You-Have-Got-To-Be-Kidding Arguments For Gay Marriage

Friday, April 5, AD 2013

Intolerance

 

Until the pro-Gay Marriage advocates came along, I thought the pro-aborts had cornered the market on ludicrous sophistry to support evil.  However in some ways advocates of the lust that can’t shut up about itself have surpassed them.  Matt Archbold at National Catholic Register counts the ways:

7) My son is gay!

This argument has been used most famously by Senator Rob Portman but many  others have used it as well in order to “evolve” on this issue. This argument  for gay marriage makes me wonder if they didn’t realize the existence of actual  gay people until their own son just couldn’t quit the Glee Marathon.

Now, this may come as a shock to some parents but it’s possible that a child  can make choices that the rest of Western civilization doesn’t have to bend its  collective knee to.

Imagine this same argument by the parents of Lindsey Lohan because we’d all  have to be for the legalization of drugs, okaying kleptomania, and approving of  driving over photographers.

 

6) If marriage is for pro-creation, then old people who can’t have kids  shouldn’t be allowed to be married.

Wow. What did old people do to you? I mean, I agree that it should be  illegal for old people to kiss in public but come on, let them marry, if only to  prevent them from dating.

This argument was proffered by none other than Supreme Court Justice Elena  Kagan who asked, “Suppose a State said that, ‘Because we think that the focus of  marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage  licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55.’ Would  that be constitutional?”

Every time I read or hear the Harvard educated Kagan speak I think of  dolphins because everyone tells me dolphins are really smart but there’s no  actual evidence of them saying or doing anything smart.

But let’s be fair here. Major props to the liberal justice for finally tying  her job to interpreting the Constitution. You just know Justice Breyer slipped  her a note asking, “What’s this strange constitution thingie you speak of?”

But the fact that some married people can’t have babies doesn’t negate the  existence of marriage anymore than it negates the existence of babies. Hey,  that’s kinda’ weird because babies are another thing the Supreme Court likes to  negate the existence of.

 

5) The Bible doesn’t say that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin!!!

Uhm. Well, it kinda’ does. A lot. The words “abomination” and “detestable”  come up and there’s that little thing about not inheriting the kingdom of God.  Saying the Bible doesn’t disapprove of homosexual acts is like saying Woody  Allen movies don’t include whining. They kinda’ do. A lot.

But let’s just pretend for a moment it’s true that the Bible doesn’t  specifically say homosexual acts are a sin. The Bible doesn’t go into detail  about lots of bad stuff. The Bible doesn’t mention “Girls” on HBO or Nicholas  Cage’s movie role selections, but I am pretty sure those are bad too.

 

4) Jesus was gay.

This one’s always interesting because many of the same people who say Jesus  never really existed also say He was gay. That dichotomy would be deemed  miraculous but they don’t actually believe in miracles.

Just this week, radio host Don “Help, I’m starting to look like the  melting-face Nazi from Indiana Jones” Imus recently foisted this argument for  gay marriage on liberal political analyst Kirsten Powers who at least had the  smarts to distance herself from it like a normal person might do when confronted  with a person whose face was melting.

According to news reports, Imus said to Powers:

“You know there’s a Gospel of Judas floating around,” he said.

“There were hundreds of gospels written, only four made it into the [Bible].  There was the Gospel of Thomas, Mary had a gospel, they all had a gospel. But  Judas — there’s some indication there that Jesus may have been gay.”

OK since when did we all start listening to Judas anyway?

Anyway let me get this straight. They’re saying Jesus was gay? Jesus, who  was willing to suffer and die for the Truth was in the closet? That doesn’t  really make sense, does it?

Continue reading...

5 Responses to You-Have-Got-To-Be-Kidding Arguments For Gay Marriage

  • Wow! Judas took out time from stealing from the Apostolic purse and betraying Jesus (for 30 pieces of silver the price of a man) to write a . . . What need has a Christian of anything that Judas would have written?

    Imus is my “go to guy” for matters of booze, dope, faith, and morals.

    Recently, one of them fat, ugly women on the SCOTUS threw up that 55 years old malarkey. I already had no respect for her.

    Here’s how to talk, if you must, to an idiotic, moral moron. Bless their hearts! Play, at max. volume, a tape or CD of hilarious, uncontrollable laughter. And, drink heavily.

  • Saint Paul also explains that practicing homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God”:

    Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates {malakoi}, nor homosexuals {arsenokoitai}, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

    The words translated as “effeminates” and “homosexuals” are often omitted in modern Bible translations and replaced with the single word “perverts,” even though two separate words appear in the Greek text of Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. One might understand why the man I met in Fort Worth believed that “homosexuality was not condemned in the Bible,” since many English versions actually hide the term under pretence of translation. The two Greek words used by Paul in this passage are malakoi and arsenokoitai. The word malakoi is sometimes translated effeminates and the word arsenokoitai is translated as homosexuals.

  • Tom, the two Greek words you bring up were used by St. Paul to underscore the fact that homosexuality is wrongful behavior at both ends. In other words, he was saying that both the active and passive, or dominant and submissive partners are wrong, and that neither role constitutes OK sexuality. That was the idea, because at Corinth there was a lot of sexual promiscuity. So he didn’t want the submissive partner, for instance, to think it was OK as long as he wasn’t active, or vice versa. So the Bible is very clear that all forms of homosexuality are sinful. No homosexual practice can be considered an option for a Christian entering the kingdom of heaven. Some people have tried to say that St. Paul was merely against homosexual relationships that were unequal or forced, but he was actually against all of them, as were Jews since time immemorial. Nothing changed regarding that. While Christianity grew more liberal in many otehr ways, it maintained a very conservative sexual stance regarding fornication, divorce, and homoseuxality. THis was all to uphold, as Jesus did, the creational intent of God.

  • As one who has a family member who is a practicing homosexual, I certainly understand how difficult is has to be for Senator Portman. Perhaps, unless one has such an experience, it is impossible to appreciate how hard that really is and the almost instinctual tendency to defend their loved ones and succumb to condoning such a lifestyle. About twenty years ago, I thought the same thing Portman does now. Of course, I don’t think that now. Coming to terms with Church teaching on this subject as well as her teaching on sexual morality provided a strong push to look at human nature that made defending such a lifestyle impossible. But it was no easy or overnight thing to be sure.

    That being said, Senator Portman does himself, the American body politic, and his son no good by changing his conviction on this matter. To change our convictions like this on someone else’s account is a sure way to hurt them.

    The same look at the natural law provokes the question of what gives rise to same sex attractions. Behavioral scientists who have expertise in this matter and wish to look at it in a truly scientific way point the easily understandable fact that same sex attraction arises from a sexual and gender identity disorder. I am convinced it would do us all well to take some time to familiarize ourselves with how same sex attractions develop. For starters, you can check out NARTH, which stands for National Assocciation on Research and Theray of Homosexuality:

    http://www.narth.com

    Another problem I think our side has is how easily we not only allow but adopt the euphemisms the other side uses to describe something they know as well as we do is not good. Like the use of the phrase “pro-choice” to describe those who are pro-abortion (or pro-abortion rights if you will), the use of the word “gay”, the actual meaning of which has nothing to do with sexual orientation whatsoever, to describe homosexuality is another sterling example. As moral theolgian the late-Msgr. William B. Smith used to say. “All social engineering begins with verbal engineering.”

    This is something just about everyone on the left clearly understands and almost no one on the right does. But if we are to make any real headway in the culture war, we had better start understanding this damned quick and act accordingly.

  • Pingback: Marriage and Same-Sex Attraction - Big Pulpit

Msgr. Pope on Gay Marriage

Thursday, March 28, AD 2013

Every now and then as I begin to think about writing a post, I’ll see that someone has written on the very topic I was about to write about, taking the exact same view but expressing it in such a way that it would make any attempt on my part to add to it just plain futile. So when I saw Msgr. Pope’s blog post on gay marriage this morning, I realized he just saved me about an hour’s worth of writing.

Here’s the opening:

There is, among faithful Catholics, a dismay, and even an understandable anger at the events unfolding at the Supreme Court these past days related to to gay unions. And even if the court were to uphold traditional marriage (which does not seem likely), or merely return the matter to the States,  it seems quite clear where our culture is going regarding this matter, approving things once, not so long ago, considered unthinkable.

What then to do with our dismay and anger? It is too easy to vent anger, which is not only unproductive, but in the current state of “hyper-tolerance” for all things gay, angry denunciations are counter-productive.

Rather our anger should be directed to a wholehearted embrace and living out of the biblical vision of human sexuality and marriage. Our anger should be like an energy that fuels our zeal to live purity, and speak of its glory to a confused and out-of-control culture.

The fact is, traditional marriage has been in a disgraceful state for over 50 years, and heterosexual misbehavior has been off the hook in the same period. And, if we are honest, heterosexual misbehavior and confusion has been largely responsible for bringing forth the even deeper confusion and disorder of homosexual activity, and particularly the widespread approval of it.

We have sown the wind, and now reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7).

Our anger, dismay and sorrow are better directed inward toward our own conversion to greater purity as a individuals, families and parishes, than outward toward people who will only interpret it as “hate” and bigotry” anyway.

There’s much more at the link as he delves into how the contraceptive mentality has already degraded marriage. There’s been a domino affect, and gay marriage is really just the last domino.

I was attending a conference this week and heard a speaker who talked about generational differences in the workplace. Even though it was geared towards workforce issues, it applied to our culture more generally. The overwhelming support for gay marriage among millenials (generally those 30 and under) is easily explained when you examine the context of the culture and society they grew up in. Not only is mass media propagandizing to them, but many if not most of these kids have developed in an environment where marriage is not the institution it was for our grandparents. In other words, heterosexuals damaged the institution long before homosexuals did.

That’s an argument often made by people who support gay marriage, and so we have a tendency to dismiss it. They happen to be right – it’s just that the logical conclusion that flows from that analysis is not that we should further erode the institution of marriage, but that we need to re-examine all of the other elements that have broken it down through the years.

At any rate, please read the rest of Msgr. Pope’s fine blog.

On a related note, Bill O’Reilly is still a pinhead.

Continue reading...

36 Responses to Msgr. Pope on Gay Marriage

  • “And, if we are honest, heterosexual misbehavior and confusion has been largely responsible for bringing forth the even deeper confusion and disorder of homosexual activity, and particularly the widespread approval of it.”

    I really do not think that is correct. Sexual immorality certainly has been rampant over the past 50 years, but so has it in other times over the past 2000 years. In England in the Eighteenth Century illegitimacy was not uncommon for example. Initially the Soviet Union attempted to largely do away with marriage. None of these prior periods however led to calls for equating homosexuality with heterosexuality. I think rather our current circumstance has been caused much more by a steady drumbeat of pro-homosexual propaganda, as you note, in the entertainment media, and a non-judgmental stance towards morality in the sexual realm that has permeated our society and reached Gospel status, along with a drive for (fake) egalitarianism uber alles. Additionally, many opponents of the movement to normalize homosexuality have been bullied into silence by the tendency of some homosexual activists to engage in massive assaults on any groups that stand in their way. Mormon groups used to be very active in this fight until the passage of Proposition 8 in California. The gay activists went berserk with fury and engaged in a non-stop war against the Mormons that is still under way. As a result the Mormons have become very quiet on this issue and the Mormon groups who used to fund anti-homosexual marriage groups no longer do so. Timid people rarely retain their freedom for long.

  • “On a related note, Bill O’Reilly is still a pinhead.”

    There was a question?

  • That’s a fair point Donald. I think what Msgr. Pope is especially emphasizing is the contraceptive mentality, tracing it back to the Lambeth Conference. Once procreation – or the possibility of procreation – was removed from the sexual act, that changed the dynamic significantly. Throw in the rise of no-fault divorce, and marriage further eroded. Now the familial aspect of marriage has been almost lost.

    Earlier ages engaged in sexual immorality, but has it been as celebrated and accepted on as wide a scale as it is now? I don’t know.

  • Good commentary and also good point by Mr. McClarey. I agree that the difference between today and moral issues of the past is that it is now ideologically driven, and technologically enabled. That’s the one way to explain the rapid shift. But I still tend to view it as cumulative decline, building up speed as it reaches the bottom. Who helped redefine marriage? Henry VIII and his supporters, if you want to go back that far.

  • I probably should have highlighted this passage to further illustrate the point Msgr Pope is making:

    Yes, we have sown the wind. And now comes the whirlwind. Enter the “gay” community who have in effect called our bluff and illustrate the absurdity of our “no-necessary connection” philosophy. For, if sex has “no necessary connection” to procreation, and can just be about what pleasures you, or is just your way to show “care” for another, if this is the case, what’s wrong with homosexual behavior? And if marriage is just about two adults being happy and there is “no necessary connection” to procreation, why can’t homosexuals “marry”?

  • Pope is dead-on right. I’ve been spending time lately on a mostly-libertarian chat board, and people go nuts when I criticize divorce. Gay marriage, they think I’m a bigot. Contraception, they roll their eyes. But say anything critical of divorce and people hyperventilate. The fact is, while it’s right to oppose gay marriage, it’s only going to affect a few hundred people directly. No-fault divorce is a catastrophe that’s harmed what, a hundred million people maybe in the US alone.

  • “On a related note, Bill O’Reilly is still a pinhead.”

    I have rarely seen a more profoundly ignorant man be more clueless about his ignorance that O’Reilly. Something that can unite Left and Right in this country!

  • Romans 1:28-30

    “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil.”

  • But angels can dance on the head of a pin. O’Reilly’s head, on the other hand, what’s it good for? Absolutely nothing.

  • A huge “yes” to Donald. I’m tired of people blaming the increasing acceptance of gay marriage and homosexual behavior on heterosexual behavior. Heterosexuals have always screwed up and heterosexual marriages have always been fraught. People just dealt with it different ways: they didn’t get divorced, but they lived separate lives, which was much easier in cultures in which men and women generally lived separate lives anyway. Men used prostitutes. That’s why it’s called “the world’s oldest profession.” Most marriages were not about love (in the beginning) and soulmates anyway. They were arranged and it was clearly understood that marriage was at the service of society and culture.

    BUT it was always understood that male-female relations and relationship were the normative base of all human behavior and society. Homosexuality (or..sodomy, as they used to call it) was an outlier.

    Even – and this is key – in cultures where homosexuality was more accepted and visible – ancient Rome or Greece – you would have been laughed out of the Forum if you’d suggested that what men did with other men had anything to do with marriage.

    As long as Christians persist in their implied acceptance of homosexual behavior, gay marriage will stay on the table. What’s been lost is the truth about maleness, femaleness and sexuality.

  • “No-fault divorce is a catastrophe that’s harmed what, a hundred million people maybe in the US alone.”

    if SSM becomes a constitutional right it will be impossible to strike down no-fault divorce anywhere, because marriage is no longer seen as related to procreation

    any attempts to do so will be found unconstitutional

  • “And, if we are honest, heterosexual misbehavior and confusion has been largely responsible for bringing forth the even deeper confusion and disorder of homosexual activity”

    this really doesn’t make sense to me. Doesn’t the Church take the position that it’s innate for the most part? Is he arguing it’s a recent phenomenon just cuz it’s more visible these days?

    I think it’s good to understand the underlying nature of something, regardless of your judgments on it, and this kinda reads like fitting things into a particular narrative.

  • ah sorry, “activity.” Still though.

  • In England in the Eighteenth Century illegitimacy was not uncommon for example. Initially the Soviet Union attempted to largely do away with marriage. None of these prior periods however led to calls for equating homosexuality with heterosexuality.

    Eighteenth Century England and Soviet Russia had more cultural capital to draw upon than we presently have.

  • Perhaps in regard to England, although in many ways Eighteenth Century England reminds me of our own time with its promiscuity, drunkeness and widespread irreligion. However, not a chance in regard to Soviet Russia. The Communists were in active war against most of that cultural capital, at least initially,

  • Then let me try to phrase it differently. Eighteenth Century England and Soviet Russia had greater reserves of cultural capital to burn through. The latter more thoroughly and completely than the former.

    Whose reserves of cultural capital do our reserves more closely approximate? Eighteenth Century England’s, or Soviet Russia’s?

  • Rampant homosexual behavior and now, equally rampant approval of it on the part of much of heterosexual society indicate one thing above all. And that is a lack of what human sexuality is at the most fundamental level: our sexuality is primarily who we are: male and female, not something we do. Of course, heterosxuality is the only orientation that naturally flows from this. Any behavioral scientist who dals with this issue in an honest scientifically coherent way say that same sex attraction is at root a sexual gender idenitity disorder. Heck, even Sigmund Freud believed homosexuality was a perversion from a psycho-analytical perspective.

    Donald, did 18th century England give widespread public approval to such behavior or was it just that they preached a different standard than that which they lived? Today, not only is such behavior on the rise, the ideals are being redefined.

    Certainly, while I wouldn’t be so quick to lay the problem of homosexuality at the feet of heterosexual deviance as some seem to do. However, it does compound the confusion many homosexuals have and obscures the credibility of traditional sexual morality.

    I also think we would do well to come to a better understanding of the psychological factors that give rise to same sex attractions. NARTH is a good resource:

    http://narth.com/

    I would recommend the 1986 CDF Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

  • As far as Bill O’Reilly is concerned, I would have to say his show is truly a “No Spin Zone”…. except when O’Reilly himself spins like a jet turbine.

    That being said, the clip that Paul links to doesn’t give a full context to what O’Reilly is saying. There is some validity to what he says about the whole equality rhetoric employed by the pro-same sex marriage side being more compelling at least in the eyes of teh public (the growing shift in opinion on the issue in the pro-same sex direction seems to confirm this) than the religious based argument. Of course, a religious argument is not really needed when a simple look at human anatomy will do. But then again, I am becoming more and more convinced that it takes a religious faith to be able to accept the most obvious of scientific facts.

  • “Donald, did 18th century England give widespread public approval to such behavior or was it just that they preached a different standard than that which they lived?”

    Fairly widespread, certainly among the aristocrats and the rich who tended to be all who really mattered in Eighteenth Century England. The influence of Continental Enlightenment anti-Christianity, along with growing scepticism and religious apathy at home, had produced ugly fruit in England. Methodism had planted the seeds of revival, but the virulence with which it was hated by many of the powers that be in England is reminiscent of some of the bitterest atheist rants of today. That things changed for the better in the nineteenth century, largely as the result of men who were frequently mocked at the time, including among that number Burke and Wilberforce, gives me hope for our time.

  • John 15:18, “If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.”

  • Donald,
    I am reading Chesterton’s St. Francis of Assisi and you echo and apply his views on sexuality, as expressed in chapters 1 and 2, quite well. I think that what is different is that we are now calling “good” what reason demonstrates is “bad.”

    It is surely true that human beings have ever acted on sexual impulses against better judgment and societal mores. Such is the state of the fallen soul. However, the 10th century nobleman who fathered illegitimate children knew that what he was doing was wrong and did not declare the act right. The 14th century merchant, looking for hidden houses of prostitution, did not proudly display his beastly behavior. The Victorian hid his pornography.

    What is different now is that bad behavior is held up as a badge of honor and actively promoted. This is irrational.

    The Center for Disease Control reports that more than 110 million Americans have venereal diseases! Our priests report that pornography now eclipses all other mortal sins confessed through the Church. 48 percent of American children born in 2012 were born to unwed mothers. 1 in 5 women will be sexually abused or assaulted at some point in their lives.

    The evidence that the West’s hedonistic plunge off of a humanist cliff is irrational abounds. Yet, Victoria’s Secret is producing “sexy underwear” for tweens, it is damn near impossible to find summer dresses for my 11 and 6 year old daughters that come anywhere close to their knees, the “Family Channel” runs sexually charged shows for 12 year olds, and condom and Viagra commercials invade football, rugby, and baseball.

    The West has abandoned reason as much as religion.

    Amazingly, people of faith are told that our mores are “unnatural” and slavish and, so, must be abandoned for the “freedom” of this new age. But the age looks more and more like the 3rd Century.

    Our response to it must be the same as St. Paul’s: that Man is not a beast.

    It is no compliment to say to a man “you are like a male dog, sensing a woman in heat. You cannot control your impulse to chase her and, like a dog, may injure yourself or others to get to her so you should not be constrained. Take these condoms and get it out of your system.”

    It is no honor to a woman to say “your form evolved for the primary purpose of causing men to want to have sex with you. Your value is defined by how wild and uncontrolled you can make men.”

    This is not an impossible task to have precisely the same effect on this debased and destroyed culture as the early Church had on Rome’s for our message is the Truth. We need to stop equivocating and learn to speak with passion and conviction and love. Christ’s message is far more powerful than the sophomoric arguments of Satan’s servants.

    So, yes, we must live it Msgr. Pope; but we and, most especially, our clerics must proclaim it from the rooftops of the world.

    We are Man, made male and female, in God’s image. We were given all of creation and commanded to be stewards of that creation so that we would learn to love and serve Him in this life so that we will be happy with Him forever in the next. We are Man, not beasts, and are capable of and called to control our appetites, to embrace adversity and I will not sacrifice my children on any alter but God’s!

  • “The West has abandoned reason as much as religion.”

    We live in increasingly stupid times G-Veg. The flight from sexual morality goes hand in hand with the flight from fiscal responsibility. As a society we are engaged in a huge recreation on an epic scale of the parable of the prodigal son.

  • The rampant acceptance of homosexuality is driven almost entirely by pop culture. the explosion of the Internet, smartphones, Twitter, Facebook, etc. is something that has been completely embraced by young people.

    I suspect homosexuality has been part of Hollywood since the modern entertainment business began. In a sense, it has been propaganda as much as entertainment. Young people – especially those in high school – feel the pressure of fitting in, so they follow the pack when it comes to entertainment, and entertainment has been effective in propagandizing homosexuality – while trashing Christianity.

    Glee is just one example.

    Some group enlisted National Hockey League players to participate in something called “You Can Play”. It is an outreach program aimed at…not blacks, Latinos and Asians, who are rare in the NHL; but…homosexuals.

    I fear a Canadian Human Rights Commission being established in the US, where the homosexuals drag out anyone who criticizes them and makes them pay thousands of dollars in fines.

    I could go on and on, but I can’t. My 98 year old grandmother died yesterday. I had to call for the funeral home to pick up her tired and worn down body. I am the executor and I have to handle things, and I have wasted too much time on the Internet today already.

  • To read much of the comment here is to gain hope that there is a lifeboat on this sinking ship we call “modern culture.” As to the homosexual juggernaut which presses upon us with an assumed air of inevitability, (which is how the left cunningly presents itself), its present day power certainly is derived from the history of sexual misconduct of every kind that has so blithely been excused and rationalized for so long. Its roots are deep in our disordered wills – no fiat voluntas here – which has permeated the psyche of even “Christian thinking peoples.” “Yeah look at me. I’m independent. I do it my way.”

    The contraceptive ideology played a crucial role in getting us here and it remains one of the most valuable weapons for the culture of death orchestrated by the father of lies. Homosexuality, like contraception, is a dead act incapable of giving life. And both are based on a juvenile, perhaps demonic, idea that love has to do with pleasing oneself and being “happy.” These may be the consequences of true love, but not Love’s goal.

