Marriage Confusion

Fifty years ago this would have been a no-brainer, but today, expect to be hung on a cross if you even suggest homosexual “marriage” is anything but the most perfectly acceptable thing. How has this happened? What has changed in the psyche of man that would account for this massive shift in our way we view relationships? How can I explain the deep seated issues with this idea while still showing compassion towards those who have this problem? Did I already ostracize them by calling it a problem?

This issue is really hard for me to talk about for two reasons. The first is that I grew up in California, which is probably the homosexual capital of the world. I have been surrounded by the homosexual agenda my whole life, and so it is hard for me to see the issue clearly while I live surrounded by it. The second issue, and the one deeper to my heart, is the fact that I have a close family member who I love and cherish very deeply who is homosexual. If there ever was someone who really has this problem naturally, it is this young man. He is burly, tough, manly, and has never been interested in a girl, ever. He is not a case of social engineering, I promise you. I would never want him to think I had anything but the deepest respect, love, and admiration for him.

But were he to decide to get “married”, I could not go. Do I want to support him? Do I want him to be happy? Don’t I want him to feel love? Of course I do, but I know that he cannot find it there, even if he doesn’t.

Sigh. Let’s start from the beginning.

My issue is not with homosexuality. I don’t care what science says, I know there are some people born this way, as I have watched this happen in my own experience. I cannot say otherwise with a good conscience.

My issue is not with homosexual sex. (Did he just say that?!) Well, that’s not what I mean. What I mean is I don’t feel any differently about homosexual sex than I do about any other sex that happens outside of marriage. I truly feel they are both fundamentally wrong. Do I see homosexuality as unnatural? Yes I certainly do, but then I would have to quanitfy what is natural in everyone’s sex life and I’m just not willing to go there. I think two men having sex is as bad as a man or woman having sex with someone other than their spouse, or having premarital sex. Sex outside of marriage is fundamentally a really bad idea, and can only bring hurt to those involved. I’ll save that post for another day.

My issue is with homosexual “marriage”, and it has two main problems as I see it.

The first is that I see this as a gateway. Right now the issue is with with a same sex couple wanting to spend their lives together as a married couple. It will not stay there, I promise you. If we allow this, the boundary will be pushed further. Soon the issue will be whether or not you can have three person relationships. Then it will be open polygamy. All of this will happen one step at a time. Already the seeds are being sown, we already have had a reality TV show based on a polygamous marriage, and let me tell you, it showed them in the best light possible, getting us ready for the issue.

I hate to even post his in writing, but that is just where it begins. I promise you that NAMBLA (The national man/boy love association) is watching this issue with baited breath, waiting until it’s their turn to challenge the status quo. Think I’m being extreme? You did hear that fifty years ago, where we are at would have been considered extreme, right?

This ever consistent degrading of the family structure will continue if left unchecked. Don’t think this darkness started with homosexuality though, this started in the fifties with divorce. Divorce too used to be an ugly word, and stigmatized by society. Now it is the norm. THE NORM! I think we all know how terrible this has been for families. Homosexual marriage is just the next step down the road to the oblivion of the family.

The second issue I have with homosexual “marriage” has nothing to do with society, it has to do with those who are involved personally. I am called to love every human being on the planet, and that means I must have compassion towards every person, and as homosexuals just happen to be persons, it is important that I look towards their best interests.

Homosexuality is naturally disordered. Not meaning to be crass, but man parts don’t fit with man parts and woman parts don’t fit with woman parts. It’s not rocket science, its just the good old birds and bees. When you want to put your parts elsewhere, it’s simply disordered. I don’t care if you have an intense desire to rub your parts against elbows, walls, or cheese graters, it’s not within the intrinsic order of things. Maybe in our world that so deeply lacks common sense this is not apparent, but nevertheless, it is so. So we have people in this world with a disorder that the world is telling us we should enable, rather than help them deal with. Thank goodness we don’t have this same tactic with alcoholism or people with learning disabilities.

These people need our love and care, and instead we let them wallow in their problems. We all have issues that we need help with, tendencies that we have to keep in check. The answer is not to just let us live out our disorders to their fullness, as that really only hurts us more. The answer is to help us deal with our issues and problems in the most constructive way possible. Homosexuality is just one of many such issues, and needed to be dealt with in a way that will enrich the lives of those involved.

