Gay Rights?

[Guest Nugent]

Homosexual persons have never experienced the liberty to marry someone of their own gender in America. With the recent Supreme Court case that overturned sodomy laws in effect for several decades, the gay rights movement has their foot in the doorway of several legislators.

Within the first year Vermont offered civil unions, 2479 couples were granted some of the same rights as marriage would have given them. That is a rate of about 7 homosexual couples a day uniting.

It is quite clear that the homosexual population is larger and is becoming more of an accepted lifestyle. In a poll from the Los Angeles Times in June of 2000, 73% of people say that they know an openly gay person, and in another poll by the Gallup Organization in 2001, 52% of people polled stated that they accepted homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. (www.publicagenda.org)

The homosexual community is meeting opposition from religious organizations as well as individuals from those organizations. The Roman Catholic Church has a concrete definition of a marriage being between one man and one woman (Catechism, Article 7 § 1601), as do almost all organized religions. This is where conflicts spark.

People of homosexual orientation have become tolerated in the society of today. They have slowly gained more and more ground of their own and are looking for equal treatment and rights, much like freed blacks after slavery was abolished.

Homosexuals are meeting religious opposition in their endeavors for equality because of their defiance of the “natural law” because they are “intrinsically disordered” (Catechism Article 6 § 2357). Religions have no personal vendettas to keep the individual homosexual from receiving equal treatment, but do insist that “under no circumstances can they [their homosexual actions] be approved” (Catechism Article 6 § 2357).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church further explains that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (Catechism Article 6 § 2358). Religion hates not the sinner, but the sin, and in this case homosexual behaviors are the sin.

The natural law aforementioned is the idea that everything has a complement to itself. Religion sees homosexual relationships out of balance and disordered. Marriage is “by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring” (Catechism Article 7 § 1601).

Because scientifically two people of the same gender cannot possibly ever conceive a child without the aid of some external assistance, homosexuals could only ever fulfill one dimension of this definition of the sacrament of marriage. Homosexuals could only “establish between themselves a partnership of the whole life… ordered toward the good of the spouses” (Catechism Article 7 § 1601), and are hopeless for the possibility of procreation. This is the case for the opposition of civil unions for homosexual persons.

What homosexuals are seeking is not to force themselves into sanctuaries transforming religion around their sexuality, but are instead looking for the privileges and rights that heterosexual unions are granted. Homosexuals are looking for things like health insurance, bereavement leave, annuity and pensions, social security, inheritance rights, and most importantly validation. Until gay marriage is legalized, this fundamental element of personal dignity will be denied to a whole segment of humanity. Rights granted to heterosexuals on the virtue of their union, be it legally married, or married by the ‘virtue’ of a common-law arrangement.

Homosexuals are looking for these things not to cause problems, but to pursuit their own happiness and to secure the happiness of their partners. Going back to the Roman Catholic definition of marriage, here homosexuals are looking to fulfill another dimension of the sacrament. They want the same things heterosexual people want, and really only differ due to the stigma of being a homosexual person.

The issue of giving homosexual persons the privilege to marry people of their own sexual orientation is not an issue of controlling religions and bulling them into doing the will of a faction of the populace, but it is an issue of equal rights and privileges. It is an issue that ensures the rights of the families that the unions would make legitimate.

So…would it be right? :huh:

[littleflower+JMJ]

where did this come from?

[Aloysius]

because they are “intrinsically disordered” (Catechism Article 6 § 2357).

umm.. that doesn't say they are intrinsically disordered. it says homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

the culture keeps defining ppl by their 'sexuality'. I don't consider them "homosexual persons" I consider them "People with Same-Sex attraction" because when called a homosexual person it feels too much like we're defining them by this orientation. Some people act on Same-sex attraction, and those are the people that this artical calls "homosexual persons" not all people, however, act on same-sex attraction. these ppl are completely ignored by the culture.

by the definition you give of these homosexuals being persecuted, people who are called to the single life are being persecuted also. these ppl have every right that every single person has. the question is, are we to recognize their sexual relationship as legally equivalent to marriage? i think, as a country founded on the principles of the Holy Bible, we should not. the court does not have the right to make such a moral decision. even if it is just a civil union, legally they would be equating this to Holy Matrimony. as far as i'm concerned, they should have the same rights as any other two single people living together.

