered”?

      • ManyMoreSpices

        The problem of evil?

        Nah. Never occurred to us to think about it. Not even once.

      • Ye Olde Statistician

        Why was there no ssm in ancient Greece or Rome? In Africa or China? It can’t all be prayers and psalms.

        Why should we be surprised if people unclear on the definition of marriage should also be unclear on the nature of God? Or for that matter, of the Middle Ages?

        Just today on the news there was a piece on people who purchase uniforms and medals and go around presenting as military. This of course does not stop actual veterans from doing what they do, so how are they harmed in any way?

        • Love Won

          I have this crazy idea that we can do better than the ancient Romans, who did things like, you know, crucify criminals and burn down rebellious cities, just to name two things you may be familiar with.

          It’s called social progress.’Tradition’ is often nothing more than making an ancient error modern.

          • SteveP

            Four men were killed yesterday in Sryia. You are directly responsible; tell me again about your progress.

            • Love Won

              You have more in common with ISIS than I do. After all, you both worship the “God of Abraham”. no? They also have similar feelings towards people like myself (i.e. gay men) as you do.

              Given half a chance you’d bring back the death penalty for “sodomy”.

              • Alma Peregrina

                «Given half a chance you’d bring back the death penalty for “sodomy”.»

                You’d be surprised. God bless you and give you a long life, my gay brother/sister.
                🙂

              • SteveP

                Perhaps you can learn more about the God of Abraham, our father in faith, through Christ Jesus. Surely your parish has an RCIA program in addition to an adult education program. You might be surprised to find what you fear is not inside the Church.

                • Love Won

                  Are you denying you worship the same god as Muslims?

                  The Cathecism, for one, says you do. So you’re quite ecumennical with ISIS, albeit not as similar as your Medieval forebearers (the crusaders and conquistadors make ISIS look like pikers).

                  • SteveP

                    Go home, “Love Won”, you’re drunk.

                  • Ever heard of the Trinity? Muslims don’t worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

                  • LFM

                    BS, again.

              • Ye Olde Statistician

                In the Middle Ages, the penitentiary manuals prescribe penances about the same as for any other form of fornication. When exactly was the death penalty prescribed?

                • Love Won

                  “As time went on, punishments for homosexual behavior became harsher. In the thirteenth century, in areas such as France, male homosexual behavior resulted in castration on the first offense, dismemberment on the second, and burning on the third. Lesbian behavior was punished with specific dismemberments for the first two offenses and burning on the third as well. By the mid-fourteenth century in many cities of Italy, civil laws against homosexuality were common. If a person was found to be homosexual[dubious – discuss], the city’s government was entitled to confiscate the offender’s property.[23]”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_medieval_Europe

                  Early Christianity didn’t prescribe the death penalty but Medieval Christianity certainly did, because it had the power to.

                  • LFM

                    You show the non-historian’s tendency to mash together disparate times and places, and to assume that historical trends carry on unchanged for centuries, rather than frequently reversing themselves. The Middle Ages were not monolithic in their attitude towards sexuality or anything else; nor was the Church either willing or able to impose its will upon people to the degree that you think. For example, I would be very distrustful of a wikipedia article that talked about laws in the 13th century in “areas such as France”, because it makes no effort to indicate what specific part of France is meant, or when or where or by whom the law was imposed. What is now France was then a patchwork of provinces with widely varying laws. Some of these still followed Roman law and its penal codes, and some of them followed (local) customary or common laws.

                    I’m also suspicious because the only source provided in that wkp article re punishments for homosexual acts in 13th C. France is John Boswell, and I doubt very much that he wrote that. He was not always a reliable historian when his emotions were deeply engaged, but he knew better than to make such categorical statements about “France” in the “Middle Ages”.

                    The Church did not have the authority to impose legal punishments for sins that were not also crimes, while sodomy was not necessarily regarded as a crime in many states, especially not in the Middle Ages. The move towards making various sins into crimes – from sodomy to heresy to fornication – was much more an early modern (post-1348/Black Death) tendency than a medieval one. It was all part of the post-Reformation trend among rulers of early modern states to seize power from the Church, from customary law, and other traditional limitations on state power, and to make themselves into the sole source of earthly authority if possible.

                    [corrected for clarity & accuracy 10:30 a.m. EST June 29]

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Indeed that is a crazy notion. Far better to inject criminals with deadly chemicals. One allows Atlanta and Hamburg to speak for themselves.

