Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US bishops: Protect straight couples’ sacrifices with marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. This lot spew and endless amount of bigotry.

    I assume they will ban infertile heterosexual couples from marrying?

    Ultimately their reasoning is based on the perceived will of their imaginary friend in the sky, to the detriment of the human rights of anybody who does not believe exactly what they do.

    1. Yeah, firstly “moral diseases” is an erroneous term – diseases aren’t morally guided no matter what you learned in your theologically based biology class. Second of all that “divine moral code” covers A LOT more than just gay people and if you look through your King James Bible you will find it also covers what to do in the event that your daughter has lost her virginity before marriage, what to do with disobedient children, regulation on eating shellfish, clothing regulations and what to do with adulterers – most of which involve stoning the person involved or generally just killing them in one way or another. Thirdly how does it “harm” society? Without a reason you are basically just talking crap to be honest and holds as much water as me saying wearing glasses harms society. And lastly most sexual practices spread disease – unprotected penetration in any way shape or form between heterosexuals or homosexuals has the possibility to spread disease… So yeah, point more or less moot.

    2. Exactly which NON-changeable moral codes do you refer to? The ones that said that people of colour have no soul? The ones that said that women are less than men? The ones that said that witches should be burnt? etc. etc. etc.

    3. Galadriel1010 18 Jan 2012, 10:22pm

      Nope, sorry. If God tells me to judge someone for loving someone else I will turn around and tell him to piss off. When we feel the rules are wrong, it’s up to us to stand up and change them, even if we’re told those rules come from God. Otherwise we’re just ‘following orders’.

  2. If “marriage in faith and societal traditions is acknowledged as the foundation of civilization” then why is it in society’s interest to ban loving, supportive same sex couples from marrying? Their logic is flawed.

    1. Actually I’d say their logic is notable for its absence!

      1. Jen Marcus 18 Jan 2012, 2:16pm

        AMEN! There is no logic! All empty rhetoric because they have no defensible arguments or rationale.

  3. Countless generations? Oh what ignoramuses.
    Following this logic:
    Infertile couple lose privileges within (pick a number) years.
    Couple who have gay children have to give privileges back.
    Gay couples who have children get any privileges? Only if one is biological parent?
    If straight couple divorces, do privileges only accrue to custodial parent.
    Oh I could go on and on and on.

    1. They presumably also would like to ban divorce altogether.

      1. Miguel Sanchez 18 Jan 2012, 2:37pm

        The church makes people jump through hoops if a straight couple gets divorced if they were married in the church. They have to go through an annulment process and then wait to see if the church grants it. If they don’t, then the divorced couple can not remarry in the church.

        1. Give a good monetary gift to the church and they will grant you a divorce ;)
          That’s how cynic and pathetic they are.

    2. Ben Foster 18 Jan 2012, 2:03pm

      WHAT priviliges? It’s like couples get some sort of prize denied to singles!!

  4. And what about the straight couple who can’t have or don’t want kids. Are they not allowed to marry either? Marriage isn’t just about producing offspring, it’s also a way for two people in love to commit to each other! Typical religious BS!

    Then again look at how much it costs to get married. Let the straights keep it!

    1. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 21 Apr 2012, 8:02pm

      The hardcore folks on that side do think that if you can’t have kids, you shouldn’t marry. Barring a medical miracle, I won’t be able to have kids, so apparently I should ditch my loving, supportive partner, renounce our evil fornicating, contraceptive ways, and live a life of contemplative celibacy. In which I am not allowed to contemplate women, naturally. It’s merely implied that we should both convert to Christianity, since otherwise this action would make zero sense on our parts.

      I have no idea what excuse they give when it comes to older couples who are well past the age of being fertile. They don’t like divorce either, but surely they accept the possibility of widowhood?

  5. And we should listen to the views of crusty decrepit celibate unmarried childless old men because?

    1. September Meadows 18 Jan 2012, 1:34pm

      Well, not exactly celibate. There are many young boys suffering from the crusty decrepits tonight o.O

      1. Some also have secret families, a bishop in the US recently retired early because of that. It’s well known that there are many Catholic clergy who have families out of wedlock.

  6. Christine Beckett 18 Jan 2012, 11:26am

    Well, you don’t have to be too cynical to see why these Catholic bishops have a very strong vested interest in making sure there are more kids in the world….

    chrissieB

  7. Who will rid us of these dissimulating priests?

  8. Agree strongly with what everyone has already said.
    Plus, what about the fact that many societies and cultures, including early Christianity, have had same sex marriage, or a near equivalent of it (since they care so much about tradition)?

    1. Agreed.

      Same-sex bonding was just as much part of the foundations of civilization, and that is a very good reason to promote this tradition.

      Until religions understand that homosexuality and bisexuality are perfectly normal and natural aspects of human sexuality, they will continue to grope in the darkness of their delusions.

  9. Oh and another thing: why is making more babies in an already overpopulated world a good thing?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2012, 12:56pm

      Because it makes more catholics!

  10. As always, the Catholic Church contradicts itself.

  11. I dont see why the Catholic church cant have “special” marriages only for heterosexuals…in of course their own country, the Vatican City. I imagine it may get a little crowded, but surely that wont be a problem for them. Quite why they think they can stick their holy noses in beyond the borders of their theocracy i dont know- maybe they havent noticed we dont live in the middle ages any more????

    1. I’ll be surprised if any women live in Vatican City.

      Children maybe, but not women…..

      BTW, what’s the divorce rate in the USA again? So much for “lifelong commitment”.

      1. theres a fair few nunnaries…!

  12. Do they not get it …

    Its NOT about expanding marriage …

    Its about returning marriage to where it used to be – open to all loving couples who are committed, regardless of make up of genders … where the parties can and do consent to commitment, in love, to each other …

    The historical records of the Vatican and many other places (religious and secular) demonstrate the historical narrative of same sex unions being regarded as marriage (including by the RC church)

    The church only became vocally opposed to homosexual relationships in teh 14th century – its hardly the message that the church propogates before this ..

    Get real, get fair, learn from your ancestors … (as well as your contemporaries!)

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2012, 12:11pm

      Civilsation has existed long before the Abrahamic cults came along and invented marriage. The roman cult does not recognise a civil marriage even if one or both parties are catholic. The couple would have to go through an convalidation ceremony within the church to validate it. Civil marriages per se are therefore not recognised. This cult seems to think that religious marriage overrides civil marriage and that it has the authority to impose it’s beliefs on the rest of society. I think we’d see a very different reaction if government imposed restrictions on what any religious denomination can and cannot do. I don’t think that would sit very well with them and they’d be the first to play the victim card, an assault on religious freedom. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander in my view. They should stay out of politics altogether. Nobody is forcing them to do anything they don’t want to do.

      1. @Robert

        I don’t disagree with you ….

        My point is that the RC church and many others did engage in same sex marriages – there is a multitude of documentary evidence to demonstrate this is the case …

        The claims that marriage is and has always been male-female (whether this be religious or civil) just does not hold water …

        Historical analysis shows the church and state in most parts of the world endorsed same sex unions as much as opposite sex unions …

      2. Robert –

        You say:

        “I think we’d see a very different reaction if government imposed restrictions on what any religious denomination can and cannot do.”

        Conversely, we would see a different reaction if any religious denomination imposed restrictions on what governments can and cannot do.

        It doesn’t matter if it’s one bishop, four bishops or a hundred bishops, if the RC wants to interfere in politics in order to have their theology enforced, it should be prepared to pay taxes and to face the global trend to promote human rights.

    2. Stu –

      To be fair, the conservative element of the RC church has expressed its opposition to homosexuality from the onset, supported by passages from saint Paul, the writings of Philo, and the assimilation of the ascetic philosophies of Greek mysticism, notably Stoicism, which condemned sex in general as opposed to spiritual enlightenment, i.e. dualism.

      For example, see the Justinian Code, Carolingian Law, and the numerous Penitentials of the early Medieval church.

      The European population, on the other hand, generally scoffed at these teachings, and it was life as usual, not only because the RC church was powerless to enforce its its views until the high Middle Ages, but also because many clerics disagreed with dualism and promoted the values of same-sex bonding.

      The American bishops are in fact attempting to steer the world away from human rights and back to the 14th century.

      1. @JonPol

        Yes, but …

        It was the 14th century where the church moved towards condemnation of homosexuality en mass … if moving to 14th century then homosexulaity and same sex unions should be endorsed ….

