The gay marriage advocates have been producing some slick videos to promote their cause. This is from a site called Advocate.com. It is worth watching, especially for those who are on the front line of the Church's defense of natural marriage.
For a start, the ad is seen from the point of view of someone in love with a man. There appears to be some 'courting' involved (all very innocent), a nice holiday somewhere with a female friend, happy times and sad times when the 'partner' is comforting the man who is with his dying mother. Then, at a huge family party, involving loads of children, a ring is produced and a wedding proposal is made on bended knee, no less. Then, to our huge surprise, it turns out that the 'partner' is a man. Wow! You would never have seen that coming!
For those now facing the difficult task of defeating the arguments put forward by the lobby that dare not cease lobbying, or for those, indeed, seeking to produce 'light, not heat', the video is worth some analysis, not least because it neglects to portray some of the sadder sides to the gay man's story. That's not too surprising, of course, because all propaganda wants to show us the manifold goodness and merit of the message despite the negative elements overlooked by the message itself. Aren't those negative elements just so inconvenient!? In the video is the key premise of the gay marriage advocates argument and it all revolves around the normalisation of, and desire for total societal acceptance of, homosexuality. If you watched that video and thought something negative, then well, I'm sorry, but you're just an evil fascist.
The video is trying to tell us that all of those beautiful features of romantic love between man and woman are present in the gay relationship. Its trying to tell us that this is love, that this love is normal and healthy. In this sense the video is quite seductive. "Who is anyone to say that these guys aren't in love!? They make each other happy! They look so healthy! And happy!" say the audience. And, to a point, that assessment would be right. You know, even the pecks on the cheeks or lips are innocent enough. You see straight men in Greece doing that all the time.
What is more, the emphasis appears to be on agape, rather than eros, which I find rather interesting from our point of view. It actually shows friendship at its best. This goes to show that gay marriage advocates realise that the more raunchy side of the gay scene, that is, the reality of what they advocate (because, let's face it, nobody in the gay community is advocating chaste, brotherly love) is inherently either (a) unnatural in the eyes of the viewing public, (b) off-putting, (c) both or (d) potential soft porn to be watched at a more convenient time.
No. In fact, the only way in which they can 'normalise' the gay relationship is by showing it as innocuous, innocent, fun, involving rollercoasters and holidays and resulting in a wedding ring in which the whole family rejoices. Hurrah! Yep, even the kids. If you omit the wedding ring bit at the end or replace the ring with a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you could even have this video produced by a Catholic organisation and at the end have the slogan: 'It's time...for chastity'.
Of course, what the video doesn't show is the reality of what it advocates. It doesn't show or even hint at the gay sex, for modesty's sake and the reasons outlined above. It doesn't show one of the men being dominated or abused in any way by the other. It doesn't show the fact that the relationships between many gay men and their fathers are usually not actually that close and, indeed, far from it. It doesn't show the guilt or sorrow or shame that many gay men experience even in the most 'stable' and 'loving' gay relationships. It doesn't show the sterility of the relationship itself which has been known to drive men to a rather more unstable relationship with alcohol or drugs.
It doesn't show that gay men are like all men in that men are obsessed with sex and the pursuit of the pleasures of sex, the fulfilment of lust and that this can end up becoming more important than the relationship itself or even an end in itself. This can happen in any relationship of course, but with two men any pretense that the relationship is about anything else but lust can be swept away far more easily, with little afterthought, and two men don't have to deal with a female's deeper and more complicated emotional needs. Hence St Paul talked about men 'burning' in their 'unnatural desires' or something.
It doesn't show the gay men breaking up and one of them ending up propping up a bar when he doesn't look so hot and is now being ignored by younger, attractive men. It doesn't show the fact that perhaps neither the Mother nor the Father are 100% a-ok with this relationship and are putting on a brave face for the sake of the son and because a liberal society tells them they are evil if they don't feel great about it. It doesn't have the parents telling their neighbours that their son is a homosexual only to be greeted with surprised 'I thought your family was odd' looks. It doesn't show the neighbour gossiping about it to another neighbour and the news circling like wildfire around the neighbourhood. It doesn't show one of the men coming back from a sexual health clinic with a positive diagnosis for HIV or HPV. It doesn't show the Dad breaking down in tears when his son tells him he is a homosexual or the mother comforting the father. It doesn't show the guilt of the parents who think 'Where did we go wrong?' It doesn't show the resulting mixture of shame and anger of the gay son.
