What Radical Gays Really Want – And Will Never, Ever Have

Since “gay marriage” is all the rage, especially since Biden and Obama decided to make public statements on the matter, it is virtually all I have been hearing about in my own online networks. Debates are raging, friendships are being tested, hostility is everywhere. One thing emerges out of this chaos more clearly than anything else: the gay agenda, which I define as a radical political program with the aim of legitimizing homosexuality in all spheres of human existence, is based on the hysterical repetition of outrageous lies. It is not unlike  the completely fraudulent “war on women”, a war that was supposedly declared when a number of Americans publicly resisted the idea that they ought to pay for other women’s birth control.

In the case of “gay marriage”, the big lie is that there is some desire on the part of conservatives and Christians in this country to actually deny some right, some liberty, some freedom to people who identify themselves and live as homosexuals. As abhorrent, disordered and immoral as I find the “gay lifestyle” to be, the truth is that – and here I speak for virtually every conservative Christian I know or have read – we really are not the least bit interested in micro-managing the sex-lives of our fellow citizens. We have absolutely no desire to have uniformed gendarmes kick in your bedroom doors to make sure no acts of sodomy are taking place in the middle of the night. The only thing more repugnant to me than such acts would be the prospect of becoming comfortable with the sort of routine invasions of personal privacy that would be required to ensure that no one was living out their life as a homosexual.

 

To be even more specific, to the gay couple we say: we do not care if you visit one another in the hospital. We do not care if you grant one another medical power of attorney. We do not care if you jointly own property. We do not care if you leave property for each other inherit when one of you dies. We do not care if you own a home together and live in it. We do not care if you get dressed up, rent a local hall, stage whatever sort of ceremony you like, and even refer to yourselves as “married.”

We may object, on different grounds, some secular, some religious, to your adopting children. After all, there are now other human beings in the equation- and there seems to be at least some kind of moral consensus across political lines that the interests of children do sometimes take precedence over the rights and privileges of adults. In any case, its something we can safely set aside for the moment.

To reiterate, this time specifically to the radical homosexual: on all the  issues that concern the consenting adults only, we don’t care. Of course we care in the abstract that you are leading lives of grave sin in open defiance of God, but then so do millions of “heterosexuals” who fornicate, commit adultery, use artificial contraception, sterilize themselves, and so on. Not every sin can or should be a matter for the state to concern itself with, and we are content to let God judge in these matters; but no sin, and this brings us closer to the main point here, can ever be called a virtue, no evil can ever be called a good, by any Christian with a conscience, or by any citizen who cares about the integrity of society.

You can live as you want, engage in whatever sort of contracts you like, conduct any sort of ceremonies you please. But there is one thing you cannot have, and it is the one thing you seek through this radical political agenda, these hysterical protests and complaints about Christians: our approval. It cannot possibly be about anything else, because it is really the only thing you are missing. You want to live in a world in which everyone regards what you do and how you live not only as normal, but as a positive good. And your attempts to legalize “gay marriage” are about this and this alone. It is not about “equal rights” that you already possess, it is not about the freedom to openly identify as gay, which you already have. It is about using the power of the state to force society to recognize your living arrangements and lifestyle choices as legitimate. It is about policing the thoughts and opinions of the American people. It is about sharing prestige with properly and truly married couples. It is about envy and resentment, and a deep, abiding hatred of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Let me be blunt: your disordered lifestyles are not equal to the traditional marriage or the traditional family, which have served as the foundation of civilization since its very beginnings. You do not deserve equal prestige, and nor, for that matter, do “straight” couples who actively choose not to procreate. And you have no right to such things. You have no right to have the state give you extra benefits, tax breaks, or anything of the sort – you have no right to have your romantic choices ratified by society. You don’t have the right to go through life without being heckled or bullied, as you heckle and bully the Christians you hate, as you mock with the most disgusting outrages imaginable all that we hold sacred.

In the face of your tyranny, your bullying, your mockery, your boundless hate, we will continue to persevere.

79 Responses to What Radical Gays Really Want – And Will Never, Ever Have

  • “You need to be more concise and make only the most sparing use of the first person pronouns.”

    This was a really most excellent post. I don’t think any change is necessary. But we all opinions….we all know the saying. PS, I did not agree with Bonchamps’ post on Ron Paul that he wrote a while back, but in this post he is “right on the money” as it were.

  • Pinky says:

    I like a lot of what you said here – pretty much every word of it. But near the end you said,

    “You don’t have the right to go through life without being heckled or bullied, as you heckle and bully the Christians you hate, as you mock with the most disgusting outrages imaginable all that we hold sacred.”

    I would hope for clarification on that. If you meant the following, then I’m fine with it:

    “You don’t have exemption from criticism, and you don’t have the right to mock Christianity with impunity.”

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour says:

    “We may object, on different grounds, some secular, some religious, to your adopting children…”

    I believe the issues of marriage, adoption and assisted reproduction cannot be so easily separated. After all, it is one thing to restrict adoption or assisted reproduction on the grounds of marital status, for marriage belongs to the public sphere of the state; it would be very different to do so, on the grounds of sexual orientation, which belongs to the private sphere of civil society.

  • Karl says:

    And you really do not think what is wanted will come about?

    That, we will just have to see; those of us who are not eliminated
    to bring what is coming, about.

