Fri 24th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 16:29pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Three US states approve laws allowing same-sex marriage

By on Thursday, 8 November 2012

A poster outside a Catholic church in Maryland (Photo: CNS)

A poster outside a Catholic church in Maryland (Photo: CNS)

Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington have approved ballot measures legalising same-sex marriage.

In Minnesota voters rejected a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as only a union between a man and woman. Minnesota’s action does not make same-sex marriage immediately possible. There is still a state law banning it, but by rejecting the constitutional amendment, voters cleared the way for the legislature or courts to permit such marriages.

Maryland and Washington voters upheld laws permitting same-sex marriage that were passed earlier in the year by their legislatures and signed by their governors, but challenged in the referendum process.

Thirty other states have passed laws prohibiting such marriages. Previously six states and the District of Columbia had allowed same-sex marriages through legislative action and court rulings.

Voters in Maine approved a referendum authorising same-sex marriage, a measure that bypassed courts and the legislature, and reversed a 2009 referendum to ban such unions.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the US bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, called for renewed efforts to strengthen and protect marriage and family life and expressed gratitude to marriage protection supporters.

Election Day was a disappointing one for marriage, he said.

“The meaning of marriage, though, cannot be redefined because it lies within our very nature. No matter what policy, law or judicial decision is put into place, marriage is the only institution that unites a man and a woman to each other and to any children born of their union,” he said. “It is either this, or it is nothing at all.”

“In a society marked by increasing poverty and family fragmentation, marriage needs to be strengthened, promoted, and defended, not redefined. I hope and pray that political leaders, judges, and all people will seek to honour this foundational and common sense truth of marriage,” the archbishop said.

In Maryland, Baltimore Archbishop William Lori was among the most vocal leaders of the campaign to defeat the referendum, and he expressed disappointment in the vote.

“I think that vote will prove not to have been for the common good of our state,” he said.

The Maryland Catholic Conference, which advocates for public policy on behalf of the state’s bishops, joined the Maryland Marriage Alliance in efforts to overturn the law. Archbishop Lori praised the advocates’ work over the past year.

“So much hard work went into this, and I’m very, very grateful to everyone who worked so hard,” he said. “We will continue to witness to the values of marriage as understood as the union of one man and one woman, as the most sound, secure and loving way to bring children into the world.”

The Catholic conference said: “Regrettably, Marylanders decided by the narrowest of margins not to repeal the law that redefines marriage.”

With 97.5 per cent of the Maryland vote tallied, 52 per cent, or 1,208,068 voters, approved the same-sex marriage measure, compared to 48 per cent, or 1,112,998 voters, who rejected it.

The language of the ballot measure “masked the fact that this law does not simply assign civil benefits to gay and lesbian couples, but drastically dismantles in our state law the fundamental family unit of mother, father and child,” the conference said.

“The people of Maryland were promised that this law would protect religious institutions and individuals who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and we will remain vigilant in ensuring that those promises are upheld,” it added.

Bishop Richard Malone, who is administrator of the Diocese of Portland, Maine, said: “I am deeply disappointed that a majority of Maine voters have redefined marriage from what we have understood it to be for millennia by civilisations and religions around the world.” The bishop, who in August was installed to lead the Diocese of Buffalo, New York, thanked “the Catholic faithful who did not abandon Catholic teachings on the nature of marriage”.

Maine’s voters, with 78 per cent of the vote tallied, agreed to repeal the same-sex marriage ban by a vote of 53.4 per cent to 46.6 per cent against.

In efforts to persuade voters to oppose legalising the marriages, the bishops of Washington had issued video statements and a pastoral statement opposing the referendum.

With about 60 per cent of the vote tallied yesterday morning, the vote was 52 per cent in favour of allowing same-sex marriages compared to 48 per cent opposed.

In Minnesota, with 99.7 per cent of the vote tallied, the result was 51.3 per cent, or 1,507,152 votes, to oppose a ban on same-sex marriage, compared to 47.6 per cent or 1,400,396 votes to support the measure.

Archbishop John Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis wrote in a column in the archdiocesan newspaper, The Catholic Spirit, that the Church’s “effort to support God’s unchanging plan for marriage is not a campaign against anyone but rather a positive effort to promote the truth about marriage as a union between one man and one woman”.

  • drj81

    Yet again the rights of married parents and their children are undermined. Does anybody ever care about them? 

  • Garrick

    Great news, America is slowly joining the modern world. If you disagree with gay marriage then simply don’t marry a gay person, but don’t foist your prejudices on others.

  • aearon43

    Please spare us your post-imperial British angst. The US is not “modern” yet invented the PC and the internet, is wealthier and more powerful by far than any other nation, and has several military bases in your sad little island? What exactly do you mean by “modern?” (I’m guessing something like “leftist.”)

