Moral Issues


Sound Bites

News coverage of same-sex marriage is hopelessly liberal and eternally shallow. An argument is won or lost on a series of short, silly sound bites. For anyone interested in getting to the truth on this issue, a more prolonged, detailed discussion is necessary. Yet, the nature of the media impedes long discussions, instead opting for catchy tit-for-tats. Because this is the arena where the game is played, we must accomodate this format whether we like it or not. Accordingly, this little "Sound Bites" page has been launched to help our pro-Christian visitors with short, concise answers to the frequent loaded questions the leftist media ask.

Most Recent Q&A: Q&A #13 - Added: October 8, 2003


Question 1: What is the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality?

Answer: The Church's teaching on homosexuality is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


Question 2: Isn't the Catholic Church discriminating against homosexuals through this teaching?

Answer: Yes and no. It is certainly discriminating against homosexuals in saying that their homogenital acts are immoral - just like heterosex outside of marriage is immoral. But discriminating, in and of itself, is not necessarily wrong. We discriminate against persons all of the time. We put thieves and bigamists in jail, for instance. Yet, no one would ever object to this kind of discrimination. "Discrimination" is not absolutely wrong. The problem in today's society is that the definition of "discrimination", "freedom", "tolerance" have assumed a divine and absolute status for many people. The truth, however, is that these rights are certainly not absolute in and of themselves. They are UNDER the common good of society and they are subject to the natural moral law. If they were free of these constraints, you could commit ANY act with impunity, but clearly our society still rightly rejects this kind of anarchical absolutization. On the other hand, no one has the right to treat a homosexual person as being less than a person. They have a sexual disorder and must be treated with compassion and love. From the Christian stand point, their dignity is predicated on their being created in the image and likeness of God and not the sexual acts they engage in.


Question 3: Why not just live and let live? It's their bodies and their lives.

Answer: When the homosexual agenda gets "respectability", they will seek to impose their kind of "respectability" in civil legislation. This will inevitably mean the end of religious freedom in this country. I will speak about this more later on. But let me address your question about "physical autonomy". This is the same argument advanced by pro-abortionists. Conceivably, then, under this rubric, the state could never interfere in maintaining order and civility in a society which must logically allow drug abuse, suicide, euthanasia, prostitution, polygamy, polyamory (group marriage), bestiality, and any combination of these ailments all under the guise of a false freedom. Under your system of government, the State has no business in stopping a sixteen year old from killing himself after a bad two weeks at school.

All of the above perversions attack authentic human dignity, making their clients slaves of their passions and impulses. There is simply no self control. In fact, society can no longer demand such a thing from its citizens under the gay rubric. Self control and license are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Indeed, there will be plenty of persons who will never have the real freedom to refuse these immoral options because of the perverse culture which supports and fosters them.


Question 4: Why is a homosexual couple less worthy of recognition than a heterosexual couple? If we all have dignity, then why should the State not grant them civil recognition?

Answer: Well, suppose I have a roommate who happens to be male. Suppose further that we are the best of friends. We spend time together. We laugh together. We cry together. We enjoy each other thoroughly. But the relationship is totally platonic and only a "mano-a-mano" friendship. There is no sexual inclination whatsoever. Why must the homosexual relationship be more valued than the one I have with my roommate? Is it because the homosexual's relationship involves genital ejaculation? Why should the government recognize a relationship as more intrinsically valued simply because of a quick biological high? In fact, statistics show that my relationship with my roommate will likely last a lifetime; the homosexual's "marriage" will last 18 months. Tell me why the government should favour Joe ejaculating on Jim and give him special privileges because of it?


Question 5: But don't you think that society should honour the love that homosexual persons have for one another?

Answer: No, I don't - at least if it's being used as a political tool to advance their sexual acts. In fact, why don't we take sometime to discuss what exactly these acts are. People like to talk generally of what precisely gay sex is. Let's review some of the techniques:

In The Gay Report (1979), Jay and Young reported the following statistics:

Now, let me ask you: do you find these acts worthy of honour?


Question 6: Why do you insist on forcing your Christian morality on society?

Answer: It is obtuse to claim that society does not ALREADY "force morality" on to its citizens. After all, that is what the law does and that is what the law is meant to do. The law is a system of interaction among the citizens of a country. It is the instrument which both reflects the morals of its citizens and imposes itself when those morals are violated. If I were an anti-Catholic bigot and were to deny a Catholic a room at my Inn because of his religion, then the State will use the law to impose its morality on me - whether I like it or not. The real question, therefore, is not if we should impose morality, but which morality that should be.


Question 7: If two homosexuals want to get married, how does that affect your life? Why do you insist on imposing your rigid and fundamentalist view of marriage on them? Why can't you let them be?

Answer: Believe me, if it did not impact me and the general public, I would not be as resistant. First of all, the health risks are very signficant. In the U.S., for instance, the primary transmission method of HIV is through anal intercourse, which represents one of the most, if not the most, popular form of gay sex. The Center for Disease Control has reported that there are 40,000 new infections each year from the homosexual community and it is climbing. And HIV is not the only STD, by any stretch. Homosexuals are five times more likely to contract Hepatitis B, 25% of homosexuals have rectal Gonorrhea, and more than 50% of homosexual males have Human Papilloma Virus. Therefore, as a matter of public health, I have a civic responsibility to ensure that homosexual practices are not encouraged. Secondly, if gay "marriage" is legalized, then that entitles same-sex partners access to a host of arenas now only available to heterosexual couples. Will I be able to deny a homosexual teacher the "right" to bring his partner in for a session of "show and tell"? How am I to protect my child in such a scenario? How does this NOT affect my life?