Why? Well, obviously, because the message is the most important thing. Secondly, though, because the natural, social, moral, spiritual and physical consequences of the homosexual lifestyle need to be airbrushed from the video because the gay community, despite all the evidence to the contrary, wants to persuade the general public that even to think for one second that there could be anything negative at all about this kind of relationship at all is 'evil' and wrong because, 'Who are we to think negatively of the happy couple? They're so happy and healthy!' You see, to the gay community, even for the Mum and Dad to be uncomfortable with their son's homosexuality is evil and wrong. It cannot be perfectly natural. To the lobby, homosexuality is as natural as birdsong at dawn. Therefore, for the Mum and Dad to even think that their son's sexuality is in any way unnatural, or a perversion or, Heaven forfend, a 'disorder', is evil and if you are the parent of a homosexual and you aren't as thrilled as those parents about your son publicly dragging the institution of marriage through the mud then you should feel very, very guilty. This whole family love and accept homosexuality, so why don't you? Freak!
Last, but by no means least, the promo video does not suggest, for even a moment that, for the gay man marrying the man he loves, this is the end of the family line, because we only get up to the engagement. In a way, it encapsulates the wide-eyed romanticism of the gay movement. So, you get married to a man. So...er...where are the babies? What does this 'marriage' actually mean? You had all those great times together. You shared in each others joy and grief, you're 'in love', but where is the fruit of that relationship? What will bind you together as a unit aside from 'great times' and shared grief? The pub? Sex? The TV? The opera? Basketball? In what way do 'great times' and shared grief make a marriage? Commitment? The ring? Surely, that is just a symbol that you've stolen from traditional marriage. What will really bind you together?
You don't require marriage for any of the aspects of the relationship portrayed in the ad. All that is required is lifelong friendship. Neither do you need the State to recognise your lifelong friendship or even your sex life. The viewer is even left wondering whether the couple have actually even kept chaste especially for marriage so that they can remain together and live happily forever after in some weird gay fantasy in which they will never raise their own children. Yes, the video encapsulates the fantasy of the gay marriage, precisely because it doesn't show what happens after the wedding.
It doesn't show the couple discussing whether they are going to have children or in what sense they even can have children. It doesn't show them not having children at all, but instead going round friends houses and going to parties all the time because, since you don't have children, there is really very little else to do. It doesn't show that the gay relationship perpetuates hedonism and/or a sense of inner longing and loneliness for something that even 'a really great guy' that you're in love with can't fulfill. It doesn't show the couple presenting themselves at an adoption agency, browsing through a catalogue and saying "Oh, that little boy/girl looks charming, we want him/her."
It doesn't show them saving up loads of money and borrowing loads of cash to pay off a surrogate mother or shell out loads of cash on IVF treatment to get a baby using the sperm of one man, making just one of the men a father, the other an onlooker in a process in which most likely the mother will never again be heard or seen by the baby. It doesn't show the couple looking a little uncomfortable about the fact that they've obtained a baby and the mother is nowhere to be seen. It doesn't show the weird feelings of one partner who isn't the father but is kind of an uncle who pretends to be a parent. It doesn't show the child growing up without their mother, or the very real sense in which the child will grow up without any real roots, with all the negative social consequences that will have for the child. It doesn't show the child getting picked on at school because both parents are dads. It doesn't show the bullying kids getting detentions or suspensions for homophobic bullying. It doesn't show the child wondering why 32 of his class of 33 children have a mummy and a daddy but he's got two daddies and where who and on Earth is his mummy?
I could go on, of course, I just wanted to expose the vacuousness surrounding the arguments in favour of gay marriage. Oh, also, I wanted to tell you where I found the link to this video. Why! I found it on the Facebook Wall of the Soho Masses (LGBT Catholics) webpage, of all places!
