View Full Version : Pope Condemns Same Sex Union as Attack on Society

Dec 18th, 2004, 08:34 PM
2 hours, 50 minutes ago
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo3.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6052&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26cid=564%26ncid=564%26e=4%26u=/nm/20041218/ts_nm/pope_family_dc) Top Stories - Reuters (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6052&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26cid=564%26ncid=564%26e=4%26u=/nm/20041218/ts_nm/pope_family_dc)

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope John Paul (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/nm/ts_nm/pope_family_dc/13739929/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Pope%20John%20Paul%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/nm/ts_nm/pope_family_dc/13739929/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Pope%20John%20Paul)) on Saturday condemned same sex marriage as an attack on the fabric of society and called on Catholics to combat what he said was aggressive attempt to legally undermine the family.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20041218/amdf798669.jpg (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041218/photos_ts/mdf798669)
Reuters Photo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041218/photos_ts/mdf798669)

"Attacks on marriage and the family, from an ideological and legal aspect, are becoming stronger and more radical every day," the 84-year old pontiff said in the unusually strong statement.

"Who destroys this fundamental fabric causes a profound injury to society and provokes often irreparable damage."

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage between a man and a women is sacred and that homosexuality is a sin.

That stance has been under pressure in some of its core constituencies, including the United States and Catholic Spain where the socialist government in October approved a controversial draft law to legalize gay unions.

But a counterattack has begun. In the United States, President Bush (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/nm/ts_nm/pope_family_dc/13739929/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22President%20Bush%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/nm/ts_nm/pope_family_dc/13739929/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=President%20Bush)) was swept back to power in the November elections with help from U.S. evangelicals and Catholics who agree with the Pope.

Votes for Bush included solid support from the religious right and his win was interpreted by some as a victory for conservative Christians on issues like gay rights and abortion.

The Polish Pope on Saturday also condemned abortion, artificial procreation and equal status for cohabiting couples as undermining the marital state.

"These things that are presented as civilized progress or scientific conquests, in many cases are in fact a defeat for the dignity of human life and for society," his statement read.

Mrs Doyle
Dec 18th, 2004, 08:37 PM
Do you have any pics of the Holy Father having a nice cup of tea? :)

Dec 18th, 2004, 09:18 PM
I am so sick of this ole coot :rolleyes: I mean, why doesn't he address the incidencies where Catholic priests are preying /have preyed on children(lil boys) and number of bishops deliberately covering them up ?? Isn't tht a friggin attack on society??? :eek: Damn I hate hypocrisy :fiery:

Dec 18th, 2004, 09:22 PM
The puppet has spoken :lol:

Dec 18th, 2004, 09:34 PM
Oh hes probably more gay then I am...I want that stupid Buggy he has.

Shuji Shuriken
Dec 18th, 2004, 10:32 PM
Who gives a fuck what he thinks :rolleyes:. He is entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to tell him to bugger off :rolleyes:.

Dec 18th, 2004, 10:54 PM
What do you call a Virgin in a $300 hat??

A: The Pope

Dec 18th, 2004, 11:05 PM
Um, what's new?

Dec 18th, 2004, 11:06 PM
lol at you guys.

The pope should never come to Canada than, he'd be shocked how backward and primitive we are. :lol:
Most of the church people are pedefiles anyway, so they should keep it shut tight.
oh well, I guess society will never flourish with opinions and actions taken by people such as Bush, the Pope, etc...
Can't blame the pope though really, as someone said, the puppet has spoken.

Sam L
Dec 18th, 2004, 11:09 PM
My message to the "Pope": Shut the fuck up **** :mad: I will cut your throat.

Dec 18th, 2004, 11:34 PM
The Pope. :rolleyes:

Dec 19th, 2004, 12:30 AM

Dec 19th, 2004, 12:47 AM
Blah blah blah

Dec 19th, 2004, 12:55 AM
the classless assholes on this board sure show themselves up at times...

Dec 19th, 2004, 01:02 AM
the classless assholes on this board sure show themselves up at times...

Which ones? :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

Dec 19th, 2004, 01:28 AM
My message to the "Pope": Shut the fuck up **** :mad: I will cut your throat.

mmmmk....Thats going a little to far.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Dec 19th, 2004, 02:27 AM
LOL at how the Catholic Church acts so self-righteous.

I love it!

Dec 19th, 2004, 02:39 AM
I wonder if anyone has ever told him to "go to hell" to his face? It would be funny.

Dec 19th, 2004, 03:01 AM
Well, I'm not Catholic so I don't give a rats arse what he thinks. I don't hate him or even dislike him though. And I'll be kinda sad when he dies, which will be soon. But blah... I'm sorry if the fact that I love my girlfriend is destroying society :sad: :rolleyes: :lol:

Dec 19th, 2004, 03:08 AM
I wonder if anyone has ever told him to "go to hell" to his face? It would be funny.
Well, I accidently defaced the Vatican City.

I stuck some chewing gum to the wall at the top of St Peters basilica. I really wasn't thinking and I'm scared of heights and thought I was gonna be sick. When I realized what I'd done (later that day) I felt so guilty, and ashamed and in fear that I was gonna be stuck down by a bolt of lightning. So I cllimbed all the way to the top again (those frickin steps near killed me twice) and removed it :o Wasn't my day really, I also threw a tantrum in the middle of St Peters Square. I had nuns giving me nasty looks. :(


Dec 19th, 2004, 04:49 AM
In the end, the pope can say what he likes, I don't think that's a problem. He's 84 years old and it's probably a bit late to open your eyes to the changing world around you.