This is especially apparent to me every time I see a gay pride parade. These men and women have been encouraged in their disorder, and what do you see? More disorder. A gay pride parade is always a spectacle with people walking down the streets dressed like some naked form of a disco ball, riding a unicycle and playing an accordion. Funny as a one man show in a circus, truly sad when en masse as a statement of sexuality. The disorder has grown, and instead of creating a warm, family environment, it has created a perpetual Mardi Gras. This is not healthy for them and can only leave them more empty then if they had dealt with the disorder, and come out stronger because of it.

So for me it is simple. I cannot vote for anything that would continue to degrade the human family. I cannot allow kids to be brought up either in a home where this is considered normal behavior, or where anyone is taught that sickness is health. I cannot vote for further agitating the disorders of otherwise good and healthy people. My job as a human involves the enrichment of mankind, not wholesale abandonment to their vices.

I wanted to take this opportunity to encourage you to visit Courage, an incredible ministry designed to actually help people with these issues. If you know and love someone who has these issues, and is ready to work towards wholeness, I strongly suggest you send them here.

Please help more people find this blog, and share!

19 thoughts on “Marriage Confusion”

  1. Marriage is an outdated institute.Why to get involved in marriage when you can keep a relationship free of every obligation except sexe.People are very stupid.

    1. I have a feeling this isn’t going to make much sense to you, but I wanted to say it anyways.

      You don’t get married for sex. Yes, sex is good, and is most certainly an important part of marriage, but that’s not why you get married.

      You get married because you want to be obligated. I actually find my life to be better because I have responsibilities towards my wife, and through her, my children. It’s not because she has a cute butt, (which she does) but because by tying my life to hers, mine has more meaning.

      There really isn’t anything I am trying to get from my wife, be it sex or otherwise. It’s far more about what I can give, and in the giving, I become more than I am.

      So marriage is not outdated at all. If all you were out for was sex, then it wasn’t ever the right thing to do. Not that I recommend prostitution, but that that is what your version of marriage sounds like to me. If however you are seeking to learn how to love, then marriage can teach you that in a way nothing else can. I’m not saying that marriage is the only way to learn to love, but it can be extremely effective.

      God Bless

      1. Hi Dance!

        You write great blogs. I especially appreciate your personal association with your family member being gay and your feelings toward him. In a world that tends to disassociate itself from those that sin differently from others, it’s refreshing to know that love can outweigh the impartiality of opinion.

        I am currently considering becoming a permanent Deacon as well and have just recently began discernment. I identify with being a non-heterosexual male, in that I have never had any physical attraction towards women (much like your relative), and I’m coming to grips with committing to a life of celibacy. I participate in many ministries, remain grounded in the Word, and am true/honest to myself and those I associate myself with (including our clergy and fellow ministry leaders).

        The Church’s opinion of the sanctity of marriage being protected by prohibiting two people who love each other and would choose to spend the rest of their lives doing so (while keeping God included in that relationship) seems to be an injustice to many who seek what some foolishly take ill-advantage of; namely, the privilege of marriage. I sometimes feel that the church should consider an abolishment of Annulment, especially when children are involved, since doing so is asking God to pretend their vows of marriage never existed. Personally, I would also like to see a law passed that would outlaw divorce before a law would ever be proposed to prevent acknowledgment of a love between two people, but that would be an intrusion on the separation of Church and State.

        I’d really like to exchange emails or speak with you sometime, as I feel you might help shed some light during my phase of discernment. Hopefully you can capture my email from this post. If not, please let me know and I can send you an email (I think I saw an email address somewhere on your website). I’ll continue to pray for you during your candidacy period.

        Stay blessed,

        1. Wow. What a very deep and thought out comment. I hope I can do it justice.

          Let me try to summarize your thoughts so that I can better respond to them. First, you did say that you are not heterosexual, but you didn’t necessarily say you were homosexual. I make the distinction, because some people simply don’t have a sexual proclivity, it just isn’t in their equation, and they are naturally celibate due to lack of interest. Usually those people don’t really bring up the issue though, so I am going to assume that you have dealt with same sex attraction issues. If I am incorrect, feel free to let me know.

