U.S. Bishops on Why Homosexual "Marriage" Is a Contradiction

Denying Status to Same-Sex Unions Seen as Requirement of Justice

WASHINGTON, D.C., DEC. 12, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Denying marriage to homosexual couples does not demonstrate unjust discrimination or lack of respect, because marriages and same-sex unions are essentially different realities, says the U.S. bishops' conference.

"To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons," the bishops wrote in their statement, which they overwhelmingly approved at their meeting last month.

"Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons," the statement said.

The statement comes at a time of serious debate over the definition of marriage in the United States. A Massachusetts court recently ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Vermont allows civil unions between homosexuals, and laws in California and Hawaii extend some economic benefits to same-sex couples.

The bishops stressed that marriages and same-sex unions are fundamentally different.

"For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage," they said. "It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union."

"Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage," they said.

Some proponents of same-sex unions want equal rights for homosexual couples under law. But the bishops rejected redefining marriage to provide legal benefits for homosexual persons.

"The legal recognition of marriage, including the benefits associated with it, is not only about personal commitment, but also about the social commitment that husband and wife make to the well-being of society," they said. "It would be wrong to redefine marriage for the sake of providing benefits to those who cannot rightfully enter into marriage."

The bishops pointed out that some benefits sought by persons in homosexual unions could already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example, individuals can agree to own property jointly with another, and they can generally designate anyone they choose to be a beneficiary of their will or to make health care decisions in case they become incompetent.

To explain the state's responsibility in supporting marriage between a man and a woman, the bishops wrote, "Across times, cultures and very different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family. The family, in turn, is the basic unit of society. Thus, marriage is a personal relationship with public significance."

"The state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage," they said. "Therefore, it can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others. Ultimately, the stability and flourishing of society is dependent on the stability and flourishing of healthy family life."

The bishops concluded that the state or the Church could not redefine marriage, as it was given by God.

"Marriage is a basic human and social institution," they wrote. "Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage."

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003

Answers

Actually the Pope was opposed tot h wsr on Iraq. And that is nmot the point og this thread.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 13, 2003.

So you can call it something different. Homosexuals should still be able to go to the couthouse and get married. The should be entitled to the same civil benefits as heterosexuals.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

>The should be entitled to the same civil benefits as heterosexuals.

This means that people who participate in sinful behavior are demanding my money to help them out soley because they demand my money and the only distinction they can give me is that they participate in sinful activity. Sorry, it is my money and the answer is no.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Anti:
What if the pair goes to the courthouse and obtains a paper? It can't make them spouses. It won't MARRY them. Unless you believe you can go to a shoestore and pick a pair of shoes to wear both left-foots.

Oh, I'm sure if you pay the price they demand for two left shoes, you can take them home. But you'll never wear them. (Lol!)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2003.

AntiBush never seems to make a good case for anyhting.

He ignroes the case agsint Homosexual marriage by tryign to say that they shoudl have the same rights as heterosexuals. He ignores that Psycology and medicine repeatedly show the dangers of Homoseuxality. He ignroes the fac tthat society as a whole operates on strict fuidelines, that if broached can cause social confusion, that could distabilise the whole mess. He ignores the fac tthAT mARRIAGE IS SOMETHIGN SACRED. aND HE IGNROES THE IMMORALITY OF HTE DEED TO FORCE HIS VEIWS ON US, WHEN HE DOESNT EVEN PAYG TAXES LIKE WE DO.

He has no intellegent reason for Homosexuals to be married, only the same old " They shoudlbe allowed anythign thet want." line, which is ridiculous.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 13, 2003.

Band-aids like the US bishops response to sodomite marriage will not stem the tide of immorality. What has happened to catholic intellectuals? I am disgusted by the number of catholic sites that repeat the lies of secularists. The history that is taught in american schools is secularist propaganda. Few catholics challenge the claims made by secularist historians regarding the so called enlightenment, a period which began the west's descent into spiritual darkness. Too many catholics have made peace with the efforts of the secular left to undermine the sacraments of the church.

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Mr. Fernandes:
It appears you think you are a Catholic ''intellectual''. I read your angry post here (and others before) with which you look down your cyber-nose at the words of our bishops even though they're publicly defending God's authority over mere civil law. Why don't you find them intellectual enough? Have you better things to say for the Catholic Church about a homosexual's rights? Share your intellectual spirituality with your Catholic brethren.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2003.

I am not looking down at the statement of the US bishops. I am merely saying they are fighting a lost cause.

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Strange. I thought you were asking about their intellectual capacities. Let's not be so pessimistic anyway. There's no ''losing'' cause. This is the world. No one will change the world.

Souls come to Christ in increments of one. When Gamaliel and Saul (who became Saint Paul) were converted, it was just one soul. No one ever converted all the Pharisees. Nor all the Jews.

Even we Catholics may be in sin throughout a lifetime. In the soul's last hour he/she may repent. Even a sinner like the sodomite may find grace and repent before it's too late.

The Church has her obligation to call every soul to repentence. In times like this, her declaration against same-sex marriage is exactly what is called for. Then the individual has no excuse for not repenting. But the world will continue its ways.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2003.

Bill,

No one said you have to pay anything. When I talk about benefits for married couples, I mean tax deductions and stuff. Since when do we hand out money to married couples? How will it cost YOU anything to let homosexual couples get the benefits of civil marriage.

Zarove,

"He ignores the fac tthAT mARRIAGE IS SOMETHIGN SACRED. "

And by sacred you mean "No homos allowed!" How about we call it "Zabloozafleg" instead of "marriage". Will that make you happy? You idea of marriage is just that: Your idea. YOU don't get to decide what's best for everyone (maybe you should seize power without an election and have those who dissagree with you tortured and executed, like your buddy Franco did). That Church doesn't have to recognize homosexual unions, but there is no reason why serious homosexual couples shouldn't get the benefits that married heterosexuals do.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Lets discuss Homosexuality shall we?

The average exxpectancy for "Serious" Gay couples is 1.4 years. The average for a nonmarried Heterosexual coulel is at least 7.5.

Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service conducted the survey whihc echoes past findings. Indeed, Homosexualmen seldom remain Monogomoys, allowign for provisionm for sex outside the confins fo the "Life {artner".In fact, on average, the Homosxual in a rleationship will still n average take 8 additional, extrarelationshipal lovers per year.95 % of all Homosexual male couples have orovisions for sex outside of the confines of the relationship.

This, coupled withhte fact that Homoseuxals ar eht emostprone of rmental distress Leads one to conclude this sint the best idea. ( which you blame on peopel like me, I know, but you wont be bothered to do the research yo back up your allogation.)

Indeed, othe rhtan tellign us what we must accpet m you havent put fourth a decent argunent in vfavour of your case, just liek the Nazi's, you try to forc you eiws by laying the victim.

Maybe if you woudl researhc this matter mroe carefully you woudl ralise that your rantigns arent anyhtign but your cheap attempt to play dicator tyourself, just Like Franco, you woudl have us apply YOUR morality to what is and isnt right and wring, and impose your moral standards upon society, all based onyour own narrow, self absorbed veiws.

You igvnore the effects Homoscual unions woudl have on marriage, how it woudl cheapen it, and lbur the distinct line between it. You also pretend Marriage is a right in the first place. Its not. Marirage is a privoladdge and a sacred institution. Not a right. We are allowed to marry under the law, it si not a right to marry. We are allowed to marry any adult of the opposite sex that sint married or a blood relative. This shoidl NOT be changed just to give peferential treatment to a group who wishes to destory the basic foundsation of the vcivilised world, the family.

You want to say it wont effect the family? again, Same Sex Unionms, ven where legal, only last about a year and a half. The its divorce time. They also hav a higher frequency of infidelity, and a higher risk of domentic violence. 79% of all Homoseuxals will take over 600 lovers in a single lifetime rathe ror not they are committed to anyone else.

Why dont you stip artuing blind emotionalism and cease this argument of outrage and try examinignthe facts?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 13, 2003.

"No one said you have to pay anything. When I talk about benefits for married couples, I mean tax deductions and stuff. Since when do we hand out money to married couples? How will it cost YOU anything to let homosexual couples get the benefits of civil marriage. "

Don't be mislead. A tax dedution for one person is a tax on the rest of us. The bills have to get paid. That is the error many people made and that is why most of us pay nearly 50% of what we make (our money) to the Federal, State, and Local pots to get paid out to others (some in the form of a tax break).

No, you are impeading on me now to support your sinful behavior.. so the answer is still no.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

"The average exxpectancy for "Serious" Gay couples is 1.4 years. The average for a nonmarried Heterosexual coulel is at least 7.5.

Regardless of whether or not that's true, I know homosexual couples who have been together for a long time. Like I said in another thread, I have a cousin who has been faithfull to his (homosexual) partner for over twenty years. Yet they don't get any of the financial benefits that marrried couples get. They're not bad people. They care more about the people around them than anyone I've ever met.