            Of course, one also realizes a distinction between a positive act, like Roman executions of homosexual men under the Cornelian law, and a negative lack of act, as in not establishing state recognition of this or that sort of pairing. Hence, veteran benefits are available only to actual, you know, veterans.

          • antigon

            Right. Now we burn up rebellious countries. The oligarchy (& their minions) call it social progress.

        • Love Won

          “In fact the bold action undertaken by Aristogiton and Harmodius was due to a love affair…. Pisistratus was an old man when he died, still holding the dictatorship. After him, it was not Hipparchus, as most people think, but Hippias, the eldest, who took over power. Harmodius was then a most beautiful young man in the flower of his youth, and was loved and possessed by Aristogiton, a citizen who belonged to the middle class. Harmodius was approached, though without success, by Hipparchus, the son of Pisistratus, and he told Aristogiton of this, who, being in love as he was, was greatly upset and was afraid that Hipparchus, with all his power, might take Harmodius by force. He therefore began at once, so far as he could in his position, to plot to overthrow the dictatorship.”

          -Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 6:54

          Bearded Callistratus gave himself in marriage to stiff Afer, in the manner in which a virgin usually gives herself in marriage to a male. The torches shone in front, the bridal veils covered his face, and wedding toasts were not absent, either. A dowry was also named. Does that not seem enough yet for you, Rome? Are you waiting for him to give birth?

          -Martial, Epigrams 12:42

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            1. No one said that in ancient Greece older men did not take teenaged men as lovers.Neither Arisogiton nor Hipparchus are said to have married Harmodius, though the latter is said to have contemplated rape.

            2. Martial was a satirist and his intention was to hold up Callistratus to ridicule for mocking the forms of marriage. “Does that not seem enough yet for you, Roma?” Both Martial and Juvenal (the other famous satirist) mocked the upper classes for their narcissistic self-indulgence. Especially risible to those folks was the older man who persisted in the “female” role of the teenaged boy.

            • Love Wins

              1, In Same-Sex Unions and Pre-Modern Europe Boswell, as I recall, disagrees with you and agrees with me Going from memory he makes quite a bit out of the construction “was loved and possessed by Aristogiton”, which suggests a same-sex union comparable to marriage.

              2. I know Martial was a satirist. What he’s satirizing here is the institution of same-sex marriage between two men in ancient Rome. You claimed this institution didn’t exist, I showed it did by quoting Martial satirizing it – you see, I’ve run rings around you logically.

              • antigon

                ‘I’ve run rings around you logically.’
                *
                Cling to the hope Mr. Lost, as you do to thy other illusions.

              • Ye Olde Statistician

                1. Boswell did not get much love from historians, iirc. From “was loved and possessed by” can apply to a rapist or a paramour or what have you and does not imply, as written, anything like marriage.

                2. Martial was not satirizing an institution of same sex marriage in ancient Rome. There was no such institution. (You can’t even say it in Latin!) He was satirizing the efforts of an aging homosexual to ape the role of the young submissive by acting the part of the bride. Hence, the ironical question:
                expectas numquid ut et pariat

                You can if you like read Martial in context:
                http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/martial/mart12.shtml

                epilogus
                appellas te triumphat-amor
                propter se graulationem
                at dumtaxat laurus chironomus

          • JM1001

            So what you’re saying is that modern same-sex marriage represents a return to the satire-worthy absurdity of the extreme sexual license practiced by the ancient pagans. Well, heck, I doubt anyone here would disagree with that.

          • freddy

            “Tradition is often nothing more than making an ancient error modern.”
            .
            -Love Won, Catholic and Enjoying It, Comment

          • LFM

            In case you don’t recognise it, Martial is *mocking* the ceremony he describes in your quotation, mocking it as a ludicrous innovation – which is why he makes that reference to “[A]re you waiting for him to give birth?” In decadent political systems, anyone with the power to punish is free to challenge custom and outrage common practice as he likes; that doesn’t mean that same-sex marriage was any kind of norm in Martial’s time.

            Seems to me I’ve had to deal with you here before. You seem to be incapable of learning that you cannot cause pain by the means you choose. You only injure yourself and even if you manage to score a hit here and there, it’s not in a way that causes most of us any discomfiture.