    The lack of intellectual honesty and muddled thinking so carefully cultivated by our educators makes an appeal to reason very difficult. Reason doesn’t matter when, “well, that’s just the way I feel. You can’t judge my feelings.” Another victim to the culture of death- thinking. We are so far down the proverbial road to perdition it’s hard to imagine how we turn things around – but we must. After all, that is the Easter message. Death has been defeated. It is clear you all believe the same. Living the Truth and proclaiming the Good News seems our only alternative as some of you have already pointed out. Our pulpits, our schools, our priestly people have long been nearly silent on contraception, homosexuality, chastity, purity and have become quiet again on abortion. It’s time to get back in the game of saving souls.

  • Penguins Fan – You and your family will be in our prayers.

    You mentioned Glee. Does anyone remember High School Musical? This was a rare Disney sleeper, something that they didn’t promote the heck out of, but it became a hit, then the Disney machine kicked in and marketed it like crazy. High School Musical was innocent. It was a love story that appealed to kids of the right age group. Now, when anything is successful, Hollywood steps in and duplicates it, right? Not in this case. Instead we got Glee. That tells you something about Hollywood.

  • Thank You Donald and Lisa and Kevin SD and everyone.

    I want to respond to this:
    “The fact is, while it’s right to oppose gay marriage, it’s only going to affect a few hundred people directly.” (from Pinky-whose pithy comments I appreciate)
    Pinky, just me and my family number more than half a hundred. We are directly affected and hurt. That is not counting the ones age 15 and under, whose life, and possibly eternal life, will feel the effect. Families suffer in silence for the most part.

    My son has chosen this behavior. He didn’t choose the temptation, but he is choosing his response to it. He doesn’t choose it just for himself and his current partner only, but has mailed out “save the date cards” to all of our family and friends thus making a few hundred people choose.

    If all the commentators on TV could be present in our family room and hear and see the wounds especially for brothers and sisters they would know how much it hurts. It isn’t just about the one day of the wedding and the sacrilege, but about being cut apart. It is as if he is saying to some of his siblings “You either love me and celebrate this wedding with me, or we are severed. I can line up some brothers/sisters on my side and see if anyone remains with you”. The chips fall where they may… Mom and Dad will be branded haters by many lifelong friends, family and coworkers. I am warned by my sister that I am on the wrong side of history, like Bull O’Connor.
    The validation he seeks won’t come from getting to be called “married”… because there is really no satisfaction in this relationship… that’s why it won’t be monogamous.
    It is not illegal for him to be in this relationship, those old sodomy laws are gone. I think they want to bring the Church to heel though- making them give up the sacrament, give up moral authority.. as well as the only ones who still love enough to care- thousands of moms and dads and brothers and sisters.

    His dad and I are not guilty (more than ordinary) Neither is society.

    This willful prideful juggernaut against our family and all families can’t just be ignored like a pesky but mostly inconsequential fly. A fly that is irritating but really doesn’t hurt much. This fly carries medical and social and spiritual problems with it such that the deleterious effect will be widespread.

    I realize that the flies are out the bottle and it is very hard to put them back in.
    Here is a quote from Charlemagne in an 802 capitulary about the “most pernicious rumor” that “some of the monks are understood to be sodomites” and his vow that “if any such report shall have come to our ears in the future, we shall inflict such a penalty, not only on the guilty, but also on those who have consented to such deeds, that no Christian who shall have ever heard of it will ever dare in the future to perpetrate such acts.”
    I know Charlemagne lived in a different era. But the important thing he was not afraid to call right and wrong. And try to do right. And he knew that you can not give place to evil but must stop the spread.

    Sometimes modern day Christians have wondered why the Christians who knew they would have to face the lions didn’t just go ahead and say the word– they are just words. And only affected a few people at first.

  • I can’t even imagine the pain of this situation for you Anzlyne. Your attitude is completely correct. We do no favor for our children by pretending that a sin they are enmeshed in is a virtue. My prayers for you and your family.

  • There have been times, in the middle of an heated discussion, where one will say “what if our child…” Reading your lines makes me finally understand how trite and foolish that is.

    Our reaction to the theoretical cannot easily be forecast and I am humbled by your sharing this with us.

    God bless and keep you and yours.

    David

  • Anzlyne – Thanks for calling me “pithy”. In this case, you could have said “flippant” or worse and I’d have no room to argue. As I said to Penguins Fan earlier, I’ll be keeping you and your family in my prayers, and I’m sure we all will. It’s 3:00 on Good Friday. This is when Christ turned to a sinner in his dying moments and told him that he’d be with Him in Paradise. This is a moment for hope for all sinners. I’ll pray for your son.

    I’ve been getting clobbered on the web lately, defending traditional marriage – with a fake name, when I can turn off my screen any time I want to. You’re defending it in the most personal way, and I thank you for your fortitude.

  • Anzylne, you also will be in my prayers. I wonder if our ancestors went though something like this during the Civil War, when families also were being forced to choose sides over a contentious social issue (slavery), to the point that brothers, cousins, fathers, sons, etc. joined different armies and marched off to kill one another. And I wonder sometimes if it’s about to happen again …

  • Pingback: Same-Sex 'Marriage' and the Infertility Objection - Big Pulpit
  • Pingback: Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Debate Saturday - CATHOLIC FEAST - Sync your Soul
  • / Recently saw the following web item. Readers may also like to Google or Yahoo “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up.” /

    (The following paper was inspired by Bill O’Reilly whose TV show favors God Dumpers and not “Bible Thumpers.” Quotes are from “Vital Quotations” by Emerson West.)

    DANGEROUS BIBLE THUMPERS OF AMERICA

    ROBERT E. LEE: “In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.” (p. 21)
    DANIEL WEBSTER: “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper.” (p. 21)
    JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: “I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year.” (p. 22)
    ABRAHAM LINCOLN: “I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book.” (p. 22)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” (p. 22)
    HORACE GREELEY: “It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people.” (p. 23)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by himself to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him.” (p. 45)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would by now have become Christian.” (p. 47)
    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.” (p.49)
    WOODROW WILSON: “The sum of the whole matter is this—-that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can only be saved by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by practices which spring out of that spirit.” (p. 143)
    PATRICK HENRY: “There is a just God who presides over the destiny of nations.” (p. 145)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” (p. 225)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.” (p. 237)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low, that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.” (p. 283)
    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped.” (p. 301)
    CALVIN COOLIDGE: “The strength of a country is the strength of its religious convictions.” (p. 305)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “The perpetuity of this nation depends upon the religious education of the young.” (p. 306)

    Prior to our increasingly “Hell-Bound and Happy” era, America’s greatest leaders were part of the (gulp) Religious Right! Today we’ve forgotten God’s threat (to abort America) in Psa. 50:22—-“Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.” Memo to God Dumpers: In light of Rev. 16:19, can you be sure you won’t be in a city that God has already reserved for destruction?

  • THe pope made a very good point. Heterosexuality has been in a very bad state for many years. I think he said 50. A serious heterosexual crisis occurred opening the door to homosexuality. This was a gradual erosion.

  • Jon

    I believe Miss Anscombe made the point very well in 1972

    “If contraceptive intercourse is permissible, then what objection could there be after all to mutual masturbation, or copulation in vase indebito, sodomy, buggery (I should perhaps remark that I am using a legal term here – not indulging in bad language), when normal copulation is impossible or inadvisable (or in any case, according to taste)? It can’t be the mere pattern of bodily behaviour in which the stimulation is procured that makes all the difference! But if such things are all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse, for example. I am not saying: if you think contraception all right you will do these other things; not at all. The habit of respectability persists and old prejudices die hard. But I am saying: you will have no solid reason against these things. You will have no answer to someone who proclaims as many do that they are good too. You cannot point to the known fact that Christianity drew people out of the pagan world, always saying no to these things. Because, if you are defending contraception, you will have rejected Christian tradition. “

The Fix Was In

Saturday, March 23, AD 2013

 

 

Patterico at Patterico’s Pontifications has received copies of e-mails between retired Fededal District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker and one of Ted Olson’s legal partners, demonstrating the depth of collusion between the judge who ruled that Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment in California approved by the voters banning gay marriage was unconstitional, and Ted Olson who led the legal team seeking to overturn Proposition 8:

 

Vaughn R. Walker, the judge who struck down Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban, sought Ted Olson’s opinion regarding whether Walker should attend next week’s Supreme Court arguments on the gay marriage cases. Olson was one of the lawyers who successfully persuaded Judge Walker to strike down Proposition 8 after a trial held in 2010.

In December 2012 emails obtained exclusively by Patterico.com, Judge Walker, who retired in February 2011, asked Olson’s law partner to “ask Ted if he thinks my attending the argument would be an unwanted distraction.”

Above: Retired federal judge Vaughn Walker, who struck down Proposition 8, seeks Ted Olson’s opinion as to whether he should attend next week’s Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage.
 

When Olson’s law partner responded that Olson thought Walker’s attendance would be a “potential distraction,” Walker agreed not to go, saying he understood Olson’s reaction and was not surprised by it. Walker described himself as “only moderately disappointed not to see the argument,” and added: “Ted’s argument will be spectacular, I’m sure.”

Continue reading...

18 Responses to The Fix Was In

  • Pingback: SATURDAY MORNING EDITION | God & Caesar
  • It’s this sort of thing that makes me question whether we continue to have a legitimate federal, and in some cases state government. We have widespread election fraud by the party in power and a disregard for the constitution that established our nation. We have different standards for how the law treats people dependent upon whether you agree with or dissent from the Democratic Party platform. The Democratic Party uses the taxpayers money (and heavily borrowed funds) to pay for the indoctrination of our children with their immoral principles. They have created a debt bomb that will end in either heavy taxation, or the devaluation of our currency. Either method results in the destruction of wealth and will prevent individuals and groups from gathering the financial means for opposing the party in power. Collusion by the judiciary is simply the party in power maintaining its power and crushing its opposition. Its further evidence that the law is of no consequence and our government is likely illegitimate at this point.

  • The United States of America is not a representative republic. It is a corrupt oligarchy. FDR showed the way for the Democrat Party to obtain and hold power. with a few exceptions, they have been doing what FDR did ever since.

    The Constitution means nothing. A federal judge has no business overthrowing a stat constitution amendment such as Prop 8, but he did it anyway. Vote fraud occurs on a massive scale in Philadelphia every four years, but the media won’t investigate it, the Democrat Party benefits from it and the GOP is too full of wimps to try to stop it.

  • The way the Prop 8 case was litigated (to the bench, not to a jury), with the government throwing the case, and a gay judge (who publicly announces his homosexual lifestyle AFTER he rules on the case, not before), trampling over every procedural and evidentiary rule, is literally sickening. This judge seemed to have been hand-picked. By his own admission, he delayed his retirement so he could be the assigned judge. He engaged in all sorts of dishonest and scheming ploys to get cameras to record his trial, breaking rules along the way, and then violated an appellate court’s ruling respecting the videotaping of that trial. Vaughn Walker disrespected the democratic vote of Californians on Prop 8, wrote a grotesquely dishonest opinion based on phony expert evidence (from obviously and equally biased homosexual expert witnesses to boot), and then fled into retirement, coming out of the closet after the case was over. He has since become a public champion of his own decision to jam gay marriage down the throats of the citizenry. This case and this judge stank to high heaven, and if Justice Kennedy (or CJ Roberts) affirm this corrupt judgment, they will not be on the “right side of history” but kill the legitimacy of the Court.

  • Your honor ????????

  • Higher education and ratings are often overrated!

  • When the honor has no honor how should one address him? Your Disgraced!? Your Unworthiness? Your Lair?
    Where’s the silver-lining in this field of nightmares?

  • [When the honor has no honor how should one address him?]

    How about “Your DisHonour”?

  • How about “Your Disgrace”?

  • I think Penguin Fan is right. We have lost our representative republic. I don’t know if oligarchy defines the situation, but I feel a definate erosion has occurred.

  • Why postpone the inevitable, Donald? Your fighting an uphill battle and there is another army waiting at the top. Sorry if I sound a tad bit defeatist.

  • Because this is my country Jon and I love her, as I do Democracy. Additionally, considering that the Republicans control some 30 states you are being defeatist, an attitude that is always a waste of time.

  • But we weren’t given a democracy. It was a representative republic as someone said earlier. A democracy would probably have been very short lived and would have ushered in something worse.

  • Please do not play word games Jon. No one expects direct rule a la Athens. What was established by the Founding Fathers has become known as Democracy. One of the many crimes of the Birchers is to cause that type of hair splitting debate to go on endlessly on conservative sites and I have small patience for it.

  • THe John Birch Society, you mean? Yes, many books have been written in the past few decades pointing out the great difference between a democracy and a republic. It was that kind of literature that caught myt attention to the subject.

  • Shawn-
    Your Dishonour.
    Right. Supreme Court later today. Prop 8, DOMA.
    Lets see if there’s “nobility” worthy of honour.
    Seems honor is a cheap cigar in the rainbow west.

Stupid Meme: Libertarianism & “Gay Marriage”

Wednesday, September 26, AD 2012

One of the more annoying memes I am often confronted with is the automatic assumption that libertarians must be for “gay marriage.”I can understand why some people automatically assume such things in good faith, but I can also tell when the leftist media is attempting to exploit an apparent rift between libertarians and conservatives on the right. Whenever I read somewhere that there may be tension between different wings of the American right on an issue such as “gay marriage”, it is almost never a conservative or a libertarian writing it.

Is it consistent with libertarianism to be an uncritical and loud advocate of “gay marriage”? In my view, the answer is no. In fact, it is more consistent with libertarianism, at least in the current political climate and given the way the issue is currently framed, to be opposed to the “marriage equality” movement. The word “equality” ought to be the first indication to a libertarian that something may be amiss, since egalitarian movements are often statist, sometimes outright totalitarian movements that seek to achieve an ideal of equality by sheer force. Communism is the most obvious example, but what feminist and certain racial groups have achieved on college campuses is only a microcosm of what they would like to see in society at large: free speech utterly silenced, opposing views ostracized, careers denied or ruined over the utterance of a heterodox opinion (just view the archives of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for countless examples). To some extent this already does happen in society at large, but only selectively – for now.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Stupid Meme: Libertarianism & “Gay Marriage”

  • Thank you for your post. Re-define. To call something that isn’t is. What will be the next grab for power. Pedophiles are “minor attracted people”. Life site .com posted a disturbing piece coming out of Germany regarding the move to lower children’s consent requirements, (age). Placing more children in harms way of the M.A.P.
    When will this stop? It seems to me as God is pushed out of the public square, the old foe slithers in. “What’s foul is fair…and what’s fair is foul.” Old Bill saw it coming.

  • Mother and Father becomes Parent A and Parent B.

    only a bureaucratic detail. only. mmhmm

  • Pingback: Dating Subsidiarity Archbishop John Myers Same-Sex Marriage | Big Pulpit
  • Thank you, Bonchamps, for a discerning essay. I am in close agreement with much of what you’ve written here, especially in the third and fourth paragraphs.

    Among some self-identified libertarians in the blogosphere, “the opinion that the state ought to have nothing to say at all about marriage” has great initial appeal. But who was it who said that for every difficult problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong? And wrong it is; a libertarian should be quick to see that upon considering what individuals have to say about marriage.

    Eventually people will laugh at attempts by judges and legislators to make same-sex sham marriages equivalent to real marriages just as we laugh at stories of attempts to legislate pi = 3.

  • The great 19th century Catholic historian, Lord Acton, pointed out on many occasions that the passion for civic equality and the hatred of noble and clerical privilege is usually accompanied by a tolerance of despotism, whether the absolutism of a Napoléon (whose regime was the consummation of the Revolution, not its reversal) or the tyranny of the majority.

    The egalitarian likes strong government, believing, as Acton notes, “Government must not be arbitrary, but it must be powerful enough to repress arbitrary action in others. If the supreme power is needlessly limited, the secondary powers will run riot and oppress. Its supremacy will bear no check.” Hence, “The modern theory… which has swept away every authority except that of the State, and has made the sovereign power irresistible by multiplying those who share it.”

  • I think you are neglecting two aspects of this:

    1. Civil marriage is a set of voluntarily assumed obligations. It is also an official delineation of social boundaries as are the property deeds in the county clerk’s office or copyrights registered at the Library of Congress. That delineation guides the resolution of disputes that inevitably arise in a society between private parties. The default mode of libertarian social thought is to conceive of a sharp delineation of state and society in which the latter is put upon by blunderbusses employed in the former. This sort of discourse is found in the writings of people who are critics of license (see William L. Anderson and Joseph Sobran) as those who are celebrants of it. In this mode of thought, the act of civil marriage is reducible to the issuance of a license and the refusal to do so is an unacceptable imposition on the autonomous will of Adam and Steve. That is an adolescent way of looking at the world, but what do you expect?

    2. Advocacy of these stupid burlesques is now a social and cultural marker in certain age cohorts. You do not really believe Reason‘s constituency is composed of people who do not care if they are confounded with evangelicals, do you?

  • With the moving words:

    “Champions of individual liberty should stand on the side of private property rights and religious liberty, and not on the side of those who are quite obviously attempting to use the coercive power of the state to impose their moral vision on the rest of America.”

    You have managed to more eloquently express the libertarian argument against anti-“gay marriage” legislation than you have defended yourself from what appears to be an entirely invented accusation that all libertarians must think and act the same.

    The larger issue of this meme – the concept that all libertarians must agree on gay marriage – well, you are correct there. You don’t have to support it.

    It will, however, make you less of a libertarian in the eyes of many. Take solace, however, as you can simply count it among the dozens of areas where the Christian faith and libertarian ideals do not meet eye-to-eye in the real world.

  • know what? I guess I am so naive as to think about this. If God would have wanted this kind of lifestyle there would be no proliferation of the human race. Without the act of procreation what is the point of anything? Everyway I turn I am learning of the homosexuals in my family. I love them as God loves them, but I cannot nor will I condone this behavior. No one will confront it in this Catholic family. Catholic mothers and fathers sisters and brothers. We are forced to, in every family gathering to put up with behavior that gags me. Married couples at these gatherings are not blatantly affectionate. It almost seems like an assult, or “dare ya” attitude. My grandchildren are exposed non stop. Please God. I don’t care what political direction you take this is, and will be disaster on our race. Without respect for marriage and procreation we are truly lost.

  • There are a number of problems with the essay that I take issue with. You brought up the situation with the photography studio in New Mexico as a warning about the dangers of marriage equality. Only problem is, New Mexico doesn’t allow same-sex marriage. The claim against the owner was one of discrimination in public services, not marriage. The state ruled that businesses that offer services to the public cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (amongst other criteria). Just a reminder, a photography studio is not a church, and people that are religious “chose” to be religious. They weren’t born that way. So for your position to be valid, one would have to argue that ANY choice people make in their lives can be used to justify discriminating against anyone that they want. In a secular society, this is unacceptable. Choosing to become religious does not give you a “free pass” to enforce your religious ideology on the rest of society. Don’t want to provide service to ALL of society? Then don’t open a business in the public sphere. Pretty simple philosophy, huh?

    I also find it interesting that you believe the word “equality” should bring up red flags. The reality is that most states and our government have gone out of their way to foster discriminatory laws aimed solely at gay Americans, making sure that gay people will never be considered equal under the law. (Which is what this is about. Not legal forms.) This is the antithesis of what America represents: freedom, liberty and equality all citizens. Religion cannot be allow to override those ideals. In a secular society, one should ask themselves why our government is enforcing an obvious religious ideology on its own citizens without a rational “legal” basis. Our government shouldn’t be promoting ANY type of religious ideology. When Congress passed the extremely unconstitutional DOMA law, their “rational basis” was that DOMA will help ensure that straight couples will procreate responsibly. Perhaps you can explain how preventing gay couples from getting married will help straight couples be more responsible when having sex? Are the gay couples going to provide condoms to all those straight couples? Are straight couples going to get married in greater numbers because they know that gay couples can’t get married? By any stretch of the imagination, the rationale behind DOMA was drenched in anti-gay animus (based on religious beliefs) and nothing else. These people simply didn’t want to treat gay people as equal members of society. Their position is fundamentally wrong and inherently immoral.

    By the way, the public doesn’t have the final say when it comes to passing laws, the Constitution does. Just because a majority of people vote for something (the express wishes of the voters) does not make them right, or their decision just or legal. Slavery ring a bell? How about the subordination of women? Bans on interracial marriage? People justified all sorts of bigotry throughout our history… and used the Bible to support their position. Enforcing your religious beliefs into our laws pushes us one step closer to becoming a Christian theocracy. Our Founding Fathers escaped religious tyranny. Our society cannot allow that to ever happen here.

  • I’ve pointed this out to the Libertarians on Ricochet who push for homosexual marriage. Their response is the same as about abortion– they make excuses that the thing consistent with their stated philosophy gives the government too much power, and then promote expanding that power, on the stated theory that if anybody can do it, EVERYONE should be able to do it.

    Then, if you pay attention to what college PotLibertarians do and point it out as an example of Libertarianism, they respond it’s inconsistent with their theory– and when you point out that their stance on killing humans up to a set stage of development is also inconsistent, or forcing others to support the lifestyle choice of two adults, you’re suddenly “just being nasty.”

    Can’t win. Either you pay attention to the theory of Libertarianism but aren’t allowed to call them on inconsistencies like promoting expanding gov’t power for their pet views, or you pay attention to what MOST Libertarians one meets think, and you’re accused of lying. For noticing that Ronulans and Liberaltarians (PotLibertarians that somehow always manage to vote straight Dem tickets, and love their college freebies) exist in real life. *headdesk*

  • What is far more disturbing to me, and most moral conservatives, is that libertarians do not support morality. At all. Libertine freedom is the enemy of morality- it is the right to sin. Real moral conservatives, at least Catholic ones, are authoritarian monarchists: They support the Kingship of Jesus Christ and the rule of his Vicar the Pope in all matters of faith and morals. Morality for moral conservatives IS objective; personal likes and dislikes do not change what is right and wrong the way it does for libertarians.

    THAT is why you see people thinking libertarians will support gay marriage, the way libertarians support the right of women to choose abortion, and the right of people to destroy their own lives and the lives of their families with drugs- because at the base, the false liberty of the right to sin is the cause.

  • Igel,

    “You have managed to more eloquently express the libertarian argument against anti-”gay marriage” legislation than you have defended yourself from what appears to be an entirely invented accusation that all libertarians must think and act the same.”

    Entirely invented? Gee thanks. I guess you’ve never read… anything at all. Really? You’ve never come across the standard line, usually from some left of center pundit, that conservatives and libertarians are necessarily divided on the issue of gay marriage? Pundits and commentators make broad and stupid generalizations all the time, especially when it serves their purposes. In this case, the purpose is to deepen the rifts on the right.

    What you call “anti-gay marriage legislation” is NOT an attempt to use the coercive authority of the state to impose a moral vision on America. People who think it is simply have not thought the issue through, and are reacting with pure emotion and irrationality. It is a response to the aggressive and 100% statist “marriage equality” movement. A ban on so-called “gay marriage” doesn’t infringe upon anyone’s legitimate individual rights (is there a natural right, now, to have your romantic preference recognized by the state as a “marriage”? When did this happen?)