[jmjtina]

Homosexual Unions: Con

by Peter Frassati

The Vatican has recently come out with a strong denunciation of homosexual unions. It was not long afterwards that protest groups and civil rights groups were breathing down the Vatican's neck, demanding that Catholics renounce their baptism. What was said by the Holy Church was nothing new, for homosexual behavior has always been condemned by the Church and declared to be sinful. This teaching can be dated to the Old Testament with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). So what has the Vatican said that would infuriate so many people? Are the latest teachings so new after all?

On June 3, 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of theFaith issued a document, with the Pope's blessing, that condemned the notion of homosexual unions and reminded Catholics of the gravity of homosexual behavior. The document was released at a time when Canada was making homosexual unions legal and the United States was making laws against sodomy illegal. The document could not have come at a better time.

Homosexual unions, the document argues, is an attack on the family and can never be approved of by anyone. It goes on to remind Catholics of their obligation to defend the family and for politicians to fight the attacks on family within their governments.

Perhaps you may wonder why the Church is against homosexual behavior. This is a valid concern because homosexuals, like all people, deserve love and respect. The Church has always taught this. The Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 2358 says:

"They [homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

The Church has never condemned homosexuals, only the sin of homosexual acts. The disagreement is on what sort of love a homosexual person should experience. Should they experience a false love that is worldly and results in nothing other then self-gratification and lust?

Should they experience the love of the merciful God who fulfills all desires, all wants, and all emptiness? God, after all, created man and woman and said to them in the first chapter of Genesis:

"Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."

This is one of the most important and vital parts of human sexuality - pro-creation. Two men and two women cannot pro-create, therefore, they lack something commanded by Almighty God. God created man and woman for a reason. If homosexuality was what God wanted, then He would have made two men or two women.

Returning to the issue of homosexual unions and the recent document, perhaps the most controversial issue is the fact that the Church was instructing Catholic politicians, and highly recommending to non-Catholic politicians, to do everything in their ability to foil the attempts to demoralize society by allowing attacks on the family.

What people do not realize, however, is that being Catholic is not a right; it's a free choice. By making that free choice, you are bound to the teaching and laws of the Church. It's the duty and mission of the Church to preach the truth, even if it's not "politically correct." Some say this is an attack on "representative" democracy, but I ask, "why?" Sometimes people don't know what's best. If people want murder to be legal, is it suddenly moral? If people want certain ethnic and religious groups thrown out of a country, is that moral? If people were able to live together without being immoral, there would be no need for government. Homosexual marriage and unions will do harm to society because it perverts the meaning of marriage - something that has been between a man and woman for thousands of years. To say this would have no negative affect on society would be ignorant. Why is it okay for everyone but the Vatican to tell people how to vote?

The argument has been made that homosexual unions are necessary so that the partner can receive the rights of his/her spouse. Morally, this is not correct, as marriage is something shared between two people (a man and a women) who love each other, not because they want the others benefits. This argument defeats the purpose of marriage and becomes yet anotherdisplay of selfishness. Marriage is a free act in which a spouse gives himself (or herself) to the other out of pure love for each other. To have a government redefine marriage so that a group of people can get certain "benefits" is immoral and self-defeating. Is marriage just an institution, or is it something much more?

The document concludes with this incredibly true statement:

"The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family - the primary unit of society."

Homosexual marriage must never be approved of and the Church's warning should be continually heeded.

I recommend that everyone read the document to see how the Church outlines why this should be done because of reason, biology, anthropology, the social order, and the legal order. It's very short and can be found here.

The warnings and prophecies contained in Humane Vitae (the document condemning artificial contraception) have all come true. We must fight against homosexual marriage to protect our world from more harm.

[jmjtina]

And lets not forget from Our Holy Mother Church:

VATICAN DOCUMENTS

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS

TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION

TO UNIONS

BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

INTRODUCTION

1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.

I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE

AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS

2. The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “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”.(4)

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)

II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM

OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL

RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

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.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

From the biological and anthropological order

7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

From the social order

8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order

9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS

WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR

OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

CONCLUSION

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger

Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.

Titular Archbishop of Sila

Secretary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES

(1) Cf. John Paul II, Angelus Messages of February 20, 1994, and of June 19, 1994; Address to the Plenary Meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Family (March 24, 1999); Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2357-2359, 2396; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8; Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986); Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons (July 24, 1992); Pontifical Council for the Family, Letter to the Presidents of the Bishops' Conferences of Europe on the resolution of the European Parliament regarding homosexual couples (March 25, 1994); Family, marriage and “de facto” unions (July 26, 2000), 23.

(2) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002), 4.

(3) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 48.

(4) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357.

(5) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8.

(6) Cf., for example, St. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, V, 3; St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 27, 1-4; Athenagoras, Supplication for the Christians, 34.

(7) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 10.

(8) Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2359; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 12.

(9) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358.

(10) Ibid., No. 2396.

(11) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 71.

(12) Cf. ibid., 72.

(13) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.

(14) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 90.

(15) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum vitae (February 22, 1987), II. A. 1-3.

(16) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 63, a.1, c.

(17) It should not be forgotten that there is always “a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992], 14).

(18) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 73.

[Nelliagnes]

I'd like to add a little something.

Homosexual acts are NOT love giving. True love giving comes within the context of sacramental marriage, and since homosexuality is condemed by God then it cannot therefore be love giving and since "God is Love" love can only truly be expressed in a holy way. On Life On The Rock Fr. Francis interviewed a member of "Courage" the group that helps people with SSA live chaste lives. During this interview this man stated that out of the twenty some odd years (or maybe it was ten years) that he lived a homosexual lifestyle he never once felt fulfilled. He said the closest he got was feeling like a same sex partner was like a good friend. He stated that humans are not made to receive that kind of fulfillment with people of the same sex.

Again God is love and for love to be true to itself it most be given in a holy and Godly way and since homosexual acts are inDouche disordered, on top of the fact that it is outside of marriage, then it cannot possibly be considered love giving. You are mistaken my friend about that. In the end homosexual relationships are not life giving or love giving.

[hyperdulia again]

Gay and Lesbian relationships and yes even the physical/sexual expressions of those relationships can be and are loving. THE problem is that in a sexual relation ship between two people of the same sex that love expressed in a disordered manner.

[Good Friday]

Might I suggest, as we prepare for Advent and the coming judgment of Our Lord (which will come like a thief in the night, mind you), that we all concern ourselves a little bit more with our own sinfulness and a little bit less with others' sinfulness?

A change in society will only come with a change in individuals, and a change in individuals will only come if we work on ourselves first and then with others (with them, as opposed to working on them as if they're our creations and we're the master mechanics -- God is the master mechanic, and all of us are the creations), in the faith, hope, and charity that Jesus gives to us in abundance if only we are willing to take and use it.

In other words, cliche and overused by our liberal brethren as it may be: This Advent, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[cmotherofpirl]

Might I suggest, as we prepare for Advent and the coming judgment of Our Lord (which will come like a thief in the night, mind you), that we all concern ourselves a little bit more with our own sinfulness and a little bit less with others' sinfulness?

A change in society will only come with a change in individuals, and a change in individuals will only come if we work on ourselves first and then with others (with them, as opposed to working on them as if they're our creations and we're the master mechanics -- God is the master mechanic, and all of us are the creations), in the faith, hope, and charity that Jesus gives to us in abundance if only we are willing to take and use it.

In other words, cliche and overused by our liberal brethren as it may be: This Advent, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

WE didn't start the thread dearie, we are onty responding to it.

[cmotherofpirl]

This is the case for the opposition of civil unions for homosexual persons.

What homosexuals are seeking is not to force themselves into sanctuaries transforming religion around their sexuality, but are instead looking for the privileges and rights that heterosexual unions are granted. Homosexuals are looking for things like health insurance, bereavement leave, annuity and pensions, social security, inheritance rights, and most importantly validation. Until gay marriage is legalized, this fundamental element of personal dignity will be denied to a whole segment of humanity. Rights granted to heterosexuals on the virtue of their union, be it legally married, or married by the ‘virtue’ of a common-law arrangement.

