View Poll Results: Vote on Gay Marriage - Yea or Nay?
Voters: 157. You may not vote on this poll
Gay Marriage Vote - cast yours!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
From: West Yorkshire
Homosexuality and the Truth: Is it Just Another Lifestyle?
By Alan P. Medinger
Society has two views of homosexuality. The traditional view holds that homosexuality is an aberration, the orientation is a disorder, and the behavior is pathological. The opposing view is that homosexuality is a normal variant in the human condition, that it is determined before birth, and homosexual behavior is natural for those so oriented. This view, however, rests on a number of questionable premises which, if false, lead us back to the traditional view.
Part of the widely promoted view of homosexuality is that it is simply another life style, not as common as heterosexuality, but no worse and no better. The term "alternative life style" is meant to imply "different, but equal."
To even suggest that there are quality of life differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality is to risk being labeled a bigot in much of our society. That something might be inherently wrong with homosexuality dare not be mentioned in our schools, in the media, or in the political arena.
Where certain negative aspects of homosexuality are brought up, they are frequently blamed on society's unwillingness to support committed gay relationships. This presents a difficult challenge because, by strict rules of scientific evidence, we can seldom prove cause and effect in human behavior. Why did John grow up to be a thief, and his brother Joseph to be a priest?
Behaviorists and medical experts can debate this endlessly -- or until evidence identifies biological elements in our bodies that predestine one to become a thief and another a priest. But whether or not a life style or form of behavior is harmful is a totally different question from what causes it to be harmful.
We first determine if something is harmful, and then we ask what is causing the harm: Is it something inherent in the condition or behavior, or is it something indirectly affecting the person engaging in that behavior. If people who smoke cigarettes are more apt to die of cancer, is it because there is something in the cigarette that tends to cause cancer, or is it something peripheral; say doctors hesitate to treat people who smoke because their breath is bad?
It is foolish to go on to the second question without first thoroughly examining the first, but that is what has been happening in our culture regarding homosexuality. We will not do that here.
The question then is: Is homosexuality harmful? By three basic criteria by which it is clearly appropriate to judge any form of behavior: emotional, psychological and physical, there is powerful evidence to indicate that it is not good to be gay. Let's look at this as objectively as possible:
EMOTIONALLY -- This is the most difficult to measure objectively, but we can look at certain facts which are available:
1. Homosexuals can't have children. Few would dispute that children provide an opportunity to give and receive love in a way that meets a basic human need.
2. Homosexual relationships lack complementarity. Feminists notwithstanding, there are differences in male and female that go beyond the reproductive capacities -- brain differences, body structure differences, etc. These tend to complement each other in mankind as they do in other creatures -- creating a complementarity that is good for the individuals, for children and for society.
3. Homosexual relationships, on average are much shorter lived than heterosexual relationships. Amajor studyby the Kinsey Institute revealed that 78% of male homo- sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer.l Certainly, this shows a pattern of broken relationships that must be painful for many.
4. In a 1977 survey of members ofthe American Psychiatric Association, 73% of the psychiatrists responding said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. Seventy percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization.2
PSYCHOLOGICALLY -- The gay community claimed a great victory when they prevailed upon the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II -- its listing of psychological disorders. This highly controversial action seems to fly in the face of the evidence of any common sense definition of psychological well-being. Consider the following:
1. Homosexual men are six times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men.3
2. Studies indicate that between 25 and 33% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics.4
3. Statistics give evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. The Kinsey study cited above revealed that 43% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated that they had had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. 5 Either the American Psychiatric Association is ignorant of what homosexuality entails for vast numbers of men, or their view of healthy sexuality indicates a serious disorder among members of the A P.A.
4. The same Kinsey study revealed that homosexual men have to a great extent separated sexuality from relationship. The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once.6 Surely this is an indication of either deep dissatisfaction, or else terribly destructive hedonism.
PHYSICAL -- Even if one were to consider AIDS as an altogether unrelated matter, few behaviors yield more harmful results than does homosexuality.
1. Certain common homosexual practices are physically destructive apart from transmission of disease. **** intercourse, an extremely common practice among homosexual men, can seriously damage internal tissues and can permanently weaken the **** sphincter, causing incontinence and other serious medical problems.