However, what is a problem is that so many people listen to him without engaging their own brains first.

Dec 19th, 2004, 05:56 AM
As a Catholic myself, I admit I don't see much point having a frail, old man whose health is suspect, be the leader/figurehead of our church. I respect him as a man of strong beliefs, but really, that's about his only qualities I like. He preaches about rectifying world problems, such as starvation, poverty and 'open conflict', and he also urges people to be 'humble' and have 'humility' all round - yet he has no problems having Swiss guards act as his security agents and obviously doesn't mind being carted around in an new and expensive Lancia limousine (which, btw, was a "donation" made by Fiat and given to the Church).

IMO, Princess Diana has done more to help and publicise world problems and its victims. I would've preferred someone like her to be the Church's human leader.

However, what is a problem is that so many people listen to him without engaging their own brains first.


Dec 19th, 2004, 06:28 AM
Its an attack on his values not societies-society is more than just catholics.
I resent any religious person condemning this as it dosnt affect them, im religious myself, and if i dont believe in something i dont do it. I can only judge (in accordance with the torah) my own actions like that as there is only one final judgement. But even the torah itself dosnt condemn such things, they are not even mentioned. I hate it when men think they are g-d.

Mateo Mathieu
Dec 19th, 2004, 12:02 PM
Blah blah blah, I've enough with that crap!

Dec 19th, 2004, 12:03 PM
i didnt know he was still alive.

Dec 19th, 2004, 01:48 PM
I can forgive an eighty-something old-fashioned dude with Parkinson's disease for having silly ideas- he's hardly the only such guy, and I'm hardly about to make half-assed death threats toward him. :rolleyes: The problem, of course, is that millions of people (who don't think for themselves too well) think he's infallible.

Me, I just am unable to make sense of his argument. I just don't understand how two people's love being legally recognized can possibly hurt society or destroy its fabric or invalidate the family or any of that crap. Decades ago, Church leaders and a lot of others said the same about women having actual legal rights, that it was a perversion of nature, would destroy the family, etc. etc. etc. All these "traditional marriage" activists who go on about the wonderful, harmonious, millennia-old union between a man and a woman are clueless. "Traditional marriage" is an often arranged or forced union between a man and a number of women ranging from one to as many as he can afford, in which the woman/women are effectively the child-bearing, home-managing, human-rights-free property of the man. I don't see so many "good Christians" pushing real traditional marriage. It just doesn't have the same warm, fuzzy, Leave It To Beaver feeling to it. :lol:

Dec 19th, 2004, 06:17 PM
However, what is a problem is that so many people listen to him without engaging their own brains first.
His comments will probably get a few more gay people beaten up...

Dec 19th, 2004, 06:18 PM
The Case Against Same-Sex "Marriage"
-by Gerard V. Bradley
Notre Dame Law School
Argues that same-sex "marriage" is a logical and practical impossibility and has serious implications for both other aspects of family law and the respect for human life and children in our culture. Asserts that the movement for same-sex "marriage" is a logical outgrowth of our culture's separation of sex and procreation. Argues that the basis for opposition to this movement may be the residual reservoir of traditional understanding about marriage in the American public.
It is because of an abiding interest in marriage based in our culture and especially in our law that one cannot talk about the immorality of homosexual sexual acts without talking about marriage because one way--a perfectly adequate way--to describe what is immoral about sodomy is to say that it is a non-marital sexual act and that is because it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that marriage is the principle of all upright sexual activity. The position of marriage in our culture and in our law is quite degraded now. Most times it is difficult to get even a neutral audience to see the connection between the laws that prohibit consensual sodomy and marriage (i.e., why such laws are needed to help buttress marriage), although those connections can be made and should be made. What I address in this paper, specifically, are the dangers of the legal recognition same-sex "marriage." The dangers have something to do with marriage. Legally recognizing same-sex "marriage" is dangerous, and it ought not to happen. It violates moral truth. It is not exactly right to say that same-sex "marriage" is immoral, although its not wrong to say that. It is not quite right to say that it is morally impermissible. This is because expressions such as these suggest that it is something that can be done, but ought to be prohibited--like abortion. Abortions can happen, but they ought to be prohibited and they are seriously immoral. Same- sex "marriage," however, is impossible, given what marriage really is. It is simply not possible for two men to be married to each other or for two women to be married to each other. So the short answer is that the danger in recognizing same-sex "marriage" is that the law will recognize as valid and capable of being treated like any other marriage something which in fact is impossible.

To just illustrate with a familiar example of what I mean about the distinction between what is morally impermissible and what is impossible, we can consider the Church's teaching about ordaining women as priests. The Pope has said that the Church is without authority to ordain women. It cannot be done, it is impossible to do. It is not that there could be women priests, but we ought not to permit them to be ordained. The teaching is that it is simply impossible for a woman to be a priest. Similarly here, same- sex "marriage" is, as a moral reality, impossible.

