Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Something you may not have known

A correspondent has drawn my attention to a section of the NZ Marriage Act 1955 which was unknown to me: it is an offence to deny that a (legal) marriage is a marriage:

Offence to deny or impugn validity of lawful marriage
  • (1)Every person commits an offence against this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $200, who—
    • (a)alleges, expressly or by implication, that any persons lawfully married are not truly and sufficiently married; or
    • (b)alleges, expressly or by implication, that the issue of any lawful marriage is illegitimate or born out of true wedlock.
    (2)For the purposes of this section the term alleges means making any verbal statement, or publishing or issuing any printed or written statement, or in any manner authorising the making of any verbal statement, or in any manner authorising or being party to the publication or issue of any printed or written statement.
    (3)A person shall not be deemed to make an allegation contrary to the provisions of this section by reason only of using in the solemnisation of a marriage a form of marriage service which at the commencement of this Act was in use by the religious body to which that person belongs, or by reason only of the printing or issue of any book containing a copy of a form of marriage service in use at the commencement of this Act by any religious body."

    The proposed changes by Louisa Wall to the Marriage Act (here) do not affect a section such as this. It will remain as it is.

    My correspondent goes on to make these observations,

    "I take it that this section arose from the concern of Protestants that Roman Catholics would not recognize their marriages. But in the current climate, it could take on a new significance in silencing those who disagree with the proposed changes to the marriage act, with implications for the church if it discriminates as to who can use a church for a marriage ceremony. One way around this would be for the churches to no longer act as state celebrants for marriages and only provide a liturgical ceremony (as is the case in a number of other countries)."

    As I take soundings around the church I sense that there is a vocal group supporting a change to our theological definition of marriage which would line up with Louisa Wall's bill, a vocal group supporting the status quo (at least re 'man and woman' at core of definition of marriage) which does not line up with her bill, and a silent group (a silent majority?) which is comfortable with the current civil status quo (which provides for civil unions for same sex couples), perhaps sees no harm in the Wall bill, but disagrees with the idea that the church's sacraments (or, as I prefer, sacramental actions, cf the catechism of our church) can involve two men or two women being joined in 'holy matrimony.'

    Were the Wall bill to pass, some great care would be needed in talking about 'marriages' of gay couples. Many Christians who do not agree with the use of the term 'marriage' to encompass a relationship not involving a man and a woman could be at risk of offending against the law.

    Even yours truly here, who tries to place the word marriage in scare marks when talking about a concept he does not agree with, could be fined $100 per scare mark when doing so!

    Will the newly amended Marriage Act introduce a new discrimination to NZ society: Christians (and Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, social traditionalists) who wish to discuss in some public manner whether two men or two women can be married in the eyes of God will henceforth be discriminated against?

    That's a genuine question as I am not clear whether the above section is about statements concerning specific persons or couples rather than general statements about situations pertaining to marriage. I have no wish to run round publicly saying that X and Y are not married. I do have a wish to be able to discuss matters of theological concern in public without impedance from an officious State.


Father Ron Smith said...

So I guess, Peter, that if the New Zealand government actually brings into law the option of Same-Sex Marriage, most of your correspondents will be forking out the $200 fine, for not recognising such a marriage.

If you need a loan, just let me know!

carl jacobs said...

Welcome to the future. Homosexual marriage has never been about people actually getting married. It is about the social legitimization of homosexuality. This has two parts: the legal affirmation of those who declare homosexuality to be morally good and the legal suppression of those who do not.

Why is this seen as a necessary task? Because there is no natural justification for homosexuality. The homosexual has nothing to affirm the legitimacy of his desire beyond the authenticity of his desire. But he knows that desire is never its own justification. He has nothing like complimentarianism and reproduction to settle his mind. What then is he to do? In fact, the homosexual knows that his desires are wrong. So in response to that knowledge he willfully suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. That suppression takes work. It is a much easier task if his neighbors both affirm him, and silence any testimony to the truth.

