CathNews - a Service of Church Resources

Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. The prejudicial attribution of homophobia to anyone who opposes this latest effort of homosexual activists to reconstitute marriage demonstrates the unfitness of their argument to be seriously considered as a basis for law reform.
   
   In true postmodernist fashion, they seek to make words mean something that reality denies. Marriage is between male and female, and no amount of manipulating language will make it otherwise.
   
   

   Posted By: Phillip

2. This is an appalling development. It wouldn't matter if 99.9% of people supported gay marriage - it is still a perverse, anti-natural abomination in the eyes of God. Our faith is a revealed one, not a collection of policies based on popular vote. Of course, the lefty, trendy, modernist, culture of death crowd support this evil, but such people, though Catholic in name, are not Catholic in substance. While Kevin Rudd is still interested in the Christian vote he will oppose this move, nevertheless, the ultra-left Gillard will undoubtedly seek to bring it to pass once she has knifed Kevin on the way to the Top.

   Posted By: Michael Bernard

3. 60% ah. I just wonder where the survey was taken, probably Oxford St in Sydney. Having connections in the local soccer, league, cricket and athletics communities - not to mention the local pubs and clubs - I would have thought it more like 6%. It's amazing how left wing looney agendas can change reality. The Green Left - they would have you believe there are no parents and the only religion is Global warming. Be on guard for more attacks on the traditional family.

   Posted By: David

4. God bless them in their effort.
   As a married Catholic for 40 years with grown up children, I will support my children all the way, as I promised to do so in their baptism, so that they’ll live their lives to the fullest.
   Why should one of my children be discriminated against, or not have their relationships recognized equally and fully before civil marriage just because he is gay?
   We don't live in a theocratic society; we live in a democratic pluralistic society.

   Posted By: TJ Lawson

5. I suspect I was one of many, who, when the decriminalisation of homosexuality was passed into law, was accepting of that. My thinking was, "As long as they are not affecting anyone else, and they keep themselves to themselves, I can live with that."
   Little did I realise that decriminalisation would never be enough for them.
   I wonder how many others were of similar thinking to me, and are now fearful, with me, that the crack that was opened will not be containable - that "marriage", adoption, employment as teachers in Catholic schools, etc. will be inevitable consequences of the tolerance shown by that initial legislation.
   I can only hope and pray that it never comes to that.
   
   

   Posted By: Joe

6. This will be another example of PC politicians too frightened to call obsessed homophiles for their addictive and amoral behaviour.
   
   This issue should not be sorted out based on populism or who has got the biggest media campaign.
   
   Let's go to the facts of how children will be 'messed' up like so many currently disgruntled and depressed homophiles. Let's look at the obsessively promiscuous behaviour of some homosexuals and see how it leads to a lack of values across the community where the promises of sexual liberty have led to marriage breakdown, incredible costs, suicide, bad parenting etc etc.

   Posted By: Chris Saidou

7. Good thing they are not coming to Homophobart.
   
   Black eye for the queer guy

   Posted By: Uncle Chop, Chop

8. I am not in favour of gay marriages. Neither am I in favour of belittling gays as if they are the biggest sinners in the book.
   To cut to the chase, I often wonder when I hear people condemning homosexuality whether those same people masturbate, and, if they are married, whether they practise artificial forms of birth prevention.
   As far as I know, those things are contrary to God's law too.
   If I masturbated and my wife was on the pill I would be pretty hesitant to suggest anyone else was not living in accordance with God's will. I'd keep my mouth shut.
   And it's easy to speak the truth twenty feet above the contradictions then go home each night to a wife and family and quite happily tell others that they can expect something quite less than that. Forget about the crippling loneliness. Just say your prayers- you'll be alright.
   Well, it doesn't quite work out that way often and it's a huge pastoral and spiritual problem. And Grace does work.
   I don't believe in gay marriages for all sorts of reasons, one or two of them spoken of here. But perhaps if there was a bit more respect for gays there might be a bit more commonsense too and things wouldn't have come to this pass.
   And please don't say, 'We love the sinner but hate the sin'. Do you? Do you really?
   
   
   

   Posted By: Phillip Turnbull

9. To TJ Lawson,
   
   What! God bless perverse, anti-natural, immoral behaviour? As I said in my previous post - Catholic in name, but not in substance.

   Posted By: Michael Bernard

10. Yes, further advances of the 'redefine normality' brigade.
    
    And, they won't be satisfied till they have done so and outlawed every voice that questions them.
    
    They truly are the heirs of Engels and Marx - they want to destroy society so they can model it to their own desires.
    