    The push FOR “gay marriage”, on the other hand, is an attempt to force private property owners and government institutions to recognize a lifestyle choice as morally valid.

    A libertarian who isn’t opposed to that is either an ignorant fool who knows nothing about the foundations of his own philosophy, or a total fraud who ought to be cast into political outer darkness.

  • Fox,

    I guess I came to my quasi-libertarianism (I hesitate to identify fully with any label other than “Catholic”) through Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, Judge Napolitano (a trad Catholic like me) and the Austrian school, which offers clear moral reasoning on every issue, even if I don’t agree with it 100% of the time. Of course this is a subset of a broader school of thought. Of course there are other factions within libertarianism. But the kind of people you describe sound like brain-dead fools.

    Ted,

    I don’t think this statement:

    “What is far more disturbing to me, and most moral conservatives, is that libertarians do not support morality.”

    Is fair at all. All of the names I mentioned above are extremely supportive of morality, and are in fact among the most morally conscious thinkers I’ve ever read.

    Of course libertarianism proposes, basically, that individuals ought to have the right to do as they please as long as they don’t infringe upon the basic rights of another person. But then you have Paul, Napolitano, and other very high profile libertarians who argue forcefully that abortion does exactly that, and so does this “marriage equality” movement. Abortion robs a human being of their right to life, and so-called “marriage equality” robs Christians and other individuals who are morally opposed to participating in “gay marriages” of their religious liberty and their private property rights.

    It is absolutely shocking to me that the average libertarian doesn’t see this.

  • Of course this is a subset of a broader school of thought. Of course there are other factions within libertarianism. But the kind of people you describe sound like brain-dead fools.

    They’re usually in college. Mentally, if not still physically. That’d make at very least the fools part mostly redundant…..

    To be more fair, I think they’re usually male liberals who got burnt or at least noticed the damage caused by extreme feminism, and so react by being exactly the opposite…but still on left-wing foundations. Part of why it usually looks like conservatism built by liberals.
    If you don’t have a foundation, you MIGHT be able to build some things; say, anti-abortion, anti-slavery, anti-theft, everything has to be a freely entered agreement. Which causes issues when folks actually do what they desire, and a third party becomes involved involuntarily, especially if their involvement puts a demand on the initial folks involved.

    Being pro-abortion and denouncement of forced child support as exploitation of the guy who willingly had sex in the first place is against the stated principles, but it’s very emotionally tempting if you don’t have a good bedrock.

  • David in Houston,

    Thanks for your extensive comments. I will address what I think are the most relevant parts.

    “The state ruled that businesses that offer services to the public cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (amongst other criteria).”

    The business didn’t discriminate “on the basis of sexual orientation.” The test of such discrimination would be whether the business refused service to a homosexual individual because they were homosexual. That is manifestly not what happened; rather, the business morally objected to participating in a “gay marriage”, a voluntarily chosen activity. There is a world of difference between these two things.

    “So for your position to be valid, one would have to argue that ANY choice people make in their lives can be used to justify discriminating against anyone that they want. ”

    That’s more or less exactly what I believe. I believe it because of a thing called private property rights, as well as freedom of association. I believe these rights are fundamental to a free society, especially when there are a multitude of alternatives available on the free market.

    It is not the job of the state to force everyone to like each other and serve each other. It is the job of the state to protect natural rights.

    “In a secular society, this is unacceptable. Choosing to become religious does not give you a “free pass” to enforce your religious ideology on the rest of society. Don’t want to provide service to ALL of society? Then don’t open a business in the public sphere. Pretty simple philosophy, huh?”

    It’s simple, but it is also absurd. It is absurd to suggest that people with religious convictions don’t have individual rights to free exercise in their capacity as private property owners (such a notion would have been absurd to the founders as well), it is absurd to suggest that refusing service is equivalent to “enforc(ing) religious ideology on the rest of society” when the market provides many alternatives, and it is absurd to suggest that people with religious views ought to be denied freedom of association by being effectively barred from establishing religiously-oriented business.

    No one is forced to hire or shop at establishments with particular views. But freedom works both ways – no ought to be forced to serve people who are asking them to participate in or facilitate events they find morally repugnant. You shouldn’t have the right to force Christians to photograph Satanic rituals, or Jews to cater Nazi banquets, or for that matter, secular atheists to renovate churches if they don’t want to. That’s also a very simply philosophy, one that doesn’t involve forcing people to act against their convictions and doesn’t deprive anyone of an essential good or service.

    “The reality is that most states and our government have gone out of their way to foster discriminatory laws aimed solely at gay Americans, making sure that gay people will never be considered equal under the law”

    Well, this is simply false. Gays are equal under the law, as individuals. There isn’t a single right that straight people have that gays do not have. Gays can even legally marry – someone of the opposite sex, that is. Gays can, through private contract, establish anyone they choose as legal and medical power of attorney, inheritor of their estate, co-owner of their property, joint bank accounts, and so on and so forth. All they lack, and what they are not entitled to by nature or by law, is the privilege of presumption that married men and women have with regards to these legal matters. There is absolutely no injustice here.

    “In a secular society, one should ask themselves why our government is enforcing an obvious religious ideology on its own citizens without a rational “legal” basis.”

    There is a rational, secular basis for supporting traditional marriage and opposing homosexual marriage. That you’ve never come across it or, as I suspect, even looked for it, doesn’t mean a thing. But that isn’t the issue here. I am not asking the government to enforce a religious ideology, but rather to respect the rights of individuals to free exercise of religion, free speech, and private property.

    ” When Congress passed the extremely unconstitutional DOMA law, their “rational basis” was that DOMA will help ensure that straight couples will procreate responsibly. ”

    I’m not a fan of that rationale. But it is unnecessary. The key provision of DOMA is that no state be forced to recognize the validity of a “gay marriage” from a state that legally recognizes it. That is a perfectly just and fair provision that respects the sovereign rights of individual states. It does not prevent the individual states from recognizing “gay marriage” either, as we have seen. This is another illegitimate complaint.

    “By the way, the public doesn’t have the final say when it comes to passing laws, the Constitution does.”

    Have you read the 10th amendment?

    “Just because a majority of people vote for something (the express wishes of the voters) does not make them right, or their decision just or legal.”

    I agree. Sometimes, however, the majority is right. This time, they are. But in any case, it is not primarily about what the majority thinks, though I do think that is important. This is about the defense of natural individual rights to freedom of speech, religion, and private property.

    As for your comparisons to slavery and the like, the Bible was also (quite obviously, for anyone who knows their history) used by those fighting against slavery. No one complained about that as an “enforcement of religious beliefs” on the rest of the country, just like no one complains when left-wing Christians use religion to justify left-wing policies. No, it is only the socially conservative right who wants to impose religious values, only the socially conservative right who can find no “rational justification” for their policy preferences. The religious left, on the other hand, always gets a free pass.

    Finally, “marriage”, the decision to live one’s life with another person, is a CHOICE. It is not an inherited trait like skin color. Governments and individuals have a moral obligation to treat all individuals equally. They do not have a moral obligation to treat all moral choices as equally valid. If you can’t comprehend the difference, then I’m afraid we will always be enemies.

  • David in Houston said “ the public doesn’t have the final say when it comes to passing laws, the Constitution does. Just because a majority of people vote for something (the express wishes of the voters) does not make them right, or their decision just or legal.”

    But, of course, the public always have the final say; they can always amend or abolish any laws, including the Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson said, “no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please…”

    Law is the expression of the general will, of the living, not the dead. History may instruct and warn, but cannot guide or control.

  • This is an excellent post. Thanks, Bonchamps. I wish I had the intellect to contribute something. But I am satisfied to learn where I can’t contribute.

  • Many libertarians recognize a set of principles or preexisting order that must exist to support liberty. Many others, however, are libertines who adopt libertarianism in an effort to confuse their conscience with their constantly changing, contradicting intellectual-sounding garble to support their temporal whims.

  • Also, most ‘gay marriage’ statutes have nothing to do with what the state does. Many states, before they ever introduced same-sex civil ‘unions’ or ‘marriages’, had reconciled all state-level administrative powers to be neutral to all couples. However, this was deemed insufficient. Hence, states began imposing requirements on the private organizations they regulated.
    Now some states are suing the federal government to force the federal government to accept gay marriage. Already there’s proposals to force other states accept the same sex ‘marriages’ from other states. Sooner or later, and in some small cases already relating to property and adjacent ministries, every private organization will be forced to accept and facilitate these ‘marriages’.

    It’s not an coincidence why some of the biggest heterosexual supporters of same sex marriage are the statists. They envision new powers to regulate speech, regulate custody, regulate transhumanist dreams, attack churches, harm families and then ‘help’ those impacted families. It’s not about people, it’s about the new weapons they can produce.

  • My personal position on the photographer is that I wouldn’t do business with someone that doesn’t want my business. That being said, personal feelings about someone (believing that they are immoral) is not a rational basis to discriminate against them. By the way, I can guarantee that the photographer has provided work for “immoral” straight people in the past. Especially if they’ve ever worked with people like Newt Gingrich, or other adulterers, or gamblers, or alcoholics, or any other so-called sin you can come up with. I sincerely doubt that the photographer questioned other clients to determine if they were worthy of their services. I find it more than a little hypocritical that the only criteria that Christians have for immorality (to use for the basis for discrimination) is someone’s sexual orientation — oddly enough, that’s the ONLY so-called sin that they’ll never have. Must be a coincidence, right? That’s basically the same assessment that the courts in New Mexico found. Simply choosing to become religious doesn’t give you authority to disregard laws that protect the treatment of other citizens. Did you ever notice that the only group of people that are collectively discriminating against another group of people are Christians, and not the other way around. Yet it’s the Christians that are somehow the victims in all of these stories. Funny how that works out. Yes, 80% of the populous are victims of the overwhelming power of the 3%. It truly boggles the mind.

    “Gays are equal under the law, as individuals. There isn’t a single right that straight people have that gays do not have. Gays can even legally marry – someone of the opposite sex, that is. Gays can, through private contract, establish anyone they choose as legal and medical power of attorney, inheritor of their estate, co-owner of their property, joint bank accounts, and so on and so forth. All they lack, and what they are not entitled to by nature or by law, is the privilege of presumption that married men and women have with regards to these legal matters. There is absolutely no injustice here.”

    Gay people can still be fired in 29 states, simply because they are gay. They can also be refused housing on the same basis; and apparently (based on your beliefs) they can be discriminated against by anyone that happens to be religious. Which is what, over three-quarters of the population? — If you happen to have offspring, I seriously doubt that you’d want them to marry a gay person. I’d think you want them to marry someone that they are physically attracted to, someone that they love and want to build a life with, and someone that also finds them sexually and physically attractive. That isn’t possible if the other person is gay, and vice versa. Common sense, right? It’s also a laughable argument: “I’d rather have that gay guy marry my daughter instead of that man he’s been in a relationship for 10 years.” Yeah, let’s destroy two lives just to make sure that gay people can’t legally join together. Seriously? — As for private contracts. There is no logical reason why gay couples should have to jump through legal hoops and spent time and money on something that is automatically granted to straight couples. Immoral straight couples don’t have to hire an attorney to protect their relationships, neither should so-called immoral gay couples.

    “There is a rational, secular basis for supporting traditional marriage and opposing homosexual marriage. That you’ve never come across it or, as I suspect, even looked for it, doesn’t mean a thing.”

    No. Actually there isn’t a rational secular basis to deny gay Americans the right to create a legal kinship (secular marriage) with each other. That is why conservatives want to pass a constitutional amendment to ban it. Because they know that if they don’t, our constitution will support it. If there were a rational basis, we would have definitely heard it during the Prop. 8 trial. Instead, we got inane slippery slope arguments about the threat to “traditional” marriage, and how theoretical children need a mommy and daddy — disregarding the fact that procreation has never been a requirement to getting married. I also didn’t read it in the above essay, which complains that if gay people can marry, then religious people will have a harder time discriminating against them. When put in that context (You won’t tolerate my intolerance), your position is insupportable.

    “Finally, “marriage”, the decision to live one’s life with another person, is a CHOICE. It is not an inherited trait like skin color. Governments and individuals have a moral obligation to treat all individuals equally. They do not have a moral obligation to treat all moral choices as equally valid. If you can’t comprehend the difference, then I’m afraid we will always be enemies.”

    Your position is that homosexuality is immoral, and I’m guessing you also believe it’s a choice. Sorry to say, wrong on both counts. All because you believe a 2,000 year old book says so. Sorry, but that doesn’t prove anything — in a theocratic country, perhaps. But not here. In fact, your entire belief system is built on nothing but faith. Which again means there is no proof of that assertion; and unless our government can prove that all gay people are inherently immoral and a threat to society, they have no right to discriminate against them as a group. As I said before, we do not disenfranchise straight citizens that are immoral. Straight people that have cheated on their spouses still have all of their civil rights, including the right to get divorced and remarried as many times as they want. If you can’t comprehend the obvious hypocrisy going on here, then I agree, I’m afraid we will always be enemies. Liberty and freedom for ALL Americans will always win in the end. The younger generation “comprehends” that (and literally cannot understand why gay couples can’t get married), and irrational animus directed at gay people will be as unacceptable as racism and sexism.

  • David,

    “That being said, personal feelings about someone (believing that they are immoral) is not a rational basis to discriminate against them.”

    Personal feelings can be entirely aligned with objective reasons, so your statement is fallacious.

    More importantly, it is irrelevant. The 1st and 5th amendments secure the rights of religion, speech and property, and that security does not depend in the least upon whether or not a person exercising them meets some criteria of “rationality.” The essence of a free society is that I don’t have to convince you that my beliefs meet your standard of rationality – rather, you must tolerate beliefs you personally feel to be irrational as long as they infringe upon no legitimate right of yours. Clearly these basic lessons of American law, politics and culture are utterly lost on you, which is why liberty is dying a slow death in this country.

    “By the way, I can guarantee that the photographer has provided work for “immoral” straight people in the past. ”

    This, like many of your subsequent statements, is nothing but pure speculation presented as if it were indisputable fact – and is therefore pure rubbish.

    Even if you were correct, however, it wouldn’t matter. How a person exercises their religious beliefs, provided no one’s legitimate rights are violated, is not the business of the state. If a person is inconsistent in their application of morality, that is their own personal issue, and has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they have the legal right to refuse to participate in events they deem morally objectionable. The right to refuse service isn’t rooted in intellectual consistency, but rather in the natural, individual and inalienable right to private property and the civil rights of free speech and free exercise.

    “I find it more than a little hypocritical that the only criteria that Christians have for immorality (to use for the basis for discrimination) is someone’s sexual orientation”

    This is completely untrue. I don’t know what would possess you to even assert such a thing. Homosexuality is the issue because homosexuality is what is being shoved down our throats by radical activists. But there are plenty of Christians who object to the whole gamut of immoral and anti-social behavior, and it is really quite foolish of you to suggest otherwise. Really, think before you write.

    “Yet it’s the Christians that are somehow the victims in all of these stories.”

    Yes, it is Christians who are being harassed, sued, and threatened by radical homosexual activists. There is a documented history of this abuse in the U.S. and in other countries. This is the ugly reality you are completely ignoring.

    “Yes, 80% of the populous are victims of the overwhelming power of the 3%. It truly boggles the mind.”

    It boggles the mind how someone can play so fast and loose with the facts. First of all, far fewer than 80% of American Christians actually take their stated beliefs seriously. Secondly, the gay population is estimated to be 10%, not 3%. Third, some of the most aggressive “gay rights” advocates are straight, secular, left-wing activists, especially the Hollywood types. Given that opinion polls show the nation evenly split on the issue, about 50-50, I’d say that more accurately represents the reality.

    But while the Christians have maybe a few legal defense organizations who are committed to fighting for their rights, homosexuals have the sympathy of the entire media establishment and significant sections of the political and corporate worlds as well (for every Chick-fil-A there are a dozen Targets, Oreos, Starbucks, NBCs, and so on). Just turn on a television, for the love of all that is holy – there is an endless parade of television shows praising and glamorizing the gay lifestyle, and an endless stream of anti-Christian hate, mockery, and vilification. Only the ignorant or the dishonest could possibly say otherwise. You live in a left-wing bubble.

    “Gay people can still be fired in 29 states, simply because they are gay. ”

    I believe in equal protection under the law for individuals. However, I also believe in freedom of association and private property rights. A balance must be struck, I will grant. But that means both sides meeting in the middle on this question – not one side steamrolling over the other by judicial fiat.

    “hey can also be refused housing on the same basis; and apparently (based on your beliefs) they can be discriminated against by anyone that happens to be religious.”

    Well, you’ve misrepresented my views. I stated quite clearly that the discrimination in question had nothing to do with sexual orientation, but rather with an unwillingness to participate in a freely-chosen public event that is morally objectionable. You are pathologically incapable of understanding the difference between these two things. Refusing service to an individual because of some characteristic they possess is not the same as refusing to participate in an event. You’re quite deluded if you think they are the same, an enemy of liberty, and therefore my enemy.

    “That isn’t possible if the other person is gay, and vice versa. Common sense, right?”

    Well, you’re wrong actually. It is entirely possible. It has happened throughout all of recorded history. It leads to difficulties, yes, but in societies in which family and children are duties, and not accessories, it is far easier to accomplish. Homosexuality was rampant among the Greeks in the ancient world, but so was the notion of familial duty. Homosexuality has existed in many cultures but the concept of “gay marriage” has only existed in these very recent times. That isn’t a coincidence.

    Having a sexual orientation does not make it physically impossible to perform sex acts with the sex you aren’t oriented towards. There are few men in the prison system who would ever identify as homosexuals, but there are many who routinely engage in sodomy and other sex acts with other men. The dominant males think of the more submissive males as females. The same thing happens in the other direction – there are homosexual men and women who have, can, and do engage in lifelong sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex.

    But none of this is relevant, absolutely none of it, to the issues I am concerned with.

    “There is no logical reason why gay couples should have to jump through legal hoops and spent time and money on something that is automatically granted to straight couples.”

    And it is absurd to uproot society, dramatically transform the law, and infringe upon the rights of millions of people so that a few legal hoops can be avoided. That isn’t rational or moral. Traditional marriage between one man and one woman is objectively good for society. It deserves pride of place, it deserves prestige, and all other social arrangements ought to be subordinate to it. You can call me a bigot all day long if you like for holding that position. See if I care. I think married men and women are as superior to gay couples as they are to unmarried hetero couples, to polygamists, to voluntary single parents – this is not about singling out homosexuality but rather retaining the justly deserved privileged status of traditional marriage. I’m not a radical egalitarian, I have no moral obligation to become one, and I will die to defend my right not to be one.

    “Actually there isn’t a rational secular basis to deny gay Americans the right to create a legal kinship (secular marriage) with each other. ”

    But that isn’t being denied. You can’t seriously posit the extra filing of forms to be the equivalent of a denial of “legal kinship.” It’s all right there – property, medical, legal, financial, and so on. Any two people can establish these legal relationships and no one objects to it.

    We object to the attempt to MORALLY place them on the same level as traditional marriage by hijacking the word “marriage” to describe them and forcing private property owners to render services to people they don’t consider to be married as if they were actually married.

    We object to the attempt to use the coercive power of the state to enforce a moral equivalence in the minds of the people between so-called “gay marriage” and traditional marriage.

    I just wonder if you are honest and/or intelligent enough to appreciate the distinction between these two very different things. If in the end you are just sour because I won’t recognize “gay marriage” as morally legitimate, then tough s*** – we live in a free society and you just have to deal with it. But I will make clear that I don’t object to any two individuals establishing a legal relationship that for all intents and purposes adds up to the state’s definition of a “marriage.” I will never call it marriage, and I will go to prison rather than treat a gay couple as if they were legitimately married, but I don’t object to the legal recognition of their private contracts.

    “I also didn’t read it in the above essay, which complains that if gay people can marry, then religious people will have a harder time discriminating against them. When put in that context (You won’t tolerate my intolerance), your position is insupportable.”

    No, it is completely supportable by over two centuries of American jurisprudence, the political philosophy of the founding fathers, the Bill of Rights, basic moral philosophy and common sense. I have a right to be intolerant, provided I am not violating anyone’s legitimate rights. But it isn’t even about intolerance. I can and do tolerate homosexuality, and even the existence of homosexual couples who like to pretend that they are “married.” What I refuse to do, and what any serious Christian refuses to do, is engage in, facilitate, participate in any way in what we believe to be blatantly immoral choices. We have this right under the 1st amendment. That is the “support” for my argument, or at least the beginning of it.

    “Your position is that homosexuality is immoral, and I’m guessing you also believe it’s a choice. ”

    This is part of your problem, David. Your guessing, your assuming. You think you know everything and that you have everyone figured out, and this arrogance makes your arguments absurd.

    I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. I don’t believe people are born gay either. I believe it is a psychological condition brought on by early childhood problems. I don’t believe it can be reversed or “cured”, but I do believe it is possible for a homosexual to reject the openly gay lifestyle, as it has been done throughout history.

    Homosexual acts are sinful, of course, as are many sexual acts that take place between heterosexuals. These are always choices. So, for that matter, is the decision to live as if you are married. This is quite clearly and obviously a choice. When one chooses to live as if they are married to a person of the same sex, it is blatantly immoral – and it is immoral for you or the state to attempt to force me to recognize it as something moral.

    “All because you believe a 2,000 year old book says so.”

    How far does this patronizing attitude typically get you in life? You don’t know me or what I believe. I have never once made an argument against “gay marriage” on the basis of Scripture (except to pro-gay Christians, but that’s a different matter). My primary argument is that “marriage equality” is a violent assault on basic American liberties. My secondary argument is that history and sociology clearly demonstrate the superiority of the traditional family to all other competing social arrangements.

    “As I said before, we do not disenfranchise straight citizens that are immoral.”

    What does “disenfranchise” mean to you? I don’t think I am suggesting any such thing.

    “The younger generation “comprehends” that (and literally cannot understand why gay couples can’t get married), and irrational animus directed at gay people will be as unacceptable as racism and sexism.”

    The younger generation is full of barely literate public school drones who couldn’t critically think their way out of a paper sack. It takes more than MTV platitudes and Obamaisms to understand the complicated intersection of moral, legal, and political issues underlying the “gay marriage” controversy. It is you who relies on the power of the unthinking, emotional mob to violently impose your views on others. Just look at how you make presumptions about me, how you have prejudged me and my beliefs. You’re the perfect stereotype of a lynch-mob lackey.

  • Gay people can still be fired in 29 states, simply because they are gay. They can also be refused housing on the same basis; and apparently (based on your beliefs) they can be discriminated against by anyone that happens to be religious.

    It is called ‘free association’, David. People are denied employment for all manner of reasons and denied credit and rental housing for failure to meet arbitrary metrics. They have no cause of action. In recent decades, civil liability has been manufactured which compels people to enter into contracts and other agreements they would rather not, for whatever reasons free people have. With regard to the black population (disproportionately poor, always obtrusive, and systemically abused by officialdom in 1964) there was a sort of justification for this. With sexual deviants, there is no such justification. The proliferation of ‘rights’ threatens liberty.