"Don't be mislead. A tax dedution for one person is a tax on the rest of us."

Hey, I know all about that, considering the fact that MY generation will have to pay off Bush's tax cuts. But boy, they sure do look good now, don't they?

If we ended American imperialism and stopped paying billions of dollars a years for patriot missiles and F-16's, you'd be paying less taxes anyway. Yet you probably support Bush, who is driving this country into the biggest and fastest growing deficit in our history. Republicans give multi-million dollar tax breaks to big corporations, but you don't want the government giving tax breaks to committed homosexual unions. That would cost way too much.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

Acturlly rather or not yor cousin is a nice giy is irrelevant tot he fact that he is living in sin. This tou dont seem to realise. A guy can be a nice guy and still wriong. I know alcaholics that are great people, that doesnt make alcaholism great. I have known compuslive theives, they where great and really cared for people. They where still theives, and theivery is still w rong.

What you are doing is arguing for Emotionalism. Becuse Joe is a nice guy, Joe's Homosexua,lity must be OK. This sint soudn reasoning, as we ar eall sinners, and some of us nicer than others, how nve you are odes not, nor can it ever, cover your sins.

Incedentlaly, I am not pro Bush notr am I a facist.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 14, 2003.

There are NO ''committed homosexual unions''. There is no union whatever in the flesh, for homosexual lovers. Only sexual gratification akin to self-abuse. Absolutely misplaced. You're allowing your emotional ties to over-ride any sense of decency or responsibility.

Marriage is more than a union of committed spouses. Husbands and wives are given gender for a biological REASON; to reproduce. Marriage implements the genders into their appropriate roles. Same-sex sins are just a perversion of the roles.

Spiritual communion between the two is God's added blessing. That is holy Matrimony.

You may think ''committed union'' between two men is biological. It isn't, and it's certainly not spiritual. You won't make it so by appealing to legislators. No more than a marriage can be consummated between different species. A hog can't marry a human being. He might feel affection for a man; but they can't unite in a conjugal union, no matter what they think in Canada.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 14, 2003.

"Band-aids like the US bishops response to sodomite marriage will not stem the tide of immorality. What has happened to catholic intellectuals? I am disgusted by the number of catholic sites that repeat the lies of secularists. The history that is taught in american schools is secularist propaganda. Few catholics challenge the claims made by secularist historians regarding the so called enlightenment, a period which began the west's descent into spiritual darkness. Too many catholics have made peace with the efforts of the secular left to undermine the sacraments of the church."

J. Fernandes,

I tend to agree with you to some degree.... The statement is but Church teaching -Church teaching because it is Truth and stated in hopes that those ignorant of Truth may be enlightened....

Those ignorant that are not Catholics are not within the Bishop's sphere of influence; although within the Bishop's sphere of concern - therefore, other than show by example, a statement such as this is about all the Bishops can do in regards to 'them'... HOWEVER, what about the Catholics who are ignorant or in some cases disobedient - there's the rub...

Catholics ARE within the Bishop's and Church's sphere of influence - WHAT are the Bishops and or the Church doing in these cases? One example that comes to mind concerns the Catholic Priests and theologians that testified in favor of homosexual unions to the Massachusetts Legislature: Erroneous Testimony on Catholic Teaching

-WHAT has the Church done regarding this???

What of the many 'Catholic' theologians that are spreading and passing off secularism, feminism, modernism, relativism etc as teachings of the Church? What about the Mandatum requirement:

Guid elines Concerning the Academic Mandatum in Catholic Universities

Do diocesan Bishops & Catholic Universities actually require and enforce this obedience to Rome -the evidence suggests NOT...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 14, 2003.

Between Man and Woman:
Questions and Answers About
Marriage and Same-Sex Unions

Introduction

A growing movement today favors making those relationships commonly called same-sex unions the legal equivalent of marriage. This situation challenges Catholics—and all who seek the truth—to think deeply about the meaning of marriage, its purposes, and its value to individuals, families, and society. This kind of reflection, using reason and faith, is an appropriate starting point and framework for the current debate.

We, the Catholic bishops of the United States, offer here some basic truths to assist people in understanding Catholic teaching about marriage and to enable them to promote marriage and its sacredness.

The entire article is here

 

 

 

 

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

Bill, why are you causing the big gaps before your sign-off? After you finish writing, hit your "delete" key to clear any invisible junk out of this "Answer:" box, please.

-- (A@Lurker.com), December 14, 2003.

