Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

NOM Poll Says 57% Of NYers Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

June 22nd, 2011, Promulgated by benanderson

Remember the Quinnipiac University polls claiming that 58% of New Yorkers support the passage of a bill legalizing gay marriage while 36% are opposed.  Now we get this from NOM:

With the fate of same-sex marriage likely to be decided in the next 24 hours, the National Organization for Marriage has released a new poll they commissioned, which found that 57% of the state is for traditional marriage.

 

If you’re wondering what’s been going on with the SSM legislation in NYS, you’re not alone.  The session keeps getting postponed further and further.  It “seems” like today will be the final day, but who knows for sure? The parties have reached a pact on many other issues, but not SSM. No one knows what the outcome will be. Continue to pray for our state.

Tags:

|

48 Responses to “NOM Poll Says 57% Of NYers Oppose Same-Sex Marriage”

  1. avatar Ludwig says:

    I continue to be very libertarian-minded on this issue. Please read this entire comment before forming a reaction to it. I promise, I’m not going where you may assume I’m going.

    My first premise is that many, maybe most, people would agree that gay couples should at least have the legal rights of contract that married couples enjoy. i.e. hospital visitation, etc. While I believe their relationship is immoral, I don’t view it as the government’s role to deny them a fairly basic right of contract any more than I would legislate that everyone must attend Mass on Sunday. Everyone should be allowed to indicate that another individual has a “special legal status” in their life.

    However, gay civil unions that are separate-but-equal to marriage are clearly unconstitutional (see the rightly-decided Brown v. Board of Education).

    It’s my proposed solution that is unique: get the state out of the marriage business altogether. We don’t get a “Monroe County Baptism Certificate” or “New York State Communion License,” so why on earth is the state handing out what is essentially a religious title?

    Instead, let everyone – gay or straight – get a civil union from the state. If you want the term or sacrament of “Marriage,” get the from the appropriate place: your church. If your CHURCH will not marry you, then that’s an issue between you and your church. But it’s certainly nothing the state should be involved with.

    So what do people think? Am I on unsound footing?

  2. avatar Scott W, says:

    So what do people think? Am I on unsound footing?

    The Church has already weighed in on this. See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

    Executive summary:

    The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

    The idea of letting the State punt by getting out of the marriage business is tempting, but ultimately unacceptable. There is no way getting around that this is one of those hills we have to die on.

  3. avatar annonymouse says:

    So, Ludwig, in your worldview, the state has no interest in ensuring the health and viability of the family unit, which is founded on the institution of marriage? I anticipate that your answer will involve family units founded on same-sex civil unions, but such “families” presuppose that having a father or mother in the family is not important either – that two mommies can adequately replace a mother and a father.

    And, in your worldview, I presume there is no place for religious-based morality informing civil decision-making?

    I would assert that the state HAS a legitimate interest in protecting the family as the bedrock foundation of civilized society. Unfortunately, the state has largely abrogated this legitimate interest in the last fifty years with first with the legalization of contraception and then abortion, with the widespread acceptance of divorce, the proliferation of pornography, and now the state’s embrace of disordered lifestyles.

  4. avatar Ludwig says:

    I anticipate that your answer will involve family units founded on same-sex civil unions, but such “families” presuppose that having a father or mother in the family is not important either – that two mommies can adequately replace a mother and a father.

    annonymouse: Please don’t anticipate my answers. It unfairly attributes views to me which I don’t hold, and it has the potential to wildly derail the conversation. However, since it’s already been derailed, I feel compelled to state: I firmly believe that the family God intends for all of us is a mother and a father. It is not my opinion that two-mommies/two-daddies is a “less-preferable-but-better-than-nothing” alternative. Let’s be clear: I am no supporter of “gay marriage” or “just letting them have civil unions.”

    But let’s take a step back and address what may have been a faulty premise on my part. With genuine curiosity, I ask: if one member of a lifelong gay couple* is in the hospital, should the other half of that couple have the same visitation rights as a heterosexual spouse? Is it the states, an individual politicians, or the churches role to say “no, you can’t see them.” Is that the appropriate response of any of these entities? I genuinely don’t know.

    (*Before someone says it, I think that a “lifelong gay couple” is a rarity).

  5. avatar Ludwig says:

    Scott W. – You actually give me a lot to think about, (and I appreciate that you didn’t assign nefarious intent to my original post.)

    I’ve spent my entire adult life as a believer in the original intent of the founders of this country. And I believe that intent was a “hands-off” government. However, they themselves said that our form of government would only work so long as we were a moral and just people, capable of self-governance. We’re clearly not in that “moral and just” position anymore, and no longer capable of self-governance.