  • Bonchamps-
    the 10% figure was based on a highly flawed study; 3% seems to be more in line with less biased studies.
    The 10% figure is most often cited, though, especially when the activist wants to inflate his figures.

    Other than that, you’re doing great.

The Marriage Debate: Lessons and Prospects

Monday, August 13, AD 2012

A scene from the “Hunky Jesus” contest, held annually during Easter in San Francisco. Dozens of homosexuals dress up as Our Lord and engage in public homosexual acts for their amusement and the amusement of thousands of spectators. Its relevance for this post will become clear by the end of it.

Tom Hoopes at CatholicVote.org recently posted his assessment of what lessons the  “gay marriage” debate has taught those of us on the pro-tradition side. I was going to write about this myself, but I’ll go ahead and examine his four lessons as a starting point. My intention is be constructive, because as Hoopes correctly points out in his opening lines, the pro-equality side of this debate has been very successful at defining the parameters and central issues of the debate thus far. We need to assess and regroup. If Mr. Hoopes would like to reply to this, I would certainly welcome it.

1. We learned that being grossed out by homosexuality hurts us.”

Hoopes recalls a discussion with someone raised by homosexual parents:

“What people like my mom see in the religious right is people who say, ‘Ooo, this is icky and disgusting and horrible,’ reflexively, without explaining why,” he told me. “Then my mom and her friend look at their own lives, at their sacrifice and friendship and generosity and say, ‘Well, these people are just hate-mongers.’”

Hoopes concludes:

“There is no reason we should feel special disgust at homosexual acts compared to any other sexual sin. And there is no reason we can’t appreciate the mutual friendship and authentic love in a long-term homosexual couple. If we know what marriage is, a thousand such couples shouldn’t in any way threaten us.”

“Disgust” is a very peculiar phenomenon in that it is neither irrational nor easily expressed with words. Animals in nature have the physical senses to warn them of potential dangers; human beings in society have certain social senses to ward of certain dangers as well. I can’t explain why rotting garbage smells “bad” (even if I can offer a scientific account of why it smells the way it does); I affix the label “bad” to it because it is something I want to avoid, and I want to avoid it because I have an involuntary gag reflex that triggers when I inhale the odor.

Homosexual behavior is repulsive to us because it is harmful to society (more on that later), and we are social beings. The comforting narrative that homosexual activists have developed – that any aversion to homosexuality on the part of a heterosexual is a sign of repressed homosexual desires – is a way of making their positions and lifestyles unfalsifable. If you accept them, great. If you don’t, it is a sign that you secretly do. There can be no legitimate opposition. If you think gay is gross, you probably are gay. A fascinating self-defense mechanism, but one not supported by a shred of serious evidence.

Next, homosexuals aren’t averse to displaying their hearty disgust with heterosexuality (their derogatory name for us is “breeder”) when it suits their own desires and interests. They also go out of their way to provoke anger and disgust with their unjustifiably obscene public marches through major cities, which I consider to be acts of violent ideological aggression against Western Christian civilization. So I’ll take their complaints about our disgust seriously when that word is publicly denounced and banished from their lexicon, and when they aren’t actively trying to provoke disgust in society at large. To imagine that you can deliberately dress, speak and act in ways that you fully know and intend to make people uncomfortable and offended and then complain about people’s discomfort and offense has a proper label: sociopathy. To acquiesce to it is a sinful act of cowardice.

One other thing is required: an acknowledgement that the pro-tradition side has developed rational, secular arguments in favor of its position, instead of a default assumption that it is all either based on “eww gross” or decontextualized passages from the Pentateuch.

Continue reading...

54 Responses to The Marriage Debate: Lessons and Prospects

  • Pingback: Sacred Art Marriage Debate St. Stephen of Hungary Film | Big Pulpit
  • I believe that to introduce the morality of homosexual acts into a debate about civil marriage is a distraction. The argument is a simple one: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation – the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father – enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation..

    The state has a legitimate interest in marriage and it is important to note what precisely that is. Mandatory civil marriage originated in France on 9th November 1791 and was a product of the same Revolution that had just turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors. This was no coincidence.

    The Code of 1804 contained no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father,” which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1].

    This was the opinion of the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003), covering the period from the introduction of mandatory civil marriage down to our own day and long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated. In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike in the following year. Given this background, it is no wonder that, in the Bègles case, the attempt to establish the right to SSM on equality grounds was rejected by every court that heard it – the Tribunal of Grand Instance, the Court of Appeal in Bordeaux, the Court of Cassation, the Constitutional Council and the European Court of Human Rights.

    No one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.

    It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that the opinion of the jurists, or of the courts which have endorsed it, are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.

  • What… what are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything I wrote?

    I really think you need your own blog with your own audience.

  • Bonchamps

    It was intended to demonstrate that defence of traditional marriage need not concern itself with the morality or otherwise of homosexual behaviour. It is, after all, a juridical question and not a moral one.

    Claims to SSM on equality grounds have been successfully defeated by concentrating on the simple question of how marriage differs from other forms of life for couples and the state’s interest in marriage as a legal institution, alongside, but different from these other forms.

    Otherwise, civil unions for smae-sex couples will be regarded as “marriage-lite” and civil unions for opposite-sex couples, which are proving very popular in every country that has introduced them, are unintelligible.

  • Bonchamps,

    What Mr.Paterson-Seymour wrote has plenty to do with what you wrote. His argument, as I understand it, is that Christians confuse the immorality of the act that we are forbidden from doing by Christ’s law with the actions of the state to secure peace and public order.

    These “gay rights” groups exploit this confusion full hilt by making the issue entwine the legal, social and ethical aspects of marriage in a way to normalize sodomy.

    How are we to argue FOR a secular marriage (which the state provides) as a pillar of society between a man and woman if we can’t speak with clarity on what a secular marriage pertains and what the state’s interest in such a marriage is.

    I agree with Mr.Paterson-Seymour that it confuses the audience of our times to combine the immorality of the Sodomic act with the legal and social aspects of marriage- which relies on a patrimony that is not possible by redefining marriage to include same sex couples. There is a reason why same-sex marriage (at least in the United States) started out as something pushed by the American Hard Left 60s activists, the SDS. The purpose, as it has always been, is to destroy the last vestiges of patriarchy and the traditional Western family. Forgive me for the long quote but it’s better to quote the essay, “The Emergence of Gay Liberation” by Estelle Fredman and John D’Emilio found within the textbook: A History of Our Time: Readings on Post-War America Forth Edition Edited by William H. Chafe and Harvard Sitkoff:

    Appearing as it did at the end of the 1960s, gay liberation adopted much of the revolutionary rhetoric of the new Left. GLF’s [Gay Liberation Front] statement of purpose announced that “we are a revolutionary homosexual group of men and women formed with the realization that complete sexual liberation of all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished. We reject society’s attempt to impose sexual roles and definitions of our nature…Babylon has forced us to commit ourselves to one thing…revolution!” Rather than fight the ban on homosexuals in the military, radical gays urged resistance to the Vietnam War. They marched in solidarity with groups such as the Black Panther party, and saw themselves as an integral part of the larger movement of oppressed minorities seeking the overthrow of a destructive social order.

    In articulating a critque of America’s sexual mores, gay liberation borrowed heavily from the new literature of radical feminists. It argued that the oppression of the homosexuals stemmed from a rigidly enforced system of heterosexual supremacy that supported the primacy of the nuclear family and the dichotomous sex roles within it. Sex was just one more vehicle used to enforce subordination and keep the system functioning. For some, gayness itself symbolized an act of political resistance to conventional roles. “We are women and men who, from the time of our earliest memories, have been in revolt against the sex-role structure and nuclear family structure,” wrote Martha Shelley of GLF. Rather than being abnormal, homosexuality was seen as a natural capacity in everyone, suppressed by family and society. Gay liberation promised an end to all that. “Gay is good for all of us, ” proclaimed Allen Young, a former SDS member who joined GLF in 1970:

    The artificial categories “heterosexual and homosexual” have been laid on us by a sexist society….As gays, we demand an end to the gender programming which starts when we are born…The family…is the primary means by which this restricted sexuality is created and enforced…[O]ur understanding of sexism is premised on the idea that in a free society everyone will be gay.”

    (Any highlighted parts were the work of this writer:)

    This is clearly the political fight we are facing, and the integralist-Catholic position shouldn’t concede by placing the ethics of the Church into the fight as well.

  • God thinks the moral dimension of SSM (or rather, the lack of one) is of greatest importance, and it is God’s opinion, not the State’s, that ultimate counts.

    Personally, I don’t care how homosexual behavior is removed from the public square, so long as it is.

  • Paul W Primavera

    Traditional marriage can be defended on its own terms as the legal institution that establishes the legal bond between fathers and their children. It is, thus, irrelevant to same-sex couples. In other words, there is different legal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, because their situation is not analogous. Surely, this is something on which unprejudiced people of good-will can agree.

    Why cloud the issue by arguing about the morality of homosexual relationships? How does that advance the case?

  • Michael, everybody knows marriage can be defended on its own terms. The point is, we are not in a DEBATE about whether we should allow gay marriage in addition to traditional marriage. We are quite literally in a battle over the imposition of gay marriage by people who don’t give a damn about your well crafted arguments because they are too busy engaging in lewd public acts with the express purpose of offending people with small children and then using the opportunity to shame them into acceptance by calling them disgusting, breeder homophobes.

  • Chris-2-4

    Obviously, whatever one says will make no impact on partisan gay activists, but what the example of France shows is that such arguments can prevail with opinion-formers.

    Virtually every professor of Civil Law took part in the 1998 Colloquium and they were unanimous in their opposition to SSM, although a majority approved of civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike, as an alternative, not to marriage, but to unregulated cohabitation.

    This, in turn, convinced the courts, which always take their cue from the jurists and even convinced that bastion of liberalism, the European Court of Human Rights.

    That was the debate worth winning and it was won decisively.

    In the US, by contrast, the supporters of traditional marriage have used arguments that allowed them to be cast as motivated by irrational animus or religious dogma. In France, such a charge would have been palpably absurd and no one ventured to make it,

  • This is my problem.

    You aren’t addressing a single thing I said. I never said a thing about religious dogma or the morality of sodomy. I have always made secular, rational arguments against “marriage equality”, but that wasn’t the point of this piece. So again, this is really a separate topic you’re bringing up. I agree with you. It’s irrelevant.

  • If you just want to sound off on something, write your own blog post. If you are saying it is related to what I wrote, please quote something I wrote and explain how. Otherwise I will consider your post off-topic and I may remove it. Again, not because I disagree (I don’t disagree), but because I’d like to actually discuss what I actually wrote for a change.

  • Bonchamps

    I would simply endorse what Hmmm says above

  • Great. Well the same warning applies to him.

  • Well, “We learned that being grossed out by homosexuality hurts us.” is Hoopes’s complaint and I think it is well-founded.

    You, in turn, seek to justify expressions of disgust – “Homosexual behavior is repulsive to us because it is harmful to society (more on that later), and we are social beings.” This may well be so, but prudence would suggest that we should not allow ourselves to be drawn on the topic. Rather, we should make clear our opposition to SSM is based on its absurdity.

  • I’m not saying that expressions of disgust belong in our official, programmatic response to the radical gay activists.

    But I refuse to accept the notion that disgust with homosexual behavior – especially when it is deliberately provocative – is a moral failing, or something that needs to be thought-controlled at all times.

  • Rather, we ought to do exactly what they do – turn it back on them. Expose the ways in which they actively seek to disgust people, so that they can no longer attempt to use hetero disgust as a moral weapon against us in the battle for public empathy.

  • One other thing is required: an acknowledgement that the pro-tradition side has developed rational, secular arguments in favor of its position, instead of a default assumption that it is all either based on “eww gross” or decontextualized passages from the Pentateuch.

    I don’t know. Perhaps someone read the above and thought it was saying “we need to develop these rational, secular arguments”.

    But Michael, if you read that, it clearly asserts that Bonchomps knows there are rational secular arguments like the ones you’re making and calls upon the activists to acknowledge their existence.

    I don’t think Bonchamps was looking for a discussion of “Hey let’s come up with all the best rational, secular arguments in this post that we can use to win this culture war.”

  • Chris-2-4

    I still maintain that the two issues have been unnecessarily linked by the champions of traditional marriage in their discussion of the issue.

    I do not suggest that “disgust with homosexual behavior – especially when it is deliberately provocative – is a moral failing, or something that needs to be thought-controlled at all times,” any more than my dislike of Crème de menthe is a moral failing/ But, I should not mention it in a discussion of the liquor licencing laws.

  • “2. Being okay with heterosexual sexual sin hurts us.”

    OK, this is a fair point. Does anyone think that Newt would have received as many votes as he did if he’d had two dudes in his past? I think this is even more of a problem among evangelicals, who emphasize fidelity to one’s *current* spouse but ignore past marriages.

  • MPS.

    For the love of all that is holy, we are not discussing the law here. We are discussing the battle for public sympathy and support. These are radically different things. The radical gay activists have made disgust an issue. We have no choice but to address it.

    I mean, you don’t seem to grasp this concept in your own posts. When people make accusations, you can ignore them for a little while, but if they keep making them and you’ve still said nothing, then you just look guilty. Full disclosure is how you retain public support. People with nothing to hide about their views are more acceptable than people who are obviously avoiding issues.

    Except, it appears, in blog com-boxes.

  • I hope that we can defeat the militant homosexual movement at the election booth and in the court of public opinion. I also hope that those homosexuals who are trying to live chaste and celibate lives will not be discriminated against, harrassed or subject to persecution on the basis of their same-sex attraction or any other basis, for that matter.

    However, when God was faced with militant homosexuality, He destroyed it with fire and brimestone. Yes, that was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (contrary to liberal revisionist history and liberal theology). Of course, I do not advocate the first use of force against militant homosexuals any more than I advocate first use of force against the militant abortionists of Planned Parenthood. But the Democrats will give up neither homosexuality nor abortion without a fight. The Democrats proved this in the 1800s with slavery and it took a bloody civil war to put them down that time.

    Now call me a pessimist and perhaps I am. But these evil, wicked, diabolical people will hold onto their sexual depravity and child-murdering in the same way that the people of Judah held onto theirs in spite of the warnings of the prophet Jeremiah. And let’s remember this one little thing: God does NOT change. If He was willing to prune the branches of the tree that was Israel, then He will do the same to us grafted in Gentiles exactly as St. Paul describes it in Romans chapter 11. Whether He does that by an asteroid strike on an evil nation (perhaps that was the fire and brimestone rained on Sodom and Gommorah), or He does that by allowing another bloody civil war is open to debate. I don’t want either of those alternatives and am praying for mercy, but unless we repent as a nation, then we can, must and should expect exactly one of those alternatives: natural disaster or war. We deserve no less, and indeed, because we have put up with “luv, tolerance and nice-nice-ness” these freaking godless sex-perverts, we are no better than the children of Israel who intermarried with the pagan Canaanites.

    Cancer must be excised lest the patient die, and the excision is long overdue. We better repent before the Surgeon’s knife of eternal justice approaches.

  • “– that any aversion to homosexuality on the part of a heterosexual is a sign of repressed homosexual desires – is a way of making their positions and lifestyles unfalsifable. If you accept them, great. If you don’t, it is a sign that you secretly do. There can be no legitimate opposition. If you think gay is gross, you probably are gay. A fascinating self-defense mechanism, but one not supported by a shred of serious evidence.” “There can be no legitimate opposition”

    On the contrary: ” I DO NOT DO THAT”. “I WILL NOT DO THAT” “I VALUE MY IMMORTAL SOUL” “I AM GREATLY DISTRESSED FOR YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL” Pray with your body

  • Using the persona of Jesus Christ, claiming “in persona Christi” is a lie by the homosexual practitioners. Jesus Christ crucified is the only expression of Jesus Christ’s love for mankind allowable. Jesus Christ did not do the things these homosexual practitioners say He did. Therefore, they are kidnapping the Person of Christ to forward their position without Jesus Christ’s permission. It is like me saying that Proctor and Gamble makes Colgate toothpaste. It is a lie, like uttering a bad check, plagiarism, or perjury in a court of law. Make them put up or shut up, and stop using Jesus Christ’s name to further their own business until they bring forth evidence that Jesus Christ gave them permission to use HIS HOLY NAME. Holy Orders.

  • “In articulating a critque of America’s sexual mores, gay liberation borrowed heavily from the new literature of radical feminists.”
    Actually, it is the radical feminists who have prevented the maturation of the males amongs us. It is called emasculation. Homosexuality was, at one time, diagnosed as ‘arrested development’ by the American Psychiatric Association. The change to ‘normal’ was forced and demanded by the homosexuals themselves, kind of like practicing psychiatry and self-diagnosing oneself without a license. Now, I think I will elect myself president. Oh, Napoleon already has the job. It is late

  • Mary De Voe,

    One cannot reason with or apply reason to baboons whose sole aim and goal is the publicly sanctioned – even glorification – of the titillation of their genitals. These people are without conscience and have demonstrated themselves to be less than sentient. There is a cure for such rabidness, and God visited that cure on Sodom and Gommorah. I pray that doesn’t have to happen again.

  • Paul W. Primavera: And this in San Francisco waiting for the big earthquake. Except what you say is true. The homosexual will be shaking his fist at God while he goes down into the inferno. The Catholic Church is the only person authorized to act “in persona Christi” and like Mary who escaped into Egypt to protect baby Jesus, the Catholic Church can ask the court to cease and desist using the NAME of Jesus Christ on the grounds that these individuals are not ordained to do so. Real people have just as much right to be in the public street as anybody else. A procession with the crucifix will do.

    One touch is assault and battery. Make my day.

    It is not freedom of speech to utter another person’s name without the other person’s authorization. In legalese, it is called power of attorney. The Catholic Church has the authorization. Now, the homosexual agenda has to prove that they, too, have the authorization, or power of attorney to speak for Jesus Christ. It appears that the homosexual agenda does not have power of attorney to speak for Jesus Christ and a cease and desist order from the court is in order.

    Paul, these people do not even know what “titillation of their genitals” is, having coarsened themselves into oblivion. That is the trouble with addiction.

  • As Jesus would say: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s (civil marriage, including gay marriage), and unto God the things that are God’s (religious marriage).”

  • Bonchamps

    “For the love of all that is holy, we are not discussing the law here. We are discussing the battle for public sympathy and support.”

    But public sympathy and support for what? For a change in the law. To achieve this, activists have had some success in persuading the courts that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples have no rational basis. They also seek to persuade the electorate and legislators that the law can be changed without affecting the public, legal purpose of marriage.

    Peter

    The distinction between “civil marriage” and “religious marriage” does not hold water.

    Marriage in its origin is a contract of natural law; it may exist between two individuals of different sexes although no third person existed in the world. In civil society, it becomes a civil contract regulated and prescribed by law and endowed with civil consequences. In most civilized countries, acting under a sense of the force of sacred obligations, it has had the sanctions of religion superadded; it then becomes a religious, as well a natural and civil, contract; for it is a great mistake to suppose that because it is the one, therefore it may not likewise be the other. But marriage remains one and the same for all that.

    It is, perhaps, worth noting that, although the Mosaic law prescribes many ritual provisions for various offices and transactions of life, there is no ceremony prescribed for the celebration of marriage.

  • MPS,

    There’s a difference between the battle and the merits of the objective. If you don’t get that, then I guess you just don’t get that.

  • Bonchamps

    You wrote, “There’s a difference between the battle and the merits of the objective”

    And the battle will only be won by convincing those who have the power to shape public policy, in the courts and in the legislature of those merits. We will not do that, if our objections appear to be the rationalisation of anti-gay animus, or an attempt to impose religious values by law.

  • MPS,

    It is a good thing that my objections are nothing of the sort. Aggressively pointing out the dishonesty, hypocrisy, and sociopathy of the gay cultural and political movement is not part of the argument against “marriage equality”, but rather a defense of our collective character, which ALSO matters in any appeal we make.

    You’re picking a fight that doesn’t exist. We don’t disagree. So I feel like you’re just purposely not hearing me, not acknowledging me, and it kinda pisses me off to be honest.

  • I’ve never once argued that our case ought to be based on religious values or anti-gay hostility. If you keep suggesting that I am arguing this, then you are fundamentally incapable of reading what I write, or are just off in some kind of weird, inexplicable alternate reality that I can’t access and can’t communicate about. It’s just really frustrating.

  • I certainly did not intend my remarks to have any personal application

  • Bonchamps,

    Not everyone who is against sodomy is “grossed out” by what is considered homosexual actions. (I include myself in that category.) The irrationality of act and how they define themselves is much more bothersome to me quite frankly. I don’t believe I’m too inured from having such a reaction but it may be the case. And that case, whether habituated or natural, is felt by an equal number of humans who don’t share your disgust for these actions. As I understand it, any argument (especially in modern-liberal milieu we exist in) that is premised on one’s disgusts isn’t go to go very far for this reason: People’s disgusts and reactions are predicated in a complex and not fully understood manner and when everyone is sovereign, there is no reason for me to entertain your disgusts more seriously than my own or any Joe and Jane American. From there, it is very easy to entertain the liberal’s propaganda that since his anthropology is uncertain; his ideas incorporate the universal (and natural) actions of all men as good or useful and makes no outcasts of those who agree to tolerate all differences despite anyone’s conventional and “small-minded” thinking. The “universal man” has no time for such the unsophisticated and petty reactions that arises from disgusts. And the majority of people, tepid in thought and action, would surely side with this for fear that they may find their habits and lives questioned for inducing a similar revulsion in one group or another down the line.

  • To portray or characterize Jesus Christ as virgin, innocent, as the TRUTH and perfect charity is true. Judas Iscariot hung himself and he burst open. Judas Iscariot literally “spilled his guts” for betraying Jesus Christ with a kiss. We have four witnesses to the TRUTH, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The bible tells us to add or subtract nothing from the TRUTH. Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of our hearts, as “it was not so from the beginning”.
    When Jesus defined the relationship between the sexes “from the beginning”, Jesus defined human sexual behavior to eternity. When Adam knew Eve and Eve brought forth Cain, Abel and Seth, Eve was of the age of informed sexual consent. Both Adam and Eve were adults. Violating the law of God is known as “adultery” that is, not behaving as an adult would behave, but faking it.
    Any sitting judge, who cannot discern the good from the evil or the TRUTH from the fake needs to be impeached, which simply means that the judge would be sent to live with his own ignorance or sin.
    Now, these individuals claiming to portray Jesus Christ are liars and perjurers, or show me where in the Holy Scripture, the story of Jesus Christ’s life, does Jesus bless and approve such behavior. Jesus only denounces any sexual behavior outside of the bond between male and female, from the beginning unto eternity.

