Gay's Being Married?

[Guest winged messenger]

I belive that gay's should be allowed to get married in the Catholic church. I think that you can't just go around and tell people what you can and can't do and if you did so that would be like being a communist like in North Korea or someplace else. I don't know of anyone that is gay that is related to me. I still do support gay marriages and i'm not gay at all. I'm just trying to defend there freedom to do what they want to do. I think that if the Church says that there can be no gay marrages at all then why did the Catholic church scandal happen and it happened so long ago and until 2000 it was finally revealed to the public. I mean any priest could be gay and we still don't know and the priest that sexually assulted the alter boy's was revealed and everyone was in shock and awe at what happened in the year 2000 and still no one was brave enought to go to the head of the Church and say that there had been priest who had sexually assulted little boy's at mass. And yes probably no one would belive a kid who said that for such a young age and that maybe if that had some type of evidence then people would then come to the expectation that something was going on at that time. So what I'm saying is that if the church all of a sudden say's NO to gay marriage then why wasn't it put away of in the early years and why now all of a sudden are the media and the Church saying no not at all acceptable until now and they could at least do something about it than blabbleing on about it for a year or so. I still think that they should have a right to get married to the same perosn if they wanted to and if they are Catholic then I think defenitly. I say this because if they both are Catholic then they should be allowed and if they are of a different religion then let there own religion decide on how it should be dealt with and example would be if two Protestant got married then there own church should take it into there own hands at that the Catholic Church can't just go around ordering all other's around as if they were the leader of all affairs.

[cappie]

I think I get your point. However I posted this article which I think captures the Catholic Church's position on the topic. It is by Cardinal George Pell the Archbishop of Sydney Australia.
[url="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9460399%5E7583,00.html"]The Australian[/url]

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='winged messenger' date='May 6 2004, 03:22 AM'] I belive that gay's should be allowed to get married in the Catholic church. I think that you can't just go around and tell people what you can and can't do.. [/quote]
So why do you feel the need to tell the Church what to do. Isn't that hypocrisy?

[Dave]

The Catholic Church has always condemned homosexual activity. It's sinful because it's selfish in that it can't possibly transmit life. That, btw, is the same reason why things like contraception and masturbation are also sinful. So a homosexual marriage would be a celebration of selfishness, I'm sorry to say.

You say you can't just go around and tell people what they can and can't do. According to your logic, the Church shouldn't even tell people not to murder, lie, cheat, steal, blaspheme, commit adultery, etc.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Essentially, sir or maam, you are a relativist. You have a moral philosophy that says you should be able to do whatever you want, whenever you want. There is no objective truth about morality, in your opinion. Such a position is absurd though because that would justify anything, including such abominable practices as slavery, abortion, and the Holocaust. If you still want to hold to such a view, please formulate some points to debate over. From what I could gather from what you wrote, it was simply your opinion about how we should treat other people and others' feelings. Those are weak arguments at best in philosophical thought. Instead, say something like, "I think gays should be allowed to marry because by denying them that right, it is a violation of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law." There are many more credible arguments out there in support of gay marriage. All of them are objectively false, and therefore wrong, but they will strengthen your argument much more than by just saying, "I don't think the Church should be able to tell people what to do."

[Brother Adam]

Also, read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis for an exercise in logic.

[Aloysius]

wow, i love it, we're tryin to help him strengthen his argument against us!

just shows how much we trust in the Truth of Christ's Church that we know even with the strongest argument it won't topple the Moral Statutes of the Holy Bride of Christ!

Pax Out

[Ellenita]

You muddle two seperate arguements in your post.

The issue of whether people who are gay should be allowed to marry in church is entirely different to the issue of the sexual abuse committed by priests on children. Of course there are people who would like these two issues to be blurred so that the whole argument of celibate priests can be raised, which is a whole new argument!