    What I’m struggling to decide is what the appropriate response of government is. I’ve always assumed it was to let people make their own foolish mistakes and not try to legislate morality. Not out of resignation to immorality, but out of a belief that you simply can’t legislate morality into people. However, the document you linked seems to indicate that the state does – to some extent – have an obligation to legislate morality in this matter. Given the source, I have a lot of reconsidering to do.

  6. avatar A Catholic says:

    Ludwig- My thinking on this is that law should reflect the ideal, even though it’s obvious that not everyone will live up to that ideal. It seems that in a healthy society, marriage between one man and one woman provides the ideal environment in most cases for raising new citizens. That ideal should be given certain advantages by law as a way of promoting it and setting it up as an example for people to strive for, even if not everyone agrees with it, chooses it, or even believes that they can live up to it. I do not think that the state should be uninvolved with marriage as you do, but I respect your opinion and insights.

    Further, I think that part of the problem with the whole issue of gay “marriage” revolves around the modern discussion of homosexuality. Could it be that same-sex attraction may stem from developmental issues rather than be something someone is “born with”? This would make sexual orientation different from skin color which is obviously something someone is born with. Too often today there is simply an acceptance of the language of gay-rights activists who consider themselves a minority group “born with” a homosexual orientation. Our society thus puts those who self-identify as “gay” into a separate minority group as is done for racial minorities. Then it becomes almost a necessity from justice to grant “rights” to this new minority group. To not do so would then appear to be an injustice similar to racial discrimination. The issue is complex and I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I would argue that those who self-identify as “gay” are not the same as a racial minority and so it’s really a red herring to hear all this talk about “civil rights” such as gay marriage.

    On a last note in regard to the upcoming vote on gay marriage, people need to remember that its legalization would affect more than just the couples involved. For example, the whole public school system is government run, and so if gay marriage is made legal, any public school classroom discussion of marriage would have to reflect this. Parents who might not agree with gay marriage and who might not be able to afford private schools would be in a bind in terms of being able to prevent their children from being exposed to something contrary to their values.

  7. avatar Nerina says:

    Hi Ludwig,

    I appreciate anyone struggling to gain a deeper understanding of this hot-button issue and I’ve struggled with many of points you have raised here. I believe the state does have a strong interest in defining and affirming marriage if only for the social benefits associated with strong families. I also think the state legislates morality in many, many ways and many of our current laws are based on traditional Judeo-Christian morality. We can’t simply murder or rape or otherwise abuse someone without expecting repercussions. Heck, we even have more annoying legislation now that attempts to implement a politically correct eco-morality by banning certain types of light bulbs and other “green” initiatives. Finally, the law is a great teacher. Look at the results of Roe v. Wade. How many times do people say, “well, if abortion were that bad of a procedure, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have allowed it”?

    Regarding “homosexual marriage” in particular, I think it will continue to unravel the fabric of families and society (as Annonymouse notes above, the fabric is severely frayed already thanks to liberal divorce laws, contraception, abortion and pornography). When one looks at the stats of dysfunction in the African American community, it’s hard not to see the connection between destroyed families and increased socials ills. The black community fared much better when families were intact. We are starting to see the same disintegration taking place among white, working-class people. Fewer marriages are taking place, more babies are being born out of wedlock and more people are stuck in poverty, riddled with criminal behavior and suffering from abusive behaviors.

    The effect of having the state completely out of the marriage business would hurt society greatly. How many people would go to their churches for the ceremony were it not required by the state? (In European countries, where homosexual “marriage” has been legal for a decade, few people bother to get married at all whether homo or heterosexual). As it is, marriage is on the decline with a large percentage of younger people feeling there is “no need” for marriage. We can look to Europe to see the long term demographic and social effects of such an attitude. For an insightful article on the topic of marriage and its demise, I suggest the reading the following report:
    http://stateofourunions.org/2010/when-marriage-disappears.php.

    Finally, I would close with this quote from Familiaris Consortio

    At a moment of history in which the family is the object of numerous forces that seek to destroy it or in some way to deform it, and aware that the well-being of society and her own good are intimately tied to the good of the family [7], the Church perceives in a more urgent and compelling way her mission of proclaiming to all people the plan of God for marriage and the family, ensuring their full vitality and human and Christian development, and thus contributing to the renewal of society and of the people of God (#3).

  8. avatar Ludwig says:

    Nernia –

    I would point out that your closing quote says that it is “her” (the Church’s) mission. I don’t dispute that at all. 😉 What I question is whether the use of governmental-power by Catholics (or any person of Judeo-Christian faith) is an effective or appropriate way of fighting this battle.