    Traditional marriage is not based on prejudice but on biology. There is a very simple and logical reason that marriage has been limited in nearly every society in history to one man and one woman. And that reason is that children come from one man and one woman. People who defend traditional marriage are looking out for children, rather than indulging the narcissistic fantasies of decrepit, moribund societies such as “modern” Britain.

  • Knight

    So, can we expect homosexual ‘marriage’ to regularly occur in mosques and synagogues or is it just protestant churches that will be compelled to ‘join the ‘modern world’.

  • Hermit

      Par.2357 of the Catechism of
    the Catholic Church reads:

       “Homosexuality refers to relations between
    men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual
    attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of
    forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological
    genesis remains largely unexplained.

      Basing itself
    on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,
    tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically
    disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to
    the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
    complementarity.

      Under no
    circumstances can they be approved.”

  • JabbaPapa

    It’s not marrying a “gay person” that’s problematic, it’s the idea that one could “marry” someone of the same sex as oneself…

    Oh — and the people trying to foist their prejudice on others are the ones trying to redefine marriage to suit their own whims…

  • whytheworldisending

    Homosexuals are more than 10 times more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals are.

    According to the Office for National Statistics, only 1.5% of adults are homosexual, but the NSPCC reports that out of 633 children raped in 2011 in Britain, 918 were boys. (see  http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resour...)

    In other words, not 1.5% but 15.2% of child rape victims were boys. That is over 10 times what one would expect if homosexuals were no more likely to rape children than heterosexuals were.

    15.2% is more than 10 times 1.5%, which shows that Homosexuals are over 10 times more likely to abuse children. That increased risk is why they should not be allowed to adopt children. Gay marriage  would encourage more adoptions by homosexuals, so gay marriage is a danger to children and must not be permitted by the state. It should be opposed by all right thinking people and especially by Christians. America is Christian and so this should not be allowed to happen in any US State.

  • whytheworldisending

    Who is doing the foisting? Homosexuals are demanding the right to adopt the children of heterosexual christian parents, who abhor homosexuality as an evil and a danger to their children. Imagine a parent dying of cancer, who has to allow their children to be looked after by strangers. Why turn their nightmare into an even more horrific scenario by giving their kids to people they – quite rightly – dread? Heterosexuals, christians , muslims and all decent people have a right to a family life too, and their rights are being unecessarily interfered with by the same people who brought us Hillsborough and the Wrexham abuse cover up – corrupt politicians, who spent their boyhood days at public school.

  • JabbaPapa

    Well, your statistic is correct, but partly by accident.

    There are two very distinct types of child sex abuse — the paedophiliac (involving children up to about 12), and sex crimes involving adolescents (about 12 and over, mostly 13+).

    The paedophiles (clinically defined) have a specific perversion that is neither homosexual nor heterosexual in nature, despite the fact that (for several complex reasons) boys are always targeted more frequently, and the fact that 95%+ of these sex criminals are men (child abuses perpetrated by women tend not to be sex abuses).

    OTOH, the child molesting of children aged 13+ is MASSIVELY over-represented, given comparative population sizes, by homosexuals abusing adolescent boys.

  • David

    Catholics have a tendency to lose most of their battles because they believe they are destined to suffer for their faith. Evangelicals tend to win in their respective home states because they believe God rewards the righteous. A person’s beliefs are relevant to whether they win or lose in life. Catholic must focus more on victory and less on suffering and victim-hood.

  • whytheworldisending

    OK, but the meaning of the word, “paedophile,” like the word, “Marriage,” is determined by how people use it, not by how politicians or “experts” choose to define it. Politicians are public servants, and they should take their lead from the people. Too often however, they select those experts who support their agendas and sack any who show signs of real independence. Beware therefore, the cult of the expert. The word “Pervert” was perfectly adequate until certain perversions became politically fashionable.

  • JabbaPapa

    The only battle that is of any importance whatsoever is to fight with all of our strength and will and heart and soul to be in a relationship of love with God.

  • JabbaPapa

    To a great extent I agree with you — but the molesters of small children and the molesters of adolescents are very VERY different kinds of people.

    The first, paedos ; the second, mostly gay men with a man/boy sex fantasy shared by their victims.

  • Tim

    Does anyone here believe that gay men won’t commit forced acts of pedophilia against their adopted boys if allowed to adopt?

  • Badjumbly

    1. You need to check your figures. I doubt that “out of 633 children raped in 2011 in Britain, 918 were boys”.

    2.You use the word “homosexuals” as though it refers exclusively to men. Lesbians are also homosexuals and very rarely commit child abuse.

    3. You are assuming that paedophiles are exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. The claims about Jimmy Savile should remind us that many paedophiles prey on children of both sexes indiscriminately. Their lust is simply directed towards children, and in such cases heterosexuality and homosexuality are irrelevant.

    4. Even if it turned out true that child abuse were ten times more common in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, it would still be seen in only a small minority of homosexual men. The majority in any statistical grouping should not be deprived of adoption rights because of a criminal minority. Adoption agency workers are trained to make a thorough assessment of all applicants.

