Same sex marriage

Same sex marriage

One of my favourite TV shows is The West Wing. It’s the only DVD collection I have. (I’ve never found the time to sit down and watch it, but still . . .)

Fans of The West Wing will be familiar with the old “walk and talk.” Characters are filmed walking through corridors while engaging in lengthy conversation. It’s a film and TV vanity which allows writers to insert dense dialogue into a scene without stretching audience’s attention span.

The West Wing didn’t invent this technique, but it perfected it. It’s one of the reasons I love The West Wing. It allowed writers to explore complex policy issues and competing ideological visions in an intelligent and even exhilarating way. If only the public discourse — from parliamentary debates to Q&A discussions — was as intelligent and engaging.

Still, now and then something comes up which does remind me of The West Wing. A recent debate about same sex marriage on Piers Morgan Live is a shining example. The protagonists were Ryan Anderson (a researcher and fellow of a conservative think-tank), Suze Orman (an author and TV host who is married to her lesbian partner), and — of course — Piers Morgan.

(Incidentally, Ryan Anderson featured in last week’s New York Times: Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead.)

What a refreshing debate! Civil. Thoughtful (mostly). And, I think, constructive. It illustrates very well how and why queer theorists have reframed marriage so that an increasing majority now construe same-sex marriage as a “human right” owed to homosexuals.

If you have the time, watch the full fifteen minutes:

It’s fascinating that Anderson’s main argument falls flat. He expresses it very well: “The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children.”

I agree with Anderson, but it seems that most do not. Orman insists, “This isn’t about children!” Anderson replies, “It should be though.” I think Anderson and I are in the minority.

Popular understanding of the primary function of marriage has been reworked: it is no longer protecting the rights of children, but protecting the rights of adults to love other adults. As though illustrating my point, Anderson really sets the cat among the pigeons with this howler:

Marriage is what connects the mother and the father with each other for the child.

This self-evident (I thought) claim evokes audible sighs of disapproval from the TV audience. “No!” Orman replies. “Marriage is what connects the husband and the wife together as one.”

Children and marriage are no longer viewed to be inherently related — anymore than procreation and sex. Same sex marriage is the fruit of a contraceptive mentality folks. Humanae Vitae may be unpopular, but it sure is prophetic.

Piers Morgan’s contributions are also illustrative. In summing up, he declares Anderson’s defence of marriage to be unfair and intolerant. This is the heavy yoke which even the Catholic Church must now bear: intolerance. Bigotry even.

I can understand why people think this way, but it doesn’t demonstrate very clear thinking. I say that with the greatest respect. (I cringed when Orman presumed her opponent was ignorant.) But I think many people seem to conflate disagreement of principles with the oppression of people. This isn’t a new problem. Fulton Sheen identified the same confusion in 1932:

There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons.

Anderson was unable to reply to the claim that opposition to same-sex marriage is intolerant. But Dr Greg is able to reply. If you click on only one link on this post, follow this one: “Dear Dr. Greg, Don’t be a bigot.” Letter from a Child of a Gay Father.

I’d like to finish on a more positive note. If you click on only two links on this post, make sure this is the second one: Catholic, Gay and Feeling Fine. This isn’t the universal experience, but it should be. And we can pray that one day it is.

  • Florence

    I did not reach much of this but I did listen to the debate and I think America is in big trouble with God Almighty. There is so much of sin in this world regarding same-sex attraction and same-sex marriage. Sin is sin. We do love the sinner but we hate sin. The Catholics, Christians and people of all religions who do believe in a man and a woman getting married should for the sake of their children should get down on their knees and pray. From tomorrow, I am going to pray very hard and very earnestly for those who are attracted to the same sex and I am going to ask Our Lord Jesus Christ to touch them and heal these people so that once they do experience the Love of Jesus Christ, they would realise that there is healing for them and they would come to the Master of Life for healing. If marriages between man and woman are breaking up it is not because anything is wrong between man and woman but because man and woman have either forgotten God or forgotten how to communicate with their God and forgotten how to love and worship God and to give Him thanks for their very existence. The time has come for the Catholic Church and for Catholics and Christians to come back to the Church and to worship God as a community. If every family does get down on their knees and prayed, family life would be a success and a good example to people who are attracted to same sex marriage. It is time for each good Catholic Christian to stand up for Christ and to stand up for good values and for SELF CONTROL. I for one am going to strive to do my best with my team and I am going to see who is going to stop me from doing the Will of my Heavenly Father.