2. National gay rights organizations have been making a major issue lately ofthe high level of crime perpetrated against gays. This has been put forth as a justification for inclusion of homosexuality in civil rights laws. What is not mentioned is that much ofthis crime occurs when a lonely, desperate homosexual takes a young male prostitute or other stranger to his home or apartment for an evening of sex. Although most gays know they risk meeting up with psychopaths in this way, many are still driven to do it.
3. In a survey reported in the official publication of the American Public Health Association, 78% of the gay respondents reported that they had been affected by a sexually transmitted disease at least one time.7
4. Several years ago it was reported that San Francisco had a VD rate that was 22 times the national average.8
5. Over 70% of those who have contracted AIDS are homosexual or bi-sexual.
We do need to address the statement that the difficulties suffered by homosexuals are all a result of society's prejudice and unwillingness to support stable gay relationships. We can address this on several points:
1. There is no proof for this allegation.
2. In areas where there is the greatest acceptance of homosexuality (San Francisco, West Hollywood, New York City), the detrimental effects don't decrease; they increase.
3. Over the past 20 years, there has been a great increase in the acceptance of homosexuality, but during the same period, there has been a huge increase in homosexual suffering due to disease and other factors.
4. For many years society did not condone heterosexual sexual involvement outside of marriage. As far as we know this did not force the people so inclined into greater sexual promiscuity, higher rates of alcoholism, suicide, and disease.
Finally, we can ask: What if much of the suffering that goes along with homosexuality is in part, or even primarily, due to society's harsh and condemning attitude? Does that mean that we are therefore justified in supporting and affirming a life style that can bring such suffering? We can say that society must change, not the gays. But what if society won't change, or takes a long time to do so, what do we do then? Some members of racial minorities have taken the view that their problems were all due to racial prejudice, and they refused to help themselves. Many others, though, determined to overcome the obstacles, real as they were. Who fared the better?
The fact that homosexuality brings with it great suffering cannot be denied. Normally, confronting a condition or behavior that can bring such human suffering, all efforts are made at prevention and correction. With homosexuality, though, the public pressure to deny the harm, or to shift the blame to society, has all but ruled out society taking any step at prevention or change. And so the suffering goes on.
1. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314
2. Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110- 111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker)
3. Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, Table 21.12
4. Robert J. Kus, Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men, Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 14, No.2 (1987), p.254
5. Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, p.308
6. Ibid. pp.308-309
7. Enrique T. Rueda, The Homosexual Network, (Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982), p.53
8. Ibid.
By Alan P. Medinger
Society has two views of homosexuality. The traditional view holds that homosexuality is an aberration, the orientation is a disorder, and the behavior is pathological. The opposing view is that homosexuality is a normal variant in the human condition, that it is determined before birth, and homosexual behavior is natural for those so oriented. This view, however, rests on a number of questionable premises which, if false, lead us back to the traditional view.
Part of the widely promoted view of homosexuality is that it is simply another life style, not as common as heterosexuality, but no worse and no better. The term "alternative life style" is meant to imply "different, but equal."
To even suggest that there are quality of life differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality is to risk being labeled a bigot in much of our society. That something might be inherently wrong with homosexuality dare not be mentioned in our schools, in the media, or in the political arena.
Where certain negative aspects of homosexuality are brought up, they are frequently blamed on society's unwillingness to support committed gay relationships. This presents a difficult challenge because, by strict rules of scientific evidence, we can seldom prove cause and effect in human behavior. Why did John grow up to be a thief, and his brother Joseph to be a priest?
Behaviorists and medical experts can debate this endlessly -- or until evidence identifies biological elements in our bodies that predestine one to become a thief and another a priest. But whether or not a life style or form of behavior is harmful is a totally different question from what causes it to be harmful.
We first determine if something is harmful, and then we ask what is causing the harm: Is it something inherent in the condition or behavior, or is it something indirectly affecting the person engaging in that behavior. If people who smoke cigarettes are more apt to die of cancer, is it because there is something in the cigarette that tends to cause cancer, or is it something peripheral; say doctors hesitate to treat people who smoke because their breath is bad?
It is foolish to go on to the second question without first thoroughly examining the first, but that is what has been happening in our culture regarding homosexuality. We will not do that here.