Homosexuals are looking for these things not to cause problems, but to pursuit their own happiness and to secure the happiness of their partners. Going back to the Roman Catholic definition of marriage, here homosexuals are looking to fulfill another dimension of the sacrament.  They want the same things heterosexual people want, and really only differ due to the stigma of being a homosexual person.

The issue of giving homosexual persons the privilege to marry people of their own sexual orientation is not an issue of controlling religions and bulling them into doing the will of a faction of the populace, but it is an issue of equal rights and privileges.  It is an issue that ensures the rights of the families that the unions would make legitimate.

So…would it be right?

God came up with marriage as being one man and one woman, as recorded in the stories of Genesis.

God did not "validate" any other union and neither will the Church.

Man came up with insurance benefits.

If civil unions are legitimized every household consisting of people living together who are not having sex ( good buddies, brother and sisters, old people living together for companionship) can sue the state for discrimination against them.

THey can legally claim they would be forced to have sex with each other or be denied benefits "owed" them by society.

I have a better solution. Rewrite the insurance laws etc to say that A may choose any B they want to confer benefits on , regardless of relationship status.

Edited December 1, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[Good Friday]

WE didn't start the thread dearie, we are onty responding to it.

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just an overall suggestion.

[Aloysius]

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just an overall suggestion.

ok that's cool. CMOM was just pointint out that this thread was started by someone who apparently accepts homosexual behavior as normal, well, at least that's the way it seems from the artical he posted. that's why i think it's important for us to speak out on this issue in this thread as the person who started it needs the info. when ppl randomly start threads with info against homosexual acts and stuff then they might be accused of 'throwing the first stone' or focusing too much on others' sins. but when the Church teaching is questioned by someone, defending it is the only Charitable thing to do.

[Good Friday]

True enough. Go at it. But with charity. That's all I'm saying. :P

[dUSt]

"Charity exists not so much in giving as in understanding." - St Josemaria Escriva

[God Conquers]

The issue of giving homosexual persons the privilege to marry people of their own sexual orientation is not an issue of controlling religions and bulling them into doing the will of a faction of the populace, but it is an issue of equal rights and privileges. It is an issue that ensures the rights of the families that the unions would make legitimate.

Equal rights? I believe you already DO have the right to marry. You are looking for EXCEPTIONAL rights, the right to marry someone other than who you already have the right to marry to (a woman).

Also, most, if not all, of those relationships benefits are already available to a same sex couple. Why now ask for the "right" to marriage?

Also, I don't recall marriage ever being a RIGHT. I do not have the right to marry. No one does, because it is an institution mutually agreed upon by a man, a woman, and God. If no woman wants to marry me should I fight in court for my "right" to be married?

Marriage has been around for millenia. It is pan-historical and pan-societal. No one has the right to it or to legislate it period. It should be the exclusive purview of religion.

[M.SIGGA]

There are not more gay people now than there have ever been. Society seems to be more excepting now so more folks are deciding to ''come out'', but there isn't a gay population boom like a baby boom. The only reason I all-of-the-sudden know three gay people is b/c three guys I knew in high school just decided to come out - and they said they were gay all along, but just scared and quiet about it.

Since the Church, which is the only institution that matters, will never recognize gay marriage, I don't understand why there is always an argument about whether or not it will be legalized. The word marriage cannot exist outside the relationship between a man and a woman b/c two peeps of the same sex can't ''marry'' and become one, and naturally procreate.

BTW heterosexual Civil Marriages in the U.S. are fueling Gay Marriage Rights folks b/c those are already sham. There is a 50% divorce rate and 5 nights a week you can see perfect strangers compete, have premarital affairs, and then marry perfect strangers on almost every TV channel. I don't support the idea of gay marriage, but I honestly don't think gay marriages will make this nation's moral situation any worse.

Rename the law to "Bill Allowing Same Sex People to Get a Legal Certificate Entitling Insurance Money and Property Transfer on Death" instead of "Bill Legalizing Gay Marriage" and everyone will be happy. If the prob is still with the Church, I don't understand why folks don't just leave and try to start a new one like folks did in the past.

[phatcatholic]

phatpham,

could someone help me respond to this article? its definitely relative to our topic. a friend of mine, who is gay, sent me this and i have yet to respond to her.

