Cal Thomas: Straight Divorce is the Bigger Problem

washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/courting-trouble-in-iowa/

To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve “traditional” marriage in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: What poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two gays living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

Most of those who are disturbed about gay marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. **That’s because it doesn’t raise money and won’t get them on TV. **Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That’s because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them.

Yes, the breakdown of the family, especially through divorce, is the root of many problems such as children later developing same-sex-attraction, becoming promiscuous, or joining gangs. Decreasing the divorce rate is one of the solutions to the problems we face.

The family is the first and indispensable teacher of peace, and it is also, the foundation of society … because it enables its members in decisive ways to experience peace. It follows that the human community cannot do without the service provided by the family…Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace.

Pope Benedict XVI, January 1, 2008

Known causes of same-sex attraction
SUSAN BRINKMANN

**Dysfunctional Family Life **

The fatherless home or the emotionally unavailable father joined with the dominant mother contributes to the development of same-sex attractions. … Often where divorce has taken place, the mother portrays her ex-husband in very negatives ways, and; consequently the son loses respect for the father.

Spouses who verbally abuse one another in front of children may inadvertently force the children to “take sides,” and, especially if there is already a distance between a child and a father, a son may begin to see his masculinity in a negative light. Marital infidelity is also a contributing factor, especially if it impacts on an adolescent boy or girl.

The absence of a father in the home leads to sadness, anger, difficulty in trusting and disruptive disorders. The absence of a mother is worse.

One’s mother is one’s fundamental basis of feeling safe in relationships; denying a child of its mother wounds the child’s ability to trust and have faith in the world, which can lead to anxiety and attachment disorders."

This is why same-sex marriages and adoption can be so devastating on society, because of their effect on children. Fitzgibbons points out that even in Belgium where same-sex unions are approved, same-sex couples are not permitted to adopt.

“Not all adults have the inherent right to have a child,” he said, “but all children have a right to a mother and a father.”

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0087.html

This is all well & good but which protestant churches actually prohibit divorce & remarriage without an annulment?(The conservative Mennonites & Amish come to mind, but no one else immediately, & I don’t think the Amish even go for the annulment part.) Why would pastors preach against divorce if it isn’t prohibited in the first place?
How did we arrive with the Anglican Church?..Divorce.
My hat’s off to Cal Thomas, but you’d be preaching from a pretty wobbly pulpit.:wink:
Catholics aren’t off the hook either.Our present track record leaves much to be desired.

I think I would I’d have less problem with same-sex marriage if divorce wasn’t as widespread as it is. I think it further defines marriage in worse way, more in the way of feelings, than in the sacrifice of being the foundation of a family.

Cal Thomas is missing a major point. He’s probably correct if you limit yourself to thinking about the issue in terms of the number of people involved but there’s another factor to consider. While heterosexual immorality violates God’s law, homosexual immorality also violates natural law.

Gary

Any difference in the threat level each of them pose is negligible. In effect, they both equally threaten marriage.

He’s actually pretty close to the mark. So close I’m amazed he doesn’t actually make the connection. Today’s gay marriage movement is DIRECTLY linked to yesterday’s movement to normalize / legitimize divorce and remarriage.

The divorce movement fundamentally altered the definition of marriage from “a permanent, loving union of a man and a woman that makes possible a healthy and loving environment for conceiving and raising children” to “an agreement in which two people in love join their lives for as long as they continue to feel gooey towards each other.”

Once that definition was so fundamentally altered, there truly became no rational grounds for denial of “marriage” to gay couples.

And there is no grounds for being smug towards protestants here. Catholics have embraced the phony redefinition of marriage AT LEAST as badly as protestants have. That our official doctrine is correct is certainly no achievement of ours - it’s a gift from above.

Again…if these threaten one’s marriage, then there is something wrong with that individual, emotionally.

I mean, I’m showing my devotion to the sanctity of marriage by getting married in December, and someday having children. I don’t do that by imposing my opinion through BIG GOVERNMENT on other people.

They don’t threaten any specific marriage, they threaten the institution itself.

The institution itself? What matters is the people- marriage isn’t fascism mon ami, where only the “institution” counts for anything. As long as your marriage does well- happy living with your significant opposite-sex other, and you raise children in God’s word and Christ’s ministry- marriage has done well.

Marriage is already threatened- divorce being the worst of it. It’s already been compromised.

What a bunch of nonsense. This is straight from the gay playbook. It tells straight people and religious people, Hey. You’re side is so messed up, why not just let gay people do what they want?

My brothers and sisters in Christ – this was all planned 40 years ago. The plan was to poison the Body of Christ by, at first, taking advantage of our Christian compassion:

Please, please, don’t let these young women die in back alley abortions! Have mercy on them! What about rape and incest?! Please! We’ll only use it in case of emergencies! The most difficult decision a woman will ever have to make!

That was a lie. 1973.

Sexual Revolution! Sex with anyone! “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.”

1970s Legalize graphic images of prostitutes. Adult bookstores open all over the country. You have freedom! You have choice!