      • Alma Peregrina

        We lose, and lose and lose. Yes, I not only wondered why … I know why it’s so.

        The question is not if I wondered. The real question is: Do you know why we lose, and lose, and lose?

        Who gave you the notion that we believed that God would give us retumbant political victories after victories? When the disciples believed that Jesus would bring them political victory over the mighty Roman Empire, didn’t Jesus rebuke them and promised them only the defeat of the Cross? He even called them “Satan” for trying to force Jesus into political success!

        We lose, and lose, and loose… that’s the sign we’re on the right track.

        It is quite ironic that you called us pharisees, but you’re the one mocking christians with cries of “Where is your God? Call your God to save you, if you’re sons of God”… which is exactly how the pharisees mocked Jesus on the Cross.

        So, there’s nothing left for me, but to pray: Father forgive this poor soul, for he/she knows not what he/she’s doing.

        • antigon

          Just per accidens, Alma, are you Canadian, & if so is ‘lose’ spelled ‘loose’ up there where the Canucks reside?

          • Marthe Lépine

            It’s “lose”, but keyboards and automatic spell check can play tricks on us…

            • antigon

              Grazie, Marthe. But if you see this Alma, you might want to consider hitting the ‘edit’ thing beneath your post, & correct the spelling. One suggests such solely because the ‘loose’ is distracting, from a superb post.

          • Sigroli

            Oddly enough, “lose” is spelled “lose” here in Canada.

            • antigon

              Conformists!

          • Alma Peregrina

            Nope, not canadian, just a non-native english speaker from Portugal. I’m sorry, I thought I was writing correctly. I’ll proceed to edit the comment as sugested.

        • bob

          Love won seems to think we have a New Testament chock full of nice cushy one liners about how the faithful who love God truly will be free from persecution for their fidelity. If he knows where those passages are I wish he’d show me. He can be forgiven for wondering why we’re gluttons for being unpopular. He just has to believe us when we say it’s always been the best show in town, but nobody ever, EVER said it would be easy.

      • Tweck

        Who is hating besides you?

      • LFM

        So because God allowed the rise of Nazi Germany, or apartheid, or the slaughter in Rwanda, that means He approves of it? Boy, you have some distance to go in understanding Christian concepts of theodicy.

  • JohnP

    We need to find room in the minor phrophet section of the OT for his writings. Maybe after Zephaniah…

  • AquinasMan

    “Madness of tomorrow” is here today. Just do a sweep of #lovewins on Twitter. Media stories and opinions aside, get a look at the euphoria at every level of population.

    Also, the rainbow icon is attached by Twitter automatically if you post that hashtag.

    With a hat tip to Rod Dreher, the Benedict Option may need to be explored one day…

    • JM1001

      “Madness of tomorrow” is here today.

      Nah. It’s only just begun.

      The people posting the #lovewins hashtag may see the Supreme Court decision as the end of the story — the final victory of a long battle — but for polyamorous people, this is not the end, and the fight is not yet over. We have not yet achieved true “marriage equality” if more than two consenting adults are still denied the right to marry. If the purpose of marriage is now merely to allow someone to “express their identity” and to give dignity to those relationships through state recognition, then there is no longer any rational basis to exclude people who “identify” as polyamorous from seeking the same dignity through state recognition of their relationships too.

      Indeed, Roberts says as much in his dissent:

      Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

      It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their
      children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

      If sexual complementarity (and the procreative norm that goes with it) is no longer recognized as an essential component of marriage, then what rational justification can there be not to eliminate the two-person structure as an essential component as well?

      Interesting times ahead.

      • Love Won

        I personally have no problems with polamory, but it’s too complicated to make it work under family law. It would be a nightmare.

        A better model is Dan Savage’s “monogamousish” model, whereby a couple gets married and, by mutual consent, allows each other an affair once every year or so. It’s actual one thing we could teach straight couples that would help improve their marriages. Everybody cheats at least once so it’s much better to be open about it rather than be a hypocrite.

        • ManyMoreSpices

          But remember, gang: same-sex marriage will in no way change traditional marriage, and you’re a medieval bigot Pharisee if you even suggest that.

          • Love Won

            “Traditional marriage” is the Duggars. A sexist, patriarchal slavery where women are reduced to maids, cooks, and breeders, where marital rape is legal, and from which there is no escape save death, and where hypocrisy and abuse is as abundant as pregnancy.