Archbishop Vincent Nichols: It looks like you have your work cut out, Your Grace. It looks also rather like there are some gay marriage enthusiasts at those Soho Masses. Now, there's a surprise. How much harder it is for His Grace to fight the Government's plans for gay marriage when public proponents of gay marriage are actively working for its promotion inside the parish Church about which we must hold our tongues totally contradicting His Grace's unequivocal message!
 |
| Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory last year |
While I don't think it fitting that a Catholic Church should be used in this way as a gigantic memorial for a worthy secular cause (because AIDS is bad and we can all agree with that), isn't there a sense in which it also suggests that, you know, maybe more active homosexual relationships maybe aren't such a great thing? You know, what with people dying young from it and all and the suggestion here at this LGBT Church event is that LGBT people they know are contracting AIDS. Why? Because chastity is an evil teaching from an evil Church and an evil Pope who hates gays!
Finally, a word on St Paul. That 'burning' he talked about. He mentions it (at least) twice. Once, when discussing the issue of 'unnatural relations' as outlined above and secondly when he discusses unmarried lads and lasses, saying of them, 'it is better to marry, than to burn'. Why did St Paul say that? Well, because marriage raises sexual activity out of paradise lost and into the divine plan for the transmission of human life. It is children that deepen the bond of married persons, it is children that are the visible fruit of marriage and ultimately, it is children who help the couple to grow and deepen in love for each other and their family and it is children who help a couple enter more profoundly into the beautiful mystery of God's love.
It is 'better to marry than to burn' because marriage, in its real sense, brings about new life for all concerned in union with God's design. The love of a man and a woman pro-creates new life and their lives are changed. It is romantic, and many enter into it with naive expectations, but while it may not always be a bed of roses, at least it is not grounded in the Disneyland fantasy romance portrayed in the video above in which there can be no real happy ending. In fact, I believe that children are the introduction of reality and dare I say sanity into marriage because suddenly the World doesn't revolve around the couple anymore. There is a new dimension and a new dynamic to the relationship. Babies! Gay marriages can't make babies, they can only obtain them from others or buy them.
As far as I can see, the arguments in favour of gay marriage are not particularly strong. Homosexual marriage is unnatural and sterile. Heterosexual marriage , that is, real marriage, is natural and fecund. Marriage is not about holidays, sex, love, great times, great guys, great friends, rollercoasters and parties. Marriage isn't even just a 'celebration of our love'. Marriage is fundamentally about the unique and complementary love of a man and a woman bearing fruit in new life - children. The parties and the rollercoaster rides, married friends will tell you, belong to the kids. The gay marriage advocates, through their propaganda, tell us that the main reason their project should be rejected is not because those who challenge it are evil. No. It is because it is becoming more obvious that these 'advocates' have no idea what marriage is. Still, that won't stop them from plying us with nauseating propaganda like the video above until everyone, even the Holy Church of God, Herself accepts 'gay marriage'!
24 comments:
That was all extremely well said!
Excellent post, thank you.
Thanks, Bones. One of the most eloquent commentaries on this subject that I have seen.
Many thanks for this excellent post.Deserves to be recommended/reproduced wherever possible.
A wonderful constructive article. It said everything. The BBC Eastenders series has been busy on the same theme. Showing up an evil Moslem family who will not lilve in the real world. Christian is kissed by Said, Said says sorry but Christian will not let him get away and purusues him in a way that is tantamount to harrassment, caring not a jot for his Moslem background, caring neither for Saidf`s wife nor baby. Because of ource Christian has decided that Said for his own good must abondon this lifestyle. Christian wins and Said leaves the wife and baby saying to the little one, "You will understand one day" This total abandonment to homosexuality is not seen as irresponsible but something that must be. There are many fathers who have abandoned their family in this way to ppursue sex. I have a great neice who suffered the loss and believe me she still does not understand. Like the video the storyline tried to portray a `loving` affair. But it was not hard to work out that it was far from this. God bless.
"So, you get married to a man. So...er...where are the babies? What does this 'marriage' actually mean?"