The question then is: Is homosexuality harmful? By three basic criteria by which it is clearly appropriate to judge any form of behavior: emotional, psychological and physical, there is powerful evidence to indicate that it is not good to be gay. Let's look at this as objectively as possible:
EMOTIONALLY -- This is the most difficult to measure objectively, but we can look at certain facts which are available:
1. Homosexuals can't have children. Few would dispute that children provide an opportunity to give and receive love in a way that meets a basic human need.
2. Homosexual relationships lack complementarity. Feminists notwithstanding, there are differences in male and female that go beyond the reproductive capacities -- brain differences, body structure differences, etc. These tend to complement each other in mankind as they do in other creatures -- creating a complementarity that is good for the individuals, for children and for society.
3. Homosexual relationships, on average are much shorter lived than heterosexual relationships. Amajor studyby the Kinsey Institute revealed that 78% of male homo- sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer.l Certainly, this shows a pattern of broken relationships that must be painful for many.
4. In a 1977 survey of members ofthe American Psychiatric Association, 73% of the psychiatrists responding said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. Seventy percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization.2
PSYCHOLOGICALLY -- The gay community claimed a great victory when they prevailed upon the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II -- its listing of psychological disorders. This highly controversial action seems to fly in the face of the evidence of any common sense definition of psychological well-being. Consider the following:
1. Homosexual men are six times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men.3
2. Studies indicate that between 25 and 33% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics.4
3. Statistics give evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. The Kinsey study cited above revealed that 43% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated that they had had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. 5 Either the American Psychiatric Association is ignorant of what homosexuality entails for vast numbers of men, or their view of healthy sexuality indicates a serious disorder among members of the A P.A.
4. The same Kinsey study revealed that homosexual men have to a great extent separated sexuality from relationship. The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once.6 Surely this is an indication of either deep dissatisfaction, or else terribly destructive hedonism.
PHYSICAL -- Even if one were to consider AIDS as an altogether unrelated matter, few behaviors yield more harmful results than does homosexuality.
1. Certain common homosexual practices are physically destructive apart from transmission of disease. **** intercourse, an extremely common practice among homosexual men, can seriously damage internal tissues and can permanently weaken the **** sphincter, causing incontinence and other serious medical problems.
2. National gay rights organizations have been making a major issue lately ofthe high level of crime perpetrated against gays. This has been put forth as a justification for inclusion of homosexuality in civil rights laws. What is not mentioned is that much ofthis crime occurs when a lonely, desperate homosexual takes a young male prostitute or other stranger to his home or apartment for an evening of sex. Although most gays know they risk meeting up with psychopaths in this way, many are still driven to do it.
3. In a survey reported in the official publication of the American Public Health Association, 78% of the gay respondents reported that they had been affected by a sexually transmitted disease at least one time.7
4. Several years ago it was reported that San Francisco had a VD rate that was 22 times the national average.8
5. Over 70% of those who have contracted AIDS are homosexual or bi-sexual.
We do need to address the statement that the difficulties suffered by homosexuals are all a result of society's prejudice and unwillingness to support stable gay relationships. We can address this on several points:
1. There is no proof for this allegation.
2. In areas where there is the greatest acceptance of homosexuality (San Francisco, West Hollywood, New York City), the detrimental effects don't decrease; they increase.
3. Over the past 20 years, there has been a great increase in the acceptance of homosexuality, but during the same period, there has been a huge increase in homosexual suffering due to disease and other factors.
4. For many years society did not condone heterosexual sexual involvement outside of marriage. As far as we know this did not force the people so inclined into greater sexual promiscuity, higher rates of alcoholism, suicide, and disease.
Finally, we can ask: What if much of the suffering that goes along with homosexuality is in part, or even primarily, due to society's harsh and condemning attitude? Does that mean that we are therefore justified in supporting and affirming a life style that can bring such suffering? We can say that society must change, not the gays. But what if society won't change, or takes a long time to do so, what do we do then? Some members of racial minorities have taken the view that their problems were all due to racial prejudice, and they refused to help themselves. Many others, though, determined to overcome the obstacles, real as they were. Who fared the better?