          Second, you have committed yourself to a life lived in Christ and participate as such, to the point of ‘coming to grips with celibacy’. That is challenging in our over-sexed world, I understand the consternation. I would gently remind you though, that this is a cultural problem, and that everyone who is not married should be dealing with this in the same way. That doesn’t mean it’s easy, it just means that you are not alone in this, or at least you shouldn’t be.

          Before I share some thoughts about the Church’s opinion of marriage, let me answer your other points to the best of my limited ability.

          The Church cannot “abolish” annulment, because the act of annulment simply means that there never was a marriage in the first place. It is not a ‘Catholic divorce”, and we should be careful to never put it in such terms. If some bloke forces me to the altar with a shotgun to marry some woman I don’t know, then that’s not a real marriage, and the Church has a process to make sure that is actually the case. Similarly, if I marry a woman for life, and she thought that it meant till she got bored of me, then she never really married me, because marriage means something very different to the two of us. Annulment does not allow the separation of two validly married persons, it is not akin to divorce. As for you comment on law, that is really more relevant to your opinion on marriage, of which I have a few thoughts.

          Marriage in America is a lie. Well, at least our version of it is. When we talk about the kind of love that leads to marriage, we talk about romantic love, and that is just not what marriage is about at all. Marriage is not about eros, or sexual attraction. It certainly can have a part in marriage, and it often does, but it is not core to marriage. Two people that have very little physical attraction to one another can have very deep and powerful marriage. You see, marriage is not so much about eros, as it is about charity. That is the love that marriage is based on, the complete self giving of yourself to another person in the most generous way possible, and that, to be frank, is children. I’m not saying a marriage without children is void or anything crazy like that, but marriage is designed to build a family. I know that many gay couples feel that they can love children very deeply, and I am sure they can, but what they cannot offer children is completeness, the complementarity of both sexes with their strengths and weaknesses with which children were designed to be raised. Marriage is not about what is gives to the partners as much as what the two of them together give the world.

          I know that none of this is perfect, because we are human and screw stuff up all the time. Many marriages suck, and kids are hurt. Many wonderful couples are childless. I have no answers for this but the Cross of Christ. I’m not going to pretend that it always makes sense. But I can say that there is a design, and the design makes sense. To accept any other design will only bring more pain, especially to the children who live their lives incomplete. Even worse would be to make it our normal operating procedure. Just look at what making divorce normal has done to us.

          Know that while I feel I must try to explain the Church’s teaching to the best of my meager ability, it does not mean that I do not understand your pain. I too have my cross to bear, and I will not pretend that it doesn’t hurt. I pray that we can carry our crosses together, and I am proud to carry mine side by side with you.

          As a side note, can I recommend There are so many people who have to deal with this hardship, and they need people like you to help them.


          PS, I would love to communicate with you if you have things you would not like to share publicly, you can find my email on my about me page.

  2. Dear Mr.Dance,in the future the human beings will love their neighbour like you love your wife or children and this will come only when the family would have been disappear.There is no other way to fulfill the harmony with the will of God for p[eople to love each other.No other comments,I think you undestand me.

    1. You are dead right. In fact one day we will all love one another far more completely than I love my wife and children, and instead of the nuclear family, we will be one human family.

      But that will not happen until we are all dead and in heaven.

      We are simply too unruly a lot to have it any other way. We can of course try to work on making that happen sooner, and that is the call of the christian life, but I think it is irresponsible to think that is coming anytime in the foreseeable future. Until then, we have to work on building that reality in the circles in which we find ourselves.

    1. Which is it? Not a disorder, or not a disorder that needs to be remedied? As for it not being a disorder, that is nonsense. If you are sexually attracted to mud, that would be a disorder, right? Why? There is an order to things, and if your proclivities go outside that order, that means it is DIS-ordered. As in not ordered in the normal fashion. Anytime you want to rub your parts in a way that is outside their intended use, that’s disorder. If you hate walking on your feet and want to only walk on your hands, that too is a disorder. If you feel like eating rocks- disorder. I’m not saying all disorders need to be remedied, in fact I would say our little disorders add color to the world.