Look up 'Josephite Marriage' ; not all marriage without children is meaningless.
Laurence, why do you always associate homosexuality with shame and disgrace? It's rather upsetting. It just stokes and reinforces prejudicial ideas.
God Bless.
The point is that gay marriages cannot produce children at all. No gay marriage can produce children. That job has to be 'outsourced'.
Infertile couples cannot produce children either and they, should they choose, have to 'outsource' that job. Does that make them just as shameful and disgraced as the same homosexual men and women that you with such disgust mention?
There's been a massive propaganda exercise in all the soaps.On Coronation St. the two teenage lesbians who happen to be christians get rejected by their pastor who refuses to recognise them getting married .They find a vicar who is 'progressive' and in the '21st Century'.'Wedding day' and all the street turns up including those deemed fuddy duddy old and Christian like Emily Bishop who embrace the idea of the 'wedding' as if they were Tatchell's foot soldiers .In the end they never married because one of them had feelings for another girl......
Good article Bones.A couple of small criticisms :
1.please place gay in inverted commas like this- 'gay' - it is inverted and a label a certain group wants us to accept .Perfectly acceptable to say 'those who identify themselves as 'gay'.
2.'LGBT community' - is there such a thing ?They like to pretend that there is , to make themselves into minority.
3.'gay sex' is another one .It's not sex, but a sexualised disordered practice.Sex can only happen between a male and a female .They like to think there are two types of sex one 'gay and one 'hetrosexual'.
Laurence, You are a wonderful writer!!! I truly hope you get a job that allows you to reach a wider audience.
Following on from Raymond's comments, a couple of small criticisms :
1.Please place catholic in inverted commas like this- 'catholic' - it is inverted and a label a certain group wants us to accept. Perfectly acceptable to say 'those who identify themselves as 'catholic'.
2.'Catholic community' - is there such a thing? They like to pretend that there is, to make themselves into minority.
3.'Catholic christian' is another one. It's not catholicity, but a disordered christian practice. Christianity can happen between any christians. They like to think there are two types of christian one 'catholic' and one 'protestant' but of course this is an invention of their disordered minds because our lord said there can only be one church.
Laurence, an honest question for you: what did you hope to achieve with this post? Although I am a gay man who left the Church many years ago, I do acknowledge that there are legitimate arguments for not according gay unions the status of marriage, although the way that many straight couples behave does, in practice, undermine many of those arguments.
However your ‘arguments’ are just laughable. Do you honestly believe that they will convince anyone who does not already agree with you that gay marriage is wrong? Your long post (over 2,500 words!) may antagonise a few of your opponents and give a sense of smug satisfaction to a few of your Catholic readers but otherwise seems unlikely to achieve anything else.
I really think your obsession with homosexuality says more about yourself than anything else. I’m not saying this in judgement; I spent many years trying to reconcile my faith and sexuality and a lot of time criticising other homosexuals and homosexuality in general (I saw my own sexuality as my cross). I very much regret the time I wasted trying to do this and think it is sad that you seem to still be stuck doing the same.
I'm not as obsessed with homosexuality with either Stonewall or David Cameron, it seems.
You're not as obsessed with homosexuality as Stonewall, an organisation set up specifically to discuss the issue? Hmm, coming in a close second to them is still quite a feat. Bit like saying you're not as obsessed with immigration as the BNP while otherwise constantly bringing the subject up. Nothing suspicious there then.
Also, I like how ALL of your anti-gay points are based on the assumption that, if the neighbours of a gay man insult him, it is his fault and he therefore ought to modify his nature in order to comply with their prejudice. Exactly what Our Lord would have said! Don't turn your cheek, change your behaviour - you got slapped for a reason
The point is, Catholic response is just that. It is a response to the militancy of the gay movement and those who advocate gay marriage within Government. If they didn't make homosexuality a single issue cause 24 hours a day, we wouldn't blog about it half as much.
