Jason International

Christian Ex-Gay Ministry

Muss ich es respektieren, wenn mein Sohn mit einem anderen Mann zusammen lebt?

Das kommt darauf an, was man unter "respektieren" versteht. Ich glaube, selbst Christen treffen hier - möglicherweise aus Bequemlichkeit oder Angst vor möglichen Konsequenzen - falsche Entscheidungen (etwa indem sie sich "da raushalten").

Wer seinen Sohn wirklich liebt, sollte ihn auch mit der Wahrheit konfrontieren. Er wird ihm sagen, was er hören muss und nicht, was er hören will. Dies allerdings in einer Art und Weise, die eines Christen würdig ist.

Der Sohn sollte auf jeden Fall die Botschaft bekommen, dass man ihn als Menschen auch weiterhin liebt - und ihn gerade deshalb mit der Wahrheit der Bibel konfrontiert. Es wäre leichter, den anderen Weg zu gehen. Auch sollte man nicht etwa aufhören, für und um ihn zu kämpfen und für ihn und seinen Partner zu beten.

Schließlich sollte ihm klar gemacht werden, dass es - sofern beide zu Besuch kommen - bestimmte moralische Standards in deinem Haus gibt, die alle (!) zu beachten haben.

"Respektieren" heisst also nicht, etwas gut nennen, was man nicht für gut hält. Es heisst auch nicht, es nicht für gut zu halten, aber nichts dagegen sagen zu dürfen. "Respektieren" heisst vielmehr, die Entscheidung eines erwachsenen Menschen als solche wahrzunehmen und sich dann im Licht des christlichen Glaubens zu überlegen, wie man damit umgeht.

Ein Wort noch zum Schluss: Wer andere Menschen mit moralischen Standards  konfrontiert, sollte auch selbst ein vorbildliches Leben führen. Auch sollte er nicht mit unterschiedlichem Maße messen (also etwa unangemessenes heterosexuelles Verhalten als "männlich" ansehen und dasselbe bei Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen als "pervers" aburteilen!).

The Gathering Storm: Religious Liberty in the Wake of the Sexual Revolution
These are days that will require courage, conviction, and clarity of vision.
Written by Al Mohler | Thursday, March 23, 2017

Religious liberty is being redefined as mere freedom of worship, but it will not long survive if it is reduced to a private sphere with no public voice. The very freedom to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake, and thus so is the liberty of every American. Human rights and human dignity are temporary abstractions if they are severed from their reality as gifts of the Creator. The eclipse of Christian truth will lead inevitably to a tragic loss of human dignity. If we lose religious liberty, all other liberties will be lost, one by one.

In the first volume of his history of World War II, Winston Churchill looked back at the storm clouds that gathered in the 1930s portending war and the loss of human freedom. Churchill wisely and presciently warned Britain of the tragedy that would ensue if Hitler were not stopped. His actions were courageous and the world was shaped by his convictional leadership. We are not facing the same gathering storm, but we are now facing a battle that will determine the destiny of priceless freedoms and the very foundation of human rights and human dignity.

Speaking thirty years ago, Attorney General Meese warned that “there are ideas which have gained influence in some parts of our society, particularly in some important and sophisticated areas that are opposed to religious freedom and freedom in general. In some areas there are some people that have espoused a hostility to religion that must be recognized for what it is, and expressly countered.”

Those were prophetic words, prescient in their clarity and foresight. The ideas of which Mr. Meese warned have only gained ground in the last thirty years, and now with astounding velocity. A revolution in morality now seeks not only to subvert marriage, but also to redefine it, and thus to undermine an essential foundation of human dignity, flourishing, and freedom.

Religious liberty is under direct threat. During oral arguments in the Obergefell case, the Solicitor General of the United States served notice before the Supreme Court that the liberties of religious institutions will be an open and unavoidable question. Already, religious liberty is threatened by a new moral regime that exalts erotic liberty and personal autonomy and openly argues that religious liberties must give way to the new morality, its redefinition of marriage, and its demand for coercive moral, cultural, and legal sovereignty.

These are days that will require courage, conviction, and clarity of vision. We are in a fight for the most basic liberties God has given humanity, every single one of us, made in his image. Religious liberty is being redefined as mere freedom of worship, but it will not long survive if it is reduced to a private sphere with no public voice. The very freedom to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake, and thus so is the liberty of every American. Human rights and human dignity are temporary abstractions if they are severed from their reality as gifts of the Creator. The eclipse of Christian truth will lead inevitably to a tragic loss of human dignity. If we lose religious liberty, all other liberties will be lost, one by one.

Religious Liberty and the Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage

Even though same-sex marriage is new to the American scene, the religious liberty challenges became fully apparent even before it became a reality. Soon after the legalization of same-sex marriage in the state of Massachusetts, several seminars and symposia were held in order to consider the religious liberty dimensions of this legal revolution. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sponsored one of the most important of these events, which produced a major volume with essays by prominent legal experts on both sides of this revolution. The consensus of every single participant in the conference was that the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage would produce a head-on collision in the courts. As Marc D. Stern, of the American Jewish Congress stated, “Same-sex marriage would work a sea change in American law.” He continued, “That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in ways that are unpredictable today.”

Nevertheless, he predicted some of the battlefronts he saw coming and addressed some of the arguments that could already be recognized. Even then, Stern saw almost all the issues we have recounted, and others yet to come. He saw the campuses of religious colleges and the work of religious institutions as inevitable arenas of legal conflict. He pointed to employment as one of the crucial issues of legal conflict and spoke with pessimism about the ability of religious institutions to maintain liberty in this context, for which he advocates. As Stern argued, “The legalization of same-sex marriage would represent the triumph of an egalitarian-based ethic over a faith-based one, and not just legally. The remaining question is whether champions of tolerance are prepared to tolerate proponents of the different ethical vision. I think the answer will be no.”

Stern did not wait long to have his assessment verified by legal scholars on the other side of the debate. One of the most important of these, Chai R. Feldblum, presented rare candor and revealed that an advocate for same-sex marriage and the normalization of homosexuality could also see these issues coming. Feldblum pointed to what she described as, “the conflict that I believe exists between laws intended to protect the liberty of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people so that they may live lives of dignity and integrity and the religious beliefs of some individuals whose conduct is regulated by such laws.” She went on to state her belief that “those who advocate for LGBT equality have downplayed the impact of such laws on some people’s religious beliefs and, equally, I believe those who sought religious exemptions in such civil rights laws have downplayed the impact that such exemptions would have on LGBT people.”

As Feldblum argued, she called for the society to “acknowledge that civil rights laws can burden an individual’s belief liberty interest when the conduct demanded by these laws burdens an individual’s core beliefs, whether such beliefs are religiously or secularly based.” Thus, in Feldblum’s argument, we confront face-to-face the candid assertion that an individual’s “belief liberty interest” must give way to what are now defined as the civil rights of sexual minorities. Feldblum believed she saw the future clearly and that the future would mean “a majority of jurisdictions in this country will have modified their laws so that LGBT people will have full equality in our society, including access to civil marriage or to civil unions that carry the same legal effect as civil marriage.” In that future, religious liberty would simply give way to the civil liberties of homosexuals and same-sex couples. Feldblum, then a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, also understood that this moral revolution would mean that the government is “taking sides” in a moral conflict, siding with the LGBT community. This necessarily puts government on the side of that moral judgment, which is precisely the point Feldblum is insisting we must recognize. Once government is on that side of the moral judgment, its laws and its coercion will require those who hold to a contrary moral system, whether based in religious or secular convictions to give way to the new moral judgment affirmed by the government.

In her very revealing argument, Feldblum struggles to find a way to grant recognition and a level of liberty to those who disagree with the normalization of homosexuality, especially on religious grounds. Nevertheless, as she shares quite openly, she is unable to sustain that effort, given her prior commitment to the absolute imposition of the new morality by means of the law and the power of the state. Appointed and later confirmed as Commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, nominated by President Obama, Feldblum stated in a different context that the end result of antidiscrimination legislation would mean the victory of sexual rights over religious liberty. She commented that she could not come up with a single case in which, at least hypothetically, religious liberty would triumph over coercion to the new moral morality.

It is crucially important that we understand the moral judgment being made and enforced by legal mechanisms in the wake of this revolution. Feldblum, a lesbian activist who has advocated for same-sex marriage—and for the legalization of polygamy—fully understands the law teaches and reinforces a morality. She insists that the law must allow no deviation in public life from the dictates of the new morality. In this case, this means allowing virtually no exemptions to regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In her presentation at the Becket Fund event, Feldblum cited the writings of Judge Michael McConnell, who both offered support for same-sex marriage and the assurance that the religious liberty of Christians and other religious citizens must be protected. McConnell’s argument is straightforward:

“The starting point would be to extend respect to both sides in the conflict of opinion, to treat both the view that homosexuality is a healthy and normal manifestation of human sexuality and the view that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral as conscientious positions, worthy of respect, much as we treat both atheism and faith as worthy of respect. In using the term ‘respect,’ I do not mean agreement. Rather, I mean the civil toleration we extend to fellow citizens and fellow human beings even when we disagree with their views. We should recognize that the ‘Civil Magistrate’ is no more ‘competent a Judge’ of the ‘Truth’ about human sexuality than about religion.”

Feldblum dismissed his argument by accusing McConnell of failing to recognize “that the government necessarily takes a stance on the moral question he has articulated every time it fails to affirmatively ensure the gay people can live openly, safely, and honestly in society.”