It isn't easy to say that two consenting adults of the same sex who want to marry each other should not be able to do so within the church, especially knowing that this position may well cause pain to people you care about. However we are not promised that life will be easy in this world but rather more that we should live our lives as Christians within a hostile world. The secular world would have us believe that there are no consequences to living our lives as we please, it has no understanding of the concept of sin, whereas we know that sin most certainly has consequences.

The teaching of the church is very clear. Marriage is between a man and woman and [b]anyone[/b] who is not married is to live a chaste life.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 16 2004, 02:47 PM'] wow, i love it, we're tryin to help him strengthen his argument against us!

just shows how much we trust in the Truth of Christ's Church that we know even with the strongest argument it won't topple the Moral Statutes of the Holy Bride of Christ!

Pax Out [/quote]
The whole point is, if your going to even bother making an argument, make a half-way worthy attempt at it. Of course no matter how strong of an argument it is, we will always be able to counter it.

[OwNeD_byGoD]

tisk tisk tisk

first and foremost, God always hates the sin and not the sinner

being homosexual is not a sin, what is though is that actions in which you partake by being one, that is why if you are a celebate homosexual priest then who will be able to tell right? so in itself it is not wrong since you are not involved in the action, because once you become a priest you become a FAITHFUL spouse of the church

second of all, i would like to say that our judging as bright or philosophical as we would like to believe we are would more than likely be extremely off, the reason is because if we become acustomed to a way of living then after a while eventhough it is wrong, we dont see it as wrong, and you would like everyone to think as you do, which would make you an anarchist

so i tell you, its not hat we believe the answer to be, its what the Bible tells us the answer is, dont try to change it to make it your own, got it?

[the_rev]

Gays should not be allowed to be married. They can not procreate and help the church to continue to move on throughout history, for first starters.

Secondly, God made Adam and Eve, now you may say, well someone had to give them these homosexual feelings, but that wouldn't of been God.

But thirdly I read in Crossview how that as a religious community who have take the three vows, of Chasity, obedience and poverty, how they can't believe taking those vows, someone would as priests hurt little children. I had to agree with the Father Joseph there.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='winged messenger' date='May 5 2004, 10:22 PM'] I belive that gay's should be allowed to get married in the Catholic church. I think that you can't just go around and tell people what you can and can't do and if you did so that would be like being a communist like in North Korea or someplace else. I don't know of anyone that is gay that is related to me. I still do support gay marriages and i'm not gay at all. I'm just trying to defend there freedom to do what they want to do. I think that if the Church says that there can be no gay marrages at all then why did the Catholic church scandal happen and it happened so long ago and until 2000 it was finally revealed to the public. I mean any priest could be gay and we still don't know and the priest that sexually assulted the alter boy's was revealed and everyone was in shock and awe at what happened in the year 2000 and still no one was brave enought to go to the head of the Church and say that there had been priest who had sexually assulted little boy's at mass. And yes probably no one would belive a kid who said that for such a young age and that maybe if that had some type of evidence then people would then come to the expectation that something was going on at that time. So what I'm saying is that if the church all of a sudden say's NO to gay marriage then why wasn't it put away of in the early years and why now all of a sudden are the media and the Church saying no not at all acceptable until now and they could at least do something about it than blabbleing on about it for a year or so. I still think that they should have a right to get married to the same perosn if they wanted to and if they are Catholic then I think defenitly. I say this because if they both are Catholic then they should be allowed and if they are of a different religion then let there own religion decide on how it should be dealt with and example would be if two Protestant got married then there own church should take it into there own hands at that the Catholic Church can't just go around ordering all other's around as if they were the leader of all affairs. [/quote]
I belive that gay's should be allowed to get married in the Catholic church.

Your entitled to your own personal beliefs - however the Catholic Church is not a democracy, it upholds the laws of God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that you can't just go around and tell people what you can and can't do and if you did so that would be like being a communist like in North Korea or someplace else.

Sure we can, the Church upholds God's laws.
So can the government: thats why we obey traffic laws, pay taxes, don't own slaves, and don't kill people for entertainment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

still do support gay marriages and i'm not gay at all. I'm just trying to defend there freedom to do what they want to do.