    I started this thread by challenging the notion that there are only two choices: the status-quo vs all-out gay marriage. I see problems with both. (Perhaps the majority of Cleansing Fire patrons don’t see a problem with the status-quo though.) My hope was that my proposed third option would offer a legally and spiritually appropriate response while we continue to proclaim God’s truth as individuals and as a Church. That perhaps Catholics could say “we do not approve, and we cannot endorse the term ‘marriage’ for this, and we will continue to speak out against this lifestyle. But we recognize that we cannot use the state as a tool to persuade you out of your sin.”

    From a legal point of view, “marriage is the cornerstone of society” is not a legal argument, even though I believe it to be true. If that is the full extent of our argument, then I fear we will argue ourselves out of relevance to the political discussion. But as Scott W says, if “this is a hill we must die on,” then arguing ourselves out of relevance is the right thing to do.

    I just want to make sure I evaluate and reject all other possible approaches before conceding that this is the hill I really must die on.

  9. avatar Nerina says:

    Ludwig,

    Hi again. I agree that my last quote does not support a state role in the definition of marriage. I was more moved by the recognition that the family is under constant attack, and in my estimation, homosexual “marriage” is another assault. However, I want to be clear that I fully support visitation rights and inheritance rights and insurance rights for homosexual couples. I just don’t think we should label their relationship as a “marriage.” Again, I have a great deal of sympathy for the intellectual struggle you are enduring (I have a dear, dear friend from high school who is a gay man and he is in a committed relationship with a lovely, kind man. I want the best for both of them and ultimately I’d like them to join God in heaven). I said in another thread that this is definitely a time I have had to turn to the Church for guidance and defer to Her wisdom.

  10. avatar catholicmom says:

    Anyone see The Bishop on wham13 this evening? So sad that our Shepherd cannot even defend the faith.

  11. avatar Nerina says:

    Anon – the state already tells certain people they cannot be married. Siblings can’t marry each other. Fathers can’t marry their daughters. Mothers can’t marry their sons. Likewise, there are age restrictions. So your absolute “the state has no right to tell two they cannot get married” is patently false.

    You can use God as a reason for not allowing gay marriage in the Church, but not in the state.

    Setting aside my argument above that I think the state should be involved in marriage (and not for religious reasons but for social ones), your assertion has already been proved false in states where gay “marriage” is legal. In Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities got out of the adoption business when it became obvious that the state would compel the agency to place children with homosexual couples. The same thing has happened in Illinois (see here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/religion/ct-met-rockford-catholic-charities-st20110526,0,6858349.story). It seems only a matter of time before state law prohibits churches from denying marriage to homosexuals given these trends.

    Anyone see The Bishop on wham13 this evening? So sad that our Shepherd cannot even defend the faith.

    Oh, no, Catholicmom. What did he say? Or not say?

  12. avatar Scott says:

    If it does pass as 133122 states it will, (and I believe it will be forced on us throughout all the country) then we will witness the return of pagan Greece and pagan Rome and the destruction of society as we know it. This was the historical destiny of those societies and every other one that supported it. It was the very lack of the Judeo-Christian ethos that allowed these societies to die and we are witnesses today of the same effect with our modern “enlightened” sensibilities.

  13. avatar A Catholic says:

    Anon 133122- Did you read what Scott, Nerina, and others have written before you did your drive-by posting? Please also try to understand that the separation of church and state has to do with the prohibition of a state or government mandated religion (such as the Anglican Church was in some of the original 13 colonies). This term is often misused, deliberately or not, by those who want to make any evidence of religious tradition disappear from public life. The separation of church and state does NOT mean that moral values and traditions don’t have an impact on legal or legislative decisions.

  14. avatar Bruce says:

    I am often seeing, though I understand it, a propensity on the part of many to place the United States government on a higher pedestal, so to speak, when it comes to matters of the State, than the Catholic Church. This is unsound, given the two millenia history of the Church, in which she has dealt with far more empires, kingdoms, and nations than anyone else and has a vast amount of wisdom and experience when it comes to matters of the state. In fact, Western Civilization largely owes its very existence to her. To say that the government of the United States, itself barely an embryo compared to the Church, has infallibly defined what matters are of the state’s interest is extremely premature at best. This country has yet to stand the test of time, and a few hundred years are but a fart in the breeze in Western Civilization. The state has always had an interest in authentic marriage, not friendships between persons of the same sex, because of the complementarity of the sexes and the fact that such a union is ordered toward procreation. So-called “libertarian” views on this subject are as flawed and false as so-called “liberal” notions.

  15. avatar Bruce says:

    That was a bit convoluted, so here is a summary: The U.S. government, and the 18th century philosophy upon which it was founded, is neither the final nor the most-expert authority on what does and does not serve a state’s interest. This is because the U.S., and nations like it, have existed in only a very short time in the history of western civilization. If the U.S. stands for, say, another 500 to 1000 years, however doubtful, then it may be considered somewhat of an authority on the matter. But given its neophyte status in history, I do not place any credence in defenses of same sex unions, civil or otherwise, based upon U.S. political philosophy. What the U.S. thinks is important to the state, compared to what the Catholic Church thinks, is practically irrelevant.