How the Vatican Can Change

By Paul Varnell

Originally appeared in two parts in the Chicago Free Press, Sept. 27 and Oct. 4, 2000.

WILL THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY ever change its position opposing homosexuality?

No doubt most gays, including Catholic gays, cheerfully ignore Vatican doctrine on the subject. But the issue is significant for all of us because the Catholic hierarchy is an important political and social pressure group. If it stopped condemning homosexuality, that would greatly help our efforts to achieve legal and social equality.

Current Vatican doctrine holds that homosexuality violates "natural law" because it involves the use of sexual organs in a way that is not open to the possibility of creating new life. Hence it is a misuse of those body parts.

For exactly the same reasons, the Vatican opposes all oral and anal sex, masturbation and the use of condoms -- because those actions also use the sexual organs in ways that cannot create life.

Or so everyone always thought. But now, astonishingly, it turns out that the Vatican allows condoms under certain circumstances.

So if the Vatican says that the "proper" use of sexual organs is not quite the moral absolute we all thought, those who wish to alter the Vatican's position on gay sex will examine the argument carefully.

Last April, Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau of the Pontifical Council for the Family published a little-noticed article in the Vatican's official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano entitled, "Prophylactics or Family Values? Stopping the Spread of HIV/AIDS."

The article came to public attention only after it was discussed in the Jesuit magazine America (Sept. 23).

In his article, Suaudeau explained, "The use of condoms had particularly good results" for halting the transmission of AIDS in Uganda generally and by prostitutes in Thailand.

"The use of prophylactics in these circumstances," i.e., where AIDS is widespread, "is actually a 'lesser evil'" than not using condoms and allowing a fatal disease to spread through a sexually active population.

So some moral goods override the "natural law" imperative that every sexual

behavior must have the possibility of creating human life.

Is this shift, as the Scripps Howard News Service called it, "a theological U-turn"?

Oh, no, not at all, Suaudeau said; he was simply explaining his church's position.

"I don't understand why people want to interpret what I stated clearly in my

article," he told the New York Times. "But there is no change in church teaching."

That's his story and he's sticking with it.

But when a committee of the National Council of Catholic Bishops proposed in 1988 that AIDS education efforts "could include accurate information about

prophylactic devices ... as a means of preventing AIDS," the Vatican pounced.

Writing in L'Osservatore Romano, the office of doctrinal purity stated, "To seek the solution to the disease in the promotion of the use of prophylactics is..., above all, unacceptable from a moral point of view."

Bishop Anthony Bosco who drafted the 1988 Catholic bishops' statement said he felt vindicated by Suaudeau's article.

"This proves to me that maybe the logic that led me to that conclusion follows from sound moral principles," Bosco said.

Now if the Vatican can "explain" or "develop" its position on prophylactics in such a way as to move from prohibiting them to allowing them, can it also "explain" or "develop" its position on other issues such as homosexuality?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Can the church also "explain" or "develop" its position on other

issues such as homosexuality?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it can. How could it do so?

We might get some clues from Catholic church historian John Noonan who published a fascinating article entitled "Development in Moral Doctrine" in the journal Theological Studies (1993).

"That the moral teachings of the Catholic Church have changed over time will, I suppose, be denied by almost no one today," Noonan states flatly.

And he undertakes a rapid historical survey of Catholic doctrine on lending money at interest (usury), marriage, slavery, and religious freedom, showing in each case how the Vatican's position changed and explaining the principles that produced the change.

For instance, lending money at interest was once regarded as a mortal sin, contrary to natural law ("money is barren") and contrary to the Gospel ("Lend freely, expecting nothing in return").

But today no one, not even the Vatican, disapproves of putting money is a savings account to earn interest.

For nearly two millennia, the Vatican taught that it was not sinful to own slaves. After all, the Apostle Paul approved of slavery ("slaves, stay with your masters") and actually returned a runaway slave named Onesimus to his master.

Barely a century ago, in 1890, Pope Leo XIII for the first time denounced slavery as immoral and incompatible "with the brotherhood that unites all men," a brotherhood that had previously escaped notice in Rome.

