NOM BLOG

Bishop Cordileone: Gay Marriage is Unjust to Children

 

Catholic News Agency:

The legalization of “gay marriage” in America, even on a civil level, is unjust to children and poses a threat to religious liberty, warned Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of Oakland, Calif.

“Marriage is the only institution we have that connects children to their mothers and fathers,” he said. “So really, the question is, do you support that institution?”

In a June interview with CNA, Bishop Cordileone, who leads the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, explained that Church teaching against the redefinition of marriage on a civil level as well as a sacramental level is a matter of justice.

“Marriage is about fundamental justice for children,” he said. “Children do best with a mother and a father.”

... Based on sound social science, this [New Family Structures] study complements common sense and “demonstrates what we’ve always known,” Bishop Cordileone said. “Children do best with a mother and a father.”

The bishop explained that this issue is of crucial importance because “we cannot have two different definitions of marriage simultaneously in the country.”

“Only one definition of marriage can stand,” he said. “This is not expanding the right of marriage. It’s changing the definition, or taking away something is essential to marriage – that it’s the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of the binding of the two and the procreation and education of the next generation of offspring.”

85 Comments

  1. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Still censoring me with no explanation?

  2. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    I find it quite appalling to use children as pawns to stand in the way of civil rights.

  3. Scott Wooledge
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Yet, inter-faith marriage is OK?

    2 Corinthians 6:14-15: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (KJV)

    Why are we not banning people from marrying out of their faith? It isn't in God's plan for Christians to marry Jews.

    Or Hindus.

  4. Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    What "civil right"?

    All have precisely the same rights, and obligations, concerning marriage.

    You assert that a "civil right" exists to redefine marriage, so as to eliminate gender as a constitutive element.

    What "civil right" is this?

    It does not proceed from law.

    The Supreme Court has already established that no constitutional right exists to same sex "marriage".

    So from where does this alleged "civil right" of yours proceed?

    It seems to proceed from your own foot-stomping insistence that law, biology, history, and universal human practice be set aside in order to accommodate your wishes.

  5. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    Interesting that NOM has not reported this story.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-usa-utah-mormons-idUSBRE86000N20120701

  6. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Conflate: the attempt to merge separate, unrelated arguments into the pseudo-marriage debate. Brought to you by the opposition.

  7. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Psychological projection: or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]

    Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

    An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.

  8. Randy E King
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    @eliasasm,

    You do realize that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint boasts 14.1 million members; that 150 is .00107% of the congregation?

    .00107% is not even a large enough number to qualify as insignificant.

  9. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Barb, you are correct when you say pseudo-marriage debate because the "debate" is not about marriage. It's about Civil Rights and there should no debate.

  10. Good News
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    NOM, fighting for equality!
    Equality for children: one mother and one father, whenever possible.

  11. Good News
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    No eliasasm #7, the "debate" is about marriage (the man-woman union and what that original and unique union means to adults, to children and to society).

    The "debate" is also a smoke screen used to advance personal interests of the medical world (just to name one potential beneficiary). So that they can be freed of constraint in promoting their new baby producing technologies to the largest and least hindered market as possible. And that is why at this point children's interest much be considered. And done so without the smoky obstruction of so called “civil rights”.

  12. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    " the "debate" is not about marriage. It's about Civil Rights and there should no debate."

    Except SS"M" is not a civil right - unless you believe that civil rights are anything that you arbitrarily declare.

  13. Randy E King
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Civil Rights each share one commonality; a firm basis rooted in the laws of nature. We do not base Civil Rights consideration on Moral Wrongs.

  14. Good News
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    @Scott
    Inter-faith marriage, like any marriage, is between a man and a woman. How many woman? What race or religion? What age? With or without consent? These questions about marriage can be posed because we would be talking about marriage (man and woman). The question of same sex cannot be pose in the same context, for we would then not be talking about marriage, but about something else: lets call it “cautelage” for clarity sake.
    While a polygamist marriage can be against the law. A same sex “marriage” cannot be at all. It is not outlawed, it is impossible.