Because I'm Indian.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

Bill; didn't your head appear on our nickel way back when I was a wee lad ? (Lol!)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

First we need some clarity of terms: civil rights are man-made, human rights are not, they either exist prior to the state and inhere in human nature itself, or they are complete fiction.

It's a civil right for people to run for the office of Sheriff or Senator. But it's a human right to be allowed to be born, to grow (food and water), to own property, to be free to worship God...

Insofar as men are free within governments to make laws, somethings called "civil rights" may be truly just for the individual and common good or actually abuses of human rights, and thus "rights" in name only and not in reality. For example, in 1950 white southerners had "civil rights" to not mix with blacks...but while that "freedom" was enforced politically, they didn't actually have a "right" to such public segregation.

So there is a world of difference between civil and human rights.

Secondly, words have objective, "public" meanings - especially when ancient. You can coin new words and new concepts: "e-mail", "dot- coms", etc. but other words aren't so change-able at whim.

The core problem with "gay marriage" is in the detail that an absolute minority of people can re-define the meaning of an accepted word and get the state's power to back them up! If the word "marriage" had no definite content, and was wholly left up to the individual, then you'd expect from time immemorial that there would have been an infinite (no definite) array of meanings applied to the term. But that's not the case.

You can't argue that "marriage" has been void of specific heterosexual meaning: from the dawn of recorded history in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and Greece, you have records of marriages and families. You also have the Jewish people and the Law revealed by God mentioning what marriage is and is not.

In every culture, civilization and age marriage was considered a pact between one man and one woman. Accordingly, fornication and adultery were seen as NOT marriage even though they were heterosexual sexual liaisons.

The upshot is...if the homosexual special-interest minority can re- define the meaning of a culturally accepted word...what can a majority do? Shall we re-define the meaning of "civil rights"? How about re-define the meaning of "human rights"? Or the "state"!

Gays can't argue logically, culturally, or ethically that marriage is open to ANY union of two or more beings... anymore than anyone could prove that Africans or Jews weren't fully human, or that human embryos aren't human persons. We know that historically minority special-interest groups DID try to claim that African slaves weren't human or that Jews weren't human...and they did so within the context of "civil" rights while claiming human rights to back them up.

But it was all an exercise in raw power - and look what happened to the slave states and National Socialist Worker Party? The Union of Soviet Republic also claimed as civil rights the party's freedom to rob people of life, liberty, and property at whim... and look what happened to them once they lost power...

Just claiming a right doesn't prove that it exists - unless you think rights are nothing more than the exercise of power.

So here's the deal "anti-Bush"...you guys win in court and spread the idea that an absolute minority special-interest group representing 2% of the US population can re-define the meaning of words at whim and get the power of the Federal government to back THEIR interpretation up... and guess what is going to happen? Next generation the majority is going to start re-defining YOUR favorite words like "choice" or "genentics" or "love" or "state"...to mean something very different from what you like - and what precedent or legal/rational basis will you have for crying "foul"?

What if we start to use "abortion" for "any act in which a person armed by the government uses deadly force against an "un-wanted" individual"? Wars would simply be acts of legal "abortion"... Killing all pro-choice people would simply be legal "abortion" no matter how old or how many they are! How'd them apples be? You'd cry foul wouldn't you? But what if WE re-define "foul" to mean: "appropriate use of force"?

Claiming HUMAN rights to something isn't the same thing as having those rights... and so far no homosexual has accepted the natural law conception of human rights (because in so doing he'd have to recognize that a single human nature exists which his proclivity is an illness within). But minus a conception of natural law, all you have is human whim and will power.... a war of the strong over the weak with no...NO end in sight, ever.

Well, as I said, two can play that game. If you play the game: the courts will give us any right we desire... then in 2023 AD the courts can re-install the total ban on any public mention of sodomy and wage a pogrom to round up every homosexual partisan and send them to camps.... and what grounds would you have to oppose the "court"?

Aren't the LGBT crowd IMPLICITLY claiming that the ONLY MORAL AUTHORITY on earth is the court system? But what if the court were to change course? Would that automatically wipe out a "right" to Abortion, or active sodomy?

When/if that day comes what would you turn to? The Constitution? A document written and ratified by dead white men. The Declaration of Independence? Ditto. The UN? A cabal of men not gods... Everywhere you turn to you see only "power structures"... except natural law - which is knowable by reason (though not known or understood by many).

Human rights are not anything anyone desires... they either come from human nature and serve some objective good within that nature or they don't exist at all.

What the homosexual special-interest groups have done is extremely short-sighted... for the whim of some union that few of them actually want to have, and in which 0% believe to be truly monogamous... they are willing to expose the whole LEFT program which is based on the PRESUMPTION that politics is simply war by other means... a matter of expedient power, not inalienable human rights.

Well... agree with me or not, if these are the terms of the debate and conflict - which it appears that it is - then you will loose because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals; we're having kids and raising them on our own, and when we do win in the end, you will have striped yourselves of any moral authority and RATIONAL argument for opposing us. All you'll have is irrational hatred.

OR YOU CAN START THINKING, RATHER THAN FEELING AND COME UP WITH SOME EXPLAINATION FOR WHERE RIGHTS COME FROM AND WHAT THE "GOOD" TRULY IS.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 15, 2003.

Our cowboy is back! Welcome! Ehm - how many of our soldiers died for the great cause that doesn't impress the world a damm? If only it's not you, never mind. We take daily the salary of our illegal decision but the biggest price is yet to pay. In Afghanistan as in Iraq as in Vietnam. We are the great liberators that nobody wants. Then we go in shame back where we came from.

-- Big potatoe Bush (Epitia@what.no), December 15, 2003.

Epitia,

"I gave them your word, and the world hated them, because they do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. " John 17

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

The topic of gay marriage, as well as the topic of abortion, seems to lead inevitably to this problem: you feel you can impose your religion-based morals on a secular nation. Clearly there is a Catholic reason to oppose abortion and to oppose gay marriage. But the United States is a secular democracy. So moral codes based on one religion cannot justify public legislation. It's that simple.

You don't think gays should marry-- fine. Don't marry a gay person. You don't think people should have abortions-- don't have an abortion. And explain to others why you think they should behave as you do. Try to convert them if you like. But please don't act as though your religion and not mine should be the basis of the laws of our great country.

As the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..." Basing laws on the moral codes of one religion CLEARLY violates that. So when you argue against legal gay marriage or abortion, leave out that they're sins in your relgion.

Instead consider the cases to be made that don't turn on religion. A belief that homosexuality is a sin is not grounds for passing a law against gay marriage. Evidence that gay marriage would be harmful to society is. However, most evidence shows that homosexual relationships are just as devoted as heterosexual ones, that they stay together as long or longer, and that they are just as loving and responsible parents.

Likewise, a fetus, while clearly a human being, is not a person, in that it lacks awareness of itself as a being persisting in time. This is the distinction that differentiates humans from (most) other animals. If you believe that a soul is what differentiates humans from other animals, that's fine, and is grounds for opposing abortion, but that cannot support US law.

You say homosexual marriages shouldn't be legal because you don't want your tax money supporting them. Well, I don't support conservatives marrying, but I don't tell them not to, and I pay taxes.

-- the other anti bush (dbrome@princeton.edu), December 19, 2003.

AGAIN:

I don't care if gay/lesbian peoples want to marry , if they love eachother , so what !! __ What have they done wrong to you ??

What give you the right to discriminate other people ??

It's better to ignore them , if you don't like them , than to attack them just because who/what they are , that means you have no respect for other people !! __ If I don't like some humans , that's because of a personal business !! __ Gay-people are no crime or a sin !!!!

What would you do , you're hospitalized , you need surgery , and the doctor is 100% gay/lesbian ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), December 19, 2003.

I don't care if gay/lesbian peoples want to marry , if they love eachother , so what !! __ What have they done wrong to you ??

As long as they don't ask me to acknowledge their sexual behavior as a 'marriage' I don't care either.

What give you the right to discriminate other people ?? This is a global statement. We all discriminate when we say some behaviors are wrong. Michael Jackson sleeping with teenage boys is wrong. That is a discrimination.

It's better to ignore them , if you don't like them , than to attack them just because who/what they are , that means you have no respect for other people !! __ If I don't like some humans , that's because of a personal business !! __ Gay-people are no crime or a sin !!!!

Ignoring sin, of all types, and not speaking out against it is dangerous. That is how a lot of societies in the past fell into corruption. That is exactly what the Bishops of the Catholic Church are accused of doing in reference to priests who molested post- pubescent boys, by the gay press, by the way.

What would you do , you're hospitalized , you need surgery , and the doctor is 100% gay/lesbian ??

The same thing I would do if the guy was a pedophile, let him operate.

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

Same to you, Laurent

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

To ''the other anti-bush'',
You might be very self- assured, but you won't win points here using such premises as these:

''So when you argue against legal gay marriage or abortion, leave out that they're sins in your religion.'' (So far, that's fine.)