      This disorder however DOES need to be remedied, for all the reasons I stated in my article. If you disagree, a little more information as to why you disagree would be helpful.

  3. How exactly is being gay a problem? You said that men shouldn’t be have sex with other men because the parts don’t fit? Gay people seem to have no problem with the mechanics of sex. It honestly works just as well as straight sex(this is coming from a bisexual btw). Plus what does their sex lives have to do with marriage anyways? When straight people get married they don’t have to have evidence for having “natural” sex.
    Also, the slippery slope argument is just beyond stupid. Any high school level debate, writing, or English class should have taught you NOT to use fallacies like that. If you were living in the 1950’s you would be saying “Interracial marriage is fine, but where do we draw the line? Next thing you know there’s going to be polygamy and pedophilia!”
    Plus Pride parades are a lot of fun. Can you tell me what’s wrong with a bunch of people riding unicycles with accordions or wearing rainbow outfits? Is it the smiles? The colors? How happy everyone is?
    PS: You come across worse saying “I love my gay friend but I don’t think he should be married” than “Hang dem fags”. Its like saying “I’m not racist! I love my white friend, I just think its wrong for her to marry her black boyfriend. After all, if God was OK with it then why would he put the races on different continents?”

    1. In reading your comment, you make seem to make four points. I’ll deal with them one at a time.

      1.) Pride parades are fun, and therefore good. Um, no. To use your analogy, I’m sure KKK parades were fun for those involved, but that does not make them good.

      2.) Homosexual sex is good and natural, and works great. Again, I have to disagree. Sex has the main purpose of making babies. Sure, sexuality may include other acts, but in it’s end, and at the heart of the matter is the creation of children, something that homosexual sex is completely closed to. Yes, I can eat rocks, but just because I can and I like it doesn’t make it natural and good.

      3.) Sex has nothing to do with marriage. You bet it does. Sex has everything to do with marriage. I’m sorry, but marriage is not the Sacrament of folding laundry together. It’s the Sacrament of sex and children. Separating sex and marriage is impossible.

      4.) Arguing that some sexual preferences are illicit is akin to racism. Comparing apples to oranges is unfair. You accuse me of bad logic, and then throw out this nonsense. Race has nothing to do with sexuality, and I fail to understand your point completely.

      As for the slippery slope argument I employed, I feel it is completely valid in this case. I said that widespread acceptance of divorce has allowed widespread acceptance of homosexuality, and that as homosexuality becomes normal, we will see the advent of more sexual deviancy becoming normative as well. This is self evident. Slippery slopes are not a bad argument, and they often hold quite true. Bathing suits would be a great example, a couple hundred years ago you wouldn’t wear something that showed your ankle. Slowly, but surely, we have moved from that being the norm, to thong bikinis. Slippery slope indeed.

  4. You posted this a while back, so I’m not even sure if you follow the comments that are directed at this post anymore… I am however so mystified by a line in your post, which most likely caught the attention of no one else other than myself…

    In your description of your gay relative, you say:

    “…He is burly, tough, manly, and has never been interested in a girl, ever. He is not a case of social engineering, I promise you…”

    What in the world did you mean by that? I truly would like to know…

    I would be also interested in knowing what kinds of homosexuals you would label “…social experiments…” If that was not a mere lapse in expression, and you do really think that some types of human beings can be labelled “experiments”, I hope you realize how self-righteous, uncompassionate and obnoxious that sounds…

    I ask this out of fear for the perceived inaccuracy with which you seem to understand how homosexuals are wired, how they function, and what they ultimately are… Perhaps sitting down with your relative, asking a few questions with an open heart, could help you understand a few things – always praying that the Holy Spirit may illuminate you to ask the right questions…

    Do you really mean to imply that your relative is worthy of love and compassion *because* he is burly, manly and tough… If he were a nelly kind of gay, then I guess you would more confidently turn your back on him… Hmmm… Makes perfect sense !

    You seem to think that manly homosexuals are ontologically different from other homosexuals… Anderson-Cooper-type homosexuals are more worthy of compassion than Chris-Crocker-type homosexuals…? There is no redemption for the latter, I imagine…? Sanctity… pfffft… Forget about it…!

    You are pushing people to yet another slippery slope (which – it seems – is a type of argument you like)… By elevating your gay relative on account of his manliness, you perpetuate the misconception that homosexuals are “confused” men who want to be women, or “confused” women who yearn to be men…(your relative, of course, being an exception, as evidenced in his behavior)…

    This message comes from a celibate homosexual who is a practicing Catholic, goes to Mass very frequently and actively partakes in the Sacraments… Who mostly *agrees* with your views on Same-Sex Marriage, but who takes great offense in some of the implications of your post…

    1. PS. CORRECTION… You said “…case of social engineering…” I introduced the term “experiments”… My bad… Same difference… At any rate, what kinds of homosexuals would you in good conscience label “cases of social engineering…”?

    2. Glad to clarify, you clearly misunderstood my intention on that line. My fault for not going into depth, but there is only so much space to write!

      First, I should let you know that my homosexual relative is in fact, my brother, and we are very close. We have most certainly shared our thoughts on this in great detail. I cannot tell you how lucky I am to have such a fine man as him as my brother.

      Second, no, I was not setting levels of gayness, nor was I saying that different personality traits in homosexual people are better or worse than others. I was merely stating that my brother is not your stereotypical gay man, and that he is honestly homosexual. I was not implying that “nelly” as you say is in some way inferior, merely stating that I clearly see that he was born as he is.

      As for social engineering, that is really a redundant statement of the above. I mean to imply that he was not talked into being homosexual, that he had little to no media in his life which included homosexual behaviors, and that while we as a family were never actively anti homosexual, it was never something that we promoted. In other words, by saying there was no social engineering, I am saying that his homosexuality is natural, and he was born with it.

      I say this because that is not always the case. I have known those who have chosen to be homosexual. I will not pretend to know how many of these there are, I simply do not have that information. What I am saying, and hopefully I am doing it more clearly in this comment, is that some people are born homosexual. That is my only implication.

      Hopefully, if this was the only implication of this post which you found disconcerting, then we should probably be on the same page. I want to personally commend to for taking your faith to task, and attempting to live a holy life. I would be proud to stand beside someone who bears his cross so bravely. It gives me the courage to carry my own.

  5. Dance : Your heart seems to be in the right place… I respect your views and I thank you for responding…

    I am however surprised that – having a gay person so close to you – you can still have some ideas that exemplify why some sectors of the Church are so out of touch with reality in the context of homosexuality…

    The Catechism promulgated by Blessed John Paul II in 1992 says in #2357 “…Eius psychica origo manet magna ex parte non explicata…” Its psychological origin remains in great measure unexplained…

    Yet, I routinely run into folks who – such as yourself – will try to outsmart Blessed John Paul… Who will try to explain what the Church didn’t try to explain in 1992… And who will offer theories on the psychology of homosexuality which – inexorably – lead to caveats on which homosexuals should, and which others shouldn’t be afforded Christian compassion… Your theory about “choice” is a fairly common psychological tenet…

    It is possible that you may not mean to… but… by expressing that you have known people who have “chosen to be homosexuals”… What kind of compassion are you inviting other Catholics to display for those people…? Pretty much the same level of compassion you could expect from a picket-brandishing nut at the Westboro Baptist Church…

    Immediately next in #2358, the Catechism says “…ad eos vitandum est quodlibet iniustae discriminationis signum…” Towards them, whatsoever sign of unfair discrimination is to be avoided…

    In other words, the Magisterium explicitly condemns Homophobia.

    In Latin, “discrimen” can mean “dividing line, that which separates”… I propose that this is exactly what you have done when you drew a line between those gays who – to quote Lady Gaga and not bore you with St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas – “were born this way” and those others who “chose” (sic) that way…

    Your logic dangerously implies culpability in those who chose it (assuming you’re right, more on that later)… You are saying “…My brother got this problem through no fault of his own… Others didn’t… Others CHOSE it…” Are you not inviting to different dosages of compassion by implying something like that?

    Do you not see this is a direct contravention to the Magisterium, per the above #2358…? Do you not see this as your “discriminationis signum”… Would you be surprised if someone quick to judge could brand you a homophobe?

    Which brings me to the main weakness of the argument… WHO in his right mind would choose to belong to a marginalized, vulnerable minority… Don’t think that life is a big gay pride parade… If your brother, however manly he may be, were to disclose his sexual orientation – even in the most liberal neighborhood of the world – there will be people who will laugh and sneer and call him names…! Don’t be fooled into thinking that being gay has become so fashionable people actually choose it… You’ve been watching too much friggin Glee !

    I don’t think I have ever met a homosexual who has chosen to be a homosexual, other than a straight actor who has had to play one on TV… I volunteer your brother might agree with me !

    If I am wrong, I promise you to pray so the Spirit will guide me and I may see where I was wrong… I beg you to do the same…!

    1. I wish I had the freedom to write a post about this conversation, there is much I would like to clarify. I suppose a long comment will have to suffice.

      John Paul spoke in largely general terms, and I most certainly agree with him. There is no singular clear “cause” for homosexuality. I simply mentioned two of the many possible causes that I have personally come in contact with. I do not mean to imply that either of the causes I have mentioned, being born with these proclivities and choosing them are the only causes, nor do I imply that one is necessarily better or worse than another. I am merely stating that in my experience, they both exist. Other causes most certainly exist, and to label one cause as being definitive would be an error.

      There is, however, a tone in your post that is rather bothersome to me. It is a tone that assumes I stand in judgement in some way, not just of homosexual behaviors, but in homosexuals themselves as people. You could not be further from the truth. Let me attempt to explain.

      Porn in my opinion is just as evil as homosexual behavior. It is not only sex outside of marriage, but it also objectifies real people. To use porn is a sin in the truest sense. If I am going to be honest with myself, as I walk down the street, 90%+ of the men I walk by are either using porn currently, or have in the past, and I think I am being overly generous at 90%. If you think that I am walking down the street staring at everyone who passes my way with disdain, you are greatly mistaken. Yes, I hate the sin, yes, I would love to see these men stop using porn, but I still love the person.

      Not only that, but there are the logs in my own eyes that nearly blind me. It hardly makes sense for me to stand in judgement when I know that I am no better myself. My life is racked with sin, and that burden of my own problems and lack of purity is quite enough judgement for me to handle without trying to find others faults.

      Don’t get me wrong, sin is sin, and I must call it what it is.

      As for culpability, how one person comes to a desire for a particular sin is in truth altogether irrelevant. Whether by birth, choice, or some other unnamed factor, it is not the desire that is sinful and wrong. Culpability lies in actions, not in proclivities.

      Lastly, I certainly do not mean to imply that most, or even many homosexuals have chosen the lifestyle. Merely that I have personally come in contact with those who have. Namely, two, and both before a single episode of Glee was ever created. Their existence does not imply that is is a normative behavior, merely that such persons do exist. Living in the West for most of my life, I have known hundreds of gay people, so finding a few who chose that life does not seem a stretch.

      I did want to mention that my original post was about voting, and why I feel that voting for homosexual marriage is something I cannot do. It was not designed to share my feelings on homosexuality, especially in my opinions on how to work with homosexual persons. Such a post would have to be written with great care so that my readers would not misunderstand my position on sin. In fact, it would probably have to be a part of a series on sin that would include other sins I find to be equal in nature, cohabitation for example, for it to be seen in full context.


  6. You decided to avoid my question by simply volunteering that you had met TWO “choice” gays… You did not even sketch the two cases.

    Let me restate my question:

    “…WHO in his right mind would choose to belong to a marginalized, vulnerable minority?”…

    I do understand the argument of love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin… When the love for the sinner, however, is so strongly overpowered by the hate for the sin, it may become invisible, so much so that it is only there in principle but not in any discernible real fashion…

    Protestant nutcases like Bryan Fischer and the Westboro Baptist Church also say they love the homosexual, so much so that they feel forced to disrupt their funerals announcing that they have entered Hell… So much so that Fischer pleads for the re-criminalization of homosexuality, which means that both your brother and I should be behind bars… So much love that they must chant that God does indeed hate fags…

    Like you, they say “Oh, we don’t judge, honey… Only God can judge”… (Shirley Phelps Roper actually does say ‘honey’… I’m not trying to be cute about how you might sound)…

    Seriously ?! Come on…

    When you throw in an out-of-the-blue entirely unrelated reference such as NAMBLA into your article, do you think your love for the sinner shines through?

    1. You seem to want to label me as a homophobic, hate and judgement filled person. You want to fill my mouth with things I did not say, and you seem to imagine me standing on the street corner on a soapbox proclaiming to the world how evil gay people are. I’m sorry, but you have the wrong guy. I’m more likely to invite you to the house for dinner or a game of disc golf and never bring up the thought that you are gay.

      I just don’t see what could possibly be productive about walking around the world telling people how sinful they are. Not only is it rude, but it simply isn’t productive in any sense. I have many homosexual friends and coworkers, and do not sit in judgement of them. I do not hide my views when asked, but I am just not this hate filled person you seem to want to paint me as.

      The truth is, sex outside of marriage is a sin no matter how you play it out. I really don’t care if it’s sex with yourself, ten partners at the same time, your fiancee, with animals, with the the refrigerator, with your newest girl/boyfriend or with a same sex partner, it still adds up to the same thing in my mind. Sex outside of marriage is a no win situation.

      Now I hate to burst your bubble, but I simply don’t find sexual sin to be first on my list. Hell, I’m not even sure it’s in the top ten. There are far worse troubles in this world that need to be dealt with, so it just isn’t really on my radar. That doesn’t mean that I won’t call it like I see it, but I certainly am not standing in judgement.

      I do stand strong on the definition of what marriage is though.
      If you want to sin, I’m certainly here to help if you ask, but it’s largely your business. I will not however allow you to rewrite the line between what is right and wrong so you can do what you want to do guilt free. That is in my mind a much, much larger issue, and one that is most definitely in my top ten.

      As for your question, “who in his right mind would choose to belong to a marginalized, vulnerable minority?”, I would question whether that is really what you want to ask. In honesty, a great number of people make this choice every day, whether it’s the kid who decides he/she wants to start wearing goth clothes to school, the boy who wants to join the chess club, or the young mother who wants to join a conservative activist group in San Francisco. Humans almost have a hunger to find a small group they feel they are a part of. Not that I am claiming that humans are in their right mind, but I would say your question reflects a norm, not a minority behavior.

      Your real question might be, “Who in their right mind would change their sexual preference just to fit into a group where they don’t naturally belong?” Well, I hesitate to draw the sketch you ask for, because I would be sketching real people without their permission, but I can share with you the reasons I have been given. For one, he was simply sick of girls, dating and the game. He lived in a world that was comfortable with homosexuality, and he just decided he was done with women. He kindof hates them now actually, at least when we last spoke. He was pretty straight before that. Another just felt she was more comfortable with women. I’m not sure why, as we were not that close. She had a couple long term relationship totaling about a decade, and eventually changed her mind, got married, and has a beautiful son.

      In both cases, these people were very comfortable within the gay community. Many of their best friends were gay. They both just liked gay people in general, they were their support group. So when things went south for them in their romantic lives, emulating their friends seemed natural. Honestly, I’m guessing here, I’d have to really ask them in detail to know why.

      Now I know you probably expected that I would jump down their throats and try to save them from their evil choices, but like I said, you have the wrong guy, I just am not like that. I honestly never even bothered to ask them, though we are still friends. They are walking their own path, and it will go where God leads it.

      Fundamentally, it’s no secret where I stand, and that’s no reason to not go camping together. If you want an argument with me, you are simply going to have to find an issue that will actually get my blood boiling, and homosexuality simply won’t do it.

      Abortion? Oh yea, fight’s on.

  7. Hi Dance: A debate about abortion would be boring because you and I have probably identical views… Identical views don’t make good polemics, and turn blogs pointless…

    In all honesty, it is somewhat unfair for me to have tackled you so vigorously over a post you wrote almost a year ago and which is probably not really within your radar quite as much… You express being somewhat dispassionate about the issue, and I believe you… For this reason, I invite you to elucidate your views on the homosexual topic from a broader perspective *whenever* the Holy Spirit draws you toward it… Inform yourself on both sides of the issue: Read the 1986 Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, but also Father John McNeill’s “The Church and the Homosexual”… Approach Scripture but also approach reality… Be firm but also be compassionate…