The fact that homosexuality brings with it great suffering cannot be denied. Normally, confronting a condition or behavior that can bring such human suffering, all efforts are made at prevention and correction. With homosexuality, though, the public pressure to deny the harm, or to shift the blame to society, has all but ruled out society taking any step at prevention or change. And so the suffering goes on.
1. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314
2. Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110- 111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker)
3. Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, Table 21.12
4. Robert J. Kus, Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men, Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 14, No.2 (1987), p.254
5. Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, p.308
6. Ibid. pp.308-309
7. Enrique T. Rueda, The Homosexual Network, (Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982), p.53
8. Ibid.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 13,356
Likes: 58
From: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
Nice edit...despicable am I, for challenging your unfounded diatribe?!I'm only using your own words; simply putting them in context for you...your insistence that homosexuality is not right or good defines you as a bigot. The ANY part of the definition is used to illustrate an individual can be bigoted about anything...not that they have to reject any ideas that are not their own to be defined as a bigot.
It would be a cheap shot to quote your "...shows your level of intelligence!" so I won't
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
From: West Yorkshire
10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed
By TFP Student Action
1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)
To receive free pro-family updates, subscribe to our newsletter now.
Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand
In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.
As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.
We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.
We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” We do not judge their intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations.
We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.
In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Such is not our intention.
By TFP Student Action
1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)
To receive free pro-family updates, subscribe to our newsletter now.
Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand
In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.
As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.
We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.
We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” We do not judge their intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations.
We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.
In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Such is not our intention.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
From: West Yorkshire
Nice edit...despicable am I, for challenging your unfounded diatribe?!I'm only using your own words; simply putting them in context for you...your insistence that homosexuality is not right or good defines you as a bigot. The ANY part of the definition is used to illustrate an individual can be bigoted about anything...not that they have to reject any ideas that are not their own to be defined as a bigot.
It would be a cheap shot to quote your "...shows your level of intelligence!" so I won't
And for you to come to that conclusion when clearly the definition of a bigot as posted by you says ""bigot as defined in a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race"" shows that your judgment is impaired either emotionally or due to a lack of intelligence.
See the key word there? ANY? it doesnt say "intolerant of homosexuality ideas", it says intolerant of ANY ideas not my own. So seriously, you really want to continue being a despicable person, basically making lies up about me to win your argument? Really?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
From: West Yorkshire
Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful
Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society.
Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.
Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society.
Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
From: West Yorkshire
Summary of the Aidan O’Neill
legal opinion on gay marriage
and liberty of conscience
Concerns about gay marriage and freedom of conscience
have largely centred on places of worship and ministers of
religion who conduct weddings. But the impact in the
workplace, in schools and in other areas of everyday life has
been overlooked.
Those details are contained in a legal opinion written by
leading human rights lawyer, Aidan O’Neill QC. Mr O’Neill was
asked to give his expert advice on a series of scenarios related
to legalising gay marriage.
NHS CHAPLAIN
A Church of England minister is also the chaplain at an NHS
hospital. While conducting a wedding service in his parish
church he preaches that marriage is only for one man and one
woman. His NHS bosses find out, and he is later disciplined for
breaching the NHS diversity policy.
Aidan O’Neill QC advises that under the Equality Act 2010 the
NHS managers would have proper grounds for justifying their
action, even if the chaplain was preaching in his own church
outside work time.
The situation would be the same for any chaplain employed
within the public sector, such as armed forces chaplains or
university chaplains.
TEACHER
A primary school teacher is asked to use a storybook about
gay marriage called “King & King”. It is recommended by the
local authority and by a gay rights charity. The teacher says
using the book would conflict with her religious beliefs about
marriage. She is told that she faces dismissal unless she
backs down.
O’Neill says “yes”, the school would be within its legal rights to
dismiss the teacher if she refuses to use the material.
PARENTS
Parents ask for their child to be withdrawn from school lessons
on the history of gay marriage, for deeply-held religious
reasons. The parents say they have a right to withdraw their
child under European Convention on Human Rights. But the
school refuses, saying it is under a legal duty to promote
equality.
O’Neill says the parents do not ultimately have a right to insist
that their child be withdrawn from such history lessons, and the
parents “will have little prospects of success in challenging the
schools insistence that their child attend” the lessons.