  16. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    Ludwig,
    Honest questions and thought processes are always welcome and appreciated here, so don’t shy away from sharing your thoughts. Your libertarian thought process is more common than you might think and probably all of us have considered it at some point. But I’ll stand behind what others have already articulated so well – it is in our interest for our state to defend marriage. Not only as Catholics do we defend marriage, but as Americans. IMO, religion should be entirely left out of the debate (except when so-called “Catholics” support it because they should be called out).

    It is the compassionate thing to do to not allow homosexuals to be deceived into thinking their relationships are the same as the life-giving relationship of a man and a woman (much less any children they may adopt). Certainly I agree that such people should have individual rights like who can visit them in the hospital, etc. But that’s not the issue at all. What they want is to force acceptance that their relationship isn’t ANY different than the life-giving relationship between a man and a woman. Make no mistake, if this legislation passes children will be brainwashed from an early age into questioning whether they might be gay. And it will become illegal for mommy and daddy to tell them they shouldn’t be. No matter what religious exceptions they put in now, it’ll all be for naught. On down the road, pastors may be arrested for teaching that homosexuality is wrong or for denying marriages to same-sex couples. Adoption agencies will be forced to give children to same-sex couples. This forced Catholic Charities’ out of the adoption business in MA. Allowing same-sex marriage is actually anti-libertarian. A libertarian mindset would say, you can do and believe as you want. SSM forces everyone to put same-sex relationship on par with 1-man, 1-woman marriages.

    The question is briefly addressed in the paper “What is Marriage?”

    Although some libertarians propose to “privatize” marriage,70
    treating marriages the way we treat baptisms and bar mitzvahs,
    supporters of limited government should recognize that marriage
    privatization would be a catastrophe for limited government.71 In
    the absence of a flourishing marriage culture, families often fail to
    form, or to achieve and maintain stability. As absentee fathers and
    out?of?wedlock births become common, a train of social pathologies
    follows.72 Naturally, the demand for governmental policing
    and social services grows. According to a Brookings Institute
    study, $229 billion in welfare expenditures between 1970 and 1996
    can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and
    the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty,
    crime, drug abuse, and health problems.73 Sociologists David
    Popenoe and Alan Wolfe have conducted research on Scandinavian
    countries that supports the conclusion that as marriage culture
    declines, state spending rises.74
    This is why the state has an interest in marriages that is deeper
    than any interest it could have in ordinary friendships: Marriages
    bear a principled and practical connection to children.75 Strengthening
    the marriage culture improves children’s shot at becoming
    upright and productive members of society. In other words, our
    reasons for enshrining any conception of marriage, and our reasons
    for believing that the conjugal understanding of marriage is
    the correct one, are one and the same: the deep link between marriage
    and children. Sever that connection, and it becomes much
    harder to show why the state should take any interest in marriage
    at all. Any proposal for a policy, however, has to be able to account
    for why the state should enact it.

    I’m also making my way through the January edition of First Things. I just started the article titled, “The Ruins of Discontinuity”. There’s a Newman quote I found pertinent:

    passage from the Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Newman’s most famous work. “I believe the whole revealed dogma as taught by the Apostles, as committed by the Apostles to the Church, and as declared by the Church to me,” wrote Newman, referring to his faith as a Catholic. “I receive it, as it is infallibly interpreted by the authority to whom it is thus committed, and (implicitly) as it shall be, in like manner, further interpreted by that same authority till the end of time.” In itself this affirmation of the magisterium of the Church is unexceptional, but Newman goes on, emphasizing his docility: “I submit, moreover, to the universally received traditions of the Church, in which lies the matter of those new dogmatic definitions which are from time to time made, and which in all times are the clothing and the illustration of the Catholic dogma as already defined. And I submit myself to those other decisions of the Holy See, theological or not, through the organs which it has itself appointed, which, waiving the question of their infallibility, on the lowest ground come to me with a claim to be accepted and obeyed.”

    So why is this pertinent? Because if we submit to the Holy See on all matters, then we will not support SSM legislation. Along with the great response by ScottW above, he also provided some more resources in an earlier comment.

  17. avatar Louis E. says:

    As readers here will be aware,
    I am not religious,
    I strongly support abortion rights,
    and I completely oppose same-sex “marriage”.
    (I see the last two views as completely consistent rejection of false “equalities”,but they make it impossible for me to answer one of the NOM poll’s questions without misleading).
    Civil marriage is the only kind I can enter into in good conscience (I am not atheist,and take an infinite and largely unknowable God,who does not write books and has no official fan club,too seriously to lie about) and only if it a strictly opposite-sex institution.If SSM passes in New York,though a lifelong New Yorker I will only ever marry in some other state(or if need be country) where same-sex couples remain excluded.