So, yes, you should be worried. Your position will be criminalized lest you feel free to mention it in the public square and confront the homosexual with the truth he wishes to suppress. In the long run it cannot stand, because the legitimization of homosexuality is a derivative feature of a decaying libertine society. What you should fear is not the consequences of legitimized homosexuality, but the inevitable economic and social decline the proceeds from the libertine culture that saw fit to legitimize homosexuality. That government will be quite malignant indeed.


Peter Carrell said...

Thanks for the offer, Ron.

I am delighted to know that the pension is more substantive than I had imagined!!

Father Ron Smith said...

"Because there is no natural justification for homosexuality. The homosexual has nothing to affirm the legitimacy of his desire beyond the authenticity of his desire."
- Carl Jacobs -

So you still think that homosexuality is merely a figment of the imagination for a percentage of the human race - arising out of their carnal lust? - Unbelievable!

I think someone here needs to get out of his ivory tower. I could recommend a bit of reading on science and sociology as applied to Christianity, but I won't bother.

I think any logical thought about the ontological understanding of the presence of homosexuality as part of the natural order is just not accessible to those who will not try to understand.

Maybe, if such people were to find a 'skeleton in the closet' of their own household, they might repent. In the meantime, though, I'm not holding out too much hope.

Jesus, mercy; Mary, pray!

liturgy said...

Greetings Peter

Your article today is only not scaremongering if you can give an example of its application in the manner you see threatening.

When, for example, has this been applied to the Roman Catholic Church in this country when it does not accept as marriage the serial monogamy Anglicanism takes for granted here, and which the state recognises as marriage? And which I suspect even you have been involved in and blessed.

Let’s have the discussion intelligently, certainly. Does this really forward that discussion?



Andrei said...

I beg to differ Fr Bosco, I think you will find that the Catholic Church says to people who have divorced and remarried that they should not take communion.

And the gay rights crowd have a history of making fusses over such things in a way the average person doesn't to great effect

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bosco,
It could be scaremongering, but if so, that might be a good thing alongside the cheerleading going on which does not seem to ask many questions of the situation.

I am not aware of Roman Catholic discussion which says in public that (say) Anglican marriages are not marriages.

The question I am asking here is the quite serious one, If I and others continue to deny that a gay 'marriage' is a marriage (for want of consisting of a man and a woman), would we be liable to charges?

carl jacobs said...


So you still think that homosexuality is merely a figment of the imagination for a percentage of the human race...

You know, it would be really fascinating to see you try to demonstrate from my own words where I said that. Perhaps you could try.

... - arising out of their carnal lust? - Unbelievable!

What I said was a paraphrase of Romans 1. What Paul wrote in Romans is considerably more harsh than what I said, and carries considerably more authority. The point I was making is this:

Authentic desire is not by definition licit desire. The fact that a man may experience real tangible desire does not mean he is morally free to act on that desire. This point is so obvious it is not even debatable. People experience evil yet authentic desires all the time. It goes without saying that such desires are not imaginary. But if you want to demonstrate the licitness of the desire you have to move beyond merely asserting (over and over again) that the desire is real.

I could recommend a bit of reading on science and sociology as applied to Christianity, but I won't bother.

Yes, I would be fascinated to learn a scientific definition of 'good.' Perhaps you could demonstrate that as well.

There is no 'observable' for homosexuality that isn't tied to the self-serving assertions of the homosexual. Besides, we are not slaves to our genes. A man may have any number of predispositions to certain behaviors. He is still responsible to rise above his genes and act in a moral fashion.

I think any logical thought about the ontological understanding of the presence of homosexuality as part of the natural order is just not accessible to those who will not try to understand.

It is God who defines ontology, and not man. If you think homosexuality is part of the created order, then you should present some kind of case for it that doesn't depend upon your own subjective feelings. You should be able to find in homosexuality some analog to male/female complementarity. You should be able to assert a parallel to reproduction. But you can't. There isn't any analog. There isn't any parallel. You have nothing to say but the same thing you say over and over again - that their desire is authentic. That isn't a case.

if such people were to find a 'skeleton in the closet' of their own household, they might repent.

Yeah, I'll get right on that repentance stuff. Just as soon as you make a Scriptural case for it.