  • http://www.facebook.com/garry.otton Garry Otton

    Marriage is constantly being redefined throughout history. One inconvenient truth has been brushed under the carpet faster than a paedophile
    priest at a boys’ pyjama party. At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578, as
    many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the
    cooperation of the Vatican clergy A contemporary report describes them “taking
    communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and
    ate together”. Another woman to woman union was recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th
    century.

  • http://www.facebook.com/garry.otton Garry Otton

    Marriage is constantly being redefined throughout history. One inconvenient truth has been brushed under the carpet… (censored). At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy A contemporary report describes them “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together”. Another woman to woman union was recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

  • whytheworldisending

    Even if true, so what? Lots of bad people did lots of bad things throughout history. So should we all be bad now?

  • http://www.facebook.com/garry.otton Garry Otton

    So how should we respond to your badness?

  • whytheworldisending

    1) Well spotted. I dropped a nought from the total of 6033. They’re not my figures. You can check for yourself on:

    http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/statistics_wda87833.html
    918 out of 6033 victims were boys.
    2) 95% of offenders are men, and for the purpose of establishing a correlation between child rape and homosexuality generally, it is reasonable to approximate that to 100% to simplify the calculation. The rate of child abuse by homosexuals is clearly high in comparison with heterosexuals, and the a smaller offending rate among women generally does not preclude an elevated rate among homosexual women. There is no evidence to suggest that a distinction should be made between homosexual men and homosexual women in that regard.
    3) No such assumption needs to be made, and introducing fine distinctions and niceties merely serves to obfuscate the very clear and obvious danger to children posed by homosexuals and yes other perverts of all kinds. By the way as far as we know JS was straight and you risk distracting attention away from the issue by referring to him. The issue is whether homosexuals are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. Nobody is saying that heterosexuals , like JS, abuse children. The point is that homosexuals do so 10 times as much.
    4) It isn’t going to “turn out true” – it already is true that there is a correlation between homosexuality and child abuse. That correlation exists becuase the cause of homosexuality is the same as the cause of child abuse. It is, to use your words, LUST. Now people who cannot control their lust are a danger. Practicing (non-celibate)Homosexuals – by definition – cannot control their lust so that it is constrained within natural bounds, and that is why they are more likely to be unable to do so in relation to other boundaries. They are more likely abuse themselves and other and that includes children. The staistics simply bear this out, and, as much as some would like to, they  cannot be explained away.

  • whytheworldisending

    Even if true, so what? Lots of bad people did lots of bad things throughout history. So should we all be bad now?

  • Badjumbly

    1. Now corrected.

     

    2. (a) Re “95% of offenders are men, and for the
    purpose of establishing a correlation between child rape and homosexuality
    generally, it is reasonable to approximate that to 100% to simplify the
    calculation”. So your preference for simplicity over accuracy and your
    keen desire to link child abuse to homosexuality lead you to tweak statistics. We
    all have our own approaches, but this would not be mine.

        (b) Re “a smaller offending rate, among
    women generally, does not preclude an elevated rate among homosexual women.
    There is no evidence to suggest that a distinction should be made between
    homosexual men and homosexual women in that regard”. What is merely not
    precluded is not demonstrated. You have not provided evidence of “an elevated
    rate among homosexual women”.
     3. According to your source “60-70% of child sex offenders
    target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex”.
    You would probably seize these figures as support for your argument, but they
    are not. The central fallacy in your argument is that you are trying to link the
    abuse of boys by men to male homosexuality in general, without  considering that most homosexual activity and
    attraction is between adults, and an attraction towards an adult is so
    different from an attraction towards a child that they should be treated as
    different sexualities. In fact they are, which is why the word
    “paedophilia” is used. You make much of the difference between a
    recorded homosexual population percentage of 1.5 % and 15.2% of child rape
    victims being boys, but this is a misleading comparison. The 1.5% are people
    who are openly declaring themselves homosexual, so it is unlikely that many of
    the boy-rapists will be among them: paedophiles have good reason to either shy away from
    answering questions about their sexuality or lie about it. Whatever percentage
    we put on boy victims, as opposed to girl victims, of male rapists, it has nothing
    to do with adults-only homosexuality. Child abuse statistics relate to child
    abusers only: not to the wider population. I’ve no doubt that there is an
    overlapping section of paedophiles who also experience attraction towards
    adults, but none of the figures we have been using shed any light on what
    percentages we might find there. (The total percentage of the population who are homosexual, incidentally, is likely to be more than the 1.5% willing to declare themselves.) 

    4.
    Your assertion that practicing homosexuals cannot control their lust is based
    on a definition of “natural bounds” that I do not respect. Nature is
    as nature does. Some manifestations of human nature, including child abuse, are
    disgusting, but loving, consensual, adult sex is not.