    Hospital visitation rights have already been addressed by existing legislation,but I believe that a government has a responsibility to the general welfare to secure preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships in recognition of the superior usefulness to society that derives from their being opposite-sex (independent of any actual reproductive intent or capacity),and to discourage homosexual relationships.To act as if same-sex sexual relationships are not wrong by nature is like subsidizing drinks for alcoholics.The acceptance that is the first thing they desire,is the last thing they need,and governments exist to take care of people’s needs regardless of their desires.
    Friends don’t let friends start or stay in same-sex sexual relationships,but take on the often thankless task of demanding that they desist.The day you abandon them to their desire is not the day you “accept them for who they are” (a weakness for a bad habit is not who someone is,homosexual orientation is a weakness,homosexual activit a bad habit),but the day you give up on them as human beings capable of seeing the error of their ways…taking on the actual mindset of a “bigot” toward a target group in order to avoid the unfair label of being one.

  18. avatar annonymouse says:

    Anon 204144 – call yourself “Catholic” all you want, but being a Roman Catholic means adhering to the teachings of the Church, which you are plainly rejecting. By your rejection of the Church, you cease to be authentically Roman Catholic.

  19. avatar Bruce says:

    Well, using Anonymous-204144’s logic, I am a black man. Though you may disagree and say that I am white, I do not accept your opinion. I am the determiner of what is true and what is not true, and therefore if you can claim to be a Catholic who supports homosexual friendships as marriages, then I (as a white man) can claim to be a black man.

  20. avatar JLo says:

    Anonymous-204144 certainly has a right to support SSM but has forfeited the right to call him/herself a member of the Catholic Church. However, Anon 20144 won’t be convinced by anything the Church and we faithful say, because obviously Anon 204144 thinks it’s okay to play pope and that the only thing that matters is “love”. I’ll only say to such faulty thinking that the greatest gift God has given mankind is reason. Reason is what makes us like him and capable of reaching glory in exercising such free will. If, however, you reason yourself into using the touchy-feely as an excuse, a mantra, for all human behavior… well, it would take many books to teach the falsity of that kind of living and enough have already been written. Besides, such as Anony 204144 doesn’t even accept Scripture and the CCC, so why go on with this thread.
    As to SSM, marriage is a joining of two people to enable procreation of children and thus the propagation of the species (and that is certainly of interest to the state). SSM couplings by nature make such an outcome impossible. Hence, the two are apples and oranges. Perhaps Bill Donohue said it best: “… it is nothing if not bizarre to insist that marriage be extended to two people who are positively disqualified by nature, and nature’s God, from starting a family.”
    Finally, government has no right to change the definition of MY marriage to re-form it into merely a personal selection of sex acts!! If this action of idiots and cowards against liberty and reason goes forward, such government officials who do this or try to do this should be fired by the electorate as soon as next possible, if for no other reason than that they are dumber than doorknobs. +JMJ

  21. avatar Bruce says:

    Now, using Anonymous-204144?s logic once again, I have decided that I am a zebra.

  22. avatar Louis E. says:

    God loves homosexuals enough to want to see them protected from and enabled to overcome their homosexuality,not abandoned to it.

    As I have said…if this passes I will never marry in this state.I think that those who sincerely oppose SSM have to take a burden on themselves in the future and STOP LEGALLY MARRYING ANYWHERE SSM IS LEGAL…whether not civilly registering church ceremonies at home as a boycott of the degraded civil institution,or organizing weddings in no-SSM states and taking their budgets there to the extent possible.The advocates are babbling about the money NY will make from hosting same-sex weddings…if a significant portion of the opposite-sex wedding market decamps in protest,there goes that.

  23. avatar Dr. K says:

    “my wife – who works for the DOR”

    I’m surprised you don’t as well, because you appear to fit in well with their ideology.

  24. avatar Nerina says:

    IF the people want the government to change the definition of marriage, not only does the government has the right but is has the responsibility to change the definition, and allow same sex marriage.

    Then let’s put it up for a vote. The only way homosexual “marriage” has been instituted is by legislative or judicial fiat. Every time the issue has been put to a popular vote, it fails.

  25. avatar Bruce says:

    Anonymous-204144, if the government decided that you were an apple later this afternoon, would you also concede to that, or would you realize that no matter what they said, you would never be an apple?

