new

1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand
In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.

As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.

We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.

We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” We do not judge their intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations.

We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.

In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Such is not our intention.

The Well Poisoners – ‘Coronavirus’

Mildly changing tack since the Black Death, which did actually wipe out more than half the Caucasoid population, using their Chinese proxy the well poisoners have induced panic with what easily could be a contrived pandemic. Prior to the pestilence that was later known as the ‘Black Death’ the Jewish merchants were the bankers and financiers (without competition) with papal and royal protection. Like the Black Death this ‘virus’ began in China which is now Communist. Most scholars agree that a Jewish community has occupied Kaifeng in the Henan province of China since the Northern Song Dynasty (960–1127), though some date their influx to the Tang Dynasty (618–907) or earlier; well over 300 years before the Black Death. During the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), a Ming emperor conferred eight surnames upon the Jews, by which they are identifiable today: Ai, Shi, Gao, Gan, Jin, Li, Zhang, and Zhao. It was on a branch of the Silk Road that Jewish merchants descended on Kaifeng territory and from there had easy access to the network of trade routes which connected East and West and later along which the plague followed. Not until September 1348 did the first recorded ‘confession’ take place in the Castle of Chillon on Lake Geneva. The accused had admitted that a Jew of Savoy had poisoned wells and food “so as to kill and destroy the whole of Christianity”. Yet in each of the countries were the Jews were punished the plague came to an abrupt end. Despite their apparent ‘untouchability’ their crime was laid bare, perhaps cutting to close to their protectors, it was now known that the Jews were to blame for the Black Death.

Jews have intermarried with local Chinese sufficiently to be indistinguishable in appearance from their non-Jewish neighbours just like the Jews that occupy Europe. Indeed the founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1921, a Jewish ideology invented by the Jew Karl Marx the Grandson of a long line of Rabbis, and its formidable rise is testament to their concealment and manipulation. It is also vital to note that according to the Jewish Press “85 to 90% of the foreigners helping the Chinese at the time of the Communist takeover were Jewish” including Louisa Sachs (Goldman) the daughter of the Jew Marcus Goldman founder of the brokerage firm Goldman Sachs. Just like in the Russian Empire for over a decade prior to Communist seizure thousands of Communist Jews had been subverting the political landscape having been smuggled in under the guise of victimhood, by Ho Feng-Shan to secure a Communist victory. In fact China’s most renowned export is the so called martial arts icon Bruce Lee; elevated to almost mythic status the Jewish Press has proclaimed his Jewish heritage. Of course this is not unique, the Jews have always had us worship them, if not through Christianity then through their Hollywood machine with the likes of Chaplin, Fairbanks, Cary Grant, Douglas, Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bacall, Goldie Hawn and Scarlett Johansson. Even the goyim convert to be successful Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe; or are elevated because of a perverted lifestyle (homosexuality) Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Rock Hudson, Dirk Bogarde, Brando, James Dean, Jodie Foster to name but a few. The apparently ‘gullible, naive and trusting Chinese’ have allowed the Jew sanctuary while the tribe has been in the process of seizing control of the Caucasoid infrastructure: “governments, media, education and entertainment” and using it to implement their destructive narrative. Meanwhile, just as Scott Robert has pointed out sugar coated and right under our noses, European jobs and industry are outsourced to the Far East.

Although the nefarious Jewish element has been scheming amongst us for millennia following the Jewish seizure of Europe in 1945 the Jew has spent the last 70 years accelerating his agenda. Now at the point of contrived crisis they appeal to the atomised to pull together knowing the impossibility, laughing and rubbing their hands at their achievement. Even alerts from the Jewish Prime Minister of Britain, asserting that now is the time to pull together while appealing to the public to stay 2 meters apart, are an absurd oxymoron only attesting to his Chutzpah. Coincidentally, between 1975 and 1977 the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) predictively programmed a fiction drama series called Survivors. It concerns the plight of a group of people who have survived an apocalyptic plague pandemic, which was accidentally released by a Chinese scientist and quickly spread across the world via trade roots. Given the extreme circumstance in which the characters find themselves the script is far from fanciful (Hollywood nonsense) and well worth a watch. The result of a Jewish think tank and puts an end to the absurd claims of the Alt-Right that the media acts independently. Indeed the enemy has created the ideal environment (multiculturalism, immigration) in order to spread disease yet political correctness (Cultural Marxism) prevents the public from pointing the finger at this course if indeed it is a disease. Clearly trust fails when one knows those in authority are Jewish. Indeed we are lead to believe that this virus originated in China and spread to other hot lands. Yet the Jewish Prime Minister of Britain Boris Johnson, a minority exerting his interests for the majority, insults our intelligence by informing the populous that come the summer the virus will slow down. This site certainly fails to see the logic. Jewish manipulation works wonders just like the ‘fleas on rats’ blamed for the 14th century plague that could not survive in the much cooler northern climate but served as an ideal distraction for the tribes criminal act. Interestingly, whilst Europe was in recovery from a devastating world war brutalising a generation in its prime the 1918/19 flu epidemic hit. Killing between 50 million and 100 million people, it was mysteriously misnamed the Spanish flu even though it was known it arrived from a military base in Jewish occupied America.