10 January 2013

Three Entries on "Gay Marriage"




Over at Crisis Magazine.

The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage
by Robert Oscar Lopez

How much is victory worth? And after you win, if you win, what do you have to show for it?

As these principles go with warfare, so they go with propaganda. The Greek word polemos, “war,” led not to the English word “war,” but rather to the English word “polemics.”

The gay movement is not a random assortment of motley rebels. It is highly organized, with major nerve centers in places like the Human Rights Coalition. The movement has its prominent generals, such as Dan Savage and Wayne Besen.

In other words, this is a movement equipped to pick its battles.

Read more


“Same-Sex” Marriage Legislation: What’s at Stake?
by Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I

At the beginning of the New Year, 2013, a law is being proposed in the General Assembly to change the legal definition of marriage in Illinois to accommodate those of the same sex who wish to “marry” one another. In this discussion, the Church will be portrayed as “anti-gay,” which is a difficult position to be in, particularly when families and the Church herself love those of their members who are same-sex oriented. What’s at stake in this legislative proposal and in the Church’s teaching on marriage?

Basically, the nature of marriage is not a religious question. Marriage comes to us from nature. Christ sanctifies marriage as a sacrament for the baptized, giving it significance beyond its natural reality; the State protects marriage because it is essential to family and to the common good of society. But neither Church nor State invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Read more

So-Called Gay Marriage: A Dialogue
by J. Budziszewski

I’d been tied up with students all morning. No sooner did student number ten leave than student number eleven appeared. It was Theresa. “Hi, Professor Theophilus. This isn’t about your course. Have you got a few minutes anyway?”

“Fewer and fewer, it seems. Are there still a lot of students out there waiting?”

“The hallway’s empty.”

“I must have scared the rest away. Come on in.”

She plopped down, but instead of speaking, she grinned at me.

“What’s funny?”

“I read in the Pill about those students chanting slogans outside your classroom.” The Pill is the student newspaper. I’d given an interview the day before, opposing so-called gay marriage. You can guess the rest.

“Have you come to afflict me too, O my tormentor?”

“No, I’m on your side. In my nine o’clock class, half the students tried to shout me down for agreeing with you.”

“Your instructor didn’t keep order?”

“Are you kidding? Professor Thanatos says ‘I have one rule for class discussion: Survival of the fittest.’” She shrugged. “Mom and Dad taught me to be thick-skinned. When someone tries to keep me from being heard, I just stand up and talk a little louder.”

“How can I help you this morning?”

Read more




4 comments:

Anonymous said...

What I don't get is why the Church is making such a big to-do over their acceptance of same-sex attraction people. Is this a new age phenomenon? A VII thing? This idea seems to be something new, or at least the outward vocalization of it. To me it's just more of the same "denominational" effect that the Church is sinking into. I can't see how this campaign, if you can call it that, is helpful.

I'm sure I'll be labeled anti-gay for my comments, somehow they're probably racist too.

HJ

Jane Chantal said...

I think the Church keeps reminding us that it welcomes those who struggle with same-sex attraction because everyone needs to be brought close enough to hear that chasitity is an option -- indeed the best option -- and available to all.

In other words, "hate the sin but love the sinner" -- a concept that enrages those who can't bear the idea that, through love, a person can choose to reject sodomy.

StGuyFawkes said...

Dear All,

The unnatural character of gay marriage is singularly revealed by the fact that European countries which have legalized gay marriage must now retroactively get rid of civil annullments based on "non-consumation."

No one wants to specify what "consumation" or "non-consumation" would mean to two gay men standing before the court.

Dwell on that for a moment.

The implication is that everyone knows gay marriage cannot be consumated but nobody wants to observe this reality check on the delusional phantasy of "gay marriage."

It's easier to double down and just get rid of annulment for non-consumation which has been a law for centuries.

This is a real injustice to those heterosexual citizens who might
have needed to use that law, and who must now declare a wish to be divorced when annulment would have fit better the facts.

St. Guy

TradDadof4 said...

Wow. Those are three really good articles. All from very different perspectives.

Since marriage is about civil law, it *is* necessary to do more than just say "because sodomy is an abomination".

Gay marriage is not just wrong, it's an impossibility. By comparison, legalizing abortion would be immoral. But it's not an impossibility, in the sense that we don't know what legal abortion would look like.

Homosexual marriage is a rank absurdity being perpetrated by a movement that is essentially neo-cabbalist.