Freedom is not doing what you want to do, its to do what you ought to do. You are talking about license; doing whatever. Nobody can do what ever they want to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

think that if the Church says that there can be no gay marrages at all then why did the Catholic church scandal happen and it happened so long ago and until 2000 it was finally revealed to the public.

This is a totally new subject an unrelated to your original argument. Scandal and sin are nothing new in the Catholic Church - after all the Church is made up of sinners like you and me. The "scandal" was noticed by the news media in 2000, it was not something new.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean any priest could be gay and we still don't know and the priest that sexually assulted the alter boy's was revealed and everyone was in shock and awe at what happened in the year 2000 and still no one was brave enought to go to the head of the Church and say that there had been priest who had sexually assulted little boy's at mass.

Sex abuse didn't start in the year 2000, must cases the media jumped on were over 30 years old. You think sex abuse is something new? You think its limited to Catholics? Every social service agency and religous organization has problems with sex abuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what I'm saying is that if the church all of a sudden say's NO to gay marriage then why wasn't it put away of in the early years and why now all of a sudden are the media and the Church saying no not at all acceptable until now and they could at least do something about it than blabbleing on about it for a year or so.

lol. THe Church is not "suddenly" saying NO to gay marriage. The subject never came up before. It has never been acceptable and never will be acceptable to the Church. Marriage is between a man and a woman, which was decided by God.
It doesn't matter how many laws the states or government come up with, they cannot change the law of God. THe state is NOT in charge of right and wrong :God is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the Catholic Church can't just go around ordering all other's around as if they were the leader of all affairs....

The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, and governed by the successor of St Peter, speaks the Word of God.

[mulls]

when you get married, you are really standing before God in doing, no matter who the minister is.

even if ANY church allowed gays to be married within its confines, that does not mean God will EVER accept or condone it.

[phatcatholic]

pham,

i fear that this may be a hit-and-run post by "winged messenger".........but i hope it is not. it is apparent to me that his words (assuming we're dealing w/ a "he") have been bottled up for a while, and so i am glad that he has found an outlet. i hope that he will stay w/ us for a while, at least long enough to understand where the Church is coming from on this issue. we should be thankful that he has chosen this place. i don't feel the need to comment on how strong or weak his argument is.

that said, if i could give my meager defense....

i think that one of the single most fundamental precepts of catholic ethics and morality is the fact that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. what does this mean? in my mind, it means that b/c we are made in his very image and likeness, we are meant to share in many of His same characteristics. of course, to answer st. michael's call to the heavens ("who is like God?!?!) we must say, “no one.” but, He has desired that we share in His glory in some small way. therefore, since we are made in His image and likeness, and He desires that we share in His glory, the only way to fulfill this desire (a desire that, spectacularly is both ours AND His), is to unite our image to His.

well, how do we do that? in my mind, this is achieved by learning as much as we can about His essence, who He is, how He works, and what He desires--and then matching our essence, who we are, how we work, and what we desire to Him to the best of our ability. notice that, in the bible, the greatest and most noble acts of man are those that mirror the acts of God. i mention the following three b/c they have a direct impact on this topic.

1. love is selfless, and we must love unconditionally, b/c God is Love Unconditional.
2. marriage is a profound sacrament b/c it mirrors the intimate bond between the Bride and the Bridegroom, the Church and Jesus Christ.
3. children are a treasure b/c through procreation we perpetuate the act of the One Creator

again, i must reiterate that all three actions--loving, marrying, and creating life--are glorifying acts that are highly praised b/c they typify our Lord's very essence. when engaging in these acts [i][b]as the Lord does[/b][/i], we unite our very image and likeness to that image and likeness of God from which we were all made.

Now, w/ this information we can look at the topic of same-sex marriage and ask a few qualifying questions that will help us to determine if same-sex marriage is of God and if partaking in such an action will help us to unite our image with His.