And while you are thinking about that, here is something you can ponder. Some time ago, a Christian couple living in Nova Scotia had to shut down their bed-and-breakfast because they would not give two gays a room. Don't you think Christians should have a human right to live according to their moral convictions? If not, then why not? Why should they be forced to give up their business and livelihood because they refuse to acknowledge gay-sex?


Question 8: Why are you against human rights?

Answer: I am not against human rights. Gay sex is not a human right, and that is why I have no problem denying the alleged "right" to same-sex "marriage". A human right is predicated on morality revealed by God. And even if one did not recognize God as the basis for a human right, there must be some objective basis which establishes this right. If this human right is established on anarchical license, then you must be prepared to accept that basis for all other kinds of behaviour which flow from it. The first casualty of anarachical license is the dignity of women. Are you prepared to accept women being treated as mere chattels (legalized prostitution, polygamy, polyamory, etc.)? After all, if it's just a matter of choice, then you really should have no objection to it at all, right?


Question 9: I think students should be exposed to all forms of sexual expression to ensure that they are not repressing their true orientation.

Answer: Oh, I think students should be exposed too. Except my focus is a little different than yours. I like to stick to the brutal health risks of homosexual sex instead of propagating a political agenda. You are not in favour of repressing this kind of health information, are you? In 1996, Dr. Gisela MacPhail, an epidemiologist from the University of Calgary, warned the Calgary Board of education of the serious health risks of homosexual behaviour. She stated that "any practice which facilitates direct or indirect oral-rectal contact will enable the spread of fecal and rectal micro-organisms to the sexual partner. Thus anilingus (rimming), a common practice among homosexual men, allows direct spread of pathogens such as Giardia, Entomoeba histolytica, and Hepatitis A and of the typical STD organisms such as herpes simplex and gonorrhea."


Question 10: In denying homosexuals the right to marry, you would necessarily be saying that their marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. You would be attacking their dignity.

Answer: No. There is a distinction to be made here. Man's intrinsic dignity is irrevocable regardless of the sin man engages in - sexual or otherwise. This means that the homosexual person has an intrinsic dignity which no one can take away precisely because he is created in the image of God. This is something that everyone engaged in this debate needs to understand so that misconceptions can be allayed. The homosexual must understand that when the Church condemns his sexual acts, She is not revoking or undermining his human dignity. Human dignity is not determined by the sexual acts performed. Although not the basis of his dignity, the sexual act is an expression of how man understands his dignity. When that expression is disordered and against the natural law; when it is against its physiological procreative purpose; and when it is against its moral purpose in affirming the unitive attributes of its essence, then those sexual acts must be rejected and condemned as a grave depravity.

Furthermore, the intrinsic physical nature of marriage is not one of equality but one of complementarity. That's a big difference. A man is not "equal" to a woman in a marriage, any more than a nut and a bolt are "equal". A nut and a bolt go together to accomplish a stated purpose. Two nuts or two bolts simply cannot. No amount of political manipulation can change this fact.


Question 11: What's so special about a marriage between a man and a woman that deserves such special protection.

Answer: Well, the propagation of the human race is a big thing. That's one very good reason. And union of a man and a woman is the only natural way to do that. Marriage has three central characteristics. It is procreative; it is unitive; and it is pleasurable. None of these attributes can be separated from the other. One cannot legitimately separate the purposes of the sexual act from each other or from the consequent of the act. In other words, in the natural law, God has revealed that you cannot have sex just for the pleasure. This rules out contraception and homosexual acts. You cannot have sex for pleasure and procreation without the intent of uniting yourself with the other person. This rules out fornication. And you should not have sex without working to make sure your partner has a pleasurable experience. This rules out selfish sexual gratification (especially for men).

Another thing that a man and woman have that homosexuals do not is the aspect of complementarity. A bolt and a nut go together to accomplish a purpose. Two bolts or two nuts cannot and do not. Furthermore, marriage was not invented or manufactured. We received it from our parents who received it from their parents, etc. right back to the creation of the human race. Gay "marriage" cannot say the same thing. It is legislatively imposed on a culture by an agenda which seeks to recreate mankind in its own image.


Question 12: What do you have against love? If two gays love each other, why are you so entrenched against love? You're very cold and heartless.

Answer: Am I? OK. So you won't have any problem with me marrying my mother? After all, I love her. And please, let's not have any of this boorish, Christian talk about "incest". Tut, tut. That's discrimination! And please, don't bother me with the health problems with it either. You don't have any problems with the lethal nature of gay sex, so you won't have any problem with incest, right? Right.


Question 13: You don't have any "statistics" against a gay relationship. You get all of your stuff from right wing wacko publications.

Answer: Do I now? OK. Read 'em and weep:

Specific Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behaviour ______________________________________________

Mental Health:

Physical Health

Life Span

Levels of Promiscuity