    At any rate, you say you have met hundreds of homosexuals throughout your life, but identified only a couple “choice” ones… It is fair for me to say that – in the event you have correctly identified the root cause – this is a negligible proportion…

    That… Of course… Not even introducing the very tangible reality of bisexuality… You seem to think that heterosexual and homosexual are mutually exclusive categories… If either this chap or this lady you describe were bisexual, that could explain a lot of things…

    I’m in my early 30’s and I live in a very large city… I was not always a pious Catholic… I have dealt with bisexuals… I have myself had affairs with men who had girlfriends and didn’t even have to grow “sick of girls” like the chap you describe… Much less hate them… They carried on with men while their girlfriends were out shopping or whatever… If you don’t think this is actually fairly common, you would be gullible…

    All of this has been addressed in a Confessional and left behind… I only bring it up because I feel my own personal experience can shed some light on what you present…

    I also bring it up because – as a future parish leader in the capacity of deacon – knowing what the world is really made of might help you in your ministry… A Religious Education teacher of my childhood once told me: “…Understanding how evil works helps us fight it…”

    This is not visible because bisexuals have the chance to marry someone of the opposite sex… If they truly fall in love with someone of the same sex, they keep it under wraps and marry second best by grabbing any gullible girl/boy around that will do… This is called “survival”… They are not out with pickets in front of the Supreme Court… That’s why it doesn’t enter your equation…

    We’re going to have to agree to disagree… I am not sold on your explanation that people can become gays and yearn to spend their lives with a person of the same sex just like one signs up to be a Goth… But… I have not met the two cases you mention, so I couldn’t rule either way… You may indeed be right, most likely you are wrong, but I can’t say for sure… From the way you speak of these two cases, it sounds like neither of them is a really really close friend, so probably neither could you say… I give you the benefit of the doubt (which, incidentally, is something it seems you are unwilling to give me, hahahaha).

    I – like you do – do not feel that Marriage for gays is the right answer… Unlike you, I do feel that – for those of my gay brethren who cannot live a life of celibacy like me – my Catholic brethren should exhibit some extent of compassion… Is it really so dangerous that the civil government may allow these people the right to inherit property from one another (if they want to), the right to stand at each others bedside if one is dying (if they want to), the right to not be discriminated against…? That is what I mean by compassion…

    Some people (I don’t mean you) would like to legislate morality… And from a Public Policy perspective that is a God-awful idea… Then we should also make masturbation illegal, perhaps even punishable by jailtime… While we’re at it, we might make lying illegal too, even outside the confines of perjury… Because, hey, it’s a sin, ain’t it…? So it should be a typified misdemeanor or felony…

    And let us also, not only abrogate divorce, but make it a criminal violation to try to leave your spouse… Let us become a perfect Christian Taliban-style theocracy… The Saudi Arabia of the West… Right on…!

    But do you see where the Public Policy fiasco would kick in…? To my last idea, the Jews – for whom we just prayed on Good Friday and who deserve the same legal protections as we do – might come in and say to us “…Hang on a minute… Since when is divorce immoral and therefore illegal… We’ve had the ‘gittin’ since before your little cult was even a religion…” What would we respond to them?

    My reading of your Supreme Court post suggests to me you advocate for a small Federal government… I won’t stretch this to presume you are a Libertarian, but you certainly have some Libertarian airs… Don’t you think that legislating morality increases the size of government, State and Federal?

    A pundit said a marvelous phrase to summarize the Republican Party on TV once… “…That Party that wants small government everywhere… except in the bedroom and the battlefield…”

    On earth, we have the Church and our own drives to legislate our morality, not the State or the Federal government…

    Now, you might say… Well, my friend, if you don’t think we could or should legislate morality… How can you be opposed to abortion?! Well… The answer is simple: To me, that is MURDER, which is already a typified felony in every jurisdiction in the world… End of story…

    I have looked at Courage – the website you promote… I haven’t looked in depth enough to figure out if it is a call to chastity (like the one I am currently living), or if it is a regurgitation of the crazy (usually Protestant) doctrine of “Praying Away the Gay” which so loudly (and deservedly) humors television pundits… I hope it is more the former than the latter…

    My Best to you, in Christ… !

Leave a Reply