  26. avatar Louis E. says:

    Anonymous-204144,a government exists to serve people’s NEEDS,not their DESIRES.To the extent that they need to be reminded that the exclusively normative nature of opposite-sex sexual relationships is determined simply by the evolution of sexual dimorphism in that species,without opinion having any jurisdiction whatsoever,that is the government’s job.Marriage serves no purpose except to implement that reminder.Anyone who could be proud to support something as utterly absurd and exclusively harmful as same-sex “marriage” is insane.

  27. avatar annonymouse says:

    181109 – WHERE do you get THAT idea? The idea that “almost everyone” agrees that homosexuals are born not made? The fact that there are many who have successfully turned away from that disorder should be considered. The fact that studies of identical twins with identical genes indicates that not always do both have a same-sex orientation if one does (the statistics show if one does it’s a greater liklihood than the general population that the other will, but still less than 20%). Facts be damned, huh 181109? Fact is, homosexual orientation is MADE not born – it’s a disorder of normal sexual development. And the Vatican, the Catechism, and Church teaching are consistent on this.

    Your entire argument is based on a seriously faulty assumption. Do better.

  28. avatar Dr. K says:

    Homosexuality is indeed a disorder in that it prevents a person from having a healthy sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

    Marriage is when two consenting adults form a spousal relationship and are joined into a family unit as if by blood.

    Let me correct your definition: marriage is when two consenting adults a man and a woman form a spousal relationship and are joined into a family unit as if by blood.

  29. avatar Dr. K says:

    Is anyone seriously suggesting that legalizing gay marriage will legally nullify laws on murder, rape, pedophilia, incest, bigamy?

    Though I don’t like to use this as an argument against homosexual marriage, allowing homosexuals to “marry” does open the door for legalized incestuous relationships and polygamy. If you want to change marriage from a man and a woman joined together in union to two consenting adults, then what is holding us back from allowing a consenting brother and sister to marry or a consenting woman and two men?

  30. avatar annonymouse says:

    204144 – despite your claims to be “Catholic” you just equated the Holy Roman Catholic Church with the Nazis. That does nothing for the seriousness of this debate, and basically proves that you have nothing to add to the discussion. And I take serious offense to Our Blessed Lord’s Church being so described.

    The Church teaches definitively that homosexual orientation is DISORDERED (translated – un-natural, against our nature as God created us) and that homosexual acts are objectively, gravely sinful (translated – objective mortal sin, which if not repented of, lead to eternal damnation).

    You may think you’re comments are cute, but we are talking about matters of eternal life and death here.

    If you wish to continue to self-identify as “Catholic” you may consider humbly accepting that which the Church definitively teaches.

  31. avatar annonymouse says:

    181109 – first of all, it’s “canon” law, not cannon law, so I presume that you’re completely ignorant of it.

    Second of all, when the Church believed that the sun revolved around the earth, so did EVERYBODY. And it’s completely illogical to imply that because the Church was wrong once, she is wrong every time.

    You know in your heart that homosexual inclinations are not natural. God created us male and female. Why? Why did God do that? If we could have a “love relationship” with just anybody, why male and female? Complimentarity is in our sexual nature (the way God created us) – that is why it takes one man and one woman to create a new human life. If God wanted two men to have sexual intercourse with each other, I should think He would have created us differently biologically in order that new life could be created in that fashion. BUT HE DIDN’T, now did he? You and I both know that homosexual “sexual acts” are disordered and all it takes is one look at our bodies to know that this is true.

    As to dogma, the matter IS ADDRESSED in the inspired Word of God, and I won’t resort to the Old Testament. I’ll just point you to Romans 1:26-27 (there are others in Paul’s writings – 1 Cor and 1 Tim) which is UNAMBIGUOUS. Catholics do not have the luxury of denying that which is in sacred scripture. So this is not “cannon law” which you say (if you could spell it) is a construct of man and can be changed. It is something that, based on sacred scripture, has always and everywhere been believed by the Church, and it is incumbent on Catholics to assent to it too.

    May God help us all.

  32. avatar annonymouse says:

    1710 – you are on thin ice here. In addition to flagrantly and pridefully denying the teaching of our sacred magisterium, you are denying that which is in Sacred Scripture as well. In that Paul clearly addresses this in Romans 1, and it is a belief that has always and everywhere been held by Holy Mother Church, “sensus fidelium” (a term frequently resorted to by liberals but rarely if ever understood by those using it) simply doesn’t apply. Truth is not determined by a vote.

    Not only is it addressed in Sacred Scripture, it is obvious from natural law. God created us so that new human life can only spring from the sexual union of one man and one woman. One man’s sexual organs in union with another man’s alimentary canal will not result in anything (other than disease frequently). This truth is apparent by NATURE.

    I guess in your “Catholic” Church, we’re free to believe anything at all, anything we feel like believing.