[u][b]1. Is same-sex marriage open to new life?[/b][/u]
--this is an important question b/c, if we look at God, we find that the Love that is His essence from all eternity is inherently open to new life. Afterall, God, for the pure fact that He is Love, spawned two persons of the Trinity as well as all creation! However, when we look at the same-sex partnership, it is not open to new life. The union of the two simply cannot bring from itself a new creation (this will be expounded upon later).

[u][b]2. Is their a complementarity w/in the same-sex union that communicates the true selflessness of the love found w/in it?[/b][/u]
--this may at first seem harsh, but one has to remember that it is the very selfless nature of God’s love that created all that we know. God likewise created a complementarity within the bodies of man and woman so that they [i][b]naturally[/b][/i] communicate this selflessness. The sex organs of the man, b/c they are outside the body, are naturally giving. The sex organs of the woman, b/c they are inside the body, are naturally receiving. When these two come together, there is a true connectedness. the love that comes from this connectedness perfects the selfless quality by creating new life from this very connection.

However, when we look at the same-sex union, [i][b]the complementarity that is necessary in order to properly communicate the selfless nature of love does not exist[/b][/i]. It is at best, strained, and in all cases entirely unnatural. This is seen by looking at the body in and of itself. There is no part of the the male body that is meant to receive the sexual organs of another body, and consequently to receive life from another. There is no part of the female body that is meant to give or enter into another body, and consequently to give life to another. Any attempt to re-create the connectedness of the male and female body is found to be unnatural simply by observing the natural functions of the body.

[u][b]3. Is the homosexual sex act a natural act?[/b][/u]
--this question is important b/c the perfect unity, and the selfless love, and the openness to creation that typify God are all divine qualities b/c of God’s [i][b]very nature[/b][/i], b/c of who and what he inherently IS. So, in order to unite our image and likeness to His and thus share in his glory, we must communicate these qualities via our [i][b]very nature[/b][/i]. That is why the homosexual act and same-sex marriage are so often described as “unnatural” and that this quality is so often described as a point against it. The homosexual act is unnatural b/c it is not truly selfless and is not open to creation.

[u][b]4. Does same-sex marriage typify the unity found between the Church and Jesus Christ, the "Bride" and the "Bridegroom."[/b][/u]
--this is an important question b/c the bible uses the very members involved in our greatest earthly communion to describe the union between Jesus Christ and His Church. therefore, marriage must typify that union. on a purely physical level, the same-sex marriage is not properly analogous b/c it cannot help but contain either two Brides or two Grooms. since the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, nothing w/in it is unintentional, so the masculinity of one member (the Groom) and the femininity of the other member (the Bride) cannot be ignored.

on a deeper level, we know as Christians that the Bride and the Bridegroom come together to form One Body of Christ, both physically and mystically connected. two become one in a singularly perfect way. on earth, we perpetuate this union through marriage, in which the Bride and the Groom come together as "one flesh" in Christ Jesus. it is mystical b/c it is a sacrament that institutes grace upon the participants and it is a "buddy system" ( ) through which two people help each other get to heaven. it is physical b/c of the complementarity of the two bodies involved, and b/c of the truly selfless love that is communicated when these two bodies come together during the marriage act.

however, the same-sex marriage is neither physical nor mystical--or, at least [b]not as physical and mystical as the unity between Christ and His Church[/b]. this is b/c it is not open to life, it does not present the complementarity of selfless love, it is unnatural, and it ignores the purposeful masculine and feminine imagery of the Bride and the Bridegroom.

[b]--therefore, it in no way can be accepted by the Church--[/b]


I feel that more could be said on the matter and that there is a better way to tie all of this together. However, I am likewise afraid that this discourse will become too verbose and convoluted if I continue. The theology of the body and the precepts of catholic sexual morality are still somewhat new to me, so I have not yet grasped a way to present them more pointedly and succinctly. Anyway, I hope this helps, and I encourage any additions by others to help make my defense more clear and effective.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited May 17, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Aloysius]

even if he does come back it's unlikely he knows the thread was moved to the Debate Table

[the protector]

I don't know why the government doesn't declare the legal union of two consenting adults a civil union and remove the term marriage. The aspects of "marriage" should be left to religion. No religious group should hold influence on secular law.