    Karl

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Bonchamps: Took my breath away.
    Michael Paterson-Seymour “We may object, on different grounds, some secular, some religious, to your adopting children…”
    “I believe the issues of marriage, adoption and assisted reproduction cannot be so easily separated. After all, it is one thing to restrict adoption or assisted reproduction on the grounds of marital status, for marriage belongs to the public sphere of the state; it would be very different to do so, on the grounds of sexual orientation, which belongs to the private sphere of civil society.” Forgvie me, I am not sure about what you are saying. Once marriage equality is reached by the homosexual agenda, (here in Maryland January 2013) no holds barred. They will have legal right to adopt children, assisted reproduction, indoctrination of a captive audience of children in public schools and a captive population of citizens whose language and culture will be corrupted by calling the vice of lust, the virtue of love, a man who cannot be a wife, a wife, a husband who is a woman, and worst of all indoctrination of a captive audience of minor children in transgenderism; that the state will pay for sex change operations if you happen to be seduced into believeing that you do not like being who you have been created to be sexually. It will not end there either. The state will usurp the authority to outlaw any voice against its determined abuse of the human being: The Sacred Scripture, The Catholic Church, eventually to erase marriage itself but to deny the human being his soul, his freedom, his life. To codify a crime is a crime.

  • cthemfly25 says:

    Nicely stated but there is a broader agenda which I recognize is not the topic of this post. The homosexual political agenda turns our founding principles, and the corresponding relationship of individual to state, upside down. The laws regarding homosexual behavior with “marriage” being just the emotional touchstone issue will flow from legalistic rights asserted by the state for its chosen people—whether that be the homosexualist, Planned Parenthood, Green Energy cronies, et al. Thus, what is ultimately being sought is a “transformation” of the relationship between individual and state. The homosexualist will seek the criminalization of speech critical to their lifestyle, the radical extinguishment of any natural understanding of a human family, lifestyle indoctrination in all schools, not just public schools, the unbridled suppression of religious values, and the destruction of civil society and civic association including such organizations as the Boy Scouts. I recall a case a few years back where the State of NJ ruled that the Boy Scouts were in essence a hate group having violated NJ law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals—the Boy Scouts thought it wrong to allow homosexual troop leaders to cavort with young adolescents in pup tents on camping trips. That case was narrowly overturned by the US Supreme Court, 5-4.

    Through sloppy thinking, shallow emotionalism or plain apathy, most people don’t understand the very real struggle taking place. It’s not about “marriage” except to get the camel’s nose under the tent.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    To the radical gays: What do you offer to society in return? If you do not recognize your own soul how will you acknowledge my soul and the souls of others? If you dishonor your parents who brought you into the world, how do you demand honor from society? If you do not respect yourself, why do you expect respect from your neighbors?

  • salvage says:

    Yeah, I don’t think they want your approval and what you want is the rest of society to not only share your disapproval but codify it into law.

    Sadly, not going to happen, people don’t hate the gays like they used to and each generation even less.

    I know, I know, that makes your god very angry and it’s going to a make us all pay!

  • Bonchamps says:

    Salvage,

    Did you even read the post? In any case, disapproval of gay marriage is inherent in any successful civilization. How could a civilization ever approve of a lifestyle that contributes no new members, unless it was suicidal? And ours may well be suicidal, I don’t doubt that possibility either.

    I don’t hate people who struggle with same-sex attraction. That said, I think what it means to be “gay” in this society is 90% socially constructed, a sub-culture shaped by radical political activists who want you all to think and act in specific ways, and not biology.

  • Bonchamps,

    Salvage is another internet atheist troll who can’t stand it that there are some quite rational and logical people who for very well thought out reasons simply don’t subscribe to his screed of secularism and antipathy against religion. He / she / it goes from Catholic blog to Catholic blog spewing forth the same old tired idiocies over and over again. This individual has been infecting the Curt Jester’s blog of late and has now found him / her / itself here.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Pinky,

    What I meant was what I wrote. I don’t advocate bullying anyone, but it will happen sometimes, and society cannot be restructured by draconian laws and reeducation programs (which we already have in public schools) to make everyone love and accept and never ever bully gays, which is what they seem to be demanding in my view.

  • Phillip says:

    “…it would be very different to do so, on the grounds of sexual orientation, which belongs to the private sphere of civil society.”

    It would seem sexual orientation doesn’t only apply to the private sphere if there is the demand for extension of “rights” that belong properly to married couples. Marriage of course being the union of one man and one woman.

  • T. Shaw says:

    The horror. Salvage will receive whatever he merits, as will all of us, when he assumes room temperature. The horror.

    That is the reason we are called to pray for the conversion of sinners and America.

  • Scott F. says:

    Very well said.

    It’s like I tell my kids: When your friends are misbehaving – and they know they are misbehaving – they will want you to come along and do it too. Don’t do it. Don’t join them, don’t just go along.

  • dfp says:

    In the case of “gay marriage”, the big lie is that there is some desire on the part of conservatives and Christians in this country to actually deny some right, some liberty, some freedom to people who identify themselves and live as homosexuals.

    That would be easier to believe if Rick Santorum hadn’t specifically supported the Texas law struck down in 2002, and if the bishop of Denver hadn’t explicitly opposed the civil unions law in his home state. Obviously at least some self-described conservatives very much do want to deny gays those rights, and go on TV and talk about how important it is that those rights be denied.

  • Bonchamps says:

    From what I can tell, Santorum supported the rights of states to have or not have such laws. And so do I for that matter. But that’s a state’s rights issue. I can think that the state has a right to outlaw something without thinking that it would also be prudent for it to do so. Besides, anti-sodomy laws aren’t just about punishing people who want to live homosexual lifestyles; they can be used to add additional charges to people who prey upon children, rapists, etc. If anyone was suggesting the prosecution of consenting adults, I would be opposed to that and I’m fairly certain even Santorum would be.

    As for the “civil unions law”, no such law is required for people who want to live as homosexuals to do so. Anything such a law would grant could already be established through private contracts. What homosexuals want is the privilege of presumption, the prestige of marriage. They cannot have it. We will not give it.

  • Escalonn says:

    “To reiterate, this time specifically to the radical homosexual: on all the issues that concern the consenting adults only, we don’t care. Of course we care in the abstract that you are leading lives of grave sin in open defiance of God, but then so do millions of ‘heterosexuals’ who fornicate, commit adultery, use artificial contraception, sterilize themselves, and so on.”