''Instead consider the cases to be made that don't turn on religion. A belief that homosexuality is a sin is not grounds for passing a law against gay marriage. Evidence that gay marriage would be harmful to society is. However, most evidence shows that homosexual relationships are just as devoted as heterosexual ones, that they stay together as long or longer, and that they are just as loving and responsible parents.

(Problematic. Many heterosexual spouses are evil parents. But a law could never be enforced banning their marriages. OTOH, many homosexuals could be evil parents, and likely will be. A law against their marriage is absolutely enforceable and practical. Just because one pair of deviants is fine as parents has no bearing on other ones. I say ''deviant'' without scruples. They definitely deviate from acceptable norms, religious or not.)

If we can pass laws against prostitution, we will also pass laws against abuse of the matrimonial contract between men and women. It's not an imperative; but it's a democratic prerogative and quite defensible.

Here you drop off the ledge: ''Likewise, a fetus, while clearly a human being, is not a person, in that it lacks awareness of itself as a being persisting in time. This is the distinction that differentiates humans from (most) other animals.'' That's an unnacceptable premise. The fetus may NEVER become aware, or self-reflective. But the fetus is BY NATURE already a human being and a person, anyway.

Whoever dares to say otherwise makes a mockery of his own person. By following your premise, any illness or syndrome that might deprive a baby of awareness reduces him/her to the level of an amoeba, or a dog. It makes me bristle to hear the common phrase, ''a vegetable,'' used to describe a comatose person. The PERSON who has gone comatose, even if he/she might never again revive, is nevertheless a full person. Laws can't change that. They can't reduce a fetus to non-person status either /

I suggest then, that although homosexuals are also truly persons, they definitely come under the LAW. The law CAN deny them whatever the people decide, and justly so. If a law can permit the living fetus to undergo an unjust death, the law can enforce bans on gay marriage. We the people make laws, not groups of activists and/or politicians. BTW-- I'm a pro-Bush conservative. My vote's just as good as yours.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 19, 2003.

The other anti bush,

Right on, bro! Keep up the fight. Check out the anarchy 2 board. We have some pretty good debates about Bush over there. Moving on...

Bill,

"As long as they don't ask me to acknowledge their sexual behavior as a 'marriage' I don't care either."

So don't acknowledge them. I highly doubt that homosexuals who want to get married base their decision on whether or not Bill Nelson approves.

How about we don't call them marriages. We can call them "homosexual unions" or "assmonkeys" or something. No one is asking the Catholic Church to recognize the unions. And if they aren't members of the Church, what right would the Church have to tell them not to get married??

"OTOH, many homosexuals could be evil parents, and likely will be"

Why would there be more evil homosexual parents than evil hetero parents?

"If we can pass laws against prostitution,"

I don't think prostitution should be illegal. I don't beleive in it, but it's a victimless crime and people shouldn't go to jail for it. I think all victimless crimes should be legalized (even though I wouldn't commit many of them). Marijuana, for instance. It doesn't hurt anybody. The effects of marijuana are far less harmful than schools play them out to be. People shouldn't be trown in a jail with murderers and rapists because they got high.

"The PERSON who has gone comatose, even if he/she might never again revive, is nevertheless a full person."

True, but if I was comatose, I'd want them to pull the plug.

"BTW-- I'm a pro-Bush conservative."

WHY?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

You may say what you want, and who cares if you ''debate'' Bush? Your debate and a buck-fifty will get you an ordinary coffee at the mall.

Furthermore I never said the Catholic Church should make laws against ''marriage'' for gays. --It's decent human beings who will push the law we're talking about. The Church teaches us decency. Plus, there isn't any ''marriage'' when gays get hitched. It's still a shack-up for carnal reasons, whereas the marriage of man and woman is NATURAL, in any religion. Hindus get married, and so do Chinese; not only Christians.

Just as many decent Chinese Americans will vote in favor of an amendment to preserve marriage for men/women only, not just me. WHY?

Because they realise the obvious: homosexuals CAN'T unite in true marriage.

You counter: ''I don't think prostitution should be illegal. I don't believe in it, but it's a victimless crime and people shouldn't go to jail for it.'' OK, you're consistent. Depravity doesn't bother you. (You don't believe in it, BUT.) If people didn't go to jail for these offenses, your own daughter or sister could choose to prostitute herself. But you won't say it's wrong. For the irreligious nothing can be wrong. Your daughter would just tell you to shut up if you opposed it. I suppose you'd be proud of her; so liberal and liberated. Your arguments are a pimp's rationale.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 19, 2003.

Bill,

...

So don't acknowledge them. I highly doubt that homosexuals who want to get married base their decision on whether or not Bill Nelson approves.

