(Roto Reuters) SAN FRANCISCO – More fallout continues from Judge Vaughn Walker overturning of California’s Proposition 8 on grounds that it was unconstitutional. While the legal case will continue on in the courts a surprising side effect of this ruling is starting to cause consternation among homosexuals. Increasing reports are coming in concerning a very surprising turn of events which is currently being investigated.
Judge Walker’s ruling has apparently rendered homosexual couples wanting to get married capable of marriage. The biological mechanics of how this has happened is being looked into by researchers at Northridge Hospital Medical Center. Apparently within days of this ruling multiple homosexual partners started complaining of pains suspiciously similar to morning sickness. It was apparently considered a hoax by hospital staff when CT scans revealed female reproductive organs in one of the male partners from a homosexual couple. With multiple occurrences of this being reported by hospitals throughout California it is now shown not to be a hoax, but that some males in a gay relationship had indeed developed reproductive organs that had started growing on the day of Judge Walker’s ruling. It has also been confirmed that these men were indeed suffering from morning sickness and were actually pregnant.
The large number of these cases and the shock from these men threw out suspicion that they were simply women with sex change operations due to gender identity. Medical researches are still trying to determine why it is that only one person from such a relationship would develop what is now being called Sudden Complementary Reproduction Capability Syndrome. SCRCS also effects Lesbian couples who swear they have not used artificial insemination and yet one women in the relationship pregnant.
Some gay couples are outraged by Judge Walkers decision that rendered them capable both the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage by giving them complementary reproductive equipment against their will. Many are upset about the idea that homosexual marriage will actually mean raising children other than by adopting the offspring of heterosexuals. Joe Smether of South Bay said “I am glad that gay activists have often united with pro-choice activists in the past so that we can get abortions to keep our marriages sterile.” Others are seeking contraceptives to render sterile once again what once was a sterile act between a homosexual couple.
Legal scholars are looking at the physical repercussions of this. While in the past and present many rulings have gone against common sense and natural biology, this is the first ruling that caused a physical change to follow the law. Observer are carefully following other rulings to see if there are any other similar effects and whether judges have evolved beyond law interpretation/activism to the more god-like powers many thought they already had. Politicians in the nations capitol are also following this result closely and hoping the latest CAFE standards actually causing scientists to make breakthroughs in physics.
Lincoln said, “You can call a dog’s tail a leg. But, the dog still has four legs.”
you are so bad:) You’d better put a disclaimer at the end of this piece or someone will run with it thinking its for real …LOL
You are a wicked man. Not an evil one, but definitely a wicked one. Not sure if I should laugh or cry. Gotta agree with Mark Shea: “disturbingly funny.”
Awesome. Too funny.
Yes, disturbingly funny say it all.
I am trying desperately to help my gay child feel that they have a place in the church. The only point of this silly and hurtful piece seems to be to further cultivate homophobia within our church by mocking gays. Shall I show this piece to my child in the hopes that he might glean some insights into how other Catholics really feel about him? Jeff, as you write your pieces, I wonder how often you ask yourself who might be reading, and how it might affect them/bring them closer to God and His Church? Or if you really care…
I am sorry to hear that your son has the cross of same-sex attraction. But you do not have a gay son. Your son is a human person and should not be identified by a so-called, but false sexual orientation. He of course has a place in the Church since Christ calls all to be holy and to come to him.
Those that struggle with some level of same-sex attraction are not committing a sin. It is those who commit homosexual acts who have committed a sin that in intrinsically evil – which the Church has always taught and will always teach. We are all called to be chaste. Those that are single must not fornicate. Those that are married must be chaste and to refrain from adultery. The person with same-sex attraction must also do the same and to be chaste which of course would exclude all homosexual acts.
By the tone of your comment you seem to be upset that I point out that homosexuals can not be married and that it is part of the natural law that God wrote in our hearts that a marriage can only be between a man and women to be fruitful.
If you are okay with your son being an active homosexual – if he is – than I would challenge you to be faithful to the Church setup by Christ. If my son was an alcoholic I would not want the Church to accept this sin, I would want him to become sober and to grow in holiness. I would not encourage him in this sin.
In my parish our pastor conducts the Courage ministry which is an awesome ministry to help those struggling with same sex-attraction to live lives of chastity and to grow in holiness as we are all called to do. There is also a ministry called Encourage for family members of persons with same-sex attraction. I would greatly encourage you to seek out these ministries if they are available in your area.
I would also encourage you to look at NARTH run by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi which offers counseling services for those with same-sex attraction and is totally in accordance with Church teaching. http://www.narth.com/
You ask me if I care. I would give an unqualified yes since I have no bad will towards everybody and I pray that everybody lives a life of holiness. If my satire offended you I am sorry. But the points it makes are a truth that the Church teaches. I will pray for you and your son in what is a difficult situation, but grace conquers all.
Thank you. I really needed that today. I think your satire makes a completely appropriate point. Marriage is both unitive and procreative. There is no way for a homosexual act to be these things.
Thanks again. Having a rough week and your post made me smile.
Thank you for your speedy response, for your apology, and for explaining the difference between ‘same sex attraction’ and ‘gay’. Once I explained this distinction to my son, he slapped himself on the forehead, thanked me for showing him the errors of his ways, and ran off to the local Courage meeting – not. Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.
The truth is, I am well aware of the Church’s teaching on chastity; I was not looking for a catechisis. I work as a secretary in a large parish, and I talk with priests every day about the many issues facing the church and her faithful. I have easy access to all the available resources that our diocese offers, including the pastoral care of homosexuals.
Neither was I taking issue with the subject of same-sex marriage. I was upset with the mean-spirited tone of your satire. You claim that the point it makes reflects the teachings of the church, and I fully agree. But the church also teaches that ‘persons of homosexual tendencies must be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity’. (CCC 2358) I don’t feel that your piece in any way reflects this doctrine.
You seem to suggest that the only models available to my son are a life of radical promiscuity, or psychologically circumscribed denial/repression in the form of ‘reparative therapies’ e.g. Courage. You must be aware that these types of therapies have been repudiated by the American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Pediatric Association. I believe these therapies to be a form a pseudo science and their spectacular failure can be seen in the forms of ex-ex gay Jeff Ford, and British Courage Trust founder Jeremy Marks. Ford acknowledged that despite his claims of being ‘healed’ he did not actually see that in his work with over 300 gays and lesbians.
Marks admitted that his organization’not only failed to preserve the moral purity of gay people(or the church) but on the contrary, has proved to have an extremely destructive effect on the lives of many gay people and has had a corrosive effect on their faith in God.’
So, Jeff, I thank you again for your very personal response. I believe that you do care, and I thank you very much for keeping me and my son in your prayers. I will do likewise for you and all your family. May God bless you an all you do!
@Siberia, take heart. Many cradle Catholics stay in the church while wholly rejecting certain important church teachings – like those on divorce, birth control and masturbation. Radical Christians will say those people are not in union with the church, but who cares? As I see it, your son has 3 choices: (1) stay with the church and try to change it from within, (2) leave the church for another christian tradition like the episcopal church, or (3) try a little of both – I have found that practicing on occasion in an episcopal church helps me accept the failings of the current RC administration and pray for change.
As an aside, I don’t now how old your son is, but I hope he knows dozens of happy and emotionally stable gay couples in long-term loving/romantic/sexual relationships. I certainly do.
Why is it that people don’t see the obvious that two human bodies of the same gender are not anatomically designed to complement one another sexually. Shouldn’t that be enough of a basis biologically to rule out homosexual unions?
@Ray, because life and marriage are more complicated than “fit Tab A into Slot B.”
So you recommend a ‘cafeteria catholicism’ do you? And you are comfortable with that? So you can just pick and choose what parts of the Truth you agree with and feel free to dissent from the rest? Not a good recommendation.
There can never be ‘homosexual marriage’. Never. It is contrary to nature. And we are not free to redefine what marriage is. No matter what legal status is given. Just like the murder of the unborn in their mother’s womb is given legal protection and status, nothing in this world will ever make it moral or pleasing to God. Never. It is intrinisic and demonic evil.
If you cannot accept ALL that the Catholic church teaches, then you are indeed free to leave and maybe even start your own church as thousands have done. But to call yourself Catholic and reject the teachings of the Church makes you a liar. And if you go to Communion and say Amen, you are lying to yourself. Think about it.
The fact that you know many ‘happy’ homosexual couples does not make it right.
A matrimonial union implies the potentiality of sexual union resulting in new life, even if it is not consummated. Homosexual unions obviously cannot result in new life by an act between the two partners. The marriage of Our Lady and St. Joseph was most perfect even though they never consummated it sexually because new life in the person of Our Lord was borne by their willing and voluntary abstinence even though anatomically they had the potential to perform the deed.
And to continue on what Magdalene wrote, the state of “happiness” you tout is in all likelihood an emotional state, but not necessarily a spiritual state of bliss. True happiness runs much deeper than emotions driven in part by hormones and bodily functions and depends on our spiritual state as well. One can by emotionally unhappy and yet be spiritually fulfilled (as Our Lady’s dry martyrdom can attest to).
For what it’s worth, I have to agree with Siberia about the appropriateness of this post. Whatever else this post might be, it isn’t funny or tasteful.
The goal is to convert souls, no? When you were an atheist, what would you have thought about a similar satire of atheism?
Thank you for your reminder that I am able to leave the RC Church. I will give your advice all the consideration it deserves.
Regardless of your ability to type, gay marriage exists today in six US states, the District of Columbia, and several countries outside of the USA. And no marriage is a natural state, it does not arise out of or from nature. No animal other than man is capable of marriage. It requires human thought and action and commitment to change what is (the state of singleness) to being legally committed and bound to another. So stop with the “marriage is natural” argument because it is a silly statement on its face. Now, the issue is that gay people exist and Christians need to determine how we are to treat our gay brothers and sisters, including those gay people who form committed realtionships and seek to avail themselves of our country’s laws regarding family realtionships.
Your statements above don’t help anyone.
@Ray, I hear what you are saying but it boils down to: “gay couples THINK they are happy, but I know that they are not happy.” Is that really what you’re going with here?
You really need to get a life.
That’s a simply-worded though incomplete way of saying it. I will not presume to judge on the emotional state of a same-sex couple, as many do feel happy on that level. But can we both agree that there can be a disconnect between one’s feelings and one’s state of grace or spiritual demeanor? Emotions are not always a reliable barometer of one’s standing in God’s eyes.
Again, let me expound on Magdalene’s post on marriage. Even before Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament, it is intrinsically bound to a man uniting with a woman, and no other human partners (God being the Divine partner of course). God created human nature to yearn for completeness in seeking another. In the case of those who choose to remain single, it is completeness through a personal commitment to Him. In the case of marriage, it is completeness with a partner of the opposite gender, ultimately leading to commitment to God.
Of course animals don’t have marriage. But then they don’t have souls, they are not made in the image of God. Since humans are that much more incomparable to animals, what is applicable to humans is inapplicable to animals.
Your words are poetic, but unhelpful. Moreover, you present them as statements of fact. They beg for citations. It seems as though you are unaware that there is a discussion happening around the world right now, where we are trying to determine if gay people should be able to access civil marriage laws. I think that pretty phrases like “matrimonial union implies the potentiality of sexual union,” “dry martyrdom,” and “yearn for completeness” do not contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
It was not my intent to wax poetic (but this discussion aside I take that as a compliment). If you find my words unhelpful, then you’ve missed the point of what I’ve been trying to say, I’m afraid. All I can say at this point is that civil marriage laws are made by men, who are obviously fallible, and which can be flawed. That several states and countries allow same-sex unions has no bearing whatsoever on the morality (or lack thereof) of such. The truth, harsh as it may be to well-meaning supporters of same-sex unions (and we had a priest who said that sincerity of intentions does not always justify), is that these are forbidden by God. Thus says the teaching of the Church. Folks can discuss this immutable law ad infinitum to no avail. That, Pat, is what you have to accept. Our Lord (and St. Paul) was just as harsh and blunt with the truth.
So going back to civil law, if it is to follow divine law, then: 1) same-sex unions should not be legalized (and existing ones nullified); 2) partners of such unions cannot avail of the same benefits that partners of true marriages can. If civil law insists on deviating from divine law, then bear the spiritual consequences. Harsh? You bet.
It’s interesting that you mention the Episcopal church, because the more conservative branches of the Anglican Communion have taken exception with the pro-homosexual moves of the more liberal branches, such as “ordaining” openly homosexual bishops.
Sorry, but them’s the breaks. (And pardon the use of slang at this point. )
But our civil laws don’t need to follow religious laws. For example, we live in a country that allows no-fault divorce, allows premarital sex and allows masturbation. All of those are violations, if you will, of sharia and other religious law.
Sorry, but them’s the real breaks.
Also, your (1) and (2) above make me wonder where you stand on (3): Doesn’t divine law require the death penalty – and nothing short of the death penalty – for homosexual acts? I assume then that you advocate not merely for the nullifaction of the 18,000 same sex civil marriages that took place in Califiornia before Prop 8 was enacted, but also for the death penalty for those 36,000 Californians. Or do you think God was only kidding when he wrote those words in the Bible?
The laws you mentioned aren’t Divine Law at all. You are right in labeling Sharia law as “religious” law – the set of rules and regulations layered by a specific religion on top of the Divine Law, which is the universal set of morals that God expects all men regardless of religion to adhere to. The basic black-and-white rules of good and evil that were given form in the Ten Commandments.
Yes, your country’s civil law doesn’t follow any one religious law and your civil law allows for no-fault divorce (something that Reagan bitterly regretted later). Your country’s civil law (and mine as well) should model itself after Divine Law. In as much as my country’s civil forbids divorce (though the abuse of annulment is sadly rampant), it follows Divine Law as regards marriage.
Death penalty is not part of Divine Law, as it doesn’t concern itself with corporal or physical sanctions. (It does concern itself with spiritual sanctions.) Even though it was written by God Himself in the Mosaic Law, it was meant for the Judaic religion and the Jewish people before the arrival of Our Lord, and apparently for several other peoples as well (as attested to by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the threat of destruction on Nineveh). It is not binding now. Why so drastic a punishment then? I’m no expert, but I do have my guesses, though this may not be the right discussion for that.
Your last paragraph is great. It confirms 2 things for me: First, that man (who is fallible) must interpret God’s laws. In the same way that you mentioned earlier that man can err by enacting a law that is contrary to God’s wishes, so too can (fallible) man misinterpret one of God’s laws. The more that science and nature teach us about sexuality, the more I suspect we are misinterpreting God’s laws.
Secondly, your statement that some Biblical proscriptions were meant to be binding on a certain people at a certain time, but not binding on all peoples for all times, is consistent with current, dare I say enlightened, Christian understandings of things like masturbation and homosexual acts.
Fortunately God gave us a mechanism wherein man does not err, the infallible doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
Have it your way Pat, if you insist on sticking with it. God bless you as He does as all.
Trust me, Ray from Manila. The parts fit quite nicely.