FAITH SCHOOLS
Aidan O’Neill was asked about the above scenario in relation
to faith schools or religious-ethos State schools.
He said: “If the school in question were a faith school or
otherwise one with a religious ethos within the State sector in
England and Wales this would make no difference to my
answer.”
FOSTER COUPLE
A couple applies to be foster carers. They tell social workers
they are motivated to care for children because of their
Christian faith. On hearing this, the social workers ask them
whether they support gay marriage. The couple says they do
not, and the social workers halt the application because of
equality and discrimination policies.
O’Neill says “yes”, a local authority fostering agency would
have legitimate legal grounds for acting this way.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
A church hires a council-owned community centre each week
for its youth club. The church website states that it will only
conduct opposite-sex marriages. Someone complains to the
council, and while the church can’t be forced to conduct gay
weddings, it is stopped from hiring the community centre.
Aidan O’Neill says “yes”, the council would be within its legal
rights to do this.
MARRIAGE REGISTRAR
A local authority decides to accommodate the religious beliefs
of one of its registrars by not designating her to be a ‘civil
partnership registrar’. Other registrars within the local
authority’s team are sufficient to provide the service to the
public.
Aidan O’Neill says that if gay marriage becomes law, “that kind
of adjustment to accommodate a registrar’s particular beliefs
would no longer be an option for any employing authority
because there would then be only be one system of marriage
(rather than, as at present, a distinct civil partnership regime
for same sex couples).”
RELIGIOUS GAY WEDDINGS
The O’Neill legal opinion also addresses whether religious
marriage celebrants could be forced to conduct gay weddings
against their will. The legal opinion suggests that an outright
ban on religious gay weddings could be overturned under
European human rights laws.
If a law is passed which allows religious gay weddings for
those who wish to conduct them, but doesn’t compel anyone to
act against their conscience, that could be challenged under
domestic equality laws. O’Neill says that churches, in general,
would be better protected from hostile litigation if they stopped
holding weddings altogether.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH
O’Neill advises on the position of the Church of England. As
the established church, it is under a legal obligation to marry
any persons who are eligible to marry in England. Even if
Parliament passes a law which allows (but does not oblige)
churches to host gay weddings, O’Neill advises that the UK
Government could be in breach of European human rights
laws if it allows the C of E to refuse gay weddings. This is
because of the C of E’s unique status as the established State
church. O’Neill says the church would be in a safer position if it
was disestablished.
SEX EDUCATION
The O’Neill opinion also considers the impact of redefining
marriage on teaching within schools. It says that the law will
require that children learn about gay marriage in sex education
lessons. This is because Section 403(1A)(a) of the Education
Act 1996 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State “to issue
guidance” ensuring that pupils “learn the nature of marriage
and its importance for family life and the bringing up of
children”. If gay marriage becomes law then “its importance for
family life and the bringing up of children” must be taught as
part of sex education.
legal opinion on gay marriage
and liberty of conscience
Concerns about gay marriage and freedom of conscience
have largely centred on places of worship and ministers of
religion who conduct weddings. But the impact in the
workplace, in schools and in other areas of everyday life has
been overlooked.
Those details are contained in a legal opinion written by
leading human rights lawyer, Aidan O’Neill QC. Mr O’Neill was
asked to give his expert advice on a series of scenarios related
to legalising gay marriage.
NHS CHAPLAIN
A Church of England minister is also the chaplain at an NHS
hospital. While conducting a wedding service in his parish
church he preaches that marriage is only for one man and one
woman. His NHS bosses find out, and he is later disciplined for
breaching the NHS diversity policy.
Aidan O’Neill QC advises that under the Equality Act 2010 the
NHS managers would have proper grounds for justifying their
action, even if the chaplain was preaching in his own church
outside work time.
The situation would be the same for any chaplain employed
within the public sector, such as armed forces chaplains or
university chaplains.
TEACHER
A primary school teacher is asked to use a storybook about
gay marriage called “King & King”. It is recommended by the
local authority and by a gay rights charity. The teacher says
using the book would conflict with her religious beliefs about
marriage. She is told that she faces dismissal unless she
backs down.
O’Neill says “yes”, the school would be within its legal rights to
dismiss the teacher if she refuses to use the material.