Andrei said...

You know Fr Ron the so called "gay" community are not victims, they are amongst the most prosperous and influential members of our nation.

In part because they do not put their energies and resources into raising the next generation but

And nobody has a "right" to a
wedding - nobody at all.

I remember as a child a woman with terrible cerebral palsy, who shook and dribbled and slurred her words. And there would never be a wedding for her, she had been given an incredible cross to bear.

And I remember kids mocking her by imitating her shakes and the way she talked and my blood runs cold at the cruelty of that. But no Government can or would even consider waving its magic wand to give her a husband,wedding and life long companion. So she lived alone and in poverty all her life.

And I see vapid media celebrity who shall remain nameless who has been given every advantage in life whining on TV that she is a "B" in the gender identity alphabet soup and having had her heterosexual marriage and grown tired of it and moved on is so hard done by that she cannot now marry her girlfriend and I think of that spastic woman from years ago and want to spit.

liturgy said...

Greetings Peter

Sorry if my point was confusing. I’ll rephrase: Roman Catholicism does not accept serial monogamy. Anglicanism in this country takes this for granted, as does the state.

So RCs have always been public
that a valid marriage is one for life – and the only marriage a couple have entered. The RC Church in NZ has never recognised divorce, and sees second (third, fourth… seventh…), what the state (and Anglicans and others) call marriage(s) as an irregular union which is not marriage, and they are barred from communion. Andrei is getting confused – he is actually agreeing with me, not differing at all.

What we are looking for is, as you say, if your question is a serious one, an example of RCs being charged by their continuation to deny that this second (third, fourth… seventh…) union is a marriage in their insistence that the first commitment was the actual and only marriage, and these latter ones are not marriage at all (when the state declares they are).



Father Ron Smith said...

With all due respect to your argument here, Andrei, I cannot for the life of me make any credible connection between spacticity (a terrible human affliction) with homosexuality (a much misunderstood human condition) - except in that both situations are fraught with misunderstanding and public bigotry.

N.B. I do know of marriages amongst severely disabled people that actually do work - even though they may not be able to have children.
I do not get your point.

Zane Elliott said...

I think you'll find the nature of those pushing a Homosexual agenda will be all pervasive. I don't doubt for a moment that people (like myself) who will insist that homosexual unions can not be 'marriage' as intended by God in creation will end up being pressured into silence.

I hope I am wrong, but this issue seems to be surrounded by people who are especially aggressive.

Anonymous said...


Your repeated assertion on the nature of homosexuality is not based on facts.

There is no conclusive evidence that it is a naturally occuring phenomenon. And yes, I have read very widely on this issue, and have been doing so for over 15 years. And the truth is that the jury is still well and truly out.

Repeating ad infinitum your claim about this will not make it any more true.

But, even if it was true, so what? Your theology seems to lack any consideration of the Biblical teaching that the Fall has corrupted nature. Thus, merely because something occurs in nature, does not prove that it was intended by God. Cancer occurs in nature. So do many other ills. There is some evidence that both pedophilia and the pathologies that make people into serial killers are present at a very early age, in the latter case possibly at birth.

Thus your arguments along these lines are not remotely convincing.

Jesus, whom we are supposed to follow and learn from, was clear;

one man and one women for life.

There is just no way to avoid that fact, no matter how inconveniant it is to fashionable liberal agendas.

Until you can produce convincing arguments that Jesus himself was wrong,those of us who post here are not going to be convinced.

On to the actual issue of the thread.

In Denmark Christians ministers are forced by law, regardless of their concience, to perform homosexual "marriages".

In Britain Christian foster parents have been targeted by the homosexual lobby in order to remove their right to foster children.

In Sweden a Lutheran minister was convicted and recieved a prison sentence for merely stating in public the traditional Christian position.

These are not isolated incidents. They are the tip of the iceberg only.

Thus it is not remotely scaremongering for Peter to bring up his concerns.

Having this discussion inteligently will not be possible if that means ignoring what is actually going on in the West.

Anyone who thinks this will not happen in NZ is naive to say the least.