    I don’t know where you learned this crap, but that’s exactly what it is.

  33. avatar Dr. K says:

    @Dr.K – I respect that you hold this as your OPINION, and that others share that OPINION. I would like you to share my OPINION, but I would never force you to. I would like to know who came up with this. Was it a committee, a person, a group? Can we discuss it with them? Ask their opinion? Is it up for review anytime soon? The only thing I do now is that this statement is not in the Bible, or mentioned by Jesus.

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to here.

    . Incest has shown biologically to create mutants and genetic disorders in offspring, so the offspring is harmed by that action. That is why it is illegal.

    Who said anything about brothers and sisters having sexual relations? Can’t they love each other and be “married” without engaging in sexual intercourse?

    Because marriage is a legal state which confers numerous rights such as custodial, financial, property, and inheritance, we have also agreed no one can enter into more than one of those such contract at a time.

    I don’t see why a civil “marriage” contract can’t be drawn up to include three or more persons. If you can redefine “marriage” to be between members of the same gender, you can redefine it however you wish.

  34. avatar annonymouse says:

    Argue Saint Paul, Anonymous 1710!

    “The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.”

    ROMANS 1:18-28 (NAB)

    He wasn’t the Pope, whom you feel free to dis.

    Your reasoning is vain and your mind is senseless.

  35. avatar Dr. K says:

    If society were to jump off a cliff…

  36. avatar Nerina says:

    Hi Anon-181109,

    You’ve brought up many of the common talking points offered by proponents of homosexual “marriage” and I give you extra credit for working Galileo into the conversation. Seriously, where to begin?

    the state has no legal interest in anything.

    This is a curious statement. What exactly do you mean that the state has no legal interest in anything? Really? Nothing? Help me understand because I don’t know what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that a state that has an interest in marriage is a dictatorship? Why have marriage at all? Why not just chuck the whole thing? No heterosexual marriage, no homosexual “marriage.” I’ve argued that the state has many reasons to be involved in marriage. Your argument seems to say either 1)the state doesn’t and shouldn’t care or 2)the state MUST recognize the right of homosexual individuals to enter into a state-approved relationship specifically identified as “marriage.” Which is it?

    Anyway, how we chose to live also changes over time.

    Perhaps in small ways, but fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include homosexuals is a radical departure from the norm. Homosexual activists are asking to change what has been the practice for thousands of years – a man and woman united in marriage as part of a family. This practice transcends culture and time yet because of an aggressive agenda over the last 40 years, we’re supposed to relent and just say, “oh, we’ve been doing it wrong for thousands of years.” See Edvard Westermarck’s book “The History of Human Marriage” for a full discussion (available for free, I believe, via Google Books).

    Again, evidence suggests that undermining traditional marriage will be detrimental to society. When the desires of homosexual couples can be addressed in any number of legal ways, why must we change the definition of marriage to suit a tiny percentage of the population? Why must the term marriage be applied to a homosexual relationship?

    I’m aware that many people compare loving, committed, same-sex couples to murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, and use words like incest and bestiality to describe the relationship.

    I honestly don’t know any person of good will who compares adult, homosexual couples to murderers, rapists or pedophiles. I just don’t. But I think it is fair to ask “why should the line be drawn with two same-sex individuals? Why can’t the definition of marriage be further stretched to include polygamy or incest?” Let’s face it, 30 years ago NO ONE would have thought we’d be debating the issue of homosexual “marriage.” Yet, here we are. What is the response to a person who wants to take another spouse or the person who wants to “marry” their sibling? Sure, you can say that siblings could produce genetically “defective” children, but they could volunteer to be sterilized. Then what? Do we resort to “well, that’s just icky” argument?

    If two people, in the privacy of their own home engage in homosexual acts,

    This just cracks me up. What activists are now demanding is that their acts not only be tolerated, but socially sanctioned. That’s what homosexual “marriage” is all about. They want it to be morally equivalent to traditional marriage. I am perfectly fine with people conducting their lives in private. Fine. Don’t drag me into your bedroom!

    I was very saddened as well to see Catholic Charities feel it was better for all children to languish in orphanages with no parents rather bet on the off chance than stable gay couple might provide a loving and stable family.

    I’m sorry, but “Strawman Alert!” What the Church “feels” is that children have the right to both a mother and a father – that children raised in stable, loving homes with both a mom and dad do better long term. Frankly, there isn’t enough statistical evidence to know the effects of homosexual parenting, but anecdotal evidence should give us pause.

    I take it you identify as “Catholic.” You certainly must know that Church teaching is anchored not only in Scripture but in Tradition too. The Church has taught for 2000 thousand years that homosexual activity is intrinsically (always and everywhere) disordered. That has never changed and it based both on Scripture and on the teaching of the earliest Church Fathers and extra-biblical writings. Do you hold to a Bible-only view of Christian faith? Next you’ll tell me that abortion is just fine since the Bible doesn’t mention it specifically.