PARENTS
Parents ask for their child to be withdrawn from school lessons
on the history of gay marriage, for deeply-held religious
reasons. The parents say they have a right to withdraw their
child under European Convention on Human Rights. But the
school refuses, saying it is under a legal duty to promote
equality.
O’Neill says the parents do not ultimately have a right to insist
that their child be withdrawn from such history lessons, and the
parents “will have little prospects of success in challenging the
schools insistence that their child attend” the lessons.
FAITH SCHOOLS
Aidan O’Neill was asked about the above scenario in relation
to faith schools or religious-ethos State schools.
He said: “If the school in question were a faith school or
otherwise one with a religious ethos within the State sector in
England and Wales this would make no difference to my
answer.”
FOSTER COUPLE
A couple applies to be foster carers. They tell social workers
they are motivated to care for children because of their
Christian faith. On hearing this, the social workers ask them
whether they support gay marriage. The couple says they do
not, and the social workers halt the application because of
equality and discrimination policies.
O’Neill says “yes”, a local authority fostering agency would
have legitimate legal grounds for acting this way.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
A church hires a council-owned community centre each week
for its youth club. The church website states that it will only
conduct opposite-sex marriages. Someone complains to the
council, and while the church can’t be forced to conduct gay
weddings, it is stopped from hiring the community centre.
Aidan O’Neill says “yes”, the council would be within its legal
rights to do this.
MARRIAGE REGISTRAR
A local authority decides to accommodate the religious beliefs
of one of its registrars by not designating her to be a ‘civil
partnership registrar’. Other registrars within the local
authority’s team are sufficient to provide the service to the
public.
Aidan O’Neill says that if gay marriage becomes law, “that kind
of adjustment to accommodate a registrar’s particular beliefs
would no longer be an option for any employing authority
because there would then be only be one system of marriage
(rather than, as at present, a distinct civil partnership regime
for same sex couples).”
RELIGIOUS GAY WEDDINGS
The O’Neill legal opinion also addresses whether religious
marriage celebrants could be forced to conduct gay weddings
against their will. The legal opinion suggests that an outright
ban on religious gay weddings could be overturned under
European human rights laws.
If a law is passed which allows religious gay weddings for
those who wish to conduct them, but doesn’t compel anyone to
act against their conscience, that could be challenged under
domestic equality laws. O’Neill says that churches, in general,
would be better protected from hostile litigation if they stopped
holding weddings altogether.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH
O’Neill advises on the position of the Church of England. As
the established church, it is under a legal obligation to marry
any persons who are eligible to marry in England. Even if
Parliament passes a law which allows (but does not oblige)
churches to host gay weddings, O’Neill advises that the UK
Government could be in breach of European human rights
laws if it allows the C of E to refuse gay weddings. This is
because of the C of E’s unique status as the established State
church. O’Neill says the church would be in a safer position if it
was disestablished.
SEX EDUCATION
The O’Neill opinion also considers the impact of redefining
marriage on teaching within schools. It says that the law will
require that children learn about gay marriage in sex education
lessons. This is because Section 403(1A)(a) of the Education
Act 1996 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State “to issue
guidance” ensuring that pupils “learn the nature of marriage
and its importance for family life and the bringing up of
children”. If gay marriage becomes law then “its importance for
family life and the bringing up of children” must be taught as
part of sex education.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
From: West Yorkshire
http://c4m.org.uk/downloads/schools.pdf
Anyone like to try one of blue dads "wonderful chocolate cream pies" ?
Anyone like to try one of blue dads "wonderful chocolate cream pies" ?
Last edited by Sambob; Feb 7, 2013 at 04:57 PM.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 13,356
Likes: 58
From: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
You are despicable because you have labeled me a bigot, which is totally untrue and unfounded. I have only stood up for what I believe in reference to Homosexuality and re-definition of marriage. That does not mean I am a bigot!
And for you to come to that conclusion when clearly the definition of a bigot as posted by you says ""bigot as defined in a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race"" shows that your judgment is impaired either emotionally or due to a lack of intelligence.
See the key word there? ANY? it doesnt say "intolerant of homosexuality ideas", it says intolerant of ANY ideas not my own. So seriously, you really want to continue being a despicable person, basically making lies up about me to win your argument? Really?
