Sunday, 21 July 2013

A Blog Post For Adults: Why Same-sex ‘Marriage’ Does Not Make Sense -Updated

I, and all Catholics, would be among the first to demand that homosexual persons be treated with respect and given the same right to life, shelter, education, health care, employment, a just wage, inheritance, freedom from violence etc, as anyone else. My cousin is homosexual who shares her home with another woman, and I would not want either of them treated badly in any way, shape or form. All people, homosexual and heterosexual; young and old, black and white, Christian and Non-Christian, share the same world, and we must get along with each without violence or oppression but care and concern, so that the peace and happiness of heaven may penetrate this world and the lives of all who live in it. But we Catholics are in a difficult place in today’s society in that we cannot support the homosexual person’s engagement in homosexual acts; as such, we cannot support homosexual ‘marriage’. We recognise that the homosexual inclination is a disorder for which the individual is not responsible and for which they cannot, therefore, be judged responsible, but homosexual acts are intrinsically at odds with the will of God and souls who wilfully practice such acts place themselves in danger of hell by refusing to adhere to the will of God. We also need to be clear that homosexuals are not excluded from the life of the Church: by quietly living a celibate life (as all unmarried Catholics are called to do) they can obtain the consolation and strength of the sacraments, take a full part in the liturgical and social life of the parish, establish wholesome friendships and find salvation. We must, however, remain clear that homosexuality is a disordered inclination; homosexual acts an unnatural use of the reproductive faculty and homosexual ‘unions’ and ‘marriages’ social constructions outside the natural order; constructions which destabilise society by destabilising and disregarding the natural family as the natural foundation of the human community. The rearing of common offspring necessitates the unity of the parents, thus marriage is by nature the permanent union of a man and a woman in that on-going, collaborative rearing of their common offspring; a union which provides the bedrock necessary for societal and individual stability. All extra-marital sex is a threat to the stability of society and the individuals within it by reason of it being a series of non-committed, temporary encounters, and by the fact that sexual diseases increase as promiscuity increases.

Since homosexual activity of its very nature is nothing more than mutual masturbation (a non-procreative use of the procreative act) it cannot be equated with the copulation of marriage. It is true that sterile heterosexual couples cannot procreate either, but such couples are of an entirely different order in that they are emotionally and physically complimentary; only a physical ailment prevents the couple bringing children into the world. The homosexual pair, on the other hand, deliberately employ the procreative faculty in a non-procreative manner. Fundamentally, no real union can be achieved by homosexual acts. As such, even the idea of a homosexual union is nonsense, even more so is homosexual ‘marriage’. Passing a law which ignores this reality is like passing a law which pretends gravity does not hold things down: such a law cannot change reality: Governments can no more rewrite the laws of biology than they can rewrite the laws of physics.

What about the union of homosexuals as persons, which transcends the union of bodies? Can this idea justify homosexual marriage? It cannot, because persons are not disembodied beings; disembodied beings are ghosts, and we don’t marry ghosts. Marriage is for the living and is the union of the whole nature. It is absurd to pretend otherwise.  

What about the marriage of a transsexual? This too is nonsense, because even by undergoing plastic surgery the transsexual is only helped to simulate being a member of the opposite sex. God forbid, but should a transsexual lose his or her life in a fire, their remains will not be identifiable as to their simulated sex: their DNA will identify them as the sex of their conception and birth. Governments might pass laws requiring us to acknowledge that a person has changed their sex -they may even allow for their sex to be changed on their birth certificate- but such laws only deceive society at large about a person’s objective sex reality, while simultaneously facilitating the transsexual’s continuance in subjective error as to their gender. In reality, transsexuals remain for all eternity the sex of their conception and birth.