As Zane said, the supporters of gay rights are extremely aggressive ( few of us who post here can testify to that fact) and seem to care not one bit for religious freedom. In fact, the whole movement borders on outright fascism.

Supporters of the gay rights movement in the Church must answer these issues. It is unacceptable for them to remain silent. It is especially unaceptable for those supporters to willfully and knowingly support the State stripping Christians and the Church of the rights to religious freedom and free speech, not to mention the freedom to bring up children according ones own convictions.

The time for silence and collusion is over.

Anonymous said...

Is this a prophecy of the rise of Liberalism and and the homosexual movement in the Church?

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

2 Timothy 4:3

Suem said...

People with cerebral palsy can get married. I remember a woman with cerebral palsy on the radio once reporting that a domestic science teacher in her special school commented how, "It is such a shame you won't marry, you would have made such a good wife!" That woman went on to marry; her teacher's assumptions that nobody would want her were wrong. Of course, some of us able bodied, straight, gay, bisexual simply may not meet a partner to marry - nobody may want us or we just might not meet the right person. The government doesn't go around waving magic wands for any of us either!
The bisexual woman who had tired of her straight marriage and now wants to marry her girlfriend sounds pretty selfish. But it is not an argument against gay marriage. I know many straight people who have tired of their marriages and want another marriage with an opposite sex partner - same scenario and I bet you don't want to spit!

Peter Carrell said...

Er, Suem, I want to "spit" when someone tires of their marriage and moves on to another relationship ...

Andrei said...

Call me old fashioned if you like but marriage is for life through thick and thin.

If you will forgive the anecdotes but as a child a in a family we knew the husband had a stroke and his wife had to nurse him, raise their children and work to put the bread on the table and a roof over their heads - I was only young but I could see how exhausting that was for her, but those were the cards she was dealt.

On the other hand a contemporary of mine, whose stag do and wedding I attended, his wife has a bad accident and was severely disabled - so he divorced her, took up with a blond bimbo and got custody of their children (she was in no position to raise them on her own you understand) leaving her with nothing. I am sure that it is a lot more fun to hang around with a blond bimbo than a disabled woman in a wheelchair, absolutely - Doesn't make it right to do this.

And this is the crisis we face - we have allowed marriage to become degraded. The very concept of gay "marriage" is a symptom of a deeper malaise that has overwhelmed the institution

Suem said...

I rarely hear people saying that they could "spit" when it comes to heterosexual behaviour, Peter. What does wanting to "spit" at someone convey? The emotions of hatred and contempt. I am glad that you are even handed, but I am sad that you feel hatred and contempt for the weakness and sin of your fellow human beings.

When I hear that a marriage has broken down, I don't want to spit, I want to weep. If someone tells me they have simply "tired" of their marriage and want to move on, I feel grief. I do think that they should perhaps have tried harder and should adopt a different attitude. I also take into account that I do not know the full circumstances (only God does) and so, not having been in their shoes, I can't fully judge.

People who honestly see their marriages as unimportant or think it is trivial matter to discard them and move on are very much the poorer for it. I think that they are as unlikely to find happiness with a new partner as they were with the first. I truly feel sorry for them more than I feel hatred, although, if they have hurt a spouse and children, I do feel anger at that irresponsibility. I can't say it is such as to make me want to spit at them though.

Suem said...

Also, if you and Andrei want (equally) to spit when someone wants to leave a marriage for a straight as a gay partner - then that is not an argument against gay marriage, just against infidelity.

Andrei said...

    Marriage is an almost universal thing across time and space. And (no doubt boring) families, Mum, Dad, three kids and dog lie at the heart of every civil society.

Every social pathology you can think of is highly correlated with people who did not grow up in the (no doubt boring)Mum, Dad, .... set up.

Marriage today in the west is in crisis and we need to be addressing that, not radically changing the meaning of the institution.

Its hard work raising children and after ten years of nappy buckets and sleepless nights, running away to a new "partner" does seem attractive from time to time for most people I expect - it is your right to have fun and leave other people to pick up the pieces.

All this Gay marriage dribble is couched in terms if "rights" but never in terms of responsibilities.