     

    2. (a) Re “95% of offenders are men, and for the
    purpose of establishing a correlation between child rape and homosexuality
    generally, it is reasonable to approximate that to 100% to simplify the
    calculation”. So your preference for simplicity over accuracy and your
    keen desire to link child abuse to homosexuality lead you to tweak statistics. We
    all have our own approaches, but this would not be mine.

        (b) Re “a smaller offending rate, among
    women generally, does not preclude an elevated rate among homosexual women.
    There is no evidence to suggest that a distinction should be made between
    homosexual men and homosexual women in that regard”. What is merely not
    precluded is not demonstrated. You have not provided evidence of “an elevated
    rate among homosexual women”.
     3. According to your source “60-70% of child sex offenders
    target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex”.
    You would probably seize these figures as support for your argument, but they
    are not. The central fallacy in your argument is that you are trying to link the
    abuse of boys by men to male homosexuality in general, without  considering that most homosexual activity and
    attraction is between adults, and an attraction towards an adult is so
    different from an attraction towards a child that they should be treated as
    different sexualities. In fact they are, which is why the word
    “paedophilia” is used. You make much of the difference between a
    recorded homosexual population percentage of 1.5 % and 15.2% of child rape
    victims being boys, but this is a misleading comparison. The 1.5% are people
    who are openly declaring themselves homosexual, so it is unlikely that many of
    the boy-rapists will be among them: paedophiles have good reason to either shy away from
    answering questions about their sexuality or lie about it. Whatever percentage
    we put on boy victims, as opposed to girl victims, of male rapists, it has nothing
    to do with adults-only homosexuality. Child abuse statistics relate to child
    abusers only: not to the wider population. I’ve no doubt that there is an
    overlapping section of paedophiles who also experience attraction towards
    adults, but none of the figures we have been using shed any light on what
    percentages we might find there. (The total percentage of the population who are homosexual, incidentally, is likely to be more than the 1.5% willing to declare themselves.) 

    4.
    Your assertion that practicing homosexuals cannot control their lust is based
    on a definition of “natural bounds” that I do not respect. Nature is
    as nature does. Some manifestations of human nature, including child abuse, are
    disgusting, but loving, consensual, adult sex is not.

    1. Now corrected.

     

    2. (a) Re “95% of offenders are men, and for the
    purpose of establishing a correlation between child rape and homosexuality
    generally, it is reasonable to approximate that to 100% to simplify the
    calculation”. So your preference for simplicity over accuracy and your
    keen desire to link child abuse to homosexuality lead you to tweak statistics. We
    all have our own approaches, but this would not be mine.

        (b) Re “a smaller offending rate, among
    women generally, does not preclude an elevated rate among homosexual women.
    There is no evidence to suggest that a distinction should be made between
    homosexual men and homosexual women in that regard”. What is merely not
    precluded is not demonstrated. You have not provided evidence of “an elevated
    rate among homosexual women”.
     3. According to your source “60-70% of child sex offenders
    target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex”.
    You would probably seize these figures as support for your argument, but they
    are not. The central fallacy in your argument is that you are trying to link the
    abuse of boys by men to male homosexuality in general, without  considering that most homosexual activity and
    attraction is between adults, and an attraction towards an adult is so
    different from an attraction towards a child that they should be treated as
    different sexualities. In fact they are, which is why the word
    “paedophilia” is used. You make much of the difference between a
    recorded homosexual population percentage of 1.5 % and 15.2% of child rape
    victims being boys, but this is a misleading comparison. The 1.5% are people
    who are openly declaring themselves homosexual, so it is unlikely that many of
    the boy-rapists will be among them: paedophiles have good reason to either shy away from
    answering questions about their sexuality or lie about it. Whatever percentage
    we put on boy victims, as opposed to girl victims, of male rapists, it has nothing
    to do with adults-only homosexuality. Child abuse statistics relate to child
    abusers only: not to the wider population. I’ve no doubt that there is an
    overlapping section of paedophiles who also experience attraction towards
    adults, but none of the figures we have been using shed any light on what
    percentages we might find there. (The total percentage of the population who are homosexual, incidentally, is likely to be more than the 1.5% willing to declare themselves.) 

    4.
    Your assertion that practicing homosexuals cannot control their lust is based
    on a definition of “natural bounds” that I do not respect. Nature is
    as nature does. Some manifestations of human nature, including child abuse, are
    disgusting, but loving, consensual, adult sex is not.

     

    2. (a) Re “95% of offenders are men, and for the
    purpose of establishing a correlation between child rape and homosexuality
    generally, it is reasonable to approximate that to 100% to simplify the
    calculation”. So your preference for simplicity over accuracy and your
    keen desire to link child abuse to homosexuality lead you to tweak statistics. We
    all have our own approaches, but this would not be mine.