[Aloysius]

false.

society is built upon marriage.

the state's recognition of those marriages is civil union. this should only be granted to two consenting adults who will produce offspring and raise them to be good citizens. if the consenting adults plan on never having offspring, the couple should not be recognized by the state.

religious institutions may have influence on secular law, so long as CONGRESS PASSES NO LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF. The state recognizing the contribution marriage brings to the society is fine. That's what the state should do, work for the upbuilding of it's society. It recognizes that marriage upbuilds society, namely creating new life, and it grants those two ppl as a couple a special title in society and certain privledges through which they can work to raise good citizens they create.

[Aloysius]

double post

Edited May 17, 2004 by Aloysius

[Hananiah]

[quote name='winged messenger' date='May 5 2004, 08:22 PM'] I belive that gay's should be allowed to get married in the Catholic church. I think that you can't just go around and tell people what you can and can't do and if you did so that would be like being a communist like in North Korea or someplace else. [/quote]
Governments tell people what they can and can't do all the time. You can't take heroine, you can't beat your wife, and you can't watch child pornography. Besides, the Church and the government have legitimate, secular reasons for not allowing homosexual marriages. Allow me to quote myself:

The first question we must address is whether homosexuality is an inborn trait. If it were, the government would have little right to deny legal recognition to homosexual unions. However, it is my opinion that it is not, for the two most widely publicized studies which have purported to scientifically demonstrate that this is so, those of Drs. Hamer and LeVay, have yet to be replicated by other researchers [4], even though many have tried [5]. In their research paper “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraisal,” which can be found in the Archives of General Psychiatry, Drs. Byne and Parsons state “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges [6].” Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence that homosexuality is not inborn. For example, there are several documented cases of genetically identical twins who have different sexual orientations as adults [7]. Also, individuals who grow up to be homosexuals often share similar childhood psychological histories, such as hostile or distant fathers, overprotective mothers, subjection to great amounts of teasing by their peers, parental loss through death or divorce, etc. [8]. Several studies have shown that adult homosexual attraction can grow out of childhood gender identity disorder[9], which the American Psychiatric Association has defined as strong, persistent cross gender identification, a discomfort with one's own sex, and a preference for cross sex roles in play or in fantasies [10]. However, gender identity disorder can be cured if it is detected early and given proper professional treatment [11]. Similarly, among adults, treatment for unwanted same-sex attractions is about as successful as treatment for similar psychological problems: about 30% are completely cured and 30% experience improvement [12]. Dr. Lawrence Hatterer, who spent a great deal of his career treating same sex attractions, has stated” I have 'cured' many homosexuals… Any other researcher may examine my work because it is all documented on 10 years of tape recordings. Many of these 'cured' patients have married, had families and live happy lives. It is a destructive myth that 'once a homosexual, always a homosexual." It has made and will make millions more committed homosexuals. What is more, not only have I but many other reputable psychiatrists have reported their successful treatments of [homosexuals] [13].” Sadly, the media has chosen to ignore much of this evidence; however it is there for anyone who is willing to search.

The second question we must address is, so what if homosexuality is not an inborn trait, what interest does the government have in discouraging it? Well, for one thing it is in the interest of public health. Frankly, homosexual behavior is dangerous. Due to the high level of promiscuity and instability prevalent in homosexual relationships [14], and the inherent problems with having intercourse using body parts which were not designed for that purpose [15], homosexual persons are at a far greater risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases than the general population. For example, male practitioners of anal-genital intercourse are at an alarmingly high risk for anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C, and syphilis, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population [16]. Homosexuals are also at high risks for serious psychiatric problems. According to recent study done in the Netherlands, a country where homophobia is virtually non-existent, males who engage in homosexual sex are far more likely than those who do not to experience depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder [17]. The health effects of homosexuality are truly devastating. In fact, an epidemiological study done in Vancouver, Canada found that practitioners of male homosexual sex lost between 8 and 20 years on their life expectancy [18]. This is why it is imperative that the government discourage homosexuality, and discourage the notion that it is a permanent, genetically inherited trait. People who experience same sex attraction, for their own benefit, can and should be dissuaded from this lifestyle and referred to professionals who will help them to lead a normal life. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would serve only to further entrench the notions that “once a homosexual, always a homosexual,” and that same sex attractions are healthy, normal, and ought to be explored, and thus would cause more people to become entrapped in this dangerous lifestyle.

