| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
06 Feb 2007 07:04:10 AM |
| Object: |
Is Same-Sex Marriage Really Inevitable? |
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0204-notes-samesex
Is Same-Sex 'Marriage' Inevitable?
We got a phone call from a lady asking if we thought same-sex
"marriage" in the U.S. will ultimately prevail. We answered with an
emphatic yes. She was aghast, saying that this will be the end of
civilization as we know it. We reminded her that same-sex "marriage"
is nothing compared to legalized baby-killing, which we've had for
over three decades. She got the picture.
Frankly, we can't get too excited about same-sex "marriage." American
culture is so degenerate that it hardly makes any difference anymore.
Indeed, American culture is so rotten that it makes Stalinist cultural
policy -- no abortion, no contraception, no premarital sex, no
pornography, no homosexuality, no divorce -- almost look like the
Kingdom of God on earth.
Yes, same-sex "marriage" is the big topic these days. It's almost
impossible to pick up a Catholic periodical without reading about it.
We happened to pick up the December 7, 2003, Our Sunday Visitor, which
devoted lots of space to the issue. That issue's four pieces opposing
same-sex "marriage" were quite fine, though quite routine. But the
cover story was about something else -- the Catholic view of war and
peace -- with a large full-color photo on the cover showing an Iraqi
man giving a flower to a female G.I. toting a machine gun. To our
mind, the photo of the female G.I. bordered on the obscene.
Does same-sex "marriage" represent gender-blending and sexual
confusion? Certainly. And so does a gal brandishing a machine gun. But
the feminist Visitor had no sense of the incongruity here.
Look! If a female can swagger with a machine gun, then what's wrong
with a male being a flower arranger? You see, women's lib (masculine
women) legitimizes "gay lib" (effeminate men). Maybe the female G.I.
is a lesbian and would like to "marry" and be a "husband." Can America
deny her that right if she put herself in harm's way in Iraq? And
maybe the male flower arranger wants to get "married" and be a "wife."
If a lesbian G.I. can "marry," then it would be discriminatory to deny
the flower arranger the same right. To make a long story short, if
there are female G.I.s toting machine guns, then same-sex "marriage"
is inevitable.
Editor Gerald Korson's column in the Visitor on the issue of same-sex
"marriage" was most interesting. Korson pointed to a Christian Science
Monitor report on how teens view homosexuality and homosexuals. The
Monitor reported that homosexuality is no big deal for teens, that
"for today's teenagers, homosexuality has never been a taboo topic"
because they've "grown up with positive gay characters" on TV and
throughout the culture.
Well exactly. The taboo against homosexuality and the social stigma
against homosexuals have been lifted. America has become a society
where anything goes -- well, almost anything. Now the social stigma
has been redirected against so-called homophobes, and if you have
moral objections to homosexual sex you're a "homophobe."
Korson says that "As Christians, we are called to love and respect the
human dignity of all persons, including homosexual persons. At the
same time, we must also defend the dignity of the state of marriage."
That sounds like an impossible task. One or the other has to give.
America already respects the dignity of adulterers, pornographers, and
abortionists, and America has proved it by abolishing the laws against
adultery, pornography, and abortion. Active homosexuals know full well
that their dignity will only be truly respected when the laws that say
marriage is only for a man and a woman are abolished, when they have
the right to "marry."
The Visitor "respects the human dignity" of active homosexuals, but we
at the NOR do not. If you doubt our stance, consider what St. Paul had
to say about active homosexuals: They are "impure," "degrade their
bodies," have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie," are given to
"degrading passions," and what they do is "unnatural," "shameful," and
"perverse" (Rom. 1:24-27 NAB). Yes, active homosexuals should be
treated humanely, but what they do is truly perverse. How can any
Catholic respect their "human dignity"? There is no "dignity" in
perversity, and only a fool would "respect" what is shameful.
While all men enjoy a minimal human dignity simply by virtue of being
men, human dignity in full derives from man's conscience and his
ability to follow it. As Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes says: "Deep
within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon
himself but which he must obey. Its voice...tells him inwardly at the
right moment: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law
inscribed by God. His dignity lies in observing this law, and by it he
will be judged" (#16, italics added). And just before St. Paul speaks
of active homosexuals in Romans 1, he says this about conscience and
natural law: "The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven
against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth
by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to
them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of
the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have
been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a
result, they have no excuse.... Instead they became vain in their
reasoning.... While claiming to be wise, they became fools" (vv. 18-22).
In this sense, God does not "love and respect the human dignity" of
active homosexuals, contrary to the Visitor.
The Catechism distinguishes between a homosexual "inclination" (or
mere orientation) and homosexual "acts" (perversity). Of the
inclination, the Catechism says it is "objectively disordered," but
nonetheless such people should be "accepted with respect, compassion,
and sensitivity" (#2358). However, as for homosexual acts, the
Catechism says they are "intrinsically disordered" and "acts of grave
depravity," and there is no admonition that such active homosexuals
should be "accepted with respect, compassion, and
sensitivity" (#2357).
The NOR has argued that the taboo against homosexuality and the social
stigma against active homosexuals should be vigorously re-asserted
(see: Dec. 1997, pp. 18-20; Nov. 2002, pp. 6-7; Jan. 2003, p. 7 and
pp. 8-9; May 2003, pp. 14-17). But the taboo and the stigma have not
returned, and no one expects that they will. Therefore, get ready for
same-sex "marriage."
This is not to say we shouldn't oppose same-sex "marriage." We should.
Even though it's a hopeless cause, at least let us not go gently into
that dark night.
But let us focus on the main battle, which is in our very own Church.
Even without legalized same-sex "marriage," we've heard reports of
Catholic priests and deacons performing same-sex commitment services
(actually "weddings"), sometimes with the knowledge of the bishop,
sometimes without. And we expect to see more such reports. The great
mantra of "gay"-friendly Catholics, including certain bishops, is:
"Homosexuality is a gift from God." That's a weasel phrase, but
homosexuals know darn well what it means. Maggie Cockrell, a lesbian,
has a letter in the Diocese of Oakland's Catholic Voice (Nov. 17,
2003) where she says: "The gift of homosexuality teaches me that I am
capable of giving and receiving love and affection. I cannot believe
that God has given me this gift with the stipulation that I not use it
to its fullest potential." What she says makes perfect sense to us,
and fullest potential obviously means sexual activity and a "wedding"
service.
Whenever you hear from Catholics that "homosexuality is a gift from
God," that's when you should, figuratively speaking, reach for your
revolver.
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Same-Sex Marriage Really Inevitable? |
06 Feb 2007 07:48:42 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote in message
news:1170767050.463051.60770@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0204-notes-samesex
Is Same-Sex Marriage Inevitable?
Yes.
Next question, please!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Same-Sex Marriage Really Inevitable? |
06 Feb 2007 07:46:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 05:04:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
Is Same-Sex 'Marriage' Inevitable?
Yes.
Say "hi" to the flat earthers for us will you?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
[God explaining the doctrine of free will.]
"In order not to impair human liberty, I will be ignorant
of what I know, I will thicken upon my eyes the veils
I have pierced, and in my blind clear-sightedness I will
let myself be surprised by what I have foreseen."
- Anatole France
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