Governments which pass laws facilitating homosexual ‘marriage’ must admit that they might be seen as either so intoxicated by their (temporary) political authority that they have lost awareness of the limitations to that authority (which is powerless to rewrite the laws of nature) or as supremely arrogant in their disregard for those laws. It is not easy to see them as pursuing inclusivity or diversity when they allow the oppression of those who see homosexuality as abnormal (such as clergymen) and of those who cannot in conscience facilitate homosexual activity (such as owners of Guesthouses).  As laws are passed allowing homosexual pairs to acquire the designation ‘married’ Governments must, to ensure they are truly inclusive and valuing of diversity, enact laws that:

(a) protect the religious person’s conscience in the exercise of their professional lives
(b) protect freedom of speech so that those who disagree with homosexual ‘marriage’ can say so without fear of being persecuted and/or prosecuted for voicing that opinion
(c) protect religious institutions from being forced to provide religious Rites to same-sex pairs;
(d) protect religious schools from having to present homosexuality as biologically and socially normal.

On the latter point, it is my belief that no school, religious or otherwise, should teach that homosexuality is normal: they may as well teach that one can achieve good a hold with two bolts or two nuts as one can with a nut and bolt. Presenting homosexuality as normal not only flies in the face of common sense, but it may produce an artificial upsurge in homosexuality in that children exposed to such teaching might consider themselves homosexual (and block their psycho-social development) at the pre-adolescent age when boys have no interest in playing with girls and girls no interest in playing with boys. Surely children have a right to be taught about the natural biological and psychological complimentarity of the sexes, and to have false information kept out of their classroom? Where Governments demand that their contrived social construction be taught, they should have the integrity -or at the very least the decency- to allow schools to present the natural law too, if only for the sake of freedom of speech, respect for conscience, and freedom of religion.

Too conclude, Catholics are among the first to demand that homosexual persons be treated with respect, but so too must the laws of nature and common sense, to say nothing of the laws of God as found in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

21 comments:

  1. ''by undergoing plastic surgery the transsexual is only helped to simulate being a member of the opposite sex. God forbid, but should a transsexual lose his or her life in a fire, their remains will not be identifiable as to their simulated gender: their DNA will identify them as the gender of their conception and birth.''

    I'm sure this is total nonsense and gooble-de-gook. Gender is not identifiable by DNA. Indeed we now know that there is not a simple male / female chromosomal dichotomy but a number of intermediate markers too eg XYY YYX YXX etc. A number of trangendered persons have the intermediate markers or markers normally identified with the opposite gender. If anything chromosomal science supports the case for a better understanding of transgenderism - even so, I can see what that has to do with same-sex marriage. You appear to be mixing up your prejudices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment, Dr Andrew.
      I am not a microbiologist and as such, admit I am liable to making errors in microbiological discussions. However, my understanding is that chromosomal dichotomies are considered outside the norm, for example, Klinefelter’s Syndome, Turner’s Syndrome. There is evidence to support my contention that DNA can be used to identify the gender of human remains (see http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/whats-difference-between-female-dna-and.html) since the simplest thing DNA can tell you is in fact the gender of the person (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/27/genetics.cancer/print) since female DNA lacks the Y chromosome (see http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/Stone_Sex_American_1996.pdf). If some transgendered persons have intermediate markers (markers beyond what is common to the vast majority of the human race) this would support the hypothesis that they are suffering an ailment; a biological abnormality, and this may be information used to determine which persons should or should not be allowed to undergo the plastic surgery needed to simulate the gender they perceive themselves to be.
      Even if DNA did not determine gender at the microbiological level, the fact remains that at a purely external level, copulation and reproduction are only possible with the male/female composition.

      Delete
    2. Dr Andrew I feel you are totally out of order to suggest father Dickson has a "prejudice" in this blog post. I think you should apologise for suggesting he has. I have always found this blog to be very clear and in prejudiced.

      Delete
  2. David O'Neil21 July 2013 at 12:07

    Hi Fr
    Where do you stand in civil partnerships? As a practising Catholic I totally endorse your stand on same sex marriages & on celibacy outside of marriage - however difficult many may find it.
    My concern is more for the legal situation not only of same sex partners but even of brothers & sisters where we have seen instances of their being legally unable to benefit from the estates of siblings. My comment is not by any means intended to suggest that such 'partnerships' in any way equate to 'marriage' from a physical point of view but simply as a legal protection for both parties.
    Hope you are recovering Father Gary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment David.
      Civil partnerships were established to give public recognition to active homosexual relationships as well as bestow inheritance rights etc, and as such they cannot be given approval. This was the position of the English and Welsh Bishops in 2003: “ civil partnerships for same sex couples would not promote the common good, and we therefore strongly oppose them. They would in the long term serve to undermine marriage and the family... They are not needed to defend fundamental human rights or remedy significant injustices for same-sex couples, as these have either already been substantially addressed or can largely be addressed by the couple entering into contractual arrangements privately” (see http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News/2012/January-March/Clarification-on-Civil-Partnerships/(language)/eng-GB) That said, it was unjust that a deceased person’s clear wishes in to the disposal of their estate were not respected.

      Delete
  3. I meant of course to have written I can't see (rather than can see) what transgender issues have to do with same sex marriage. They are different complex issue that shouldn't be conflated.

    There is a difference between biological sex (ie being born with female / male anatomy) and gender (more correlated with chromosomal structure). You can be born with biological organs of one sex but have a chromosomal profile of a different gender and science shows us this is actually quite common. There is not a simple chromosomal dichotomy eg males can be XXY or XYY but a continuum with male/female at opposite ends of the spectrum. DNA may tell you the biological sex of a person but that does not simply equate to their gender (which is largely chromosomally directed and how it is experienced being socially constructed).

    Although there are genetic disorders where there are chromosomal abnormalities, it is not correct to say that most examples of sex / chromosomal differences are rare or genetic / biological disorders. These issues are complex and science is just discovering their complexity so I do not think you should rely on simplistic arguments (which you admittedly do not fully understand) to support your predetermined hypotheses. Intersex (or the third sex) is relatively common across humans and most animal species suggesting it is not an abnormality (in scientific terms).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks again, Dr Andrew.
      I think the distinction between gender and sex is an artificial one; that sex is biologically determined and gender a social construction is the position taken by the World Health Organisation ( http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/). This standpoint is found in other scientific literature too ( http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/917990-overview ). That said, I understand your point that we are a race with varying sexual identity and of varying gender self-identification. The fact remains that legislating for homosexual marriage still equates the male/female union and its procreative power with the masturbatory acts of homosexuality when they are clearly not of the same order: the later are neither physically congruent nor procreative.
      I acknowledge that in today’s culture I ought not to use the word gender when I mean sex; I shall have to up-date the post when I get the opportunity to rectify the situation.

      Delete
  4. To say that homosexuals can be reoriented is indeed misleading and is not supported by the scientific literature. In fact the leading Christian ex-gay movement has recently closed voluntarily recognising the error of their ways and a number of other ex-gay organizations are being prosecuted under consumer protection legislation rather than freedom of speech laws. Professionals such as psychologists, psychiatrists or counsellors are not allowed to engage in such ''treatments'' because they are unethical and have been shown to be psychologically damaging. Should individuals have the freedom to promote such ''treatments''? I believe not because they misrepresent their efficacy and ignore their maleficence. Freedom of speech is not unlimited and we do not have the right to state as fact those matters which are not factual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am aware that professional associations of therapists, psychiatrists etc., have stated they believe reorientation therapies to be harmful, but I do not see them giving any evidence. Indeed the statements would seem to rely upon an assumption that sexual identity is unchangeable, and if gender-identity is subjective belief rather than a biological reality, then it is indeed open to change, as are all subjective experiences. Since the debate about reorientation therapy continues I would not want to state unequivocally that they are either harmful or helpful since some clients may have reported feeling harmed because they have been treated by a poor therapist or subjected to poor techniques, while others may report a successful experience and happy outcome. Much therapy is, I would say, a subjective activity.

      Delete
  5. Father, my sister is in a homosexual partnership and actually shares a home with the other girl. While I feel free to visit my sister, I don’t invite her partner to family get-together’s since I think that implies to her and to the family that I recognise the partnership, which I don’t. Can you comment? Thanks.
    Anthony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment, Anthony.
      In that you cannot cut your sister off (contact leaves the way to evangelisation open and affirms how you value your sister) I am pleased that you still visit her. In that you do not invite your sister’s “partner” to family do’s, I can give you my support, but I might also suggest that the same standard should apply to any relatives who are sexually active before marriage, cohabiting, divorced-but-civilly-remarried relatives or using artificial contraception, since all of these are engaging sexual and life-related issues that run contrary to the law of God and the stability of human society.
      By way of a personal disclosure, let me say that I have a nephew with three young children who is cohabiting. I can offer them no support as a “couple”, but I have purchased nappies, baby milk etc. for the children (I have even purchased flooring for the eldest child’s bedroom when his parents were without funds) and I do this because the children cannot be penalised for the situation of their parents. I don’t, however, purchase items directly for the parents. How difficult it is today to live as a committed Catholic...

      Delete
    2. Max Garcia? Your comment, I dont see your point? I am a homosexual, and im in a relationship with a woman, your comment may be slightly accurate in the amount of drama and cheating that usually goes on, but om the other hand can you say heterosexual couples dont cheat? And then get divorces? Or annulments because of this? So therefore are you really right in saying that about homosexuals? I dont believe being homosexual is a choice and yes i am catholic also, but I don't think it makes a difference were just people, I find it rather disturbing the fact Catholics base this on homosexuals and transgender saying therapy can change us? Could therapy cha ge people from being into religion and priesthood to? So is this any issue therapy can solve or an issue that has a name for itself be bad and a sin? I disagree, speaking from my personal view (not saying I know alot about the bible) but I'm from a pretty catholic family, who are how do you say indulged in god? And find it disheartening I no longer see some family because of my sexuality, intact I haven't seen some for over a year, and this is right? Doesn't god say love thy neighbour? And what about family? Disown them when they come put as honosexual? Does god apease this? Because there for the way we are treated by yourselves and most Catholics is unjustince being told were un natural, definately good following of the 10 commandments for you all isn't it? I think the fact the catcholic church penalise us homosexuals? But yet we dont comment about or cause disruptions to your faith? Unless you attack ours..

      Delete
    3. Dear Annonymous,
      Just some one-liner replies from me, since I don’t know if ‘Max Garcia’ will come back to this post in order to respond him/herself.
      You are of course right to say that heterosexual couples cheat too, but they cannot receive a declaration of nullity on grounds of marital infidelity: infidelity within marriage does not of itself make their vows null and void.
      You are also right that being homosexually orientated is not a choice, but actively living out the orientation is such a choice.
      Therapy may or not be successful (it has been for some) which cannot be denied.
      Its sad that you are not seeing your family. Is that because they reject you out-right or is it that you have expected them to put up with your mode of dress, your lifestyle etc, without comment? It may be easier for them to spend time with you if you don’t parade your sexual choice upon them and force them into accepting it.
      As for the Church, being Catholic you will know that the Church does not penalise homosexuals any more than it penalises anyone else: we are all called to stay clear of sinful acts (theft, violence, infidelity, drunkenness, homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, euthanasia) etc., in order to be suitably prepared in soul to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. Those who refuse to give up seriously sinful acts cannot be admitted to Holy Communion by reason of their choice for sin over God (on the matter of seriously sinful acts, note that armed robbery is more serious than taking a pen from work, and though both are theft, the latter does not exclude one from Holy Communion. Homosexuals who are friends are not excluded from Holy Communion, but those who engage in homosexual acts so excluded).
      God Bless. I do hope things will work out with you and your family; some negotiation may be necessary.