        In fact, if showing humanity ….

        1. It is not my intention to contradict you, Stu, but only to emphasize that the harsh and repressive atmosphere that enveloped Europe in the 14th century could not have happened from one day to the next.

          In that sense, I reacted to your statement that “The church only became vocally opposed to homosexual relationships in teh 14th century…”

          It is ironic that Paul of Tarsus, whose efforts persuaded the early church to excuse Gentile converts from the obligations of Jewish Law, was himself clearly neurotic in sexual matters, and set the tone for the anti-sexual, anti-homosexual developments in Christian doctrine that came to the fore in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

          There was considerable variance in attitudes towards homosexuality among early Christians of the Roma Empire, with many indulging in it, but with a very vocal minority opposing it, i.e. Augustine of Hippo to name only one influential bishop.

          cont’d…

          1. As I’ve said elsewhere, I have difficulty believing that there was ever a time when right-wing Christianity was not instrumental in the construction of homophobia in western civilization right up to the present day…. instead of spreading the gospel of Jesus.

    3. Galadriel1010 18 Jan 2012, 10:27pm

      Did you see that article that was doing the round the other day? I think I put it up on my FB, but can’t remember. Fascinating look at same sex unions throughout the church’s history, anyway.

      1. I’m betting it was a resumé of John Boswell’s painstaking research, and every word he says can be referenced :)

      2. I shall have to go and look on your FB, Galadriel 1010!

  13. Just thinking about catholics makes me feel really grubby. yuk

  14. Has anyone else noticed that these religious groups aren’t exactly arguing reasons why gay couples shouldn’t marry, but only reasons why gay couples shouldn’t adopt?

  15. T.L. Mullins 18 Jan 2012, 12:23pm

    ‘There is no religious element to the argument.’……..said the four Catholic Bishops…….RIGHT…..Pfffffft.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2012, 12:55pm

      They’ve run out of excuses. They’re now doing what marriage equality proponents have been doing by removing religion from the civil marriage argument, not that there was any connection. Making this now a civil issue is a desperate attempt on their part to make sure civil marriage equality doesn’t happen. It’s too late, the horse left the barn and it’s NEVER going back in.

  16. ‘Protect straight couples sacrifices’

    How about outlawing heterosexual divorce and adultery then.

    Oh it can’t be done.

    Well less go for the easy option then and scapegoat the gay community and ban same-sex marriage instead.

    In a nutshell this what the homophobic agenda is all about.

  17. Daiyu Hurst 18 Jan 2012, 12:34pm

    Among their misconceptions, the bishops seem not to be aware, or to believe, that some unmarried hetero couples provide loving homes into which children are born. I still tend to believe that we’d be better off abolishing civil marriage altogether. If we can’t have marriage equality, then let marriage remain a religious ceremony and status.

    1. Galadriel1010 18 Jan 2012, 10:29pm

      Marriage as a state institution conveys too many priveledges to do away with it. It’s a good way for the state to recognise a relationship for next-of-kin purposes, intheritance, co-parenting and all the other things that the state is responsible for, all on one piece of paper

  18. At least the catholic cult is not hypocritical in its despicable bigotry – in that it it also opposed to straight divorce.

    ANYONE who claims that the sanctity of 1 man & 1 woman marriage is to be ‘protected’ is an utter moron unless they are focussing theitr energy on the real enemy of straight marriage – namely divorce.

    As for these 4 bishops from the catholic cult, well I’d like to see the evidence that they have not been involved in the cover-up of child-rape.

    The catholic cult was for centuries a factory for the rape of children.

    They cannot be taken seriously on any matter.

  19. They really, really don’t get it, do they? As has been pointed out above, divorce has done far more to destroy the concept of the unchanging nuclear family. But to allow more people to get married somehow portends the end of the world for these fools. Extraordinary.

    One also wonders whether the irony of these men, who’ve achieved their status from turning their back on the family unit, making pronouncements about the ‘sacrifice’ of families even occurs to them.

    1. Well the reason the priests can’t get married was originally to prevent the wives and children of priests from getting their grubby mitts on cult property.

      So the cathoilc cult’s hatred of women and children is the reason that priests can’t get married.

      And being a priest in the catholic cult offered a respecfable career to thousands of child rapists.

      Thankfully the catholic cult is dying.

      Catholic people (as opposed to the cult leadership and clergy) tend fo ignore the cult’s teachings on contraception, divorce, abortion, masturbation and homosexuality.

      Bye by catholic cult – your days are numbered.

      1. de Villiers 18 Jan 2012, 1:54pm

        Your bones will have long disintegrated before the Catholic church closes. It’s better to promote reform and liberal thinking within accessible branches of it than to pretend that it does not exist or will soon not exist.

        1. I can’t say I disagree with your approach, but it is disheartening to admit that many have tried, and many have failed, i.e. John McNeill, sj.

        2. In Spain the average age of a catholic priest is 68.
          In Ireland the average age of a cathoiic priest is 67.
          In Ireland in 2009n there were 2 (I repeat 2) new catholic priestsm ordained.

          There are no longer enough priests in either country to allow each parish have its own priest.

          The catholic cult is dying.

          And the more they get sued for the industrial scale level of child rape the catholic priests were involved in, then the closer to bankruptcy they become.

          Perhaps the catholic cult still has a future in Africa and South America. But in Europe and North America, it’s operating on borrowed time.

          1. de Villiers 18 Jan 2012, 7:22pm

            You are wrong about Europe. It will remain culturally Catholic.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2012, 2:34pm

        The forces undermining family life are married heterosexual men and women committing adultery and divorcing, long before the issue of same-sex civil marriage were a reality. Of course, there are many heterosexuals who choose not to marry but cohabit and often raise children together, but the Roman cult wouldn’t dare criticise them because they’re not gay. It’s also rather silent about the number of straight widows and widowers with children who haven’t remarried. No criticism or admonition for them to marry and provide the children with a nuclear family because they’re not gay. This is nothing more than homophobia at the root of their absurd claims for which they cannot provide any factual evidence to substantiate them. Bigotry and homophobia combined.

      3. Miguel Sanchez 18 Jan 2012, 2:46pm

        David,
        I’m going to bust your bubble mate. The reason the Church doesn’t allow priests to marry is because they believe a priest can not serve 2 people. The role of the priest is to serve God and minister to the members of the church. They can’t do this while serving a wife, hence the no marriage.

        1. Well that’s what the catholic cult SAYS,..

          Why were priests from the catholic cult allowed to marry for the 1st 1000 years of the cult’s existence?

          The catholic cult has always been a multi-billion pound business. During the 1000 years when priests were allowed to marry, their wives and children inherited property that the catholic cult wanted for itself.

          Therefore marriage was banned for priests and the cult kept the loot.

          Thanks to the massive payouts they’ve had to make to the victims of child-rape by priests they are in financial trouble,

  20. Yawn.

    That’s right, gay people get married and straight couples will just give up on having children.

    The more these people speak, the more stupid they sound… please do continue…

    1. Well why would anyone take the catholic bishops seriously?

      These guys only skill is in protecting the rapists of children.

  21. The bishops write:

    “A change in legislation would mean that the state would no longer recognize the unique sacrifices and contributions made by these couples, thereby adding to the forces already undermining family life today.”

    Traditionally, the RC has been a bit more specific about the forces undermining society, i.e. divine wrath destroying our cities, punishing us with war, earthquakes, floods and pestilence… all because of sodomites, of course….

    Yea, the RC is running out of excuses.

    1. Of course people never have kids for purely selfish reasons, such as having someone to look after them in their old age etc…! In many parts of the world, that’s the main motivation. Not so much sacrifice, as insurance.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2012, 2:28pm

      The forces undermining family life today are unequivocally married straight people committing adultery and divorcing. Same-sex marriage has had NO part in that and never will. I want the catholic bigots to provide the documented evidence to support their outrageous statements.

      1. Galadriel1010 18 Jan 2012, 10:33pm

        Adultery is probably somewhere down the list below spousal abuse and addictions, but I’ll agree that it’s far above same-sex marriage and that the church could better serve the world by focusing on those.

  22. What about divorced people on their third marriage, who have no intention of having children with their spouse. Should they be rewarded for their preservation of the sanctity of marriage?

    Let’s give all the heterosexuals a medal to commemorate their sacrifice and excellent service to the Catholic church by providing all those little children for the bishops to fiddle with.

  23. Roy Zimmerman sums it all up quite nicely… “Defenders of Marriage… defending the institution against people who want to get married”

    1. lol.. :D

  24. What utter cr@p! Firstly, implying that all my married straight friends have made all these supposed sacrifices is stupid and offensive to them. I’m assuming this bishop has never married and that’s why he makes such an ignorant statement.

    Secondly, even if they had ‘made sacrifices’, then how on earth would a same sex couple marrying affect that? Straight couples don’t need ‘special laws’ and neither do same sex couples. We just need the same laws and rights.

    Ignorant, petty, illogical and hateful.

    1. actually, it says nothing about homosexuals, but a GREAT deal about your own ignorance.

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 18 Jan 2012, 4:18pm

      Go home.

      Their is a village missing its idiot somewhere..

      1. An illiterate idiot too :D

        1. Trolls don’t want or deserve a reply. They aim to abuse and provoke and hijack threads.

    3. Ignore it – it’s keith or DS

      1. agreed.

    4. Galadriel1010 18 Jan 2012, 10:45pm

      Child abuse by Catholic priests has tended to be of boys because there are more boys volunteering in Catholic churches, it’s as simple as that. Pedophilia is not homosexuality or heterosexuality, it is an attraction to pre-pubescent children and the gender doesn’t matter.

      On your second point, the lowest risk group for HIV is female homosexuals. Does this mean that God loves me more than you? I mean, he never says anything against same-sex relations between women too. Maybe he intended us all to be lesbian?

      In short… no.

  25. John Waters had the right idea – ban heterosexaul divorce. Maybe these church leaders need to realise they desperately need gay people because they use hatred and vilification as a platform to prove their fake god exists and they need that god for employment.

    1. Thats about the size of it really. They know that in more developed societies they are losing ground to secularism and rationalism so they have identified LGBT as a sort of hate figure they can try and focus the hatred of their flock onto. George Orwell wrote about this use of a hate figure in “1984”

  26. Keith Farrell 18 Jan 2012, 5:28pm

    wow, looks like the cathlic church is totally run by stupid people, If the church looks back in its own history they themselves did same sex wedings. This man and woman being married, in the eyes of the chuch does that mean if they divorce and remarry they do not have the same rights as a married couple. How stupid, of course they are married in the eyes of the law and are taxed as a couple, why are we treated difrent. we can be married and taxed and raise children to be good adults some day, so instead of trying to mixmatch laws that are not equal, lets call it a marrage, we dont need a chuch to tell us we are married in the eyes of the law, all we need is for the law to treat us the same. For my part the leaders of the chuch can all go and play in the corner

  27. jamestoronto 18 Jan 2012, 7:22pm

    Sugar coat it all they want with this unpublished, unverifiable ‘evidence’ it is still bigotry and hate.

  28. Damn, foiled again! Just as I was planning to undermine straight marriage by having the option of gay marriage the bishops have rumbled me.

  29. When will Christians go back to being Christians and follow God’s command to love one another? The gays are the ones who need protection, not straights, they have protections.

  30. Obviously, you don’t need to be married to produce children.
    They’re talking about licensing.
    So marriage is a license to have children with not other criteria than your sexuality?
    It’s all about the sex. As usual.

  31. “is grounded not in faith, but in reason and the experience of society”

    Ahhh so we as gays are NOT part of the society! Ok….pratts!!! Nuff said!!!

  32. catholic church is a pedo ground its children who should be protected from the preists you cant get away from abuse outdated religion is going in the 21st century

  33. How lame. And hello! Lesbian and gay couple can have children too!

  34. The usual hot air. Last time I looked, civilization was built on a capacity to farm, make things, generate economic surplus (bit dodgy at present, I agree) and, er, build and live in cities (CIVILization).
    Any number of straight couples with kids and marriage certificates won’t do it without the above, and in fact the more of them there were, the worse it would be.

  35. I don’t know of any straight couples who consider that by getting married and having kids they are making a sacrifice. That’s absurd. They do it because they want to, because as two people in love they want to make a commitment to eachother for life, So do we.

  36. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 21 Apr 2012, 8:03pm

    Exactly what sacrifice are we talking about here? The sacrifice of not having delicious gay sex? Methinks I spot a closet case.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all