Yeah but none of your points are particularly 'Catholic' really. You observe that the gay man's father might get upset, or that his neighbours will make fun of him, or that he might get HIV (which of course would be far more likely outside of married life). These things would happen if a person came out as gay.But surely by normalising homosexual marriage these things will become less common, as racism became less common following the action of anti-racism campaigns. Stonewall are surely well within their rights to represent members' interests in seeking to combat the type of thick-headed prejudice you cite. All you're saying is 'people are prejudiced, let's use that as a stick to beat their victims with'. If the Catholic point is 'homosexuality is bad for gays as it corrupts their souls' then use that as an argument (just don't be surprised if gay men respond by saying 'hmm, and who are you to tell me what is in my interests, kindly step aside and stop interfering')
John, that's not all I'm saying and I think you know that. Of course, the Church calls all of us to repentance and its up to us to accept or reject that message. Nobody can make the decision to accept the message of the Gospel except us.
Of course, the spiritual reality of practising homosexuality is bad, but so are the natural, social, physical consequences. Because the gay community cannot change the natural consequences of the gay lifestyle (high exposure to AIDS, physical damage to the body etc) they have to change the social consequences so that people can no longer take exception to the practise of homosexuality or the promotion of it.
Hence the desire for gay marriage. The gay lobby's promotion of gay marriage is not just about 'equality' - it is about social acceptance of the gay lifestyle and persuading Governments and populations (even Churches) of its inherent goodness. However nasty it is to have a neighbour discussing the sexuality of another neighbour and gossiping about it, its wrong, I agree but that is what happens. The same with 'homophobic bullying' in schools. Of course its wrong, but it happens and it will always happen. Brainwashing children to just 'accept' homosexuality and learn about it is not the answer either.
My point is that the gay lifestyle and the 'gay marriage' selling point is being sold to people like a car advert. It isn't being particularly honest about the realities of the gay lifestyle because the reality is not that pleasant.
Also, if I may be so bold, I'm not convinced by the 'marriage will settle gay men down' argument.
This is because as well as marriage, couples are bonded by children. Gay men can't have children (because biologically and physically all of nature says no) and so an important factor for 'stability' is removed.
Of course heterosexuals play away, but marriage by itself won't keep gay men together. Eventually the sex life will die down and boys will be boys.
"Of course its wrong, but it happens and it will always happen. Brainwashing children to just 'accept' homosexuality and learn about it is not the answer either."
It wasn't until 1971 that all the states of the US had ended racial segregation. The argument opponents used was precisely your own. Racism is endemic and therefore 'natural', so it should not be challenged. The problem here is two fold. Firstly, your notion of what is 'natural' is derived from prejudice, and then subsequently used to support these same prejudices. It's completely circular. Secondly, so what? Even if people are innately predisposed to be cruel, why should this guide our laws? If I said 'people are innately predisposed to want to have sex therefore the Catholic notion of procreative sex being the only appropriate means of intercourse is stupid' would you accept it? Of course not, because you recognise that what people take to be natural is in part based on cultural prejudice, and is in any case utterly irrelevant to what should or should not be done. So this is no argument at all
Your other point about the gay community repeats this error:
"the gay community cannot change the natural consequences of the gay lifestyle (high exposure to AIDS, physical damage to the body etc) they have to change the social consequences"
These 'natural' consequences are of course mostly social. Being homosexual is not in itself exposing you to risk of HIV infection anymore than being heterosexual is, it depends on what one does and with whom. No one is disputing HIV infection is, in Europe, higher amongst gay men, but the highest risk group for infection is men born in Africa. Should we ban marriage to African men on the same grounds? It's not an argument based on 'nature' or 'natural consequences', but social consequences. Also, your point is a little odd (and kinky): gays can't prevent 'physical damage' (presumably to one particular part of the rear through going at it like knives). I'm not sure what your source of information is here, but it sounds like a certain type of adult film. Well, even if this were true, your conclusion is still odd. Surely marriage would help *reduce* HIV infection rates in the gay community. you seem to be saying the old culturally encoded pattern of gay behaviour ought never to change.
"It isn't being particularly honest about the realities of the gay lifestyle because the reality is not that pleasant." - Says who?? You don't like it, but so bloody what? The realities of Catholic life aren't pleasant either. Prayer, fasting, anstinence. It's a sh*t life for a young fella. But it's not up to ME to decide what YOU do is it now?
"marriage by itself won't keep gay men together. Eventually the sex life will die down and boys will be boys." Again, why is this relevant to a legal decision. It's just your opinion you nutter! the mere belief that two men can't remain faithful is hardly going to be a relevant point of law.
Furthermore, there is any number of gay couples with kids. But this is irrelevant anyway, for since having a child is not a legal precondition of marriage for a heterosexual couple, I don't see why it should be a legal condition of marriage for a homosexual couple.
HIV prevalence is high in the gay community. Hence things like the Terrence Higgins Trust come out of the gay movement.
'The Trust is generally considered the UK's leading HIV and AIDS charity, and the largest in Europe. It is also the lead organisation in the English gay men's health promotion partnership CHAPS.' (Wikipedia)
The gay movement can't campaign consistently on HIV issues and then distance itself from HIV when the prevalence of HIV among gay men doesn't look good for their movement.
Race and sexuality are different. While people should not be ostracised for either, the fact is that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, race is not. It is also a wrong and unnatural choice (against nature), so why shouldn't both children and adults react against it? Doesn't the fact that children see it as something wholly unnatural tell you something?
Why should people be coerced to accept it? Why should society be manipulated by pressure groups to accept what is a perversion of the natural order of human sexuality?
And then you tell me that I'm trying to tell people how to live. We have a duty to warn people of the realities of the homosexual lifestyle and if people don't like what we say then, well, there is nothing we can do about that.
The Church cannot just 'stay out of people's business'. It is the Church's business to save souls and preach the truth. It is the duty of every Catholic to uphold natural marriage and to defend both the Church and souls from the evils of the homosexual ideology in all their manifestations, be they physical, social or spiritual.
Hence the Holy Father has commented that the threat to natural marriage and the family is a serious and grave threat to the future of humanity. He's talking about the social, cultural and spiritual implications of a culture of homosexuality and the implications of redefining marriage.
Gay married partners can't have their OWN children by ANY natural method AT ALL. Thats why it is not marriage. They are not their own flesh and blood (though there is IVF). Inherently, gay married persons have to steal or buy the children from biological families who have either consented, or indeed, with social services as ravenous as they are, not. Hetrosexuals may not always be fertile - the point is that it is only within heterosexual relationships in which children can be the natural fruit of the relationship.
Also, a marriage is the joining of persons that are different. That is why it is a marriage. The two different sexes are different - male and female - that is why it is called 'marriage'. Male and female 'marry' and are 'joined' and are 'one flesh'. Biologically, homosexuals cannot be 'joined' in the sexual act.
There is no uniting of the couple in the homosexual act - it is just masturbating into each other. Married love is open to the possibility of new life by its nature, even if one of the couple is infertile. Marriage is unitave and procreative. At least if an infertile couple are infertile the marriage can still be unitive. I would suggest for a marriage to take place and the gay marriage proponents lack either of those two essential things.
Finally, the Church has every sympathy with every man with this inclination. The Church always embraces every man with mercy in the Confessional. The Church urges every man of this inclination to embrace the Cross and to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. What the Church cannot do is accept the homosexual movement's agenda, especially the latest drive for gay marriage.
We're not going to agree and I wasn't put on this earth to quarrel with you either.
You don't like what I've written. You consider me a lunatic, fair enough. You write reams in defense of your position and attacking mine.
You don't like my arguments? Fine. I don't expect you to agree with me. To you, my post may seem nonsensical. Fine.
You seem to think that 'consent' is the justification for gay marriage and who are we to oppose it. Yet, for generations and generations this kind of marriage has not been proposed. You have to ask yourself the question, why and why now is it being promoted?
Is there no kind of marriage you oppose on the grounds of it not being natural. Say, if I had a son or daughter, could I marry him or her because he or she and I have given consent and we believe this will make us happy? Who are you to interfere with our happiness? Right?
I don't understand your points about the Terence Higgins Trust THT - it's not a gay charity but a generic charity for HIV/AIDS serving all the UK population regardless of gender, sexuality or ethnicity.
Post a Comment