And marriage is about taking on adult responsibilities - in particular those pertaining to raising the next generation

Life is not Mills and Boon Romance.

Did you know the Massachusetts lesbians who kicked this latest round of nonsense off by going to court to force the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to give them the "marriage" they were so cruelly denied valued it so highly that not only were they pioneers in same sex marriage, they were also pioneers in same sex divorce - two whole years they lasted

Father Ron Smith said...

"Marriage today in the west is in crisis and we need to be addressing that, not radically changing the meaning of the institution."

Not a very good hypothesis,Andrei. In fact, if 'marriage is in a crisis', as you say, Then who is to blame? Are you saying it is Same-Sex couples who actually want to make a go of it in marriage?

Why not put the blame where it lies - with the heterosexual couples who are failing - nothing to do with Gays!

Don't try to put the guilt on those very people who might want to show others how to stay together in a life-long monogamous relationship called marriage! The intention to live together in a faithful life-time relationship ought be the opportunity for rejoicing. Who knows, it might just encourage other couples to be faithful, too?

Suem said...

Hi Andrei,
I am very much in favour of "boring" family set ups of Mum, Dad, kids and dog. I grew up in such a family and I went on to set up such a family of my own.
Unfortunately, I was abused and raped from the ages of 4 to 13 within my childhood "boring" family set up. This was perpetrated by a relative who was ostensibly happily married in his own "boring" family set up - where he also abused his own kids.

As you can imagine, I am well aware that life is not a Mills and Boon's romance! I am also aware that traditional families can be wonderful places, or terrible places. It is the individuals within those family structures, and the way they conduct themselves which makes the difference. It is no different in same sex families; love, commitment and responsibility are what matter, not the sexuality of any individual.
I am not particularly surprised that the couple you describe only lasted two years. In my previous comment, I wrote that I thought someone who discarded a marriage lightly would be:
"I think that they are as unlikely to find happiness with a new partner as they were with the first."

But you don't bother to read my comments properly, do you? It is much easier for you to characterise me as someone who thinks family is "boring" or believes that people should "have fun and leave others to pick up the pieces."

I would really like you to try to move beyond the shallow assumptions you have about me and try to engage a little less superficially.

Suem said...

I could tell you an anecdote about the same sex couple in my father's parish who, when one developed cancer, the partner nursed him, changed blood and vomit covered sheets etc. No doubt there are other gay people who would not do this. The same is true for heterosexual couples; some act with integrity, others don't.

I'm really amazed that you are telling me anecdotes about men who stayed with their disabled wives and men who left them as if you think that I would be applauding the partner who left and condemning the partner who stayed!!

Andrei said...

Fr Ron,
          I never said that gays were responsible for the crisis in marriage, I said the institution was in crisis and rewriting its fundamental meaning and purpose will only worsen matters.

See here: Solo parent trap widens gap for rich and poor

It is typical it is unfair journalistic boiler plate.

The woman in the story, late thirties, reading between the lines, has four kids with three different fathers and surprise surprise she is not prospering.

See marriage is a social institution designed to ensure that the number of women in their late thirties with four kids are kept to a minimum - this country is seeing a blowout in their numbers of course.

This is also not the fate we desire for our daughters - we want a lot better for them.

So we tell them not to, to put it crudely, open their legs until they have a commitment from the male of the species to stick by them through thick and thin - this is ever so offensive to the modern enlightened mind I'm sure.

This mutual commitment is called marriage and in sane societies is a very serious thing and a bond not lightly broken - the rot started with no fault divorce and has continued from there.

And so, we hope, our children both male and female will undertake a process of courtship to identify a suitable spouse to jointly raise their children and to mutually support each other as well.

And a decent and honourable man will desire to do just this and seek out an honourable woman. This results and they became one flesh thing with God's blessing and help.

And then the marriages prosper and produce children who when grown are contributing members of society (which includes raising their own progeny well) when they are grown.

Andrei said...

Suem I am not making assumptions about you and nor are my arguments "superficial".