Similarly, the Vatican long taught that heretics had no religious liberty and governments should execute them, a position supported by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and words attributed to Jesus himself.

Only in 1964 was this position finally repudiated by the Second Vatican Council which announced that the freedom to believe was a sacred human right. A previously undetected right, apparently.

Using such precedents for change, the task now is to develop a strong case for certain human, moral goods such that they too override formerly inviolable Vatican doctrines about the "proper" use of sexual organs.

Clues to the nature of these analogous greater goods (or greater evils to be avoided) might be found by examining the way the Vatican was swayed to change its doctrine in the earlier instances of usury, slavery, marriage, and religious freedom.

The Vatican reversed its long-standing condemnation of lending money at interest in the 16th century when moral theologians shifted the focus of their analysis from the loan itself ("money is barren") to the significance the loan had for the people involved.

The theologians came to realize that the lender lost money on an interest-free loan because he had to forgo the opportunity for a profitable investment he could otherwise make with the money. So he deserved some payment in return for his loss: interest.

In the same way, when the Vatican decides to reverse its position on homosexuality, it will shift the focus of moral analysis from the specific acts to the people involved and the purposes, significance, and effects of the actions for them.

For instance, the Vatican will discover that gay and lesbian couples intend to express and validate their love and affection for each other in the most intense way available to them.

The theologians might even discover that the physical intimacy enhances and

intensifies the couples' affection, mutual regard, bondedness and loyalty.

When the Vatican reversed its position on slavery in 1890, Pope Leo XIII said slavery was incompatible "with the brotherhood that unites all men," a brotherhood that found expression in Jesus' commands to "love one another" and "love your neighbor as yourself."

The Vatican ignored the Apostle Paul's repeated endorsements of slavery (e.g., Eph. 6:5) in favor of his observation, "There is neither slave nor free...; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28) which the Vatican applied more broadly than Paul himself did.

In the same way, the Vatican may decide that to accord homosexuals and their

human desires equal legitimacy with heterosexuals and their desires is a further application of "the brotherhood that unites all men" and an obligation that follows from loving one's neighbor as oneself.

The Vatican could choose to ignore Paul's ignorant comments about homosexuals (in Rom. 1:18-27 he thinks all gays are pagans) in favor of his observation, "There is neither male nor female ... in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28), which can teach that sexual dimorphism is irrelevant in the moral evaluation of love and its expression in human relationships.

In contravention to Jesus' teaching that marriage is permanent and remarriage is adultery, the Vatican has allowed some already married people to remarry. The Apostle Paul himself allowed Christian converts to remarry if their partners did not become Christian and deserted them.

Pope Gregory XIII later allowed converted Catholic slaves to remarry if they did not know whether an absent spouse would also become Catholic. He acted "lest they not persist in their faith." So keeping Catholics "in the faith" can have primacy over a Gospel teaching.

In the same way, if and when enough gays leave Catholicism and gay couples

marry in other churches, choosing love over doctrine, the Vatican will feel forced to reverse its position "lest they not persist in their faith."

This has already started. After the gay Catholic organization Dignity attracted a sizable membership, many Catholic dioceses began to establish official diocesan gay/lesbian organizations to keep gays from joining what they regarded as a heretical sect. These diocesan organizations downplay gay sinfulness where they do not ignore it entirely.

But this very effort to retain gays increases pressure on the Vatican to reverse its position. As church historian John Noonan points out, the Vatican reversed its view of usury when loans and credit became part of everyday commercial life and it was forced to examine "the experience of otherwise decent Christians who were bankers and who claimed that banking was compatible with Christianity."

In the same way, the Vatican will feel, and is now feeling, increased pressure to rethink its view of homosexuality for the same reason-the growing presence in the Catholic church of "otherwise decent Christians" who claim that homosexuality "is compatible with Christianity."

And finally, underlying all is the growing awareness by gays and theologians both of the importance and comprehensiveness of the doctrine of the primacy of individual conscience.

The Second Vatican Council (1964) reversed nearly two millennia of Catholic

dogma by announcing that freedom of belief is a sacred human right that governments must not coerce. And, we can safely add, by the same token even

Catholic doctrine must ultimately yield before it.

thanks,

nick

Edited December 2, 2003 by phatcatholic