In other words, there must be no exceptions. Religious liberty simply evaporates as a fundamental right grounded in the U.S. Constitution, and recedes into the background in the wake of what is now a higher social commitment—sexual freedom.

This post is an excerpt from Al Mohler’s chapter in First Freedom: The Beginning and End of Religious Liberty, edited by Jason Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm Yarnell III.

Same-Sex "Marriage" -- "Hate Crimes," and the New Totalitarianism

Michael D. O'Brien

Lost is our old simplicity of times; the world abounds with laws and teems with crimes.

This anonymous aphorism, published in the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1775, rings even more true of our times. Proliferating crime is endemic to contemporary democracies, it seems, and the Western world is awash in so many laws that one hardly dares guess what will next be made illegal. Strangest of all is that so much of the new legalism is directed not at criminals but at the moral structure of private life.

Disturbing Aspects of Homosexual Hate Crimes Law

The recent passage of Canada's Bill C-250, which amended the hate crimes law to include sexual orientation, is a case in point, and the looming "same-sex marriage" bill is another. A number of aspects of the new hate crimes law are especially disturbing. For one thing, previous to the passage of this law there already existed in Canadian law abundant protection of human rights, including protection against discrimination on grounds of "sexual orientation." What is distinctive about the new law is its criminalization of negative criticism of homosexuality as such.

While the bill was in formation in Parliament two crucial amendments proposed by the opposition party were defeated. The first was to ensure that religious pastors and teachers would retain full freedom to teach traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs on these matters. The second was an attempt to make a distinction in law between homosexual persons and homosexual activities. The Catholic Church, for example, does not condemn homosexuals as persons; it condemns as sinful those activities which are not only an offense against God, but are destructive of the person, as well as society in the long run. In rejecting these two amendments, Parliament simply decreed that henceforth any negative public reference to homosexuality must be considered a possible hate crime against homosexual persons, prosecutable and (where a verdict of guilty is delivered) punishable by a jail sentence.

Of course, the ink is still wet on the document, and charges have not yet been layed. For the moment we are in the eye of the storm, a temporary calm. There is a widespread drawing back as journalists, teachers, and pastors ponder their options. At the same time activist homosexual groups have been bombarding a number of pro-family, pro-life organizations in this country with mockery and threats, planning strategies (in open forums) for neutralizing all opposition, warning that those who don't keep silent on homosexuality will go to court, and to jail. The high level of emotional violence in homosexual militants' strategy is at times astounding. They seem consumed with hatred and determined to bring about an entire social revolution in their favor.

I should mention at this point that over the years I have known several persons with homosexual inclinations, some of whom are members of my extended family and some of whom I count as friends. Of these, the happiest are those who do not define themselves according to their sexual inclinations. They know that their personhood derives from something else, from their inherent dignity as human beings. By contrast, the unhappy have insisted on the single defining factor of their active homosexuality and pursued it as if it were the only meaning of their lives. Of this latter group three are now dead, one by AIDS, and two others by murder--murder committed by other homosexuals. It should be pointed out that the murderers were people who were not driven to such acts by oppression from a "homophobic" society, but committed their acts from motives of jealousy, rivalry within the "homosexual community."

The level of aggression on the part of militant homosexuals against their critics is indicative of their long-range aims, for it would seem that they have already achieved what they wanted, and then some. During the two years preceding the passage of C-250, a number of significant "human rights" law suits were brought against traditional Christians and Jews. In their decisions, the Canadian courts generally sided against the churches and individuals who did not want to cooperate with the "gay agenda." For example, a printing company that declined to print letterhead and envelopes for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives was brought before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, fined $5,000, incurred $40,000 in legal costs and was forced to print the material or close their business. A Catholic school was coerced by a court order to admit an openly homosexual teenage boy and his older male lover to the school prom; the court also refused the school board permission to cancel the prom. A daily newspaper that published an advertisement page of Biblical quotes regarding homosexuality was fined. Such incidents are multiplying.

Clearly the new law will be used not so much to protect homosexual persons against unjust discrimination as it will be wielded as a cudgel to intimidate those who simply disagree with them and to punish those who are outspoken about it. It will also be used as a wedge to further invade the education systems and potentially invade the life of all families, disrupting the formation of the coming generations.

Under this law, how can we object? Moreover, if the proposed "same-sex marriage" legislation is passed by Parliament, the concept of homosexual unions as a positive fundamental cornerstone of society will enter the mainstream of life in this country. Fostered by all the powers of the State, with the courts ever-ready to inflict punishment on dissenters, it cannot fail to be promoted as a perfectly viable, normal option for young people who are considering their life choices. If the law declares a homosexual union to be a marriage and hence a family, why would it not be considered a cornerstone of society, just like the traditional heterosexual family? To object to this and to a number of false corollaries (adoption of children by homosexual couples, for one) would be to risk violating hate crimes laws. While it is doubtful at this point whether anyone would be convicted under the statutes for the simple misdemeanor of raising an objection, it is probable that dissenters will have to endure a great deal of harassment, legal costs, lost time, and much stress in defending themselves from unjust lawsuits.

The subjectivity of the courts on homosexual issues is a portent of what is coming. A breath of protest from a Christian is examined carefully as a possible hate crime, while aggressive disruptions of peaceful Christian gatherings by gay militants are often overlooked and go unprosecuted. A whiff of Germany in the early 1930's is discernible in the atmosphere. Of course, glancing about our streets we do not see any concentration camps or marching jackboots. But will our prisons some day hold politically incorrect inmates whose only crime is speaking the truth? And as for jackboots, militant homosexual groups have behaved like Nazi hooligans of the late 1920's and early 1930's, for example their recent outrageous behaviour at Archbishop Adam Exner's residence in Vancouver.

It must be understood that the new "hate crimes" law and the same sex "marriage" law are an incestuous partnership, the sole purpose of which is to bring about the enforced restructuring of the nature of human society itself. It is a top-down revolution, and none of the government's pantomime gestures in imitation of a genuine parliamentary democracy will make it anything other than what it is. Both laws have been forced through the legislative process only by violating the basic procedures of democracy, and against the will of an overwhelming majority of citizens in this country. The present government has reassured us that there is no need to be alarmed about the matter, that freedom of conscience will be respected, that the law is only designed to ensure the well-being and civil rights of a small minority, and as such will not affect other people in our society. This argument is more than a case of intelligent people having a lapse into na�vete. This is a ruling oligarchy trying to impose a diktat, but doing it "nicely," which is the Canadian way. The consequences will not be so "nice."

Where is it all Going?

As Aristotle points out in his classic Politics, democracies degenerate into oligarchies, and we in the O-so-enlightened twenty-first century are merely following the long established pattern of decay. This process can be reversed, but it will take effort and courage. Unless there is a renewal of far-seeing thought in our elected representatives, the new "same-sex marriage" bill will indeed pass into law, bringing about negative consequences for generations to come. If it passes, it will be due to the government's policy of maintaining the surface appearance of democracy while undermining its principles.

Is it so far-fetched to consider the possibility that we are in a downward slide toward totalitarianism? Few people would go so far as to maintain that we are living in the early phase of an Orwellian 1984 or alternatively a softer form of totalitarian government such as Huxley's Brave New World, yet the elements of State-enforced social reconstruction are now in operation. We should also consider the fact that in just over one generation we have been shifted from a society in which homosexual acts were a crime under the then existing law, to a society in which homosexual acts have become a government-protected and fostered activity, while voicing criticism of it "publicly" has become the crime. Call it by any name you like, but this is Thought Crime. As Orwell predicted, we have arrived at a situation in which "some of us are more equal than others."

"Crime" is an ambiguous word. Governments of widely differing worldviews use it to restrain anti-social elements in their societies. But the heroism of one nation can be the pathology of another. Regardless of its political philosophy, in every country someone decides who is or is not an anti-social element, determines which of us is "an enemy of the people." So which will we choose, here in this brave new social experiment we have created in Canada? And by what lights and criteria shall we choose? Who will judge our judges? Who will restore to us the tools of discernment if the spectrum of thought has been blanked out in this or that zone, journalism fettered, literature now circumspect (books, after all, are public forums). Where is it all going? Is it back to normal now, business as usual? Or is there another wave coming, propelled by the success of its predecessors? Each of these questions needs sober reflection, but we will be handicapped in our assessment if we have little understanding of how totalitarian regimes develop.

Signs and Elements of Impending Oppression

Let's go a little deeper than the usual Political Science 101 thought-bite on human affairs. Indeed let's look simultaneously deeper and higher--as high as a cosmic perspective perhaps. This could be helpful, because ranging from the proliferating social engineering class to the cynical new criminal classes (I mean thieves and murderers), modern man has pretty much lost his vision of the hierarchical universe. Gone is the sense of the moral absolutes, gone is accountability to any authority outside of whatever political correctness is the current fashion, gone the principle inherent in Western civilization that the honest citizen is an equal partner in a federation of free beings, all under the mantle of exterior transcendent absolutes that protect the human community from the subjectivity of aggressive social movements. That mantle has been discarded in the public forum. We should ask ourselves what will go next. The philosopher Peter Kreeft once wrote that a people who abandon moral absolutes will inevitably be ruled by a police state. "We choose," he said, "either conscience or cops."

The word totalitarianism usually generates impressions of dictatorial systems which brutally crush civic freedoms and negate the humanity of their subjects in an effort to achieve complete control. Images of barbed wire, jack-boots and thought-control are conjured up in our minds. 20th century literature has given us some powerful works of fiction which suggest a variety of possible totalitarian futures: one thinks immediately of Orwell and Huxley. But the societies they described were very different from each other. Indeed, as in fiction, actual tyrant states can assume many masks. What should be discerned are the elements common to those governments that oppress their peoples.

Common to all of them is the absolutising of the power of the State or systems controlled by the State. In order to succeed in this, totalitarian governments must invariably strive to do away with genuine absolutes and to establish false absolutes in their place. Genuine absolutes are fundamental, ultimate, unqualified truths, independent of the ebb and flow of cultures, fashions, myths and prejudices. Human nature (never perfect) more or less thrives upon such absolutes. Upon such absolutes healthy societies are built, and though these societies are never perfect they are generally beneficial to their peoples. An example of genuine moral absolutes is the Ten Commandments. An example of false absolutes can be found in Marx's ideology, where the theory of dialectic is posited as the mechanism which determines human history----an abstraction that has resulted in many millions of violent deaths.

The absolute ruler always attempts to destroy diversity in the name of unity. What he really means by the word "unity" is uniformity, sameness. He cannot remain content with a pacified populace, because there always lurks beneath the surface of even the passive a potential for dissent, the threat of revolt against his power. Thus the pacified must be re-educated, so that at the core of their thinking no virus of resistance remains. The totalitarian begins with a seemingly benign re-education, but as he extends his grasp into more and more aspects of human life he gradually becomes hostile to everything outside of his own will. As his power becomes near absolute it grows increasingly negative, because by its very nature it must oppose what cannot be extinguished in the human person. It must seek at some point to destroy the inviolability of conscience and the inner impulse to genuine creativity which depends for its well-being on freedom from manipulation.

The individual tyrant rarely looks like a monster in the beginning. He usually appears as a saviour of his people, though once he has attained power he will eventually show his hand----at root he merely wishes to accumulate as much power as possible in order to obtain an absolute security or glory for himself, and to enjoy it at any cost. This kind of tyrant is not difficult to identify, given enough time. When he runs out of gasoline or bullets or wheat the people cast him off, because he is a monster who looks like a monster. He has blown his cover. There is little depth to such men, for they exemplify "the banality of evil," to borrow Hanna Arendt's phrase.

Beware of Deadly Idealists

More difficult to identify is the idealistic tyrant who expands his power in a sincere effort to protect what he considers to be the good of his subjects. He will reduce crime, balance the budget, bring order and a measure of material plenty to the nation. He will surely labour to make a better citizen of the raw material of his subjects. There can be a reassuring sense of security in all this--in the beginning. We feel so much safer in a milieu of dependable public services and an ordered economy, though we would, perhaps, remain uneasy about trading away certain freedoms in exchange for them. But it is precisely the elimination of personal responsibility which is the new totalitarian's ultimate goal, for this is what he sees as our fatal flaw.

It must be understood that the highly motivated idealist is not merely interested in improving the exterior forms of society. Ultimately, he wishes to reform us to the core, to save us from ourselves. Of course, he will find that basic human nature is rather difficult to remold, and as time goes on he will need to continuously expand his power until his control approaches the level of totality. If he is clever at it and fills up the world with beautiful rhetoric, and takes care not to grossly infringe upon our pleasurable rights, and if, at the same time, he takes upon his own shoulders our unpleasant rights, the ones which demand effort and sacrifice, then he may get away with it. This is never more possible than in a historical period of extreme stress. In such a climate the lifting of our responsibilities is not felt as deprivation; it feels, rather, like relief from intolerable tensions. Somebody at last is doing something about the human condition! A sick society is getting therapy! A cancer patient puts himself into the hands of his doctor, so why shouldn't a "dysfunctional" people entrust itself to its sociopolitical physicians?

Somewhere during the therapy there is a decisive transfer of power and responsibility. When this happens on a massive scale something is seriously amiss. There may not be brown-shirts and jackboots marching in the streets. No public book-burnings. No grotesque executions. In some cases there may even be no visible dictator, only a system or a social philosophy which permeates and controls everything. Indeed, the world may appear to be perfectly normal. The philosopher Josef Pieper points out that this is the most dangerous form of totalitarianism of all, almost impossible to throw off, because it never appears to be what, in fact, it is.

In his prescient book, The Judgment of the Nations, historian Christopher Dawson warns:

"Thus, the situation that Christians have to face today has more in common with that described by the author of the Apocalypse than with the age of St. Augustine. The world is strong and it has evil masters. But these masters are not vicious autocrats like Nero and Domitian. They are the engineers of the mechanism of world power: a mechanism that is more formidable than anything the ancient world knew, because it is not confined to external means, like the despotisms of the past, but uses all the resources of modern psychology to make the human soul the motor of its dynamic purpose."

Writing in the late 1940's, Dawson was describing the shape of a possible future, a global non-violent totalitarianism that is the most serious of all tyrannies because in it evil has become depersonalised, separated from individual appetite and passion, and "exalted into a sphere in which all moral values are confused and transformed." "The great terrorists" he points out, "have not been immoral men, but rigid puritans who did evil coldly, by principle."

In his memoirs, Inside the Third Reich, Albert Speer, Hitler's architect and armaments minister, wrote about the state of mind of the German people as Hitler rose to power. He says that most Germans disliked the sinister side of Hitler's policies, but in a spirit of optimism they assumed that he would leave behind his more unpleasant policies once he attained the dignity of high office. They overlooked his errors because they thought his form of law and order would be a lesser evil than the social disruption they were suffering during the nineteen twenties and early thirties. By succumbing to the "lesser evil" argument, they brought upon the world an evil of epic proportions.

We Must be Rooted in the Truth in Order to Resist

But what happens to the discernment of a people when a tyrant arrives without the usual sinister costumes of brutal dictators? What happens when the errors come in pleasing disguises, and are promoted by articulate, educated people who speak only in measured tones? Those living in such an environment have more than one difficulty to overcome in accurately assessing what is happening. They find themselves within the events which are unfolding, and thus are faced with the problem of perception: how to see the structure of their times, how to step outside of it and to view it objectively while remaining within it as a participant, as an agent for the good.

How are we to do this if we are not rooted in the truth? Will we be willing to compromise moral absolutes as the State more and more invades private life (the social indoctrination of our children is a prime example) merely because persuasive idealists say we should? Will the homogenization of our children's minds be acceptable simply because we want the next generation to be nicely outfitted to cope with a profoundly disordered society? Will we be willing to sacrifice any moral principle in society for the sake of the illusion of unity? Just as Dawson predicted, the confusion and transformation of moral values is seen widely as a moral cause.

How long will it take for our people to understand that when humanist sentiments replace moral absolutes, it is not long before very idealistic people begin to invade human families in the name of the family, and destroy human lives in the name of humanity? This is the idealist's greatest temptation, the temptation by which nations and cultures so often fall. The wielder of power is deluded into thinking he can remold reality into a less unkind condition. If he succeeds in convincing his people of the delusion and posits for them an enemy of the collective good, then unspeakable evils can be released in society.

Those who share a mass-delusion rarely recognize it as such, and can pursue the most heinous acts in a spirit of self-righteousness. Democracies are not immune from such delusions, although they tend to forms of oppression which are not overtly violent in the beginning. Democracies in decline, however, will eventually revert to covert oppression and the overt erosion of human rights, which is the Siamese twin of eroded personal responsibility. Are we there yet? If it is true that rhetoric about freedom and democracy intensifies as the real thing declines (thinkers as diverse as Orwell, Huxley, Dawson, and Pieper are agreed on this point), then the Western world has indeed entered a period of institutionalized unreality.

The social revolution is far from over. Crucial choices have arrived and more are approaching. The abortion and euthanasia issues are the most ugly of these crises, but they are symptoms of something deeper, and that "something" is no less than the auto-demolition of a civilization, beginning with the eradication of its moral foundations. The homosexual revolution, institutionalized by the powers of the State, is but one component in this ongoing process. Polygamy and paedophilic "marriage" are on the horizon. Euthanasia is already a widespread practice, which in all probability will be legitimized by new laws, given enough time and media propaganda. Malcolm Muggeridge once pointed out that the only reason it has been slow in coming is that it was one of the war crimes condemned at N�rnberg. Note carefully, however, that in the modern age it takes little more than one generation to turn a war crime into an "act of compassion."

Now May be the Last Brief Period to Reverse the Tide

For several years now we have lived in a situation very close to the crisis which Germany reached when the National Socialists enacted the racial laws, when state-sanctioned evil was funded by a large number of its citizenry who regarded the acts they were paying for through taxes to be gravely wrong. It is a sobering thought that it all came about through the democratic process. Only hindsight informs us that unspeakable horrors were released precisely because an aggressive and immoral political party, sanctioned by the elusive "voice of the people," had attained the highest offices in the land. Thus, within a few short years, democracy was turned against itself in one of the most civilized nations of Europe, and as a result disaster spread throughout the world. It began with average decent Germans not understanding the nature of totalitarianism, nor of democracy itself, nor of the cost in preserving it. In the end they became "law-abiding" citizens of hell on earth.

And what of us? Are we all now to become law-abiding citizens of a nation that is destroying itself, that has already destroyed hundreds of thousands of its own children and forced taxpayers to fund it? Though we do not yet have the benefit of full hindsight regarding our own nation, we would do well to exercise some foresight and reflect upon what is next. Because there will be a "next" as the social revolution presses onward toward its concept of total victory. We must ask ourselves if, in a few short years from now, the uncooperative Christian or Jew or Muslim (or, for that matter, the non-religious classical democrat) will be considered "an enemy of the people." And will those families which fail to conform to State-defined notions of social hygiene be categorised as "dysfunctional," and thus undeserving of custody of their children? If we should wake up some morning to find that a massive infrastructure of conditioners has accomplished the total re-engineering of society, will we look back upon the present as the last brief period in which it was still possible to reverse the tide?