The Spartan's are an example of a culture that messed up the business of procreation - the men didn't live with their wives but in barracks from whence they would sneak out to have relations with their wives and then sneak back.

Each child was examined at birth and a call made whether or not it should live - those deemed unworthy of life were exposed to get rid of them.

Soon their were not enough Spartans to keep things going and they were overwhelmed by people who were a little less fussy about who they admitted to live.

Last time I was in London I noticed a lot of people there whose ancestors did not fight at Waterloo and who were not speaking English

Anonymous said...

"In fact, if 'marriage is in a crisis', as you say, Then who is to blame?"

Liberalism is to blame. 50 years of culture war by the liberal-left, in the guise of the "sexual revolution", has taken it's toll.

Continuing that war by inventing out of thin air the nonsense of "gay marriage" will only make things worse.

The answer to any crisis is always the same. What does God in Scripture say?

Father Ron Smith said...

In response to Shawn, I could just say - with as much veracity as he does, with his silly argument - that the cause for today's breakdown in marriage lies in the fact that some people are so unstable in their spirituality that they keep chopping and changing between their loyalty' to their R.C.; Brethren; Anglican; Bikey; Pentecostal; gang-related; 'roots' that they just don't know which way is forward - on anything, never mind morality or religion.

Now that is instability for you!

Father Ron Smith said...

"See here: Solo parent trap widens gap for rich and poor" - Andrei -

What with this example, and your postulation of the 'butch' Spartans; you are only making it easier, Andrei, to argue for monogamous Same-Sex Marriage.

At least, this provides a living testimony to the intention of stability and faithfulness - which is lacking in the area of abandoned single-parent heterosexual relationships.

Anonymous said...


If that is some bizarre reference to my life, not only do you not remotely know me, you have once again proven that in response to issues based arguments all you seem to have to offer is personal attacks.

The decline of marriage and family life since the sexual revolution is a statistically provable fact.

The only silliness here is the unwillingness of some liberals to look beyond their ideological commitments and admit the truth.

Oh, and I have never been a member of the Brethren Church, nor a biker or gang member.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Shawn,
I do not read Ron's comment to which you respond immediately above as a bizarre reference to your life or to any individual here. I read it as making the point that instabilities abound within the Christian community etc etc.

Suem said...

Spartans...? Mad tangent proves point!

Anonymous said...


If that is the case then it makes even less sense :)

Father Ron Smith said...

"The decline of marriage and family life since the sexual revolution is a statistically provable fact."
- Shawn -

Precisely. Then, how does this relate to the possibility of Same-sex Marriage?

On the record for the other sort, it could not do any worse, and might, in fact, prove more beneficial to the community - as an example of loving faithfulness.

Janice said...

Ron wrote,
[Same sex marriage] might, in fact, prove more beneficial to the community - as an example of loving faithfulness.

Sorry. Ron's wrong.

See here.

"The recently published Gay Couples Study conducted by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco, looked at the relationships of 566 committed gay couples (males) over a three-year period. The study showed that 47 per cent of gay couples had “sex agreements” that specifically allowed sexual activity with others. An additional 8 per cent of couples were split: one person favored sex outside the relationship and the other expected monogamy. Only 45 per cent described their relationships as monogamous. ...

But what of the roughly 45 per cent of gay relationships that, according to the study, do claim monogamy? Their relationships should yield insights applicable to traditional opposite-sex marriages, right?

Not likely. Any apparent similarity between gay relationships and heterosexual couples disappears once it becomes clear what “monogamy” means in the gay paradigm. A 2010 study from England entitled, "Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can't Have Sex With Only You", found that none of the gay couples in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. In fact, they all engaged in sex with outside partners, even though they professed to be in a monogamous relationship.
How’s that, again?
The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, in its spring 2010 newsletter, summarized the English study, explaining that sex with outside partners is the “monogamous” norm for gay couples.

“All participants perceived fidelity as emotional monogamy. Thus, forming an emotional bond with an outside partner constituted cheating.” Sexual encounters with others didn’t count as “cheating” as long as it was “compartmentaliz[ed], which they defined as the process of separating sex from emotion and was key to most participants’ ability to manage sex outside the relationship.” "

Andrei said...