    Reminded me of something else I read today.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/why-i-dont-care.html
    I don’t think that sort of indifference is right or healthy.

  • dfp says:

    The Texas GOP platform on which Rick Perry ran for governor includes in part: Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy. That is not about pedophiles or rapists: that’s about consenting adults. The Texas GOP does care. And if that’s not enough, you could visit the website of Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps and see if his views line up with the “I don’t care about consenting adults” perspective.

    At least some people really do care, and they make a big deal out of it.

    No matter who you are, some people on your side take your position over a cliff. Gay people who just want to have the usual legal protections have to deal with radical gay loons who damage churches and make them look bad. It’s not their fault, and we should be careful not to lump them all together, but those extremist gays do exist and just denying that they exist is not a valid strategy for homosexuals who don’t do such things. And in the same way, there are real anti-gay people who really do want to make homosexual activity in itself illegal. We may be of the “I don’t care just don’t expect my approval” line of thinking, but not everybody on “our side” takes that view, and just pretending they don’t exist isn’t a viable way for us to deal with them.

    The right way to deal with them is to condemn their extremist views and make clear we don’t share them. Pretending they don’t exist, or explaining away their statements to make it seem like they agree with us when they don’t, is an insult to those who listen and an offense against the truth. And it doesn’t work.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    Rick Santorum did not support the Texas statute. As Bonchamps explained, he opposed the Supreme Court decision striking down the statute because the Court’s decision was a violation of states’ right and the law itself did not run afoul (contrary to the majority’s assertion) of any constitutional provision. Since the case, there has hardly been any serious kind of effort to bring back sodomy laws. Sure there are isolated individuals who hold these views, but don’t pretend that they represent a significant subset of the Catholic or general population.

  • dfp says:

    The question isn’t whether they are significant or representative, it’s whether they exist at all, and whether it’s “a lie” that they exist, and whether gay people are just crazy to worry about them.

    They do exist, it is not “a lie” that they exist, and gay people may be overreacting to worry about them, but if so it generally doesn’t help a discussion to tell someone who’s overreacting that they are overreacting.

  • Noah says:

    I’ve known scores of LGBT people, most of whom were Catholics until they were chased out of the church by frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives. Begone with you mob-raising children of hell! These people need the church especially in their circumstances, and their souls are on your hands.

  • Mark Shea says:

    Fred Phelps is not a Christian. I don’t mean that in a No True Scotman sense. I mean Phelps denies being a Christian and calls himself a “Tachmonite” along with some gobbledegook about King David.

    He does, however, self-identify as a Democrat. :) (True dish!)

  • Nicole says:

    I truly wonder how human beings can be so closed and so sure that their belief their God is right and would support a barely tolerated stance on homosexuals. You are no different than radical Muslims in your narrow minded beliefs. Do you think God would disapprove of a child who is coming from a horrible life and is adopted into a family that is gay and will give this child a healthy and educated safe life? Would you prefer to have a child who could be adopted by a same sex couple (Dare I say GAY?!) stay with a mother/father in an environment that offers no hope, nothing but disparity, poverty and no future?
    Step off your throne, religious zealots such as yourself and those who follow your every disgusting word is what is wrong with America. Your extremist political and religious positions are horrifying and mind boggling. No God would ever approve of such thought…I pity you.

  • Art Deco says:

    And in the same way, there are real anti-gay people who really do want to make homosexual activity in itself illegal. We may be of the “I don’t care just don’t expect my approval” line of thinking, but not everybody on “our side” takes that view, and just pretending they don’t exist isn’t a viable way for us to deal with them. The right way to deal with them is to condemn their extremist views and make clear we don’t share them.

    In New York, consensual sodomy was a class b misdemeanor. It was seldom prosecuted for obvious reasons and the code provision was arbitrarily annulled by the state court of appeals in 1980. All throughout my father’s life, consensual sodomy was unlawful in New York. I cannot look at all the facets of the world he and his contemporaries built and conclude it was less just and less civilized than the one in which we live.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Noah & Nicole:

    Noah,

    “I’ve known scores of LGBT people, most of whom were Catholics until they were chased out of the church by frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives. Begone with you mob-raising children of hell! These people need the church especially in their circumstances, and their souls are on your hands.”

    I don’t consider people who believe that they can be Catholic while living in open defiance of Church teaching to be Catholics at all. For such people to no longer identify as Catholic is no loss. It is a gain for us. They have already bartered their souls away.

    If someone with same-sex attraction is truly struggling and told that they are evil simply because they have the attraction, this is wrong. I oppose this, and virtually everyone I know opposes this. I don’t know a man or woman in the Church who doesn’t struggle daily with some terrible temptation. The Church exists for sinners. It is a Church comprised of sinners. Even the saints are sinners.

    When they cross the line to struggling with an attraction to acting out on it and assuming that “God is fine with it” (a false assumption), then good riddance. We don’t need such people. We don’t want them. They corrupt and pollute the body with the obstinacy and perversion. And I say the same about those who openly condone and promote the use of artificial contraception, abortion, fornication, divorce – all of it. By taking such positions they make it clear that it is THEY who reject US, and not vice-versa. THEY REJECT US.

    Nicole,

    “I truly wonder how human beings can be so closed and so sure that their belief their God is right and would support a barely tolerated stance on homosexuals. ”

    How can supporting individual property rights possibly be “barely tolerated”? I don’t “barely” tolerate people with same-sex attraction; I tolerate them, period. In fact, I consider it none of my business what a person’s sexual temptations are.

    You’re the narrow-minded one, though, because you are incapable of seeing about how this isn’t about God or my belief in God. It is about resisting the attempts of a radical political movement to impose its views and beliefs on me and everyone else. They can already DO anything they want. What they now want is not the freedom to DO things, but the power to force me to approve of what they do.

    They will never have it!

    ” Do you think God would disapprove of a child who is coming from a horrible life and is adopted into a family that is gay and will give this child a healthy and educated safe life?”