    • Florence, what you write is in many ways beautiful, but I’m not convinced praying for “healing” of same sex attraction is quite on the money. I know there are Protestants who focus on “ex-gay ministries” and promote therapies which “cure” same-sex attraction. But the Catholic Church has always been wary of this. There’s no scientific consensus on the origins of same-sex attraction, and until there is, “cures” and other “treatments” are only pseudo-science. It could well be pyschologically damaging pseudo-science at that. The Church excels at faith and morals; the science is best left to others. (Just ask Galileo!)

      Having said all that, I’m sure there are some people who have experienced same-sex attraction, and now don’t. I don’t want to delegitimise their experience. But nor should we delegitimise those who experience SSA all their life. Hence the inclusion of that final link: Catholic, Gay and Feeling Fine.

      • Clare

        Sorry, but I have to respectfully say thats not correct nor does it reflect authentic Catholic teaching.

        The Church has always taught that we must continue to ask for the grace to be loosed from our sins and temptations. We are all broken and all struggle with different things. Its is very good spiritual practice to not only carry our cross humbly but to use the Rosary and Divine Mercy Chaplet to beg we receive the grace to overcome these difficult temptations and there is nothing wrong with a homosexual praying to be lifted from that burden as there is no problem with a hereosexual man praying to be delivered from an unhealthy attraction to lust after women he is not married to.

  • “But I think many people seem to conflate disagreement of principles with the oppression of people.”

    John, I haven’t time to watch the video or read the Sheen piece, and perhaps I’m missing something important thereby, but I think what you write here is a really interesting point.

    There is a sense in which I clearly agree with you. In an age of ‘Well that’s just how I feel so its true’ one wants often to answer, ‘Congratulations, but you’re wrong!’ Thinking doesn’t make it so, and anybody who loves truth has to be ready to disagree, no matter how uncomfortable that feels and no matter how moralistic the indignant reactions one receives from unthinking morons (indignance is a contemporary pastime).

    But there is a sense in which placing principles before people is truly a moral crime. The greatest proof against a revolutionary cause for which its political party will enact pogroms, is that it is consistent with the cause that the party do so. One owes it to truth and goodness to place these highest values, which are most often embodied in our attention to the needs of others, and our openness to the existence of others no matter how different they are, above formulations and principles. History is full of occasions where commitments to principles equalled intolerance of the existence of others. So in this sense your words have often been shown to be terribly wrong.

    Marriage is a construct that precedes Christianity and monotheistic religion. It’s a secular construct which has been Christianised within Christianity, while continuing to exist in its fluid secular form concurrently outside of Christianity and has returned to dominance with the downfall of Christendom. It is wonderful for Christians that they can sacralise marriage. But generality does not equate to universality, as you, a celibate priest, know: God sent forth human beings to multiply, but that does not mean He-She (sorry, couldn’t help myself 🙂 prescribed that all beings should do so, that the only meaningful, vocational way of existing is as a multiplier.

    Marriage has a general, majority heterosexual form as a construct that enables a (hopefully) intellectually, morally, emotionally, spiritually rich home in which to raise new beings into the world. Within a minority conception – Christianity – it is a heterosexual construct only, but St Paul does not speak for all marriage. To impose a Christian construction of marriage – no matter how one fills that out with talk of the Christian God’s plan etc. – on a secular society is deeply wrong. Within a secular society of a morally enlightened, liberal sort (I know some readers will scoff at that notion, which is insane given the institutionalisations of human decency that secular liberalism has driven) marriage is valuable because it is a conduit for a need of the soul of most people to enlarge their existence through the love of another. Creation requires structure and marriage does the job for that most important task. This is reminiscent of Plato’s conception of love, long before the emergence of Christianity, that human beings seek out their other half; it is a conception that recognises the vital place of sex within a sublime conception of partner-love. It so happens that certain people find themselves naturally attracted to the same sex. That then is their sexual vocation in this picture (the most profound image of love that we’ve seen?) that Plato paints.

    To deny people this need of their soul, this sublime growth of their being, because of a principle of minority group of people who happen to subscribe to a set of principles that deny its validity, is to engage in a deep crime. A poor choice of words to capture that is bigotry.

    Remember Rai Gaita’s analysis of racism? People assume that to be racist it to hate, but Gaita shows that hatred is often not present: racism is the denial of the common humanity of the other. Bigotry is not so much the issue here as something deeper for which bigotry is a poorly chosen word: the denial of the common profundity of love because it happens to be in a homosexual form, while otherwise meeting all our definitions of deep love.