They can get 'married' now. What they are asking for is for the State (that is you and me) to recognize that marriage as a legal marriage. So, yes, they are asking me to acknowledge their sin as normal, and somehow sanctioned by the State. Sorry, the answer is no.

How about we don't call them marriages. We can call them "homosexual unions" or "assmonkeys" or something. No one is asking the Catholic Church to recognize the unions. And if they aren't members of the Church, what right would the Church have to tell them not to get married??

I don't care what you call it, just don't ask me as part of the citizenry of the State to sanction their sin. The answer is still no.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

"You may say what you want, and who cares if you ''debate'' Bush? Your debate and a buck-fifty will get you an ordinary coffee at the mall."

But your rants about morality are so much more productive. Ranting and debating is about all we can do in our society; at least until election day. I protest, I give money to charities, I can't wait until I'm able to vote.

"It's still a shack-up for carnal reasons, whereas the marriage of man and woman is NATURAL, in any religion."

So gays can't love each other? It's allways a physical attraction? I think that's a bit of generalization, don't you?

"If people didn't go to jail for these offenses, your own daughter or sister could choose to prostitute herself. But you won't say it's wrong. For the irreligious nothing can be wrong. Your daughter would just tell you to shut up if you opposed it. I suppose you'd be proud of her;"

I think it's wrong, but others don't and I respect that. If someone in my family became a prostitute, I would kick their ass! Plain and simple! I won't have a whore in my family.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

Do you also respect the fact that some people don't think rape or extorsion or drug dealing or flying airplanes into buildings is wrong? If not, why not?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 19, 2003.

MEN can definitely love one another; but homosexuals don't love each other as men. They love each other as man and woman. That's why it's perverse. To be natural one of the two must truly be a woman; not just a bedfellow. Same with lesbians.

You haven't got a leg to stand on. Your mother and father weren't lesbian or gay, I'm reasonably sure.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 19, 2003.

As the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..." Basing laws on the moral codes of one religion CLEARLY violates that.

Bullfeathers!!! That's not what the Founding Fathers meant! They disapproved of imitating various intolerant European nations, wherein there was an "established" state religion. THAT'S what the First Amendment is about, not what your shabby education (by bad teachers, confused parents, or the liberal media) has got you believing the First Amendment is about.

The United States of America does not have Anglicanism or Judaism or Mormonism or Catholicism "established" as its religion BY CONGRESS. Nor has CONGRESS passed a law "prohibiting" anyone from exercising any religion of his choice. THAT's what the First Amendment is about.

The fact that the position a person takes (on a political issue being debated) happens to coincide with the moral code of one or more religions is irrelevant. Advocating that position -- and getting a law passed that codifies the banning of a certain behavior is neither an "establishment" of a religion nor a "prohibition" of the free exercise of any religion. If the passage of a law WERE an "establishment" or a "prohibition" of religion, then thousands of currently existing laws would have to be stricken from the books, simply because they happen to coincide with some religion's/religions' moral code(s).

The Founding Fathers were not advocating ANARCHY, like the anti-Bush high-school sophomore twits who are polluting this page. Every civil law, passed by a majority of legislators, should be based on commonly shared ethical/religious values. The majority, though, is required by God to recognize morality (i.e., the Natural Law), not to re-invent it.

-- PRO-BUSH (pro-bush@pro-bush.pro-bush), December 20, 2003.

"It's still a shack-up for carnal reasons, whereas the marriage of man and woman is NATURAL, in any religion." So gays can't love each other? It's allways a physical attraction? I think that's a bit of generalization, don't you?

You do realise that love is not automatically a thing to be expressed sexually? If they truely loved ach other, they woudlw ant whats best for each other, and Homosexual liasons are NOT in either parties best interest, which is what we are debating now.Simpley put, Sex was designed for reproduction and was made for a man and a woman, not for two men or two women, and no matewr how much they love each other, they shoul recognise this restriction, and not try to force carnalioty. In fact the purest love can be the least physical.Somethign I doubt you even understand is love, real, actual love. "If people didn't go to jail for these offenses, your own daughter or sister could choose to prostitute herself. But you won't say it's wrong. For the irreligious nothing can be wrong. Your daughter would just tell you to shut up if you opposed it. I suppose you'd be proud of her;" I think it's wrong, but others don't and I respect that. If someone in my family became a prostitute, I would kick their ass! Plain and simple! I won't have a whore in my family.

why not? its theiur choice isnt it? Prostitution shoudl nolt be illegal accordign to you, and yet you woudl beat yhour own sister/mother.dather for becomign one? Why not My caughter? If I had a diaghter and she became a prostitute you woudl be fine withhtat as its her choice, no matter how muhc it hurt me. Yet you wont let your daughter be pone? How selfish and hypocritical. if iys wtong for your family, its wrong for everyones.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 26, 2003.