      Delete
  6. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex are not morally permissible - they conflict with natural reason, with the objective good, with our objective nature. A desire for sexual relations with persons of the same sex is disordered and ought never to be entertained. If people were not lied to, those who have been sexually attracted to persons of the same sex can work at and seek help, spiritual and practical, in overcoming this problem. Encourage, for instance, offers help to those who want it. None of us should entertain even the thought of sinning in deed, that is to sin in thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comment, Lynda. You are right in what you say. I saw a documentary TV programme some time ago where the founder of Encourage was profiled; they appear to be a marvellous support system for those who struggle with SSA

      Delete
  7. Dear Anonymous...

    To the 'Anonymous' commentator who says I am due an apology: many thanks for your supportive words. Further, I am grateful for your comment about this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Same-sex marriage is always a bias in wedding.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sorry but once again can I clearly state that the evidence base shows that ex-gay ''therapies'' (including EnCourage type interventions) have no treatment efficacy and are psychologically harmful - they do NOT work and are therefore unethical. Saying I think 'it helped me' is not validated research and does not demonstrate long-term lasting change. The evidence base says that changes in sexual orientation does not last at all and many of the treatment guru's (who claim to have had their orientations changed) have been shown to be hypocritical charlatans eg filmed sleeping with male prostitutes abroad.

    Ethical organisations are now withdrawing ex-gay therapies of their own accord and I will post another comment of recent news from the leading ex-gay Christian therapy provider Exodus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks again, Dr Andrew.
      We might have to agree to disagree, because I'm not sure we can just dismiss those who say they have been helped to re-orientate themselves to heterosexuality.
      I must admit to having a problem with your statement that "Ethical organisations" are withdrawing therapies since this is a subjective value judgement, implying that anyone who offers such therapy is automatically unethical. While I would not force reorientation on anyone, and can admit that some therapies may be anything but helpful, yet I am sure those who claim to be “ex-gay” following therapy are neither deluded nor dishonest.
      I suspect that the majority of people are accepting of homosexuals not because they see same sex attraction as a normal variation but because they see homosexuals as people who “cannot help the way they are". I further suggest that most people understand that gender should naturally coincide with one’s biological sex, but that it can be misdirected in various ways (fetishes are such a misdirection), and while same-sex attraction may not be a fetish, it is certainly incongruent with a person’s biological sex.
      I am aware that Alan Chambers has closed down Exodus International, apologising for any harm the organisation may have done in trying to re-orientate homosexuals. In that this has been widely reported, there is no need for me to post it here. In conclusion, there are those who genuinely believe they are "ex-gay", and I do not think it very respectful for me or anyone else to write them off as deluded, deceived, deceitful or any other reason. See http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/944023451.html

      Delete
  10. Same sex marriage is nothing but an epic for homosexuals. I've known many same-sex-lovers and it's clear to see that they were just keep on cheating on each other by making out with other homosexuals. For me hearing them to receive the sacrament of marriage will just make them commit more and bigger sins.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you for your comment.

    I am told, but I cannot give evidential research for this at the moment, that homosexual relationships are particularly liable to infidelity. An article in the Examiner in 2011 stated that in a survey for Parade magazine, a difference of 'mangnum order' was found in the lifetime rate of infidelity among heterosexual couples as compared to the rate of infidelity among homosexual couples, and that researchers had concluded that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment. In case I have misunderstood the artcile, it can be found at

    http://www.examiner.com/article/infidelity-alert-for-gay-lesbian-couples-recently-united-same-sex-marriage

    If homosexual relationships are more liable to infidelity, homosexuals themselves might need to ask why: is is because homosexuals are more inclined to be 'open' in their relationships; less committed, or simply more sex-driven? It might be an interesting area for further research.

    ReplyDelete

Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.