The claim that in the nature of things same-sex "marriage" is impossible has not been well received by the courts. The issue of same-sex "marriage" is coming up in courts more and more. Typically when the argument I've been describing--that given the nature of marriage same sex marriage is impossible--is made, it is dismissed by judges as some kind of spooky metaphysical claim. One court dismissed it as circular or question-begging. Sometimes it is dismissed as Catholic teaching or, more broadly, as some kind of sectarian tenet which has no proper place in a legal argument. It is not only odd that this argument against same-sex "marriage" is brushed aside by judges, but that such an argument is brushed aside when it is upheld in other areas of the law and even elsewhere in the law of marriage when it comes to other kinds of disabilities. For instance, the law does not permit minors to marry, because they are held to lack a certain maturity and judgment. Thus, they are not capable of consenting to marriage. What the law really means here is it is impossible for a minor to marry. Another example of incapacity to marry is bigamy or polygamy. If you are married to one person and go through a ceremony which would appear to be joining you in matrimony to yet other individual, you are not really a bigamist--you are a person who has attempted to be married to two people. The law treats as null and void the second ceremony. It is not a question of a marriage having to be undone in order to protect the sanctity of matrimony. You simply cannot marry more than one person under our law. So, the argument I have made about same sex "marriage" being against the nature of marriage ought to have more traction in the courts than it currently does.

The latter certainly gives us reason to be discouraged. I think, however, that the discussion of same-sex "marriage" in our law should begin with the discussion of the stakes involved, and I think those stakes are almost unsurpassably high. Let me explain this. It seems to me that abortion is the greatest injustice in our society. It is the mainstay of the culture of death and it makes one wonder whether our society is basically a just society. Nevertheless, the almost total disintegration of the institution of marriage over the last generation or so in our society is the more startling historical development. It is also the greatest threat to the moral well being of people within our society, and it is within this context of the disintegration of the institution of marriage in our law and culture that one has to situate any discussion of the morality of same-sex "marriage." My interest in this paper, however, is mostly in talking about how we can argue against it within the law given the constraints that seem to have been imposed by courts. Now why do I think it is even more insidious, more of a threat to people's well-being than abortion? There are a few reasons. One is that abortion does not, one might say, "inhabit" the entire culture. We are in a culture of death, but even so abortions occur in private. They are regarded even by people who support the right to abortion to be unfortunate necessities; some of them may even regard it as a tragic necessity. Even President Clinton said he wished abortion to be safe, legal and rare. Abortions do occur in private and there are few visible effects of abortion. I mean, the abortion clinics are housed in isolated parts of strip malls. They are always described by some innocuous title like "Women's Health Center." Women who have had abortions don't often go around talking about it except perhaps to those close to them; it's not something people advertise. So, abortion is not "in your face" in the culture even though it is prevalent and even though there may be a million abortions a year. Now, you can get your children to see what's wrong with abortion. Being pro-life even on a secular campus is not considered a sign of "irrationality." It may not be popular, but it doesn't make you "irrational" or "disreputable" in the way that being what is called "homophobic" does.

Another reason why the disintegration of marriage is the greatest moral threat of our time is as follows. In our culture, the sort of moral compass-bearing when it comes to sexual activity is that if it doesn't hurt anybody and if a person has consented to it, then it's a matter of free choice. Now, when applied to abortion, that argument really has no grip because people vaguely understand that the question is whether the unborn child is a person. If so then they see that somebody is harmed by abortion, and so they can understand why people would want to be pro-life. So, this ethic of personal behavior--especially sexual behavior--of "so-long-as-it-doesn't-hurt-somebody-who-didn't-agree-to-be- involved-then-it's-up-to-you-to-decide" does not really have any traction against pro-lifers. They are not viewed as making an insidious argument. What is important here is the reality about the unborn. On one episode of Seinfeld a while back some friend of Elaine's was pregnant and they were having a baby shower. A couple of the characters referring to the other women's condition asked how is the fetus doing. Now nobody really talks that way, that sounds ridiculous when you hear it. So, the arguments about abortion and for its permissibility always run up against a stubborn and hard fact. Anybody who's seen a sonogram or held a newborn baby or felt a woman's womb when the baby kicked or has any common sense, knows that there's a baby there. To hear the unborn baby referred to as a "fetus," I dare say strikes almost anyone as ridiculous.

The situation with regard to marriage and sexual morality, however, is very, very different. The argument that only uncontracepted marital intercourse is appropriate, and all other kinds of sexual acts are inappropriate, is difficult to show. That conclusion is not obvious, in our culture at least. There is certainly an argument to be made that that proposition is true, but it's not an easy one and certainly the conclusion is not obvious. That marriage is indissoluble is not obvious. It's true, but it's not obvious and the argument for it is difficult. That marriage is indissoluble often seems to fly in the face of people's welfare, of common sense. Divorce and remarriage are everywhere. It's in most people's families. Good people get divorced and remarried. Good people are obviously contracepting. Too many people are having no children or one child. It is clear that the culture is contracepting. So, the moral compass-bearing of "if-it-doesn't-hurt-somebody-who- freely-consents-to-do-it" appears to a plausible principle of sexual morality. Choice--consent--seems to work with regard to sex and marriage. So, again, if abortion is the greatest injustice, what's happening to marriage is the most insidious force in our culture. It is a threat in a way that abortion simply is not. I think the collapse of marriage is epoch-defining. It is a peril to every one of us. The temptation to violate the norms of sexual morality is great. A roar is everywhere. Sex is out of control in our society. Almost no one will correct you for a sexual sin. People I suppose are thinking that those without sin should only cast the first stone. Rationalizations for sexual misbehavior are delivered to you at your door, on your computer screen, on your TV set by the dozens every day. Thus, perhaps one might be inclined to ask, if marriage is already so degraded without same-sex "marriage," then why should the latter not be legally recognized? What could legally recognizing same-sex "marriage" do to further undermine morality? The response is that if same-sex "marriage" is finally legally recognized, then the law will have conclusively, finally, totally separated marriage from reproduction. There will be no sense left in which marriage is in some way about reproduction, that there is some essential connection between marriage and reproduction. Even though some married heterosexual couples will have children, there will be nothing about marriage as a legal enterprise that is necessarily tied to children, to reproduction. And when that happens, it will be the final step in this process of disintegration--it will be the end of the disaster--because then there will be no way in which the law will hold out marriage to be in any way, even an attenuated one, what it really is: a two in one flesh reproductive union of one man and one woman. Finally, obliterating marriage as it really is from the legal landscape will in addition affect arguments about things that remain entirely up in the air in our culture. These will not be marriage issues or even sex issues but life issues. The final collapse of marriage--its permanent conclusive separation from reproduction--will affect arguments about things like in vitro fertilization and cloning. So, fighting this fight matters.

