Gay marriage and Catholic free speech

All forms of fundamentalism are problematic

Fundamentalist Christianity can be narrow, some fundamentalist Muslims blow up buildings, and communist fundamentalists killed millions to take over Russia. Paradoxically, many in the gay community don't realize that they are practicing a new kind of fundamentalism.

Secular Fundamentalism

It simultaneously belittles religion, and sets forth its own religious dogmas. Secular Fundamentalism claims absolute "human rights" but there is no such thing. When human rights legislation is turned into a fundamentalist philosophy there are only displaced human rights. One group's human rights becomes another group's "oppression."

Expand to see "gay rights" legislation being used against Christians.
  • In 2014, Brendan Eich was forced out of his job as CEO for Firefox, for donating a mere $1000 of his personal money on his own time, six years prior, to the Prop 8 bill in 2008, during a time when even the President was against gay marriage.
  • Scott Brockie owns a little printing shop. A gay organization asked him to publish some advertising. He politely refused given his Christian religious beliefs. He's currently $200,000 in debt from a court battle that he lost.
  • A Christian family had a small bed-and-breakfast business. Two men showed up at their door and wanted to spend the night together in the same bed. The family politely refused, based on their religious beliefs. The Canadian Human Rights Commission forced them to close their business for discriminating against a gay couple.
  • A small Christian newspaper was fined $5000 for refusing to print an ad for gay personals.
  • The Knights of Columbus have a Catholic reception hall in Vancouver. They politely refused to let their premises be used for a lesbian marriage reception, based on their mission statement that says they uphold Christian values. This Catholic organization was successfully sued by the Lesbians in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Catholic man who refused the rental was fired from his 14 year secular job at Costco.
  • In Philadelphia, 11 people were threatened with up to 47 years in prison each for quietly demonstrating at a public gay pride parade while being hounded and yelled at by the "gay angels." Yet gay activists from Soulforce Albuquerque, disrupted a peaceful meeting of  "Courage" (a group of gay Catholics who meet together to follow Church teachings of sexuality) in a Catholic Church, with absolutely no consequences. These double standards are common.
  • The Press gallery of the Ontario Legislature gave a 20 year veteran member of the press club, who was a Christian, a notice of dismissal because he informed his colleagues of a pro-life story.

Here are Christian business people who no longer have the human right to work without compromising their values. In response to this list, a same sex attracted man wrote saying these Christians deserved to be treated that way since they refused to provide a service.

Expand a dialogue with a same sex attracted reader

>>>I read through a couple articles on your website, and while I don't agree with a lot of it, I respect it. However, I think that the items listed are poor examples. In a business type situation, you have to accept everybody regardless of gender, skin color, orientation, or whatever else. I'm sure you know of quite a few court cases in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere where a person of color was not welcome in a place of business. Some were promptly sued afterwards, and most won. Today this is included in our human rights. The same applies here. If you're going to have a business, you have to be ready for that. The law is the law after all, right? I feel that by you having your examples there, you're against that human right. And if you are, I sincerely hope you reconsider your beliefs. Otherwise, I just thought I'd get your take on it.

It's not about rejecting the person... it's about refusing to help forward a cause that many Christians believe is gravely injuring to those who are having gay sex... and so for instance, a Christian print shop owner doesn't want to print a poster that says... "Christians are bigots and gay sex rules." they should be allowed to refuse.
We don't think they should have to print something that they know is going to contribute to the spiritual degradation of the person practicing it...

>>Regarding the ability to refuse “helping forward a cause that […] is gravely injuring to those.� Does this mean I can refuse to provide a service for people who affiliate with a specific religion? Using your argument this is justified because the store owner probably thought that if Islam didn't exist, the attacks on September Eleventh wouldn't have happened (thus saving lives):,1341781

That's bizarre reasoning. The principle is not about refusing a person, like denying them a sandwich at 2am. It's about refusing to provide a good or service that is advancing a moral wrong. That's not the case above. There is nothing wrong morally wrong with feeding someone.

However, a Christian printer should have every right to say "I can't print your Moslem pamphet on how to keep all your 5 wives happy." The western market system of demand and supply has a way of correcting itself. If there is a missing service, then someone will fill the demand. That's the beauty of western society. I don't have to provide that service. I lose the income. That is my "punishment" for standing behind my conscience, and I'm willing to lose that income to defend my principles, and some Moslem printer gets tons of business.
This idea that Big Brother should get into the supply/demand chain, enforcing its morals upon the religious people that gave North America the concept of Human Rights in the first place, seems quite Orwillian to me. Outside of Christian culture there are no human rights. China, Russia, and the Middle East have no human rights. It is a JudeoChristian concept. The idea of a "secular society" having long term success advancing human rights is far fetched I'd say. It quickly degrads into the kind of pettiness that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is involved with. Like punishing McDonald's with costs of over $50,000 for requiring an employee to wash her hands, which actually happened.

>>I could also jump to an even better example, can I refuse service to a cigarette smoker? That's been proven to be unhealthy. I think if I did that I'd be sued pretty soon after.

That would be an interesting case... it might make the cigarrette companies wake up, and perhaps the publicity would cause a bunch of people to give up smoking. Such a person might actually be the catalyst to save a life, or many... but in the real world, usually what happens is the person is given other duties in the business rather than sell cigarrettes. That's how it works in the real world.  Jewish orthodox people have tons of rules to follow on the Sabbath, and they simply say "I can't do this, can you do it?" A Jewish lady asked me to dial a number on her cell phone because it was her Sabbath. This was nothing immoral, so I did it no problem. If I had a job that needed me to meet an emergency on Sunday, I would go to Saturday Mass that week.  Mature judgment can tell the difference between a moral wrong and simply being petty.

>>What if a gay couple's car breaks down in a bad neighborhood and they run to the closest hotel, only to be kicked out. What if then some maniac murders them both? Sure, the murderer is at fault, but the hotel's staff probably had an idea of what would happen if they kicked them out. (Nothing good, at least.) This isn't a world I want to live in.

First off, any truely Christian hotel owner would try to help them (Good samaritan). He might say, "I'll give you 2 rooms." He might let them hang out in the lobby until the tow truck comes. That's a really bizarre and far fetched scenario. Nothing like the terrible oppression of these faithful Christians who are being punished by not helping a person endanger themselves with sex.

>>The law is the law after all, right?

The law is a result of 20 years of storming psychiatric associations, lawmakers etc.. It did not come about by civil discussion. Human rights are great things but not when they conflict with a moral right ... They are making laws that you are to be arrested if you say gay sex is unhealthy, but just because it's a law doesn't make gay sex healthy. If they made a law saying jumping off a building is fine, it still wouldn't make it healthy. It's a really bad social experiment.

>>I would gladly stand next to you in front of the Capitol and protest it. Freedom of speech is far more important than anything else in this country.

You've made me a terrific offer. Are you willing to back that up? I'd be glad for you to join me in front of my Parliament of Canada to oppose Bill C250 which has been in force for 2 years. Yup if I went out on the street with a sign that says "Gay sex is wrong" I am legally able to be arrested under C250. Welcome to 1984. And it's coming to a city near you... in the US too.

I think what you are really looking for is true love and you will never be happy as long as you look for that from people before finding it in God. Love does not always say "yes" to every desire of the heart... because the heart is fickle. I promise you, you will not be happy in the long run if you go your current direction. There is a better way. It is a great life.

I understand that you have a life other than getting into debates with random strangers. Thank you for your emails and thoughts.

A gay politician from Denmark was interviewed in the Canadian gay paper Capital Xtra.

"[there was] 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.'"(Quote from Uffe Elbaek, Capital Xtra! Dec. 1, 2005, pg 15)

In the Netherlands Christian ministers have been dragged to court, and this is promoted all over the gay press in North America. The experience in the Netherlands is coming.

Yet for many "right thinking" religious people...they fear the legislation will reduce their sacred texts to hate literature. And so it should be ... Hasn't our nation's legislation on hate evolved over the past decades to include colour, race, religion, and ethnic origin? Why not sexuality?...Those opposed are expressing their fundamental religious fear of the human body. After all, if you take Christian mythology, the body is sinful and evil - thanks to Eve chowing down on that apple.
(Capital Xtra, Oct. 9, 2003)

Does anyone doubt that priests will be dragged to court for refusing to marry gay couples? The tiny provision protecting religions has been wiped away in Canada by the Human Rights Tribunal in the cases cited above. Yet, even with this clear abuse of human rights legislature, the gay friendly mainstream press continues to portray Christians as victimizers rather than those being victimized. In a ruling on a Christian private school, the Ontario Human Rights Commission posted this statement on their website:

The proper place to draw the line is generally between belief and conduct. The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them. So long as a discriminatory belief is not translated into at discriminatory behavior, individuals and institutions have the right to uphold those beliefs. (Published in Capital Xtra gay newspaper Feb. 22, 2007)

"I was deeply troubled by the lack of any regulatory requirement for private schools to comply with the provincial human rights code." (Keith Norton, former head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission)

Teaching your child the Bible is now considered a discriminatory behaviour. This is a modern day inquisition against anyone who does not hold with the state religion, which is secular fundamentalist. The gay newspaper Capital Xtra said:

"We're working to remake the world in our image."
Gareth Kirkby, Capital Xtra, Aug. 16, 2007

Now that gay marriage is legal in Canada most religions are at odds with the government putting charitable status in jeopardy. Here is an excerpt from the Ottawa Citizen June 12, 2005.

Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights advocate is warning..."If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," says Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings..."We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."

Hauntingly, singer Elton John revealed the logical outcome of secular fundamentalism.

"I would ban religion completely ... It turns people into really hateful lemmings ..."
(Elton John, quoted on CNN, Nov. 2006)

On the gay blog, a reader commented on the Pope's statement about condoms:

The Poop [Pope] should have his power and riches stripped from him; be tried for Crimes against humanity; sentenced to death; have all RC assets liquidated and given to secular social agencies; and everything associated with Roman Catholicism sent to a museum like that in Cambodia that bears witness forever to Man's Inhumanity to Man.
(Comment on gay blog

The Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered a pastor to never write, or speak against homosexuality ever again, even in a personal email, and to actually preach against his beliefs (thankfully overturned at the Supreme Court). The same commissioner completely dismissed a case complaining about a song all about "kill the Christians." He said that exposing Christians to hate speech does not put them in danger. A complete double standard.

Our culture presents Human Rights as some kind of universal truth. However, Louise Arbour, the famous feminist Canadian lawyer, who is now the High Commissioner of Human Rights, at the United Nations said:

I believe we cannot just export the universality model pretending it doesn't contain a point of view. It's a western point of view, we nourished, cultivated it. It's our baby, our product. We purport to say its neutral but nothing is neutral. (Louise Arbour, Chatelaine Magazine, Feb, 2007.)

Human rights is a Christian construct. Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, the pioneers of the Rights movement, were fighting for principles edified by the Bible. The gay community is fighting for something that is adamantly denounced by the Bible. The Bible is clear on the definition of marriage. (Mat 19:5, Mark 10:7, Eph 5:31).

A same sex attracted man wrote us asking, "what about committed relationships?".

I feel like in your same sex marriage article you completely ignored the marriage component. Okay, you're against the polygamous, sex-addicted gay community. Now that's a stereotype. Alright, some people in the gay community (a lot, actually) are like that. However, gay, straight, or otherwise I'm looking for love, not sex. The same goes for quite a few gay people I know. And once we're at this point, what if I am gay and looking for love. Does God want me to not love? Does God want me to not be loved? God wants me to be happy.

A separate article on gay marriage is here. Unnatural sex is unhealthy. It doesn't matter whether that sex is because of "love" or "lust"...

Again, you jump straight to gay sex. What if I was to marry somebody of the same sex and have it be a purely romantic relationship? Using your argument, it wouldn't be unhealthy, right?

The word Marriage is understood to involve sex, in fact in Catholicism, if the marriage is not consummated, there is no sacramental marriage.
That's why gay marriage could never exist in Catholicism. Some activists claim "gay sex is the only thing we have in common as a community, otherwise there's not much many of us have in common with one another."

Sexual fidelity is the answer, not "sexual freedom"

At Lourdes, France on Aug. 15, 2004, Pope JP II said:

... Be men and women of freedom! But remember: human freedom is a freedom wounded by sin. It is a freedom which itself needs to be set free. Christ is its liberator.

All humans have sexuality. It's God's gift, but with any gift comes a great responsibility. Sex is powerful. People are born from sex, people die from sex (STD's). If I get a powerful gift for Christmas, say a car, there are rules that keep me safe. It is the same with sexuality. 

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence ... (Gal 5:1, 13-18)

Here are some Catholic definitions: Chastity:  No sex outside of marriage, sex is perfectly acceptable in the context of a marriage blessed by the Church. Marriage: An unbreakable lifelong union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Celibacy: Abstinence from sex, and usually implies remaining single.

The Catholic Church has always asserted that chastity, or alternatively celibacy, are the correct expressions of our sexual natures. This is supported by the Bible. It applies to everyone, including Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered (GLBT) people. I know that would get me laughed out of a university class on human behavior and unfortunately out of many psychiatrist's offices.

Laws currently under attack by gay lobbyists include those that forbid public nudity, public sex (i.e., public washrooms and parks), group sex (i.e., bathhouses), and importation of pornography. (Capital Xtra, Apr. 11, 2005) As well they are fighting to legitimize the "sex trade" (male and female prostitution), and lowering the age of consent for anal sex to include 14 year old boys and girls. They are lobbying the school boards for sex education programs aimed at 11 year old girls and boys that include graphic images of how to perform anal and oral sex.

We have trouble reconciling this simultaneous lobby for "sexual fidelity" in a "marriage" while they push for bathhouses, legalization of anal sex with 14 year olds.

The genesis of the modern "human rights" movement is based on Christian theological principles

Catholics think that God's laws are more important than human constructs

Catholics believe that God is real, and we think he has an opinion about all kinds of things, including our sexual behaviour. We think the laws of God's universe are more binding than the laws of man. Natural law does not change just because man says so.

We could pass a law that gravity is not binding on all humans.
But if I jump off a cliff that law will not do me much good.

Making a law that allows gay marriage will not change the truth about marriage. It is just a kind of collective denial.

Related articles

  1. Why are Catholics against gay sex?
  2. Gay Sex in the Bible  
  3. Priest Sexual Abuse Cases
  4. Marriage, Divorce, Annulments
  5. MP3 Download "One Man One Woman" Theme song for Canada's "March for Marriage"
  6. Chastity
  7. Are Catholics against Women?