Canadian artist and author, Michael O'Brien, has written seven novels including the widely acclaimed Father Elijah, and A Cry of Stone. Notable among his non-fiction books are The Family and the New Totalitarianism and his examination of the paganization of children's literature, A Landscape With Dragons. His forthcoming novel, Sophia House , deals in part with the issue of homosexuality. It will be published in the spring of 2005 by Ignatius Press, San Francisco. His writings on the new totalitarianism can be found on his website: http://www.studiobrien.com

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).


Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
Executive Vice President of the Orthodox Union (Posted June 2008)

It is high time for a statement asserting and explaining the traditional Jewish position on homosexuality. Various Jewish groups have left the impression with the public at large that Judaism is supportive of homosexual behavior to the extent of endorsing same sex marriage. Thus it is imperative for the Orthodox world to make our position clear once more.

The position of traditional Judaism on homosexual behavior is clear and unambiguous, terse and absolute. Homosexual behavior between males or between females is absolutely forbidden by Jewish law, beginning with the biblical imperative, alluded to numerous times in the Talmud and codified in the Shulchan Aruch.

The position of Judaism on marriage is equally clear. Judaism recognizes marriage as a fundamental human institution, and affirms marriage only between a man and woman.

Judaism recognizes the central role of the two-parent, mother-father led family as the vital institution in shaping the entire human race. Within the Jewish people, the two-parent marriage is a model not only for human relations but for relations with the Divine. The Almighty Himself is seen as being a third partner to the father-mother configuration, and the central role of the family, unless circumstances make it impossible, is to conceive and raise children, thereby perpetuating the human race and for Jews, ensuring the continuity of the Jewish people.

I contest the description of Jewish values that has been foisted upon the public by numerous spokesmen of various factions of Judaism, most recently, and extremely, in the David Ellenson essay on these pages ( Same Sex Marriage, In The Jewish Tradition, March 12). To argue that same-sex marriage is consistent with the traditions of Judaism is intellectually dishonest at best and blasphemous at worst.

Nevertheless, while the sources irrevocably forbid homosexual relationships and overt homosexual behavior, there are other issues that are more nuanced and must be clarified. One has to do with the attitude toward homosexual individuals prescribed by Jewish tradition. Here it is critical to adopt the distinction, already implicit in numerous rabbinical texts, between the sin and the sinner; that is, between the person and his or her behavior. Given the nature of our times, it is impossible to formally condemn people who violate Jewish norms. Orthodox Jews and Orthodox synagogues display various degrees of tolerance and acceptance to individuals who are violators of the halachic aspects of the Sabbath, or individuals who flagrantly violate the kashrut laws. The tolerance rightly shown to these individuals by no means condones their behavior, but accepts them as people who may be misled or uninformed. While tolerance for individuals who manifest homosexual tendencies is certainly a Jewish value, and consistent with some of the core values to which Rabbi Ellenson refers, there is a great difference between tolerance for an individual and recognition of a movement which wishes to turn something clearly wrong by Jewish standards into something not only tolerated but normative.

Observant Jews must have an attitude of empathy and understanding for individuals who say, I have these urges, I can t help them. But we cannot accept those who would say, I have these urges, they are God-given and therefore it is a mitzvah to follow them.

Another complex issue that needs to be addressed is the degree to which this clear Jewish position should be translated into public policy in a pluralistic democratic society. Here, people of good will can debate the merits of whether any religion can urge its values upon the greater society. Here we can disagree, although I personally believe that all religions have the responsibility of educating the public to core values that we believe have universal, as well as particular, religious import. In this connection we ought to consider a Talmudic passage (Chullin 92a) that says that the nations of the world, however sinful, corrupt or perverse, still have the merit of at least three behaviors, one of which is they do not write a ketubah for males.

We can also debate the wisdom of a constitutional amendment defining marriage. It can be argued that any tampering with the U.S. Constitution, a document that arguably has done more for the Jewish people than any other secular document in historical memory, is a risky proposition. However, whatever your position on the constitutional amendment, the inclusion of same-sex relationships in the definition of marriage is something that any Jew of conscience should oppose.

I, and other Orthodox leaders did not foster this debate; it has been brought upon us. We are taught that certain aspects of human behavior, even very normal and natural functions, are best treated with modesty and privacy. However, the extreme statements and declarations that have been made, and lately in the very name of Judaism, simply cannot be allowed to pass without protest. We cannot be silent upon occasions where Judaism is fraudulently depicted as condoning something that its Torah clearly and irreversibly condemns.

I very much support the way the parents are handling this and I much dislike the twist their son is trying to give it and his attitude as well.

Die Bibel stellt doch die Liebe zwischen Menschen desselben Geschlechts mit der von Mann und Frau gleich. Seht euch doch nur mal David und Jonathan oder Ruth und Naomi an!

Ja, in der Bibel ist die Rede von der Liebe zwischen Menschen desselben Geschlechts. Das hat aber rein gar nichts mit einer "homosexuellen" Liebe zu tun. Wir sollten uns sehr davor hüten, unsere eigene Wunschvorstellungen in die Bibel hinein zu lesen! "Liebe" so wie Gott sie versteht ist nicht gleichzusetzen mit "Liebe" wie sie gefallene Menschen verstehen.

Segnung von gleichgeschlechtlichen Paaren?

Immer wieder wird auch von gläubigen Christen die Segnung von gleichgeschlechtlichen Paaren befürwortet. Was ist schon dabei? Ist Segnung nicht etwas Gutes?

Ist sie, eben deshalb ist das ein grober Missbrauch von kirchlichen Riten.

„Segen (althochdeutsch segan, auch segon, segin, segen[1], entlehnt aus lateinisch signum 'Zeichen, Abzeichen, Kennzeichen', ab dem späten 2. Jahrhundert auch Kreuzzeichen) bezeichnet in Religionen ein Gebet oder einen Ritus, wodurch Personen oder Sachen Anteil an göttlicher Kraft oder Gnade bekommen sollen. Der christliche Begriff Segen entspricht dem lateinischen Wort benedictio, abgeleitet von benedicere aus bene „gut“ und dicere „sagen“ (also eigentlich von jemandem gut sprechen, jemand loben, preisen). Durch das Latein der Kirche bedeutet benedicere ab dem 3. Jahrhundert auch „segnen, benedeien, den Segen ausprechen über usw.“

Ziel des Segens ist die Förderung von Glück und Gedeihen oder die Zusicherung von Schutz und Bewahrung. Der Segen erfolgt mit Worten und Gebärden (z. B. Handauflegung, Segensgestus, Ausbreiten der Hände, Kreuzzeichen, Salbung), die die wohltätige Zuwendung eines Gottes zu der gesegneten Person oder der gesegneten Sache symbolisieren (siehe Segenszeichen).“ (Wikipedia)

Wie kann etwas Anteil an göttlicher Kraft oder Gnade bekommen, das durch seine bloße Existenz oder den Vollzug von etwas dem innersten Wesen des christlichen Glaubens widerspricht?

Eine lebenslange und monogame Ehe zwischen Mann und Frau ist ein Bund, bei dem sich der Mann in lebensspendender Art und Weise der Frau hingibt (im Gegensatz zum zivilrechtlichen Vertrag, bei dem Eigentum oder Rechte ausgetauscht werden). In ähnlicher Art und Weise hat sich Jesus Seiner Braut, der Kirche hingegeben. Mann und Frau werden eins – so sehr eins, dass man diesem „eins“ neun Monate später einen Namen geben muss (sozusagen ein Abbild der Dreifaltigkeit). Sinn und Zweck der Ehe ist sowohl das Wohl der Ehegatten als auch die Zeugung von Nachwuchs (also keineswegs nur die Nachkommenschaft allein, wie fälschlicherweise oft angeführt wird. Die Bibel selbst betont den Wert und die Freude an Sexualität, so wie Gott sie versteht!). Nichts anderes als die Ehe zwischen Mann und Frau kommt dem gleich. Etwas, das dem in grober Weise widerspricht, kann auch nicht unter göttlichen Schutz und göttlicher Gnade gestellt werden. Wenn alleine ein diffuses und unbestimmtes Gefühl (zur Erinnerung: Gefühle kommen und gehen; Liebe ist mehr als nur ein Gefühl!) ausreicht, um unter den besonderen Schutz Gottes gestellt zu werden, so erhält man absurde Ergebnisse, wenn man diese Logik weiter verfolgt. Was oder wen kann man nicht alles „lieben“!

Diese traditionelle christliche Ehe ist auch nicht das Produkt einer bestimmten Kultur oder nur zum Lebenserhalt der damaligen Menschen bestimmt. Sie wurde in unterschiedlichsten biblischen Büchern zu unterschiedlichsten Zeiten und Kulturen als wichtig erachtet – und letztlich von Jesus selbst bekräftigt, der eindeutig auf den Standard von Genesis verwies. Ihm kann man wohl kaum unterstellen, er hätte keine Ahnung von „Liebe“ gehabt, so wie wir sie kennen – oder dies nur für eine bestimmte Zeit gesagt. Nichts davon lässt sich aus der Bibel und Kirchengeschichte belegen.

Wenn man das Ganze nun in wohlklingende christliche Phrasen kleidet, sagt man eigentlich mehr über sich selbst aus, als über das, was man dadurch begründen möchte. 