            That model of marriage is dead, it died a long time ago, and good riddance.

            • Ye Olde Statistician

              Never believe your own propaganda. That’s even more foolish than believing the other folk’s propaganda.

            • ManyMoreSpices

              All of that may be true. But please observe what has happened:

              An argument for same-sex marriage was that gay people just want what everyone else has, and allowing them to marry people of the same sex will in no way change marriage.

              Now that gay people are full members of the civic institution of marriage, we’re finally told how they plan to change it.

              Better late than never, I suppose. But you should at least give us credit for being right. Even if it takes this form:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOXtWxhlsUg

            • antigon

              Absolutely! Viva the Sacred Hole!

            • Tweck

              Wow!!! So now, let me get this straight. If a man and a woman marry and have a child, it’s a form of slavery and… rape and sexism??? Where are you getting these crazy ideas? lol

        • JM1001

          So you would advise couples (gay or straight) to “omit” fidelity and monogamy from their vows, which you (and other gay couples, according to a New York Times piece back in 2010) think would be “better” for those couples.

          But Justice Kennedy just assured us all that marriage “embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family” [emphasis mine].

          He also assured us that gay couples seek to marry because they do not wish to be “condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.” But, according to you, they will be unsatisfied after all — if they’re not allowed to get a little something on the side, amiright?

          …but it’s too complicated to make it work under family law. It would be a nightmare.

          So what? Uprooting slavery tore the nation apart in a war that killed over half a million people, but we did it anyway because it was the right and just thing to do. If it’s a matter of what is right and just, then polyamorous people should be allowed to marry no less than same-sex couples, regardless of how “complicated” it would be.

        • SteveP

          Dude: erasing the sexual differences between a female-male coupling and a male-male coupling is a complicated nightmare which is why it took you 40-odd years to achieve it. Adjudicating multiple claims to pensions and real property is a walk in the park by comparison: courts do it every day.
          .
          There is no need for you to lie.

        • antigon

          Dear Mr Lost:
          *
          Absolutely. The important thing is to extol lust, & other deadly proclivities, else what’s life for, if you’ll forgive such a bigoted question.

        • bob

          Perhaps we ought to simplify things and define each person married at birth. Along with the birth certificate a marriage one. Then they merely find another human at a government imposed age, probably a little more flexible than now. The Church will make its own rules for its own people. Like a church follows the same electrical and plumbing codes for their buildings as any atheist does, some things will be in common with the new culture of weird. The Church will continue to understand marriage differently but that would make the impact of gay coupling to be what it really is, just the government signing off on a new plumbing project. Not much to high-five about is there?

          • LFM

            If marriage is a right, we’ll have to find ways of forcing people to marry the ugly, the handicapped and the socially unappealing – all those groups who for various reasons find it difficult or impossible to marry now.

        • Artevelde

          Monogamousish. I’m not in favor of it, but I must grudgingly admit it’s fair advertising. It’s exactly as good as it sounds.

        • asecularfranciscan

          Wait, everyone cheats at least once?

          • antigon

            T’is rumored there are perverts who even cheat twice!

        • Tweck

          Um. Everybody cheats at least once? 😮 Not me, not many people I know, not my parents, not…. Anyway, you are incorrect. And socially-accepted cheating will ~not~ improve marriages. It will make people jealous and insecure, and cause marriages to fail and leave a lot of people heartbroken and terribly sad.

        • LFM

          BS.

        • Guest

          I mean, sure. If we can change marriage from “one man and one woman exclusively for each other for life” to “any two people exclusively for each other for life,” why not keep going on to “have a party and a joint bank account, then do whatever you want?”

      • Marthe Lépine

        There is probably a court case on its way in British Columbia about this, relating to some extra-fundamentalists Mormons. It will be interesting to follow that story.

  • IRVCath

    Well, goes without saying. The loudest supporters of this seem to be the occupants of the coporate boardrooms. From a purely amoral profit perspective, it makes sense – people in SS relationships have more discretionary income than general population on average, which means more money to spend on your product.

  • Love Won

    Ah, I see the prophets of DOOOOM are out in force.

    You’re going to be quite disappointed when you find out you won’t actually have anything to, you know, resist. The decision does not require you, personally, to do anything at all. You’re still free to be a hateful bigot. It’s not illegal now. Really!

    The only thing is that your toxic brand of Medieval retrograde hatred lost, and decent loving, people won. In this scenario, you guys are the Pharisees. YOU.

    • SteveP

      Christ called the Pharisees righteous–thank you for the compliment.
      .
      Remember, when I resist SSA withholding increases, you said: “The decision does not require you . . . to do anything at all.” In fact I expect you to join me in that resistance to make good on your words.

    • freddy

      May God bless and keep you.
      You must know that the majority of people you deal with on a day to day basis, unless you live in some protected enclave somewhere, are what you call “hateful bigots.” They fix your car, serve your food, process paperwork, give directions, and deliver your mail. Often with a smile. That you see us through a lens of “toxicity” has more to say about you than about us. I’m so sorry that you live in such a dark and shuttered place. I hope one day you will see us as your brothers and sisters because, believe it or not, that’s how most Christians, myself included, see you.

      • Sigroli

        His views are part of, and are indicative of, his disorder.

    • Alma Peregrina

      I’m glad if you’re right… I wouldn’t like to be persecuted. So I’m actually quite glad that you think so.

      I’m more concerned, however, with your own state. You clearly didn’t read what the OP posted, or didn’t even considered it enough to even articulate a rational response.

      All I see you doing is getting a nick that revolves all around this issue and going to a blog of people that disagree with you to say something akin to: “Hahah, we win, you loose, you suck, in yo face, it’s your fault, you, you, YOU”.

      It is quite sad that you believe that we’re all hateful, but the one reacting viscerally to a group of people that is unlike you it’s you. It’s sad that you’re so blinded to your own behaviour you don’t even notice it.

      I can only imagine what kind of scars life has left on you for you to think you’re justified in acting like this.

      You’re the one clouded with hate around here. If you want to disagree with the OP, please disagree, and articulate you thoughts. If you believe you achieved a great victory today, go forth, celebrate and be merry. But stop degrading yourself like this. If you think so badly of us, be chilvarous and score points doing that. Don’t act so childish.

      I don’t know if you’re straight or gay, or why you had this urge to come to this blog and spew such comments. But I don’t care. Heck, I don’t even care about the Supreme Court decision on this comment. All I care here is YOU, so that you’ll find a way out of that hatred.

      As freddy said, I hope one day you will see us as brothers and sisters. That’s also how I see you. God bless you.

    • JM1001

      …you won’t actually have anything to, you know, resist. The decision does not require you, personally, to do anything at all. You’re still free to be a hateful bigot.

      We’ll see, won’t we? If recent history is any indication, it will become increasingly common for people’s very livelihoods to be threatened for “resisting.” #MemoriesPizza

    • AquinasMan

      That’s okay, we’ll just re-define the word “bigot”.

    • antigon

      That’s the plutocratic line, Mr. Lost, & we all look forward to their next perverted enthusiasm.

    • Tweck

      What?? I don’t see anyone here being a hateful bigot, much less Mark. Our religion is not hatred. If you don’t mind my saying, your statements about us and our faith are deeply bigoted. Decent, loving people abound on all sides of the issue. I have gay friends, they’re very good, kind people. I’d never call them hateful, even if I don’t agree with their views on marriage. Not agreeing with something doesn’t mean you are hateful – it simply means you have a different world view. We can still get along and have lots of love for each other as human beings should.

    • antigon

      Absolutely. Viva the Sacred Hole!

  • anna lisa

    My daughter is in a park in San Francisco right now. The girl can’t resist a big party, or teasing her mother. She is trolling us by sending pictures of the celebration and the new woman/woman man/man emojis that I didn’t even know exist on the iphone.
    I repaid the favor by sending her back a few other creative emoji combinations that they might be throwing parties for in the future.

  • anna lisa

    Data from the Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census shows that only 29% of gay/lesbian relationships last more than 7 years.

    More than 85 percent of the couples reported that their greatest relationship problems center on issues related to outside relationships.

    The book Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by authors Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata, cites a study of homosexual male couples conducted by gay researchers.

    The couples who participated had been together between 1 and 37 years.

    Findings were as follows:

    100% (all) of the couples experienced infidelity in their relationship within the first 5 years.