Make no mistake about. Heterosexual folks, starting over thirty years ago, undid marriage in our culture. They undid it precisely to give themselves sexual freedom. The homosexual agenda--the gay rights agenda, the same sex marriage agenda--came along after this process of dismantling marriage was well under way. It is precisely the fact that heterosexuals have undone marriage to the extent that they have that homosexuals have a plausible argument for the legal recognition of their "unions," their couplings. They say that homosexual couples can enter into sexually active, emotionally intense friendships or couplings, more or less sexually exclusive, and that they can endure for quite a long time--perhaps permanently (in truth, of course, most homosexual couples don't last for a long time). Even if their relationships do last, this does not commit them to having and rearing children. So their claim is that they can do these things--sexual activity, emotionally intense friendship, set up a household together, intimacy, emotional security, a more or less sexually exclusive relationship of a limited but long duration--and, well, maybe even adopt some children. Well isn't that what all too many heterosexual couples have in mind these days when they say, "I do"? And I think some--a few--homosexual couples do enter into "marriages" that are, except for the genders, indistinguishable from many marriages in our society. All too many heterosexual couples have no intention of remaining together forever or till natural death, and it is obvious that homosexual couples can benefit just as much from all the legal benefits that go with marriage (e.g. property rights, economic benefits, survivors privileges, life insurance coverage, etc.). These are obviously a benefit to homosexual couples the same way they are to any other couple. So, to put it bluntly, homosexuals look at this situation to say it is arbitrary to deny legal recognition of our "set-ups" when in all of these ways they are indistinguishable from that of the heterosexual couple next door. They say it is arbitrary--and sometimes it may well be. That is to say, many people who are averse to the homosexual agenda on this question may in fact be acting arbitrarily because they themselves define marriage in a way that is indistinguishable from the way a homosexual couple or the advocates of homosexual "marriage" define it. On this view, which is all too common, marriage just is a composite--a compound--of several independently valuable things that you kind of just put in together (i.e., friendship, sex, security, maybe kids.) Marriage itself it not of one unified thing; it's just a whole bunch of other individual "pieces of stuff" that get put together. One can see the appeal of this argument.

In the end this argument is mistaken, of course. The way it should be responded to in the public realm is this: yes, there are many things in our culture and especially in our law which make your argument appealing, but there are many other things in our culture and in our law which still do cohere with our traditional understanding. I think the that the argument against same-sex "marriage" should pick up as many of these remnants as possible so that, even if the argument is not complete and thereby decisive, it is plausible enough to make us see that we are at the final point--perhaps a turning point--of the whole cultural debate about marriage. That is, the plausibility of the argument means that it is time finally to "have it out." There are a few things that are still adhered to in the culture that support the traditional view. I think people still believe that, on a whole, adultery is wrong. People do still believe that marriage is supposed to be sexually exclusive. They may be too forgiving of adultery, but people think adultery is wrong, It is also clear that people think same-sex "marriage" is wrong. That is the most stubborn fact on this side of the argument. I think, too, that people still believe in our culture that children perfect a marriage, that somehow children are an embodiment of the couple's marriage and an extension of their union in time beyond their lifetimes. I think couples still sense that un-contracepted intercourse is better. It actualizes their union in a way that other sexual acts do not actualize it. Now the problem, of course, is that this sense doesn't lead many people to conclude that anything other than a true marital act is wrong. They have a sense that there is a sort of a scale of value regarding sexual activity--that is, that sexual activity with a view to procreation is valuable in a way that nothing else done sexually is. These fragments of traditional thinking are the resources or the ammunition to make the last stand in favor of marriage in the face of the onslaught of same-sex "marriage."

There is one further point to make in setting up this argument, which is widely conceded by legal writers in the area of domestic relations. Their view is that something has happened to marriage which has never been clearly rationalized or thought out. Marriage has been battered back and forth by one wave or movement after another. One expression of this is seen in Homer Clark's Law of Domestic Relations in the United States. He says "there has been a legal transformation of marriage from a clearly defined relationship to one whose incidence are either uncertain or left largely to the control of the parties to the relationship." Then he says that "this transformation has occurred without, so far as it appears, any general consideration by either courts or legislatures of the total effect which these decisions [individual court decisions in different areas relating to marriage, the family, or sexual morality] will have on the institution of marriage." What he is saying is that we have wobbled forward from point to point and from episode to episode and from engagement to engagement without any plan for the long term stability of marriage or without even a view of what a final and stable definition of marriage should be. This takes us back to the point again of asking our culture to consider with what the end of marriage has to do and especially whether it has some essential connection to reproduction, to children. Our culture has to ask itself what is implied in accepting same-sex "marriage." If we do so, what then is our reasoned argument against polygamy? If there can be two boys, then why not three? Why not two boys and one girl? What would be the reasoned argument against other even worse forms of marriage? Is there any argument against promiscuity? That is to say, if we accept same-sex "marriage," what is the reasoned argument to show that consent is inadequate as a norm of sexual morality? To counter this whole line of argument, one must simply uphold marriage as a reproductive communion and hold that contraception is wrong. This is implied in the reasoned defense of marriage as a two and one flesh union. If one gives away the case against contraception, then one no longer has a coherent argument in favor of marriage as it really is. The culture, of course, can arbitrarily retain prejudges against the "gay" agenda and same-sex "marriage," which for a very long time may stop their acceptance. They will not really have a coherent argument, however, as long as they accept the contraceptive mentality.

Finally, to move this side of the argument ahead about what is implied or entailed by accepting same-sex "marriage," we must consider the effect on issues of human life. I propose that at stake in the debate about same-sex "marriage" is ultimately the legal treatment of in vitro fertilization. The connection between these is as follows. Children conceived in marital intercourse participate in the goodness, the good, of their parents' marriage. As I have said before, the children are themselves non-instrumental aspects of marriage's perfection. Thus, spouses rightly hope for and welcome children, not as products or things they make but rather--this is the traditional understanding--as gifts which, if all goes well, supervene upon their acts of marital love. This understanding of children as gifts to be accepted and valued for their own sake, rather then as objects that might be willed and brought into being for the parents' purposes, coheres very well with certain metaphysical views, including Jewish and Christian views. It can also be accommodated by many other religious traditions. I think that some understanding along these lines of the moral relationship of parents to the children they may conceive is essential to the rational affirmation of the dignity of children as persons, as ends in themselves, and not as the means of the satisfying desires of their parents. That is to say, a view of children as gifts which supervene upon marital acts is essential to seeing children as subjects of justice or those to whom duties of justice are owed, including fundamental human rights (like the right not to be killed in abortion or infanticide). If they are seen as mere objects of will, it is more difficult to argue that we have duties to them. To the extent that our culture talks about children being wanted or unwanted signals that people have a radically different view of children than if we see them as welcome gifts. It implies a radically different view of the moral relationship of parents to their children--even if they want them. Such alternative understandings of how children are morally relative to their parents, as the wanted-unwanted distinction expresses, run into very severe difficulties in explaining why children may not be treated as the property of their parents. Liberal moralists in our culture are often puzzled by the tendency of conservative moralists--very often natural law defenders, very often Roman Catholics--to object on moral ground to producing human beings by in vitro fertilization. After all, the natural law tradition strongly affirms the goodness of transmitting life to new persons. Why then, liberal moralists say, should couples who are incapable of begetting children in acts of martial intercourse not resort invitro processes in order to become parents. By "manufacturing" children, no matter what their wishes and intentions and desires, parents undermine the basic equality and dignity of their children. This is not to suggest that there is anything wrong with spouses engaging in marital intercourse specifically because they want a child. It is merely to say that they should want a child in a way which is consistent with the child's dignity as a person. When we say that a couple "wants" a child in this context, we simply mean that they hope for one. Hoping for a gift is not base or immoral. Hoping for a delivery of a gift is not the same thing as treating the gift as a object of satisfaction of the desires of the parents. So, I think that upon a proper understanding of marriage rests a proper understanding of sexual morality and on a proper understanding of those two things rests a society's idea of the terms, conditions, and circumstances under which people will come into being. Any society has a genuine common interest in the terms and conditions and circumstances in which people come to be. In the culture I fear might be ours in the future, children will come to be in circumstances and under terms in which they are on a very widespread scale seen as objects which satisfy the desires of other people. People who are positioned by wealth, authority, and power, will be able to call into being some "number of objects" to satisfy their desires. Now, this does not mean that someone born through in vitro or eventually through human cloning is less than a person. A person is a person no matter how he or she came into being. He or she will have all the rights attached to persons, with human dignity in the same measure that any person enjoys. What I am talking about is cultural slippage and how our culture is influenced by an attitude and how that attitude will seep into the law. I fear that a culture in which cloning has become permissible will have "gone over the line" finally in favor of viewing children as things. When that is let loose in a society it is certainly possible to predict the other consequences, but it surely cannot be for the good of that society. It then becomes a question of how bad the effects of such a view, when taken hold of the center of society, will be. The terms and conditions of people coming into existence by being "manufactured," as opposed to their being seen as gifts supervening upon martial acts, are bad enough by themselves, but the further consequences could be even worse.

Dec 19th, 2004, 06:32 PM
The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage TIM LESLIE Assemblyman Tim Leslie offers a compelling argument against same-sex marriage... and has the data to back it up.
Anyone not living in a cave has noticed the intensifying attack on traditional marriage. In Vermont, Canada, and Massachusetts and now California, with the signing of a de facto gay marriage bill the war drums against traditional matrimony are beating with ever-growing intensity.

The onslaught will not be turned back unless the public is given better, more coherent arguments against same-sex spousal unions. While religion plays an obvious role in the debate, the effectiveness of faith-based arguments is limited because most Westerners care little what the Bible or theologians say. To argue from religion will only convince those who are already convinced and will simply alienate the rest.

So how can we assemble a coherent and persuasive case? By steering the discussion back to the historical understanding of marriage's primary end.