-- (@@@.@), December 26, 2003.

Please don't take this as condescending but, all these arguments are ignorant of facts, and ultimately shed little light on the matter.

Yes, God created sex for reproduction, but Jesus said not all will be capable of taking or becoming a wife - He did not say that those who cannot should be alone. It is an extremely out-dated and sexist interpretation of the creation story to argue that God created Woman for Man to use for reproduction. God created Woman for companionship, the important lesson to be learnt here is that Man was not ment to be alone not that Man has Woman to make babies with. The point about flying is an excellent example, if God ment for people to fly he would have given us wings therefore we can deduce that air travel is sinful, right - what nonsense!

Jesus said love one another, not love one another but not to much, or some can love and some can't. All love that is true is a divine gift from God because God is love. If people genuinely love one another they should be allowed to express it how they feel appropriate and that is okay with God so long as it is unselfish. Expressing sexual love can be selfish but ideally it is not, and that is true if your gay or straight! If sex is shared between two adults who mutually love and care for one another's well being, both spiritually and physically, then it won't be dangerous or damaging in anyway.

It is not widely known but, the Catholic Church until about a few hundred years ago performed some form of same sex union. They deny this now out of ignorance and because of puritan beliefs that don't tolerate love in forms that are different from the majority. Whether these same sex unions where actual marriages, meaning a sacrament, or not is not the point. The point is this: that whatever the status of the same-sex union, the Church acknowledged the love and commitment and did not regard it as sinful! If the Church chooses to claim that the sacrament of marriage should be only for heterosexuals they have a point with the reproduction argument, and I can live with that, but many people reproduce without love, unfortunately all to often, and sex is not the singular nor most important form of love that a husband and wife share. If the Church used to perform some form of same sex union as recent historical finds strongly suggest, then why not allow those who love to love openly and freely instead of treating them like criminals.

I am Catholic and Gay, and I do not engage in frivolous immoral sexual encounters, and have never performed sodomy or had it performed on me. I do know that I am capable of great love and if it is God's plan for me to express that for a woman then so be it, but the past 16 years of meditation and reflection in dealing with my sexual orientation have taught me that either God doesn't answer prayers, or that he has a different path for me than society suggests. I prefer to believe the second, and if that offends some of you so-called Christians out there that's your problem. I've spent too many years hating myself and I know now all to well that in order to be able to love you must loose the ability to hate. So forget the story of Sodom which actually has nothing to do with homosexuality or sodomy in its contemporary meaning, and embrace Jeses' law of love: Love God, yourself, and others. That's what God wants of us, not a modern day witch hunt or crusade against the sodomite. He wants us to love, so embrace love in all its forms, that doesn't mean that I condon acts that are not real love, but don't tell me I don't experience real love when God is telling my heart otherwise. If my parish priest says that I truly love the man I love, then who are you to say different? Don't get into my bedsheets and I won't get into yours - deal!

I hope everyone finds someone they truely love as I did, because no one should be without love.

Take care, D'Bomb

-- D'Bomb (majstore@sympatico.ca), March 03, 2004.

D'Bomb, your homosexual, right? Are you trying to justify your sinful behavior here for some reason? Know that if you are not repentant, you cannot partake in holy communion and your immortal soul is at stake. This is not an academic exercise.

If you are leading others into sin, you are simply compounding your sin.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 04, 2004.

D'bomb, you claim to be giving us facts to shed light on the ignorant, but all you have given us is sweeping claims without any evidence to support them. You are (deliberately?) confusing "love" with "sexual activity". Of course God and his church demand that we love others of the smae sex, indeed that we love everyone, even our enemies. It is possible (though I have seen no evidence other than unsubstantiated claims such as yours)that some priests have "blessed" the "love and commitment" of platonic friendships between people of the same sex. Show me any evidence that the church ever blessed or endorsed homosexual ACTIVITY? You can't because it never has and never will.

You claim NEVER to have been involved in "sodomy", which you claim God does not condemn anyhow. Yet you imply that you and the man you "love" do something in your bedsheets that we should not "get into". You are either a very confused man and/or you are trying to confuse everyone else to try to create a smokescreen around your sins.

-- Peter Kennedy (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 15, 2004.