    There are no families that are gay. Families have a mother and a father. Two people shacking up are not a family. And I don’t think it is what is best for any child, because it is simply a fact that gay relationships are unstable and short-lived, and that children turn out best psychologically and emotionally when raised by a MAN AND A WOMAN. When your entire life, your entire identity, is wrapped up in your sexual preferences, how could it be otherwise? Families are about more than sex and sexual preference.

    If gays want children, they can marry people of the opposite sex, conceive them, and have real families. They may not enjoy their sex lives, but all people eventually have to choose between sexual freedom and familial responsibilities. They aren’t biologically incapable of reproduction. It is a CHOICE, and society does NOT have to honor their choice to live in sterile relationships. It isn’t a right, and it isn’t even a privilege. It’s an absurdity.

    “Would you prefer to have a child who could be adopted by a same sex couple (Dare I say GAY?!) stay with a mother/father in an environment that offers no hope, nothing but disparity, poverty and no future?”

    I’m not sure what a state of “disparity” would be, but hey, I’m just an uneducated redneck Buy-Bull Be-Leavin’ hillbilly, so what do I know about language and meanings of words?

    In any case, yes, I would in fact prefer that a child be adopted by a man and woman, married and committed to one another, who were of lesser means (generally poor people can’t afford to adopt) than a wealthy pair of homosexuals, for reasons already mentioned. There’s nothing wrong with the relative poverty of the United States. If they’re living at the level of Mexican day-laborers in the United States they’re living better than well over half of the world’s inhabitants.

    “Step off your throne, religious zealots such as yourself and those who follow your every disgusting word is what is wrong with America.”

    I know you hate freedom of speech, hate the Constitution, hate everything this country stands for. But we’re not going anywhere. You’ll have to come kill me if you want me to be quiet.

    “Your extremist political and religious positions are horrifying and mind boggling. No God would ever approve of such thought…I pity you.”

    MY extremist positions? For thousands of years societies have banned homosexuality and stigmatized it, have rejected it as a social poison that leads to the collapse of civilizations. MY positions are nothing but the continuity of thousands of years of social, political and religious wisdom, without which we would have never even been able to have a civilization capable of even debating such questions in the first place. It is YOUR positions that are extreme, that want to turn over and uproot every social institution so that people can enjoy the mindless and reckless pursuit of personal pleasure. YOU are the extremist. YOU are the radical. YOUR views are destroying this country.

  • Nicole says:

    First I must address your claim that I hate freedom of speech, the Constitution and everything this country stands for. Not quite sure where you got that but I am the farthest from that, clearly we are engaging in freedom of speech in this forum are we not?

    Don’t worry I don’t want to kill you for you to be quiet, see I think you just missed one of our major freedoms and liberties our country was founded on, I don’t think I am the one who is extreme here.

    Anyway, yes, my whole goal here is to uproot every social institution, for only personal pleasure. I am actually a moderate not an extremist in any aspect by the normal social order. I just don’t keep my beliefs rooted in thousand year old dogma, it doesn’t apply to modern day society. If society kept the same mindset from thousands of years back I would have to say that evolution of man would never have occurred. I, unlike you am not threatened by your beliefs, I read them and move on. At the end of the day you won’t ruin my world.

    Ok so this is stated why? I’m not sure what a state of “disparity” would be, but hey, I’m just an uneducated redneck Buy-Bull Be-Leavin’ hillbilly, so what do I know about language and meanings of words? Feeling a bit insecure?

    In any case, yes, I would in fact prefer that a child be adopted by a man and woman, married and committed to one another, who were of lesser means (generally poor people can’t afford to adopt) than a wealthy pair of homosexuals, for reasons already mentioned. There’s nothing wrong with the relative poverty of the United States. If they’re living at the level of Mexican day-laborers in the United States they’re living better than well over half of the world’s inhabitants.

    I never stated the means of gay or straight, I am asking you if there was a child born into a drug filled violent male and female household wouldn’t you rather have that child be adopted by a gay couple if there was no one else to help the baby? Or perhaps your belief in your thousand year old dogma would prevent that?

    I am happy to hear you are such a man of the world and know what it is like to live as a Mexican day laborer.. I am sure you have traveled extensively in the world and seen so much even experienced poverty?
    |
    To sum it up we agree to disagree, our views yours nor mine are not going to destroy our society, and if you still believe that then I am sorry you are going to have alot of stress to deal with for the remainder of your life.

    Thanks for the interesting debate.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Nicole,

    “Not quite sure where you got that but I am the farthest from that”

    I get it from the fact that you think that me and people who think like me are the problem with America, and from the fact gay rights radicals have a long record of opposing free speech. When you talk like them, I group you with them.

    “Don’t worry I don’t want to kill you for you to be quiet, see I think you just missed one of our major freedoms and liberties our country was founded on, I don’t think I am the one who is extreme here.”

    No one is denying anyone freedom or liberty. I didn’t miss anything. I’m free to denounce homosexual behavior, and they’re free to enter into whatever contracts they like. But they are not “free” to force the rest of us into accepting their way of life as normal, good, or equal with the traditional family. That’s what’s at stake here. NOT their freedom, which they already have and which no one wants to take away.

    “Anyway, yes, my whole goal here is to uproot every social institution, for only personal pleasure.”

    If you support “gay marriage”, that is EXACTLY your goal, whether you realize it or not. That’s what you support.

    ” I just don’t keep my beliefs rooted in thousand year old dogma, it doesn’t apply to modern day society.”

    First of all, our Church is two thousand years old, and so are its teachings. Secondly, there are some truths that ALWAYS apply to ANY society. One of the Ten Commandments is “thou shalt not murder.” Do you believe that just because that commandment was given thousands of years ago that it is no longer good today? Of course not. In no society can we have people simply going around murdering one another. Some laws ARE timeless. Others can be changed. Wisdom consists of knowing the difference, and charity consists of actually caring about knowing the difference.

    Hysterical supporters of “gay marriage” are totally lacking in both.

    “If society kept the same mindset from thousands of years back I would have to say that evolution of man would never have occurred. ”

    If society changed as often as people like you would like to change everything, there would be no society at all. What you call “evolution” I call degeneracy.

    ” I, unlike you am not threatened by your beliefs, I read them and move on.”

    Do you? We’ll see.

    “Feeling a bit insecure?”

    It’s called sarcasm.

    “I never stated the means of gay or straight,”

    Yes you did. You mentioned poverty.

    “I am asking you if there was a child born into a drug filled violent male and female household wouldn’t you rather have that child be adopted by a gay couple if there was no one else to help the baby?”

    No. I’d rather the child be adopted by a truly married couple that couldn’t have children of their own. There are many of them on waiting lists already. And if such couples were not available, I would still say no. People can quit drugs.

    “Or perhaps your belief in your thousand year old dogma would prevent that?”

    My belief in the social harm caused by the legitimization of the homosexual lifestyle would prevent that.

    “I am happy to hear you are such a man of the world and know what it is like to live as a Mexican day laborer.. ”

    It’s just a fact that the poorest Americans are still wealthier than most of the rest of the world. You don’t have to go anywhere to know that. It’s the information age, my dear!

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour says:

    Dfp makes a valid point

    It is no coincidence that the three offences of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft were abolished (without a debate) by a single resolution of the National Assembly, on 25 September 1791. Even the Catholic members recognised the wisdom of the Roman maxim “deorum injuria diid curae” – Offences against the gods are the gods’ business.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour says:

    On adoption by same-sex couples, the eminent psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Pierre Lévy-Soussan, an adviser to the French government has this to say: “It is in the child’s best interests to join a nuclear family that is already socially accepted so that he or she does not have to take on the additional task, following a history of abandonment, of adapting to a family that is, for whatever reason, ‘non-standard’.” He believes that in order to be successful, adoption must lead to a psychological filiation that “allows for a nexus of the three elements that are basic to any society: the biological, the social and the subjective dimensions specific to human beings. The psychological strength of this construction exceeds the purely biological connection of filiation and provides it with security. The security and ‘truth’ of this filiation are based on childbirth, on a potential or actual procreative relationship between a man and a woman, allowing the fictional filiation through the encounter with the other sex, alive and of the same generation. The fictional filiation can then be experienced as true, consistent and reasonable.” The difference in sex between the two members of the parental couple thus seems to him indispensable if the adoption “graft” is to take.

    He points out that the number of such children who have undergone analysis is very small. He believes surveys that appear to indicate the contrary should be viewed with caution, contradicting, as they do, nearly a century of psychoanalytical theory, grounded in clinical case-studies, often extending over years and even decades.

    The lack of objectivity in this area is blatant. The studies in question deal, rather, with children born of a heterosexual relationship and raised by a biological parent and his or her companion – a situation that is absolutely not comparable with the establishment of a dual same-sex filiation for a child unconnected with the couple.

  • Nicole says:

    By the way I know “your” church but that is not the only church out there and 2K years is surpassed by other religions. I don’t follow dogma verbatim, do you read the Bible and accept it as verbatim? I believe that is called Born Again Christian, perhaps you don’t like their dogma? Just curious. Your religion is one of many don’t think it is the one and only. I proudly, per your definition claim to be radical as I support gay rights in every way and will uproot society in every way. You see your extreme belief in religion is exactly what has destroyed countries, the crusades might ring a bell. I believe in the human good and the human good believes in treating people with respect and equality, not killing, nor judging and the list goes on.

    If you support “gay marriage”, that is EXACTLY your goal, whether you realize it or not. That’s what you support. Then I support it full on, and God help you. LOL

    First of all, our Church is two thousand years old, and so are its teachings.

    Not really sure why the fact your church being 2K years old is of essence there are so many other religions just as old if not older than “yours”.

    Secondly, there are some truths that ALWAYS apply to ANY society. One of the Ten Commandments is “thou shalt not murder.” Do you believe that just because that commandment was given thousands of years ago that it is no longer good today?

    Well let’s not be ridiculous and secondly I don’t need an ancient dogma to tell my being, my gut that murder is wrong. I don’t need church dogma for that. Perhaps you should explore Buddhism to enlighten and lighten your ‘self’ and become in touch with letting go.
    I don’t need a Catholic dogma or any religion to tell me what is right and wrong and that committing murder is wrong or stealing is wrong. As a human being most people know this as a basic concept.
    Your religious beliefs are what they are, Let me tell you our society has to be more concerned with terrorist threats than gay men and woman having marriage rights and adopting.

    Let me tell you I can guarantee you that the gay unions, etc. will not hurt you but your ignorance will.

  • I will leave responding to the substance of Nicole’s latest comment to Bonchamps, as he ably responded to her last comment. I would merely note to Nicole that among other things we support at this blog is the use of proper punctuation in comments, an abhorrence of run on sentences in comments and a strong aversion to stream of consciousness writing in comments. Simple declarative sentences are your friends, and please make use of them.

  • Bonchamps says:

    Nicole,

    You are a deeply confused woman. I pity you.

    “By the way I know “your” church but that is not the only church out there”

    Never said it was.

    “and 2K years is surpassed by other religions.”

    Who cares? I was correcting your inaccurate statement about our dogmas being “a thousand years old”, that’s all.

    “I don’t follow dogma verbatim, do you read the Bible and accept it as verbatim?”

    If you don’t follow dogmas “verbatim”, then you don’t follow dogmas at all – or you don’t even know what a dogma is. My money is on the latter. It’s a buzzword you throw around without the slightest clue as to what it means.

    I accept what Scripture says, but it is for the Church to properly interpret Scripture.

    “I believe that is called Born Again Christian, perhaps you don’t like their dogma? Just curious.”