  15. Austin
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    Oh NOM, when will you just come out and say that you are funded by the Catholic Church?

    I look forward to the day when pictures of your supporters are next to the pictures of the people protesting civil rights in the 50's and 60's. They, too, thought they were right.

  16. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    You'll be waiting a long time, Austin, because family values have absolutely nothing to do with racism. To believe that they will one day be considered morally identical is absolutely absurd!

    Consider that before you play the Nostradamus of the 21st century.

  17. Scott Wooledge
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    @Good News

    The point remains that the Bible condemns inter-faith marriages.

    But the State condones them.

    How is that OK? Why are we OK with the fact that the state actually allows Catholics to marry non-Catholics, in flagrant violation of Catholic law? This is so disrespectful to Catholics.

  18. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    This thread is about redefining marriage. Please try to stay on topic. I know it's difficult for the opposition to do b/c they have zero counter argument to the fact that redefining marriage severs the link between children and their mother and father, which is the most important public purpose of marriage.

  19. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Barb, this thread is about hating gays. If gays did not exist, neither would NOM.

  20. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    The Roman Catholic Church has absolutely no credibility or moral authority to lecture anybody when it come to the protection and care of children. The harm they inflicted on thousands of innocent children around the world through sexual molestation (and then moving offending priests to other parishes and refusing to report the abuse to police) is unconscionable.

  21. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    No, eliasasm. It is about the opposition to the redefinition of marriage. If SS"M" didn't exist, NOM wouldn't either.

  22. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    SoA 13,

    Nothing Austin said is about racism. It's called Civil Rights. You can spin anyway you choose to deflect the issue which still ramains, Civil Rights. And to say that gays don't have civil rights is pure hate.

  23. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    "Why are we OK with the fact that the state actually allows Catholics to marry non-Catholics, in flagrant violation of Catholic law? This is so disrespectful to Catholics."

    It is not the state's job to make sure that every religious group obey all their religious principles to absolute perfection, Scott. That's God's department.

  24. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Sure gays have civil rights, eliasasm. But redefining marriage is not one of them. Nor is it a civil right for anyone else.

  25. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    Let's try to keep on topic and stop attaching each other. If anti-ssm NOMers didn't have opponents show up and offer comments there would be no discussion....except for preaching to the converted and sharing lovely verses from scripture with each other.

    Back to the RC Church and their take on the right way to love, nurture children (without raping them).

  26. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    SoA,

    "It is not the state's job to make sure that every religious group obey all their religious principles to absolute perfection, Scott. That's God's department." Exactly! So stop putting Civil Rights up for a vote.

    If you really believed that you wouldn't be here blatantly exposing your hate.
    And please stop with this nonsense about redefining. No one is redefining anything for anybody else. No one is redefining your marriage. No one is telling you what YOUR marriage should be. Don't tell others what theirs should be to them. It has nothing to do with you or YOUR God.

  27. John McLaren
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    I can recall years ago when people frowned upon mix-race marriages and the off spring they produced. I heard it said, "The whites won't accept them and neither will the blacks. I feel so sorry for those poor children" Too bad Regnerus wasn't around then to prove how pathologically harmed mix-raced children were in those families.

  28. OvercameSSA
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    The article is correct about the relationship between marriage and what's best for children. But it fails to mention that a mom and a dad taking responsibility for their offspring, through the institution of marriage, is a great thing for society, as well. It keeps single moms and children off the government (taxpayers') tab and fosters economic advancement of the parents and their offspring..

    SS"M" severs the bond between procreation and marriage, thereby destroying the societal good and good to children that comes from marriage.