In recent generations, we've seen the belief evolve that the overriding purpose of marriage is the spouses' mutual pleasure. This is what enabled Sally Lieber (D-San Jose), my colleague in the California assembly, to say, "I don't see how my marriage is any more moral than the same-sex couples I know." This claim, of course, only makes sense if companionship and sexual pleasure are matrimony's preeminent ends.

But this deviates from what every culture in history has recognized as the heart of marriage: the begetting and education of children. The happiness of the couple is vital, to be sure, but it's not the only or primary purpose and never has been. Why? Because "happiness" produces no definitive benefit for society, whereas the rearing of children clearly does. As the Vatican recently noted, "Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage."

Because of this, it makes sense for society to support traditional marriage alone. Conversely, allowing same-sex spousal unions makes no sense. Indeed, we can only allow homosexual spousal unions if the central purpose of marriage is the spouses' happiness. If that's true, then heterosexual-only wedlock is indeed discrimination. But if marriage has a higher purpose, then anything that undermines its traditional framework also threatens to undermine its desired result the rearing of healthy, productive, contributing citizens.

Promoting the General Welfare

If the central purpose of government is to promote the general welfare, then the state must promote always what is best for society's health, security, and long-term viability. This requires the state to make prudential judgments about various segments of our population: Those under 16 may not drive. Those under 21 may not drink. You must possess a high-school diploma to join the military. Information about paroled child molesters must be made available so parents can protect their children.

Some label these prudential decisions "discrimination," but discriminating in such matters promotes the general welfare. The unique affirmation of heterosexual marriage operates under the same principle. Traditional matrimony is the foundation of society, and society should neither encourage nor recognize anything pretending to approximate it. Again, the reason for this relates to marriage's primary purpose: The spousal union produces families, and such families are the building blocks of society.

Granted, many marriages don't produce children. Most soldiers don't face combat and yet are still eligible for veterans' benefits. But the state rewards each institution based on its ability to provide society with a valuable function. Governments favor historical marriage and seek to strengthen it in its policies because virtually everything that happens in society, for good or ill, can be traced back to families and family life.

The marriage revolution would not only undermine matrimony and thus society but it would effectively destroy it.

Gay Assemblyman Mark Leno asked during the floor debate for the California gay marriage bill, "Is marriage so fragile?" The answer is yes. The marriage rate is at an all-time low. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce.1 Annually, more than one million children experience divorce, and they will suffer in many ways as a result.2 More couples than ever are living together outside of marriage, which several studies show leads to an even higher divorce rate.3

By equating homosexual partnerships with marriage, society's attitudes toward marriage will be cheapened to an even greater degree. As Canadian TV show host Michael Coren notes, "If marriage is suddenly fundamentally altered to include people of the same gender, it loses its genuine meaning to the rest of us. We may include the earthworm in the cat family. Does this make worms feline? Of course not. But it destroys the definition of cat." Instead of being recognized as the crucial, indispensable building block of society through which most of its benefits flow marriage will simply be another choice among many. "What's the big deal about marriage?" our children and grandchildren will ask. In the Sixties, this was a fringe sentiment. If gay marriage goes through, it will become the norm.

And as that happens, our society will slide with ever greater speed down the slope of social chaos. Why? Because it will only further encourage marital instability and broken homes, and children growing up in these situations are more likely to exhibit a variety of antisocial behaviors.4

Children growing up in traditional homes, on the other hand, have these problems to a significantly diminished degree.5 They have better emotional health, engage in fewer risky behaviors, are less likely to engage in premarital sex, and do better educationally and economically.6 Finally, a recent Utah study found that divorce costs the federal, state, and local governments $33 billion per year. For all these reasons, the state has a vested interest in promoting stable traditional marriages.

Furthermore, these marriages provide the natural complementarity between the sexes, which benefits children. Studies show mothers devote special attention to their children's physical and emotional needs, whereas fathers devote their primary efforts to character traits. David Popenoe of Rutgers University's National Marriage Project writes, "Both dimensions are critical for an efficient, balanced, and human child-rearing regime." Left unsaid is the fact that same-sex couples can never provide this complementarity and thus cannot provide an optimally "efficient, balanced, and human child-rearing regime."

Still, some would argue, since gays will continue adopting, shouldn't we encourage same-sex marriage? Wouldn't this help give children the stability they need? No, because studies by even homosexual researchers reveal that same-sex couples are fundamentally different from their straight counterparts. They are more promiscuous, have greater physical and mental health problems and shorter life expectancies, and the average duration of relationships is woefully short.7

And these differences don't produce a healthy environment in which to raise children.8 Any number of indicators prove this; indeed, they prove that it would be detrimental and possibly even dangerous.9 For instance, the journal Adolescence reported that researchers found a "disproportionate percentage 29 percent of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent.... Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50."10

So, while same-sex marriage might promote a particular welfare that of the couple it would not promote the general welfare, which arises from raising healthy, balanced children who have all the interior resources necessary to become contributing citizens.

Infidelity and Promiscuity

Gay "marriage" would further redefine marriage in the way it treats conjugal fidelity.

In their book The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison found that of the 156 couples they studied, 75 percent of the partners learned within five years that for the relationship to survive, cheating had to be tolerated, as long as one or the other did not become emotionally involved with the other sex partner. In her book The Mendola Report, lesbian Mary Mendola conducted a nationwide survey of approximately 400 homosexual couples. She, too, found that homosexuals distinguish between sexual and emotional exclusivity. Indeed, just 26 percent of homosexuals believe commitment is paramount in a marriage-type relationship.

This translates to an almost unfathomable degree of sleeping around. A recent Amsterdam study found that men in homosexual relationships cheat with an average of eight partners a year. Others have found that the average homosexual has between 100 and 500 sexual partners over his or her lifetime. One study showed that 28 percent have had 1,000 or more sex partners, with another study placing the percentage between 10 and 16 percent.

While adultery is certainly a factor in traditional marriages, it is comparatively rare. In fact, studies on matrimony place the male fidelity rate between 75 and 80 percent and that of females between 85 and 90 percent. The reason is simple: Unlike homosexual relationships, emotional and sexual fidelity within matrimony are inexorably linked and always have been by definition. To extend the concept of marriage to a situation wherein fidelity is not the norm would not only cheapen the institution, but it would have disastrous consequences for children. Simply put, a marriage is not a marriage without total exclusivity.

Homosexuals argue that marriage would make their relationships more stable. However, given the runaway promiscuity in this subculture, the assertion is at best unlikely. As UCLA sociologist Anne Peplau notes, "There is clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people."

Their argument also fails to take into account the institutions that have relaxed prohibitions against homosexuals. The most poignant example of these is the Roman Catholic priesthood. It was argued in the 1960s that allowing gay men into the clerical state would instill in them sexual restraint and celibacy. Just the opposite happened. Most of these men have consciously subverted the historic norms of priestly celibacy. Furthermore, the sex-abuse scandal was largely driven by homosexual priests in that 90 percent of victims were adolescent boys. One study of 50 gay Catholic priests found that only two abstained from sexual activity. Many were very open about their carnal habits. Therefore, we should seriously question the homosexual community's soothing words regarding the consequences of gay marriage.

In response, gay activists point to Vermont and its civil unions and note the sky has not fallen there. However, people said the same thing immediately after the changing of divorce laws, which set in motion forces that would not be evident for 40 years.11 Says one homosexual researcher who opposes same-sex marriage, "This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven't taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we've allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations."

Redefining Marriage

The final reason same-sex marriage would have a detrimental effect on society comes from homosexuals themselves: Many freely admit they want to redefine marriage, not only to include same-sex couples but to change its very scope and meaning.

Patti Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, once said, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so.... Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and sexuality, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."

Michelangelo Signorile, homosexual activist and writer, says the goal of homosexuals is to "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.... The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."

Even when homosexuals are circumspect about their intentions, their goals are clear. Gay pundit Andrew Sullivan has said the "openness" in many gay relationships would in reality fortify heterosexual marriages by allowing straight couples to see that adultery doesn't necessarily destroy a marriage. Furthermore, once gay "marriage" is allowed, the faithful nature of traditional unions will be transformed accordingly. He says this is a good thing.

None of us should hate those with same-sex attractions. But while embracing them as people made in the image and likeness of God, we should instead make it clear that our problem is with their agenda because it goes against God's plan and would do great damage to our culture and its future stability. These are complex arguments and do not fit easily into a news producer's need for a sound bite. However, we must make the case for the central importance of marriage for society. If we don't, it will result in an unprecedented societal breakdown every bit as catastrophic as the disintegration of the great cultures of the past.


The State of Our Unions 2003, What are your chances of divorce? (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2003.htm#Chances%20ofDivorce) National Marriage Project, Rutgers University.
Donna Kato, "Children suffer more from divorce than previously thought (http://www.infidelity.com/the-kids/articles/children-suffer.htm)," San Jose Mercury News, 1997, et. al.
Katherine Kersten, "We should work to save kids from divorce," Minneapolis Star-Tribune, July 26, 2000, et al.
Patrick F. Fagan and Robert Rector, "The Effects of Divorce (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1373.cfm)," The Heritage Foundation, June 5, 2000, et al.
Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage, New York: Doubleday, 2000.
The State of Our Unions 2003 (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf), National Marriage Project, Rutgers University.
Bridget Maher, "Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy," Family Research Council, 2003; Mary Mendola, The Mendola Report, Crown, 1980; David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Prentice Hall, 1984; Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, "Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage," presented at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, May 14, 2003.
Tim Dailey, Ph.D., "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Family Research Council, 2003.
P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772.
Divorce laws were first liberalized in the 1960s. It took several generations for researchers to gather statistics and study the negative effects of divorce on income, children, and the like.


Tim Leslie. "The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage." Crisis 22, no. 1 (January, 2004): 28-31.

This article is reprinted with permission from the Morley Institute a non-profit education organization. To subscribe to Crisis magazine call 1-800-852-9962.


California Assemblyman Tim Leslie represents Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, and part of Sacramento counties.

Copyright 2004 Crisis (http://www.crisismagazine.com/)

Dec 19th, 2004, 06:41 PM
that's nice.:)

Dec 19th, 2004, 07:04 PM
i agree with the pope

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 19th, 2004, 11:37 PM
Seems like the mods gave our shiny new troll just enough pope to hang himself.

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 19th, 2004, 11:42 PM
Anyone got any good recipes? I was thinking that Tim Leslie a l'orange would be nice for my dinner party tonight. Or maybe a nice barbecued pope. Spit-roasted Tim Leslie with a side dish of pope chips always makes a great Christmas meal. The options are so various. *sigh* It's really difficult at this time of the year, when you have to catch up with so many friends and family members. :scratch:

Dec 20th, 2004, 12:42 AM
Blah blah blah

Dec 20th, 2004, 12:54 AM
the pope is funny. it must have taken him a long to say all the words. i'm surprised he didn't have a stroke. dan brown should eat him

Dec 20th, 2004, 04:10 AM
Justinetime - That article you posted is the most waffling, no point, tedious piece of bullshit Ive ever attempted to read. It has no logical, coherent argument. It talks about abortion moreso than anything to do with gay marriage.