Wenn zwei (oder mehr?) Menschen ein wie auch immer geartetes Gefühl der „Liebe“ haben, so ist es, was es ist: ein Gefühl. Das alleine macht nichts, aber auch gar nichts moralisch gut oder richtig und erst recht nicht akzeptabel aus christlicher Sicht. Wenn alles, was Menschen „lieben“ können, an sich schon eine kirchliche Segnung bekommen dürfte, würde das zu untragbaren Folgerungen führen, wenn diese Argumentation auf andere Konstellationen des Zusammenlebens ausgeweitet wird. Wenn sie denn so „tiefgläubig“ sind, wie oft angeführt wird, sollten sie auch den Geboten der Bibel und der Kirche folgen. Diese wurden schließlich zum Schutz des eigenen Seelenheils erlassen – und nicht, weil uns jemand gerne herum kommandiert.

Wenn „tiefgläubig“ jedoch nur ein abstrakter Ausdruck des intellektuellen Glaubens an Gott ist, so sagt uns die Bibel selbst, dass selbst die Dämonen glauben. Wenn der Glaube sich nicht in Werken zeigt, ist er sinn- und wertlos.

Auf Basis all dessen ist es also grundfalsch, zu behaupten, gleichgeschlechtliche Paare würden „bereits in und mit dem Segen Gottes leben“, alleine weil sie sich „lieben“ und „tiefgläubig“ sind.

Da hilft es dann auch nicht, wenn derartige Irrlehren von „Theologen“ verbreitet werden. Eine irrige Überzeugung ist und bleibt falsch – egal, wie viele Titel der Autor der Irrlehre anführt.

Die Kirche ist keine Demokratie, bei der über Glaubensüberzeugungen abgestimmt wird – und darf dies auch niemals sein. Wohin eine manchmal geforderte „Reformation“ führt, sieht man ja momentan anhand der Evangelischen Kirche. Diese ist spirituell gesehen im freien Fall. Dafür hätte man wirklich keine „Reformation“ gebraucht.

Man hilft Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen nicht, wenn man ihre Verbindungen segnet. Wer Liebe an den falschen Orten und bei den falschen Menschen sucht, sollte auch nicht noch den Stempel der Kirche bekommen, sondern stattdessen eine unterstützende Seelsorge (wie sie etwa seit langem von der Einrichtung Jason https://jason-online.webs.com angeboten und stur von vielen Kirchen und Gemeinden ignoriert wird – teils auf Basis von Vorurteilen, teils aus reiner Unkenntnis).

Leider ist die Kirche teils zu einem „Wohlfühl-Christentum“ verkommen, wo die subjektive Wellness des Einzelnen und nicht das Große Gebot und der Missionsauftrag Jesu im Mittelpunkt steht. Für Wellness mit einem spirituellen Touch braucht aber niemand die christliche Kirche, weshalb sie drauf und dran ist, in der Bedeutungslosigkeit zu verschwinden. Wenn die Kirche versucht, wie die Welt zu sein, gibt es keinen Grund mehr für ihre Existenz.

Ich finde es peinlich, wenn sogar Priester aberwitzige pseudo-wissenschaftliche Begründungen für ihre Thesen anführen – etwa, dass es „Homosexualität“ ja auch im Tierreich gebe. Es gibt auch Spinnenarten, die nach der Begattung ihre männlichen Partner töten. Ist das alleine deshalb schon richtig, weil es im Tierreich vorkommt und deshalb auch für die moralische Bewertung menschlichen Handels gelten soll? Mit Verlaub, das ist armselig.

„Gott ist Liebe“ - mit diesem Grundsatz wird alles gerechtfertigt, was sich irgendwie Liebe nennt. Was aber wahre Liebe im christlichen Sinne ist, hat uns Jesus selbst vorgelebt. Dies mit gleichgeschlechtlichen (und möglicherweise auch anderen?) Verbindungen zu vergleichen, ist Theologie für Arme.

Wer die Bibel her nimmt, um seine eigenen Überzeugungen zu billigen, missbraucht diese und schafft sich seinen eigenen Glauben – und Gott. Das ist Götzendienst in Reinform.

Die traditionelle christliche Ehe wird im besten Theologen-Deutsch als „Engführung“ bezeichnet – was den Zustand (besonders der deutschen!) Theologie widerspiegelt, über die zu Recht das christliche Ausland verständnislos den Kopf schüttelt.

Wenn dann sogar Priester fordern, die Kirche solle gleichgeschlechtliche Paare segnen, damit diese ihre Verbindung „mit Gottes Liebe recht leben können“, so frage ich mich ernsthaft, wo diese Männer Theologie studiert haben und wer ihnen eine Gemeinde zur Leitung übertragen hat.

Wie es so schön heißt: Das Gegenteil von gut ist gut gemeint – und darunter dürfte Vieles dieser Schwulen-freundlichen „Theologie“ fallen.

Wir leben in einer Zeit, in der ein Großteil derer, die eigentlich die Kirche leiten sollen, versagen und die Menschen in die Irre führen.

Dies ist aber kein Grund zur Verzweiflung. Christen haben etwas, was vielen anderen fehlt: Hoffnung. In solchen Zeiten ruft Gott auch und gerade einfache Menschen, aufzustehen und für Ihn und Seine Kirche einzutreten. Nichts anderes waren die Apostel – einfache Menschen, die dem Ruf Jesu gefolgt waren.

München den 12.06.2015

Robert Gollwitzer

Jason International


Wir leben in einer eingetragenen Lebenspartnerschaft, weil mein Partner einmal die Witwenrente bekommen soll, wenn ich tot bin!

Derartiges hört man, wenn man nachfragt, warum es denn eigentlich dieser eingetragenen Lebenspartnerschaft bedarf - man kann auch ohne sie alles Nötige per zivilrechtlichen Vertrag regeln. Mit diesem "Argument" gibt es aber einige Probleme: Nehmen wir eine heterosexuelle Ehe mit Kindern. Mann und Frau bekommen Kinder und ziehen sie groß. Jahrzehnte später stirbt der Mann und die Frau bekommt Witwenrente. Wenn Menschen in einer eingetragenen Lebenspartnerschaft dieselbe Rente bekommen, ergibt dies ein grobes Ungleichgewicht. Die Mutter konnte jahrelang nicht arbeiten und Sozialversicherungsbeiträge leisten, da sie für die Kinder da war. Und DESHALB bekommt sie die Witwenrente! Selbstverständlich soll dieser Mehrwert, den eine Familie mit Kindern erbringt, auch durch einen finanziellen Mehrwert ausgeglichen werden! Zwei gleichgeschlechtliche erwachsene Menschen können beide arbeiten und tragen nicht zum Fortbestand der Gesellschaft bei. Soll denn die Sicherung dieses Fortbestandes überhaupt nicht gewürdigt werden? Wenn es nur gleichgeschlechtliche Paare geben würde, würde unsere Gesellschaft aussterben! Offenbar argumentieren gleichgeschlechtliche Paare zumeist für sich selbst. Familien aber sorgen für die gesamte Gesellschaft - für unser Volk!

How Does Gay "Marriage" Affect Us?

From a friend on facebook:

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO ALWAYS try to get in all three prongs of the argument. Different issues resound with different people.


1) Legal -- the people (States) have a right to define marriage because they are financially and legally invested in it. The government cannot require us to pay taxes, subsidies, enforce laws, honor licenses in the form of marriage benefits to such 'couples' without providing a return (if we so vote - as most states have). Married people do something 'extra' to earn public benefits. The return is the creation of the future - because WE ALL USE the children of the future. Our future doctors, policemen, cable guy, etc. Do not fall for arguments like "the infertile or elderly". Court cases have already noted that the government has no idea who is infertile, no idea who is medically correctable, no idea what the future holds and no authority to find out. Simply put -- it is ruled "unenforceable". In the case of two people of the same sex, however, we don't have to play stupid that they produce nothing under any circumstances to earn those benefits we subsidize. The elderly, in most cases, have ALREADY raised their children, done that work and expended their fortunes doing it - they aren't 89 year old virgins. The law applies solid common sense to these arguments. The public must receive some benefit for their investment. This argument has been repeatedly upheld by state and federal courts.

2) Health - the FDA, US Medical Board and medical boards around the world have banned those engaging in homosexuality from donating sperm, blood and organs -- because it was KILLING people. We shouldn't have to go into graphic detail to explain how misusing the body results in higher rates of cancer, hepatitis, bacterial infections, reactive arthritis, AIDS and a hundred other conditions you've never heard of except posted on this page. WHY would the public be interested in encouraging more of it and teaching or exposing it to children ? Monogamy and condoms do not prevent cancer and many others. Small, independent doctors groups have been campaigning against encouraging these pseudo-marriages (we've posted them - the ones not beholden to large left wing donations).

3) Religious - besides your religious doctrine (since every religion opposes the behavior, most likely established millenia ago due to the disease issues - even the EGYPTIANs commented on it), there is the fact that while certain groups stomp around talking about their rights - what they really mean is what they WISH was their rights because there is only ONE specified constitutionally protected BEHAVIOR, and that is the RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. "Because God says so" is not a public policy argument - it is an argument of personal religious conviction and that is fine. But God gave us brains to make effective public policy arguments too. A lot of people rightfully understand and respect your personal convictions but are waiting to hear why those who don't share your faith should be subject to your personal convictions. The "religious public policy" answer to that is that religion is constitutionally protected and sexual preference is NOT. Imposing the behavior on you, your children, your place of work, your business or in any unreasonable way in your life is a violation of a real constitutional right that we need to fight to retain and protect. It isn't that we're imposing religion on others - it's that the Constitution protects us from them imposing their ways on us. Passing marriage laws that violate our ways by force of law violates the 1st Amendment.

Restored Hope Network's Position Statement on Marriage:

Why RHN Advocates for Marriage

RHN upholds the original definition of marriage as understood through Scripture and the history of humanity: one man committed for one woman for the sake of the children they create and/or will influence through their marriage.

Supporting this definition has become necessary in light of recent efforts to alter it to include homosexual unions. In January of 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the USA to legalize ‘gay marriage’; since then, activists have sought to normalize ‘gay marriage’ by encouraging court and legislative decisions, and by convincing the public that changing the definition of marriage is an expression of justice for homosexuals.

RHN declares that ‘gay marriage’ is no marriage at all but a counterfeit that actually promotes injustice.

RHN contends that marriage was designed by God and upheld by the governments of the earth to promote ‘the common good.’ That design, as revealed by nature, and described in Scripture in the creation of Eve from Adam and the reuniting of the two as one-flesh (Gen. 1 and 2), constitutes RHN’s understanding of God’s intention for marriage. (1)

Man needs woman and woman needs man. Neither two men nor two women can create a sexual whole; the one gender possesses what the other gender needs. In giving complementary gifts, one gender balances and draws out the other in a manner that creates a whole. Such wholeness releases ‘goods’ that benefit all, especially the children most influenced by it (2). Justice for children involves one man committed to one woman for their sake.
At the center of this understanding of marriage are two people who seal their relationship with a generative act. That not only unites them but also orients them toward children. Though one need not procreate to be married, marriage is defined by the act that is essential to the creating of children.

Becoming ‘one-flesh’ unites man and woman for life; it also includes them to bring up their children together. That is why both God and state encourage norms of monogamy and fidelity in marriage. (3) Both uphold the dignity of each spouse, and of the child who needs a mother and a father in order to thrive. (4)
RHN believes that the dignity of man, woman, and child depends upon the willingness of both spouses to make and keep a vow of marital fidelity. ‘Gay marriage’ challenges such dignity by normalizing what is now described as ‘monogamish’: the trend of some same-gender ‘marrieds’ to aspire to emotional intimacy with one party but to engage sexually with others (5). In that way, redefining marriage weakens the essential boundary of sexual commitment, a distortion most harmful to the children subject to a parent’s multiple partnerships (6).

RHN contends that the state should support the true definition of marriage. Such a definition helps promote the common good, which is justice for all. That applies to children who need both a mother and father, and to gay-identified persons who benefit from the truth that eroticized friendships can never approximate marriage. The state serves its citizens well by upholding the original intention and definition of marriage. Generations-to-come will take cues from the culture and will derive (in part) their view of marriage from its legal definition. The state’s conception of marriage matters to all.

As a Christ-centered network of ministries of restoration for persons seeking to overcome sexual problems, especially homosexual ones, RHN realizes the limits of the law. While the state can look out for the common good and restrain evil, it cannot redeem lives. Only Jesus can. Yet we realize that our fellow humanity will be impacted by redefining marriage. Legalizing ‘gay marriage’ will further damage marriage and hurt those influenced by it.

Caitlin Flanagan writes: ‘No other single force is causing as much measurable hardship in this country as the collapse of marriage.’ (7) Redefining marriage contributes to this collapse and will result in more human brokenness, especially in the lives of children who are subject to adult moral decisions and the laws that influence them.

We thus refuse to acknowledge the validity of ‘gay marriage’; it does not originate in God’s design for humanity but in a misbegotten justice that disrupts the common good.

Corruption begins with a failure to call things by their proper names. ‘Gay marriage’ is a misnomer that citizens of the state and church would be wise to refuse. Marriage belongs only to one man committed to one woman for the good of all.

We at RHN also realize that ‘gay marriage’ is a symptom of the heterosexual immorality that preceded it: extramarital sex, adultery, pornography, divorce, and abortion, to name a few. We contest whatever is hostile to marriage. Our pastoral efforts to restore those broken by sexual sin are the foundation for our social policy on marriage. (8)RHN makes every effort to ensure the integrity of this most important relationship.

1. Dr. Robert Gagnon, “Why ‘Gay Marriage’ is Wrong,” July 2004, pp. 1, 2.
2. Dr. John Haas, “Marriage as a Common Good,” Theology of the Body and Sexual Ethics lecture, June 29th, 2011.
3. Dr. Robert George, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” pp. 1-23; Dr. Robert George, “Law and Moral Purpose,” First Things, January 2008, pp. 5,6.
4. Dr. Mark Regnerus, New Family Structures Study, University of Texas, 2012.
5. Mark Oppenheimer, “Married with Infidelities,” New York Times Magazine, July 3rd 2011, pp. 21-27.
6. Dr. Mark Regenerus…
7. Caitlin Flanagan, “Why Marriage Matters,” Time Magazine, July 13th, 2009, p. 46.
8. Andrew Comiskey, “Compassion and Justice: Why We Stand for Marriage in the Public Square,” Kingdom and Culture, June 2011, pp. 1, 2.


I had a friend ask a question on another forum about how heterosexual and homosexual relationships differed psychologically This was my answer.
There is a difference in the heterosexual dynamic but there are similarities. When a heterosexual falls in love he is projecting his suppressed feminine side or what Jung called the animus onto his love object. The gay man is projecting his suppressed masculine side or anima. This is the first difference. The heterosexual is experiencing through his love object a hidden but minor part of his whole self. When the gay man experiences his own masculinity or anima as a projection on the other man he is experiencing a suppressed core part of himself. That is why gay love and gay sex is so intense compared to heterosexual love and sex and why so often it feels like a compulsion. That is also why the experience at the end of a couple of years when reality breaks through so often differs.
For the heterosexual man he may have had the experience he needed to sufficiently "meet" and incorporate this part of himself into himself. The civilizing impact of marriage on men is well documented. As they reunite with this feminine side of themselves they actually incorporate it into their consciousness and passion turns to compassion and this is reflected in a different set of bonding chemicals in the brain. Sexual attraction and attachment to a projection turns to bonding to a real separate person and real love. The relationship can become very close and sweet.

One of the reasons heterosexual marriage is in trouble is that men marry when they are not fully connected to their own masculinity. Most men in modern culture carry wounds from a lack of connection to their fathers meaning their sense of their masculinity is not fully developed. They go to the woman to affirm their masculinity which a woman cannot do. Being immature as men they miss the opportunity to connect to their animus.

When the gay man begins to see through to the other person, the gay relationship does not allow them to reattach in their conscious mind with their hidden masculinity or anima. Instead it makes them even more estranged from their masculinity. You see their anima is a core part of their personality. It is simply to big a part of them to be restored through an affair with a man. Otherwise a gay affair would turn them straight. The drive to reunite with it will not fade because of a few years of interacting with a projection of it. Only doing the kind of gender affirming work that we do in reparative therapy or other men's work will reunite a man with his own suppressed anima. I should mention that in a micro sense the process does work. Within a short time the man I projected on and who now has seen reality break through is no longer sexy to me. In regard to him I am for all practical purposes heterosexual. Many men with a history of acting out have experienced this with a single sex act. Immediately after you are done the person no longer is of any sexual interest to you. You may have experienced this with an image as well. Sometimes when the brain chemistry is right this can take a couple of years. With heterosexual couples the intensity of sexual attraction might fade but not the way it does in gay relationships. That is because they still carry complementary masculine and feminine personalities and bodies. For the gay couple once the projection is gone the sex if it remains at all will be one of convenience rather like consensual sex by heterosexuals in prison.

(Author: Don. Used with permission)

Defeat gay 'marriage?' – 'We've got to actually talk sex'

Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)

Dr. Michael Brown vs. Prof. Eric Smaw on Same-Sex "Marriage": Should It Be Legal?

Links International

Is God Anti-Gay? Answering Tough Questions About Same-Sex Marriage | Sam Allberry

Prof. Robert P. George: Religious liberty cannot exist without marriage

Jesus showed mercy when it came to the fulfillment of the law. Shouldn’t we do the same?

Such arguments are sometimes brought up by Christians when it comes to divorce between a man and a woman or also living out one’s same-sex attractions.

So how about it? Should we?

In short: If you open that door, you will not be able to shut it anymore. That leaves room for all sorts of moral relativism. Basically what we are doing here is putting ourselves on the throne that only belongs to God.

Didn’t Jesus see the bigger meaning behind keeping the laws? Didn’t He blame the Pharisees for keeping the Sabbath at all costs when other things – like saving a human life – might be more important? Yes, He most certainly did. So why can’t we do the same? In some sense, we can and we should. Jesus told us the deeper meaning behind the Ten Commandments – which in a sense even made it harder for us. We are not simply a “good person” anymore for not killing anybody, we messed it up with God for not having protected human lives and stood up against abortion for instance. When Jesus was asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce from his wife under certain circumstances, He did not simply answer with “yes” or “no” – He went all the way back to quote the standard from Genesis. That ought to teach us something about the validity of certain laws and whether or not to go away from them. He did so not to show that He could also be unmerciful, but because He loves us and knows that everything else that is not in line with that standard is not what our loving Father wants for His children. It is not approved by God and will have consequences for us.

So what if a couple just cannot live together anymore or the husband beats up his wife? Under certain circumstances it is necessary for them to separate for a limited period of time – to prevent further physical or emotional hurts. This is to be done with the prospect of getting back together again. If this does not work out – maybe because the husband fails to repent and would beat up his wife again – a permanent separation might be needed. However, this does not put an end to the marriage. Marriage is not a contract where we exchange properties, it is a life-giving covenant that reflects the covenant Jesus made with His bride the Church – He gave His life so we could live! There are no two covenants like that. This is not un-merciful – quite on the contrary. God does this because He loves us and knows what is best for us. Even if a second marriage is out of question, we can still have a fulfilled life following Jesus Christ!

So what about same-sex acts or couples? If they absolutely cannot change, would it not be appropriate to apply the same rules on those couples (fidelity, staying monogamous and the like)?

Where on earth do we get such ideas from? That is the way humans think, but certainly not God. Yes, we need to show mercy, but that means giving people with same-sex attractions (or heterosexual couples who are about to break up) unconditional love and support IN ORDER TO WALK ON THE RIGHT PATH AGAIN! God did not tell us THOU SHALT NOT DO THIS OR THAT – UNLESS YOU HAVE AN INCLINATION FOR IT OR YOU MISS TO MEET MY STANDARD – THEN YOU JUST SETTLE FOR LESS! What kind of theology is that? Shouldn’t sheperds who are responsible for their flock do everything to get them safely back home? God never gave us a standard that we cannot fulfill and there is no temptation that is big enough that we cannot resist it. Jesus died on the Cross for that.

You do not show “mercy” if you show people a back door in case they don’t meet God’s laws. I am sure everyone would have a good excuse why he or she needs to take the easy way out. It wasn’t “unmerciful” of God either to give His own Son to die for us on the Cross – how do we dare to settle with less then?

Remember when Jesus saved the prostitute’s life who was about to be stoned? When He told her accusers that the one who has no sins should throw the first stone? This is an excellent example: First, Jesus showed unconditional love: He saved the woman’s life before she could even say beep. But the story does not end here. He did not tell her well, in case you think this is the way you need to go and you just don’t get along with a life as I set it out for you, then go ahead. No, loving Jesus told her to go and sin no more. The same loving Jesus that spoke about hell like no other before.

So how about we see God’s laws as the manual of a loving Father that shows us how to get safely through the storms in life? God did not give us those laws because He likes to boss us around. They are not simply a long list of dos and don’ts. The Ten Commandments for example where given to the people of Israel in the context of their liberation from Egypt. Also those commandments are not simple a list of “negatives”, a list of things not to do. Each commandment of God has two sides – much like a coin. Think about “Thou shalt not kill” – that also means we should preserve life. He will not only hold us responsible for the bad things we did, but also for the good things we failed to do.

To cut a long story short: Mercy? Yes, but mercy God’s way. No back-doors anymore by watering down God’s Word.



Homosexual Marriage - Should Christians Support It?

Same-Sex "Marriage" is Here, What's Next?

Lesbian Activist: Gay Marriage Is a Lie

What does it mean to "redefine" marriage?

N T Wright on Gay Marriage

David van Gend - gay marriage ad

Bischofskonferenz und ZdK auf Abwegen?

Die Katholische Kirche in Deutschland ist wieder einmal in den Schlagzeilen.

Die Bischöfe beschlossen gerade eine Neuordnung des kirchlichen Arbeitsrechtes.

Dort heisst es:

„Die erneute standesamtliche Heirat nach einer zivilen Scheidung ist zukünftig grundsätzlich dann als schwerwiegender Loyalitätsverstoß zu werten, wenn dieses Verhalten nach den konkreten Umständen objektiv geeignet ist, ein erhebliches Ärgernis in der Dienstgemeinschaft oder im beruflichen Wirkungskreis zu erregen und die Glaubwürdigkeit der Kirche zu beeinträchtigen. Dasselbe gilt für das Eingehen einer eingetragenen Lebenspartnerschaft.

Diese Handlungen besitzen damit bei Vorliegen besonderer Umstände und damit nur in Ausnahmefällen Kündigungsrelevanz. Das ist z. B. der Fall, wenn objektive Gründe befürchten lassen, dass eine erneute standesamtliche Ehe oder eine eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft sich störend auf die Zusammenarbeit in der Dienstgemeinschaft auswirkt. Bei einer Wiederverheiratung können sich solche Umstände zum Beispiel ergeben aus der beruflichen Stellung des Mitarbeiters, aus der Art und Weise, wie der geschieden wiederverheiratete Partner mit dem Scheitern der Ehe bzw. Wiederheirat in der Öffentlichkeit umgeht oder wie er seine gesetzlichen Verpflichtungen aus seiner ersten Ehe erfüllt. Notwendig ist eine Gesamtbeurteilung.“

Eine erneute Heirat nach zivilrechtlicher Scheidung oder eine „homosexuelle Lebenspartnerschaft“ ist also nur dann schlimm, wenn sie Ärger verursacht oder die Glaubwürdigkeit der Kirche beeinträchtigt.

Wer um Himmels willen hat denn dieses Papier entworfen? Das ist sowohl theologisch als auch  rational betrachtet blanker – und höchst gefährlicher! - Unsinn!

Es grenzt an Scheinheiligkeit, wenn ein Verhalten, das dem katholischen Glauben widerspricht, nur dann sanktioniert werden soll, wenn es Ärger verursacht. Die Glaubwürdigkeit im Übrigen wird nicht nur durch eben dieses Verhalten beeinträchtigt, sondern in viel größerem Maße durch eine Anordnung, die Abfall von der kirchlichen Lehre nur unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen als Loyalitätsverstoß ansieht und nicht durch die Handlungen an sich.

Eine Kirche, deren Mitarbeiter und Mitglieder durch ihr eigenes Lebenszeugnis nicht mehr das widerspiegeln, wofür diese Kirche eigentlich steht, verdient ihren Namen nicht und wird bald in der Bedeutungslosigkeit verschwinden. Wenn die Kirche wie die Welt wird, gibt es keinen Grund mehr für ihre Existenz.

Vorrangige Aufgabe der Bischöfe ist es, Hirten zu sein und ihre Schafe auf dem rechten Weg zu führen. Eine Theologie, die besagt, man könne durchaus von diesem Weg abweichen, solange es nicht an der „Glaubwürdigkeit“ (welche Glaubwürdigkeit ist denn da noch übrig?) rüttelt oder Ärger verursacht, ist hierfür nicht geeignet – noch verdienen die Bischöfe, die dies zu verantworten haben, den Namen „Hirten“.

Nur zur Information: Ich schreibe dies als jemand, der viele Jahre lang ein schwules Leben geführt hat und vor elf Jahren Freiheit durch die internationale christliche Organisation „Homosexuals Anonymous“ (www.homosexuals-anonymous.com) erfahren durfte. So etwas hilft den Menschen, die vom Weg abgekommen sind, wirklich – und wird bis heute von der offiziellen Kirche ignoriert. Im Gegensatz dazu werden immer wieder Meldungen an uns herangetragen, die auf eine große Anzahl gleichgeschlechtlich empfindender – und teils auch handelnder – Priester und Ordensangehöriger schließen lassen. Jedes Hilfsangebot unsererseits an die Kirche wurde jedoch 

bisher ignoriert.

Was mir hier sehr sauer aufstößt, ist der Wink mit dem Zaunpfahl, der hier durch den Hinweis auf die Art und Weise gegeben wird, mit dem mit der Wiederverheiratung (oder der „eingetragenen Lebenspartnerschaft“) in der Öffentlichkeit umgegangen wird. Dies bestätigt eine unselige und lang bekannte Praxis der Katholischen Kirche: Solange es niemand „da draußen“ erfährt, wird es toleriert.

Ich schreibe diese Zeilen aus Liebe zur Katholischen Kirche, denn auch ich bin Katholik (www.katholisch-leben.org). Es macht mich sehr traurig und gleichzeitig auch wütend, zu sehen, wie hier der Kirche Schaden zugeführt und den Gläubigen vorhandene Hilfe verweigert wird.

Nun zum „Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken“, das eine Erklärung mit dem Titel „Zwischen Lehre und Lebenswelt Brücken bauen – Familie und Kirche in der Welt von heute“ veröffentlicht hat.

Zunächst einmal möchte ich ausdrücklich darauf hinweisen, dass das ZdK keineswegs alle deutschen Katholiken vertritt, wie es der Name vermuten lässt. Hierfür fehlt die demokratische Legitimation.

Sehen wir uns aber diese Erklärung einmal näher an.

Zunächst einmal ist hier von der Stärkung der Familie die Rede – was im Kontext des nun Folgenden wie blanker Hohn erscheint.

Mit Hinsicht auf die Art des Zusammenlebens, die es neben der traditionellen christlichen Ehe gibt, heißt es dort:

„Zugleich achten wir die Lebensgemeinschaften, in denen für uns wichtige Werte verwirklicht werden: verlässliche Verantwortung füreinander, Treue in der Beziehung, Weggemeinschaft in Verbindlichkeit.“

Eine Lebensgemeinschaft ist also demnach zu achten, wenn abstrakte Werte wie „Treue“ oder „Verantwortung“ verwirklicht werden. Wenn diese Werte jedoch abstrakt, also getrennt von einem zugrunde liegenden Glaubensverständnis, gesehen werden, stellt sich die Frage, auf Basis von was genau denn diese Werte anerkannt und für gut geheißen werden. „Treue“ als respektablen Wert – auch außerhalb der christlichen Ehe – zu sehen, würde zu absurden Ergebnissen führen. Man stelle sich nur einmal vor, wer oder was alles „treu“ - und damit „respektabel“ - zusammenleben könnten nach dieser Logik!

Weiter im Text:

„Unter Familie verstehen wir auch nichteheliche Formen von verbindlich gelebter Partnerschaft und von Generationenverantwortung, die einen großen Beitrag für den gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt leisten und gerecht zu behandeln sind.“

„Nichteheliche Formen verbindlich gelebter Partnerschaft“ - würde das auch Polygamie, Pädophilie oder was weiß ich sonst noch einschließen? Wenn nicht, auf Basis welcher Argumentation?

Wer so etwas veröffentlicht, hat in meinen Augen nicht die leiseste Ahnung davon, was Ehe und Familie aus christlicher Sicht bedeuten und warum derartige Statements alleine deshalb nicht nur unsinnig, sondern höchst gefährlich sind. In anderen Worten: Sie widersprechen der katholischen Lehre und sind deshalb als häretisch einzustufen.

Es wird noch besser:

„Die kirchliche Lehre muss im Dialog mit den Gläubigen unter Einbeziehung ihrer jeweiligen Lebenswelt weiterentwickelt werden. Als den Menschen, ihren Sorgen und Hoffnungen zugewandte Kirche sind wir beauftragt, uns mit Zuversicht auf die Gegenwartsgesellschaft mit vielfältigen sozial anerkannten Lebensformen einzulassen und selbst zu Brückenbauerinnen und Brückenbauern zwischen Praxis und Lehre zu werden.“

Die kirchliche Lehre muss nur insofern weiterentwickelt werden, als sie den Menschen in ihrem jeweiligen kulturellen, persönlichen und historischen Kontext verständlich vermittelt werden muss. Sie darf jedoch keineswegs von Grundwerten abweichen, die in verschiedensten biblischen Büchern  und damit unterschiedlichsten Kulturen im Laufe von tausenden von Jahren – und letztendlich von Jesus selbst bekräftigt wurden – wie etwa die lebenslange monogame Ehe zwischen Mann und Frau, bei der der Mann sich in lebensspendender Weise der Frau hingibt wie Jesus sich Seiner Braut der Kirche hingegeben hat. Mann und Frau werden ein Fleisch – so sehr eins, dass man diesem Einem neun Monate später einen Namen geben muss – ein Spiegelbild der Dreifaltigkeit selbst.

Nichts anderes als die christliche Ehe entspricht diesem Grundsatz. Sie ist die beste Form des Zusammenlebens für alle Beteiligten.

Wir dürfen uns keineswegs auf „sozial anerkannte Lebensweisen“ (ein fast peinlicher Ausdruck!) einlassen, wenn diese im Widerspruch zur Lehre der Kirche stehen. Dies zu fordern zeugt von Verantwortungslosigkeit den Gläubigen gegenüber.

Schließlich heißt es noch:

„In unserer Kirche unterstützen wir eine hohe pastorale Aufmerksamkeit für Ehe und Familie, die auch in veränderten Seelsorgestrukturen ein überzeugendes personales Angebot vor Ort erfordert.“

Wenn mit diesen „veränderten Seelsorgestrukturen“ gemeint ist, eine Seelsorge zu betreiben, die mehr eine Art „Wellness-Programm mit christlichem Touch“ ist und Menschen, die vom rechten Weg abgekommen sind, dazu verhelfen soll, sich wenigstens gut dabei zu fühlen, lehne ich dies aus tiefsten Herzen ab. Wahre Liebe muss stark genug sein, dem vom Weg Abgekommenen die Wahrheit zu sagen – aber auch eine helfende Hand hin zur Freiheit zu bieten. Wir würden gerne mit dazu beitragen, eine helfende Hand zu sein!

Unter anderem wird dann auch noch eine „Neubewertung der Methoden der künstlichen Empfängnisregelung“ gefordert. Dies ist umso interessanter, als konservative Katholiken immer wieder auf den Zusammenhang etwa von gleichgeschlechtlichem Verhalten und künstlicher Empfängnisregelung hingewiesen haben. Beides scheint einem verdrehten – oder gar nicht vorhandenen -Verständnis kirchlicher Lehre zum Thema Ehe, Familie und Sexualität zu entspringen.

Ebenso wird immer wieder darauf verwiesen, in der Seelsorge weg vom „defizitorientierten“ hin zum „ressourcenorientierten“ Handeln zu kommen. Hört sich gut an – ist aber insofern Unsinn, als beides nicht zu trennen ist. Genau hier setzen Organisationen wie die Ex-Gay Einrichtung Jason (https://jason-online.webs.com) an.

Nun aber kommt der Gipfel.

Folgendes wird gefordert:

„eine Weiterentwicklung von liturgischen Formen, insbesondere Segnungen gleichgeschlechtlicher Partnerschaften, neuer Partnerschaften Geschiedener und für wichtige Weichenstellungen im Familienleben“

Dies zeugt in meinen Augen bestenfalls von kompletter Unkenntnis des katholischen Glaubens. Im schlimmsten Fall wird dies bewusst, also in Kenntnis der kirchlichen Lehre, gefordert und ist damit verantwortungslos, da es Menschen verwirren und vom rechten – kirchlichen – Weg abbringen kann.

Liebes ZdK, ihr helft Sündern nicht, indem ihr es ihnen leichter macht zu sündigen. Das ist billige Theologie und billige Seelsorge und entspricht nicht dem kirchlichen Auftrag.

Wenn ihr dann noch fordert, alle Gläubigen sollen in der Kirche eine Heimat finden, so frage ich mich, was denn dann noch von „Gläubigen“ übrig bleibt, wenn sie nicht mehr an das glauben, was die Kirche lehrt – oder was von der Kirche übrig bleibt, wenn sie zulässt und möglicherweise gar fördert, dass sich Sünde in ihren Reihen wie Krebs verbreitet.

Wenn es dann noch im Gutmenschen-Stil heißt „Es geht darum, Menschen mit Wertschätzung zu begegnen, sie in ihrer Beziehungskompetenz zu stärken und ihnen gezielt Unterstützung anbieten zu können.“, kommen mir fast Tränen der Wut und Trauer. „Wertschätzung“, bedeutet, Menschen so zu sehen, wie Gott sie sieht – nicht, wie sie selbst gerne sein möchten. Eine „Beziehungskompetenz“ jenseits der christlichen Ehe gibt es schlichtweg nicht.

Manch einer mag sich durch meine Worte angegriffen fühlen. Das müsst ihr euch aber schon gefallen lassen. Auch ich habe eine Meinung zum Thema Ehe, Familie und Sexualität aus katholischer Sicht.

Andere mögen mich in eine radikale, fundamentalistische Ecke drängen wollen. Diese Art von Propaganda war ja schon immer dann angezeigt, wenn man sich selbst nicht mit rationalen Argumenten auseinandersetzen wollte.

Ich bleibe bei dem, was ich glaube: Dem katholischen Glauben, wie er seit 2.000 Jahren gelehrt und im Katechismus der Katholischen Kirche sowie in der Bibel niedergeschrieben ist und wie er Gott sei Dank noch von vielen Katholikinnen und Katholiken gelebt wird.

München, 11.05.2015

Robert Gollwitzer


It ticks me off when I see people who are divorced and remarried or live with their lover complain about same-sex marriage. Their relationship status is in no way different from that - at least not from a Christian perspective.

Die Ehe für alle? Wenn schon, denn schon ... Karikatur der Woche aus der Jungen Freiheit

Posted by Dieter Stein on Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015
"In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, “as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”. It is unacceptable “that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex”."
Pope Francis, The Joy of Love
Is Same-Sex Marriage a Good Policy Decision?

Is same-sex marriage a good policy decision?

Posted by Stand to Reason on Samstag, 20. Juni 2015

Romania:  Civil partnership, committee favorably advised the project of the Chamber of Deputies

Remus Cernea, Romanian deputy obtained yesterday what he himself called it “ a historic vote”: 7 deputies vote FOR and 4 deputies vote AGAINST,  1 deputy didn’t vote.  

Civil partnership wanted to equivalate the traditional wedding with gay partnership, LGBT can have same rights as the married people.  

The set of rights under the bill include:

- "Property acquired during civil partnership, any partner shall, from the date of their acquisition, joint property of the partners in the joint property, except where the two partners have decided otherwise by contract civil partnership."

- "The income of both partners will be considered together when calculating the minimum income guarantee in accordance with the Law Nr.416 / 2001 MIG; when contracting a bank loan will take into account the income of both partners. "

- "Medical services needed one partner who has no medical insurance may be granted under the medical insurance of the other civil partner; in case of hospitalization of one partner, the other is considered belonging "

- "On the death of one partner, the surviving partner is entitled to inheritance when the competition comes with either class of heirs, inheritance law especially on furniture and objects belonging to the household and gifts received by the partners during the civil partnership as well as the habitation on tenant. "

- "Surviving partner is entitled to a survivor's pension under art. 83-93 of Law no. 263/2010 on the public pension system and other social insurance rights and the legislation in force "

- "Either of the two partners have the right to continue the lease of the house when leaving permanent residence by the holder of the lease or death."

- "The two partners have the right to move and reside freely and the right of permanent residence in Romania according to Government Emergency Ordinance no.102 / 2005 on the free movement of citizens of EU Member States and EEA European citizens and the Swiss Confederation "

- "If the process of obtaining Romanian citizenship, both partners benefit from the provisions of Article 8 of Law No. Romanian citizenship. 21/1991 "

April 24th, 2015

A joke from facebook:
It all makes sense now.
Gay marriage and marijuana are being legalized at the same time.
Leviticus 20:13 says if a man lays with another man, he should be stoned.
We were just misinterpreting it.

Feed design by pfalzonline.de

Q: How does my gay marriage hurt yours?A: That question is meant to distract from the fact that gay marriage hurts...

Posted by Homosexuals Anonymous on Samstag, 23. Januar 2016

Feed design by pfalzonline.de