Feb 6, 2007

Who's persecuting whom?

Another problem with homosexual marriage is the impossibility of exemption for Churches whose Religious beliefs are against these marriages. The SJC has declared that homosexual marriage is a civil right; if this logic prevails, then refusing to keep a married homosexual in your employ for Religious reasons would be the same as refusing to keep an African-American in your employ. The SJC ruling means that a Church cannot fire an openly, married, homosexual who works in their school or hospital, even though this person publicly contradicts Church teaching. Either the Church will forfeit its right to Religious freedom by being quiet, or the Church will exercise its right not to employ a person who contradicts it's Religious faith, and that person will sue. It’s inevitable, and only a matter of time before this issue comes before the Massachusetts’ Courts, first employment, then for refusing to perform same-sex marriages.
This chilling scenario is further disturbing in light of the false claims that homosexuality is genetic, which is not supported by any scientific studies. Identical twin studies show that only 38% of identical twin males are both homosexual, less for women, not the 99-100% correlation that would show a genetic link or ‘homosexual gene’ as portrayed in the media.

18 comments :

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

History shows that secular humanist tactics always follow a particular course. First, there is a plea issued for the dominantly Christian society to "tolerate" what has always been seen as a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Finally, the legal system is employed to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always known to be righteous behavior. In the words of noted Catholic historian Dr. James Hitchcock:

"The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration of new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox." (James Hitchcock, Catholicism and Modernity, New York, Seabury Press, 1979, p.86).

This final step is now underway in the United States and throughout Western Europe. Societal and legal support for marriage as it has been defined and lived in the Judaeo-Christian tradition is being stripped away. And education is being used as a tool for indoctrination into the new definition of marriage.

As laws supportive of Christian morality disappear, we begin to witness the first signs of punitive laws and social pressure against Christians. Soon, this persecution will intensify.

Renee said...

My problem is the denial that there is a difference between male and female when it comes to sex. And we are talking about sex, because persons in non-sexual relationships are excluded from marriage laws. Some people just aren't in a sexual relationship or ever will be, and they shouldn't be discriminated for that.

After being taught that there is no differences between men and women, mislead marriage was some plot to keep women inferior and the main purpose of sex is mindless recreation now all of a sudden marriage is a human/civil right?

Our sexuality exists as a component of our reproductive system. Not the other way around or removed from one another. Reproduction, sexuality, and mating/bonding are not separate aspects of the human body. There is plenty of bio/neuro/psych evidence out there on that.

No matter your sexual orientation, gay and straight men still produce sperm. Homosexual and heterosexual women will have ovaries, fallopian tubes, uteruses, cervixes, and vaginas. Women want bonding, affection, protections, to help provide, and sex. Men just want sex. These two rules apply to both heterosexuals and homoseuxals.

With heterosexuals we have to play the mating game, in which the boy has to get the girl. The girl has to obtain trust from the boy. Girls gets all of the above, boy gets sex. With homosexual women get everything but sex, and with homoseuxal men they only get sex. Homoseuxals by their actions alone, and not their mere orientation, never engage in the "marital act" and do not open themsleves to the possibility of children. Marriage is never conssumated, the relationship is never exhausted to the end of its complementarity nature that our bodies were design to act upon.

Sure it's romantic and filled with mutual sacrificial love, but when children come along it is the main objective of the parents to protect these souvenirs of a night of one too many glasses of wine and raising them into functional loving adults to embrace the world.

Things can get tense. You can be pushed to the physical and emotional limits of what it is. You DO lose yourself and it is harder to defend yourself. Protection is needed. Government can and should acknowledge this.

It isn't that I don't think the government should acknowledge other relationships, but they aren't even comparable to what marriage is. Call it what you want, but marriage is about the "marital act". And as a mentioned marital is french for the latin based word conjugal, and conjugal by defintion refered to the "yoke" and we use to define an embryo. Two people of the same sex, no matter their relationship can not open themselves to "marital relations".

So yes I'm being prosecuted for something what my husband and I do which are being responsible with our procreative behavior. When I stand up for myself... the conversation is automaticly derailed by people want to believe there is no difference between male and female when it comes to the design of the human body or I have nothing better to do then hate persons with same-sex attraction.

I don't know what it is like to have same-sex attraction. I'm sure many persons with same-sex attraction have tried to enjoy the company of the opposite sex. We should believe them when they say, they have same-sex attraction.

I'm sure anyone experiencing these feelings are scared and do not want to be rejected by the rest of soicety. We don't want to go back where there was no protections for those with same-sex attraction. That is why these initiatives have to do solely with protecting the definition of marriage, and no other laws regarding the well being and discrimtion based on orientation.

So as I defend marriage, we have to not belittle persons with same-sex attraction no matter the lengths they take to belittle responsible procreative behavior bewteen a man and a woman.

Anonymous said...

This site promotes fear and hatred of gays. Fear and hate is not the way to God, and anyone defending this path does not speak for Him. I am straight, married, and I do not consider treating my neighbors with dignity as a threat to my religion. What is it you want of them? They're not just going to go away you know. When you're done verbally bashing them why don't you take some responsibility for your own part in this problem and start showing them a little respect. They're human beings you know!

Renee said...

I realize when we engage in these conversations, I will be talking to a brick wall of sorts, but we are very aware of the bystander reading. Mr./Mrs Anonymous I realize nothing I will say (at this point) will change your false assumption that we "hate" persons with say sex attraction. If you would like further insight on how Catholics treat persons with same-sex attraction with dignity you may review the website www.couragerc.net .