I would like you, or anyone to tell me, in clear, concise terms - how giving gay partnerships legal recogntion, IN ANY WAY harms your typical family? Giving gay people equal rights does not impede on the rights of families.

Its so funny watching right wing christians fight this battle - it may take 20 more years, but you cannot stop progress and be it now or later, you christians are just gonna have to accept that gays are people just as deserving of a place under the sun.

When you consider the fact that this pope is the same guy who gives directives that make it preferable for married women in Africa to contract HIV/AIDS from their husbands and die to using condoms during sex, its pretty clear to see that the Catholic church is an institute from last century that is losing more and more relevance each passing year.

When a new Pope is ordained the catholics may make a comeback, but this Pope who presided over the coverup of terrible sexual abuse across the globe really needs to hurry up and die and make way for progress.

Dec 20th, 2004, 04:19 AM
He is so right.. My great grandmother does not like it too..

Dec 20th, 2004, 10:16 AM
The Pope is a self important asshole whose opinions I rate slightly below the boring woman who sits opposite me at work.

Dec 20th, 2004, 10:17 AM
The Pope can actually still speak? :eek:

Dec 20th, 2004, 10:23 AM
The Pope can actually still speak? :eek:
no, he hums, but they make a story about it, so people will speak about him, eventhough he can't speak!

Dec 26th, 2004, 07:23 AM
Justinetime -

I would like you, or anyone to tell me, in clear, concise terms - how giving gay partnerships legal recogntion, IN ANY WAY harms your typical family? Giving gay people equal rights does not impede on the rights of families.

Gay people have equal rights already. They have the same rights every other American has. And no right-thinking American, Christian or otherwise, wishes to deprive "them" or any other interest group of their INDIVIDUAL rights under the law. Unfortunately, the door in this case doesn't swing both ways, if you'll pardon the expression. There is a hidden agenda at work which only involves homosexuals in a peripheral way:

For the moment, I as a Christian have the right to say and believe that homosexuality is sin. It is with the deliberate intent to deprive me of the freedom to speak and to believe as I see fit, both of which rights are guaranteed me in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, that activists are aggressively seeking government sanction of marriage in contravention of the ancient traditions of humanity.

Those who preach tolerance most vociferously these days seem only to advocate it for those who happen to agree with them. It is interesting to note that Christians invariably seem to fall outside this protective cloak of "tolerance". :confused:

Its so funny watching right wing christians fight this battle - it may take 20 more years, but you cannot stop progress and be it now or later, you christians are just gonna have to accept that gays are people just as deserving of a place under the sun.

When you consider the fact that this pope is the same guy who gives directives that make it preferable for married women in Africa to contract HIV/AIDS from their husbands and die to using condoms during sex, its pretty clear to see that the Catholic church is an institute from last century that is losing more and more relevance each passing year.

When a new Pope is ordained the catholics may make a comeback, but this Pope who presided over the coverup of terrible sexual abuse across the globe really needs to hurry up and die and make way for progress.
In your lexicon, "progress" seems synonymous with self-destruction, but be that as it may, you might find it interesting to note that many Christians consider the Word of God and not the Pope to be the ultimate Divine authority.

One last bit of clarification in closing: it is common for Christians to be labelled "bigots", "homophobes", "gay bashers", etc. The truth of the matter is that followers of Christ who have the Spirit of Truth know that we ourselves are sinners no less deserving of God's judgement than Charles Manson himself, much less a homosexual living a quiet and peaceable life. The aforementioned labels are merely affixed to us to discredit us and the Truth of which we bear witness.

Dec 26th, 2004, 09:40 AM
F*ck me Justine you really have swallowed that crap hook like and sinker havent you.

Please one day wake up to the universe. If you think that all the universes knowledge is written in a collection of old and doctored writings, then I fear you are going to be sadly dissapointed one day.

And the "infallible" Pope has less knowledge of the universe than I do.

Dec 26th, 2004, 09:43 AM
Omg so that means he's a fundamentalist terrorist and should be deported back to his own country. Or can only muslims get deported because of their beliefs.

Dec 26th, 2004, 07:00 PM
F*ck me Justine you really have swallowed that crap hook like and sinker havent you.

Please one day wake up to the universe. If you think that all the universes knowledge is written in a collection of old and doctored writings, then I fear


Job 26:3-14 How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom? and how hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is? To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose spirit came from thee? Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof. Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. :hehehe: He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them. He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it. He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end. The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof. He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the proud. By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent. Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?

DOCTORed ;) :

Luke 4:23 And He said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

Matthew 27:42 - He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

Mark 15:31 - Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.

Luke 23:35 - And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Matthew 28: 5-6 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

Verse 17 & 18 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some :hehehe: doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.


Daniel 5:3-4 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.

Verse 5: In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace:

Verse 6: Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.:scared:

Verse 17: Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.

25-28 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

30-31 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

[TRUE story. ;) ]

Colossians 13-15: And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers :hehehe: , he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

you are going to be sadly dissapointed one day.You mean when I die and cease to exist? How is it that I will be disappointed in that event? :confused: :hehehe: :lol:


Dec 26th, 2004, 07:35 PM

What are you on?

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?