  • If I may intrude on Bon and MP-S here, the traditional marriage crowd does have legal arguments, along with cultural, moral, and Biblical arguments. There’s also the visceral argument: the feeling that a lot of people get in their gut when they see homosexual acts. Everyone has a different personality, and that means that different arguments will reach different people. I don’t find Michael’s argument persuasive at all, but that’s just me. There isn’t going to be one argument that wins the day, I’ll bet.

    Maybe I’m wrong. The natural law argument seems irrefutable. But that’s just me. I think a lot of people need some intellectual framework so they can say that their opposition to gay marriage isn’t just based on discrimination. For the past several decades, we’ve been retraining ourselves as a culture not to react to individuals outside our comfort zone. That’s a good thing, but it’s made us unable to trust our guts on gay marriage.

    To a Catholic or an evangelical, the Biblical argument suffices. But it can always be rebutted by pointing to O.T. laws that no longer apply. Because the evangelical doesn’t understand ecclesiology, he can’t reply to that. The Catholic can, but he’s got to explain ecclesiology first, and a lot of people won’t bother to listen. An evangelical can bring up St. Paul’s writings, but then that degenerates into an argument about whether Paul was an apostle, the authenticity of the Bible, translation from the Greek, et cetera.

    Anyway, my point is, we need to get all our arguments in a line, and know how to respond to the rebuttals. Even with all that, some people are still going to assume that we’re motivated by bigotry. The comparison to the pro-life movement is apt – but remember, we’ve only really begun that fight, and on our best day 45% of the population still disagrees with us.

  • The reason we feel disgust at Homosexual acts is because the are against the natural law and are unnatural. By definition these acts go against nature and are perverted.

    Homosexual acts are not the same as Heterosexual acts. When a man fornicates with a woman, there is nothing disgusting about the act itself. Sex between a man and a woman is natural and normal. There is nothing unnatural or perverted about it. The problem is not the sexual act, but that the act was outside of marriage and is the sin of fornication. Sodomy and other Homosexual acts are always intrinsic evils and unnatural.

  • If it is from God it will continue. If it is not of God it will die of itself. The homosexual does not being forth offspring which pretty much assures that the homosexual will die out. What is so outrageous is that the homosexual agenda is being enforced through the courts as legal, being taught in school as real. It is not real. A fake husband and a fake wife, a fake mother or a fake father is not real. No court ruling can make it real. There have been homosexuals since Sodom and Gomorrah but only now has homosexual behavior been codified as real. (In Sodom and Gomorrah the homosexuals had the upper hand, but that did not change the law of God) Here in America, homosexual behvior, abortion and prayer ban have become the law of the land. It is wrong to force a lie on anybody with a rational soul, especially someone who constitutes government and pays for government through taxes. The homosexual will argue that he pays taxes but like the atheist, the homosexual must have something to come home to and that is the truth.

    MPS; ” or an attempt to impose religious values by law.” All religious values are imposed by law, leaving only vices on the outside. That is why they are called outlaws. “Render unto Caesar” Caesar belongs to God. Or do you think that Caesar created himself?

  • Hmmm: ” From there, it is very easy to entertain the liberal’s propaganda that since his anthropology is uncertain; his ideas incorporate the universal (and natural) actions of all men as good or useful and makes no outcasts of those who agree to tolerate all differences despite anyone’s conventional and “small-minded” thinking. The “universal man” has no time for such the unsophisticated and petty reactions that arises from disgusts. And the majority of people, tepid in thought and action, would surely side with this for fear that they may find their habits and lives questioned for inducing a similar revulsion in one group or another down the line.”

    The “universal man” has a rational and immortal soul and a destiny in eternity. The man is composed of human body and rational soul. Homosexual behavior ignores the transcendence of man, the evil to avoid and the holiness that must be pursued.

    Our founding principles are grounded in Divine Providence and our unalienable rights are endowed by “their Creator”. Without God, man has only himself, as you stated. But with God,”their Creator” man has been guaranteed FREEDOM,TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY.

  • Hmmm,

    I believe we can give rational expression to our disgust. We must, because it is a topic that will continue to come up. And it is a fact that these gay “pride” marches and other similar events are intended to provoke disgust. It is worth pointing out the hypocrisy – the sociopathy, really – of those who intend to disgust then complaining about disgust.

    But I don’t suggest that disgust ought to be the basis of public policy. If that emerged in my writings, I didn’t mean for it to.

  • Pinky,

    In my view, our primary argument ought to be that gay individuals already have all of the same rights as heterosexual individuals, and that the primary purpose of “marriage equality” is not to achieve legal equality, but rather to impose social equality and criminalize religious institutions that refuse to recognize homosexuality as morally valid.

  • Mary De Voe wrote MPS; ” or an attempt to impose religious values by law.” All religious values are imposed by law, leaving only vices on the outside.

    But that is simply not true. When the Code Napoléon was adopted in most of Europe, it expressly abolished offences against religion, notably blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft. This was in accordance with the Roman principle, deorum injuria diis cura – offences against the gods are the gods’ business. If they are food citizens in this world, the magistrate need not concern himself with their destination in the next.

  • “…but rather to impose social equality and criminalize religious institutions that refuse to recognize homosexuality as morally valid”. Marriage is an act of God. Militant homosexuality intends to impose the state over the will of God among the people of God, destroying the knowledge of the human being as composed of body and soul and the state as servant of the people of God. Same thought, dfifferent words.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    Again, religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. The Triune God is Three Divine Persons in one God. It is the Person of God in man’s human, rational, immortal soul, WHO gives man his sovereign personhood and all endowed unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    It is the Supreme Sovereign Being WHO gives the human being existence. God is existence; which begs the question: “If the atheist rejects God, Existence Himself, does the atheist exist?” Hmmm, being fallible has its perks. (Isn’t this why the devil himself acknowledges almighty God, refuses to obey, but, the devil himself knows God)

    Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights.

    The Supreme Sovereign Being is perfect Generosity, perfect Charity and perfect LOVE. God is VIRTUE, all VIRTUE, no vice. God created man in original innocence with sovereign personhood. Man constituted government for the purposes inscribed in our founding principles, acknowledging “their Creator”, “unalienable rights”, “Divine Providence”, “to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our (constitutional) posterity” among other rights. The right to the TRUTH, the whole truth and nothing but the TRUTH is every man’s right expressed in a court of Justice. Man as a sovereign person, as a human being with body and soul, has a right to the TRUTH. The TRUTH is found only in virtue. The TRUTH is never found in vice.

    FREEDOM is granted by God. Would one impose Rousseau’s, Napoleon’s or Roman FREEDOM on man to bless the human race, or God’s FREEDOM?

    Sorry, Michael Paterson-Seymour, I espouse the perfect FREEDOM granted by God in all virtue without vice, and as far as the imposition of Divine Providence on the American citizen, it has already been done in the Declaration of Independence.

  • People, you are missing the point. The objective is not to convince the homosexual activists. The objective is to convince the society at large, that may not share our religious values. They have to be convinced using secular arguments.

  • Nardia: “People, you are missing the point. The objective is not to convince the homosexual activists. The objective is to convince the society at large, that may not share our religious values. They have to be convinced using secular arguments.”

    How secular are the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution or even the Emancipation Proclamation, and/or the Gettysburg Address?

  • Plato: Gorgias: “the passive homosexual” as ridiculous, loathsome, disgraceful, shameful, and wretched.

    Plato’s writings contain numerous condemnations of homosexual intercourse. See Laws 636c. Plato, speaking through the character of the Athenian stranger, rejects homosexual behavior as “unnatural” (para physin), describes it as an “enormity” or “crime” (tolmema), and explains that it derives from being enslaved to pleasure. Plato, and other great pre-Christian thinkers, rejected homosexual acts on moral grounds.

    Gay marriage is solely about those getting “married.” This narcissism is the main difference with valid marriage.

    Sodomy is solely for and about those engaging in it (mutual masturbation). It is illicit, sterile, and separated from God. It denies God as Creator. It denies the purpose of God’s creation and His participation with us in the Creation of children. To put forth this foul abomination as equivalent to marriage denies the barrenness of sodomy, which is the goal of all this bloody nonsense.

  • T Shaw

    Aristotle’s comments are interesting.

    “Others arise as a result of disease [??????] (or, in some cases, of madness, as with the man who sacrificed and ate his mother, or with the slave who ate the liver of his fellow), and others are morbid states resulting from custom, e.g. the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth, and in addition to these sex with men [?????????? ???? ???????]; for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit.” [Nicomachean Ethics Book 7:5] [Arist Eth Nic 1148b 27-30]

    His equation of sodomy with nail-biting or eating coal may seem fanciful, but what they have in common is their essential futility. I am sure that Aristotle intended these rather bizarre illustrations to emphasise the main point: that there are no “reasons” for bad choices- just causes.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    Thank you.

    I never dreamt I could say the following, “Apparently, Aristotle, Plato, and I have something in common.”

    It seems liberals think they are smarter than Aristotle, Newton, Plato; not to mention God Almighty.

  • T Shaw

    You can add St Thomas Aquinas to your list

    St Thomas obviously had the passage I cited in mind, when he says

    “It happens that something which is not natural to man, either in regard to reason, or in regard to the preservation of the body, becomes connatural to this individual man, on account of there being some corruption of nature in him. And this corruption may be either on the part of the body — from some ailment; thus to a man suffering from fever, sweet things seem bitter, and vice versa — or from an evil temperament; thus some take pleasure in eating earth and coals and the like; or on the part of the soul; thus from custom some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural intercourse of man and beast, or other such things, which are not in accord with human nature.” (S.T. I-II, Q. 31, Art. 7, cor.)

    The bestiality bit is St Thomas’s own, perhaps from a mistranslation of Aristotle’s ????????, which occurs in the previous passage, where Aristotle discusses cannibalism at some length – what the word actually means is anyone’s guess (brutish, animal-like or something of that sort; goodness knows what St Thomas’s Latin version said and he misses out plucking the hair and biting one’s nails, which are two of Aristotle’s illustrations. I do, however, like St Thomas’s point about sweet things seeming bitter &c.

    It all emphasises that there is no reason, no rational motive, for such behaviour, just instinctive or dispositional causes This, by the by, is what I take “intrinsically disordered” to mean.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    Thank you.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour and T. Shaw. Thank you both for these very interesting informative posts. They are a joy to read.

  • The homosexual practitioner is not denied his homosexuality, nor is the homosexual practitioner denied his marriage. The homosexual practitioner’s God is the devil himself, and therefore, the homosexual practitioner is demanding from almighty God what he cannot get from the devil himself, and that is love and affection.
    When the homosexual practitioner leaves his demands for love and affection, and begins reverencing God, loving and cherishing human beings, the homosexual practitioner will be given love and affection packed down, spilling over.

Jerkiness Cometh Before a Fall

Friday, August 3, AD 2012

Note to uber jerks everywhere:  it probably isn’t a great idea to make a YouTube video of one of your nastier bits of jerkiness.  Case in point, Adam M. Smith, former CFO of Vante, an Arizona medical manufacturing firm, was quite upset at Chick-Fil-A over gay marriage and decided that it would be a good idea to protest by berating the young lady attempting to take his order at a Chick-Fil-A.  He was obviously proud of his extreme bravery at giving a hard time to a young fast food worker because he filmed it and posted it on YouTube.  Surprisingly, at least I am sure it was a surprise to Mr. Smith, most people who viewed the YouTube video thought he was being a cowardly jerk.  Smith took down the video, but by that time bloggers had latched hold of the story and had downloaded the video.  Now Mr. Smith will have plenty of time to act like a jerk to other  people and post the results on YouTube as he is without employment.  From the CEO of Vante:

Continue reading...

40 Responses to Jerkiness Cometh Before a Fall

  • In this video the man protesting Chick-Fil-A did not yell and scream. Is this the same video? Am I missing something? True, he is a jerk for embarrassing this young lady with his pro-sodomy support, but then again, pro-sodomists are jerks.

  • True Paul, and I have altered the post to reflect that. It might be a reflection of Midwestern Central Illinois Nice, but I interpreted that confrontation as being the equivalent of yelling and a verbal slap in the face. It always rouses my ire to see people take out grudges against low level people in an organization who have no control over policy, and a man berating a woman, especially a woman just trying to do her job, makes me see red.

  • So- a CFO thinks he’s brave because he is rude to a poor woman making minimum wage at a fast food restaurant? Hey, mister, why don’t you go into the nearest Middle Eastern restaurant and berate the owners (who most likely have a much harsher view of gays than Mr. Cathy does)? I’d just love to see a video of that.

    This jerk gloated over wasting a couple of pennies of CFA’s money by ordering only a cup of water. That’s more than offset by the gas (and time) he wasted idling away in the drive through. Apart from his rudeness, I wouldn’t want a CFO with such poor financial sense.

  • There is one (that’s it) CFA in NYC. It’s in Greenwich Village: NYC’s gay Gomorrah.

    I imagine it’s like feeding time at the zoo when our moral superiors come in to vent.

  • Smith got in drive-thru to get free water so he wouldn’t have to invest in CFA. Smith’s act was purposefully mean/nasty. CFA employee was respectful and a hero! Kudos for her. For Smith: what goes around, comes around!

  • What you don’t see in the video is the line of cars that wrapped around the building twice while this jerk was giving his spiel (to someone who had NOTHING to do with what he was protesting) and getting his free water. I would have poured his free water on his head.

  • The thing is this behavior has got to be pretty deep into the way this guy typically behaves.
    Who doesn’t get mad at what they perceive to be some kind of injustice? But who then thinks the best way to direct that anger is to call out and mock some poor minion struggling to make a living?

  • From the video: “They give money to hate groups. Just because someone wants to kiss another guy.”

    Talk about a lie of omission! As I mentioned before, it’s typical progressivist Good Cop/Bad Cop. Good Cop: “Homosexuality does not affect you in any way.” Bad Cop: “We will make sure that no safe space exists for anyone believing in traditional marriage to live in peace.”

  • he did take the water though.

  • That young lady was an excellent model of Christian charity. I admire her ability
    to stay calm and professional. The way things seem to be going in our society,
    it’s possible that any of us may find ourselves likewise confronted by another Adam
    M. Smith. If I were put on the spot, I hope I would hold myself as well as she did.

  • I went to Chick-Fil-A last Saturday. I don’t know what it’s usually like, but the drive-through line circled around the building.

    You know, I’m surprised that I hadn’t read anything about the Support Chick-Fil-A Day two days ago. That’s the kind of thing that I would expect this site to feature.

  • “That’s the kind of thing that I would expect this site to feature.”

    Pinky, we are merely a gaggle of unpaid volunteers. I post frequently, as my work in the law mines allow, but we will never be able to cover everything relevant even to the big issues of the moment.

  • Stunned by the verbal assault and battery the woman held her own, and courageously kept the dignity of the establishment and herself. I read where Obama had called the victim “stupid”. A public establishment is property for the peaceful exchange of commerce. The abuser ought to be brought up on charges of tresspassing and disturbing the peace for his abuse. Thirty days of public service to repair the damages to society . If Obama consented to the abuse by victim bashing, Obama ought to be made to help the criminal. Let them pick up after themselves, this is not occupy wall street. “No shirt, no shoes, no soul, no service.”

  • I fell in love with Chick-Fil-A when I saw that they were closed on Sundays (their workers were given a day of rest in the LORD). They were also giving free breakfast Thursday mornings. In the Jewish tradition, all cooking was done the day before the Sabbath. All was prepared for the LORD. The Sabbath was a day of feast and rest and rest and feast.
    If Vante rehires Smith, I want to know.

  • “Those outnumber the hairs of my head
    who hate me without cause.
    Too many for my strength
    are they who wrongfully are my enemies.
    Must I restore what I did not steal?” Psalm 69

    I have spent part of my hs and college days serving the public in a fast food establishment. Tough work, if you can get it. Was it worth it for this man to lose his job? Let him decide how thirsty he is for truth. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Joshua 24:15

  • I really want to hire that woman for our company. What a composed and steadfast individual.

  • This morning, I heard on the radio that “gay activists are planning a ‘kiss-in’ at CFAs around the country.”

    For about 5 seconds I was all “That’s just wrong! We have to rally and . . .” which was as far as I got before another, more stable and powerful voice said “Let ’em. It will not go well for them at all.”

    So, I hope they do. The incredible backlash will be an excellent example of the “enough rope” theory in action.

    “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32

  • Mary – “I read where Obama had called the victim “stupid”.”

    Where?

  • It needs to be said again: “A public establishment is property for the peaceful exchange of commerce. The abuser ought to be brought up on charges of tresspassing and disturbing the peace for his abuse.” This will go for every individual in the “kiss in for gay marriage” Get ready with your “disturbing the peace and tresspassing” complaints.

  • Pinky: Credibility in the dustbin. Just another commentator’s musings, but have you noticed that “They shall stand up to be condemned.”?

  • the whole thing is so sad. commentators on fox and other channels have likewise embarrassed themselves, not so flagrantly, and they don’t seem to know it–but revealing the depth of ther misdirected anger.

  • ATTN: Mary De Voe:

    Earlier in a post at Creative Minority Report, I posted the below comment which was a joke referring to the Police/Henry Louis Gates/Beer Summit incident in 2009. I do not believe Obama actually commented on the Adam Smith/Classy Chik-Fil-A employee incident. I noticed you’ve been sort of referring to this as if it happened and I just wanted to set the record straight. Sorry for the confusion.

    “I think I just heard that Obama has responded to the video. He said “the young lady acted stupidly”, but he is going to host a Peach Shake Summit with the two of them.”

  • It hurts, but…
    I saw this earlier on Father Z’s site, shook my head, wished I’d been the window girl (who treated the idiot with 2 things he might want to check in Webster’s; dignity and respect) but didn’t pass it along cause it’s what we expect from people unaware they’re in a forest as all they see are trees.
    Then I read a story on New Advent (http://www.getreligion.org/2012/08/when-hating-on-chick-fil-a-try-to-hide-it-better/) that demonstrated how myopic and banal you can become when you can’t understand the principal of absolute truths. Best of all, it had a happy ending as the author is a reporter, apparently posted his thoughts on the companies site and had been led to the wood shed for proper punishment.
    Now I HAD to pass both on lest any of my friends miss the good news! Tied it to American Catholic, as I am always pushing it as something that must be read. That’s when I saw the update announcing the idiot had gotten his just desserts… if I could physically still do a jig, Riverdance would have had a new star! Then the back of my brain whispered, “Damn! Now I have to write Vante a note saying he shouldn’t be fired”. By the time it reached my frontal lobe, I realized I had quietly slipped to the 4th level of hell ~
    The guy’s a jerk. He’s mean, wrong, very probably 18 bricks short of a load and should be tongue lashed by his mama for being a bully and forgetting common courtesy. BUT, he shouldn’t be fired unless we want to start scratching out words from the same 1st Amendment we’re demanding be upheld.
    Two last things ~ although I’ve been reading American Catholic for a long time, I’ve never posted before so if I’ve been too wordy or broken a rule, I apologize. Finally, I have no trek with Facebook or Twitter, so, if “the jerk” in some way identifies his employer on either site, thereby leaving Vante open to the possibility of being considered complicit with his actions, I will be thrilled to be wrong and delighted I won’t have to send Vante a note.

  • Chris-2-4 Thank you for your immediate notation as I have attributed the saying to your musings as intercepted by PINKY. I do appreciate the clarity with which our blogs are kept.

    Barb: Being fired for indiscretions such as verbal assault and battery, false accusations of hatred, trespassing on property zoned for peaceable business accomodation, and anti-social behavior; let those who love Smith have him. Please know that if there had been a man behind the counter, Smith would have feigned and fainted. This is a first class sexual harrassment lawsuit using Mr. Dan Cathy as a scape goat.

  • Barb,
    Nice first post. Just a couple of points:
    First, the jerk was not fired for his views, but for behaving like a jerk and therefore embarrassing his employer.
    Second, the First Amendment protects a person’s speech from government reprisal; not employer reprisal. In fact, it is doubtful that a law preventing an employer from firing someone for a political reason would survive First Amendment scrutiny.
    Cheers,
    Mike

  • What a jerk. The employee really kept her cool. She needs a raise just for that.

  • @David, No kidding. She handled it very well, better than I would have. Me, “Excuse me sir. I am here to take your order, not your opinion. Now… would you like fries with your water?”

  • “Thread-jack Alert”

    Isn’t it very cool to see that little ol’ NZ with only 4.5mil. population is currently 12th. on the Olympic medal table, while our brother Aussies are 19th. 🙂

    I’ll gloat while I’m able, because you can be assured that the Aussies will come roaring back, if only to beat us. 🙂

  • Actually, this comment is on the appropriate topic too, don’t you think? 😉

  • Actually, on viewing the video again, I noticed how the young woman took the wind out of his sales. When the jerk drove up to the window, he clearly wanted to make her angry. He was hoping for a dramatic confrontation he could capture on video so he could say “See! Look what ‘haters’ these people are!” But the polite, harried young woman is so obviously NOT a hater that he had to shift gears. He then tried to make her feel guilty (‘how can you sleep at night?”) because he realized things were not going according to plan. (And he was still stupid enough to post the thing on YouTube, because he just couldn’t resist showing the world that he was nobly standing up for gay rights. )

    I agree that her self control was admirable. I would have lost my temper in her situation – and handed the jerk “a win.”

  • Go Kiwi’s!!!

    I was a few days in Canada. Their Olympic coverage is heart-warming.

    Go Maple Leafs!

    Back to topic, fast-food employees often get the “treatment” from irate customers, liberals, and other specimens of human flotsam.

    This idiot, as are all liberals, is too stupid to get it. Liberals’ stupidity is forgivable. The evil is not.

  • T. Shaw, I think that’s one of the nicest things you have said here at TAC: “Liberals’ stupidity is forgiveable. The evil is not.” Usually you’re an undiplomatic malcontent like me, telling the bald truth just like a skunk off gassing at Sunday morning Mass! 😉

  • PWP: It ain’t undiplomatic or uncharitable if it’s true. Here I paraphrase the famed, American philosopher, Bear Bryant (or Cassius Clay). He was referring to bragging.

    PS: The Bombers just beat the Mariner 6 – 3: complete game CC.

    Spiritual Works of Mercy:

    Admonish the sinner.

    Counsel the doubtful.

    Instruct the ignorant.

    Pray for the living and the dead (including sinners. “Those most in need of Christ’s Mercy.”)

    Plus, at the moment, Mac isn’t moderating me.

  • Oh, I agree, T. Shaw. You wrote the truth!

  • Pingback: Chick-fil-A Bigotry Christophobia Homophobia Intolerance | Big ?ulpit
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEYjZGsf7xY <– Adam Smith's apology (he seems very open here).

  • He should have made it a straight up apology without the commentary on CFA.

    But, to comment on his comments, I have noticed the same sex supporters trying to re-shape the argument away from Dan Cathy’s comments to where CFA or the Cathys donate there money. If they are so outraged by this, then where were they before Dan Cathy’s comments? CFA being a Christian business is certainly nothing new. I believe the homosexual crowd were being used by the scandal pimps, getting them worked up about a company that seems so out of place in a decadent liberal world they want.