    Evangelicals do not have dogmas. We’re Catholics here. Catholics. We have the dogmas. Sigh…

    “Your religion is one of many don’t think it is the one and only.”

    Who said it was? Are you nuts or what? You’re more interested in religion than I am. You’re obsessed with it. My opposition to gay marriage is mostly secular!

    ” I proudly, per your definition claim to be radical as I support gay rights in every way and will uproot society in every way.”

    Then we’re enemies, and I’ll see you on the other side of the barricades.

    “. You see your extreme belief in religion is exactly what has destroyed countries, the crusades might ring a bell. ”

    The Crusades were just wars, defensive wars against the aggression of the Islamic Turks. I’d eat my shoes with ketchup and mustard if you could demonstrate the slightest bit of insightful, contextual knowledge of the series of wars known as the Crusades that took place over several hundred years. “Extreme belief in religion” is what saved the West from Islamic takeover, the crazy notion that something is worth fighting for and defending. I know, that’s insane, right?

    “Well let’s not be ridiculous”

    The idea that you can discard ideas because they are old, which is what you advocated, is what is ridiculous. When I see idiocy, I expose the idiocy. You can stop it any time you like.

    ” I don’t need an ancient dogma to tell my being, my gut that murder is wrong. I don’t need church dogma for that.”

    It’s totally not the point. I never made any such claim. I’m simply pointing out that just because an idea is old, doesn’t mean we need to “move beyond it” or that, as you said, “it doesn’t apply to today.” Some old ideas DO apply today. That’s the point, you silly woman.

    “Let me tell you our society has to be more concerned with terrorist threats than gay men and woman having marriage rights and adopting.”

    A society that allows “gay marriage” will be destroyed from within long before terrorists or foreign armies destroy it from without.

  • T. Shaw says:

    Nicole et al,

    Thank God we have people like you!

    I could be dead by now.

    I have to travel on business, tomorrow. I will again get the pat-down – metal detectors . . . two titanium knees . . . They’ll turn America into one big concentration camp to save me.

    We see a number of guest, gay commentators. Woo-hoo! It’s so nice to hav special people make the effort to straighten out us [fill in the blank].

    I suggest you don’t waste 600 words.

    My lips get tired.

    Come right out in and say it:

    “I create the ‘rules’ and if you don’t agree, you are an ignorant BIGOT.”

  • Phillip says:

    “The lack of objectivity in this area is blatant. The studies in question deal, rather, with children born of a heterosexual relationship and raised by a biological parent and his or her companion – a situation that is absolutely not comparable with the establishment of a dual same-sex filiation for a child unconnected with the couple.”

    I would say the lack of objectivity is clearly the case in same-sex parenting studies. Most studies have been self-report questionnaires. Most of the respondents are of higher socio-economic status (SES). The studies do not control for SES, educational level etc. The response rates are typically low (less than 50%.) The “parents” are also allowed to report how well the child is doing rather that studies being performed. As a result, the data is as reliable as the data on single moms from the 70′s and 80′s. That is, not very reliable.

    As we have learned through the 90′s and the new millenium, single-parent homes are typically harmful to child development, we are now beginning to learn that same-sex parenting is harmful. First, such “couples” have higher rates of mental illness themselves. This, however, as some may argue, is not the psychological result of “not being accepted.” Such higher rates are found among homosexuals in Sweden where there has been plenty of acceptance for decades. Studies are also beginning to show higher rates of anxiety and other “externalizing behaviors” in children in same-sex households. Add to this higher rates of self-identifiying as gay (so much for being born that way) as well as higher rates of early sexual experimentation and early contraception use.

    This combined with the now well-developed data that shows there are, non-culturally influenced, differences between men and women (surprise to none except the ideological left) and that there are distinct parenting differences between men and women. Then there are the distinct responses of infants and children to mothers and fathers who, through their distinct expressions of human parenting, contribute to the raising of children.

    The bottom line, parenting, like marriage, is for one man and one woman.

  • Mary says:

    What you had to say is exactly what I have thinking and articulating in com boxes; only you said it much better! Thank you for saying it. It needed to be said!

  • Art Deco says:

    They do exist, it is not “a lie” that they exist, and gay people may be overreacting to worry about them, but if so it generally doesn’t help a discussion to tell someone who’s overreacting that they are overreacting.

    My object in explaining to someone that their risk assessments are cockeyed wpuld be to tell them the truth. I could not care less if it does not ‘help the discussion’ (whatever that may mean).

    Yeah, I don’t think they want your approval and what you want is the rest of society to not only share your disapproval but codify it into law. Sadly, not going to happen, people don’t hate the gays like they used to and each generation even less.

    Salvage, there have over the last 35 years or so been two salient amendments to legal codes under discussion:

    1. Amendments to labor law, commercial law, education law, and landlord-tenant law that would compel employers, proprietors, schools, and landlords to enter into contracts and exchanges that they might wish to exercise the discretion to avoid. Please note who is being coerced and who is not.

    2. Amendments to the practice of welfare departments in evaluating households for child placements. All such practices incorporate a set of value judgments the implication of which are to see households occupying different strata of quality. Someone is always the subject of ‘disapproval’ in these evaluations. It is just a question of whom.

    3. Amendments to matrimonial law which provide legal recognition to certain sort of affiliations previously ignored in law and generate legal obligations where none existed before. Whether someone ‘hates’ homosexuals is beside the point; whether one disapproves of homosexuality is not but it is not necessary to the discussion. Friendships between men are seldom if ever encased in any sort of formal instrument or institution and the sort of official or incorporated fraternities that did exist sixty years ago (men’s clubs, men’s colleges, men’s sport teams, the military) have suffered escalating legal and social obstacles to their operation in that time.

    I’ve known scores of LGBT people, most of whom were Catholics until they were chased out of the church by frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives. Begone with you mob-raising children of hell! These people need the church especially in their circumstances, and their souls are on your hands.