    • bob

      I have a theory on gay marriage. At first there will be a rush to get in on the fun. People who never thought of it before will do it simply to rub it in the face of the normal world. This will rather quickly be followed by a scene no comedy writer could conceive. Just as vast numbers of divorces. No fault variety! People will overnight discover they are worth half what they were. Then they’ll do it again. And again. Gay couples are not known for longevity or very much sense. They will be marked by self inflicted poverty. I don’t know who they will blame but it won’t be themselves. I could be wrong but this might be the cure for the whole thing. Gay people don’t want marriage, they want to degrade it. They will succeed but I bet it costs them.

      • Marthe Lépine

        However, it is possible that some or most of them will start trying to get changes to the legislation about the sharing of property in case of divorce, no matter the consequences for divorcing men and women. Some of those laws about the division of property or money or other were obtained in order to protect women, who often find themselves left alone with the care of the children without necessarily getting the financial support they might be owed by the kids’ fathers. If the gay lobby gains such changes, the consequence might be that all families will suffer, except, of course, those that will have managed to remain intact, which will probably be heterosexual, considering the short life of gay unions.

    • Vision_From_Afar

      Nice of you to leave out that SiA book is 20 years old. Couples that existed when there is zero hope of any legal recognition, zero hope of medical benefits (i.e. – power of attorney, visiting sick and dying), zero hope of co-child care. No flipping wonder they almost all imploded.
      That data would be very different today, methinks.

  • paul

    This is really just the start of the final stage of the end of the Protestant Reformation.
    Make no mistake about it, marriage equality has never been the end game. The end game is the defeat of the Catholic Church.
    With their new ruling in hand, you can bet the next step is the prosecution for discrimination of Catholics and the Catholic Church for refusing to marry LBGTetc couples. Good luck with that one.
    The Catholic Church will never yield. The Church and her adherents will dive deeper into an understanding of sacred tradition and scripture as a result. Protestant denominations will fold from their inability to ultimately square pluralistic individual scriptural interpretations. Millions, will leave the Catholic Church, but ultimately the Church will be seen as the bulwark of Christianity – the one true defender of the faith.
    This whole LBGTetc thing is really a chastisement sent by God to shake loose the flakes and strengthen the remainder of the core of Christianity.
    Keep you chin up Christians. It may feel like Good Friday right now for the Church, but Christ will raise his bride from the dead in a few days.

    • Love Won

      Shorter version: “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!”

      • LFM

        It’s a bit early for gloating.

    • Marthe Lépine

      But there have already been Anglicans deciding to join the Catholic church, and if my memory is correct, a large part of their reasons was the issue of gay marriage. So, maybe you are being too pessimistic: Millions might leave, but millions of others might join the Catholic church, and then many of those who left might return as well. Christians might be inching closer and closer to unity. God works in mysterious ways. Never lose hope.

      • JM1001

        Christians might be inching closer and closer to unity. God works in mysterious ways. Never lose hope.

        But Love Won just told everyone downthread that God keeps letting Christians “lose and lose and lose.” Now you’re telling me that perhaps we shouldn’t arrogantly presume to know how God’s providence will unfold? That perhaps God can take what seems like a loss — or even an evil — and bring out of it a victory and a good?

        Stop being so reasonable, why dontcha.

        • Marthe Lépine

          Thanks. I get you. And, by the way, most of the most difficult times in my own life later turned out to have been blessings. In some cases, it took a long time, though, and it as been, and still is, difficult to trust to that extent, even after several such positive experiences. There seems to always be a little voice in the back of my mind, saying that, OK, it still worked that time, but that definitely is the last time, you are out of “luck” from now on…

    • Dave G.

      Since I’ve gotten to know some Orthodox Christians, I’ve ceased drawing a line from the problems of the world back to Protestants, since I’ve discovered Orthodox are willing to draw it back another 500 years. Best to see the problems of today and wonder how we can react. Though about keeping the chins up, you are spot on correct. I couldn’t have said it better.

    • antigon

      ‘The Catholic Church will never yield.’
      *
      Unless Cardinal Kasper & other minions of a ‘serene theology’ get their way, as of course they can’t if Catholicism is true.
      *
      But a fine post, Mr. Paul, since of course the promotion of anal marriage has never remotely been about equality or anything other than the glory of sin & despair, & thus the hope of Despair Central to gather adherents (& souls) in its endless determination to destroy the Faith.

  • Matt Talbot

    How is the weather in Nigeria currently?

  • Mike

    prescient, prophetic.