  • I feel really proud of the drive-through counter lady … She kept her cool … I would’ve lost my patience had it been me, but she kept it together … I hope CFA promoted her to deputy manager, or something …. 🙂

Cardinal George on “Chicago Values”

Tuesday, July 31, AD 2012

Francis Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago is alleged to have predicted that for upholding the teachings of Christ he will die in his bed, his successor will die in a prison cell, and his successor will be executed in a public square in Chicago.  Therefore, I am unsurprised that he has written an open letter exploring the “Chicago Values” cited by Mayor Emanuel when he decided to attack the free speech rights of Chick-Fil-A:

 

 

 

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago.  I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval.  Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?  Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it?  I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.”  Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus.  Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will?  What are we re-defining?

It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage.  Marriage existed before Christ called together his first disciples two thousand years ago and well before the United States of America was formed two hundred and thirty six years ago.  Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female.  The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.  Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital.  Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Cardinal George on “Chicago Values”

  • Thank you for this post, Donald.

  • A square circle has been proven to be imposible and the best analogy for gay-marriage. I appreciate the way you described the situation in Chicago about the government approving a man’s value system. Will it come to the government forcing individuals to have sex change operations to realize its value-system?

  • I didn’t know the Cardinal had it in him. I just wish this had been his demeanor for the last 20 years. Apparently he has concluded his flock is under attack and he will not cede moral high ground to a bunch of corrupt, secular, depraved politicians who lack any moral standing whatsoever.

  • Darn, that was well-said. I pray the Cardinal’s prophesy about his successors my be wrong, but I fear he is all too prescient. Thanks for posting.

  • That quote from Cardinal George is very ominous. What was the context and are there any links?

  • He said it after civil unions passed in Illinois in 2010. I have been unable to find a direct link to the statement, but I will keep looking.

  • Pingback: Chick-fil-A Gay Marriage Intolerance Equality | Big Pulpit
  • Marriage is primordial and, in the happy phrase of Lord Stowell in Dalrymple v Dalrymple, it is the parent, not the child of civil society.

    The state has a legitimate interest in marriage and it is important to note what precisely that is. Mandatory civil marriage originated in France on 9th November 1791 and was a product of the same Revolution that had just turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors. This was no coincidence.

    The Code of 1804 contained no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father,” which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1].

    This was the opinion of the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003), covering the period from the introduction of mandatory civil marriage down to our own day and long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated. In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including such luminaries as Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.

    No one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.

    It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that the opinion of the jurists, or of the courts which have endorsed it, is either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.

  • The “martyrdom” quote has also been attributed to Abp. Charles Chaput. I also have attempted to pin down an exact time and place where Cardinal George said this and haven’t yet been able to find one. My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that whatever its origin, it’s been attributed to Cardinal George so many times that he’s embraced it and doesn’t bother denying that he said it, since it does express his beliefs about the direction religious freedom issues seem to be going in the U.S.

    Famous people or public figures often have quotes attributed to them that they never said, whether it’s Abraham Lincoln’s alleged “Ten Cannots” (“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift….”) or Chuck Colson’s “I would run over my grandmother to elect Nixon” or George Carlin’s “Hurricane Rules.”

  • …but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens

    These are fighting words. I doubt that the Rahms will take heed. Either by accident or design, the US has come to a position where the Right has to put aside all the pointless courtesies, and fight the Left tooth and nail or stand in danger of becoming strangers in their own land.

  • Archbishop Chaput has denied saying it Elaine. The quote has aroused my suspicion now since I can find nothing on the internet citing the statement directly from anything written or said by Cardinal George. I hope someone asks Cardinal George about the statement so we can clear this up. I have modified the post to say that he is alleged to have made this prediction.

  • So much talk on Gay marriage and the push to make it culturally acceptable and respectable but many seem to accept unmarried heterosexual unions. So many couples shacked up, living together and bearing children with little concern about the long time welfare of the child. Which type of union is more sinful in the eyes of God? Which lifestyle will have the greatest negative impact on our culture. What will life be like in America 50 years from now? I’m afraid to guess.

  • Indeed, Ivan, for the Left has dropped all pretense; where before was metaphor, dissemblance and clever rhetoric, now stand naked hostility and unadulterated arrogance.

    They started this, and one or the other side will soon perceive itself painted into a corner. Then it’s a-gonna get ugly.

  • RPM, those are valid concerns, and I certainly don’t see anyone here condoning either situation. As for which is more sinful in God’s eyes, only He knows for sure – for us, it is clear both are gravely sinful (both are in the mortal sin category, but whether it earns the 4th or 5th circle of hell, I’d just rather avoid either).

    As for impact on society, one strikes at the fundamental structure of marriage, the complementarity of the sexes, and the unified purposes of the marital act; the other likely involves a larger absolute number of individuals, and if not altering the fundamental structure, at a minumum undermines the important pillar of stability that marriage (ideally) provides. Neither is good.

  • Please give Cardinal George a call and thank him for his leadership as Christ’s chosen shepherd: 312-751-8200.

  • RPM

    From the public’s perspective, the two cases are very different.

    As the British philosopher, Bertrand Russell observed, “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex. It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” That is why the state uses the institution of marriage to make the paternity of children clear, certain and incontestable. Were this not its primary legal function, it is difficult to see why the law should facilitate marriage in extremis. What other purpose does a death-bed marriage serve?

    By the same token, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile, are irrelevant to the institution of marriage. This is different legal treatment, because their situation is not analogous.

    As the legislator has no authority in the other world, whatever may be the lot of its subjects in the life to come, that is not its business, provided they are good citizens in this one.

    The question is not one of morals, but of civil status: (1) mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code and (3) the sex difference is central to filiation.

  • The nearest Chick-filet-a is 25 miles away from me, in Racine. And since the price of gas has skyrocketed to over $4.00 a gallon in Wisconsin (a pipeline to Chicago has broken and is leaking in central Wisconsin), I don’t think it would be prudent to make a 50 mile round trip to buy a chicken sandwich:-) But I certainly will, when gas prices go down a bit.

    I remember saying, at Gerard N.’s old blog *sigh*, that gay marriage was not a terribly important issue to me. Well, congrats to the gay bigots who have finally succeeded in making me an active oppoment to their agenda. Does anyone think it will stop with Chick-filet-a? No, I can easily see gays holding “kiss-ins” outside of our parishes on Sunday mornings, because Todd and Brad really, really want to have a Catholic marriage service, but those mean old “homophobes” are standing in their way. The harassment will never, ever end unless we make a stand now.

  • The fascinating aspect of this Donna is the rapidity of all this. Two decades ago only the lunatic fringe of the gay rights movement was even talking about gay marriage. Now the Democrats are enshrining gay marriage in their platform and denouncing as dangerous bigots anyone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. I await with anticipation what next “right” will become a cause celebre on the Left, and an excuse for what too many Leftists seem to live for: an opportunity to engage in campaigns of organized hate against those who do not follow them in ideological lock step.

  • Rockport Pilot, Rockport Texas
    Friday, August 3, 2012Dear Editor;

    Since there are many businesses whose primary reason for existence is to spread hate, in addition to Chick-Fil-A, and since there are many executives who espouse bigoted traditional values and hate-driven biblical values, would not the actions of all good pure people – which includes, by definition, all Democrats – in avoiding these businesses be greatly facilitated if: 1. Christian businesses be required to display a Star Of Bethlehem sign in their businesses – and this could be a federal regulation whose implementation involves multiple government agencies, e.g. EPA, Health And Human Services, Department of Education, Homeland Security, and of course the Center for Disease Control; and 2. Christian executives be required to wear a Star Of Bethlehem over their hearts or have one tattooed on their forearms? And, to further the purity of Democrats and all others who are free of hate, why not have all Christians who go out in public be required to wear a Star Of Bethlehem over their hearts or have it tattooed on their foreheads? Of course a crucifix would do instead of the star.

    Am I remembering correctly something like this once happened? Was it in Europe? Wasn’t there some kind of conflict about this? How did the pure people do that time?

    Guy McClung

  • Truth Mr. McClung:

    When will our self-proclaimed moral superiors stage a kiss-in in Saudi Arabia or in a Nation of Islam meeting?

    Western oil purchases made Saudi Arabia super-wealthy.

    They cannot pull such publicity stunts because they don’t allow (Nicht Keystone pipeline; “not in my back yard”; save the snail darter; save Mother Erda!) energy independence.

    So it goes. Most of USA oil to make gasoline is imported from foreign cartels, e.g., OPEC, composed of countries that are tyrannies that execute gays.

  • Everyone must be tired of reading this but I must post it again, simply because it says what it says: one fake husband or one fake wife equals one fake marriage. The truth of the matter is that homosexual behavior does not pass the reality test necessary for admission into the culture. The fact that the homosexual agenda will not allow the issue to be put on the ballot is a very good indication of the level of indoctrination, physical coersion and the dirty politics involved. Whe I say dirty politics, I mean the denial of the human being’s immortal soul, unalienable civil rights, unauthorized use of the language and the strangling of FREEDOM by the perjury that is a fake marriage.

“Gay Marriage, No Religion, Legalization of Pot” Mass Media Loves Brad Pitt’s Ideology!

Sunday, June 17, AD 2012

Brad Pitt for Mayor of New Orleans? He didn’t think he’d have a chance due to his stands for “Gay Marriage, No Religion and Legalization of Pot” but the fawning Mass Media Representative Anne Curry doesn’t seem to think this is problematic at all as she gushes all over the place. What exactly does he mean “no religion”? Does that mean only that he personally doesn’t have a religion or that he would like to abolish religion? Curry doesn’t seem to care to find out more- and I doubt that the liberal secularist would mind trying to crush traditional religion down into a tame little side show- in fact traditional Faith is the great enemy of liberal secularism- and vice versa.


See More

Continue reading...

17 Responses to “Gay Marriage, No Religion, Legalization of Pot” Mass Media Loves Brad Pitt’s Ideology!

  • Brad Pitt for mayor of New Orleans? Hasn’t that city suffered enough lately?

  • Hey, he played Achilles in a crappy Hollywood throw-up of Homer . . .

    I bet he’d be a better Mayor for New Orleans than Obama is president.

    He could not do worse than Ray Nagins.

  • He has certainly had his fair share of women.

  • New Orleans: The most overrated city in the world. The French Quarter smells like a giant urinal and I’ve gotten better food from a can of Chef Boyardee.

  • “Gay Marriage, No Religion, Legalization of Pot”….aren’t those Obama’s campaign slogans? (they could also add Abortion for All to the list) Oh, I forgot, Obama and Hollywood are connected at the hip!

  • Hey, Joe – So sorry you had a bad time in the French Quarter. Too bad you missed the rest of this city. and God knows where you ate! It must have been some tourist dive. You are the first person I’ve ever heard complain about our amazing cuisine. I hope I live long enough to sample every fabulous restaurant in town!

  • The strange thing about the Hollywood establishment is how their collective morality seems to be on par with most of us who were raised as secularists who are 20-somethings going to college with something of a social conscience but no real guidance from the adults around us- and having that forever young/deeply vain mentality- so the result is a wicked brew of caring but not rooted in traditional morality or worship of God- so the ego prevails and hedonism is a no-brainer- carpe diem!

    Brad Pitt is around my age- but his politics is still grounded in immaturity- and he is the norm – it is like living as an actor with loads of money and perks and a big time group think around you- makes it next to impossible to break free and be something other than a cookie-cutter liberal secularist. I’m sure that some have broken the mold but are too afraid to break ranks publicly and risk the new Hollywood/Mass Media blackball deadend. I hear a lot about Mark Wahlberg being a devout Catholic these days- which is great- but I doubt even he would break ranks with Hollywood orthodoxy on homosexual lifestyles and definition of Marriage issues- at least publicly. So who is left to influence the young when every media outlet treats celebrity, celebrity, celebrity as the source and fount of all wisdom in our society?

    My advice to Brad Pitt et al is this: Time to grow up, you are a father now, stop promoting pot smoking, stop attacking the belief in God and traditional religions and morality, and love your friends who are involved in gay lifestyles best by trying to help them instead of cheerleading the destruction of traditional Marriage- letting “Everyone get married to everyone” sure turns something holy and special into something routine, commonplace and without any spiritual substance. If Brad Pitt won’t change his ways and stays trapped in politically correct immaturity- he can still do some things good raising money for new homes in New Orleans and helping to feed the hungry in Africa- and we can try to do our part in properly influencing the young by warning them away from celebrity kings and queens who are talented in their craft but their soulfulness seems more a pose than anything worthy of imitation. Advice to the Young- true morality isn’t something we invent or make up as we go- real wisdom is as old as the hills, and the Catholic Church is a great source of information and inspiration having stood up to every imaginable threat for over 2000 years. If you want to follow the Movie Stars- that’s your business- but I am just saying- go deeper, read the Bible and the Catechism and the writings of the Saints- and see what I’m talking about..

  • Wouldnt it be interesting to be with him and his father-in law just having an iced tea and talking about life?

  • The problem is that a lot of actors are immature, or immature yuppies and for some reason actors are considered role models by so many in the US.

  • I just finished watching the movie Gigi. The word gay was used to describe happiness, joy and being carefree. The homosexual radicals have taken the rainbow and a word from those of us who love rainbows and like feeling gay. Just to be on the safe side, I and my husband have been married for 26 years.

  • Edie, I was born and reared in NYC, which has the world’s best restaurants. While in New Orleans for 3 days I sampled a lot of food and didn’t like any of it. Crawfish, yuck. Most of the rest was either unidentifiable or too spicy. Then again, there’s not accounting for taste.

  • typo…no accounting.

    (Aside to Don and Shaw: How about including an edit button to allow posters to fix those embarrassing errors we all seem to make?)

  • Joe,

    Proof-reading takes more self-control than hitting (with irrational force) the “post comment” button.

    If I thought anyone read my comments, I would be embarrassed.

    Shaw

  • During an interview with Fr. Barron and Mike Leonard on the Today show some weeks back Curry admitted that she is a lapsed Catholic. How sad.

  • As usual, the celebrities flock towards the issues they really don’t understand.

  • I have never understood why the media fawns so much over everything Brad Pitt says or does or anyone connected to him. The most ludicrous example I ever saw was about 15 years ago, when a small weekly newspaper in central Illinois did a FRONT PAGE story about a woman who had been a high school classmate of Brad Pitt (back in Springfield, Mo. in the early 80s). No, she didn’t date him or anything, she just happened to be in the same class as him and she sorta knew the girl he went to the prom with. Nor did she provide any great insights into his thinking, his personality or his acting skills, such as they are. It was one of the lamest excuses for a feature story I had ever seen, but when it comes to Brad Pitt any lame excuse for publicity will do, I suppose.

  • Michael Yon (recently referenced in “Never Yet Melted” blog) apparently has taken a sabbatical from excoriating Army brass-hats and is reporting on the theological anthropology of contemporary liberals.

    “There exists in India Aghor, a branch of Hinduism. Its believers worship Shiva, god of destruction. The Aghor belief system is simple: The gods are perfect (unlike Greek and Norse gods). The gods create everything: each thought, each act, each thing, etc. The gods are perfect therefore every created thing is perfect.

    “So, being disgusted by anything or banning any behavior is rejection of the gods. Michael Yon, “This explains why some ardent Aghoris act out to overcome the most gruesome items of revulsion. In my travels I’ve met Aghoris who would just as soon pluck an eyeball from a rotten human corpse and pop it into their mouths as eat chicken. He or she might carry a rotting dead dog over their shoulder for a week, or have sex with a dead cow (holy to other Hindus) or with a rotting human corpse. One Aghori in northern India ate part of the rotting penis of a bloated, vivisected corpse on the banks of the Ganges, engaging in this “sacred ritual” in full view of onlooking police.”

    Sound familiar? I estimate about three-quarters of the delegates at the Dem National Convention think like that, assuming they think at all.

Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again

Thursday, June 7, AD 2012

A ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals has found that Christian photographers cannot refuse to photograph a “gay wedding” on religious grounds. The absurdity and tyranny of this ruling is almost unfathomable, but what is less surprising is the vindictive nature of the entire case. As an entire slew of court cases in Canada demonstrates, the radical homosexual movement is not about fairness, tolerance or equality. Like its equivalents among racial minorities (think Black Panther Party) or feminists, it is about envy, revenge, and domination. As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism. Whether your are Christian or not, whether you have homosexual inclinations or not, the implications of the New Mexico court’s rulings for political liberty, religious freedom and private property rights ought to frighten you if you care in the least about these concepts.

Continue reading...

119 Responses to Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again

  • This is exactly what happens when a society turns it back on God, and more specifically on it self. The issue here isn’t homosexual marriage (incidentally as long as Christians continue to misuse the beautiful word “gay” to describe sodomy the problem will never improve). the issue is homosexuality at large.

    We have ignored an entire generation that euphemistically describes mortal sin as ” hooking up”. We go to unmarried couples homes and treat them as married, then wonder why their generation doesn’t marry anymore. Anyone with young adult children knows that the entire generation no longer sees homosexuality as deviant. Now if we have turned our backs on God in order to mollify our children, how dare we wonder what has become of our society. Is this travesty of homosexual “marriage” not entirely logical, given the cowardly state of we, who were called by God to resist it.

    These Laws will only be reversed when we have the courage to stand and call homosexuality what it is; sin. Only then, when we have the courage to teach our children that sex is the sacred bond between a married couple that leads to babies (I know it sounds simple, that’s the point!) can we, as Christians, claim the right to our faith. As long as we continue to turn our heads the other way and inadvertently encourage heterosexual sin in our “enlightened” children, have we any right to wonder how things like this happen?

  • “As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”

    You omitted a prefix. It should read:

    “the anti-homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”

  • Leo,

    To quote a famous 20th century American philosopher, John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”

    PS: Us knuckle-draggers ain’t forcing youse to accept our “hate, intolerance, etc.” However, you, your presumed moral superiority, and the moral bankrupts on the bench are . . .

  • God loves everyone, homo or heterosexual. God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin. Do you get that, Leo?

    By the way, if you want to play with another man’s genitals, then I won’t stand in your way. But kindly do it behind closed doors and don’t call the action marriage because it’s not. It’s filthy dirty. Yet I concede to your “right” to be a filth dirty pervert so long as you do not force the rest of society to follow you in your filthy dirty ways. God does allow you to be a filthy dirty sexual pervert. However, filthy dirty sex perverts like you want to force the rest of us to concede that your filthy dirty sexual perversion should be sanctified as marriage and that filty dirty sexual perverts should be treated the same as those united in the Sacrament of Holy Marriage. You are no different than those filthy dirty sexual perverts in Sodom and Gomorrah who tried to beat down the door to Lot’s house so that they could have anal sex with the angels whom Lot had welcomed inside. See Genesis 19:1-11. And you know the end of those men. First they were blinded (but they still didn’t give up – verse 11) and then their cities of wickedness were destroyed by fire from on high (buckle up, pervert, because God won’t withhold His justice forever. See Genesis 19:12-29.

    Well God says: NO! In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:

    9 Don’t you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t delude yourselves — people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk [addictively and excessively], who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob — none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.

    Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. Demonic and Satanic by any other name. It’s time for disgusting, perverted, rancid sexual filth that your kind supports to be called what it is. We all have to repent – daily – lest we burn in hell for eternity. That include me repenting of my sin. That also includes you repenting of your filth. But you say that this call to repentance is unloving, unkind and unjust. You won’t say that before the Great White Throne of Judgment, but it’ll be too late:

    11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

    —–

    Yes, I want people like you defeated, muzzled and emasculated (politically) so that you can’t drag others to the fires of hell with you.

  • Opps – editing error.

    “In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:”

    should be

    “In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul (which a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear) in Corinthians 6:9-10 concerning dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:”

    Arrrrggghhh – got so upset that people like Leo say the fecal stuff that he said that I did not edit correctly.

  • Paul: Thank you for proving my point.

    T. Shaw: You presume to know me. You don’t. I don’t judge others, and I would appreciate not being judged in return. Only God judges (Deuteronomy 1:17).

  • Wow, Leo.
    I really appreciate how you gave your reasons and examples along with your explanation, as opposed to a baseless drive-by accusation.
    Nope, no hate, intolerance, bigotry, or totalitarianism there!

    Keep it up, liberals. If I ever had any doubts on the subject, you’re settling them for me.

    Have a great day and God bless you!

  • Need any more evidence that Satan is sitting on the Throne and God has been thrown out of the window???? But have a heart, people of goodwill….. God has the Final Word and the Casting Vote. And Christ voted on the Cross at Calvary…..stand up Christian Solders and fight for God……yes we love, and embrace sodomites….but we hate the Sin as God does….let all of us practice the First of the Spiritual Works of Mercy here : Admonish the Sinners…..never compromise with Satanic perversions.

  • To you, Leo. I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions. Do not misquote Him on “Do not judge, lest you be judged”. He tells the adulterous woman…..”neither do I condemn you. But go AND SIN NO MORE. You see, Leo, God loves sinners. He died such a horrible death for us all. But He HATES SIN like all level headed, normal, intelligent and decent men and women do. Sodomy, Lesbianism, Abortion, Euthanasia and all those bestialities now dominating the Western World are Satanic, evil and filthy. That is, as I said above, doing what Jesus told us to do : ADMONISH THE SINNERS. And you are sinners par excellence, who are so arrogant and want to force your pervesities upon us all. WE SHALL NOT ACCEPT THAT, NEVER, NEVER AND AGAIN…..NEVER

  • Folks,

    I should never so early in the morning read and respond to the kind of stuff that Leo Salazar writes. The only proper response is what Mary42 gave: “I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions.” Thus do verses 9 and 10 in the Epistle of Jude state:

    9* But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.

  • Leo,

    I don’t hate homosexuals. Frankly I think most of them are the unfortunate victims of psychological abuse and/or social neglect.

    That being said, I do hate the radical gay movement, which is totalitarian in its ambitions.

  • “the anti-homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”

    Boo.

  • Whether sexual orientation is a choice or is in-born (I think it is neither, by the way)

    This is a bit curious – I have heard some argue it is in-born, others it is a choice, others it is a combination, and others that it can be in-born for some, choice for others, and a combination for yet others. But I have never heard someone say it is neither (which would seem to exclude all of the above). Do you consider cultural conditioning as a distinct cause from “choice”?

  • I think it results from social and psychological conditions experienced at an early and impressionable age. No one chooses the conditions they are brought up in, and they aren’t genetic.

    Like the professional psychiatric establishment did before it began self-thought-policing in the interests of political correctness, I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.

  • I think Bonchamps is correct. The propensity or inclination to homosexual behavior is a disease like alcoholism or drug addiction. Being an alcoholic or drug addict is not sinful. Indeed, millions are in recovery and abstinent from intoxicants. For the person afflicted with same sex attraction, the behavior is his or her intoxicant of choice. Being so afflicted is a cross perhaps similar in certain ways to the cross of alcoholism or addiction. We can choose to take up our cross and follow Jesus, denying our selfish wants, or we can give up and wallow in the intoxicant of our choice: homosexual behavior, alcohol or drugs.

