Anti-gay stickers banned as school reverses course



“Anti-gay and pro-gay rights.”

I’ve thought about how I can express support for marriage in a positive way that shows I’m not “anti-gay.” Maybe I’ll just look for a bumper sticker with a beautiful picture of the Holy Family. No words. The “one man one woman” bumper sticker is too reactionary and looks like it’s copying the gay marriage lobby.


A few options:

And if you find the right place to state it:



False. Marriage is woven into our human nature, and without any religion whatsoever, marriage between one man and one woman naturally occurs.

The fact is that by saying “pro-family” we are trying to take back proper vocabulary. A lesbian or gay “family” is not actually a family in the proper sense of the word, because it lacks a father or mother.

I agree that it would be considered as crude. It’s not actually something that I would ever say to someone in person, because it would not cause any desirable effect. :stuck_out_tongue:


and raise them is a family albeit different from yours.You should be more specific.

This is impossible. Two women cannot give birth to a baby, let alone 4.

100% of people on earth are the result of a heterosexual interaction.
0% of people on earth are the result of a homosexual interaction.



I assume that Valeria Lupus was referring to a lesbian couple who had children via artificial insemination.


Just be aware that to speak the Truth is to invite persecution.

Also, people and the mainstream media often use “anti-gay” against people who are just pro-marriage.

To really be anti-gay, one would need something on a personal level against GLBTQ.


I can put a picture of the Holy Family next to my only other bumper sticker. “Considering an abortion? Ask to see the ultra-sound at (such and such a place.” :slight_smile:


Language and words are important. A lesbian couple do not have children, even by artificial insemination. ONE of the women had babies through heterosexual contact of some kind. The other woman did not have any children.

Pretending that two women can have children is straying from reality.


Agreed. That’s a very important distinction.


They are trying to find a way around that too, there was a recent news piece about researchers trying to find ways to create offspring from ANY couple, ANY number of people also.It was quite frightening to hear actually.


There’s enough examples of polygamy, including polyandry, out there to make your claim questionable. Even in the Near East in Old Testament times polygamy was hardly unknown, and it was via that tradition that it was adopted into Islamic civilization. Even in societies like Christendom where marriage was between “one man and one woman”, there were enough examples of men with wives and mistresses to bring the claim that Christendom didn’t have its examples of plural marriage.


So do plenty of heterosexual couples.

What you really mean is “A facsimile of my ideal family that’s close enough that I don’t feel somehow offended.”


So what about single parent families of which there are a lot in this country? Are they not real families? Or what about a family that includes a grandmother and her grandchildren? Is that not a real family because it lacks a father and and a mother? Or if two siblings live together, are they not a family? Surely the word “family” can be used to cover more than a nuclear household with a father and a mother and their children.


And I’m curious about the “take back” claim, as if word meaning was somehow fixed.


When a parent is lacking, the family is incomplete. Surely, it can still be called a “family”, but there’s no doubt that the members of that family know there is something missing to make the family complete.

This is why it is sad to see single mothers who had a child out of wedlock and are now caring for that child alone, or families who have lost one or the other parent due to an untimely death; we know that the family is incomplete, that is lacks a necessary part to function optimally.

The homosexual union, however, is disordered in an entirely different way, because it denies the natural structure of the family (father, mother, and children). The homosexual union claims to be something that it is not, and this makes it far more harmful to children and to the partners than otherwise, because the members wilfully deny that there is anything missing.


It is not logically consistent to say that examples of twisted corruptions of marriage disprove the validity of marriage itself. There have been many works by many philosophers over the ages to support the notion that the family unit of father, mother, and children is the fundamental building block of society.


What about father and mothers (plural) and children and slaves? Would that be an acceptable family? That’s the kind of family that Abraham had with his two wives Sarah and Hagar and we also know that he had slaves since God tells him in Genesis 17:13: “Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised.” Jacob also had two wives at the same time (he was a polygamist) Leah and Rachel and both had children.

Genesis 16:3: So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit