[ Homepage ] - [ Apologetics page ]
A Catholic Answer to Modern Challenges: Gay Rights
Introduction: This is a rough draft of a first chapter in a book called "A Catholic Answer to Modern Challenges." It is an apologetics book in answer to some of the modern challenges to the Catholic stance on several doctrines and practices, written in the style of "Radio Replies" by Fr. Rumble and Fr. Carty, back in the 1940s. When this book is complete, my hope is that it will have seven chapters: gay rights, the male-only priesthood, the celibate priesthood, abortion, contraception, and marijuana.
I put this "work-in-progress" chapter out in advance because a resource like this has been called for, and I think it can promote the public discourse. Feel free to copy/paste different questions you like in forums, bulletin boards, Facebook posts, etc. But I do retain the rights to publish this in the future, in complete or modified form.
Here goes!
1. What is the Church’s position on the right of homosexual couples to marry?
Homosexual couples do not have the right to marry, and any relationship between them cannot properly be called a marriage.
2. It is unjust to give some rights to some people alone.
Society doesn’t give rights, it either observes them or violates them. And since gay/lesbian couples do not have the right to marry, there is no injustice in not observing what they do not have; nor is it a violation of their rights, since there is no “right” there to violate.
3. It makes no sense to say that heterosexual couples have some rights and homosexuals not.
It makes perfect sense in regard to marriage, because marriage by its definition can belong to heterosexual couples alone. What can belong only to one person is not unjustly kept from others to whom it cannot belong; nor is the name “marriage” unjustly kept from non-heterosexual relationships, because it can truly belong only to heterosexual couples. In fact, it is unjust to call a marriage what is not in fact a marriage. And that is precisely what happens whenever a state or country legalizes gay marriage.
4. Why do you say that marriage can belong only to heterosexual couples?
Marriage means a union or bond, and it is a bond not only in name but in reality: a comprehensive bond of the whole person, body and soul, to another. Now the bodies of heterosexual couples actually unite in the marital act when their sexual organs together form a complete reproductive system. But gay/lesbian couples do not and cannot form this kind of real union. Without the possibility of that real and comprehensive union, gay/lesbian couples are missing an essential component of marriage.
5. That’s ridiculous. The reproductive act is sex, and marriage doesn’t depend on sex, it transcends it.
Reproduction is a bonding system; that bond is a part of marriage. In fact, the reproductive act is the only biological act that requires both sexes to cooperate, it is the only act which actually makes the separate parts of male and female into one whole -- into a complete reproductive system. And that union is part of the comprehensive union that marriage requires.
Moreover, because marriage is a bond of two people, body and soul, to one another, any definition of marriage that discards the real bodily union of the married couple, destroys half the dignity of marriage. To get rid of the bodily union gets rid of half the marital bond. By the traditional understanding of marriage we preserve the dignity of body and soul, and the reality of the union made between the bodies and the souls of married couples. Advocates of gay “marriage” will destroy that understanding if they have their way.
6. Nonsense. Homosexual couples can be as physically intimate as heterosexual couples.
They cannot attain a true bodily union, no matter how proximate they are to each other. Union of two means the separate parts form one whole. Now heterosexual couples can do this; in the marital act, the combined sexual organs form the one reproductive system of the human race. In homosexual relationships, on the other hand, if they put their parts together, they do not form a complete whole, they are just a doubling of one half of the complete system. The reproductive act takes male and female parts to complete; two males or two females simply cannot form the united whole that a heterosexual couple really can. Marriage involves union involves the reproductive act involves the two sexes. A homosexual couple cannot make the union that is marriage real; therefore, their relationships aren’t true marriages. They literally don’t have what it takes to make the comprehensive bond that is necessary in a marriage.
7. C.J. Marshall says the courts have never required that couples seeking to marry first prove they have the ability or intention to reproduce.
What if they haven’t? Perhaps they assumed that the intention or ability was already there. But even if they didn’t, my argument isn’t that they must be able to reproduce; it’s that they must be able to form the comprehensive union of both body and soul, and for the bodily aspect, the reproductive act is integral. With it, two bodies are really united to form one reproductive unit. Without it, sex is just being close, and stimulating the sexual organs. And besides all this, if your argument is from the courts, well, the courts always required a male and a female to form the marital union, and by that very fact they required the parts necessary to form the reproductive union, even if the ability or intention to reproduce wasn’t there for other reasons.
8. Reproduction can’t be necessary because that would exclude every infertile couple and every sterile person from marrying.
No, it wouldn’t. The reproductive act, which unites the spouses, can be done even by infertile couples; even by women who have had hysterectomies. They can do the act because they have the necessary parts for forming the complete reproductive “engine” -- that the act doesn’t result in children is due to factors external to that. But in homosexuals, they cannot do the reproductive act at all, they cannot even form it, because they don’t have the necessary parts. So there is an essential difference between homosexual relations and heterosexual relations; a difference on the very matter that makes a marriage what it is: a comprehensive union. Without it, you’ve got something different from marriage.
9. Sex doesn’t always result in children, therefore sex doesn’t have to be reproductive.
Sex is the reproductive act of the human race. The reason why we have sexuality in the first place is because it is one of two systems of reproduction, the other being asexual. So sex bears within itself the reason for heterosexual relations. But like other acts, the reproductive act doesn’t always produce its effect. Nevertheless, it still truly unites a male and a female into one whole cause of reproduction. It cannot do that for homosexual couples, indeed they do not have all the necessary parts for the reproductive act at all.
10. Homosexuals can have children just as well as heterosexuals. It is one of the advances provided by scientific progress. So there are no longer any grounds for making a distinction between their relationships and heterosexual ones.
Lesbians can have children only by borrowing a male sperm; gay men can have children only by borrowing a woman’s womb. In fact, your point proves the opposite of gay marriage: it proves that reproduction requires the necessary parts of opposite-sex people. And besides all this, even if homosexuals can “have children,” still, they cannot do the reproductive act, the act that forms the two into one reproductive unit, which makes bodily union a reality and marriage a possibility.
11. So heterosexuals get all the benefits society confers on married couples, but homosexuals are denied equal treatment. Where is the justice in that!
To get equal treatment you need to make an equal contribution. Now let’s take the two cases separately. Heterosexual relationships are the source of children, who are the members of society and the next generation of society. Their children grow up and become members of the workforce. In fact, heterosexual relationships actually provide for the good of society, because they (and only they) produce the greatest value of all for any society: human capital. Society confers benefits on married couples in return for the good that married couples provide to society. Now take homosexual relationships: two men or two women become romantically involved, and at some point they live together. What does this do on behalf of society? What do they do to deserve the benefits that society provides to encourage marital unions? If their unions naturally contributed to the good of society, as heterosexual unions naturally do, that would be one thing; but there can be no justice in providing marital benefits to them, when their unions do nothing for society.
12. I knew a man who said he would give away everything he had for a homosexual, but wouldn't approve of their marrying.
I can sympathize with that attitude completely.
13. Well, I want to know how you can claim to be loving toward gays/lesbians, even while you refuse them the basic legal protections given to married couples?
Society provides benefits to married couples for a reason, and the reason involves the procreative act; for out of marriages, understood as comprehensive unions naturally fulfilled in the production of children, society itself -- its members -- arises and is propagated. But not so in homosexual relationships, for they are not fulfilled naturally in the generation of goods for society. In short, the reason why we provide benefits to married couples, is because the good of society is the natural fruit of heterosexual relationships. That reason is not true of homosexual relationships.
And as for justice, we can say this: it would not be just if one man, who did not do his job, got equal pay with another man, who did his job; it would be equally unjust if homosexual couples got the legal privileges of marriage, when they have not done, and indeed cannot do, what married couples do for their society.
14. Some of the benefits of marriage shouldn’t be kept from any two people who want them; much less gay/lesbian couples, who need them.
If you think hospital visiting rights and medical health-care sharing plans should be available to all, that is one thing; if you think any two people should be permitted to share their tax responsibilities, we can debate the merits of that position. Catholics can disagree in good faith on such things. But gay/lesbian couples certainly don’t need special helps from society, when their relationships don’t contribute back to it. No two people are entitled to financial assistance just because they decide to share financial burdens.
15. What is your position on allowing civil unions for gay/lesbian couples?
We need to be asking what society will gain by giving legal recognition and benefits to homosexual relationships. You want society to provide certain benefits to them -- the ability to combine health care plans, the ability to file tax-work jointly and retain some extra finances for their own use -- in short, to relieve them of some of the financial burdens associated with living in society. And suppose we did; in that case, gay/lesbian couples have more money, because they are exempted from certain ordinary financial burdens. And for what? Because they want to be? Sign me up for lower taxes; I want my justice! No. There is no justice in privileging unions that are not naturally fulfilled in the generation of goods for society.
16. Homosexual couples can do the same things for society that heterosexual couples can.
Oh really? Consider the benefits provided by marriage as most people reasonably understand it: it is by its nature a comprehensive union of a man and a women which is naturally fulfilled in the generation of children, the members and next generation of society, and its future workforce. Heterosexual marriages naturally provide the principal “cells” by which society is formed -- men and women committed together to bringing offspring to maturity. We give benefits to heterosexual marriages in the hopes that these “cells” might be all the better off, and society improved through them. If children were not the natural fruit of marital unions, due to the bodily union that is part of them through the reproductive act, then society would not have grounds for privileging them. But that is precisely the case with homosexual unions. Their relationships are not naturally fulfilled in the generation of goods for society. And therefore there are no grounds for privileging them.
17. Gay/lesbian couples can adopt children and contribute to society that way.
Yes, and two sisters might raise their nephew, if the need arose, but they are not entitled to financial benefits nor to the name “marriage” just because of their potential to adopt. Benefits are conferred due to the goods that are the natural fruit of the union. Adopting a kid is not a natural fruit of a gay/lesbian union. And much less is the term “marriage” due to them just because they might adopt; for even in that case, that name is only for those who can from a true comprehensive union, a union which only truly happens by means of the reproductive act, which requires both sexes. Furthermore, the children in adoption agencies come from heterosexual relationships, and they belong with a mother and a father. If you are worried about them, you ought to place them in families that can provide that, and if you feel you must provide financial help, then do so; but as for gay/lesbian couples, they are not what children need, because they cannot provide a mother and a father to any child at all.
18. Your stance on gay/lesbian adoptions harms children, who are prevented from living in loving homes.
It does not harm children. It promotes what is best for them. There are problems in the adoption industry that make it hard for willing couples to adopt; these problems should be fixed, and children will find the loving homes they need, homes capable of providing a mother and a father for the child. Fix the roadblocks to adopting into heterosexual couples, and there will be no need for alternative forms of parenting that lack a mother and father.
19. Why can’t we just add a small section to marriage law for homosexual couples, and not force Churches to recognize it?
Because even a small falsehood is a falsehood. And in this case, the falsehood would be enormous. Marriage is not something you can redefine; it means a comprehensive union, and if you say that homosexuals can form that kind of union, you are simply not stating the truth. Society does not have power to change reality; they may recognize it or not, but they cannot change what marriage is, and we must oppose any laws that deny that reality.
20. What’s the harm to you if gay marriage is legalized?
To me? How about to society? First, there is the injustice involved by calling what is not a marriage a marriage. Then there is the injustice involved in providing legal benefits to these unions at the cost of society, when those unions do not contribute anything back by their nature. It’s just giving out free money because someone lobbied loudly for it. And then you’re stuck calling something that is not a marriage a marriage, and making everyone pay for it whether they support it or not. Then there is the injustice to children, who are moved into homes that lack a mother and father, relationships they are conceived from and have a natural right to belong to. Then there is the injustice to the those who want to go on teaching the truth about marriage in public. For not only will they be treated as bigots and backwards; their ideas about marriage as a union of a man and his wife, and the right of children to a mom and a dad, will be reported in public schooling as a lost idea of “marriage inequality,” and this denunciation will be taught to Christians’ own children. The dignity of marriage itself will be violated by a policy that renounces part of its definition; and really, by denying the part about the union of the sexes, it would in truth be denying the reproductive aspect also, which is provided by the union of the sexes. And then there is the moral damage, to every gay couple who is licensed as spouses, and to every citizen who does not oppose it. For the fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as a private sin; whatever harms one person harms all who are associated in it. If the State legalizes gay marriage, all who have permitted it are implicated in its stain, all who voted for its promoters share the guilt of their transgression, and all who are faithful are shouldered with another lie to oppose.
21. There is a greater good promoted by legalizing gay marriage; and it is the feeling of worth and dignity among homosexuals, and the avoidance of bigotry and persecution by those who think their lifestyle is immoral.
First, a good end can never justify an evil means, and it is a lie to call gay/lesbian partnerships marriages. So even if there was a greater good promoted by legalizing gay marriage, it could never justify our doing so. But now let us examine your claim of a “greater good.” I fully admit that persecution is a thing to be avoided, and a man or woman’s dignity is a thing to be promoted; let us work together to achieve these ends by moral means. In fact, persecution is only caused by a lack of appreciation of the dignity of men, including homosexuals; and so it all comes down to promoting their dignity. But I do not admit that their dignity would be promoted if we legalized gay marriage. On the contrary, their dignity would be cast down and trod underfoot; and if you reply that the feeling could be promoted, I answer that it is more important to promote their dignity actually, by calling them to live by higher moral standards, than to promote the feeling of dignity, without the reality, by legalizing gay marriage, and leaving them to go on in immorality under the banner of a falsely-termed “marriage.”
22. Society used to oppose interracial marriages, but we’ve moved beyond that, and it wasn’t “redefining marriage” in that case either. Belief in gay inequality is just another prejudice from the past, and it’s time to move beyond that too.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Interracial marriages complete both functions of marriage; they unite the two spouses in the reproductive system of the human race by combination of the necessary parts, and the type of act involved is naturally fulfilled in the procreation of children. Therefore, because interracial spouses are able to form the comprehensive union that is marriage, they are able to marry, and it is unjust to prevent them. Whereas with homosexual unions, they are by nature incapable of performing the reproductive act, and therefore incapable of forming both the comprehensive bond of matrimony, and the procreative type of act that is naturally fulfilled in the generation of life. Since they are unable to marry, there is no injustice in the refusal to call their relationships marriages.
And secondly, this implies nothing about gay inequality. Gay people are absolutely equal to heterosexual people in dignity, in the image of God which is in them, and in the respect due to them by natural law. But that does not change the fact that romantic relationships between them are sinful, that their unions are not marriages, and that giving legal privileges to their partnerships is unjust to the rest of society.
23. You say that marriage is for the union of the spouses and the procreation of life.
I certainly do.
24. Homosexual unions have the “union” part, so the only question is that of procreation.
No. Homosexuals are not able to do either part of marriage, neither the union, which is a union of both sexes into one reproductive unit by means of the reproductive act, nor can they form the procreative “engine,” as heterosexuals can whenever they sexually unite the component parts. The definition of marriage includes both union and procreation, and homosexuals cannot fulfill either part; but both are completely essential components. Omit either, and you’ve got no marriage; omit both, and you’re still father from meeting the definition of marriage.
25. And with regard to procreation, we say it cannot be necessary, because that cannot be fulfilled by couples past the age of childbearing, nor by a thousand others for a variety of reasons; but they may all marry.
Every heterosexual couple can fulfill the procreative part of marriage’s definition, whether or not they can procreate. For it is fulfilled by forming the complete reproductive system by combination of the necessary parts, which all heterosexual couples have, but which no homosexuals have. Consider an analogy: an engine is defined as a mechanical producer of motion; now by combining the necessary parts, you can make an engine, even if, for some reason, it is unable to be used, such as a lack of fuel, or an expired part. For use of the engine is not a precondition for being an engine. In the same way, heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate for a variety of reasons are still able to fulfill the procreative part of the definition of marriage by forming in their bodies a reproductive system. That it cannot produce its natural effect is due to other factors; the system itself, however, can be formed. Not so with homosexuals; they do not have the necessary parts. And so they are unable to fulfill a defining feature of marriage.
26. Jesus never said one thing against gay marriage.
It would not matter if He did not. His authorized delegates, the Apostles, certainly said enough in condemnation of it; and the Old Testament, which He believed, calls it abomination. Jesus Himself said that marriage is between a man and his wife (Matthew 19:4-6) and is based in their “one flesh” union. As explained above, gay/lesbian couples cannot do the reproductive act that makes them one. So they do not fit the definition of marriage according to Jesus. But even if He had never said anything about it at all, still, natural reason could discover the evil of homosexual marriage by itself. For not everything that is true has to be repeated in the Gospel; but God, who gave us intellectual powers, has given us everything we need to have to discover that homosexual relationships are abominable by their very nature, and their unions essentially different from marriage.
27. Admit it -- you only oppose gay marriage out of prejudice and bigotry.
I do not admit to that. There are solid reasons which inform my political position. If you disagree with those reasons, you can point out where you think I have erred and you will promote public discourse; but if, in the face of solid reasoning and argumentation, you instead cast insults and slurs, you are no longer doing what is best for society, but are harming the political landscape.
28. You want to exclude homosexuals from marriage!
Exclude them from something they cannot join anyway? You’ve got to be kidding me! When something is impossible I do not need to exclude people from it; they are excluded by the very nature of reality. I do not exclude men from becoming pregnant, because the contrary possibility doesn’t exist. Nor do I exclude homosexual couples from marrying, because they could not truly marry no matter if I said otherwise. The comprehensive bond that marriage requires simply cannot exist among homosexuals. It would be better for you to say, not that I want to exclude homosexuals from marriage, but that I think homosexuals are incapable of marrying in the first place, which would be an accurate summary of my position.
29. Whatever happened to “love, dignity, and respect”?
Let’s take their dignity first. The dignity inherent in men and women by nature should call us out to decry all violations of it, especially all inappropriate uses of their sex, the very thing that makes them male and female at all. And love for gay men and women should inspire us to help them out of a lifestyle that is unworthy of their calling. And if we truly respect them as persons, our respect should draw us to help them avoid that which harms them, both bodily and spiritually. Love does what is best for the beloved; and the best thing for homosexuals is to live as God calls them to live, to act as God has revealed that they should. That excludes all homosexual behavior, and so the most loving thing we can do is to call their attention to the facts. For it would not be charitable to let a man go over a precipice, because we did not want to offend him.
30. A person can’t help who he or she falls in love with.
A person can choose how to respond to his or her affections for another person, and if a man or woman can prevent an unchaste relationship from forming, they can certainly prevent falling in love with them. Even in “love at first sight,” no one has to choose to follow the urges of the flesh toward another, if those urges are prompting them to unchastity. So I do not agree that a person can’t help who he or she falls in love with. And at any rate, true love does what is best for the beloved, which always consists in helping them live by God’s law, never in joining them in revolt against it. So even if they couldn’t help “falling in love,” they could certainly help what they did by that love, whether to live by or revolt against God’s law.
31. What if one would die for the other? Would you say that is wrong?
I would die for either one of them, but I am not in love with them. Great love involves great sacrifice, not just of one’s body, but of anything you might want that is contrary to the other’s good. True love does not say, “Let’s endanger our souls together.” True love says, “I want to sanctify you.” Gay men and gay women can have an appropriate love for one another that does not involve romance, which is to be only between a man and a spouse of the opposite sex whom he loves; if a homosexual couple would die for one another, that is good, but as for their romantic involvement, that is not good, because it is not in line with God’s law as revealed in Scripture and in the natural order.
32. We’re not talking about one-night stands here; we’re talking about committed, loving relationships.
Being in a long-term relationship with someone doesn’t make it okay to do unchaste actions with them. Remember, homosexual acts are unchaste by their very nature. That some people do them over a long-term period only compounds the evil.
33. Gay/lesbian couples are in love. Love is never wrong.
Then adultery is never wrong, and polygamy is never wrong, and incest is never wrong, nor fornication! No, you have erred because you have misunderstood love, which is good when it is in accordance with God’s plan, and wrong when it is not. Homosexual love is disordered because it is contrary to order of nature and of God’s revealed plan. But homosexuals are able to live out a chaste life, and in fact they are called to do so. If they ask for the grace, they can overcome even the strongest of desires, if they are contrary to God’s will.
34. Why are homosexuals called to chastity, and heterosexuals called to married life?
First, not all heterosexuals are called to married life. Some are called to pledge their chastity to God for the entire duration of their life, and during that time they must patiently bear up under the urges of the flesh, which war against that noble calling. Second, it is not as if homosexuals are called to chastity and heterosexuals not; all are called to chastity, but not all in the same way. Those who are called to marry are called to chastity, first, until marriage, and then, once in a marriage, they are called to have a chaste relationship with their wife, which does not mean a non-sexual relationship, but a relationship in accordance with the purpose of our sexuality. And they are also called to have chaste relationships with those to whom they aren’t married. Chaste relationships are those which use our sexuality only for union with one’s spouse, which is meant to be expressed principally by the reproductive act. Any use of sexuality not oriented to finding that union, including uses of the sexual organs with members of the same sex, is a sin, and the temptation to it must be resisted. The hardship involved for homosexuals is enormous, but if they pray they will receive enormous strength, and with it they may discover that the road to sanctification, though difficult, is at least more visible for them than for those who do not know, as homosexuals do, what kind of relationships their calling entails.
35. I am a homosexual; what do you say to me?
I say that no matter what you are, you are called to holiness. You are called to surrender yourself to the will of God, no matter how great the trial. And you are called to patiently bear under temptation, because trials borne patiently can be of great value, if you offer them to God on behalf of another, or even on behalf of yourself. God loves you, and never gives a man a trial beyond his strength; perhaps He permitted you to suffer from same-sex attractions, rather than someone else, because He knew that you would be able to handle the trial, and another man not. Pray to Him for strength to avoid an unchaste relationship with another man or woman; pray to Him for sight to see the dignity in maleness and in femaleness that is violated by same-sex relationships. Get yourself to prayer, for that is your highest help; and receive the grace of the Sacraments of the Church, so that you may grow in holiness.
36. What does the Bible say about homosexual acts?
It tells us that homosexual acts are an abomination to God (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13). It reveals to us the wickedness of gay/lesbian sexual activity in the stories about Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), and also in the story of Gibeah (Judges 19). The New Testament calls homosexual activity dishonorable, shameless, and unnatural (Romans 1:26-27); unholy, profane, and contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:9-10). Those who commit it cut themselves off from God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
37. Shellfish and vulture meat are also called abominations (Lev. 11:11, Lev. 11:13).
There is a difference here. Those things are not intrinsically evil; it was a sin to eat them only because it is a sin to disobey a law promulgated by just authority -- and God is such an authority, who called certain animals unclean and certain ones clean in order that this might serve as an image, a picture of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. It does not mean that there is an intrinsic difference in value between the two things (clean and unclean food, Jew and Gentile), but God, Whose choice it was to work among the Jews alone for a time, chose to represent this by means of the image of clean and unclean foods; and then, with the coming of Christianity, to abolish the distinction between clean and unclean, declaring all foods and all people clean, inviting both Jews and Gentiles to join the one Christian family. But as for homosexual acts, it is not a case of something inherently non-moral, as it is in the case of food-types like shellfish and vulture meat. No, indeed: homosexual relations are either good or evil; good, if they are equal to heterosexual relations, and evil, if they are contrary to God’s will. Now God never forbids something intrinsically good; but He did forbid homosexual acts. So we know there was a difference. Therefore, homosexual acts are intrinsically abominable, though shellfish and vulture meat were not, but were only forbidden for a time. And it follows that to commit a homosexual act is to commit a grave offense against the law of God.
38. I have heard that Leviticus chapter 11 is only condemning “the acts that the Canaanites did,” meaning cult prostitution by males, not homosexual acts in general.
Cult male prostitution involved homosexual acts and therefore it got condemned in this passage together with all other homosexual acts. There is no reason to limit the condemnation of “men lying with men” to prostitutes, just because prostitution was one common way of doing it. Furthermore, the passage does not say, “A prostitute shall not lie with a man as with a woman,” it says, “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman,” speaking generically to all men not to do that thing. Therefore it condemns all homosexual acts, not only homosexual acts that are committed by prostitutes.
39. I have heard that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because the people were homosexuals, but because they were inhospitable to visitors.
Inhospitable they were, and with what inhospitality! We can simply read the passage to find out what their sin was: “The men of the city...called out to Lot, and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them.’ Lot went out to them to the door, and shut the door after him. He said, ‘Please, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.’ ” (Gen. 19:4-7) It was their desire to have sex with men that Lot called wicked, and that is what they were destroyed for.
40. Lot’s moral ideas were far from ideal. In his next sentence he says to the men that they may rape his own daughters as an appeasement. How do you know he wasn’t equally wrong in his first sentence as in his second?
Lot sinned terribly with his proposal, and no one says otherwise. But that is no proof against what was said about the wickedness of homosexual acts. Lot was a man who knew what was right, but did not always do it; when he said the men had wicked intent, he showed that he knew what was moral, but when he offered the men his own daughters, he acted in violation of that standard.
41. Verse 4 says the children went with the men to obtain Lot’s visitors. I suppose they had homosexual intent too!
No. The children went out with the men because the men brought them along. It does not follow that they shared the men’s intentions. The men of the city brought their children along because they were so hardened that they did not mind teaching their children that such things as they did were okay. Would that our own country would learn from the punishments God inflicted upon them, for we now teach our children the same!
42. Daniel Helminiak says the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about sexual ethics, but about inhospitality.
The New Testament should know better than Daniel Helminiak. It says they were destroyed over sexual ethics: “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them...[gave] themselves over to sexual immorality...[and] are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7)
43. Ezekiel 16:49 says: “Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride...and she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”
Keep reading. It continues: “They were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away.” (verse 50) So the sins of Sodom were many, and included their homosexual behavior. God says that is why He destroyed them; and if a thousand moderns shout otherwise, I will remain with the Word of God.
44. Please recite 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
“Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.”
45. I heard that the word “homosexual” in that passage and in 1 Tim. 1:10 is mistranslated from the Greek, and that it doesn’t truly refer to homosexuals.
The word refers to practicing homosexuals. The Greek term is “arsenokoitai” -- from arsen, meaning a man, and koitai, meaning a bed. Hence, in the plural, it refers to two men in bed or more. And it condemns this activity.
46. B.A. Robinson says that if Paul meant homosexuals, he would have used the term “paiderasste,” which was the common term for sexual acts between men.
Paul could have used paiderasste, but he could just as easily have used arsenokoitai. If in this handbook I used the word sodomites instead of homosexuals, that would not be grounds to say that I was referring to something else, just because I used a less-common term. Moreover, there was perhaps a good reason for using arsenokoitai instead of paiderasste. In his letter, St. Paul addresses himself to churches filled with people, and so, in speaking about their problems, he speaks not of theft, adultery, and homosexuality, but of thieves, adulterers, and homosexuals – practicing homosexuals, that is – and therefore directs his words at the people who commit the acts, rather than at the acts themselves. If paiderasste really refers to homosexual acts, as B.A. Robinson says, then it was not as appropriate as arsenokoitai for referring to those who commit the acts. And therefore St. Paul used a word that refers to those who practice homosexuality, rather than to homosexual acts themselves.
47. St. Paul did not condemn “homosexual acts,” but rather homosexuals in general, and that is bigoted. Even if homosexual acts are sinful, some people can’t help that they are attracted to their own sex -- but your saint condemns them anyway, whether they commit the act or not.
St. Paul did not condemn anybody except those who knowingly give themselves over to their particular temptation. We can prove this in several ways. First, because of the very term he used, which refers to men who lie with men, not to men who are tempted to, but don’t commit the act. Second, we can know from the context that he was condemning people who sin, not people who are tempted to sin; for in the same passage he condemns adulterers and thieves; and a thief is not a thief if he is only tempted to steal, nor an adulterer an adulterer, if he is only tempted to commit adultery. And therefore the word homosexual also, should not, in this case, be interpreted apart from the committing of the homosexual act. And the heaviest proof is this: that no one has sinned, if he has not by his own fault done something wrong; but a man who suffers from same-sex attractions, may not have chosen his condition; and therefore, it is impossible that God, in this passage, condemns those who, without falling to the temptation, are merely attracted to members of the same sex; unless they have knowingly given in to unchastity, because of the strength of temptation.
48. Please recite Romans 1:26-27.
“For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.”
49. I have heard that this is talking about cult prostitutes -- male-to-male and female-to-female -- and that’s the only thing it’s condemning.
That is not correct. The passage condemns homosexual acts in general. Homosexual prostitution gets condemned by that very fact. But you will ask me to prove my interpretation; so consider these points: firstly, the words that are used are accurate descriptions of homosexual acts themselves. Homosexual acts are unnatural; they are, for men, inappropriate acts to do with men. We know what a thing is talking about principally by the meaning the words convey. These words accurately portray homosexual behavior. Therefore, it must be talking about that. Secondly, there is no mention of prostitution in the text. That idea is imported by gay activists in order to explain away the more obvious meaning. How likely is it that St. Paul, beginning by words against prostitution, ended by sounding so much like a condemner of homosexual acts? And if he was condemning prostitution, why didn’t he say so in a simpler way? There was a word for prostitutes; he could have just said that prostitution was wrong. Instead, he doesn’t mention anything about prostitution, but speaks repeatedly of men and women having unnatural lusts. Lastly, a principal to keep in mind, when interpreting the Bible, is this: the meaning that seems obvious is usually the right one -- the obvious sense is normally true. And it seems at first reading that this passage is talking about homosexual acts in general. For all these reasons, we can know that St. Paul was condemning homosexual behavior in general, and any specific instances are implicated in that condemnation.
50. If a man is truly gay, his desires are not “unnatural,” they are perfectly natural -- natural for a gay man.
Just because a man desires something does not make his desire natural or okay. A person may have a disordered desire to murder. That does not make it okay. Now we all have some disordered desires -- some for one thing, some for another. We are simply called to fight against them, with the strength that comes from God.
51. Suppose a man is gay because he was born that way.
First, there are no grounds for assuming that a man’s genes give rise to 100% of his sexual desires. One’s surroundings and prior choices have to be involved somewhere. Secondly, suppose that a certain desire has some roots in our genes -- does that mean it’s okay to give in to it? Some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but that doesn’t make it okay for them to get drunk. A man has to choose whether to follow his desires, and he ought to make that choice based on whether it is in accordance with God’s plan. God has revealed both in Scripture and in the natural order that homosexual desires are disordered, unnatural. If a man’s genetic make-up contributes to his desires somehow, it is because his flesh is fallen, just like all men’s flesh; he is not responsible for that, but he is responsible for how he responds to the temptations that rise from his condition.
52. So now God afflicts some people with a special malady!
First, fallen nature isn’t a punishment inflicted by God, it’s the natural fruit of original sin, which separated our nature from grace, and dropped the guard which prevented unintended predispositions from sneaking in. Second, that some men suffer from same-sex attractions does not mean they are worse off than others. Other men suffer worse and harder trials. And all men suffer from some disordered passions arising from the flesh; sometimes our cross is to bear against homosexual desires, sometimes it is to struggle against the lure of adultery. We are all called to overcome these desires, whatever they may be, no matter how strong the desire or how tempted we are by it, by striving to remain faithful to God’s will for us.
53. What can you say from natural reason against homosexual relations?
I can say that sex is designed with two ends: it is meant to be unitive and procreative, uniting the two sexes, and forming the single reproductive system of humanity. Any use of sexuality contrary to that inherent design is opposed to the natural order. Now the natural order is good; consequently, anything opposed to it is evil. But gay/lesbian relations are the opposite of this order; they do not unite the two sexes, and they are inherently incapable of procreating life, that is, of forming the reproductive system by combination of the necessary parts. Therefore, by reversing the natural purpose of sex, homosexual activity is immoral.
54. Some animals have homosexual relations. Therefore it is a perfectly natural thing.
Some animals slaughter their neighbors; some animals have relations with their sisters; some animals pair up with many mates. That an animal does something does not mean their actions are in accord with the natural order. Animals do not have reason, and therefore they cannot discern the order present in nature, and cannot be blamed if they act in ways that are not in accordance with it. The natural order can only be discovered by reason, and so reason must guide our actions; and since by using our reason, we discover the purpose of sex, and the place of sex in the natural order, therefore, by acting in a contrary way, we act contrary to the good.
55. Lisa Miller says let’s take the Bible’s definition of marriage -- we shall all have polygamy and concubines!
The Bible never defines marriage as a polygamous union, and it does not approve of concubines either. Several individuals in the Bible had concubines, and were polygamists, but that does not make it a good thing. God defined marriage in Genesis and in the Gospels, where He stated that marriage is when a man clings to his wife, and they become one flesh; and that the grounds of this union, is, “God made them male and female.” (Matthew 19:5-6) Between Genesis and Jesus, many men fell away from the divine reality; and afterwards, many have done the same. But the definition of marriage remains clear in the Bible: and homosexual unions don’t fit it.
56. I have heard that David and Jonathan were lovers, and perhaps married.
That is not true. David and Jonathan loved each other greatly, but they were not romantic or married, because they both knew that to be a grave evil. Moreover, even if they had been lovers, it would not prove that it was a good thing. David also committed adultery with Bathsheba, but no one tries to say that adultery is morally permissible. So even if one could prove that Jonathan and David were lovers, which they were not, it would not prove anything; for even a good man, or formerly good, can fall into serious sin.
57. 1 Samuel 20:41 says, “As soon as the boy was gone, David arose...they kissed one another, and wept one with another, and David wept the most.”
Kissing is not always romantic in our culture, much less in ancient Judaism. They kissed each other because they loved each other greatly and David was going into exile; hence he wept the most. There needs not be any romantic ideas about it at all.
58. In 2 Samuel 1:26, David said, “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan. You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
Passing the love of women, not the same kind as the love of women. Romance is not defined by the intensity of affection, or every man is sometimes his dog’s lover; for we kneel and kiss them when we have been gone for a long time. Romance is defined by its kind, not its intensity, and nothing says that David’s love for Jonathan was of the same kind as his love for women -- in fact, this passage proves that David was not homosexual, for he shows that he loved women, in that he compares his love to the love of women. For if he did not delight in that kind of love, it would have meant nothing to say his love for Jonathan surpassed it.
59. 1 Samuel 20:16-17 says, “Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David...[and] caused David to swear again, by the love that he had for him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul.”
They loved each other greatly and their houses entered a covenant. This was common practice among the various families in Judaism. And it was perfectly reasonable that David swore the covenant by his love, his friendship-type love; for that kind of love can sometimes be as strong a bond to swear by as romance-type love is. It has nothing to do with homosexuality whatsoever.
60. 1 Samuel 18:1 says, “The soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.”
Two souls can be “knit” in more ways than one. A man and a woman can be united romantically, and a man and his friend can be united platonically. There needs be no romantic interpretation of this passage; a very close bond of friendship explains it perfectly well.
61. 1 Samuel 18:2 says, “And Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father's house.”
King Saul had employed David in his house, so it is no surprise that he had him live there. And because of David’s friendship with Jonathan, this was all the more delightful to him. But that does not prove that there was any kind of romance between them.
62. 1 Samuel 18:3-4 says, “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his girdle.”
A covenant of peace between their families, not a covenant of marriage. This was how a covenant was made; the giving of the weapons was a sign of peace, the handing over of certain articles of clothing was a sign of shared goods. It has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, which was not called a “covenant” until much later in history. Nor does one need to read romance into it for it to make sense -- the whole passage is explained by a close bond made between two friends, who lived under the same roof because of other, but related factors.
63. Your Church calls gay people “intrinsically disordered.”
Certainly not. We call homosexual acts intrinsically disordered, but the people who do them are to be loved and respected -- and helped. Adulterous acts are also intrinsically disordered; but no one complains that we are being unjust to people that are tempted to commit adultery. Those tempted to commit homosexual acts do not face a different fate than they; they, like everyone else, must choose whether to follow the voice of temptation or resist it.
64. Your Church says not only the acts, but even a homosexual orientation is disordered.
And it is. But the homosexual person is not to be identified with the unfortunate fact that he happens to be attracted to the same sex. An alcoholic may happen to have a predisposition that contributes to his alcoholism; but no one will say that he himself is disordered, just because he suffers from an inordinate desire for alcohol. It is the same with homosexual persons. They are not intrinsically disordered; they suffer from an intrinsically disordered attraction. And with help, they can resist it, and live chastely, and in accordance with God’s plan.
65. You’re asking homosexuals to change who they are!
No, I am asking homosexuals to be chaste, just as all men and women are called to be, no matter who they are attracted to. That they are attracted to their own sex does not give them license to use their sexual organs in ways contrary to their design, no more than heterosexual attraction gives men and women a license to commit fornication or adultery. The fact of the matter is, one’s sexual desires are always going to be a struggle to contend with, both among the unmarried, who are often tempted to have sex before marriage, and also among the married, who are sometimes tempted to have sex with people who are not their spouse. Homosexuals do not face a different fate than they: they are called to fight against temptations to unchastity, and they can find the strength to do so through prayer and the reception of the Sacraments.
66. Your Church’s stance on homosexuality is part of what’s causing increasing amounts of suicides among gay/lesbian teenagers. How can they be expected to grow in an emotionally stable environment in the midst of so much conflict from your Church and the rest of society, and when they are constantly hearing from you and your bishops that their desires and actions are intrinsically disordered abominations?
You are misplacing the source of that interior conflict which brings them to be tempted to suicide. Homosexual teenagers have been lied to by the culture. They’ve been told that their desires are normal, when in reality those desires are against the natural order. They’ve been told that homosexual actions are okay, when there is a law already written on their hearts that tells them they are not. They find themselves outside of a stable emotional environment because society has been promoting in them disordered emotions. They’ve been looking for answers about their feelings, and they’ve been given lies instead of truth. And their only source of comfort, the graces and sanctification in the Church, has been denounced and reprimanded by those who are supposed to be helping them. Now I ask you: in such a hopeless situation, what are they to do? But I say their situation is not hopeless. There is a moral way that has truth behind it, and the can feel the call to move toward it. The Church offers them courage; dignity; a sexual meaning that makes sense and explains their conflicting desires. Above all, the Church offers them a road to sanctity, a road to heaven, in which they can boldly take responsibility for their actions, and act as saints are meant to act. Homosexuals do not face a different fate than anyone else. They face the challenge to live out their dignity as men and women created in the image of God; a challenge all men must joyfully take up. It is our highest dignity that we’ve been given freedom to see the good and choose it; all we must do is seek God’s will, and we will find it.
67. I could not list all the ways in which your Church is bigoted toward homosexuals.
You could not list one way. It is not bigoted to teach what God has revealed and reason confirms. It is not bigoted to teach that marriage is a comprehensive union of body and soul fulfilled naturally in the generation of children. It is not bigoted to teach that unity and procreativity are the essential characteristics of the reproductive act, and hence, of married couples, bonded thereby. It is not bigoted to teach the principles of a just society, which must not enshrine lies as laws, and moral wrongs as civil rights. It is not bigoted to teach, that those who disapprove of calling same-sex relationships marriages, should not have to privilege those unions by their tax dollars. It is not bigoted to teach that gays/lesbians deserve to be treated with love, dignity and respect. No, indeed, there is not one way in which the Church has been bigoted toward homosexuals; but some of homosexuality’s supporters have certainly been bigoted toward the Church.
68. The Bible says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” (Matt. 7:1)
And that is certainly a wise commandment, properly understood. But you always interpret it to mean that we cannot speak out against what we believe to be evil. And if that is so, then we cannot speak out against murderers and thieves, and if someone is stealing your things, we must simply look away and remind ourselves “judge not.” But that is absolutely ridiculous. What it means is this: a man such as you and I is to regulate his own acts, not act as an authority over others when he is not. But God may judge, and His authorized delegates may reveal what is in line with God’s will. Therefore, we do not violate this passage by proclaiming to men the immorality of homosexuality; rather, we act as informants, so that a man may be the better judge of himself, and not others, and may bring himself to repentance, if he responds to the helps which God gives him.
69. Why, then, has your Church excommunicated some practicing homosexuals, if you believe you are unable to judge?
As a man is to be judge over his own conduct, so also the Church is to be judge over her subjects; her bishops and pope have been seated in a position of authority by just measures, and they may use that authority to excommunicate those who give public scandal.
The same God who said that you and I are not to judge, commanded us both to listen to the Church, whom He made judge over men when they sin. Thus He says: “If your brother sins against you...tell it to the Church. And if he refuses to listen to the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the tax collector. Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:17-18) Thus she may excommunicate those among her members who refuse to accept her just authority.
The same may be proved from natural reason; for if a man refuses to regulate himself according to the rules of the Church, what business does he have calling himself a Catholic? If you want to be in the club, you have to obey the rules. If not, do not be surprised if you are thrown out. But this does not contradict the commandment, to men such as you and I, not to judge; for no one is our subject but our self, and no one is the Church’s but her members.
70. Your doctrine makes homosexuals feel abnormal and hated.
Homosexual couples do not have the right to marry, and any relationship between them cannot properly be called a marriage.
2. It is unjust to give some rights to some people alone.
Society doesn’t give rights, it either observes them or violates them. And since gay/lesbian couples do not have the right to marry, there is no injustice in not observing what they do not have; nor is it a violation of their rights, since there is no “right” there to violate.
3. It makes no sense to say that heterosexual couples have some rights and homosexuals not.
It makes perfect sense in regard to marriage, because marriage by its definition can belong to heterosexual couples alone. What can belong only to one person is not unjustly kept from others to whom it cannot belong; nor is the name “marriage” unjustly kept from non-heterosexual relationships, because it can truly belong only to heterosexual couples. In fact, it is unjust to call a marriage what is not in fact a marriage. And that is precisely what happens whenever a state or country legalizes gay marriage.
4. Why do you say that marriage can belong only to heterosexual couples?
Marriage means a union or bond, and it is a bond not only in name but in reality: a comprehensive bond of the whole person, body and soul, to another. Now the bodies of heterosexual couples actually unite in the marital act when their sexual organs together form a complete reproductive system. But gay/lesbian couples do not and cannot form this kind of real union. Without the possibility of that real and comprehensive union, gay/lesbian couples are missing an essential component of marriage.
5. That’s ridiculous. The reproductive act is sex, and marriage doesn’t depend on sex, it transcends it.
Reproduction is a bonding system; that bond is a part of marriage. In fact, the reproductive act is the only biological act that requires both sexes to cooperate, it is the only act which actually makes the separate parts of male and female into one whole -- into a complete reproductive system. And that union is part of the comprehensive union that marriage requires.
Moreover, because marriage is a bond of two people, body and soul, to one another, any definition of marriage that discards the real bodily union of the married couple, destroys half the dignity of marriage. To get rid of the bodily union gets rid of half the marital bond. By the traditional understanding of marriage we preserve the dignity of body and soul, and the reality of the union made between the bodies and the souls of married couples. Advocates of gay “marriage” will destroy that understanding if they have their way.
6. Nonsense. Homosexual couples can be as physically intimate as heterosexual couples.
They cannot attain a true bodily union, no matter how proximate they are to each other. Union of two means the separate parts form one whole. Now heterosexual couples can do this; in the marital act, the combined sexual organs form the one reproductive system of the human race. In homosexual relationships, on the other hand, if they put their parts together, they do not form a complete whole, they are just a doubling of one half of the complete system. The reproductive act takes male and female parts to complete; two males or two females simply cannot form the united whole that a heterosexual couple really can. Marriage involves union involves the reproductive act involves the two sexes. A homosexual couple cannot make the union that is marriage real; therefore, their relationships aren’t true marriages. They literally don’t have what it takes to make the comprehensive bond that is necessary in a marriage.
7. C.J. Marshall says the courts have never required that couples seeking to marry first prove they have the ability or intention to reproduce.
What if they haven’t? Perhaps they assumed that the intention or ability was already there. But even if they didn’t, my argument isn’t that they must be able to reproduce; it’s that they must be able to form the comprehensive union of both body and soul, and for the bodily aspect, the reproductive act is integral. With it, two bodies are really united to form one reproductive unit. Without it, sex is just being close, and stimulating the sexual organs. And besides all this, if your argument is from the courts, well, the courts always required a male and a female to form the marital union, and by that very fact they required the parts necessary to form the reproductive union, even if the ability or intention to reproduce wasn’t there for other reasons.
8. Reproduction can’t be necessary because that would exclude every infertile couple and every sterile person from marrying.
No, it wouldn’t. The reproductive act, which unites the spouses, can be done even by infertile couples; even by women who have had hysterectomies. They can do the act because they have the necessary parts for forming the complete reproductive “engine” -- that the act doesn’t result in children is due to factors external to that. But in homosexuals, they cannot do the reproductive act at all, they cannot even form it, because they don’t have the necessary parts. So there is an essential difference between homosexual relations and heterosexual relations; a difference on the very matter that makes a marriage what it is: a comprehensive union. Without it, you’ve got something different from marriage.
9. Sex doesn’t always result in children, therefore sex doesn’t have to be reproductive.
Sex is the reproductive act of the human race. The reason why we have sexuality in the first place is because it is one of two systems of reproduction, the other being asexual. So sex bears within itself the reason for heterosexual relations. But like other acts, the reproductive act doesn’t always produce its effect. Nevertheless, it still truly unites a male and a female into one whole cause of reproduction. It cannot do that for homosexual couples, indeed they do not have all the necessary parts for the reproductive act at all.
10. Homosexuals can have children just as well as heterosexuals. It is one of the advances provided by scientific progress. So there are no longer any grounds for making a distinction between their relationships and heterosexual ones.
Lesbians can have children only by borrowing a male sperm; gay men can have children only by borrowing a woman’s womb. In fact, your point proves the opposite of gay marriage: it proves that reproduction requires the necessary parts of opposite-sex people. And besides all this, even if homosexuals can “have children,” still, they cannot do the reproductive act, the act that forms the two into one reproductive unit, which makes bodily union a reality and marriage a possibility.
11. So heterosexuals get all the benefits society confers on married couples, but homosexuals are denied equal treatment. Where is the justice in that!
To get equal treatment you need to make an equal contribution. Now let’s take the two cases separately. Heterosexual relationships are the source of children, who are the members of society and the next generation of society. Their children grow up and become members of the workforce. In fact, heterosexual relationships actually provide for the good of society, because they (and only they) produce the greatest value of all for any society: human capital. Society confers benefits on married couples in return for the good that married couples provide to society. Now take homosexual relationships: two men or two women become romantically involved, and at some point they live together. What does this do on behalf of society? What do they do to deserve the benefits that society provides to encourage marital unions? If their unions naturally contributed to the good of society, as heterosexual unions naturally do, that would be one thing; but there can be no justice in providing marital benefits to them, when their unions do nothing for society.
12. I knew a man who said he would give away everything he had for a homosexual, but wouldn't approve of their marrying.
I can sympathize with that attitude completely.
13. Well, I want to know how you can claim to be loving toward gays/lesbians, even while you refuse them the basic legal protections given to married couples?
Society provides benefits to married couples for a reason, and the reason involves the procreative act; for out of marriages, understood as comprehensive unions naturally fulfilled in the production of children, society itself -- its members -- arises and is propagated. But not so in homosexual relationships, for they are not fulfilled naturally in the generation of goods for society. In short, the reason why we provide benefits to married couples, is because the good of society is the natural fruit of heterosexual relationships. That reason is not true of homosexual relationships.
And as for justice, we can say this: it would not be just if one man, who did not do his job, got equal pay with another man, who did his job; it would be equally unjust if homosexual couples got the legal privileges of marriage, when they have not done, and indeed cannot do, what married couples do for their society.
14. Some of the benefits of marriage shouldn’t be kept from any two people who want them; much less gay/lesbian couples, who need them.
If you think hospital visiting rights and medical health-care sharing plans should be available to all, that is one thing; if you think any two people should be permitted to share their tax responsibilities, we can debate the merits of that position. Catholics can disagree in good faith on such things. But gay/lesbian couples certainly don’t need special helps from society, when their relationships don’t contribute back to it. No two people are entitled to financial assistance just because they decide to share financial burdens.
15. What is your position on allowing civil unions for gay/lesbian couples?
We need to be asking what society will gain by giving legal recognition and benefits to homosexual relationships. You want society to provide certain benefits to them -- the ability to combine health care plans, the ability to file tax-work jointly and retain some extra finances for their own use -- in short, to relieve them of some of the financial burdens associated with living in society. And suppose we did; in that case, gay/lesbian couples have more money, because they are exempted from certain ordinary financial burdens. And for what? Because they want to be? Sign me up for lower taxes; I want my justice! No. There is no justice in privileging unions that are not naturally fulfilled in the generation of goods for society.
16. Homosexual couples can do the same things for society that heterosexual couples can.
Oh really? Consider the benefits provided by marriage as most people reasonably understand it: it is by its nature a comprehensive union of a man and a women which is naturally fulfilled in the generation of children, the members and next generation of society, and its future workforce. Heterosexual marriages naturally provide the principal “cells” by which society is formed -- men and women committed together to bringing offspring to maturity. We give benefits to heterosexual marriages in the hopes that these “cells” might be all the better off, and society improved through them. If children were not the natural fruit of marital unions, due to the bodily union that is part of them through the reproductive act, then society would not have grounds for privileging them. But that is precisely the case with homosexual unions. Their relationships are not naturally fulfilled in the generation of goods for society. And therefore there are no grounds for privileging them.
17. Gay/lesbian couples can adopt children and contribute to society that way.
Yes, and two sisters might raise their nephew, if the need arose, but they are not entitled to financial benefits nor to the name “marriage” just because of their potential to adopt. Benefits are conferred due to the goods that are the natural fruit of the union. Adopting a kid is not a natural fruit of a gay/lesbian union. And much less is the term “marriage” due to them just because they might adopt; for even in that case, that name is only for those who can from a true comprehensive union, a union which only truly happens by means of the reproductive act, which requires both sexes. Furthermore, the children in adoption agencies come from heterosexual relationships, and they belong with a mother and a father. If you are worried about them, you ought to place them in families that can provide that, and if you feel you must provide financial help, then do so; but as for gay/lesbian couples, they are not what children need, because they cannot provide a mother and a father to any child at all.
18. Your stance on gay/lesbian adoptions harms children, who are prevented from living in loving homes.
It does not harm children. It promotes what is best for them. There are problems in the adoption industry that make it hard for willing couples to adopt; these problems should be fixed, and children will find the loving homes they need, homes capable of providing a mother and a father for the child. Fix the roadblocks to adopting into heterosexual couples, and there will be no need for alternative forms of parenting that lack a mother and father.
19. Why can’t we just add a small section to marriage law for homosexual couples, and not force Churches to recognize it?
Because even a small falsehood is a falsehood. And in this case, the falsehood would be enormous. Marriage is not something you can redefine; it means a comprehensive union, and if you say that homosexuals can form that kind of union, you are simply not stating the truth. Society does not have power to change reality; they may recognize it or not, but they cannot change what marriage is, and we must oppose any laws that deny that reality.
20. What’s the harm to you if gay marriage is legalized?
To me? How about to society? First, there is the injustice involved by calling what is not a marriage a marriage. Then there is the injustice involved in providing legal benefits to these unions at the cost of society, when those unions do not contribute anything back by their nature. It’s just giving out free money because someone lobbied loudly for it. And then you’re stuck calling something that is not a marriage a marriage, and making everyone pay for it whether they support it or not. Then there is the injustice to children, who are moved into homes that lack a mother and father, relationships they are conceived from and have a natural right to belong to. Then there is the injustice to the those who want to go on teaching the truth about marriage in public. For not only will they be treated as bigots and backwards; their ideas about marriage as a union of a man and his wife, and the right of children to a mom and a dad, will be reported in public schooling as a lost idea of “marriage inequality,” and this denunciation will be taught to Christians’ own children. The dignity of marriage itself will be violated by a policy that renounces part of its definition; and really, by denying the part about the union of the sexes, it would in truth be denying the reproductive aspect also, which is provided by the union of the sexes. And then there is the moral damage, to every gay couple who is licensed as spouses, and to every citizen who does not oppose it. For the fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as a private sin; whatever harms one person harms all who are associated in it. If the State legalizes gay marriage, all who have permitted it are implicated in its stain, all who voted for its promoters share the guilt of their transgression, and all who are faithful are shouldered with another lie to oppose.
21. There is a greater good promoted by legalizing gay marriage; and it is the feeling of worth and dignity among homosexuals, and the avoidance of bigotry and persecution by those who think their lifestyle is immoral.
First, a good end can never justify an evil means, and it is a lie to call gay/lesbian partnerships marriages. So even if there was a greater good promoted by legalizing gay marriage, it could never justify our doing so. But now let us examine your claim of a “greater good.” I fully admit that persecution is a thing to be avoided, and a man or woman’s dignity is a thing to be promoted; let us work together to achieve these ends by moral means. In fact, persecution is only caused by a lack of appreciation of the dignity of men, including homosexuals; and so it all comes down to promoting their dignity. But I do not admit that their dignity would be promoted if we legalized gay marriage. On the contrary, their dignity would be cast down and trod underfoot; and if you reply that the feeling could be promoted, I answer that it is more important to promote their dignity actually, by calling them to live by higher moral standards, than to promote the feeling of dignity, without the reality, by legalizing gay marriage, and leaving them to go on in immorality under the banner of a falsely-termed “marriage.”
22. Society used to oppose interracial marriages, but we’ve moved beyond that, and it wasn’t “redefining marriage” in that case either. Belief in gay inequality is just another prejudice from the past, and it’s time to move beyond that too.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Interracial marriages complete both functions of marriage; they unite the two spouses in the reproductive system of the human race by combination of the necessary parts, and the type of act involved is naturally fulfilled in the procreation of children. Therefore, because interracial spouses are able to form the comprehensive union that is marriage, they are able to marry, and it is unjust to prevent them. Whereas with homosexual unions, they are by nature incapable of performing the reproductive act, and therefore incapable of forming both the comprehensive bond of matrimony, and the procreative type of act that is naturally fulfilled in the generation of life. Since they are unable to marry, there is no injustice in the refusal to call their relationships marriages.
And secondly, this implies nothing about gay inequality. Gay people are absolutely equal to heterosexual people in dignity, in the image of God which is in them, and in the respect due to them by natural law. But that does not change the fact that romantic relationships between them are sinful, that their unions are not marriages, and that giving legal privileges to their partnerships is unjust to the rest of society.
23. You say that marriage is for the union of the spouses and the procreation of life.
I certainly do.
24. Homosexual unions have the “union” part, so the only question is that of procreation.
No. Homosexuals are not able to do either part of marriage, neither the union, which is a union of both sexes into one reproductive unit by means of the reproductive act, nor can they form the procreative “engine,” as heterosexuals can whenever they sexually unite the component parts. The definition of marriage includes both union and procreation, and homosexuals cannot fulfill either part; but both are completely essential components. Omit either, and you’ve got no marriage; omit both, and you’re still father from meeting the definition of marriage.
25. And with regard to procreation, we say it cannot be necessary, because that cannot be fulfilled by couples past the age of childbearing, nor by a thousand others for a variety of reasons; but they may all marry.
Every heterosexual couple can fulfill the procreative part of marriage’s definition, whether or not they can procreate. For it is fulfilled by forming the complete reproductive system by combination of the necessary parts, which all heterosexual couples have, but which no homosexuals have. Consider an analogy: an engine is defined as a mechanical producer of motion; now by combining the necessary parts, you can make an engine, even if, for some reason, it is unable to be used, such as a lack of fuel, or an expired part. For use of the engine is not a precondition for being an engine. In the same way, heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate for a variety of reasons are still able to fulfill the procreative part of the definition of marriage by forming in their bodies a reproductive system. That it cannot produce its natural effect is due to other factors; the system itself, however, can be formed. Not so with homosexuals; they do not have the necessary parts. And so they are unable to fulfill a defining feature of marriage.
26. Jesus never said one thing against gay marriage.
It would not matter if He did not. His authorized delegates, the Apostles, certainly said enough in condemnation of it; and the Old Testament, which He believed, calls it abomination. Jesus Himself said that marriage is between a man and his wife (Matthew 19:4-6) and is based in their “one flesh” union. As explained above, gay/lesbian couples cannot do the reproductive act that makes them one. So they do not fit the definition of marriage according to Jesus. But even if He had never said anything about it at all, still, natural reason could discover the evil of homosexual marriage by itself. For not everything that is true has to be repeated in the Gospel; but God, who gave us intellectual powers, has given us everything we need to have to discover that homosexual relationships are abominable by their very nature, and their unions essentially different from marriage.
27. Admit it -- you only oppose gay marriage out of prejudice and bigotry.
I do not admit to that. There are solid reasons which inform my political position. If you disagree with those reasons, you can point out where you think I have erred and you will promote public discourse; but if, in the face of solid reasoning and argumentation, you instead cast insults and slurs, you are no longer doing what is best for society, but are harming the political landscape.
28. You want to exclude homosexuals from marriage!
Exclude them from something they cannot join anyway? You’ve got to be kidding me! When something is impossible I do not need to exclude people from it; they are excluded by the very nature of reality. I do not exclude men from becoming pregnant, because the contrary possibility doesn’t exist. Nor do I exclude homosexual couples from marrying, because they could not truly marry no matter if I said otherwise. The comprehensive bond that marriage requires simply cannot exist among homosexuals. It would be better for you to say, not that I want to exclude homosexuals from marriage, but that I think homosexuals are incapable of marrying in the first place, which would be an accurate summary of my position.
29. Whatever happened to “love, dignity, and respect”?
Let’s take their dignity first. The dignity inherent in men and women by nature should call us out to decry all violations of it, especially all inappropriate uses of their sex, the very thing that makes them male and female at all. And love for gay men and women should inspire us to help them out of a lifestyle that is unworthy of their calling. And if we truly respect them as persons, our respect should draw us to help them avoid that which harms them, both bodily and spiritually. Love does what is best for the beloved; and the best thing for homosexuals is to live as God calls them to live, to act as God has revealed that they should. That excludes all homosexual behavior, and so the most loving thing we can do is to call their attention to the facts. For it would not be charitable to let a man go over a precipice, because we did not want to offend him.
30. A person can’t help who he or she falls in love with.
A person can choose how to respond to his or her affections for another person, and if a man or woman can prevent an unchaste relationship from forming, they can certainly prevent falling in love with them. Even in “love at first sight,” no one has to choose to follow the urges of the flesh toward another, if those urges are prompting them to unchastity. So I do not agree that a person can’t help who he or she falls in love with. And at any rate, true love does what is best for the beloved, which always consists in helping them live by God’s law, never in joining them in revolt against it. So even if they couldn’t help “falling in love,” they could certainly help what they did by that love, whether to live by or revolt against God’s law.
31. What if one would die for the other? Would you say that is wrong?
I would die for either one of them, but I am not in love with them. Great love involves great sacrifice, not just of one’s body, but of anything you might want that is contrary to the other’s good. True love does not say, “Let’s endanger our souls together.” True love says, “I want to sanctify you.” Gay men and gay women can have an appropriate love for one another that does not involve romance, which is to be only between a man and a spouse of the opposite sex whom he loves; if a homosexual couple would die for one another, that is good, but as for their romantic involvement, that is not good, because it is not in line with God’s law as revealed in Scripture and in the natural order.
32. We’re not talking about one-night stands here; we’re talking about committed, loving relationships.
Being in a long-term relationship with someone doesn’t make it okay to do unchaste actions with them. Remember, homosexual acts are unchaste by their very nature. That some people do them over a long-term period only compounds the evil.
33. Gay/lesbian couples are in love. Love is never wrong.
Then adultery is never wrong, and polygamy is never wrong, and incest is never wrong, nor fornication! No, you have erred because you have misunderstood love, which is good when it is in accordance with God’s plan, and wrong when it is not. Homosexual love is disordered because it is contrary to order of nature and of God’s revealed plan. But homosexuals are able to live out a chaste life, and in fact they are called to do so. If they ask for the grace, they can overcome even the strongest of desires, if they are contrary to God’s will.
34. Why are homosexuals called to chastity, and heterosexuals called to married life?
First, not all heterosexuals are called to married life. Some are called to pledge their chastity to God for the entire duration of their life, and during that time they must patiently bear up under the urges of the flesh, which war against that noble calling. Second, it is not as if homosexuals are called to chastity and heterosexuals not; all are called to chastity, but not all in the same way. Those who are called to marry are called to chastity, first, until marriage, and then, once in a marriage, they are called to have a chaste relationship with their wife, which does not mean a non-sexual relationship, but a relationship in accordance with the purpose of our sexuality. And they are also called to have chaste relationships with those to whom they aren’t married. Chaste relationships are those which use our sexuality only for union with one’s spouse, which is meant to be expressed principally by the reproductive act. Any use of sexuality not oriented to finding that union, including uses of the sexual organs with members of the same sex, is a sin, and the temptation to it must be resisted. The hardship involved for homosexuals is enormous, but if they pray they will receive enormous strength, and with it they may discover that the road to sanctification, though difficult, is at least more visible for them than for those who do not know, as homosexuals do, what kind of relationships their calling entails.
35. I am a homosexual; what do you say to me?
I say that no matter what you are, you are called to holiness. You are called to surrender yourself to the will of God, no matter how great the trial. And you are called to patiently bear under temptation, because trials borne patiently can be of great value, if you offer them to God on behalf of another, or even on behalf of yourself. God loves you, and never gives a man a trial beyond his strength; perhaps He permitted you to suffer from same-sex attractions, rather than someone else, because He knew that you would be able to handle the trial, and another man not. Pray to Him for strength to avoid an unchaste relationship with another man or woman; pray to Him for sight to see the dignity in maleness and in femaleness that is violated by same-sex relationships. Get yourself to prayer, for that is your highest help; and receive the grace of the Sacraments of the Church, so that you may grow in holiness.
36. What does the Bible say about homosexual acts?
It tells us that homosexual acts are an abomination to God (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13). It reveals to us the wickedness of gay/lesbian sexual activity in the stories about Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), and also in the story of Gibeah (Judges 19). The New Testament calls homosexual activity dishonorable, shameless, and unnatural (Romans 1:26-27); unholy, profane, and contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:9-10). Those who commit it cut themselves off from God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
37. Shellfish and vulture meat are also called abominations (Lev. 11:11, Lev. 11:13).
There is a difference here. Those things are not intrinsically evil; it was a sin to eat them only because it is a sin to disobey a law promulgated by just authority -- and God is such an authority, who called certain animals unclean and certain ones clean in order that this might serve as an image, a picture of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. It does not mean that there is an intrinsic difference in value between the two things (clean and unclean food, Jew and Gentile), but God, Whose choice it was to work among the Jews alone for a time, chose to represent this by means of the image of clean and unclean foods; and then, with the coming of Christianity, to abolish the distinction between clean and unclean, declaring all foods and all people clean, inviting both Jews and Gentiles to join the one Christian family. But as for homosexual acts, it is not a case of something inherently non-moral, as it is in the case of food-types like shellfish and vulture meat. No, indeed: homosexual relations are either good or evil; good, if they are equal to heterosexual relations, and evil, if they are contrary to God’s will. Now God never forbids something intrinsically good; but He did forbid homosexual acts. So we know there was a difference. Therefore, homosexual acts are intrinsically abominable, though shellfish and vulture meat were not, but were only forbidden for a time. And it follows that to commit a homosexual act is to commit a grave offense against the law of God.
38. I have heard that Leviticus chapter 11 is only condemning “the acts that the Canaanites did,” meaning cult prostitution by males, not homosexual acts in general.
Cult male prostitution involved homosexual acts and therefore it got condemned in this passage together with all other homosexual acts. There is no reason to limit the condemnation of “men lying with men” to prostitutes, just because prostitution was one common way of doing it. Furthermore, the passage does not say, “A prostitute shall not lie with a man as with a woman,” it says, “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman,” speaking generically to all men not to do that thing. Therefore it condemns all homosexual acts, not only homosexual acts that are committed by prostitutes.
39. I have heard that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because the people were homosexuals, but because they were inhospitable to visitors.
Inhospitable they were, and with what inhospitality! We can simply read the passage to find out what their sin was: “The men of the city...called out to Lot, and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them.’ Lot went out to them to the door, and shut the door after him. He said, ‘Please, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.’ ” (Gen. 19:4-7) It was their desire to have sex with men that Lot called wicked, and that is what they were destroyed for.
40. Lot’s moral ideas were far from ideal. In his next sentence he says to the men that they may rape his own daughters as an appeasement. How do you know he wasn’t equally wrong in his first sentence as in his second?
Lot sinned terribly with his proposal, and no one says otherwise. But that is no proof against what was said about the wickedness of homosexual acts. Lot was a man who knew what was right, but did not always do it; when he said the men had wicked intent, he showed that he knew what was moral, but when he offered the men his own daughters, he acted in violation of that standard.
41. Verse 4 says the children went with the men to obtain Lot’s visitors. I suppose they had homosexual intent too!
No. The children went out with the men because the men brought them along. It does not follow that they shared the men’s intentions. The men of the city brought their children along because they were so hardened that they did not mind teaching their children that such things as they did were okay. Would that our own country would learn from the punishments God inflicted upon them, for we now teach our children the same!
42. Daniel Helminiak says the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about sexual ethics, but about inhospitality.
The New Testament should know better than Daniel Helminiak. It says they were destroyed over sexual ethics: “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them...[gave] themselves over to sexual immorality...[and] are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7)
43. Ezekiel 16:49 says: “Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride...and she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”
Keep reading. It continues: “They were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away.” (verse 50) So the sins of Sodom were many, and included their homosexual behavior. God says that is why He destroyed them; and if a thousand moderns shout otherwise, I will remain with the Word of God.
44. Please recite 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
“Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.”
45. I heard that the word “homosexual” in that passage and in 1 Tim. 1:10 is mistranslated from the Greek, and that it doesn’t truly refer to homosexuals.
The word refers to practicing homosexuals. The Greek term is “arsenokoitai” -- from arsen, meaning a man, and koitai, meaning a bed. Hence, in the plural, it refers to two men in bed or more. And it condemns this activity.
46. B.A. Robinson says that if Paul meant homosexuals, he would have used the term “paiderasste,” which was the common term for sexual acts between men.
Paul could have used paiderasste, but he could just as easily have used arsenokoitai. If in this handbook I used the word sodomites instead of homosexuals, that would not be grounds to say that I was referring to something else, just because I used a less-common term. Moreover, there was perhaps a good reason for using arsenokoitai instead of paiderasste. In his letter, St. Paul addresses himself to churches filled with people, and so, in speaking about their problems, he speaks not of theft, adultery, and homosexuality, but of thieves, adulterers, and homosexuals – practicing homosexuals, that is – and therefore directs his words at the people who commit the acts, rather than at the acts themselves. If paiderasste really refers to homosexual acts, as B.A. Robinson says, then it was not as appropriate as arsenokoitai for referring to those who commit the acts. And therefore St. Paul used a word that refers to those who practice homosexuality, rather than to homosexual acts themselves.
47. St. Paul did not condemn “homosexual acts,” but rather homosexuals in general, and that is bigoted. Even if homosexual acts are sinful, some people can’t help that they are attracted to their own sex -- but your saint condemns them anyway, whether they commit the act or not.
St. Paul did not condemn anybody except those who knowingly give themselves over to their particular temptation. We can prove this in several ways. First, because of the very term he used, which refers to men who lie with men, not to men who are tempted to, but don’t commit the act. Second, we can know from the context that he was condemning people who sin, not people who are tempted to sin; for in the same passage he condemns adulterers and thieves; and a thief is not a thief if he is only tempted to steal, nor an adulterer an adulterer, if he is only tempted to commit adultery. And therefore the word homosexual also, should not, in this case, be interpreted apart from the committing of the homosexual act. And the heaviest proof is this: that no one has sinned, if he has not by his own fault done something wrong; but a man who suffers from same-sex attractions, may not have chosen his condition; and therefore, it is impossible that God, in this passage, condemns those who, without falling to the temptation, are merely attracted to members of the same sex; unless they have knowingly given in to unchastity, because of the strength of temptation.
48. Please recite Romans 1:26-27.
“For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.”
49. I have heard that this is talking about cult prostitutes -- male-to-male and female-to-female -- and that’s the only thing it’s condemning.
That is not correct. The passage condemns homosexual acts in general. Homosexual prostitution gets condemned by that very fact. But you will ask me to prove my interpretation; so consider these points: firstly, the words that are used are accurate descriptions of homosexual acts themselves. Homosexual acts are unnatural; they are, for men, inappropriate acts to do with men. We know what a thing is talking about principally by the meaning the words convey. These words accurately portray homosexual behavior. Therefore, it must be talking about that. Secondly, there is no mention of prostitution in the text. That idea is imported by gay activists in order to explain away the more obvious meaning. How likely is it that St. Paul, beginning by words against prostitution, ended by sounding so much like a condemner of homosexual acts? And if he was condemning prostitution, why didn’t he say so in a simpler way? There was a word for prostitutes; he could have just said that prostitution was wrong. Instead, he doesn’t mention anything about prostitution, but speaks repeatedly of men and women having unnatural lusts. Lastly, a principal to keep in mind, when interpreting the Bible, is this: the meaning that seems obvious is usually the right one -- the obvious sense is normally true. And it seems at first reading that this passage is talking about homosexual acts in general. For all these reasons, we can know that St. Paul was condemning homosexual behavior in general, and any specific instances are implicated in that condemnation.
50. If a man is truly gay, his desires are not “unnatural,” they are perfectly natural -- natural for a gay man.
Just because a man desires something does not make his desire natural or okay. A person may have a disordered desire to murder. That does not make it okay. Now we all have some disordered desires -- some for one thing, some for another. We are simply called to fight against them, with the strength that comes from God.
51. Suppose a man is gay because he was born that way.
First, there are no grounds for assuming that a man’s genes give rise to 100% of his sexual desires. One’s surroundings and prior choices have to be involved somewhere. Secondly, suppose that a certain desire has some roots in our genes -- does that mean it’s okay to give in to it? Some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but that doesn’t make it okay for them to get drunk. A man has to choose whether to follow his desires, and he ought to make that choice based on whether it is in accordance with God’s plan. God has revealed both in Scripture and in the natural order that homosexual desires are disordered, unnatural. If a man’s genetic make-up contributes to his desires somehow, it is because his flesh is fallen, just like all men’s flesh; he is not responsible for that, but he is responsible for how he responds to the temptations that rise from his condition.
52. So now God afflicts some people with a special malady!
First, fallen nature isn’t a punishment inflicted by God, it’s the natural fruit of original sin, which separated our nature from grace, and dropped the guard which prevented unintended predispositions from sneaking in. Second, that some men suffer from same-sex attractions does not mean they are worse off than others. Other men suffer worse and harder trials. And all men suffer from some disordered passions arising from the flesh; sometimes our cross is to bear against homosexual desires, sometimes it is to struggle against the lure of adultery. We are all called to overcome these desires, whatever they may be, no matter how strong the desire or how tempted we are by it, by striving to remain faithful to God’s will for us.
53. What can you say from natural reason against homosexual relations?
I can say that sex is designed with two ends: it is meant to be unitive and procreative, uniting the two sexes, and forming the single reproductive system of humanity. Any use of sexuality contrary to that inherent design is opposed to the natural order. Now the natural order is good; consequently, anything opposed to it is evil. But gay/lesbian relations are the opposite of this order; they do not unite the two sexes, and they are inherently incapable of procreating life, that is, of forming the reproductive system by combination of the necessary parts. Therefore, by reversing the natural purpose of sex, homosexual activity is immoral.
54. Some animals have homosexual relations. Therefore it is a perfectly natural thing.
Some animals slaughter their neighbors; some animals have relations with their sisters; some animals pair up with many mates. That an animal does something does not mean their actions are in accord with the natural order. Animals do not have reason, and therefore they cannot discern the order present in nature, and cannot be blamed if they act in ways that are not in accordance with it. The natural order can only be discovered by reason, and so reason must guide our actions; and since by using our reason, we discover the purpose of sex, and the place of sex in the natural order, therefore, by acting in a contrary way, we act contrary to the good.
55. Lisa Miller says let’s take the Bible’s definition of marriage -- we shall all have polygamy and concubines!
The Bible never defines marriage as a polygamous union, and it does not approve of concubines either. Several individuals in the Bible had concubines, and were polygamists, but that does not make it a good thing. God defined marriage in Genesis and in the Gospels, where He stated that marriage is when a man clings to his wife, and they become one flesh; and that the grounds of this union, is, “God made them male and female.” (Matthew 19:5-6) Between Genesis and Jesus, many men fell away from the divine reality; and afterwards, many have done the same. But the definition of marriage remains clear in the Bible: and homosexual unions don’t fit it.
56. I have heard that David and Jonathan were lovers, and perhaps married.
That is not true. David and Jonathan loved each other greatly, but they were not romantic or married, because they both knew that to be a grave evil. Moreover, even if they had been lovers, it would not prove that it was a good thing. David also committed adultery with Bathsheba, but no one tries to say that adultery is morally permissible. So even if one could prove that Jonathan and David were lovers, which they were not, it would not prove anything; for even a good man, or formerly good, can fall into serious sin.
57. 1 Samuel 20:41 says, “As soon as the boy was gone, David arose...they kissed one another, and wept one with another, and David wept the most.”
Kissing is not always romantic in our culture, much less in ancient Judaism. They kissed each other because they loved each other greatly and David was going into exile; hence he wept the most. There needs not be any romantic ideas about it at all.
58. In 2 Samuel 1:26, David said, “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan. You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
Passing the love of women, not the same kind as the love of women. Romance is not defined by the intensity of affection, or every man is sometimes his dog’s lover; for we kneel and kiss them when we have been gone for a long time. Romance is defined by its kind, not its intensity, and nothing says that David’s love for Jonathan was of the same kind as his love for women -- in fact, this passage proves that David was not homosexual, for he shows that he loved women, in that he compares his love to the love of women. For if he did not delight in that kind of love, it would have meant nothing to say his love for Jonathan surpassed it.
59. 1 Samuel 20:16-17 says, “Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David...[and] caused David to swear again, by the love that he had for him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul.”
They loved each other greatly and their houses entered a covenant. This was common practice among the various families in Judaism. And it was perfectly reasonable that David swore the covenant by his love, his friendship-type love; for that kind of love can sometimes be as strong a bond to swear by as romance-type love is. It has nothing to do with homosexuality whatsoever.
60. 1 Samuel 18:1 says, “The soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.”
Two souls can be “knit” in more ways than one. A man and a woman can be united romantically, and a man and his friend can be united platonically. There needs be no romantic interpretation of this passage; a very close bond of friendship explains it perfectly well.
61. 1 Samuel 18:2 says, “And Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father's house.”
King Saul had employed David in his house, so it is no surprise that he had him live there. And because of David’s friendship with Jonathan, this was all the more delightful to him. But that does not prove that there was any kind of romance between them.
62. 1 Samuel 18:3-4 says, “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his girdle.”
A covenant of peace between their families, not a covenant of marriage. This was how a covenant was made; the giving of the weapons was a sign of peace, the handing over of certain articles of clothing was a sign of shared goods. It has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, which was not called a “covenant” until much later in history. Nor does one need to read romance into it for it to make sense -- the whole passage is explained by a close bond made between two friends, who lived under the same roof because of other, but related factors.
63. Your Church calls gay people “intrinsically disordered.”
Certainly not. We call homosexual acts intrinsically disordered, but the people who do them are to be loved and respected -- and helped. Adulterous acts are also intrinsically disordered; but no one complains that we are being unjust to people that are tempted to commit adultery. Those tempted to commit homosexual acts do not face a different fate than they; they, like everyone else, must choose whether to follow the voice of temptation or resist it.
64. Your Church says not only the acts, but even a homosexual orientation is disordered.
And it is. But the homosexual person is not to be identified with the unfortunate fact that he happens to be attracted to the same sex. An alcoholic may happen to have a predisposition that contributes to his alcoholism; but no one will say that he himself is disordered, just because he suffers from an inordinate desire for alcohol. It is the same with homosexual persons. They are not intrinsically disordered; they suffer from an intrinsically disordered attraction. And with help, they can resist it, and live chastely, and in accordance with God’s plan.
65. You’re asking homosexuals to change who they are!
No, I am asking homosexuals to be chaste, just as all men and women are called to be, no matter who they are attracted to. That they are attracted to their own sex does not give them license to use their sexual organs in ways contrary to their design, no more than heterosexual attraction gives men and women a license to commit fornication or adultery. The fact of the matter is, one’s sexual desires are always going to be a struggle to contend with, both among the unmarried, who are often tempted to have sex before marriage, and also among the married, who are sometimes tempted to have sex with people who are not their spouse. Homosexuals do not face a different fate than they: they are called to fight against temptations to unchastity, and they can find the strength to do so through prayer and the reception of the Sacraments.
66. Your Church’s stance on homosexuality is part of what’s causing increasing amounts of suicides among gay/lesbian teenagers. How can they be expected to grow in an emotionally stable environment in the midst of so much conflict from your Church and the rest of society, and when they are constantly hearing from you and your bishops that their desires and actions are intrinsically disordered abominations?
You are misplacing the source of that interior conflict which brings them to be tempted to suicide. Homosexual teenagers have been lied to by the culture. They’ve been told that their desires are normal, when in reality those desires are against the natural order. They’ve been told that homosexual actions are okay, when there is a law already written on their hearts that tells them they are not. They find themselves outside of a stable emotional environment because society has been promoting in them disordered emotions. They’ve been looking for answers about their feelings, and they’ve been given lies instead of truth. And their only source of comfort, the graces and sanctification in the Church, has been denounced and reprimanded by those who are supposed to be helping them. Now I ask you: in such a hopeless situation, what are they to do? But I say their situation is not hopeless. There is a moral way that has truth behind it, and the can feel the call to move toward it. The Church offers them courage; dignity; a sexual meaning that makes sense and explains their conflicting desires. Above all, the Church offers them a road to sanctity, a road to heaven, in which they can boldly take responsibility for their actions, and act as saints are meant to act. Homosexuals do not face a different fate than anyone else. They face the challenge to live out their dignity as men and women created in the image of God; a challenge all men must joyfully take up. It is our highest dignity that we’ve been given freedom to see the good and choose it; all we must do is seek God’s will, and we will find it.
67. I could not list all the ways in which your Church is bigoted toward homosexuals.
You could not list one way. It is not bigoted to teach what God has revealed and reason confirms. It is not bigoted to teach that marriage is a comprehensive union of body and soul fulfilled naturally in the generation of children. It is not bigoted to teach that unity and procreativity are the essential characteristics of the reproductive act, and hence, of married couples, bonded thereby. It is not bigoted to teach the principles of a just society, which must not enshrine lies as laws, and moral wrongs as civil rights. It is not bigoted to teach, that those who disapprove of calling same-sex relationships marriages, should not have to privilege those unions by their tax dollars. It is not bigoted to teach that gays/lesbians deserve to be treated with love, dignity and respect. No, indeed, there is not one way in which the Church has been bigoted toward homosexuals; but some of homosexuality’s supporters have certainly been bigoted toward the Church.
68. The Bible says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” (Matt. 7:1)
And that is certainly a wise commandment, properly understood. But you always interpret it to mean that we cannot speak out against what we believe to be evil. And if that is so, then we cannot speak out against murderers and thieves, and if someone is stealing your things, we must simply look away and remind ourselves “judge not.” But that is absolutely ridiculous. What it means is this: a man such as you and I is to regulate his own acts, not act as an authority over others when he is not. But God may judge, and His authorized delegates may reveal what is in line with God’s will. Therefore, we do not violate this passage by proclaiming to men the immorality of homosexuality; rather, we act as informants, so that a man may be the better judge of himself, and not others, and may bring himself to repentance, if he responds to the helps which God gives him.
69. Why, then, has your Church excommunicated some practicing homosexuals, if you believe you are unable to judge?
As a man is to be judge over his own conduct, so also the Church is to be judge over her subjects; her bishops and pope have been seated in a position of authority by just measures, and they may use that authority to excommunicate those who give public scandal.
The same God who said that you and I are not to judge, commanded us both to listen to the Church, whom He made judge over men when they sin. Thus He says: “If your brother sins against you...tell it to the Church. And if he refuses to listen to the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the tax collector. Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:17-18) Thus she may excommunicate those among her members who refuse to accept her just authority.
The same may be proved from natural reason; for if a man refuses to regulate himself according to the rules of the Church, what business does he have calling himself a Catholic? If you want to be in the club, you have to obey the rules. If not, do not be surprised if you are thrown out. But this does not contradict the commandment, to men such as you and I, not to judge; for no one is our subject but our self, and no one is the Church’s but her members.
70. Your doctrine makes homosexuals feel abnormal and hated.
It should not. We only speak out to them because we want their best, and willing the good of another is the definition of love. We love them, and so we warn them of danger to their souls. What man, if he knew a sure way up a mountain, would not tell it to another, whom he saw heading toward a pit? Charity makes us cry out to them, and if they feel hated because we tell them they are taking the wrong way, they are only misunderstanding our intentions.
71. How can they not feel hated, when you call their acts abominable?
A man who has raped a child has committed an abomination. If you would not agree to that, we are at an impasse. But we do not hate the man. We love him and his victim, and help them both. But if we say that his act is depraved, he should not feel hated. We may love the sinner and hate the sin, or we may support the sin and endanger the sinner’s soul. And we must never call good what is intrinsically immoral. Such are homosexual acts.
72. You really ought to keep your religious ideas out of politics. Let the State legalize what it wants -- your Church can’t impose its ideas on the rest of us.
I have argued from the meaning of marriage in the natural order, not from “religious ideas.” The Church’s teachings on public policy are based on the natural order as much as by the Scripture’s revelation. Our opposition to gay marriage is just not a “religious thing” -- it’s a “human thing.” We get it from what it means to be sexual beings, and we have become convinced that the best way to promote the common good is by promoting the truth of that meaning. This is not an imposition of “religious ideas” -- it’s a way of protecting the meaning of marriage as seen through an examination of its nature.
73. Christ taught the separation of Church and State, that Christians are not part of this world. You have no business legislating your ideas outside of the Church.
We are not only Christians, we are also citizens, and are responsible for promoting the common good. In fact, if we failed to do what we can to protect society, its members, and its noble institutions, we would be failing in our duty to love our neighbor, and to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; we would, in fact, be violating what the Gospel says about our relationship to Church and State.
74. I know someone who left the Church over this point. Surely it’s not worth that.
First, if someone left the Church over this point, or any other, it was either because they were ill-informed about the good, sound moral principles which give rise to the Catholic position, or else because through their own hardness of heart they rejected those reasons. And we will not lose sleep if a person such as the latter left the Church, but we will pray for them and ask them to return. But even if we were set to lose membership because of our unshakable stance on our doctrines, that would not permit us to change them. One may never do a moral wrong, not even to achieve something great. And it would be wrong to disregard what God has revealed and teach that unchaste actions are good or normal. So if someone has left the Church, our response is this: we will try to do a better job of teaching our doctrine, not a worse one; so that those who have open hearts and formed minds will see the truth and stand by it, and make progress on their journey toward heaven.
75. I am a faithful Catholic. What can I do to promote the right understanding of marriage in society?
First, you can exercise your voice, to spread the information you’ve received. If it will help, you might get a copy of this document to a friend who may have questions about homosexuality. Second, you can tell those in authority to stand by the just principles that ought to govern our society. Call your legislators and congressmen and let them know your thoughts; I can guarantee you that you can make a difference in the direction this country takes concerning gay/lesbian rights. Third, in this country you have the power of the vote; and if you use that power, you can vote out those who support gay marriage, and vote in those who will strengthen the institution of marriage in its authentic meaning. A good organization for learning what is going on in legislative bodies on matters such as these, is the National Organization for Marriage, who can be contacted and supported on the Internet at www.nationformarriage.org. You can perhaps volunteer to speak about these matters at local assemblies; you can volunteer with local organization that promote the true meaning of marriage in your own municipality. Above all, you can pray. Pray for those who support homosexuality, and pray for homosexuals; pray for those who are fighting the injustices promoted in the name of “gay equality”. Pray for the Catholic Church, the greatest voice in defense of the sanctity of marriage, and, if you are not already a member, pray for discernment of God’s will, and ask a priest for information on joining our religion. I guarantee you, the greatest way to fight unholiness in society, is to fight unholiness in yourself, by receiving the graces and helps offered by God. If but a few men did His will completely, our entire society would be turned around. God bless, and good fortune.