    Your circle of friends has an interesting composition, Noah, most particularly since so many of them seem to have been ensconced in congregations where people are vociferous and opinionated well beyond the norm you see in any social setting. (Cannot help but recall in contemplating this that it is not hard to find people who have a neuralgic response to any sort of criticism, stated or implied).

    I truly wonder how human beings can be so closed and so sure that their belief

    Well, Nicole, reading you, and reading ‘salvage’, and reading ‘dfp’, and reading ‘Noah’, I might just ask the same question.

  • Ioannes says:

    The Roman Empire fell after its citizens lost their sense of self-sacrifice, virtue and duty (in family and the public sphere). The enemies were the same, but Romans on the other hand were but a mere shadow of themselves.

    Thank God for practicing Catholics and others who defend these timeless values. It will be what saves this beautiful and grand country from itself.

  • Jeanne Rohl says:

    Fantastic article! Going to make copies for everyone I know. As simplistic as this may seem to the “educated” among us I say, “If God would have wanted Adam and Adam, or Eve and Eve that’s what He would have done. There would be no proliferation of humanity if this was the norm from the Garden of Eden on.” Oh wait, or He could have made some way for Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve to procreate! I guess God wasn’t smart enough for that though.

  • Valentin says:

    Nicole considering that the Catholic Church is the only church founded by the apostles and the Son of God as well as the apostles we certainly have a lot more validity than say the Hindus or Baptists. We are Jews who accept Christ as the Son of God.

  • Valentin says:

    I think there is a problem with acting gay simply because when gay people get bullied they often end up committing suicide in comparison with kids who get bullied and don’t commit suicide because they are not gay.

  • Dale Price says:

    I think there is a problem with acting gay simply because when gay people get bullied they often end up committing suicide in comparison with kids who get bullied and don’t commit suicide because they are not gay.

    A chaste Catholic with SSA explained to me that the difference is there is no comparable support system for kids with SSA. Whereas a kid bullied for, say, being Muslim or Hispanic will have an extended family and friend network to fall back on.

  • Art Deco says:

    I think there is a problem with acting gay simply because when gay people get bullied they often end up committing suicide in comparison with kids who get bullied and don’t commit suicide because they are not gay.

    Suicide is a rare outcome of adolescent problems.

    A chaste Catholic with SSA explained to me that the difference is there is no comparable support system for kids with SSA. Whereas a kid bullied for, say, being Muslim or Hispanic will have an extended family and friend network to fall back on.

    This is Courage Man, no? He is a contemporary of ours. The first I ever heard of explicit homosexuality in a secondary school setting was around about 1986 and it concerned a program erected by the New York City Board of Education to allow identified homosexuals to attend a high overhead magnet school instead of their district high schools. The first time I ever met a high school student who admitted his homosexuality and was known as such was in 1994. I think I am on fairly firm ground in suggesting that latent homosexuals knocked about in high school ca. 1982 were suffering from a deficit of masculine je-ne-sais-quoi, not from public knowledge of their sexual disorders. Normalization of sodomy does not address this problem except insofar as it travels through the pathway of dispensing with masculinity as something to be valued and honed. There are costs to following such a path…

    I might also point out that people are commonly not proximate to their extended families and their immediate families often do not buttress their coping skills. You and Mr. Leonardi have written handsome tributes to your fathers. That is not a hand everyone gets dealt. That applies to people with problems that have no name (who are much more common than latent homosexuals).

  • Valentin says:

    I highly doubt that the SSA act makes much of a difference because for a long time as a young kid I don’t think I was in the system because I was an immigrant from Switzerland and only my nuclear family moved to the US but whenever I was bullied I didn’t become suicidal.

  • Valentin says:

    Bon Champs children who are raised by lesbians tend to act like bastards because did not receive any proper fatherly love to teach them that they have to act right and I have no idea what children raised by two homosexual men end up like. As far as your prejudice against hillbillies goes I would point out that there is a difference between Hillbillies and Rednecks.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    “I never stated the means of gay or straight, I am asking you if there was a child born into a drug filled violent male and female household wouldn’t you rather have that child be adopted by a gay couple if there was no one else to help the baby? Or perhaps your belief in your thousand year old dogma would prevent that?”
    With billions of people upon the face of the earth, that scenario is rather telling. The homosexual agenda is to be the only one left to adopt the child. Jesus Christ is perfect CHARITY, and the Catholic Church has practiced Jesus’ perfect CHARITY for over two thousand years. I am sure one of Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity will happily take the child. Why don’t you join the Missionaries of Charity and get back to me when you return.

  • Jeffrey Sharp says:

    Very well written and, a pointedly honest critique. There is one thing almost never recognized nor, discussed: Personality Disorders. Having worked around criminals for nearly 30 years, one becomes somewhat familiar with dysfunctional behaviors. The hysterical, outragous & confrontational manner of their approach is an emotional level attempt to get attention. Most of these people have more than a single disorder , none of which, have been addressed. In California, a pending law (SB 1170) is another attempt to stop any/all therapy for people seeking to change their behaviors. In other words, the radical homosexuals refuse to allow people to leave their prison of disordered “sexuality” and lead normal, productive lives. Tyranny at its best.

  • Luke says:

    It’s easy to imagine that gay people are part of a vast conspiracy to tear apart the happy, nuclear family lives of Catholics and good, hard working Americans when you believe you’re looking at the “big picture.” I promise you, though, that just as you say gay people will never, ever have your approval, that the gay community doesn’t really want (or need) it.

    As a 26 year old Catholic, I can think of only a small fraction of my friends who don’t know and love their gay friends and support what they would have no problem calling “equality.” While I don’t know much anything about the author of this article, I do know that these kinds of fatalistic, dramatic views are on their way out the door for good.

    And truly–thank God for that.

  • Bonchamps says:

    “It’s easy to imagine that gay people are part of a vast conspiracy to tear apart the happy, nuclear family lives of Catholics and good, hard working Americans when you believe you’re looking at the “big picture.””