        (b) Re “a smaller offending rate, among
    women generally, does not preclude an elevated rate among homosexual women.
    There is no evidence to suggest that a distinction should be made between
    homosexual men and homosexual women in that regard”. What is merely not
    precluded is not demonstrated. You have not provided evidence of “an elevated
    rate among homosexual women”.

     
    3. According to your source “60-70% of child sex offenders
    target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex”.
    You would probably seize these figures as support for your argument, but they
    are not. The central fallacy in your argument is that you are trying to link the
    abuse of boys by men to male homosexuality in general, without  considering that most homosexual activity and
    attraction is between adults, and an attraction towards an adult is so
    different from an attraction towards a child that they should be treated as
    different sexualities. In fact they are, which is why the word
    “paedophilia” is used. You make much of the difference between a
    recorded homosexual population percentage of 1.5 % and 15.2% of child rape
    victims being boys, but this is a misleading comparison. The 1.5% are people
    who are openly declaring themselves homosexual, so it is unlikely that many of
    the boy-rapists will be among them: paedophiles have good reason to either shy away from
    answering questions about their sexuality or lie about it. Whatever percentage
    we put on boy victims, as opposed to girl victims, of male rapists, it has nothing
    to do with adults-only homosexuality. Child abuse statistics relate to child
    abusers only: not to the wider population. I’ve no doubt that there is an
    overlapping section of paedophiles who also experience attraction towards
    adults, but none of the figures we have been using shed any light on what
    percentages we might find there. (The total percentage of the population who are homosexual, incidentally, is likely to be more than the 1.5% willing to declare themselves.)
     

    4.
    Your assertion that practicing homosexuals cannot control their lust is based
    on a definition of “natural bounds” that I do not respect. Nature is
    as nature does. Some manifestations of human nature, including child abuse, are
    disgusting, but loving, consensual, adult sex is not.

  • http://www.facebook.com/garry.otton Garry Otton

    What a horrible, bellicose little post. You watch too much Fox News.

  • Ghengis

    If gay men are allowed to adopt, many young boys will be molested by their own parents. Does anyone doubt this will happen in much greater numbers than with the few deranged heterosexual parents?

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    We must continue our peaceful, patient and charitable fight. The family is the foundation of society.
    In the end, God will surely win. But when He does win, He will ask what side did we fight for.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

    IT LOOKS MORE THAN TRUE. MAY IT IS BECAUSE WE DO NOT GIVE FIRST PLACE TO GOD’S  WILL AND PLAN FOR US IN JESUS THE LORD. THIS CAN STRIKE US ONLY WHEN WE HABITUALLY REPENT OF OUR SINS AND MEDITATE ON AND THINK AND PRAY USING GOD’S WORD.

    WE HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT GOD IN JESUS THE LORD IS EXPERIENCIAL AND HISTORICAL. HE WILL GUIDE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE US IN ALL THINGS IF ONLY WE SEEK HIM AND OBEY HIM.

    JUST OBEYING LEADERS AND AUTHORITIES CAN MEAN WORSHIPING MERE IDOLS.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

     “Catholics have a tendency to lose most of their battles because they believe they are destined to suffer for their faith.”

    THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF THOSE WHO WORSHIP ONLY THE GOD OF PHILOSOPHERS IN PRACTICE; IN THEORY AND RITUAL THEY MAY NE TAKING THE NAME OF JESUS THE LORD AS THEIR GOD.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

    THOSE WHO DON’T WORSHIP THE GOD OF REVELATION HAVE A DIFFERENT WAY OF UNDERSTANDING IT. BEING IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM THEY CONSIDER A PRIVILEGE.

    THIS IS ALL BECAUSE CHRISTIANS DO NOT PRAY FOR THE BEST GIFT OF APOSTLESHIP FROM CHRIST THE LORD : IT IS APOSTLESHIP WHICH GIVES FOUNDATIONAL IMPORTANCE TO GOD’S WORD WHICH BRINGS SALVATION TO SINNERS.

    IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH ALL CHRISTIANS WERE APOSTLES; SO THE CHURCH GREW VERY FAST AND FLOURISHED.

  • Paul

    David,  ‘We are well aware that we are from God, and the whole world is in the power of the Evil One’ (1 John 5:19).
      So perhaps we should not be too surprised at our tendency to lose political battles in the kingdoms of this world. 
      There is a reason for it:  ‘so that you remain faultless and pure, unspoilt children of God surrounded by a deceitful and underhand brood, shining out among them like bright stars in the world’ (Philippians 2:15).
      Sure, we are disappointed when formerly Christian countries enact horrible laws, but as Christians we belong in a different kingdom and we know the standards that prevail there.  And we know that all these things will soon be seen in their true light. 

  • Mark

     Many Catholics interpret Church teaching on suffering to mean that God wants them to suffer or that earthly suffering is the way to holiness. This is masochistic; what kind of a father would want his child to suffer or require it for his growth? if God is love and love is the ultimate good, then love can not cause or wish for suffering. Suffering is a part of this human existence because humanity is
    incomplete and imperfect but not because God wants it nor needs it for
    us.