And for you to come to that conclusion when clearly the definition of a bigot as posted by you says ""bigot as defined in a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race"" shows that your judgment is impaired either emotionally or due to a lack of intelligence.
See the key word there? ANY? it doesnt say "intolerant of homosexuality ideas", it says intolerant of ANY ideas not my own. So seriously, you really want to continue being a despicable person, basically making lies up about me to win your argument? Really?
Name calling again eh...last gasp of a desperate man?
The lengthy quotes are hardly from unbiased sources are they now...so essentially opinion again; not fact.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 13,356
Likes: 58
From: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
If it weren't for Tony Blair's New Labour there most likely would be no issue to argue over here.
That smug barsterd.
Although if the SNP get the independence for Scotland they are after then with a bit of luck we can kick that many Labour MPs north of Hadrian's Wall that there'll be no chance of Labour government here ever again.
In which case this vote will likely amount to nothing.
I doubt we'll get Section 28 back though.
That smug barsterd.
Although if the SNP get the independence for Scotland they are after then with a bit of luck we can kick that many Labour MPs north of Hadrian's Wall that there'll be no chance of Labour government here ever again.
In which case this vote will likely amount to nothing.
I doubt we'll get Section 28 back though.
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,914
Likes: 0
From: And there was my scoob gone it was..
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
If it weren't for Tony Blair's New Labour there most likely would be no issue to argue over here.
That smug barsterd.
Although if the SNP get the independence for Scotland they are after then with a bit of luck we can kick that many Labour MPs north of Hadrian's Wall that there'll be no chance of Labour government here ever again.
In which case this vote will likely amount to nothing.
I doubt we'll get Section 28 back though.
That smug barsterd.
Although if the SNP get the independence for Scotland they are after then with a bit of luck we can kick that many Labour MPs north of Hadrian's Wall that there'll be no chance of Labour government here ever again.
In which case this vote will likely amount to nothing.
I doubt we'll get Section 28 back though.
Seriously?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 22
From: K
Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful
Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society.
Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.
Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society.
Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
In my opinion this thread has drifted so far off topic that it has just turned in to an excuse for people to spew offensive remarks, is there no mods checking this thread, surely some forum rules have been breached already. And sambob as much as i enjoy a debate there really is no need to qoute complete web pages in a post, it doesnt cement your views it just bores people to death.
Magictree
Magictree
If it weren't for Tony Blair's New Labour there most likely would be no issue to argue over here.
That smug barsterd.
Although if the SNP get the independence for Scotland they are after then with a bit of luck we can kick that many Labour MPs north of Hadrian's Wall that there'll be no chance of Labour government here ever again.
In which case this vote will likely amount to nothing.
I doubt we'll get Section 28 back though.
That smug barsterd.
Although if the SNP get the independence for Scotland they are after then with a bit of luck we can kick that many Labour MPs north of Hadrian's Wall that there'll be no chance of Labour government here ever again.
In which case this vote will likely amount to nothing.
I doubt we'll get Section 28 back though.
The added bonus is it seems to p1ss people like you right off and that does give me a warm glow of satisfaction into the bargain
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Well, as purely a vote for or against gay marriage, this thread was never going to amount to much.
If we are to take the results here as indicative of public opinion then the majority are against it.
Obviously most of us are complete morons, hence we are lorded over by the likes of Martin2005, PeteBrant, F1Fan who are there to make us aware of our deficiencies in case we get ideas above our station and believe we might actually be talking sense instead of the mindless garbage we are in fact vomiting out on a daily basis.
If we are to take the results here as indicative of public opinion then the majority are against it.
Obviously most of us are complete morons, hence we are lorded over by the likes of Martin2005, PeteBrant, F1Fan who are there to make us aware of our deficiencies in case we get ideas above our station and believe we might actually be talking sense instead of the mindless garbage we are in fact vomiting out on a daily basis.
The demographic of SN hardly lends itself to the real world .. surely even you can see that?
Obviously most of us are complete morons, hence we are lorded over by the likes of Martin2005, PeteBrant, F1Fan who are there to make us aware of our deficiencies in case we get ideas above our station and believe we might actually be talking sense instead of the mindless garbage we are in fact vomiting out on a daily basis.