  29. Good News
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    @Scott
    I don't quite get your question. Why wouldn't the state allow Catholics to marry non-Catholics? Especially when, as you say, the state condones it. I would say that it is the state showing respect, and not disrespect, to the Catholics by allowing them to do whatever they want.
    Also when you say “we”, are you saying “we Catholics?” Are you a Catholic?

    I would say that since the state condones the uniting of opposite-sexes in a church, why don't they allow them to do so,without the disrespectful threat of imposing same sex unions on those same churches? And why doesn't the state allow those churches (and its citizens) to have a unique word to name that unique union?

  30. ShimmerDarlinShimmer
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    OK, for all the women in this argument you may want to reread the Bible before you argue whether redefining traditional biblical marriage is sometimes for the better than not redefining it. Question for the married women, What number wife are you and what was your purchase price. I hope your Father made sure to get what your worth. Also, are you happy with your new owner, well I guess whether your happy or not really isn't that important. To all the unmarried women do you know your worth is your father asking a good price, I hope your sale goes well. Good luck, I'm sure your father will make a good deal for himself. To all the men in this I hope your folks have or had the resources to get you one of those obedient and hardworking females. I know that there's a lot of responsibility in ownership of female livestock and I'm sure most of you can handle it, just make to show it knows who's boss. Congrat's on the milestone of your new or resent purchase and ownership of female chattel. God bless all of you...

    Ok what if gay people don't redefine marriage as anything other than between a man and a women?

    But instead have a Unity Ceremony that has all the rights and obligations that afforded to married couples? Also, that there be no obligation for any religion to participate in a Unity Ceremony?

    And is it only gay marriage that the problem or same sex marriage? Because I was wonder and may some of the lovely people here can answer this, What if two straight people wanted to marry?

    Ok, here's a question about "What about the children" aspect of this conversation... What about the kids that the straight couple can't or wont adopt, older kid, sick or disabled kids, or what about the kids who's parents throw them away like trash (cuz that is WWJD) the kids hat are gay. What about all the kids in the world that may never be adopted? Shouldn't these children have a family and people to love and care for them? The perfect situation isn't always an option. So, is it better to have all those kids in state homes or orphanages, or is it better that those kids have families and homes?

    And as for Gay marriage being unjust to kids, isn't it unjust for kids to never have a family and home even if it has just 1 parent or 2 same-sex parents in it?

  31. Good News
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    @John
    The difference is that the mixed couple could have children. What the medical and economic world is doing with same-sex unions is a business. Which, like any good western capitalistic business, is thinking about profits first, second and last.
    Allow a little room for some of us to think about the children. Before we will all naturally be forced to act (for the sake of the children) as if everything was fine.

    And all that is secondary to the word marriage. For even in this eventual future of ours, the man-woman union will still be unique and original enough to merit its own name.

  32. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    And in vitro insemination by infertile man-woman couples and egg or sperm donors are also a medical /economic world procedure to bring children into regular families...an action forbidden by the RC church.
    They will probably be as damaged and corrupted as children of s-s parents (who will treat them like pets and have them roll over and beg),

  33. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    "please stop with this nonsense about redefining. No one is redefining anything for anybody else. No one is redefining your marriage. No one is telling you what YOUR marriage should be. Don't tell others what theirs should be to them."

    Who do you think you're fooling? When the state stops recognizing married couples as husband and wife and starts labeling them as "Party A" and "Party B", and when the state declares that marriage is only about coupling while the procreation and rearing of childern is an irrelevant byproduct, and when people are labeled "bigots" and "haters" by hysterical fanatics like yourself when they disagree with these changes, then it is definitely a redefinition.

    This has nothing to do with "civil rights" but rather the deconstruction of the natural family.

  34. Good News
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    I see the stocks going up as you speak Shane.
    Our western economy might just stay on top of the world market for a few more decades with such innovative free markets business opportunities.

    But on another subject, why in the world won't they allow a word in our dictionaries that would uniquely name the man-woman life long union? (Bad for business?)
    And what about you Shane are you that prejudiced and hateful toward the man-woman union that you do not want it to be named? It really and truely has nothing to do with homosexuality.

  35. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    News Flash

    Countries that since 2001 have legalized s-s marriage,
    Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Mexico and Sweden are planning an emergency meeting. Natural families are being destroyed, the marriages of millions of opposite couples have been gutted in all these countries. Every straight married person has been a victim and personally harmed by this s-s marriage threat.

  36. Posted July 8, 2012 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    @Shane Mchaffy Most of those countries you listed are collapsing. The rise of the homosexual agenda causes the fall of nations.

  37. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    Beautifully stated, Bishop! Marriage is a unique relationship in that it creates kin between two unrelated individuals (a man and a woman), equally represents both sexes in one public union, and simultaneously ties both sexes to their offspring, meeting the obligation of both sexes to their offspring. There is simply no substitute for marriage between a man and woman.

  38. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    Legal marriage should be consistent and follow God's design to procreate and create offspring. Therefore those who cannot "be fruitful and multiply" should not be allowed the sacrament of marriage - infertile people, post-menopausal women, elderly couples, men with low sperm count and s-s couples who can't have "natural families" Now that satisfies NOMers.

  39. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Shane, your facetiousness is hysterical. Too bad the others just don't get how absurd and blinded by hate they are.

  40. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Thanks eliasasm

    And note that NOMers, many who are RC ignored my comment about the abuses of RC priests who sexually molested countless innocent children around the world who are now telling us that gay marriage is UNJUST to children. These same Bishops who protected their priests and fought victims in court have no moral authority when it comes to care and protection of children.

  41. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    If government-backed same-sex marriage is legalized, “coupling” is exactly how future generations will see the institution of marriage. If that view prevails, many more couples in our society will forgo natural marriage and have more children out of wedlock. Why go through the trouble of getting married to have children if marriage isn’t about children? Why tie yourself to one person if you don’t need to? This further erosion of marriage will hurt children because illegitimate parents often never form a family, and those who cohabitate break up at a rate of two to three times that of married parents. When illegitimacy rises, not only do children suffer, but the rest of us are forced to pay high social costs because of the resulting increases in crime, poverty, taxes, and social spending.

    This state of affairs has been and is being nurtured in all the countries that have legalized SS"M" thus demonstrating that SS"M" is a symptom of countries on the path of a moral, economic, and financial downfall.

  42. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    "Therefore those who cannot "be fruitful and multiply" should not be allowed the sacrament of marriage - infertile people, post-menopausal women, elderly couples, men with low sperm count"

    Such man/woman couples are the exception Shane/John. And exceptions do not invalidate the rule.

  43. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    Shane,

    They ignore everything they can't address or they divert from the issue especially the issue of hate. It just isn't possible to attack one particular segment of society that has existed witin every society that has ever existed without hate. Just not possible.

  44. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Bishop Cordileone has no record of molesting children Shane/John. Nor has he any record of protecting pedophile priests either along with 95% of Catholic priests.

    So it is just as unfair to blame them for such things as it would be for me to blame the entire homosexual community for the antics of homosexual serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Arthur Gary Bishop, David Edward Maust, Patrick Wayne Kearney, David D. Hill, and dozens of others far too numerous to mention here.

  45. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Arthur Gary Bishop, David Edward Maust, Patrick Wayne Kearney, David D. Hill were sick individuals who killed their victims. The hundreds of Catholic priests, protected by their Bishops simply killed children's souls and damaged them forever. The RC Church which is a religious institution and the moral authority for millions of the faithful failed those children who now live tormented lives. Priests in Ireland now have to be chaperoned in the presence of children because they can no longer be trusted.

  46. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    Good grief, SoA, how can you be so unobservable of Human Life to think that whatever is legal or not is going to make anyone be any different than who they are. Whether equal marriage is legal or not is not going to make anyone do anything different than what they are doing. Humans will and are coupling and raising families or not as they choose, as they always have and always will regardless of what anyone thinks about it or what any kind of laws you want passed. Your efforts here are not going to change what is. You just do not want to acknowledge the reality of something you do not like. The reality of the reality that has existed since the beginning of reality.

  47. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam

    I just realized...since you were able to delete my earlier posting and reference to the RC church (a huge sponsor of NOM) you are actually an employee of NOM.

  48. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Oh, Shane/John. I guess that makes serial killers better then, because we know that killing people, including innocent children, doesn't do any permanent damage at all. Especially not to the families of their victims, even when they find out that their loved ones had been raped before they had been murdered. I'm sure that's of great comfort to them.

    Talk about twisted!

  49. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    "I just realized...since you were able to delete my earlier posting and reference to the RC church (a huge sponsor of NOM) you are actually an employee of NOM."

    Wrong on both counts, Shane/John. Just like you are wrong concerning marriage.

  50. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    Good grief again SoA,

    Your comments could not be more ignorant or offensive. Having the thought to equat serial killers to homosexuals. You must think that they were serial killers because they were gay. Really?

  51. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    No, eliasasm. We shouldn't equate homosexuals to serial killers anymore than we should equate Catholic priests to child molesters.

  52. Bryce K.
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    "No, eliasasm. We shouldn't equate homosexuals to serial killers anymore than we should equate Catholic priests to child molesters."

    Hm, that sounds a bit dubious to me. After all, what percentage of RC priests have molested children? I don't think that high of a percentage of homosexuals are serial killers... haha.

  53. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.

    I don't know the percentage of homosexuals who are serial killers, but according to the late Dr. Milton Helpern (who is considered the Father of Modern Forensic Science) the percentage of serial killers who are known to have had homosexual experiences is over 43 percent.

    But not even that should be used as an excuse to hate on anyone, SHANE!

  54. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    Sick serial killers certainly never set themselves up as moral authorities. "Upon this rock shall I build my church" is what the RC church purports to be. They teach Christians God's word and moral and righteous behaviour. Their Bishops who oversaw the sexual abuse of children and who moved priest to other parishes where they could reoffend have no excuse. Their pope is the Vicar of Christ and these men of God who defiled these children of God cannot not claim they are the authority in raising and protecting children.

  55. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    I agree, Shane/John. Catholic priests who have molested chidren and/or covered up for child molesters have no moral authority. But it is not fair to condemn and discredit the 98% of RC preists who had nothing to do with these reprehensible acts.

    I don't condemn or discredit whatever moral authority gays might claim based on the comparatively low number of homosexuals who are serial killers. Nor does anyone else here. Please don't indulge in the same injustice.

  56. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    SoA, The difference between the priests and serial killers is that the priests and everyone right to the top knew about it and covered it up. Which means the whole church has no moral authority.Gays are the ones who had nothing to do with the reprehensible acts or serial killers.
    Never heard of any gays claiming moral authority.
    BTW, catholics are not the only ones funding NOM. Mormons do to and boy there is alot of covering up there, too.

  57. AM
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    The American RC Church commissioned an independent study of the priest abuse scandal.
    Only 4% of priests were accused:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report

    As far as authority figures abusing our children?
    Perhaps you should look at our public schools:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html

  58. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    @son of adam

    "the percentage of serial killers who are known to have had homosexual experiences" does not mean these killers in adulthood identified as homosexuals.

    Medical literature reports "Adolescent boys form close friendships with same-sex peers and may experiment sexually with them usually to satisfy curiosity." These events would qualify as a homosexual experience in your survey. Some might even suggest prolonged sexual contact with a priest may also qualify as homosexual experience. Not all boys who have experimented become gay men.

  59. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    eliasasm, that claim is based on nothing more than conjecture. Like I said, only 1.5 percent of RC preists were child molesters and a minority of those in the church kept it a secret, especially from other RC preists. The less people who knew about this, especially within the church, the better the chance of keeping it from leaking out.

    This is just a rationalization to condemn an entire group for the misdeeds of a relatively small number, just because you hate them for disagreeing with you over an unrelated topic.

    And gays claim moral authority all the time with self righteous sanctimonious attitudes - especially you with all your baseless accusations of hate, fear, and ignorance.

  60. Dan
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    The problem with assumptions is that they are usually wrong. The assumption many here are making that all NOM'ers are Catholic is no exception. ;)

    Actually, one doesn't have to be a person of faith at all to recognize the need to protect the definition of marriage for the greater good of our society.

  61. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

    Your survey of killers who have had "homosexual experiences" does not identify those who may have been sexually abused as boys or teens. These unwanted nor desired experiences foisted upon heterosexual youth we know can lead to depression, drugs, alcohol abuse and violence.

    "Victimizer-Feelings of great pain, rage, and loss of control can lead abuse victims to abuse others or act out violently in some way." Boys who experiment sexually with s-s peers do not turn into gay violent sadomasochistic killers.

  62. Diana
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    The bishop is right, of course. The Catholic Church is the only church really fighting for what is right and speaking out against the perversion spread by gays.

  63. Son of Adam
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 4:33 am | Permalink

    "Medical literature reports "Adolescent boys form close friendships with same-sex peers and may experiment sexually with them usually to satisfy curiosity." These events would qualify as a homosexual experience in your survey. Some might even suggest prolonged sexual contact with a priest may also qualify as homosexual experience. Not all boys who have experimented become gay men."

    So you admit that homosexuality is not genetic or innate - that they are not "born that way?"

  64. Little Man
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    Scott Wooledge:

    If we thought your quotation from scripture and question were sincere, we could easily answer your question in a logical manner.

    For one, explain to me how you arrive at the topic of inter-faith marriage from 2 Corinthians 6. 'Yoked together' like two oxen means to you 'marriage'? You got a lot to learn. Maybe you like to pull carts all day long, but i don't.

    The Bible offers hope, not for same-sex pseudo-marriage, but for even better than that. Anyway, civil marriage, is... well, a civil matter. And we vote "No".

  65. eliasasm
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

  66. Son of Adam
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    "Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right."

    But not the redefinition of it. Big difference.

  67. Son of Adam
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    i.e. Baker vs. Nelson.

  68. OvercameSSA
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    When SCOTUS reasoned that marriage is a fundamental right, it was speaking about marriage of a man and a woman, not homosexuals.

  69. Publius
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Bishop Cordileone is a man of good will who serves his church faithfully, who is untouched by scandal, and who writes and speaks with great moral intelligence. I write this as a non-Catholic. Numerous attempts have been made to hijack this thread rather than engage the Bishop’s arguments, and relatively few of the comments address what Bishop Cordileone actually said.

  70. eliasasm
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    SoA #66,

    You said marriage is not a civil right but the SC says it is and to deny anyone a civil right is unAmerican and pure hate.

    And Overcame, the SCOTUS did not differenciate between hetero and homo yet you do. Hate.

  71. Son of Adam
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    "You said marriage is not a civil right but the SC says it is and to deny anyone a civil right is unAmerican and pure hate."

    Then I guess you hate polyamorous groups and incestuous couples, eliasasm.

    "the SCOTUS did not differenciate between hetero and homo"

    Again, see Baker vs. Nelson.

  72. Scott Wooledge
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Seriously LIttle Man, you think by "yoke together" Corinthians is warning not to pull a cart with someone of other faith?

    OK.

    So the Bible condemns pulling a cart with a person who is unbeliever of the Christian God, it's OK to marry them is your point?

  73. John Noe
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Yes as always we need to put the children first. Thank you for this blog as this is why we are in this battle.

  74. John Noe
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    62. Diana

    The bishop is right, of course. The Catholic Church is the only church really fighting for what is right and speaking out against the perversion spread by gays.

    C'mon now Diane their are plenty of people who are not Catholic who are also fighting for what is right. The evangelical faith is just as strong.

  75. Chairm
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    Shane Mahaffy's trollish remarks regarding the RC Church exemplify bigotry and the notion of projection.

    Parents would be well advised to not leave their children anywhere near the influence of a person whose public comments exemplify thusly.

    The Bishop could remove his collar and his words regarding the marriage idea would still ring with intellectual and moral authority.

    Shane fears this because his strategy is to avoid moral and intellectual accountability for the content of his remarks. Maybe that is due to cowardice or perhaps feebleness or perhaps something overshadowing his soul. Pity him, readers, but do not feel provoked by him.

    Stand firm. There are bigger matters than these petty taunts of SSMers.

  76. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 1:55 am | Permalink

    Echoing Chairm, "wherefore, we heeded them not...."

  77. Paul Mc
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    S of A:
    The ones who experimented but left it behind were never gay. The ones who experimented and stuck with it were gay in any case. There is no need to invoke the mutability argument here if at least SOME people are born that way.

    I remind you that is no proof that ALL people are born straight, nothing that could support solid proof of that exists. On the contrary there is a large and growing body if evidence that being gay is likely to be innate in at least some people.

  78. Paul Mc
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    The NFSS research referred to by the Bishops does not in fact conclude anything about the ability of LBGT to be good parents. It concludes
    Only that family structures are the strongest influence on child outcomes. The study is in fact the best piece of support yet for allowIng ssm fr Ye better improvement of children's well being for Ye many LBGT persons who are parents. Indeed, it is an argument for complete normalisation of LBGT couples wrt straight.

    As usual the Bishop comments on fields outside of his expertise. He should stick to theology and leave statistics to people like me who understand t-testst and and analysis of variance (relatively trivial actually in mathematical terms).

  79. tim
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Cordileone position is unjust to children and millions of families. And isn't remotely centered in reality.

  80. Son of Adam
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    "The ones who experimented but left it behind were never gay. The ones who experimented and stuck with it were gay in any case. There is no need to invoke the mutability argument here if at least SOME people are born that way."

    Paul Mc, there is no scientific evidence of the existence of a gay gene, or that homosexuality is innate. Not even the American Psychological Association makes such a contention anymore.

    It makes just as much sense to say that the SOME people are born with deeply held religious beliefs just because you can find those who will never give them up no matter what the circumstances.

  81. eliasasm
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    SoA #71,

    "Then I guess you hate polyamorous groups and incestuous couples, eliasasm."

    Pathetically ignorant response.

    "Again, see Baker vs. Nelson"

    Nothing federal about this.

  82. Son of Adam
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    "Then I guess you hate polyamorous groups and incestuous couples, eliasasm."

    >>Pathetically ignorant response.

    Care to tell me why, eliasasm? Or are you just mudsligning again?

    "Again, see Baker vs. Nelson"

    >>Nothing federal about this.

    In the case of Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to different-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a federal precedent.

    Pamela R. Winnick, Comment, The Precedential Weight of a Dismissal by the Supreme Court for Want of a Substantial Federal Question: Some Implications of Hicks v. Miranda, 76 Colum. L. Rev. 508, 511 (1976) ("a dismissal by the Supreme Court is an adjudication on the merits ... a lower federal court must consider itself bound by the dismissal when a similar challenge comes before it")

  83. Chairm
    Posted July 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Paul Mc said: "The ones who experimented but left it behind were never gay. The ones who experimented and stuck with it were gay in any case."

    Ad hoc. You are not a serious commenter on that subtopic.

  84. Chairm
    Posted July 11, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Paul Mc, you are not accurately representing the study and so your comments are off-target.

  85. Chairm
    Posted July 11, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Game, set, match to Son of Adam.