    Vast conspiracy? And you call me “dramatic.” Who said anything about a conspiracy? When radical gay activists (not “gays” in general) announce their hatred for Christianity, I don’t need to infer a conspiracy. I just have to believe them, and observe their actions.

    ” I promise you, though, that just as you say gay people will never, ever have your approval, that the gay community doesn’t really want (or need) it.”

    Of course they do. Like I said, it is the only thing they don’t have. There is no freedom, no right, that they do not enjoy. They want us to approve of their lifestyles and moral choices. They want to force us to think of and refer to their perverse unions as “marriages.” That’s not about their freedom – it is about ours.

    “As a 26 year old Catholic, I can think of only a small fraction of my friends who don’t know and love their gay friends and support what they would have no problem calling “equality.” ”

    If they support “gay marriage”, they are not Catholics. If you support “gay marriage”, you are not a Catholic.

    “While I don’t know much anything about the author of this article, I do know that these kinds of fatalistic, dramatic views are on their way out the door for good.

    And truly–thank God for that.”

    We aren’t going anywhere.

    And truly, you can blame God for that.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour says:

    For professional reasons, I have to keep abreast of French law on the subject, where the two highest courts have decisively rejected SSM on equality grounds, for reasons, I believe, are equally applicable to Anglo-American law

    There the debate has focused on the public interest in marriage. After all, couples, regardless of sex have the options of unregulated cohabitation, which, nevertheless, has legal consequences, of domestic partnerships (certificat de concubinage notoire), or of civil solidarity pacts (pacte civil de solidarité) under the Law of 15 November 1999. So, what sets marriage apart? What public purpose does it serve?

    The obvious answer is found in the rule, unique to marriage, that “the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father.” This is the rule that, in 2005, the French Senate declared, “cannot be questioned without losing for this institution [civil marriage] its meaning and value.”

    The argument, formulated by the jurists and adopted by the courts, is, thus, (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.

    It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that these views are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into the interpretation of the Code. If ever there was an argument based on clear “public reasons,” surely, this is it.

  • Art Deco says:

    If they support “gay marriage”, they are not Catholics.

    I would assume Luke’s baptism remains valid.

    As a 26 year old Catholic,

    You should be taking instruction from Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium, not the surrounding kultursmog.

    I can think of only a small fraction of my friends who don’t know and love their gay friends and support what they would have no problem calling “equality.”

    So?

  • keddaw says:

    “How could a civilization ever approve of a lifestyle that contributes no new members, unless it was suicidal? And ours may well be suicidal, I don’t doubt that possibility either. “

    A great irony in the week where conservatives are getting their panties in a bunch over the fact that there were more minorities born than whites… Well, it makes me laugh anyway.

  • Art Deco says:

    A great irony in the week where conservatives are getting their panties in a bunch over the fact that there were more minorities born than whites… Well, it makes me laugh anyway.

    Who? Where? And why is that relevant to this discussion?

  • Fr. Larry says:

    This is an excellent article which will be linked to from my own website http://www.wherethereispeter.blogspot.com. But, the one point of disagreement I have with his excellent article is the statement, “You don’t have the right to go through life without being heckled or bullied,…” for the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states in #2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
    Therefore, as a Catholic I would have to say that they DO have a right to go through life without being bullied.

  • flanoggin says:

    NO—I do not respect your religious beliefs. I do respect your right to have them. I do respect your right to express them. I respect you so long as you respect me. I do not respect your “right” to call me evil. I do not respect your “Right” to tell me I am going to hell. I do not respect your “right” to impose YOUR beliefs on me. I do not respect ignorance, brainwashing, cults, hatred, bigotry, misogyny, sexism or tyranny. I do not respect your religion. And I do not have to.

  • Bonchamps says:

    This is the kind of inchoate hysteria I am talking about. If you respect my right to free speech, you respect my right to express the fact that your BEHAVIOR is evil (I don’t think any person is inherently evil). If you DON’T respect my right to express my beliefs, then you DON’T respect freedom at all!

    No one is imposing anything on you, psycho. You can live whatever kind of life you want. Get as many diseases as you like! I don’t want your respect, because YOU are an ignorant, narrow-minded, hate-filled little troll. But I WILL resist your deranged efforts to impose YOUR sick view of marriage on the rest of us through the power of the state.

  • Romans 14:11:

    “As I live, says the Lord,
    Every knee shall bow to Me,
    And every tongue shall confess to God.”

    You got NO choice, Flanoggin. None. Zero. Zip point squat. Your respect is not required. But you will bend your knee. You will confess with your tongue that Jesus is Lord. We all will, either of our own volition now or on the Great and Terrible Day when it’s too late.

  • George Huber says:

    Take it from this Evangelical Protestant, this is the most cogent explanation I have seen of the true motivation behind the “gay marriage” movement. Also, I clicked on the link to the homosexual website in the article and find their hypocrisy as disgusting as there ugly hostility toward Christ. If Christians oppose homosexual marriage, we are haters and bigots. Never mind our motivations. But they can denigrate and ridicule our Lord and everything we hold holy and never bat an eyelash at their own hypocrisy. As a supporter of the Manhattan Declaration, practicing Catholics and Evangelicals need to work together to defend our country and our values. (See manhattandeclaration.org)

  • Bonchamps says:

    Fr. Larry,

    I think we agree in substance. I’d certainly say that we have a moral obligation not to bully people. At the same time, I don’t think the state exists to protect people from being made fun of or teased. Part of the radical gay strategy as of late has been to merge with the “anti-bullying” movement, because they see in it a new tool of coercion and thought-control. Anything that can be classified as “bullying” can become the target of restrictive legislation; the Church’s teaching on homosexuality – that it is disordered and immoral – is classified as “bullying” by the radical gay movement. The aim is to use anti-bullying laws to silence the Church. We’ve seen this happening in other countries, such as Canada.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .