T Nation

Gay Marriage: Traditional Marriage Predates State and Church


Bishop Thomas Wenski wrote:

Those who see "same sex marriage" as progress towards a more "tolerant" society will, with characteristic intolerance, label their opponents as "intolerant," "bigoted," "homophobic" and so on. However, to defend marriage as a monogamous union between one man and one woman is not bigotry. Nor are the efforts of those who seek to enshrine in state or federal constitutions the "traditional" understanding of marriage intolerant.


Marriage has been primarily about the raising of children (who seem to be hardwired to be best raised by a father and a mother who are married to each other). The state has had a legitimate interest in favoring such traditional marriages as a way of investing in the future of society. Of course, in recent years, the state has often retreated from vigorously promoting these interests. Sometimes this occurred through legislation (e.g. no-fault divorce laws); sometimes through judicial fiat (e.g. Roe v. Wade).




Hateful response (made up in an altered reality): http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/archbishop_wenski_is_an_histor.php

Full of: Ad hominem, straw man, red herring, &c.

P.S. I love when people believe they know more than 2000 years of experience, and that they can tell Catholics what they believe with 0 time in a Catholic theology class.


Brother Chris - I have nothing to add but AMEN!!


Discussed to death in other threads. Yes, it's great if a child can be raised by healthy, competent biological parents. However, there are millions of children with abusive parents, deceased parents, etc. who are far better off being raised by loving, committed adoptive gay parents than staying in a toxic family situation, or being raised by an institution.

And if marriage were legislated to require biological children, infertile or unwilling straight couples might have something to say about being banned from marriage.


This is a patently false self-serving post. There are no long-term studies to prove that children are better off living with two homosexuals. Furthermore, there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic. That means that perhaps (just maybe) children being raised by two homosexuals would have a much higher degree of becoming a homosexual. Certainly until we know how one becomes a homosexual (or why) we should never put children in the care of homosexuals.

Stop the propaganda forlife it's really getting old.


This thread has time-bomb written all over it...


Not being a devils advocate, I am honestly curious, why does homosexuality=bad?


Gay' family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual


Not that I'm endorsing the Church's position here or even ostensibly supporting Zeb's position, but at least one study seems to suggest that openly gay parents may have some influence on the child's sexuality. Now, whether that's a "non-genetic" cause as Zeb alludes to (what is that exactly? "catching the ghey" like some cold or flu?) or, that those children are more open to other sexuality because they feel the support to declare such is clearly open to question given the stigma that still exists today for homosexuals.

Now, in fairness to forelife's point, we must contrast the above to the long-term outcome of children in the foster care system. Children in the foster care system "experience higher rates of physical and psychiatric morbidity than the general population...they were found to have double the incidence of depression, 20% as compared to 10% and were found to have a higher rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than combat veterans with 25% of those studied having PTSD. Children in foster care have a higher probability of having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and deficits in executive functioning, anxiety as well other developmental problems...higher degrees of incarceration, poverty, homelessness, and suicide."

Sounds to me like a qualified homosexual couple might be a pretty positive trade-off when comparing the long-term outcome of children in the foster care system to the dubious chance of them "catching the ghey".

That said, I take no position relative to whether such adoptions and such should be allowed and I am not putting forth any personal position on gay marriage.


I think the more relevant question is why it's bad as compared to the long term outcomes of kids in foster homes. Seems to me that even assuming it's bad (and I'm not), it's the lesser of the two evils. I rather risk the dubious and specious assumption that I'm at risk to "catch they ghey" than be pigeon-holed into a life of poverty, or incarceration, health problems, etc.


It's bad on a lot of levels, procreation probably being at the top of the list. But let's look at the governments own CDC statistics shall we?



Against man's nature, it is disordered.


Hold on a minute. Do we have an under-population problem? Are gays a threat to our very survival? As for your reference, it seems gays are hurting no one but themselves. But they are hardly a threat to "procreation". Stupid people have children are more a threat to procreation than gays.


This thread has epic win written all over it. :slightly_smiling: LOL




Wow, I was not aware of that. I am pretty libertarian, so I don't personally feel its the governments business. Do you think legalizing gay marriage would see those statistics increase?

Brother Chris, would you elaborate? I know a few gay people that would say it is completely natural. Also, Im aware of several versions (I can't think of a better word to describe it) of natural law, I'm not well read enough to say they all go against gay marriage.


Our society is becoming too tolerant. They start teaching about homosexuality in elementary school. There are kids in my daughter's middle school that say they are gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual. Come on, they are kids. Let them just enjoy their childhood.

Children need a mom and a dad. Both are extremely important.


You made a GREAT point. We have been accepting everything under the sun. Why though? Because it fits with our social movement. This has been discussed in other threads, but.....why not incest? Or Pedophilia? Hey, if I'm BORN with a certain sexual attraction, is it REALLY my fault?


Links to over population myths...




People having children that are not in a stable marriage is definitely a problem. But good parents that have large families are not a problem.


Don't feel badly no one is aware of those ugly statistics. The PC media wants everyone to believe that homosexual men lead one big Will & Grace lifestyle. But the reality is quite the opposite. In fact, If it were not for male homosexuals there would be no AIDS epidemic. And that is a fact that the media and powerful homosexual organizations do not want you to know.

Two homosexuals saying they're married does not change a thing. I can produce other statistics which clearly demonstrate that even in relationships where two homosexual say they are monogamous they each have 5 or 6 other sexual encounters on the side. And this also holds true for areas of the world where homosexual marriage has been legalized for many years, places like the Netherlands for example. In the Netherlands the rate of suicide, depression, anxiety and STD's for homosexual men are as high as in areas where homosexual marriage is illegal. In other words Gay marriage solved nothing.


Anything goes in our society. It might not be considered pedophilia but 12 and 13 year old children are having sex. It is disgusting. You have 12 year old boys addicted to porn. So their whole perception of sex is messed up before they are even in a loving relationship.