Spartans...? Mad tangent proves point!

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Suem, that in your Parish funerals outnumber Baptisms and that the in a large percentage of the baptisms that occur that is the first and last time you see the family of the child.

Be that as it may when Nigel and Richard are joined in whatever it may be called that this union will not be producing large numbers of children to be presented for baptism.

And if it is "fruitful" it will only be at the expense of exploiting an impoverished third world woman from whom the eggs will be extracted and another third world women whose womb will be rented to carry the petri dish fertilized eggs, those not selectively culled, to term.

Isn't it amazing that rich men from the first world can exploit poor women from the third world to enhance "social justice".

Anonymous said...

For several reasons Ron.

First, the gay rights movement, including the push for gay marriage, is part of the sexual revolution which is the cause of the decline in marriage and family. It thus makes no sense to continue down that path.

Second, it devalued marriage even further by turning it into just another consumer lifestyle choice, instead of the one of the pillars of family and society.

Third, as the Janice's post shows, the idea of large numbers of homosexuals taking up successful, life long commitments is a liberal fantasy. Unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality is a psycho-sexual compulsion with, like all compulsions, a highly addictive nature. That is why real monogamy is rare amongst homosexuals.

Finally, and most importantly, it is contrary to God's will and design. Christian marriage is a covenant union of one man with one women who become one flesh for life.

Father Ron Smith said...

"Isn't it amazing that rich men from the first world can exploit poor women from the third world to enhance "social justice" - Andrei -

Just one more of your unprovable and dicey paradigms, Andrei. What makes you think that your much-vaunted wealthy Gays are going to adopt a Third-World child?

Janice, you're speaking in the wrong context here. I'm referring to Gay Marriage - where a couple thinks seriously enough of their relationship to want to to live together in fidelity for the rest of their lives (which once used to also be the heterosexual model) - not to 'spice up a non-legally-contracted partnership.

re Shawn's odd assertion that:
" Unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality is a psycho-sexual compulsion with, like all compulsions, a highly addictive nature."

This is just sheer bunkum. And could have been the ramblings of any amateur theologian cum psychologist cum psychiatrist.

Andrei said...

Fr Ron;
        Are you really that naive?

We live in an age of abominations including that of "reproductive tourism".

The most famous example being that of one, Sir Elton John who being exceeding wealthy had is laboratory created son conceived in California, genetic mother unknown, birth mother, a different woman unknown born on Christmas day 2010 and raise by three full time nannies.

If you don't have the wherewithal of Sir Elton fear not, there are many clinics in India who can do the deed far more cheaply, their being and endless supply of impoverished young Indian women who can be induced through utter necessity to part with their eggs or carry the child for you.

Of course wealthy western women also avail themselves of these services, why carry a child in your womb when their are desperate young Indian women whose bodies are available for hire.

Of course the petri dish fertilized eggs do not necessarily take in the host mother, so multiple eggs are implanted to increase the chances of success, and when multiple pregnancies result, as they usually do these day, a process called "selective reduction is undertaken. The survivor is selected and the discards killed by an injection of potassium chloride directly into their tiny beating hearts.

You want a nice little boy to grace your nursery, no problemo, it is the girls who will get the needle.

This is happening now Fr Ron - it is not something out of a horror movie - I wish it were.

Janice said...

Ron, if couples can't be faithful in what they describe as a "committed" relationship why should anyone assume going through a "marriage" ceremony will make any difference. In fact, it doesn't make any difference. See here.

When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy. ... Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women. ...

That is how it works for Chris and James [who] beamed as they recalled the day in June 2008 that they donned black suits and wed at City Hall, stunned by the outpouring of affection from complete strangers. ... A couple since 2002, they opened their relationship a year ago after concluding that they were not fully meeting each other’s needs. But they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers — they must both know the other men first.

It's not just the word 'marriage' that's being redefined. The word 'fidelity' is being used by homosexuals to refer to a form of emotional fidelity that does not include sexual fidelity whether or not the partnership is legally contracted. Wake up and smell the thorns.