Don’t listen to that stupid Pope. Ladies, take those Birth Control Pills. Guys, go to the topless go-go bars. Have lots of sex. And you Catholics. You’re all just sexually repressed.

Smoke dope. Take dangerous drugs.

Women’s Liberation! “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” Men are the eternal enemy. which created fear, suspicion and mistrust.

1980s No-Fault Divorce. It’s nobody’s fault anymore. No kids? For $75 you’re out.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, take away the tech and everything in the Bible holds true to today. Repent. Turn away from your sin. The Church is waiting for you to come back and live a life that is worthy of your calling. God has not changed but radical, abarchist anti-family individuals had to attack the Catholic Church. The one true, holy and apostalic Church.

God bless,
Ed

It’s true, no fault divorce and cohabitation have been greater threats to marriage for a longer period of time. Heck, I might be willing to allow gays to “marry” civilly if the tradeoff were the elimination of no-fault divorce, and making cohabitation and adultery illegal. For divorce to be obtained, serious grounds would have to be proved; and if adultery were proved, there would be serious penalties. (This would apply to gay couples as well, naturally.)

As abhorent as no-fault divorce is, it’s the divorce part that makes it abhorent. In olden days - yeah, I’m old - men were routinely falsely accused of beating their wives in order for a divorce to be granted.

Gary

Well, I’m against the idea of civil marriage for gay people in exchange for other things. That’s not how a civil, ordered society works.

The fact is, Catholics need to understand that cohabitation did not become common overnight and that No-Fault Divorce did not become acceptable overnight. It took a long and gradual process to bring Catholics from the 1960s to 2009.

In the 1960s, TV was clean and wholesome and entirely reflective of Catholic values, now, it’s a toilet. But, during the intervening years, it slowly became more and more sexualized, and the movies went from I Love You to just let’s do it.

Porn is everywhere. The internet is filled with it. It’s at your local gas station. The less explicit variety is at the supermarket. Britney dresses like a slut and her mom doesn’t care. That’s on the cover of People magazine in the checkout aisle. Catholics had better wake up to the fact that too much has gone on too long and do something about it now. Today.

This disease called sin is treatable. We can choose to live according to our calling. I encourage all of you.

God bless,
Ed

I agree with Cal. "No fault"divorce, so-called, occurred here in Massachusetts back in the day with no opposition from the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. Catholics are so poorly catechized that they are incapable of forming a sacramental marriage. They get hung up on marriage’s indissolubility, and openness to children. So, as far as I am concerned, heterosexuals destroyed marriage, and the Church did its part by the post-Vatican II breakdown in sound teaching.

If adultery and cohabitation were illegal, and divorce very difficult, I doubt that many gays would even want to get married.

If adultery–breaking your marriage contract–were treated as seriously as breaking your mortgage contract, heterosexuals would think twice or maybe three times about doing it.

To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve “traditional” marriage in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: What poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two gays living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

It is interesting how the left now bemoans the fact that people are getting divorced and having children out of wedlock at alarming rates. It was their championing of such legislation and legitimizing of such behaviors that led to the situation we are in in the first place.

And now they are putting the final nail in the coffin but defining as marriage in its most unnatural terms, as the fulfillment of sexual pleasure only with absolutely no regard to the procreative implications that have been at the heart of marriage from the very beginning.

Conservatives and Catholics from the very beginning spoken against the immorality that is destroying marriage. Remember how the vice-president was mocked by the Murphy Brown show for doing precisely this? Precisely for standing up for morality that supports traditional marriage, conservatives have been written off as self-righteous bigots who never tire of shoving their morality down people’s throats. Precisely for standing for the morality that supports traditional marriage, conservatives have become throroughly discredited by so much of the mainstream.

Ans now the accusation is that we have taken our eye of the ball and gotten involved in a tangential side issue that is not at the heart of the problem.

Isn’t that precious!!

If you stand up for traditional/conservative values in public-prepare to get trashed by the other side.Try posting stuff like this on a newspaper blog.:eek:Talk about getting rabid reactions to your posts.The left-wingers have no problem re. name calling,epithet hurling, or stereotyping when it comes to conservatives.You’ll get hit pretty hard. But even so, we need to continue on or keep losing ground.Our choice.

Dear Cal … yeah and so what? It is not an either-or proposition but a both-and.

The Catholic Church has vigorously stood in opposition to divorce-on-demand and the impact of broken families on society has ceaselessly been predicted by the Church. A child of the 50’s, I remember all too well the emergence of easy divorce and the Church’s constant voice on the matter. Everything the Church predicted as a result has come about.

I remember also, the Church’s predictions regarding birth control and the consequences of sexual “liberation” on society. What specifically has the Church been wrong about as to the condition society was inviting?

Then came abortion. Now homosexual marriage. Is the Church incorrect in seeing these matters as a continuum and as an assault on the family?

Now Cal decries the results of broken families - what - as a means of attempting to break the Church’s moral position on the institution of marriage and family that has guided it all along? Wow, nice try Cal.

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