    I believe Annonymouse addressed the Galileo remark (thank you, Annonymouse) and I will only add that geocentrism is not a matter of faith and morals and the Church never declared it infallible.

    Thanks for sticking with the conversation.

  37. avatar annonymouse says:

    Anon-1710 – where did you learn this garbage about “temple prostitutes?” Who’s filling your head with this trash? Read Romans 1:18-28 and tell me where it says anything about temple prostitutes! Tell me how you can read that any way other than a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Please.

    And if you paid real money to learn what you think you know, YOU SHOULD SUE!

  38. avatar annonymouse says:

    Jesus DID TOO speak of marriage – Matthew 19:4-6:

    [Jesus] said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 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’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

    So there you have it, Anon 1710. Or are you saying that sensus fidelium allows us to disregard the words of OUR BLESSED LORD!??

    Do you not see how completely UNNATURAL it would have been for Our Lord to have said “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to another man, and the two shall become one flesh” ??

  39. avatar annonymouse says:

    1710 – you can’t find any condemnation of homosexual behavior in the Old Testament either? You’re grasping at straws now. You’re flailing. Soften up the soil of your heart and LISTEN.

  40. avatar annonymouse says:

    1710 – READ ROMANS 1:18-28 AND TELL ME HOW IT MEANS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A CLEAR CONDEMNATION OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR! You cannot. That’s why you’re ignoring it.

    And by defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Jesus implicitly DOES TO mention a word about homosexuality. And as a devout Jew, Jesus was well versed in the OT condemnations of homosexual behavior. It probably went without saying that Jesus found such behavior reprehensible and unnatural.

    Please, before you escape for the weekend, address:

    1. Romans 1
    2. How homosexual relations are anything other than un-natural as God designed our bodies, and
    3. Where you’re learning the crap you’re spewing (I suspect I know)

  41. avatar annonymouse says:

    I suspect that 1710 and his or her pseudonyms is a product of the French Road Heresy Factory.

  42. avatar annonymouse says:

    133122 – May God have mercy on your soul.

    What part of the argument am I losing. Holy Mother Church (despite her sinful servants) will continue to teach that homosexual acts are gravely sinful long after you and I have gone off to meet our Maker. “Gays” will not be married in our Church in our lifetime.

    And inerrant Sacred Scripture will not be changed by whatever crap you fill your unsuspecting youngster’s heads with. I only wish I knew where you’re teaching so my own kids could be spared your heresy.

  43. avatar Dr. K says:

    “As a matter fact I will plan to bring up the appropriateness of same sex marriage at my parish’s VBS this summer when I am teaching.”

    If you do, you should be fired from your parish staff immediately. If you volunteer, you should be dismissed.

  44. avatar Dr. K says:

    “I said that Jesus never mentioned a word on homosexuality.”

    Jesus never mentioned pedophilia either…

  45. avatar annonymouse says:

    133122 – they can, and should, dismiss you. You oughtn’t be teaching Catholicism to our impressionable youth. You should consider the Episcopal Church – it would seem to be a better fit to your belief system.

  46. avatar Louis E. says:

    Committing to an opposite-sex marriage is to committing to a same-sex sexual relationship as being sworn in as a police officer is to taking the oath as a “made man” in the Mob.There can be no equating of committing to doing good with committing to doing wrong,and refusal to equate commitments on sincerity alone is not “discrimination” against a class of committers.

    The state has an obligation to the general welfare to discourage same-sex sexual relationships and emphasize the exclusively normative nature of opposite-sex relationships and marriage is useful solely to the extent that it furthers this goal.

    Speaking for myself,I am much more favorably inclined toward incestuous or polygamous relationships initiated among sane consenting adults of opposite sexes than I am toward anything same-sex.

  47. avatar Nerina says:

    Anon133122 – I seriously hope that you reconsider your idea of bringing up the “appropriateness” of homosexual “marriage” at your church’s VBS this summer. As a parent, I place my children in VBS programs trusting that the teachings of the Church will be presented unambiguously. You are in no position to offer your personal opinion. You need to humbly reconsider if you can volunteer without promoting an agenda which is antithetical to our faith.

    Secondarily, I would encourage all parents who either witness or hear of any volunteer/religion teacher espousing views contrary to the faith to address the issue with that person and, if needed, with the priest of that church. Do not allow people to feed your children theological garbage.

  48. avatar Nerina says:

    I’m a volunteer they can’t fire me

    No, but they can forbid you from participating.

Leave a Reply


Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.


-Return to main page-