Pope Benedict XVI has told the 7th World Meeting of Families in Milan that the family based upon marriage can revolutionize modern society for the better.
“Your vocation is not easy to live, especially today, but the vocation to love is a wonderful thing, it is the only force that can truly transform the world,” he said during his homily to almost 1 million pilgrims gathered in Milan’s Bresso Park on June 3.
Pope Benedict was concluding a three-day visit to the event in northern Italy. Over the past week it has brought together families from over 150 countries to pray, celebrate and study marriage and family life. The theme for this year was “The Family: Work and Celebration.”
... The Pope also stressed the importance of family life built upon a man and woman who are married to each other. This is because God “created us male and female, equal in dignity, but also with respective and complementary characteristics, so that the two might be a gift for each other, might value each other and might bring into being a community of love and life.”
43 Comments
An unmarried priest who molests prepubescent boys without being prosecuted and persecuted by the pope can ruin that young person's dream of starting a family. The pope: an old man who is not married and has not had sex with anyone in probably 60 years and doesn't masturbate because his magic sky daddy tells him it's bad. Not exactly the person who is qualified to give any advice on family in general.
Well, David, thanks for the latest adolescent paean to sex acts.
Poor guy.
DavidK MO, from a different prospective, individual's sins their own, does not hinders them from speaking the truth... Without placing judgement on the Pope's character or his ability to be a role model of his teachings, his stands and teachings on marriage should be commended.
Beside, David, if you are right about the Pope avoiding or failed to personally persecutie priestss accused of corruption within the Catholic church, show us some proof so we here can better understand or accept your argument?
Give us an example? Also, were they Catholic priests molesting boys or men participating in homosexual acts who happen to be Catholic priests?
David,
Why are you attacking homosexual priests?
Homophobe!
This clip is a very good example of how we can be influenced by things that are not grounded in truth. As the people who might have been influenced by this woman's activism, and her activist magazine. Thinking at the time, that this gay woman is sure and confident in her sexuality and herself; I can learn from her and be like her.
This is also a great coming out story. Coming out of the “we must promote and encourage homosexuality” mentality. Bravo for this woman in coming out. Sad though for the unhelpful influence she must have had on many in the past. God is so merciful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTcW8BHIzaM&feature=relmfu
Note: I am not making reference to the 3 to 20 percent who are born “that way” and who are happy and comfortable to be that way. I am thinking of the valid protection needed for the 80 to 97 percent who are not born that way, but could easily develop habits “that way”, or unhelpful distractions toward the development of their life.
To the atheists: The Christian aspect can be ignored. For other “coming out” experiences would not necessarily have that aspect in it.
I'm not catholic, nor am I apart of any religion but I respect the Pope.
Thanks DavidKCMO for bringing such respectful civil dialogue to this forum. About the only fallacy you forgot was the reductio ad Hitlerum, which should be easy considering that the Pope was technically in the Hitler youth.
By the way, what is it about this "he's never had sex, so he can't comment on the morality of it"? I'd imagine that you've never murdered anybody or robbed a bank, so how can you judge people who do?
>what is it about this "he's never had sex, so he can't comment on the morality of it" canard? I'd imagine that you've never murdered anybody or robbed a bank, so how can you judge people who do?
UN CEREBRO LLENO DE MIERDA,EL SADISMO,LA MENTIRA,LA HIPOCRESIA,LA ENVIDIA,LA CODICIA,LA GULA,EL HAMBRE INSACIABLE DEL PODER & DEL CONTROL SOBRE LOS MAS DEBILES,"REQUISITOS PRIMORDIALES" PARA CONVERTIRSE EN PAPA.
Leisurely Sunday reading and viewing:
Protecting the 80 to 97 percent of our children and youth who where not born “that way”, from developing habits “that way”, or unhelpful confusions during their formative years.
The child in this clip has a good view on the subject of marriage for his age. He knows what it is, and why. Now if our society wants him to learn about a different union (same-sex), then they should explain to him what a “cautelage” is. And not mess with his head. Unfortunately he is in the process of having his brain washed (or played with). In his views he is not bigoted, hateful etc. etc. He is growing, and learning how to express himself and truths. The most important and revealing thing that he says is, gay cannot be married because “that won't make a baby”. (Weather the man and woman are sterile or fertile is not of consequence. For it is in any event, only the man and woman that can make babies in an independent union of bodies. That is the psychologically important point.) If we tell the child that married people can be of the same sex, and so not even in theory, or in symbol, be able to make babies. Then we are asking the child to unconsciously integrate into his psyche that his place, that the place of the child, the baby, within a marriage, is not of vital, inseparable importance to the marriage and the parents, but rather only an addition, an add on – like a car or house or other. Only a material project of the couple, rather than being a complete integral and equal part of the couple (and family). It is telling him that we adults do not come together for you, the child; whether in desire or in love, we only come together for each other. That our biological needs are only for each other, and not for you, the child. It is stripping the child of the knowledge and confidence of his intrinsic value. To where he will feel, that his coming into this life, is only as an object of the state. Leaving him to be able to find his true value and validity only in measure to what the state might offer him. And not in what humanity and his own independence can offer.
If the Uncle in the video wanted to be loving and helpful to his nephew, he would explain to him that he will not be getting married with his boyfriend. Since marriage is between a man and a woman, as the nephew well understands. But that he might get “cautelaged” to his boyfriend, and then go on to explain what that is, a same sex union etc. And he could also explain that there are different forms of love. That not all are about “hopping” on the other person. And that desire and love are sometimes close and intermingled, but not the same thing. As an example he could say how he loves his nephew. But than again, if he really wanted to be correct with the kid, he wouldn't put him on show like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFEPtjsV8oM&feature=related
@Good News
Cute kid. I don't believe children should be used for political purposes but it was interesting to know that even children with such limited understanding of the world can atleast understand the basics.
The world will not be changed for the better by insisting that gay men marry straight woman. It might be changed for the better where people can marry the person that they want to marry and who wants to marry them. With all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, including the presponsibility for any children that they happen to procreate (or not) or adopt.
Marriage whether gay or straight brings physical and mental health benefits, legal protections, mutual financial support, and needed companionship (It is not good for man to be alone?). All the more so if people lived thier one lives and quite trying to dictate the lives of others.
And a word about religious "freedom". It is nowhere on the "gay agenda" to take away anyones religious freedom. That is ridiculous on the face of it. Those who make this claim can only support it if they hold two basic tenants . . .
1. The is no separation between the religious and the civil.
2. Because of No. 1, Gay's civil rights must be taken away to preserve (some) religionists "right" (to discrimiate in civil matters).
That about sums it up.
“The world will not be changed for the better by insisting that gay men marry straight woman.”
I support traditional marriage and I agree with this statement. Who or what do you think is insisting? No governmental or legal entity. You are free to do as you please and love who you choose without interference. You must be thinking of cultural or social pressure. But that is not the same thing as force.
I could not marry someone who did not find me physically attractive. However, there are individuals who because of the importance of faith in their life, may choose differently:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gay-mormon-unicorn/
“It is nowhere on the "gay agenda" to take away anyones religious freedom.”
I disagree and you are being disingenuous. You give yourself away with:
Gay's civil rights must be taken away to preserve (some) religionists "right" (to discrimiate in civil matters).
You know marriage as a public institution places obligations on others (third parties).
You are willing to use state power to force compliance. Religious liberty will be a casualty of this state imposed agenda.
Randy. Did you just call priests that molest children homosexuals? They are not homosexuals, they are rapists. How blissfully ignorant you are.
Anyways, I was 100 percent in favor of everything the pope said here until the last paragraph when he made it about sex organs. Love, yes, family, yes, marriage, yes, must be man and woman, are you kidding me?
No, Albert.
He is not kidding you.
It is a remarkable thing, that children- all children- are the result of the union of exactly one man and exactly one woman.
You seem to think this little itty bitty biological fact on the ground is irrelevant to the exact thing we mean when we say "marriage".
Are you kidding me?
Rick. I don't want children. If I did, I don't have to get married to do so, but that would be unfair to my child. I want civil recognition to all the families out there that don't meet your personal or religious standard so they can have the same legal protections as your family! That's all. Sorry if there is a misunderstanding
@Albert
Now for me personally, I guess I'm one of the moderate regulars on these blogs but I would say you seem somewhat reasonable when compared to the other liberal posters on this site.
I'm all for equality under the law, I just believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Again, it's all my opinion.
Albert:
No misunderstanding at all. You want your same sex relationship recognized as something it is not.
Sorry, Albert. The price is too high.
EWe have already seen what happens when we follow Zack's suggested line, and offered the "compromise" opt civil unions.
It wash;t enough.
You are asking the rest of us to change the fundamental meaning of humanity's most ancient and important institution, because......
Well.
Because you want us to.
Again, Albert, sorry, but no sale.
Thank you, Zack. Your opinion is the same of many, and I acknowledge the opinions of those who acknowledge mine (civilly, of course). Good day!
actually rick I'm single I don't date and I don't believe in rendezvouz. this fight is not for me. it's about something bigger than either you or me. I'm asking the rest of you to include all qualified parties in humanity's most ancient and important institution. can we at least agree that the difference is what we deem as qualifications?
AM,
Nicely worded, but I disagree.
Could you please demonstrate the intersection of marriage as a public institution and any obligation on a third party that which would involve state forced compliance.
I am only interested in those examples where someone is actually forced to do something, not the often cited examples of someone making a judgement call between a civil requirement, (such as providing public accomodations on a non discriminatory basis), and the consequences of non compliance.
I would also be interested in your definition of religious liberty, because your statements above imply that you favor special rights for religionists, that is to say, unfettered intrusion into the civil matters of others.
Please not the county clerk refusing to sign a marriage license example. I see little difference between that one and the possibility that Denny's might someday serve alcohol. Would that violate the religious liberty of the religionist that happened to be a server there?
Is Gay Parenting Bad for the Kids?
"In his new Social Science Journal study, Mark Regnerus poses a question: “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?”'
"It is debatable, though, whether this is an indictment of same-sex households or of instability. Indeed, the major takeaway from the report is less an indictment that same-sex households are a negative thing and more an affirmation that intact, biological households are a positive thing. Put simply, if you want to give your children the best start in life, you should have children inside of wedlock and stay together for the duration. But then, we already knew that."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302319/gay-parenting-bad-kids-charles-c-w-cooke?pg=1
marriage corruption may have gotent the first jabs in, but they are in for a fight now.
Randy, if this issue was about the rearing of children, than why are we debating which couples can wed since same-sex couples do not naturally procreate? The protests and ballot initiatives should be targeting adoption and reproductive rights of existing and growing number of same sex couples if that were the case.
" I'm asking the rest of you to include all qualified parties in humanity's most ancient and important institution. can we at least agree that the difference is what we deem as qualifications?"
All qualified parties consist in one (eligible) male and one (eligible) female.
Any claim that two female, or two male, or six assorted, can marry, is a claim of precisely the same category as the claim that black is white, that two plus two equals five, or that there is one gender in the human species.
I think the answer is that a lot of people think same sex attraction is immoral and nasty, and they don't want to accept gays as an equal, valid class of people who contribute to society and share this great land. I think it's partly due to a superiority complex by the religious community and a fear of people who's chemistry cannot be understood.
May I offer this explanation?
you don't have to teach a mother how to feel love for her newborn child. likewise you don't have to teach someone how to feel pain should they put their finger over a flame. you don't have to be taught how to feel hunger. why? these are a series of sensations produced by a series of chemical reactions. so is sexual attraction
Randy,
Unfortunately, I don't find it odd of you, specifically, to have not responded to Albert's statement about priests who rape boys. Priests who rape boys are pedophiles, a pathology, not homosexuals, an orientation. The reason for this, Randy, is because pedophilia requires a victim in every single occurrence or action a pedophile exerts to be a pedophile. Homosexuality and heterosexuality, conversely, does not require a purposefully vicious action purpetrated upon a victim to be considered homo/heterosexuality.
Now, Randy, if you're still at odds with the difference between sexual orientation and any purposefully detrimental pathology requiring a victim, you need to speak with a licensed medical professional who can explain it to you in a manner that relates directly to the circumstances of your life so you can understand it. As you have displayed you are also intent on not accepting the realities of healthy human sexuality as they are, you will leave said licensed medical professional to believe this is the sole reason for which your life is drawing a magnetism between you and this discussion that, from the information you provide, is, again, all about homosexuality. One may wonder why you have made the decision, consciously or otherwise, to interject yourself, over a very long period of time requiring much effort, as a wise paragon of a sexuality you say is not your own, homosexuality.
Most likely comes down to what is best for society and the importance of natural families, as the Pope said.
David:
This site is dedicated to the defense of marriage, and the diversion off into questions of homosexual infiltration of the Catholic priesthood is a drearily predictable tack.
But since the issue has been raised, some facts from the Jay Study commissioned by the US Catholic Bishops Conference:
"“81% of the victims [between 1950 and 2002] were male,” and that 78% were post-pubescent.
Now.
It is true the perpetrators were not pedophiles, since 78% of the victims were not children.
It is also true that 78% of the victims were male; that is, they were the victims of homosexual priests.
The disaster; the most diabolical disaster to ever befall the Catholic Church, consists precisely in the infiltration of Her priesthood and seminaries by homosexuals, who were permitted to prey upon male victims under cover of the position of their priesthood.
This is the greatest dereliction in the history of the episcopate of the Catholic Church.
@Randy
I guess I'm a bit more liberal on this issue. I believe Marriage should be defined between a man and a woman and same-sex couples recieve some legal recognition with the legal benefits that they crave. Take it for what it's worth, you can agree with me or not but that's my stance. Though even now I must concede that I'm starting to move on the fence regarding parenting. It's still my stance though.
Randy, I say you should be lucky to have someone as young as I am on your side because my generation isn't particularly friendly to the Conservative movement(I was born in 91). I believe in a federal marriage amendment because I believe Marriage affirms the differences between the two sexes. However I will readily state that if the desired union of a man and a woman isn't there then I will take the next best thing because I'm one of those people that believes it's best for a child to be raised by two people instead of one.
And that was in response to an earlier post made not the one made above me.
Deletion is a problem common to both marriage corruption advocates and marriage defenders of late, David.
Your posts above are intermittently comprehensible, so let me briefly respond.
1. It is wrong for heterosexual couples to fail their children in any way at all.
2. Homosexual couples will never have children in the first place.
3. Please be assured of our fervently wished-for lack of updates on your personal sexual proclivities. We don;t care. If you try to impose them on our children we will crush you politically.
Simple.
Finally, confirmation of the direct harms same sex family structures (abuse, molestation, neglect, and behavior problems to name just a few) when compared to intact families, cause our nations children. The peer reviewed and just published study, is by Dr. Mark Regnerus (acclaimed and unbiased profession researcher) from the University of Texas. Even same sex advocates acknowledge the use of gold standard sampling methodologies that other researchers could only dream of (funding source of over $800k). This study will show courts and other agencies the harms of placing children in same sex family structures and cannot come soon enough as DOMA and Prop 8 end up at the front door of the Supreme Court.
That study is in the Journal of Social Science Research and there can be no doubt that biological married parents are the gold standard for child rearing. This might be the final nail in the coffin the arguments for same-sex parenting.
Of particular interest in the study was the finding that 2% of children from traditional households reported sexual abuse; whereas 23% of children in same-sex households were sexually abused. As noted by the author; we already knew this to be true, but this is the first comprehensive peer review study to establish these truths we hold to be self evident within scientifically acceptable guidelines.
As for my interest on this subject; I voted for expansion of Civil Union laws in California only to find out later I was being played an organized horde of decadent miscreants at war with my 1st Amendment right of conscience.
Evidently; No good deed goes unpunished.
@Albert
'these are a series of sensations produced by a series of chemical reactions. so is sexual attraction
'
You are one of the more calm people on the SSM side, so please believe me when I say I'm not trying to be flippant in my response.
If we are going to say something is acceptable because of chemical reactions in the brain, what about those adults attracted to children, or animals, or shoes? Just because someone is sexually attracted to something is not enough for the State to validate it as an acceptable relationship and provide rewards for it. Marriage as it stands has its roots in biology and nature. Before man even existed, there was male-female matching and offspring being produced. Right now, that is the solid foundation on which marriage is based. Any other arguement I've seen so far has been based on subjective reasoning, which would allow marriage to be redefined again and again by those with different agendas.
Great post David @35.
You do get what you pay for. True that.
Reformed
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
First you wrote:
"Could you please demonstrate the intersection of marriage as a public institution and any obligation on a third party that which would involve state forced compliance."
and then:
"I am only interested in those examples where someone is actually forced to do something, not the often cited examples of someone making a judgement call between a civil requirement, (such as providing public accomodations on a non discriminatory basis), and the consequences of non compliance."
I don't view these as separate spheres of life, as a person's conscience doesn't cease to exist when he leaves the 4 walls of his home (or church).
I think religious liberty, when it involves moral choices, is indistinguishable from freedom of conscience. Which is why it is one of our enumerated, fundamental rights as citizens.
What could be more important to our understanding of liberty than the ability to act in accordance with our ethical/moral guidelines?
Abortion is legal. Forcing a doctor to perform an abortion, under penalty of law, against his moral convictions would violate his freedom of conscience.
I don’t think religious liberty should be an absolute trump to all other competing values, but; the bar to burden conscience should be a very high one.
Reformed:
Indeed. That sward cuts both ways.
But again, we require no study whatever to correctly inform our conscience on what marriage is.
It far predates the studies, or the institutions which fund them, or the states which establish the institutions.
One man and one woman, united in a long term stable union, from which children commonly result, and within which they are best nurtured.
Simple.
For gay apologists and their supporters: The simplistic definition of homosexuality as consensual sex between adults is not reality based. Homosexual pedophilia is disproportionately high for the gay population. a landmark and exhaustive study by Dr.Tim Dailey notes the close connection and marked increase of homosexual pedophila in our society. The title of the study is Homosexuality and Child Sex Abuse which was published by the Family Research Council. Gay literature abounds with romantic portrayals of man/boy lovers and graphic depiction of sexual predatory and perverse acts on boys.
The Jay study discloses the actual facts on the ground with regard to the so called "pedophile" priest scandal.
There was no such scandal.
The scandal was a scandal of homosexual priests, preying upon men.
The Jay report informs us that "81% of the victims [between 1950 and 2002] were male,” and that 78% were post-pubescent.
So 78% of the victims were not children, but males.
Homosexual predators infiltrated the Catholic priesthood and performed acts of homosexual predation on, overwhelmingly, men.
Let the marriage corruption advocates consider this carefully, because there is no possible means to stop your opposition.
We simply have not the slightest care or consideration for your threats.
It is necessary for civilization that marriage corruption be defeated, and we are just the people to see to it.
Some SSMers are simply fearful of being anything but indiscriminate and are pretty much bullied by the gay identity group into compliance.
Others, well, they speak the pro-gay bigotry of DavidKCMO.