Archive for January, 2006

One of the questions that people sometimes ask about the issue of same-sex “marriage” is how such an issue affects them if they are not gay. This is a fair and straight forward question which deserves a response. Here are some of John’s responses…

1) Not Merely A Private Affair: Marriage is not a private affair even though SSM propagandists want to couch the debate in this realm. In point of fact, marriage is a public institution that has very public consequences to all of society. It is a social institution which, among other important things, demands that all of society recognize the legitimacy of such a union. The question of legitimacy then translates and impacts all of society’s laws in virtually all spheres of influence. This means that those who oppose such unions are immediately forced to confront the law in the sphere where same-sex “marriage” has been imposed on them. This can be within education, business, politics, and a host of other areas. To understand this reality in very concrete terms, we need only refer to the instances of civil and religious persecution which citizens of Canada are currently undergoing at the hands of a misguided and sometime pernicious ideology which seeks to muzzle and punish dissent on this issue. Scott Brockie, an evangelical Christian businessman, for example, can tell us all about being a prime target of this veiled totalitarianism which the Canadian media, being controlled by the same left-leaning crowd, have long and shamelessly suppressed.

2) Civil Disintegration: The strength and health of any legal system is contingent on the moral unity and outlook of its people. Since our society exists within such a framework of legal coexistence, the common morality of a nation must be firmly set in one direction. If there are competing groups with diametrical moral views, each group will invariably seek to use the law to “impose” itself on the other group. In the case of homosexual “marriage”, the homosexual lobby will seek to impose acceptance of its sexual license on the rest of the population. No benefit that a “straight marriage” enjoys is out of bounds for a gay couple. If a citizen refuses to accept a gay “marriage” in his capacity as a businessman, employer, minister of God, or other agent in society, the gay couple will seek remedy from the legal system to impose the “rights” that they have earned. Conversely, the religious freedom of the business owner is compromised because of a court order forcing him to act against his conscience. The resulting fallout of this battle, regardless of the position taken, is that society descends into a kind of tyranny where one group seeks to impose its will on to the other. This may lead to civil disintegration if the competing moralities are contained in regions of the country, and if one side begins to pursue a very aggressive agenda, the other side will retaliate. Human nature, being what it is, will not perpetually endure these unjust attacks. The recent conduct against a Knight of Columbus attacking his livelihood because of his views on same-sex “marriage” are a prime example of this.

3) Loss of Freedom of Speech: Until recently, Canadian citizens were free to profess their creed without fear of intimidation or legal threats. This freedom can no longer be taken for granted. There is a sentiment in the air which, while pretending to offer tolerance for all, is in fact against authentic tolerance. It seeks not to protect freedom of expression, but rather to alienate it, muffle it, and, if at all possible, silence it altogether. Marriage is the hairpin issue which will decide the fate of freedom of speech in Canada. The new political agenda is pushing a veiled fascism that is threatening religious expression and freedom of speech in this country. And there are already many recorded instances of authentic persecution of Christians in Canada as noted above. As David Warren has recently remarked:

“.. a person openly espousing Christian teachings up here — for instance, on sodomy — can be hauled before the kangaroo court of a “Human Rights Commission”. He can be humiliated, assessed fines, lose his livelihood, be muzzled or ordered to act against his conscience, all without due process. That “midnight knock on the door” can happen, as Fred Henry discovered, even if you are the Bishop of Calgary, addressing your own flock..” … (davidwarrenonline)

3) Attack on Parents: As the parents of the BC Surrey School Board District have found out, the legitimization of same-sex unions has some very serious repercussions for what their children are taught in the schools. Uffe Elbaek, a gay politician from Denmark, was interviewed in the Canadian gay paper Capital Xtra. Here is an excerpt of the article:

“Respect, he says, is demanded in education. In Danish schools – even religious schools – objections to gay rights are dealt with decisively, unlike drawn out Canadian battles over the banning of gay-positive books in Surrey, BC or an Ontario Catholic school board’s refusal to allow Marc Hall to take his boyfriend to his prom.

Elbaek cites a problem with a private Christian school that refused to include gay studies. “City council had to step in and lay down the law. Even if you are a private school, you must promote tolerance.” Denmark has many private religious schools for Christian and Muslim students, Elbaek says, but requirements are clear. “All local schools report to the local city council. Private schools are 75 percent publicly funded. The public can go in and say, ‘Yes, it’s a religious school, but gay curriculum must be present.’”

“Everybody says, for sure I should be able to have sex in a public space.But hey, can’t you at least clean up your condoms so the kids, when they are coming to the playground the day after, don’t have to play in used condoms?” He admonishes, “Sometimes the gay community has to shape up.”

While this may come as a surprise to most of us because of the false claims of free-speech accommodation from gay rights activists, it is not surprising to see this happen. Why? Because once you accept that homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” is a “human right”, then those who oppose it are legitimate targets of the State.

The question of educating our children then becomes an area of public debate as the gay lobby (through the auspices of the State) demand universal and uninhibited access to educate our children. For any sensible person, however, this is unacceptable since parents are ultimately responsible for the education of their children. Should parents choose to delegate that job to the State, that is their business, but ultimately they have the authority and responsibility of educating their children according to their values. The State and the gay lobby need to butt out.

4) Children’s Rights: Children have an inherent and moral right to know and be raised with their mother and father. The support for this comes from the natural law itself where the love between a mother and father beget another person. This is a reflection of the triune nature of God and represents a “circle of love”, where each person of this “trinity” has unique and distinct qualities that the other person does not possess. The child’s human nature is derived partly from his mother and party from his father. Therefore, to separate or manufacture a same-sex union and put the child in the midst of this union is to deprive the child of a fundamental aspect that only a mother or only a father can give. Only a father can “speak” to that aspect of human nature that comes from his masculinity; likewise for the mother and the qualities that come from her femininity.

It is precisely this distinct language which is proper to each sex that nourishes and develops the child’s personality and soul. Of course, there are many good parents who head single-parent households and do an exemplary job to cope as best they can. But most of them will freely admit that a complimentary role in their household is the ideal. And it is this ideal that the State should be promoting, while providing assistance to those whose life circumstances have placed them outside of the ideal.

5) Loss of Human Dignity: Natural marriage represents an ontological reality that men and women, while sharing the same human nature, are distinct persons. This means that they each possess qualities and attributes in their own right which cannot be replaced by someone of the opposite sex. In other words, a man cannot replace the unique and irreplaceable contribution that a woman makes to society, not because of what she does, but what she possesses which is manifested within her femininity. Her femininity is distinct from a man’s masculinity. One is not better than the other, but only different and complimentary to the other. Both men and women together reflect the image of God, although they do so with a different perspective and focus so that in seeing both the masculine and feminine, God’s image is made complete.

Most people, of course, recognize that the sexes are different, and that they each, in their own right, while equal, possess something unique and distinct that the other sex does not possess. Marriage is the instrument which recognizes in a tangible, visible, and sacramental form this mutual distinct and complimentary nature of men and women. Marriage says “yes, there is a difference between men and women and this difference is good.” Same-sex “marriage”, on the other hand, blurs this distinction as it no longer requires the two persons to be distinct from one another. In consenting to the normalization of same-sex unions, the State is implicitly recognizing that, for instance, in the case of male same-sex unions, femininity is not necessary for a marriage. That it is, therefore, only optional. But in declaring femininity optional in marriage, the State is stripping away the singular and irrevocable place that femininity (or masculinity as the case may be) should have in our culture. By this declaration, the State is unconsciously degrading and diminishing the beautiful, unique, and exclusive role that femininity plays in marriage and the culture at large. This naturally results in the general lowering of respect and dignity due to women, and makes them second class citizens. By making marriage a same-sex affair, the State is attacking the dignity of the human person by not recognizing the irrevocable and irreplaceable roles of masculinity and femininity in marriage. In doing so, all of masculinity and all of femininity is attacked. If it’s merely optional in marriage, it cannot be that important anywhere else.

5) Incrementalism: Because it has no objective basis for sanction other than mere consent, same-sex “marriage” opens the door to every other relationship which can and will appeal to this same foundation. The recent Supreme Court ruling on group sex clubs or “swinging clubs” is one example of the consequences that the acceptance same-sex marriage will have on 14-year olds. Others which will follow: legalized prostitution, polygamy, and perhaps, as is being pushed in Massachussetts, other forms of sexual experimentation.

6) Birth Rate: Along with all first world nations and most Western countries, the birth rates are suicidally low. A nation requires 2.2 children per couple to sustain a population. Canada’s rate stands at 1.5. Immigration cannot be relied as a permanent solution as even third world countries’ populations have also begun to plummet. By further eroding the marriage and traditional family, this will have dire consequences to our social programs like pension and health care programs. Without a skilled and educated workforce due to a labour shortage caused by the attack on the Canadian family, Canada’s standard of living will start to slowly decline and then fall exponentially.

7) Serious Health Consequences: Because homosexual acts are against the natural law, they carry serious health consequences. It is incumbent on us as a compassionate and responsible society to convince people who engage in homosexual behaviour (and indeed even heterosexual who also engage in risky sex behaviour) that they should seek professional medical help to address their condition. Many Canadians have friends and family who have homosexual tendencies. It is important to treat persons with homosexual tendencies with the respect that they deserve, but sometimes showing respect includes disagreeing with them and pointing them to the risks that they face.

  • Two extensive studies in the Jan. 2001 issue of the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry : confirm a STRONG link between homosexual sex and suicide, and emotional and mental problems (Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, ” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001))
  • An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The DUTCH have been MORE ACCEPTING of same-sex relationships than any other Western country and same-sex marriage is legal. The HIGH rate of psychiatric disorders associated with homosexual behaviour in the Netherlands CANNOT be attributed to social rejection and homophobia (Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, ” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001))
  • Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the study, males who had ANY homosexual contact within that time period were more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. (Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, ” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001))
  • Medical and social evidence indicates that men having sex with men leads to GREATER health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. Anal sex, as a sexual behaviour, is associated with significant and life-threatening health problems. The fragility of the anus and rectum make anal sex a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among homosexuals as a result of anal sex is alarming (Anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Herpes simplez virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Gonorrhea, viral hepatitus types B & C, Syphilis) (Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74 (6) Nov. 1990)

While the authors of the two articles cited below would be considered to hold “conservative” views on this issue, their citations come from authentic and objective sources like The American Journal of Public Health, The American Journal of Epidemiology, United States Center for Disease Control, National Center for Infectious Diseases, The British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, and other reputable sources.

The Negative Effects of Homosexuality
Citizens for Parents’ Rights

Comments 10 Comments »