Taken from my own blog.

A Catholic obligation toward persons who experience same-sex attraction.

I live in Massachusetts, where any discernment regarding homosexuality can easily be described as a form of hatred, so I feel obligated to explain what are my positions regarding loving those who experience same-sex attraction. I believe many will be surprised.

Taken from Rev. Gabriel B O’Donnell, OP Columbia Magazine publication of the Knights of Columbus/ January 2007 p. 24


“The Church does not condemn homosexuals or homosexuality. Every person, created in the image and likeness of God, possesses a dignity and worth that demands respect and compassion from one’s brothers and sisters in the human family. While the origins of same-sex attraction are not yet scientifically clear, most of those who are oriented do no choose this sexual attraction. A man or woman cannot be blamed or condemned merely because he or she experiences such an attraction….


The Church must condemn homosexual acts because they are contrary to God’s plan expressed in natural law and in divine revelation. The complementarity of man and woman as male and female is inherent in God’s creative design for human race. “Precisely because man and woman are different, yet complimentary, they can come together in union that is open to the possibility of life.”

Mr,/Mrs. Anonymous if you know of a Christian that speaks poorly of a persons with same sex attraction, please pass along the infomation I have given you.

Thanks and Peace
Renee

Anonymous said...

Renee, would you consider calling gays evil wrong?

"Every person, created in the image and likeness of God, possesses a dignity and worth that demands respect and compassion from one’s brothers and sisters in the human family."

Don't tell me. Let your actions speak for you. Lead by example.

Matlee said...

Anonymous wrote, "This site promotes fear and hatred of gays." And yet, he/she offers not one shred of proof for this assertion. Are we really surprised? The Catechism has been quoted extensively at this forum, most especially paragraph 2358, which reads in part, "..They [persons with homosexual tendencies] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

Hardly a hate manifesto. If anything, the comments originating from the homosexual lobby appear at times to be Catholophobic or Theophobic.

Various anonymous individuals have made truly ugly accusations against the Church, accusations which no doubt stem from a fear of the Catholic Church which is deeply rooted in ignorance/prejudice.

There is evidence of Theophobia here as well; a fear of the responsibility of keeping God's Commandments and striving to live according to His Divine Plan.

I have read comments from the homosexual lobby accusing the Church of being "anti-Gay" (the quote from the Catechism above shatters that myth);and of being anti-Semitic (this tired old canard has been utterly demolished by scholars, many of whom had to defend the wartime record of Pius XI - Sister Marchione, Lapide etc).

The level of Catholophobia and Theophobia expressed by these [mostly] anonymous individuals is simply chilling.

Matlee said...

Read Pius XII above - typo.

Anonymous said...

Don't tell me about your love. Let your actions speak for you. Lead by example. In the end we are all living together. Not everybody will believe in your religion. Do they have the right not to believe, and not to live by your beliefs? Where does your rights end and theirs begin?

R.Blanchard said...

Anonymous,

It is not a question of one religion vs another. It is a matter of right and wrong. Good and evil.

The individual person who chooses to be "gay" or "homosexaul" is doing wrong, is doing evil.

Please take the time out and clearly differentiate the meaning of one who has the "orientation" and one who takes on the "gay life style" which is another terminology for the homosexual life style.

John Ansley said...

A response to Professor Robert Frakes' article at Clarion University: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/02/natural-law-obligatory-point-of.html

Anonymous said...

I defer to Rev. Dr. Professor Emeritus Jerry Maneker of the University of California at Chico:

"Regarding same-sex love as being a sin, however, that is clearly not the case from reading either the Old or
the New Testament. In fact, if it were that important an issue, I imagine it would have been listed in the Ten Commandments; the prophets would have mentioned it; Jesus would have condemned it. Neither of these things occur!"

http://www.christianlgbtrights.org

JayG said...

But same-sex sex was clearly a sin. Adelphoesis is fine, but Eros was for complimentary sex couples only.

Anonymous said...

You can expect the gay community to be as friendly and as cooperative as you have been to them. Therein lies the problem.

JayG said...

We did not want to cooperate on their redefinition of marriage. We can't, and we're called to explain why. We could cooperate in other areas, but I get the impression that that cooperation will not be accepted because of our opposition to the redefinition of marriage.

Anonymous said...

Jay, that is a poor rationalization not to bother trying. Again, you can expect only as good of your neighbor as you have been to him. Effort, even if seeming unproductive towards your goal will still yield its own reward. Make no assumptions about your fellow man.

JayG said...

Then perhaps we can work on the "Benefits Fairness Act" together.

This act entitles two Massachusetts adults who are ineligible for marriage to enter into a legal arrangement for reciprocal hospital visitation, health care proxy designation, after-death decisions, inheritance and estate designation, and mental health decisions.

William said...

Anonymous writes, "Make no assumptions about your fellow man." But then proceeds to make assumptions about faithful Catholics who are opposed to same-sex "marriage" because such is in violation of the Natural Law: "You can expect the gay community to be as friendly and as cooperative as you have been to them."

The assumption here, the implication here, is that faithful Catholics have been less than friendly to the homosexual "community."

It has been said over and over again at this forum but I will repeat it: an authentic charity cares for souls. And the soul which engages in this grave sin is in crisis.

Chris said...

i really don't care about homos as long as they don't hit on straights, and demand for marriage. The definition of marriage is pact between a man and a women, NOT a women and a women, or a man and a man. Homosexuals should just live together and like make a will giving their possessions to each other or something.