    This is not a condemnation of those who drink alcohol in an adult manner, nor of the abstinent homosexual or lesbian. Not everyone is an alcoholic just as not everyone is a homosexual. Furthermore, there is only one place for sexual activity: in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman. If a heterosexual is unmarried, then he is held to the same rules that a homosexual is held to: chastity. If a heterosexual is married, then he is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with anyone other than his spouse. It is utter selfishness (not love) to rut in heat like a mindless baboon expecting no consequences for one’s actions, whether that rutting is homosexual or heterosexual. Yet today’s liberal progressive society would have us believe that such animalistic rutting is freedom and liberty instead of what it really is: slavery to whatever titillates the genitals. That, my friends, is drug addiction “par excellence”. We are not baboons or bonobo chimpanzees. We are human beings created in the image and likeness of God Almighty Himself, and He expects and requires that we behave as such. Failure to so behave can result in being cast into the hell of addiction in this life time, never to end in the burning fires of hell in the next.

    Use your God-given brains, Leo, instead of the stirring in your loins. You’re better than that.

  • Both national legislation and international conventions are casting their net ever wider.

    The following is typical:- “Discrimination comprises any distinction applied between natural persons by reason of their origin, sex, family situation, physical appearance or patronymic, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, sexual morals or orientation, age, political opinions, trade union activities, or their membership or non-membership, true or supposed, of a given ethnic group, nation, race or religion.”

  • Leo,

    I apologize.

  • Everything in life is some combination of genetics, environment, and individual decision. I don’t understand the need to pretend to know the ratios. We’re responsible for our choices to the extend that they were freely made and understood. Beyond that, we’re just guessing.

    Leo – I think you missed the point. If someone writes an article entitled “A Penny Saved Is Not A Penny Earned”, you wouldn’t show up and reply, “no, that’s incorrect; a penny saved is a penny earned”. The title of this piece and the image accompanying it are shocking for a reason. They’re intended to jostle your thinking. At a time when the President is depicted with a rainbow halo, an image of a rainbow swastika is incongruent. A vibrant mind would ask why, not just reply that he agrees with conventional thinking. Maybe you did get the point of the article, but nothing in your comments indicates it.

  • Bonchamps said: “I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.” I do too.
    Paul W. Primavera: I enjoyed reading your posts on Holy Scripture and still say my Hail Mary in Latin.
    Mary @42: You cut to the chase and clarified the issue quickly.
    Leo: What would the Holy Virgin say about your inexcusable defense of sinful behavior? The Holy Virgin weeps…and weeps.

  • Live and let live. Problems, accusations, and anti-stuff only happens when people impose upon other people and form ‘movements’ to do so.

    If aids and abortion didn’t kick up in the 80’s as an alert that something has gone off balance with humanity, then all this antagonizing, righteousness and division could move beyond emotional insanity to rational behavior and growth to calm ‘diversity’.

    We all have the possibility of achieving an integrity of our beliefs which are unique – we don’t need to butt heads or force change for another’s view of ‘integrity’. It’s just not right, practical, or any good to be ‘my way’ or else for anyone.

    This ‘anti’ bit is creepy because it is dehumanizing for all sides. Animals, away from man’s influence, have more intelligence and instinct. We could learn from them – and they are cute and beautiful.

  • As someone who makes a living in the visual arts, (including photography) this kind of ruling is rather chilling. One statement of the ruling stuck out to me:

    By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message. Rather, Elane Photography serves as a conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community.

    The notion that this sort of photography is being ‘merely asked to take photographs’ is absurd. Artistic photography is as much an expression and message of the photographer as of the client. It’s not simply pressing a button on a camera- if that was the case, no one would hire photographers. Rather, the whole point of selecting a particular photographer over another (or over a family member with a camera phone) is that the photographer has a particular style, quality, etc.- even message- that is communicated by that style. Often times you even have to be careful with the clients you choose to work for so that your style and message don’t get diluted.

    Perhaps whoever made this ruling needs to open a photography business and see how well they do by merely ‘taking photographs.’

  • @Bonchamps

    “I don’t hate homosexuals . . . I do hate the radical gay movement.”

    First of all, I find your response disingenuous and indefensible. If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the “radical homosexual movement” (whatever that’s supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here), you haven’t sufficiently defined it in your article. One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.

    Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise. The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.

    Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your “arguments” and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, “If I don’t want to deal with black people, then I should’t be forced to! It’s my right to refuse.” This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is based on their skin color, or their sexual orientation, then, no, it’s not your right. You are wrong.

  • Leo, Bon specifically addressed the difference between the individual and the behavior in paragraph 3. The photographer isn’t objecting to the individual; he’s objecting to the action of gay marraige. Paul Primavers puts it succinctly: “God loves everyone, homo or heterosexual. God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin.”

    As for the matter of genetic superiority, well, I don’t think anyone on this site cares about that. The real question is about moral superiority. Some people’s comments here have implied that heterosexuals are morally superior to homosexuals, and they’re wrong. Homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior are wrong when they’re outside God’s parameters. The parameters for heterosexual sex are limited; those for homosexual sex are nonexistent.

  • There is a difference between having a certain melanin in one’s skin cells and willful perverted sexual behavior. That difference is however lost of enlightened Leo. Nevertheless, regardless of that loss on him, no one may discriminate against taking wedding photographs of a black heterosexual couple, but one may (indeed, must) for reason of conscience refuse to provide such services to two homosexual perverts who demand their ungodly “union” be normalized, accepted and even praised in photography.

    Homosexual union is NOT marriage. Mutual masturbation or insertion of one’s male sexual organ into the orifice of another male is sickening, disgusting, filthy, dirty, perverted and disease-spreading. Just because certain animals engage in homosexual behavior (e.g., dolphins, bonobo chimpanzees, etc.) does not mean that a human created in the image and likeness of God Almighty should so debase and denigrate himself. We are NOT animals (but I do wonder about godless liberal progressive Democrats). God holds us to a higher standard. But in Leo’s world, it is unloving, unkind, unjust and divisive to say that.

    Indeed we all agree that black people are no more or less genetically inferior or superior than white people (or any other kind of people for that matter: red, yellow, brown, etc). In like manner, homosexual people are no more or less genetically inferior or superior than heterosexual people. For that reason, those who engage in homosexual behavior will be held accountable before God for the same – because, since they are NOT by their own declaration mental defects, they are fully aware of the grave evil in which they engage. If they were mental defects, then they could be excuse as innocent on the grounds of such mental deficiency or disease.

    Romans 1:18-32 applies, especially the last verse: “Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.”

    18* For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

  • Leo;

    I kindly suggest you do some research on Log Cabin Republicans. There is a difference between being “gay” and a “militant homosexual”. It would be nice if you could see there is a diversity in your community and embrace that diversity. I also suggest that you look at the political basis that is the genesis of the militant homosexual movement – you will find it stems from far left socialist/communist ideology. Look at the underpinnings of thoses ideologies, do the research on what influenced the ideologies, look at the times those ideologies grew out of and then look at the public and personal histories of the men/women behind thoses ideologies. It will be enlightening and tragic at the same time. Much of the militant homosexual movement’s money comes from the same organizations or ppl that are sympathic to socialism/communism. I do not mean to be disrespectful but if you do not care to look and challege your beliefs then your ignorance cannot be helped. My beliefs are challenged every day by ppl like you and I have to analyze if I am mistaken – I am only a man and thus fallible. Ultimately, I find the truths contained in the teachings of the one and true Church are infallible.

    Just as you accuss the ppl here of being closed-minded so are you. There is nothing I or anyone that is a faithful Catholic can say that will change your opinion and views. I do not wish to change your views or force you to act in a certain way but you seem to have a need/desire/compulsion to try to change mine or force me to act in a certain way. I just ask you respect my personhood and my basic human dignity as I respect yours.

    There is a difference between a voluntary act, which ultimately homosexuality is, and a color, race, etc. You are trying to claim a similarity between racism and the anti-homosexuality as shown by believers in Christ’s word – there is none. One is based on hate and the differences in man (racism) and the other is based on the love for man (wishing that all could enjoy full fellowship with God) and desire that man live up to his/her potential.

    I hope you can find peace and harmony because you seem angry and troubled. I will pray that you find and feel the true love of God. Peace be with you, my brother.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • It’d be nice if Primavera gave the next line: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” And that’s serious business. You’ve got to realize, Leo, that we know we’re under the same judgement for all of our misdeeds. Christianity doesn’t single out the homosexual for condemnation.

    We fight the battles we find ourselves in. If this were 1850, we’d be railing against slavery. Thirty years ago, we were mostly talking about abortion and communism. Now we’re talking about this. We haven’t suddenly started caring about homosexuality. We haven’t been secretly obsessed about homosexuality. We’re just playing the cards we’re dealt. And as this article demonstrates, the shift is taking place from protecting the rights of supporters of homosexual unions to diminishing the rights of opponents of homosexual unions. So the fight has been taken to our doorstep.

  • Post Script – my quote of Romans 1:32 doesn’t come across in the right way. In the original Greek of the epistle which St. Paul wrote to the Church at Rome, there were no divisions of chapter and verses. So Romans 2:1-16 immediately succeeds Romans 1:18-32 without the artifical divisions that were created to help the modern reader locate passages. Notice how St. Paul immediately stresses after his discussion about homosexual perversion that there is no partiality before God between the pagan homosexual pervert at the end of chapter 1 and the convert to Christianity at the beginning of chapter 2. The same rules apply to all of us, and none of us are worthy of Heaven. Note also that while St. Paul admonishes the believer NOT to judge, nowhere does he say that the believer is to give assent to sin either passively or actively. Indeed, his words are just the opposite. This gives new meaning to that other verse of Scripture which says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12)

    1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

    12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

  • Sorry, Pinky!

    We were cross-posting!

    You’re right!

  • Paul – Yeah, I got that. That would’ve been a lot to pull together in six minutes.

    I think it’s important for Leo – and for us – that we mention every once in a while that we’re all trying to work toward perfection. There’s a lot more hetero sin out there, numerically, and there’s no one on this board with a perfect track record. I say this a lot on the threads, but we’re called to be both right and good; when we’re talking about how right we are, it can sound like we’re talking about how good we are. I’d hate to think that we come off as jerks to an outsider.

  • Double ditto to what Pinky just wrote. I know what I deserve. God’s mercy is that I do not get what I deserve. God’s grace is that I do get what I clearly do not deserve.

  • Soon it will be illegal to refuse to attend a homosexual “wedding” if you’ve been invited.

    Just wait! You’ll see!

  • Hear hear Paul

  • Y’know, Leo, I had a whole long, scathing diatribe written out, but then it occurred to me that fascists don’t listen anyway.

    Best of luck. Seriously.

  • Coexist heil!

  • At Mary De Voe’s request, for Leo Salazar, and for all homosexuals caught in the addiction to sexual sin:

    Av? Mar?a, gr?ti? pl?na,
    Dominus t?cum.
    Benedicta t? in mulieribus,
    et benedictus fr?ctus ventris tu?, I?sus.
    S?ncta Mar?a, M?ter De?,
    ?r? pr? n?b?s pecc?t?ribus,
    nunc et in h?r? mortis nostrae.
    ?m?n.

  • Main Entry: fas·cism
    Pronunciation: \?fa-?shi-z?m also ?fa-?si-\
    Function: noun

    1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race [sexuality] above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

    So there we have it, textbook fascist behavior by the left.

  • Thank you, Bonchamps for the post.

    May the Lord Jesus reveal His glory to Leo. May Leo come to know the Person of Jesus Christ and be lead to acknowledge Jesus as Sovereign Lord and Merciful Savior. May he be given a thirsting for Truth, and through this thirsting discover authentic Love.

    Amen to the thoughts expressed by Mary 42. Thank you for speaking in power and in the authority of the Holy Spirit.

    Thank you Leo for providing us an opportunity to check our relationship with the Lord…to test our courage to witness His Gospel, It takes little courage to comment on an anonymous blog; the true test is found on the battlefield of our heart.
    2 Timothy 1:14 “guard the Truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.”
    We need to engage intellect through faithfully presenting Truth, in order to win hearts for Christ. 2 Timothy 2: 24-26 “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
    Titus 3:3-7 “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, HE saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.”

    We need to prostrate ourselves before the Lord, as His Justice is also His mercy. The earth is blanketed with the spirit of the antichrist. The only response is fervent prayer and fasting.
    2 Timothy 1: 8-9 “Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord…Who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of His own purpose…”

  • Thank you, Paul W. Primavera. God bless

  • Leo,

    I can’t speak for anyone else. Here’s my reply to your comment.

    “First of all, I find your response disingenuous and indefensible.”

    Well, it’s the truth. Take it or leave it.

    “If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the “radical homosexual movement” (whatever that’s supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here),”

    Then you’re incredibly ignorant or naive – or a liar. Of course a radical homosexual movement exists, as much as radical feminism, radical race politics, and communism exist. The lawyer for the plaintiff in this very case is a radical gay advocate.

    I defined “gay agenda” in my previous writing: a political movement with the objective of normalizing and legitimizing a homosexual lifestyle in every facet of social and personal life. That is a radical assault on the foundations of human civilization.

    “you haven’t sufficiently defined it in your article.”

    Why should I define what is self-evident? Of course there’s a distinction.

    “One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.”

    Hey, I can’t tell people how to think. I’m not a radical gay activist, that’s not my thing. I would tell any of them that there is a difference between a person who simply lives their life, and a political activist, and that they would have to be brain-damaged not to understand this.

    “Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise.”

    So what? Are you whining because you couldn’t control their thoughts either?

    Do you just lie awake at night cursing the 1st amendment or what? Or does it just bother you that anyone has the temerity to think an unacceptable thought?

    “The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.”

    This is just nonsense. No difference? Of course there is a difference. There is a massive difference. There are also differences between black and white cultures, between men and women, between Christians and Jews. Pretending differences don’t exist is ignorant and naive.

    That being said, however, this has nothing to do with whether or not they are “the same” or “different” than me. I know you have this view in your head of us here as a bunch of tribalistic cavemen who want to oppress everyone who isn’t exactly like us – or at least, you seem as if you do. This is false. You’re engaging in prejudice of your own.

    I really don’t desire to dictate what two people of any gender or sexual orientation do. Under our existing conception of private property rights, any two people can enter into the same kind of contracts as anyone else. They can share property and wealth, share a household, grant one another medical and/or legal power of attorney. I don’t believe society can or should make attempts to discern whether or not the people seeking them are gay and deny them on that basis.

    “Gay rights” politics are not about obtaining the legal right to participate in society at the same level as everyone else, as the efforts against Jim Crow were. They are about one thing only: FORCING society, and particularly Christians, to treat them with the prestige and respectability they think they deserve.

    They do NOT have a right to respect, prestige, polite smiles, or anything of the sort. And no one has any right to any good or service. But we’ll get to that below.

    “Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your “arguments” and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, “If I don’t want to deal with black people, then I should’t be forced to! It’s my right to refuse.” This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is based on their skin color, or their sexual orientation, then, no, it’s not your right. You are wrong.”

    Well, I actually completely disagree with this, and I stand with Ron Paul in his rejection of that particular portion of the Civil Rights Act. It is an intolerable violation of private property rights to force people to serve those whom they do not wish to serve. I think the original Civil Rights movement was perfectly within its rights to boycott businesses that wouldn’t serve blacks. And if gays want to boycott Christian photographers, that’s fine too.

    But just to be clear: it is an insult, a disgusting mockery, to compare black skin to what is often willfully chosen deviant behavior. And it is no coincidence that it is the black voter who has been the most consistent opponent of “gay marriage” legislation. How do you think black Protestants and Catholics feel about constantly being compared to the sort of filthy degenerates who march in the streets in leather waving sex-toys around? You’re the insensitive lout here.

    You need to think long and hard about this comparison, Leo.

  • The premise of this article is correct and we do need the courage to address this.

    Case in point: the recent expulsion from Dartmouth, prison sentence, criminal record and international humiliation of Tyler Clementi’s roommate who briefly watched part of an intimate encounter between Tyler and a male sex partner. Unfortunately, Tyler, who had many many personal issues prior to going to college, later committed suicide by jumping off the Geo. Washington Bridge. This was a tragic and horrible event.

    But Tyler was NOT the victim of gay-bashing, and this incident was turned into a political statement when it should have been about invasion of privacy–something we all need to confront in this electronic age.

    Tyler’s roommate had already “spied” on straight friends when he was in high school, as a prank. (And for the record, he never posted footage of Tyler on the internet.) He was an insensitive jerk, but there were indeed gay people among his acquaintences. He never referred to them with slurs. He made no complaint about having a gay roommate, other than some initial wisecracks to his friends when he first found out. He does sound like a pompous and insensitive kid, but those aren’t crimes. Tyler was the one who brought a strange “older” man to the room for a sexual encounter, kicking out his roommate, and creating “drama.” (This happens a lot in college–kids are expected to quietly leave the room if the roommate wants to have privacy with a partner. That’s ridiculous–the burden should be on the kid who brings home a sex partner to find a private place.)

    Peeping on your roommate in these circumstances is immature and creepy, but I’m sure it has happened before, even before webcam technology. I am also fairly certain that he would have spied on Tyler if Tyler had brought home a girl. This was an ill-considered dumb act that young people that age seem prone to. That is why we have consequences that are intended to help them learn from their mistakes. He should have been penalizied by the university before this became a criminal matter. Tyler, too, should have been penalized, as I am sure the school has rules for dorm conduct.

    It is conceivable to me that Tyler was depressed, perhaps had been rejected by this “older” guy (and older, to a college kid, may mean 25), and was still dealing with his parents finding out he was gay.

    I am amazed at how many people try to compare this to the Mathew Shepard murder, which WAS an example of a kid being targeted for his sexual orientation. But there is not a war on gay people in this country: gays are tolerated and embraced to a degree that even 20 years ago would have been inconceivable.

    The political Gay Rights movement would have us believe otherwise.

    But this whole thing was about TYLER’S personal struggles, not about GAYS.

    Yet the school immediately launched a lot of “sensitivity outreach” efforts.

  • “You need to think long and hard about this comparison [ black skin color and sexual deviancy ], Leo.”

    He won’t. But it would be nice if he did. His comparison is an insult to people of any race everywhere, particularly the human race.

  • Sparhawk that brings up the question why mess around with your roommate?

  • Valentin, I deleted a comment by you three times with what I consider to be vulgar language in it. I guess you couldn’t take a hint. I am placing you on moderation for the time being.

  • I am sorry Donald I was wondering about that. I tend to talk like a sailor but certain bad things need to be given bad names so that people don’t act like bad things are good. I apologize for the vulgar language and will try to be more discreet.

  • I thought that some of those terms I used seemed much more discreet than what I was thinking of saying before.

  • Good enough Valentin, and congratulations for spending the shortest time in moderation in the history of TAC! 🙂

  • can we come up with more discreet and yet effective terms to use instead because it seems like people just assert that homosexuality makes perfect sense without really talking about it.

  • what is TAC?

  • Can you delete the comment on which century I meant? It seems somewhat irrelevent.

  • Thank you for the complement I do hope other people will have more humility than I do.

  • Bonchamps wrote

    “Well, I actually completely disagree with this, and I stand with Ron Paul in his rejection of that particular portion of the Civil Rights Act. It is an intolerable violation of private property rights to force people to serve those whom they do not wish to serve.”

    Let me remind you of what Rousseau says about democracy. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

    His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

  • I think the “state of nature” has one advantage, or two, over the current, corrupt system: were-geld, for example.

    On this topic, what is the common superior of which above writes?

  • If people are “born gay”, as the current theory goes, then it follows that they were created that way. And if they were created with that nature, then it’s on the Creator. If, as scripture tells us, He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?
    I find homosexual behavior repugnant but at the same time wonder if gays are truly responsible for being true to their nature. For this reason, I remain agnostic and side with my old friend, Lucretius who put it this way 2,050 years ago:

    Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam
    Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa
    “Had God designed the world, it would not be
    A world so frail and faulty as we see.”

  • @Joe Green

    “He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?”

    You say “blame,” I say “credit.”

  • Joe Green wrote, “He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?”

    Leo Salazar wrote, “You say ‘blame,’ I say ‘credit.’

    Whom God formed in the Garden of Eden were two perfect human beings, male and female. He did NOT create a predisposition to homosexuality any more than He created a predisposition to alcoholism. That some are born with mental defect or disease (e.g., a predisposition to homosexuality or a predisposition to alcoholism) is NOT the fault of God, but the result of the mortal wound of sin to which man wilfully acceded in the Garden of Eden. If indeed people are born this way, then it is a genetic defect that God never ever created. Man yielded out of self-will run riot to satan’s temptation. That in turn resulted in sin, and the wages of that sin are death. No one would be homosexual were it not for man’s initial disobedience. Again, that some are born with a predisposition to same sex attraction is NO different than some having been born with a predisposition to alcoholism. It cannot be overemphasized that God does NOT create the predisposition to defect or disease. Understand this: the mortal wound in the flesh of mankind creates that predisposition. God cannot create or cause evil because God is inherently and intrinsically all-good. Rather, Adam and Eve’s rejection of obedience to God’s commands resulted in evil, and homosexual behavior is evil; therefore, Adam and Eve’s disobedience results in that behavior (as well as the heterosexual sins of adultery and fornication – the rules are the same for everyone).

    That being said, God has mercy on those for whom He chooses to have mercy, and God visits justice on those for whom He chooses to visit justice. It is God’s sovereign will, and in fact we ALL – hetero and homosexual – merit only God’s justice, NOT God’s mercy. That God so love the world to send His only begotten Son (John 3:16) is His divine and sovereign mercy which neither homo nor heterosexual merit.

    As Romans 9:6-29 states:

    [ Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose ]

    6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”[b] 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

    10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

    [ Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice ]

    14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

    19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

    22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

    25 As He says also in Hosea:

    “I will call them My people, who were not My people,
    And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
    26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
    ‘You are not My people,’
    There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

    27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

    “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
    The remnant will be saved.
    28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
    Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”

    29 And as Isaiah said before:

    “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth[l] had left us a seed,
    We would have become like Sodom,
    And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”

  • @Bonchamps

    I’ve just read your response. I appreciate you taking the time to address my comments to you in detail. You’ve made some excellent points. But you’ve also made some points that seem to me based on gross assumptions and a plain misreading of what I wrote.

    I don’t think it’s useful to go into a detailed reaction to what you’ve written, but I would like to address two things.

    1) The comparison between race and sexual orientation discrimination: You weren’t the only one on this page to make an illogical leap based on my comments. Perhaps my writing lacked clarity. What I said was that I heard a striking similarity between the arguments that I heard racists using and the arguments that people on this forum use against homosexuals. I am very well aware that race/sexuality is apples/oranges. That’s precisely why I find the arguments of gay baiters so stunningly absurd.

    2) Personal attacks: You are a very literate writer and I enjoy reading your work. You sound like an intelligent person (no, I dont think you’re a bunch of tribalistic cavemen). That’s what is so disturbing to read from you, of all people, direct and personal attacks against me. From others on this page [unnamed] it’s par for the course, and I don’t take them seriously. But not from you.
    The key to civil discourse is “attack the ideas, not the person.” I admire very much that @T.Shaw apologized for judging me unfairly. I think we can have a far more productive and positive exchange with each other if we refrain from name calling.