There is still another reason why the government should discourage homosexual behavior: the government has a vested interest in preserving traditional morality. Since the family is the fundamental building block of society, the survival of the nation as a whole is ultimately dependent upon the health of its families. If the moral health of a nation decays to the point where its families no longer produce enough children to support the elderly, as seems to be happening in countries like Germany, Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Spain, this is a sure sign of imminent cultural death [19]. This is to be avoided at all costs. Well, widespread acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice for anyone who is so inclined could only exacerbate these problems. Hence the policies of the federal and state governments should be conducive to a society wherein those who experience same-sex attraction are encouraged to seek treatment, reform themselves, and ultimately overcome their temptations to the dangerous homosexual lifestyle and become fully functional members of society: husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers. Obviously, granting legal recognition to homosexual unions would have the exact opposite effect. This is why homosexual marriage, and even civil union, can not and must not be allowed to become a recognized institution of American public life.

[4]In 1991, Dr. LeVay claimed that there was a difference between the brains of homo and heterosexual men. In 1993, Dr. Hamer claimed to have found a gene on the x chromosome which caused homosexuality.

[5]Crewdson, J. (1995) Study on 'gay gene' challenged. Chicago Tribune. June 25.; Horgan, J. (1995) "Gay genes, revisited: Doubts arise over research on the biology of homosexuality," Scientific American . November : 28.†

[6]Byne, W., Parsons, B. (1993) "Human sexual orientation: The biologic theories reappraisal," Archives of General Psychiatry. 50: p. 228.

[7]Bailey, J. Pillard, R. (1991) "A genetic study of male sexual orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry. 48: p. 1089.

[8]Bieber, I. et al. (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. NY: Basic Books. p. 316.†; Fitzgibbons, R. (1999) The origins and therapy of same-sex attraction disorder. In Wolfe, C., Homosexuality and American Public Life, Washington DC: Spense. p. 88.†

[9]Harry, J. (1989) "Parental physical abuse and sexual orientation in males," Archives of Sexual Behavior. 18, 3: p. 259.†

[10]American Psychiatric Association (1994) "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV," Washington DC: APA. p. 536.†

[11]Rekers, G. (1988) "The formation of homosexual orientation," In Fagan, P., Hope for Homosexuality , Washington DC: Free Congress Foundation.†

[12]Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A., Potts, R. (1998) Towards the Ethical and Effective Treatment of Homosexuality. Encino CA: NARTH.†

[13]Tripp, C. Hatterer, L. (1971) "Can homosexuals change with Psychotherapy"? Sexual Behavior. 1, 4: p. 42 - 49.†

[14]According to Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg [Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.‡], in 1978 15 percent of white, gay men claimed 100-249 sex partners, 17 percent claimed 250- 499, 15 percent claimed 500-999, and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000.

[15]"With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic. The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids" [Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., "The Health Risks of Gay Sex." Corporate Resource Council (2002)].

[16]Anne Rompalo, "Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men," Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990).‡

[17]Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): pp. 85-91, (January 2001).

[18]R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997).‡

[19]C.f. Lizette Alvarez, "Scotland Takes Action To Halt Drop In Population," The New York Times, November 30, 2003, p. 1-4.; "Fertility Rates," God's Plan for Life, [url="http://www.godsplanforlife.org/fertility_rates.htm"]http://www.godsplanforlife.org/fertility_rates.htm[/url]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Civil unions are a mockary of the sacred bond of marraige between a man and a woman.