  • whytheworldisending

    The statistics refer to rape, so more like 99.9% of the perpetrators are gong to be men, as you would yourself admit. There is no need to tweak, and seeking a greater degree of precision than in figures than experimental error allows, is highly unscientific. Moving the goal posts however is another matter. Those who wish to insist on proliferating sub-categories of offenders and perversions are motivated by what? A desire to muddy the waters in order to avoid the truth? The Bible is clear, and the majority is clear. They disapprove of homosexuality as sinful. The statistics simply reinforce the fact that it is sinful, and Nature too sends a clear message. You say, “Your assertion that practicing homosexuals cannot control their lust is based on a definition of “natural bounds” that I do not respect. Nature is as nature does.” Nature’s response to homosexuality is 34 million deaths – both of homosexuals and innocent victims such as haemophiliacs and the wives of promiscuous men – from AIDS and rising antibody-resistant TB. The Bible writers were not fools.

  • whytheworldisending

    If they had money they would be able to find someone who “cares.” Natural parents should be able to specify that they do not want their children adopted by homosexuals. If they are no tallowed to do so, then they should challenge any such decision as an unlawful and unecessary interference with their right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention. The sad fact is that most parents who have their children adopted are in no position to defend themselves, but that is why Liberty should be fighting their corner. Presently it is the just children of the poor who are thrown to the wolves, and out bunch of toffs in government don’t see it as a problem – because it wouldn’t happen to them or their kids. Its a class thing.

  • whytheworldisending

    Existing marriage arrangements do not discriminate against homosexuals. There is no law that says homosexuals cannot get married. They may not want to get married, because they can’t find someone of the opposite sex they like, but that’s their choice. Demanding that we pretend marriage is something else just to fit in with their unusual tastes and preferences is unreasonable to the point of perversity. Its like an atheist demanding to be baptised as a Christian, whilst professing that they don’t believe in God. How absurd would it be to redefine baptism to make it accessible to atheists? Seems crazy doesn’t it, but that would be next if the militant atheists are allowed to use “equality” as a pretext to attack the way of life of religious people by distorting the meaning of marriage.

  • Badjumbly

    You cannot have been referring only to rape when you wrote in your now deleted post that “95% of offenders are men”, but I’m in no mood now to spend time quibbling over a difference of 5%. I’d rather focus on your bizarre accusation that I am “proliferating sub-categories of offenders and perversions” because I distinguish between consensual adult homosexual activity and same-sex abuse of children. If your outlook is so warped by your religious beliefs that you believe the two to be in the same categories of sexual and moral behaviour, there is probably nothing I can write to convince you otherwise. Fortunately, as the ballot results from these states suggest, the western world is gradually moving away from your concept of sinfulness and towards mine. That is because yours is based on ancient writings, and mine on modern rationality. If you take this for a sign that the world is ending, I wonder that you can afford the time for conversations such as this.

    Throughout the history of mankind, sexually transmitted diseases have destoyed and blighted more heterosexual than homosexual lives, including those of the monogamously faithful. If AIDS is a “response to homosexuality”, it has not been a very carefully aimed one.

  • whytheworldisending

    I will waste one more post replying to you, since my last 2 have been removed for no good reason other than that they challenge your opinions. I don’t complain about petty insults and am happy to let readers see both sides of the argument, which is why your posts are still there. Censoring any view that you find challenging is an admission of defeat.

    If I wasn’t religious I would still shun evil, as we all do, because it is hard wired into our brains. Only those whose thinking has been deranged by conditioning of the sexual response and/or brainwashing believe sodomy is good. Religious faith actually moderates that natural revulsion by demanding that we love sinners because they are victims of the devil at work in the world, and therefore to be pitied. One way to show love is to correct their ignorance.

    When you say that nature (AIDS) doesn’t carefully aim consequences of sin at the sinners, you are partly right. Probably only 95% of victims are homosexual or drug users or promiscuous. What does that tell us? Just what the Bible says – that we are saved as a people and cannot afford to sit idly by as the rest of the world sends itself to hell. If we don’t preach the Gospel then we are in danger of going there ourselves.

    In secular terms what goes around comes around, or if you prefer, in global warming terms we all live on the same planet. The greens will perish with the climat echange deniers if something isn’t done, and likewise the innocent pay the price of the sins of others. We have a duty to speak out on many things and can expect to be hated for it. Jesus himself was crucified for challenging the politically correct nonsense of his day – that’s why we are here.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

    THIS – SPREADING OF EVIL – ONLY SHOWS ROLE OF RELIGIONS IN SOCIETY IS DISAPPEARING GRADUALLY. MAY BE IT IS FOR GOOD FOR MOST OF THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS, ESPECIALLY OF ORGANISED RELIGIONS, ARE ONLY POLITICIANS IN RELIGIOUS GARB. IN THIS CHRISTIANITY IS IMITATED BY OTHER RELIGIONS. THIS IS JUST  A MONKEY  BUSINESS.

    THESE  LEADERS DO NOT MEDIATE GOD-EXPERIENCE IN JESUS CHRIST, BUT ONLY KEEP THE PEOPLE OCCUPIED THROUGH RITUALS, DOGMAS AND DRAMAS BY WAY OF MERE HUMAN TRADITIONS.

    HARDLY ANYONE SAYS ‘JESUS DID THIS AND THIS FOR ME WHAT ABOUT YOU?’  DO SIGNS OF THE KINGDOM, THE WORKS OF THE KINGDOM APPEAR IN THEIR LIVES? THIS REQUIRES APOSTLES AND NOT MERE LEADERS  AND BISHOPS WHO LEAD HIDDEN LIVES AND KEEP ON PLAYING WITH WORDS.

    TRUE APOSTLESHIP IS THE KEY.

    UNLESS APOSTLESHIP IS PRACTISED AND PROMOTED, LOOK AT JESUS THE LORD IN WHAT HE DID AND HOW HE DID IT, CHRISTIANITY WILL BE SWALLOWED UP BY EVIL GROUPS OF RELIGIONS : LOOK AT EUROPE!  THIS IS COMING AS A PUNISHMENT FROM GOD FOR OUR UNFAITHFULNESS AND BETRAYAL.

    JESUS OPENED THE WAY FOR ALL WHO MADE THEMSELVES FIT FOR HIS KINGDOM THAT THEY MAY PRACTICE APOSTLESHIP AND HE ASSIGNED APOSTLESHIP TO MANY MORE THAN WHAT IS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD AND TALKED ABOUT.

    APOSTLESHIP IS THE KEY.

    IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH EVERY CHRISTIAN WAS AN APOSTLE, AND FOR THIS REASON THE CHURCH GREW IN NUMBERS VERY FAST.

    APOSTLESHIP IS THE KEY.

    THIS REQUIRES LIVING IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF GOD’S WORD AND TEACHING THE CHILDREN BY EXAMPLE AND EXPERIENCE. THE REST ARE SECONDARY LIKE THE SACRAMENTS FOR THEY WILL FOLLOW FROM IT AND THAT TOO FRUITFULLY 30, 60, 100 FOLD DEPENDING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PERSON CONCERNED AND THE NATURE OF THE CALL OF CHRIST THE LORD.

    EVEN THE HOLY EUCHARIST IS THE HOLY EUCHARIST BECAUSE OF THE WORD OF GOD. THE WORD OF GOD HAS TO BE KEPT AS FOUNDATIONAL OTHERWISE IT (CHRISTIANITY) IS ALL LIKE A HOUSE BUILT ON SAND.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

    “Catholics have a tendency to lose most of their battles because they believe they are destined to suffer for their faith.”

    THIS HAPPENS BECAUSE IN PRACTICE THE FAITH OF INDIVIDUALS AND THE COMMUNITY IS NOT BUILT ON THE CORNER STONE, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST BUT ON SECONDARY THINGS LIKE THE SACRAMENTS, INCLUDING HUMAN TRADITIONS, DOGMAS, RULES AND REGULATIONS BUILT UP BY MAN’S INTERESTS AND INTELLIGENCE.

    THERE CAME A TIME IN THE LIFE OF THE 12 APOSTLES WHEN THEY STARTED REJOICING WHENEVER THEY FOUND THEMSELVES  WORTHY TO SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF THE LORD BUT SOME CHRISTIANS GO BY THEIR FATE : “WE ARE DESTINED TO SUFFER”.

    FROM ONE POINT OF VIEW THE BIG CHRISTIAN CHURCHES ARE FOUNT OCCUPIED COUNTING THE VERY MOMENT OF THEIR END. IT LOOKS, IT NEVER OCCURS TO THEM TO APPEAL TO THE LORD DIRECTLY TO FIND OUT THE REASON WHY HE IS ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN. HAS  NOT THE LORD SPOKEN, “WHATEVER MY HEAVENLY FATHER HAS NOT PLANTED WILL BE UPROOTED”?

    TO REMEDY THE SITUATION WE NEED APOSTLES AND NOT LEADERS AND THEIR KIND.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

    WHEN SUFFERING IS EMBRACED IN AND THROUGH JESUS THE LORD, IT IS THE MOST POSITIVE VALUE CONTRIBUTING TO THE SALVATION OF THE WORLD. WE BECOME ONE WITH THE LORD ON THE CROSS.

  • Badjumbly

    I made no complaint about your posts, played no part in their removal, and thought it most likely that they had been removed by yourself.

    I also shun what I regard as evil, but since my homosexual activities have never harmed anyone at all, including myself, I see no evil in them. It is not homosexual sex that leads to harm: it is irresponsible sex, and that is equally true for heterosexuals.

    I am glad to see you are not a climate change denier, but the global warming analogy does not fit well into your argument. Unchecked global warming will eventually affect everyone, whereas AIDS exists in the internal environment of the body and, unless congenital, can usually be avoided by choice of behaviour. In the twenty-five years that I have been a practising homosexual, I have chosen my behaviour with a view to avoiding AIDS, and I have succeeded. 

  • whytheworldisending

    People see what they want to see and you see no danger in AIDS because, as you say, you are a practicing homosexual, but that is simply wishful thinking. Thinking you can mess with nature and avoid consequences is hubris. We are creatures subject to natural laws and nature is always several steps ahead of us. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that AIDS will probably mutate and cross contaminate with influenza or some other easily spread human virus, and this process is being accelerated with the increase in promiscuity and homosexual activity – assisted of course by the consumerist obsession with the foreign travel. Anyway, what are you doing on this site – surely not hoping to convert us all?

  • Badjumbly

    I think with that last post you have probably won the argument. Congratulations.

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    On this 1578 ceremony, see Brent Shaw http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-hexter.asp :

    “The men described by Montaigne were engaging in parallel same-sex marriage ceremonials that were a mimicry of the “real thing.” Far from engaging in a ritual act formally blessed by the church, the men were burned alive by the authorities in Rome because “with terrible wickedness they defiled the sacrosanct name of matrimony”–hardly the approval of a widely accepted ecclesiastical ceremony for same-sex unions… Montaigne’s report does not demonstrate anything about the prevalence or acceptability of an adelphopoiesis marriage ceremony, but rather reveals a virulent and violent hatred on the part of the authorities for what those men were doing.”
    All the examples I’ve seen regularly trotted out (often on the basis of John Boswell’s work (or in this case, simply a cut and paste job on Jim Duffy’s review of Boswell))  boil down to either recognition by the Church of non-kinship, non-sexual bonds of friendship, or of deliberate parodies of legitimate marriage which are regarded as scandalous by the authorities. Even if adelphopoiesis [brother-making] ceremonies did exist (they did) and had an intended sexual element (highly disputable), at best that would be an argument for civil partnerships not for same sex marriage: marriage is different because it is concerned with the raising of children, and even societies which were supportive of homosexuality such as Ancient Greece recognized that difference.

  • GildasWiseman

    The Sacraments are not secondary. Doctrine is not secondary. They are the Holy Trinity in our lives. They are the teachings of Jesus Christ.They are the life giving sustenance that make Apostleship possible. Baptism, the Breaking of Bread,the Sacrament of Penance, Confirmation, Marriage,Extreme Unction, Holy Orders and of course the  preaching of the Gospel. It was these things and the graces they received from them that gave them the ability to suffer for their faith. Christ lived in them and they lived and died for Him.Human traditions rule and regulations help to preserve the structures of our faith they protect us.

  • Hazel_pratt

    Apparantly the sex gender is formed while the baby is still in the womb.  Sometimes, things go awry; the brain is out of sink with a male or female body.  Surely if one is born like this, and cannot help feeling attracted to someone of the same sex, and wishes to remain loyal and loving to that person, then surely they should not be denied the right to marriage.
    Time has moved on.  In the 1960′s when I married my husband we had to get a dispensation from the Pope because I was a catholic, and he was a “non catholic”.  We have been married 46 years.  Likewise, same sex couples could have an equally fulfilling marriage.   Hazel

  • whytheworldisending

    You are confusing “sex gender” with sexual “orientation. You are also confusing science wtih nonscience. Homosexuals are made (through abuse by other homosexuals) not born. You cannot, in any case justify legislation on the basis that it feels good, since rapsists and murderers feel good about their crimes. Nor can you legislate on the basis of loyal relationships. The Moors Murderers were loyal top one another. Your views mean that – though you might have been catholic in the swinging sixties, you are now merely “Catholic.” It is not clear why you think your husband was “non-catholic.”

  • Charles Martel

     No, they can’t

  • http://twitter.com/knittingfamily lisa

    Whytheworldisending great comment. The inalienable rights of ALL parents including the poor is mostly ignored by the conservative right in the US. 

  • Will

    Yes, we must make sure that we are on the right side – the side of what we all know and believe to be right.

  • Stacie

    You’re right Paul, it is a disappointment – and a big one. I agree with you about the ‘different kingdom’ bit, but we still have to live in this world and sometimes that can be very difficult.  These ‘horrible laws’ affect all of us, but how are we to react? There are those that say we must continue our peaceful protest, others urge us to quiet contemplation, while still others (a minority), counsel action; but which is right? Which is the true path? I find myself torn and confused by these difficulties, and I would welcome your advice.

  • Mo

    I’ve always thought there was a link – rich people are definitely more likely to be gay.