    In essence, Christians should defend a Christian conception of marriage within Christianity, but not seek through the conservative forces of politics to impose it on the profound vocation of other, secular beings. Insofar as they do, Christians can have no complaint if the day ever comes that we secular beings in our powerful majority decide that Christianity is invalid and has no institutional place in society: he who lives by a certain sword will die by it.

    We should discuss this more sometime when it is not 3AM and I have not drunken so much wine and am more coherent and concise. You know where I live, where the coffee flows free.

    • “There is a sense in which placing principles before people is truly a moral crime.”

      Yes, I agree with you completely Matt. Without qualification. And insofar as Fulton Sheen’s distinction becomes an apology for putting principles before people, it is wrong. Of course, he always insisted on “speaking the truth in love,” so he would share your qualification.

      I also agree entirely with you that imposing “a Christian construction of marriage – no matter how one fills that out with talk of the Christian God’s plan etc. – on a secular society is deeply wrong.”

      I’m a Catholic priest, so I can see why people will assume I reject same-sex marriage on religious and moral grounds. But in fact, I find the liberal arguments against same-sex marriage much more compelling.

      The liberal state is not committed to goodness. It is committed to freedom, and it protects freedom by limiting government. Within the liberal framework, the government should have nothing to do with adult relationships. “A secular society of a morally enlightened, liberal sort” would not privilege a same-sex relationship.

      In one sense, this is moot. We don’t live in a liberal society. We never have done. But it’s important, I think, to recognise that same-sex marriage can be opposed on liberal grounds — grounds which are necessarily indifferent to any moral judgement on homosexuality.

      • Matt Bishop

        Thanks John. I’ll be interested to discuss your reasons in more detail in person.

        So far whenever I’ve had a discussion with a Christian about this they’ve claimed that as a matter of reason (or some non-religious manner of thinking) they oppose gay marriage, but in every single debate I’ve had I’ve shown my opponent the incoherence of their secular arguments (with great repetitious effort) and they have fallen back on religious arguments, usually in the form of reference to scripture.

        The voices against gay marriage are almost always religious and I believe that is no accident. Although they try to construct arguments based on secular reasoning I’ve never – and you know I’m pretty fair-minded, seriously interested in how the other holds their position – ever heard an argument that clearly, albeit implicitly, was not really driven by the theological background, such that if that background was not present then it is doubtful they would hold and push their anti-gay-marriage position.

        Furthermore the so-called arguments by reason, which one meets in the more reason-minded churches like Catholicism, are in my experience of catholic intellectuals generally little more than rhetoric, the stuff that impresses nobody other than intelligent people who strongly want to believe the arguments or those Catholics who turn up to summer schools and the like, fancying themselves intellectuals, but who show in conversation that they clearly aren’t schooled or skillful in the basics of critical thinking such that they could see the flaws, holes or problems in the argument.

        But if anybody can give a good non-religious argument that is also fair-minded to contrary positions then it’ll be you, John, so I look forward to finding out. I suspect, however, that we’ll both walk away as convinced as we were before of our positions. And I’m interested in what that shows (given we’re both fair-hearted and reason-able). That will be a good question to discuss too, as I suspect it might take us closer to the heart of the matter. But let me not rush ahead: I await your reasons! 🙂

        We’ll have to talk a bit more about government, too: if a liberal government should simply obey the will of citizens and their values then gay marriage needs to be passed yesterday. If a Government insists on locking itself in to the status quo then it is a bad government; I think liberalism as freedom has shown itself to be really about goodness – remember Weil’s criticism of rights – the philosophical-political language is often ‘off’, we need to look at the spirit, not the letters. Freedom and goodness are both projects that require critique and change in society, and this is a great age of interrogation for change of the exclusions of freedoms and goods based on race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

    • Joel

      Your talk about marriage pre-dating Christianity testifies to it being ingrained in the natural law.

      The comparison to racsim is not on. One is not in control of their skin colour – one is when it comes to sexual acts.

      Your rubbery use of the terms ‘marriage’ and ‘love’ are problematic, but I can’t be bothered dealing with them at the minute. Maybe after Lent when I can get stuck into a few glasses of wine…

      • Matt Bishop

        Thanks Joel. A couple of points (I’ll go easy because I understand what it’s like to be denied the power of wine) :

        What is it for something to be ingrained in natural law? The concept of natural law is an idea which most moral philosophers reject as merely a projection. And when it does get purchase (still questionably I think, and with pretty minimal contents if it is to avoid the accusation of projection) through a good form of Aristotelianism, then its transformation through the insights of Nietzsche are not far away, at which point – after the death of God – this law has a Romantic form which does not impose some rigid structure or nature on cultural artifacts such as marriage. It is interesting again that it is mostly religionists these days who ‘believe’ in a natural law. In considering that keep in mind that the criticisms of the concept are morally quite profound – wise – in some important cases.

        I think John answered the comparison with racism well; I’m not of course making the comparison in some crude way, but with regard to what racism is really about: that denial of the full humanity of the other. Leaving theoretical perspectives – such as theologies – aside (John’s going to jump on that statement :)) the *experience* of many gay people is that they discover their sexual attraction to others in the same way that the rest of us do. They are naturally gay in the same way that I find myself to be naturally heterosexual. So in the same way that a culture would be corrupt, unjust, insofar as it sought to deny me the full expression of my genuine, deep, hetero, sexual nature in its natural equality, albeit difference, with other sexual orientations that that culture valued, so too our culture is unjust and corrupt in its denial of the equal depth and respect-worthiness of gay relationships.

      • Sharbel Ferro

        Matt, I want to ask you, in view of this particular post of yours, how you explain the following case, of a person I know of.
        He was a heterosexual middle aged man, participated in an orgy while on a holiday, and became it were overnight.

    • Joel

      Sorry Matt. That came off the wrong way. “Don’t have the time right now” is what I intended.

      Be good mate.

    • I don’t think the analogy with racism is entirely without merit. Christians (hopefully) observe the old aphorism, “love the sinner, hate the sin.” But I can understand why others can’t appreciate this distinction.

      Many gays and lesbians define their identify by their sexuality. Not everyone, certainly, but certainly some. If someone else judges or criticises their sexual behaviour, it’s easy to see why they feel they themselves are being judged or criticised.

      And of course, there is also the argument that one does not choose one’s sexual preference, anymore than one chooses one’s race. And there are certainly instances of discrimination against gays and lesbians which do deny their common humanity with the rest of us. (The furore over gay teachers comes to mind.) These forms of homophobia do resemble racism I think.

      Having said all that, I agree with you Joel that defending traditional marriage shouldn’t be compared to racism, because the best critiques of same-sex marriage aren’t homophobic.

      • Clare

        There is so much I want to say, but Im so busy. The Catholic Church has always taught you cannot sanction even under the guise of separation of Church and state or the so called secular separation (americanism heresy) the granting of intrinsic moral evil.

        If anybody would like to know the full truth and not the ramblings of a priest who clearly does not like the Church’s teachings even though he pretends to I refer you to the following link:

    • Sharbel Ferro

      Matt, I was reading your post, and some thoughts came to mind which I want to put to you.
      Your post, taken as a whole, contains, I believe, serious omissions and exaggerations, which render it defective.
      Firstly, you exaggerate the importance of emotional fulfillment in marriage, or, more precisely, you move it out of it’s place and then comment on it in the new place in which you’ve placed it, which makes your comments appear to make sense, and they do in the context you’ve placed them in, but it’s an objectively false context.
      Because human beings, human life, the perpetuation of the human race and traditions and universal practices built up around these realities of human life – all flow from the order of creation, which is of only one type. One cannot re-write history, or re-invent physiological facts, or re-define unchanging norms. The true and healthy love between a man and a woman which is imbued with the qualities of fecundity, complementarity and mutual guidance, is at the heart of marriage. These qualities are inextricably linked to marriage; it doesn’t make a difference if it be a secular union or a sacrament, because as I say, life on earth is of only one type; human generation can only happen in one way, there are only two sexes, and they are designed to complement one another.
      Unless homosexuals want to openly acknowledge themselves to be parasites on society, and ask to be granted some kind of concession from the workers in the vineyard of humanity, to share in the fruits of their labor while not themselves doing any work – but of course we know that they don’t want to say this, but want to be regarded as equally valid members of society.
      Well, nature doesn’t lie, and says clearly that they are abhorrent to nature, life, creation and natural order. Your words seem to suggest that you have some kind of belief in God….if this is correct, don’t you esteem the natural order found in the animal kingdom, not to mention the many and varied lessons to be found in observing God’s creatures, like ants?
      Your whole point about Christians imposing their view of marriage on the secular world is inaccurate to say the least, because they are only one stream in the torrent of objection to the objectively depraved and unnatural attempt to pervert something so timeless, universal and essential to human life as marriage.
      Take a definition of marriage which carries no moral implications – such as is used as a description in writing, eg. The marriage of two different areas of color in a painting to produce a striking and beautiful effect.
      “a blending of different elements or components. ” is one definition of marriage in a dictionary. No one would try to argue that blue and blue, or red and red, “married” in a work of art. That’s why I say that there is an objective reality to this issue, and it’s why I point to the realities of human life…child rearing, procreation etc. as supports to the objectivity of the question, because these things don’t need to be viewed in the light of morality for their inherent qualities to be seen.
      Also, the natural moral law is an objective reality of human life, which cries out in protest against gay “marriage”. This moral law is something which atheists and evolutionists can never properly answer, because it does not conform to evolutionary principles, and speaks plainly of our having being created by a moral supreme being, and of our being inherently moral creatures.
      Scripture warns that if one tries to be “overwise” one becomes stupid. That is what all fall into who try to argue for gay “marriage” because their arguments must be taken from invention, distortion, exaggeration, omissions and non – reality.
      It is only a small number of people who started this whole thing and who really want it. The rest of the sexually normal population only go along with it because too many of them stand for nothing, and fall for anything, especially if it seems to add validity to their Godless lives. The media is infested by dishonest and evil people – a truer picture can be formed by studying facts, statistics and studies concerned with relevant issues. Homosexual lifestyles have innumerable harmful effects on people, which is another reason for the only small number of homosexuals actively campaigning for gay “marriage”.
      1.5 million people took the streets of Paris the other day and the last protest against gay “marriage” in that city was also massive.
      Do you see comparable rallies in support of gay marriage? Of course not, because only a small number actively campaign for it, but they have the demonic media on their side and so a false image is presented. The rest don’t care enough to rally for it – they just go along with movements that seem to grant them more license, more dispensation from any moral obligation, more “freedom”, more “equality” (because even the implication that different people and actions do not have equal moral qualities is already too much of a reproach of their moral relativism), and above all, whatever makes them feel better about their apostasy from God.
      In other ages, we would have to continue to fight against this evil endlessly, but we live in a unique time. A dreadful chastisement hangs over the world, and gay “marriage” might just be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, because it is an evil contrary to the natural law, not the Divine law. God demands that we try, and exercise a basic honesty. If those go, then mankind is bankrupt, and will become totally enslaved to Satan, unless God recalls His children by corrective punishment. Many Catholic prophecies have already come true. If part of that body of prophecy has been proven correct, then of course the rest will also.
      God will make answer Himself to mankind.
      You said:
      “Christians can have no complaint if the day ever comes that we secular beings in our powerful majority decide that Christianity is invalid and has no institutional place in society: he who lives by a certain sword will die by it. ”
      The imminent chastisement will be like a minor last judgement, in that, just as those who apostatized at the foot of Sinai were not allowed to enter the promised land, so here, all rebels and unrepentant will simply not be allowed by God to enter the blessed age of peace – a universally Catholic world where man has gone back to the land and lives simply and holily – which is fast approaching.
      The clamor is great now – it will increase greatly, as all men desperately attempt to enthrone their particular ideologies in the face of a growing manifestation of God’s will and law, which necessarily opposes them.
      I also want to add that many people have been healed by Christ of their sodomitic disorders, but again, the demonic media won’t give this a proper hearing, but one can find out information about it, and it is quite striking – the number of those seeking – and finding, healing from their disorder.
      I hope you soon enter the ark of safety, because the flood is upon us. Doubtless you don’t accept this – live a little longer and see for yourself.

      • MuMu

        Very well put, Sharbel; words strong and true.

      • LovesIrony

        Unless homosexuals want to openly acknowledge themselves to be parasites on society, and ask to be granted some kind of concession from the workers in the vineyard of humanity, to share in the fruits of their labor while not themselves doing any work – but of course we know that they don’t want to say this, but want to be regarded as equally valid members of society.

        I bet you wonder why some people call you a bigot.
        Are celibate people, including priests, a parasite on society.
        I pity any gay person in your family.

        I see NO love here.