    

    Posted By: Peter

11. TJ,
    
    I sympathise with you, truly I do, but you can't change natural law (i.e. God's law) just because you don't want to hurt somebody's feelings, even if they are those closest to you.
    
    I know you won't be convinced that you are wrong, but I can't give up on you, because even though we don't live in a theocratic society, we will both be trying to get into one eventually.

    Posted By: Paul Keen

12. I've got no problem with same-sex couples being granted civil unions which have the same secular
    legal rights as marriage.
    But I also have no problem with Churches keeping to the notion of marriage, as in the traditional sense.
    Sweden & the Church in Sweden have taken that
    path.
    The evidence is that male homosexuality is a hereditary predisposition, with evidence of actual different functioning in a certain part of the brain, where homosexual men are the same as women, but different from heterosexual men.
    There is also social evidence from the Scandanavian countries where civil unions/marriage have been possible for the longest period. Stats are clear that the same sex unions have far greater longevity than the heterosexual ones.
    Also the research into children brought up by homosexuals is also in....& from independent sources. Those children do not differ in their development from those brought up by heterosexual couples. The children who tend to fare worst, are those brought up by single parents.
    As I said, I like Sweden's approach. Civil unions/marriage available, but the majority Church reserves marriage, in its jurisdiction, to heterosexual couples.
    
    
    
    
    

    Posted By: Marie H

13. TJ Lawson,
    
    I'm tiring of the cliche "live life to the fullest" - as you use it, what distinguishes it from the pagan practices Christians renounce at baptism?
    
    And how do you conclude that Christians who express their views in a democratic society support a theocratic state?
    
    More reason, less rant, please.
    

    Posted By: Irena

14. Same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms if one accepts the definition of marriage as a union between a male and female for the purpose of producing offspring. Some heterosexual unions we know do not produce children for various reasons but it is still regarded as marriage because it would have been entered into with the intention of having children.
    Many homosexual people would argue that a same sex union would be of a similar nature to the non-productive heterosexual union.
    I would favour retaining the term marriage for a heterosexual union as it is more in keeping with the biological and social process. A child that is brought into the world has no say in how he or she would like to be nurtured. In our society the norm is for children to be reared and nurtured with a father and a mother who are the two most important people in a child's life. One could argue that to bring a child into a same sex union would seem to disadvantage a child by denying it the chance to experience nurturing from the same sex parent as well as opposite gender with obvious benefits. In other words it is important to preserve the natural rights of a child and not just indulge individuals' self interests.

    Posted By: Keno

15. The vast majority of Australians are against any forms of homophobia.
    
    That 'same sex marriage' is presented as a means and a status of ending forms of homophobia is totally false.
    
    We have heard nothing in this matter concerning the positives of gender recognition and gender role assignment.
    
    Until we do, the issue of 'same sex marriage' can rightly be put into the heterophobia category.

    Posted By: Fr Mick Mac Andrew Bombala-Delegate NSW

16. It wasn't a poll of 'Oxford St' but a standard Galaxy Poll, using statistically valid methodologies.
    
    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/06/25/same-sex-marriage/
    
    http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/Galaxy200906.pdf

    Posted By: Rod

17. Answer me this, if gays so want acceptance and tolerance, why do they refer to non-gays as 'straight'? I find this offensive because it implies that we are rigid, unmoving, fixed in our way or it could imply that we are normal, natural, honest (ie straight meaning true). In reverse for gays it implies that they are bent, out of order, not normal and not natural. Subconscious guilt perhaps? Anyway, use of these terms does not engender harmony or respect.

    Posted By: Markodan

18. Meanwhile, Catholics have created an new 'principle' which is now dogma, i.e., to not enter politics but to feel deep satisfaction for some curious reason that a letter or petition or two absolves them from any further responsibility.
    
    I encourage people to join the political party of their choice in order to change bad legislation already there and to stop any further changes that will erode our Christian and Labor social heritage.
    
    Michael Webb
    DLP member
    http://www.dlpnsw.com/

    Posted By: Michael Webb

19. I question the scattered field of the poll,leading to alleged 60% pro gay marriage.. Couples with gay/lesbian orientation having no commitments with responsibilities towards children, they have more time to devote to activities to push their cause.I tend to understand their loneliness.I plead with them."Do not push for 'rights' from the Government that will lead thousands of young followers of yours into a mire of confusion/brokenness/unhappiness. The homosexual orientation may be yours, but help is available that can give you greater happiness.

    Posted By: mary Treacy ('maryrose')

20. Yes, I support the unions of same-sex couples. But to argue against it by saying that gays are 'promiscuous', etc. seems to ignore the breakdown of heterosexual relationships for the same reason. I have always believed that 'where Love is, God is' - and wonder if those who oppose gays believe that God made a huge mistake in creating those who are gay and lesbian. As a grandmother I am proud that my young grandson loves, and is loved by, people from many cultures, belief systems and sexual orientations. He is as safe and cared for with them as with any heterosexual.

    Posted By: Jan Tully

21. Fear, paranoia and dare I say, a fair dose of thinly disguised hatred permeate this feedback. Understandable I suppose, when people are brainwashed from birth, in the moral certitude of this patriarchal monolith; the Catholic Church. Frankly, the "Church" has shown itself be a morally bankrupt edifice in relation to many instances of human history. They lost the plot many years ago when it came to "living" Christ rather than "preaching " Christ. In a secular society, which we are, I disagree vehemently with the narrow minded; and, judging from some of the views expressed here, twisted rantings. We will have civil marriage for same sex couples in this country, sooner than later, notwithstanding, the bile and bigotry you "conservative" Catholics spew forth in these postings

    Posted By: Shane

22. Why don't people keep what they do behind closed doors, behind closed doors?
    Are adulterers going to campaign for their 'right' to fall in love with whomever they please even if they be married?
    Will thieves rise up in revolt to protect their 'right' to possess, even if it belong to someone else?
    Why should homosexuals be allowed to vindicate a 'right' to marry, when they cannot do so naturally?
    God had promised not to flood the earth again on account of the perversity of man; the symbol of His promise is the rainbow which the homosexuals have blasphemously appropriated as their standard. But what of fire and brimstone?
    I will be praying like Abraham that the Lord not destroy cities if there be found 50,...45,...40,...30,...20,...10 just men.
    Miserere nostri Domine.
    Quia peccavimus Tibi.

    Posted By: Becket

23. Catholics living their life according to The Word and our tradition should not feel obliged to adopt the "cranky" fundamentalist Christian attitudes to this issue which dominate American church attitude in general.
    Indeed, I wish Cathnews would concern itself with real issues of Catholicism, rather than the marginal.

    Posted By: eulalia

24. In my 49 years of experience of involvement with my religion since my baptism in 1960, it has ALWAYS been the case that the people who make the most noise about this issue in the Church are in fact homosexual themselves.
    This goes for both the conservative and liberal wings, but the former group is generally more obvious in their ridiculous incongruity. They may not be sexually active, but I can't help thinking as I observe these people that they wish that they were. They do carry an unpleasant menacing stereotype of self hatred, which is most often why nobody else wants to even speak with them, let alone sleep with them!

    Posted By: eulalia

25. I love how the anonymous nature of the Internet brings out the tossers and rednecks of our society. It's the same old names every time something "homo" is posted. GET A REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.

    Posted By: Pablo

26. I can only wonder what deep insecurity it is that motivates some of the vitriol disguised as adherence to Law and so called tradition?
    
    It seems too that most of the more zealous religionists are far more concerned with their idolatries of said law and tradition than with the Living God. They don't once consider the theological weirdness of having their God's intent confined in some sort of literary stasis,as if another Incarnation but this as the Word made mere word and rubric.
    
    On top of this, Catholicism seems to have become little more than a proclamation of the "family" over and against the Kingdom of God, "marriage" over and against discipleship, cruel exclusion over and against inclusiveness.
    
    Such idolators do not speak for the Living God, they speak for their mere institutional interests, and for their textual certainties. All idolatry by any other name.

    Posted By: Mark Johnson.

27. There is substantial environmental evidence that same gender attraction was NOT created by God. Comment to Marie H: Yes, there is evidence that there is different functioning in a part of the brain of gay men, and that their brain is more similar to women. However this is probably environmental and not hereditary, because mice that would normally be born as heterosexual, can be altered at the foetal stage to later become actively gay mice, just by restricting testosterone at the early stage which reduces full formation of the male brain.
    
    Our environment is overloaded with oestrogenic chemicals which block testosterone, as proved in the alarming scientific article in www.dailymail.co.uk /sciencetech of 1 February 2009, including that serious “gender-bending chemicals entering rivers are …. changing male fish into females and could be contributing to … defects in MEN … mimicked the female hormone oestrogen …. blocking male hormones such as testosterone … male fish exposed to … anti-androgens were most likely to be 'feminised' …. “
    
    Nobody would say that God created those dangerous chemicals or caused that awful damage. There may have been various products used by some societies for thousands of years, that perhaps caused hormone imbalance that affected full formation of foetal brains.
    

    Posted By: B. Carlans 30-9-09

28. Comment to Jan Tully: it is superficial to say that, in your words “where love is, God is”. People committing adultery often love each other and no one suggests that God is in the act of adultery. God is not in the actions of people who provide illicit drugs to their partner, even if they sincerely love the other person.
    
    There is no basis to infer that God created some people with same gender attraction, because why would God arrange for just those people, to not have the desire to reproduce with the opposite gender, which would result in not having any descendants, and they would all CEASE to EXIST. We are meant to perpetuate the species, not wipe it out.
    
    Biblical scholar Dr Robert Gagnon details the substantial evidence that Jesus and St Paul did NOT approve of any same gender sexual contact of any sort, whether people have faithful and exclusive love for each other or not - read www.robgagnon.net
    
    Comment to Marie H. Your comment is not correct that same gender unions have far greater longevity than heterosexual ones – who made the decision on who was included in those stats? because that is opposite to most other reports. Also I strongly disagree regarding the children, because how can a boy learn by example how to relate to and love a woman as a wife, and how can a girl learn by example how to love a man as a husband, if they continually see the example of two parents of the same gender?

    Posted By: B. Carlans 30-9-09

29. Comment to eulalia. The only ultimate criteria of whether something is right or not, is how God sees it, and putting any human label, eg fundamentalist, on an attitude is not the determinant of whether the actions are right or wrong in God’s sight. The Pontifical Biblical Commission said that Catholics are NOT biblical fundamentalists (CN 30-9-2008). Considering the Church rightly maintains that all gay unions are outside of God’s purpose, therefore that teaching is not fundamentalist and it is definitely not (your word) “cranky”.
    
    Regarding your second comment about “people who make the most noise” presumably you are referring to a tiny minority. It is certainly NOT the case with most people in the Church, whose motivation is genuine concern for the souls of those who may be cutting themselves off from God (for any reason), and the serious risk they may spend eternity in the wrong place. The reason for concern is those Christians recognise God’s purpose in the Bible, and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church to interpret it correctly. Regarding your statement of “stereotype of self hatred” that must be a miniscule minority, because I have never seen that in the Church, and I have had a similar length of involvement to you.
    
    Regarding your reference to conservatives and “incongruity”, that is around the wrong way, because actually it is those who are in same gender relationships who are in (quoted from website www.robgagnon.net) “scripturally prohibited, structurally incongruous behaviour”.

    Posted By: B. Carlans

30. When there is dispute how do most adults handle it? Turn their backs, bury their heads in the sand, or engage.
    The Church should be proactive in this dialogue, and not reactive. If all the Bishops can do is come up with a theology of "no", I fear the Church will continue to loose its ability to communicate with reasonable people.
    I think the issue of gay marriage has moved far beyond the issue of religious faith, reasonable people are asking themselves is this fair or not, rather is this theologically correct or not.
    Let's recognize, not confuse, the Gospels of Jesus Christ with Gospel of Judgment. Perhaps it is time we listened to each other, rather than try to live the others life. God bless.
    Joe Murray
    Rainbow Sash Movement

    Posted By: Joe Murray

31. You know what is truly appalling? Some of the remarks that are made on this board. I am a seventeen year old homosexual- and I will admit that the thought of being denied marriage does not phase me one bit. It's not because I lead a promiscuous life as most people are lead to believe, it is simply because I don't need a $10,000 ceremony, a piece of paper and a man wearing a white collar to tell me that I will love the man that I choose to love forever. If man-woman marriage is sacred to the Christians, that does not phase me. I respect your beliefs and values to uphold your tradition. However, I do not condone how you call us an abomination to human nature or label us as evil. Although our life style may seem different from yours let me assure you, I bear no tattoo that exclaims "I LOVE SATAN". Your views, my friend, are as barbaric as those savages your people felt necessary to convert. I respect your life choices; I only ask in turn for you to respect mine.

    Posted By: Mitchell

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Brennan committee submits human rights report

   The National Human Rights Consultation Committee handed over its final assessment about a possible bill of rights for Australia to the Federal Government on Wednesday, after perusal of more than 35,000 public submissions.

2. Famed religion writer and Anglican priest dead

   James Stirling Murray, Anglican priest, teacher and a religious editor for The Australian, died yesterday in Sydney. He was 82.

3. ABC presenter recounts abuse

   Former federal MP and ABC presenter Eoin Cameron spoke publicly for the first time about sexual abuse he had suffered at the Marist Brothers College in Mount Gambier, South Australia in the 1960s.

4. Violent youths are "spiritual aneroxics": psychologist

   Structured, regular activities, such as those that give a sense of purpose and belonging, can keep youth away from street crime and violence, said adolescent psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg.

5. Church groups to keep "limited discrimination" rights

   Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls has approved a plan that will allow Church run organisations to refuse employment to anyone who undermines their beliefs.