      • Sharbel Ferro

        LovesIrony –
        True Love is to wish the true good of another, no matter the cost to self.
        Priests support families, communities, and the universal inherent goals of life and the human race, as do other heterosexual people who are not married, but who contribute to the common good in some way.
        Homosexuals can do no good, nor contribute to life. They cannot have children, and can only influence others to disorder and anti – life ideologies.
        That is why I say – do they want to ask some concession from child bearing couples while admitting the reality of their own position?…Because that is the only way they could raise children, but they must not be allowed to raise children, because God wants human beings to have a mother and father, to receive from their parents those influences and nourishments which come through each sex, which are willed by God and are reflections of God’s Divine parenthood.
        There are no gay persons in my family, and there are no gay persons among the people I associate with.
        What I’m saying is in accordance with the revelation of the God of infinite love, who has continued to bear witness to the truth of His Catholic church by thousands of saints and miracles over 20 centuries.
        I beg you to walk and seek while you can, because a chastisement is hanging over the world – ready to come down – and it is worse than Noah’s flood. (words of the Virgin Mary)
        Whatever you believe, you will see yourself what will happen over the years ahead. I implore you to pray the Rosary of the Virgin Mary – if nothing else, at least just to test it. Mary promised signal graces to those that would pray her Rosary.

      • lovesirony

        “Homosexuals can do no good”

        In Norway while a self described Christian was shooting children, Two lesbians risked their lives rescuing 40 children.

        You cloak your hate in faith but,
        You are not loving, but hateful. You should pray for compassion

  • Jenny Altmann

    Piers Morgan lost my vote as a person of integrity due to his abhorent attitude towards prisoners…Why should they be deemed less worthy of consideration than Susi Orman??

    • Ha ha. In Piers’ defence, he’s probably a great advocate of prisoners’ rights. But this does show why he’s a poor debater. He gets too impassioned. Too emotional. And when that happens, we’re all of us inclined to overstate our case and say things we don’t mean.

      I should add, though, that at least he wasn’t rude to Anderson. The way he treats some guests is appalling!

  • MuMu

    The great difficulty in this and similar debates is the complete lack of shared assumptions or philosophical foundations on which to build a discussion or argument. Anti-life arguments are presented within a very narrow band of thought, squeezed in by precepts of tolerance and relativism, whereas the Catholic view is deep, wide and rich and takes some explaining. One way of presenting the Catholic view for consumption by a non-thinking audience would be to say, “Research shows people do best when raised by married parents.” Even this can sound like a criticism of same-sex, single parents etc. and is always neutralised by false research findings.

    Anderson is trying to throw the discussion onto a referendum in order to avoid being attacked.

    I stopped watching when Piers Morgan got shrill and completely irrational. And that proves my point — reason, rationality, logic has all been sacrificed on the altar of emotion.

    This evening we begin to contemplate “the glory of the cross, which is simply the King of heaven and earth submitting to the will of evil men.” (thanks to Deacon Paul for that gem).

    Happy Easter everyone.

    • Oh dear. I’m afraid if you tuned out that early MuMu, you missed the best part of the debate! Ha ha.

      I wasn’t especially engaged by the constitutional arguments, or the economic ones. The real “guts” of the debate — which demonstrate the philosophical differences you speak to — starts at 11:22. Just fast forward to that!

  • Cathy

    Hetrosexuals, doing it the right way since the beginning of mankind.

    • lovesirony

      really? 50% of marriages end in divorce. 50% of children are born out of wedlock. Keep patting yourself on the back, you might just hit your head and wake up from your fantasy.

      • Cathy

        Yes really. I also come from a long line of married Hetrosexuals. I myself have been married for 11 years, no divorce signs here, so yes a pat on the back is good form. The children born out of wedlock still have a mother and Father, and although it is not the best situation, I commend the mothers for keeping them instead of opting to abort them.
        Did you also know that homosexual relationships have a much higher rate of domestic violence, and the average long term relationship only lasting two to three years? I could give you a run down f the medical stats involved in homosexual practice as well, however I am not sure this blog is the place, because many people are unaware as to what homosexual acts are all about.
        Also, I am pleased to say that I did not hit my head this morning as is my husband.

  • Clare


  • Clare

    From the official Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    Chastity and homosexuality

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

  • Hi Clare!

    I can’t help comparing you to Don Quijote here. You seem to be tilting at windmills.

    I will never knowingly present as truth anything alternative to Catholic teaching. Insofar as any of my writing here misrepresents Catholic teaching, I’m grateful for your clarification.


Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!