    And, who knows? maybe we’ll learn something from each other.

  • T Shaw

    What Rousseau is saying is that, as between the Public on the one hand and the individual on the other, there is no outsider who has the power to adjudicate on their differences and enforce a decision.

    In other words, you cannot take a sovereign, independent state to court, precisely because it is sovereign and independent; it is subject to no superior person or body

    That is what he means, when he says there is no “common superior”

  • Valentin: Do you mean by “why mess around with your roommate?” that the incident (peeping) never should have taken place? Exactly. Not to get too far off the original topic, but the kid should NOT have been watching from elsewhere what was going on in that room. He should have faced penalties for invasion of privacy. But if he felt “entitled” to peep because he believed he had been edged out of his room to make space for a tryst and that made him uncomfortable–for whatever reason– he could and should have reported Tyler, who would also have faced disciplinary action.

    It’s too bad this was not about invasion of privacy, because people are constantly victimized by this, while they’re totally unaware. This would have been a great warning to technophilic peeping toms. instead Tyler Clementi’s death has been exploited by a cause he did not necessarilly embrace.

  • This civilization’s embrace of homosexual behavior is a sign of the coming apocalypse.

    However . . .

    I tried to buy a house recently. I had almost signed the papers when the owner learned that I was a practicing Catholic. They refused to sell me the house. So I kept looking. I found another house. Almost signed the paper. And again, when they learned I was a practicing Catholic, they refused to sell me the house. The third time this happened, the owner said, “I only sell to devout Muslims.”

    Irate, I told him that this kind of discrimination was deplorable. He said that it was perfectly fine to discriminate against me, “Because it isn’t like you were born Catholic. You chose to be Catholic. You act in certain ways that horrify me. You promote ideas that horrify me. Allah only knows what kind of deviant behavior you will teach your family in this house. I cannot in good conscience allow this house to serve your devil-deity. If you decide to reform your behavior, then I will allow you to buy my house.”

    I tried to tell him that I was indeed born a Catholic, at baptism. But he said, “Look, if you were merely baptized, I’d led you buy the house. It isn’t who you are that bothers me. It is what you do. It’s the fact that you actually act Catholic!”

    Most of us have accepted the idea that certain behaviors can be protected by law: faith being the most important kind of behavior. One may not persecute either Catholics or Blacks — even though being a Catholic depends on choice, and being Black depends on birth. Now ‘persecution’ may or may not venture into private business decisions: may a man sell his house to whomever he wishes, regardless of how vile his reasoning? On individual cases, it seems like government intrusion is unwarranted. But on a societal level, can we allow the mass of men to refuse to sell their homes to Black people, Jewish people, and dare I say . . . practicing homosexuals?

    May a photographer refuse to take photos at a devout Catholic wedding, or a Hindu wedding, or Satanists wedding, or a homosexual wedding? All of those criteria are behavior-based. Once we say, “no, a photographer may not decline a wedding because of behavior”, then we run into those questions.

    Now, many homosexuals want to say there were ‘born’ that way, putting them into the category of White Weddings, Black Weddings, Red-headed Weddings, Blue-eyed Weddings, etc. That puts their argument on firmer ground, because it makes their behavior untouchable. So it’s important to point out that, “No, homosexuality is defined by behavior, not biology.”

    But pointing this out doesn’t make for a solid argument. Because you still have to point out why we may protect certain behaviors (Catholicism), while arguing that other behaviors shouldn’t be protected (Child molestation).

    And yet . . . am I correct in saying that businesses may not legally refuse service to Child Molesters who have done their time in prison and are off of probation? Can a car wash say, “We don’t provide this service to Child Molesters”? Can a day care refuse to hire a Child Molester?

    As a Catholic Worker, and thus as a good anarchist and pacifist, I would sweep aside all these laws that protect us from persecution. Let sin boil up. Let all our hidden hatreds come to the surface. Let the truth reign. And then let us pray for the Holy Spirit to wipe us all clean. The government cannot secure human rights. It can’t even identify them.

  • Taking wedding pictures is a “public service?” Since when? Aren’t photographers private citizens running private businesses? If so, then they have the legal right to deny their services to anyone for any reason, whether you agree with their reasons or not.

  • Thanks!

    Obviously, I don’t know Rousseau from Russo. It’s in the USConst, you can petition the gov, you cannot sue it without permission. Now, I get it.

    I recognize one Eternal Superior.

    The World was judged one long-ago Friday on Calvary. John 12: 27-28; 31-33.

  • –Nate Wildermuth…” Because you still have to point out why we may protect certain behaviors (Catholicism), while arguing that other behaviors shouldn’t be protected (Child molestation).”

    First amendment protects Catholicism. Child molestation; No.

  • Nate, your story about a home purchase is fictional, no?

  • Kristin

    A photographic studio or shop, offering goods or services to the public was held to constitute “public accommodation.”

    Pretty well anything amounting to commerce or business is covered. The sale of a house, as in Nate’s example, would not be covered, unless the seller was a builder or developer, who makes a business out of selling houses. But a realtor would be covered

  • The essence of man is the image and likeness of God in him. When a man is born, the government gives him a birth certificate and a tax bill. When a rational, immortal soul is created and endowed with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, God gives the man His Name: “I AM”. God is Being. God is existence. God creates all things and keeps them in existence. Therefore, the man who exists, exists at the will of God from one second to the next. Therefore, I am able to say: “I AM Mary De Voe.”

  • If someone (hetero or homosexual) needs food, drink, shelter or any of the other necessities of life, then yes, one may and should do business to provide for such services. That’s always the right and correct thing to do.

    But no one needs photographic services. So if I own a photography studio and a homosexual “couple” comes to me to buy my services for photographing their disgusting and perverted “union,” then I may (and would) deny them.

    Homosexual behavior is perversion, to be differentiated from the person. (So, by the way, is adultery and fornication – the same rules apply equally to all, hetero and homosexual.) We must never tolerate or normalize disgusting and perverted sexual behavior. But we are still required to love the homosexual (just as we are required to love the adulterer and the fornicator – again, the same rules apply to everyone). So yes, we are under obligation to help provide what is necessary for life without respect to who or what the person is. Yet there is no moral compulsion to accede to a homosexual’s request for non-necessary services. In fact, there is every reason to compel them understand how harmful and wrongful their perverted sexual behavior is on the rest of society. For example, I’m heterosexual and in my teenage years my Dad made perfectly clear to me how wrongful adultery and fornication are; his exact words were, “If you get a girl pregnant and desert her, then I’ll put a two bitted ax in your head.” He deliberately endeavored to be as politically incorrect as possible. And I never got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, and those children to whose genetic material I contributed within wedlock I currently support as is my duty (I do more than that, but the reader gets the idea: responsibility and accountability).

    And I don’t care what passes for the law of the land and what it says when it supports this godless sexual iniquity called “gay rights”. These people have got to be made to realize that their disgusting, perverted behavior will not be tolerated in the public sphere. This is not a matter of judgment. It is a matter of preserving the cornerstone of society – the family: one man, one woman and children. That’s why God’s Law says: no homosexual behavior, no adultery, no fornication. God cares about humanity and what happens to it. So He makes Laws that if obeyed, will ensure its survival, even its prosperity. But the libertine hedonist doesn’t care about humanity, humanity’s survival or humanity’s prosperity. He only cares about his own license to titillate his genitals like a drug addict without regard for whom that will adversely affect or how injurious his behavior of sexual iniquity and idolatry is on the rest of society. This is called “Liberal-ISM” or “I”, “Self” and “Me”.

    Yes, I want the behavior of these people shoved back into the closet where it belongs. It is at best abnormal, but even worse, a destroyer of civilization and a denier of God.

  • PS, At least in the State of Washington, normal people are fighting back and winning against the tide of the facism of sodomy:

    Washington gay ‘marriage’ law stopped after opponents gather 240,000 signatures
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/washington-gay-marriage-law-stopped-after-opponents-gather-240000-signature

  • Mary, that phrasing seems wrong. God gives us our identity, but he doesn’t make us identical to God. That sacred name applies, as I understand it, only to the God who absolutely, unconditionally Is.

  • “can we come up with more discreet and yet effective terms to use instead because it seems like people just assert that homosexuality makes perfect sense without really talking about it.”
    An individual who perpetrates sodomy is called a sodomite. How sad that the atheist must die to learn that he has immortality. Unless, of course, the atheist and the sodomite have confused immortality with heaven. Dante wrote that the devil is frozen, immobile, into the bottom of the pit. That would prevent the devil from soaring with the saints and angels. The devil roams the earth seeking the ruin of souls. The practice of homosexual behavior is the “ruin of souls”. Only one of many.

  • “If you get a girl pregnant and desert her, then I’ll put a two bitted ax in your head.” I Love You, Paul W. Primavera, but only Platonically. I believe that this love is called friendship. Your dad was a feminist. He did right by you. Do you know Paul, that science has determined that when a woman carries a child, some of the baby’s cells with his genome enter the mother’s body and the woman carries her beloved. Pretty awesome. I very much appreciate your handsome knowledge of Sacred Scripture and your generosity in sharing. God bless you.

  • “Mary, that phrasing seems wrong. God gives us our identity, but he doesn’t make us identical to God. That sacred name applies, as I understand it, only to the God who absolutely, unconditionally Is.
    ” God’s “I AM” is infinite. Man’s “I AM” is finite. God creates all things and keeps them in existence. Therefore, the man who exists, exists at the will of God “I AM” from one instance to the next. In Jesus Christ, God’s “I AM” is justified, and redeemed.

  • Leo,

    If you wanted to have a civil, rational, intelligent discussion without name-calling, you really shouldn’t have started out by calling my reply to your first post “disingenuous.” You poisoned this well.

    I don’t hold grudges, so let’s move on.

    As for your first point, let me make this simple: I don’t care if the arguments are the same. It means nothing to me. As far as private property rights go, the argument is valid in both cases.

    And I’d like you to consider my questions. Would any of these comparisons be made if it were a cabal of Satanists demanding that Catholics photograph their ritual desecration of the Eucharist? Would these ridiculous comparisons to Jim Crow Alabama be made on behalf of the poor, persecuted Satanists?

  • Nate,

    “As a Catholic Worker, and thus as a good anarchist and pacifist, I would sweep aside all these laws that protect us from persecution. Let sin boil up. Let all our hidden hatreds come to the surface. Let the truth reign. And then let us pray for the Holy Spirit to wipe us all clean. The government cannot secure human rights. It can’t even identify them.”

    I’m fine with that. If you think I’m arguing that “my” group ought to have protections while gays or Satanists should have none, you’ve misread me.

    For the the record: I do not object to Muslims refusing to photograph Christian weddings, or Satanist real-estate agents refusing to sell homes to Jews, or anything of the sort. I don’t believe in protected categories at ALL when it comes to private property rights. Gays can boycott Christian businesses they don’t like, just as we can boycott companies that support the obscene “gay agenda.”

  • I am concerned about attempts by radical caders representing a tiny minority using the coercive power of the state to impose their will in an authoritarian manner on people they could not rationally persuade to approve of their lifestyles. I am concerned with the preservation of MY right, MY liberty, to disapprove and to avoid behavior that I believe is morally vile and reprehensible.

    If I don’t have that right, then I may as well live in a third-world dictatorship.

  • Joe nobody is born doing homosexual things.

  • I don’t understand the argument for homosexuality or why it would be reasonable so if someone who does have an argument and is friendly enough to post it please do.

  • Sparhawk it seems a little unfriendly to keep a roommate out of the room for such unjustified things.

  • Valentin: Yes, you’re right. As I said, Tyler was in violation of the housing code, not to mention common courtesy, in expecting to have the room to himself and to de facto kick out his roommate. From what I’ve read on the matter, Tyler had problems relating to people and communicating with his peers. Assuming he could make the room off-limits to another person paying A LOT for board takes nerve. And he should have been held accountable.

  • Pingback: Luckless in New Mexico « Blithe Spirit
  • Valentin, of course not, but the inclination is there from the beginning and acted upon as soon as the person reaches sexual maturity. Of course, adultery and fornication are equally condemned in Scripture — which is much ignored by the Bible thumpers, who seem to have a special disdain for homos. However, I must say I find homosexual activity more perverse than either adultery or fornication, which, though “sins,” seem more “normal” to me though no less punishable by the “creator” who allegedly made all of us.

  • Bonchamps

    As far as private property rights go, it is law that distinguishes mere possession (which is a physical fact) from ownership (which is a legal right) and law is an expression of the general will. Hence, Theodore Roosevelt’s words, “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

    This was treated as a truism, long before Socialism was ever heard of. As the great classical scholar, Charles Rollin (1661-1741), reminds us, “Theft was permitted in Sparta. It was severely punished among the Scythians. The reason for this difference is obvious: the law, which alone determines the right to property and the use of goods, granted a private individual no right, among the Scythians, to the goods of another person, whereas in Sparta the contrary was the case.”

    You can see this principle everywhere enunciated in the French Revolution. Take Mirabeau (a moderate) “Property is a social creation. The laws not only protect and maintain property; they bring it into being; they determine its scope and the extent that it occupies in the rights of the citizens” So, too, Robespierre (not a moderate) “In defining liberty, the first of man’s needs, the most sacred of his natural rights, we have said, quite correctly, that its limit is to be found in the rights of others. Why have you not applied this principle to property, which is a social institution, as if natural laws were less inviolable than human conventions?”

  • Without reading most of the Comments, let me come back again with this simple question, my good people. If I was born with the propensity of being a thief, would it be OK for me to take stealing as my lifelong occupation and not get punished because I was born that way???? Of course, not. Those child abusers who excuse themselves by saying they were born that way, do we say OK continued raping your infant daughter, continue sodomising your pre-teen son, your pupil, if you are a Teacher, your Choir youngsters, if you are a Protestant Pastor???? OF COURSE NOT. And, oooh yes, the Catholic Church has been crucified for the Priests who abused minors. If we accept Leo’s Creed none of those I have mentioned should be admonished and punished.

    And how about a murderer claiming I was born with the propensity of killing people because it gives me great sexual joy to see a person expiring before my eyes????? Surely, we all know where such a person belongs.

    So, again I say, sodomy, lesbianism are perversities that should never be accepted by normal, rational, intelligent human beings. And on this Catholic Website, we must PROCLAIM FROM THE ROOFTOPS…..WE REJECT TOTALLY THESE ABBERATIONS. THEY ARE INTRINSICALLY EVIL, INHUMAN, BEYOND ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND MUST BE REJECTED. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church shall never teach, accept or permit anything with is contrary to God’s and Natural Law. We pray for those with sodomy and lesbianism perversities but they MUST STOP pushing their filthy acts down our throats, forcing us to accept their bestialities, let alone accepting their unnatural co-habitations can be called “Marriage”. Marriage is between One man and One Woman. Even male animals do not mate with male animals. Sheesh, this Culture is Devilish….and once again, in the name of God I pray for these people that they look for a cure to their perversions…….the Medical Science must surely have an answer to cure these dirty disorders.

  • Michael,

    The Church holds that private property is a natural right, and that labor is what confers the status of private property on any object:

    “Now, when man thus turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates – that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.” — Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 9

    It is simply false that the law “creates” private property.

    “Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body. ” — RN, 7

    Private property rights exist prior to the state. The state exists to protect them:

    “the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them” — RN, 51

    Of course, the state can “regulate” private property. You can’t use your private property to violate someone else’s rights, or to engage in evil behavior (i.e. pornography or prostitution or something like that).

    “The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.” — RN, 47

  • The first Commandments given by directly, in-Person God Almighty are found in Genesis.

    “Go forth and be fruitful (procreate)” is given in genesis six or seven times not just to man, but to all creatures.

  • 10% of the population is left-handed, 3% is queer, and so on. God must have gotten bored making the rest of us perfect. : )

  • If the homosexual activist could give proof positive that the immortal soul of the partner and his own immortal soul will not be going to eternal, infernal damnation, that he is not subject to death, that almighty God Who made all things and keeps them in existence cannot watch over His creation, even while some men abuse themselves through homosexual behavior, for God to see exactly what these individuals are doing, then and only then, will I be free to make an informed choice to give informed consent to aggravated assault and battery of the anus.
    Recently posted was the suicide of a young man, Tyler, who jumped off the George Washington Bridge because his homosexual behavior was broadcast into the public domain. God is watching and sees all homosexual behavior. When, in olden days, Kings and Queens married, their bishop had to present himself into their marriage chamber to verify that the marriage was consummated. So, the bishop did witness to the consummation of the marriage covenant and to the legitimacy of the children who became the next in line for the throne. God watched the consummation of the marriage covenant without the screen the bishop used. God watches every person in every instance of their life. It is called Divine Providence and found inscribed in our Declaration of Independence. So, each and every individual must live accordingly, in grace and dignity, for God is watching.
    P.S. I really do not believe that any individual will be spared death and judgment. This is what the devil, Satan, promised Adam and Eve. Abel was murdered and Adam and Eve both died. The homosexual proponent has embraced a losing argument.
    P.P.S. If a bishop was not present in your marriage chamber, you and your offspring will probably not be the next king and/or queen. Off the cuff: Does anyone know if the bishop was present in Obama’s marital chamber?

  • It is government’s duty to protect private property, virginity, innocence and “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. In Executive Order 13575, Rural Councils, Obama arrogated to himself the unauthorized power to seize private property at will.

  • Bonchamps

    But we read in the 2nd book of Institutes and in the 41st book of the Digest of Justinian that “those things that we take from enemies become ours by Natural Law (naturali ratione). In fact, for the Roman jurists, it is the paradigm case of acquisition of ownership. Now, without a law and a ruler, all men are enemies, so there would be no security of possession. His “natural right” is only as good as his natural powers of defending it.

    The Church certainly recognises strict limits to the right of private property. Populorum Progressio (23), citing St Ambrose, “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich,” declares, “These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.”

    As an example, the Pope states (24) that “ If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”

    So there you have it; a right that is contingent (“not absolute”), conditional and defensible (by expropriation). Even Robespierre was asserting no more than that.

  • Not to get off topic here, but I’m not so sure Mary is correct about bishops and royal weddings. I know it was common practice for bishops to bless the marriage bed/chamber of a newly married king/queen or prince/princess on their wedding night…. but did they REALLY have to stick around to witness the, ahem, main event? I rather doubt that. There were other ways of verifying that a royal marriage had been consummated that were, shall we say, a bit less intrusive.

    Returning to our topic…

    I know some people like to compare the photographer refusing to do photos for a same-sex “wedding” to restaurants refusing to serve blacks in the Jim Crow South.

    However, there is another important difference between the two situations (besides the difference between race and sexual preference/orientation/behavior). The segregation that took place in the South was enforced by STATE laws and local ordinances and was not necessarily, or entirely, the result of “free market” choices by individual business owners exercising their right to do business as they pleased. If a restaurant owner had wanted to serve black customers in the Jim Crow era, he/she would have been forbidden by state law to do so, just as a restaurant owner who does NOT want to serve blacks today is forbidden by both federal and state law from refusing such service.

    If New Mexico had a state law forbidding ALL business owners from providing services to couples attempting same-sex marriages, on the grounds that same-sex marriage is illegal in that state (and at last report, it was), then the gay couple in question might have grounds to sue to have that law overturned. An argument could be made that if such a state law existed, it would be an unjust infringement upon not only the rights of the couple involved, but upon the rights of business owners who wanted to provide services for same-sex weddings, or had no objections to doing so.

    But that is not the case here. This is an individual choice by ONE business owner, which leaves other business owners perfectly free to provide the services the same-sex couple is seeking.

  • A photographic studio or shop, offering goods or services to the public was held to constitute “public accommodation.”

    Pretty well anything amounting to commerce or business is covered. The sale of a house, as in Nate’s example, would not be covered, unless the seller was a builder or developer, who makes a business out of selling houses. But a realtor would be covered

    If that’s the case, then it sets a pretty troubling precedent, even if same sex marriages were a-ok. Private businesses should have the legal right to choose their clients – especially if said businesses aren’t essential to life. I think refusing to sell food and water to a same-sex couple would be very wrong, but refusing to take their pictures? Nah.

  • Michael,

    I don’t care about Robespierre. I don’t care about the 54th book of Blah or the 78th Treatise on Blegh. In some contexts these might be relevant, depending upon what you want to establish. As concerns the moral rightness and justification of a thing, only Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium count.

    You’ve ignored the multiple quotations from Rerum Novarum I provided that demonstrate that the right to private property is natural, sacred, and inviolable – subject to some regulations, to be sure, but not to excessive taxation and certainly not expropriation for some social cause.

    “The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.” — RN, 15

    “We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable.” — RN, 46

    Meanwhile, this statement:

    “These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.”

    What does this mean, exactly? That “appropriating surplus goods” in such conditions (and if we think globally, this would mean EVERYONE) ought to be illegal? Or that it is simply immoral? If there is an argument here that the “surplus goods” ought to be confiscated by the state and redistributed to the needy, I don’t see it. If it is simply a moral admonishment, fine.

    What we have a natural RIGHT to is the fruits of our labor, which become our property. Whether or not we privately own the fruits of our labor has NOTHING TO DO with the material condition of our neighbor. Of course if we refuse to act charitably towards those in need when we very well could, then we will be held accountable by God.

    I don’t want to get into all the reasons why I find Giovanni Montini’s statements, especially about economics, highly suspect and not deserving of uncritical and immediate assent. But I don’t believe I can be faulted for standing firmly on the foundation laid by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum.

  • Bonchamps your last comment seems dangerous are you saying that the Gospel is the only word of God? or are you saying that if something says something contrary the Gospel should be rejected? because one big difference the Baptists and us Catholics is that Baptists claim that the Gospel is the only word of the lord where as we believe that the Gospel is the word of the lord.

  • I didn’t even mention the Gospel.

    RN = Rerum Novarum. An encyclical by Pope Leo XIII.

  • There should be a “to” in between “the” and “Gospel” as well as a “it” in between “Gospel” and “should”

  • I also clearly said that Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are the sources of authority.

    You need to read carefully before you post.

  • Bonchamps I had a few pretty big typos when you read my comment.

  • Well Ultimately Christ, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are the source of authority because they are the Author, but The Holy Spirit being the protector of Tradition and The Magisterium and God speaking through the Prophets as well as written accounts by the Apostles all three you mentioned do have Authority.

  • A group based on pride does not have Authority because pride is a vice. Therefore Gay Pride groups do not have authority.

  • I don’t care about your typos. Your implication that I was somehow elevating the Gospel above other sources of authority was clear even with the typos, and it is that implication that is completely false. I didn’t even mention the Gospels. So I really don’t know why you would even say such a thing.

  • I was not saying you were doing that I was asking whether you were.

  • The typos were significant typos which should not be there because they change the entire comment.

  • Why would you even ask it?

  • I asked because I was not sure what you meant when you said that The Scriptures, The Tradition, and The Magistereum are the sources of authority.

  • What was unclear about that?

  • Whether you were saying that because those are sources authority there is no other source of authority or whether you were saying that nothing that is incompatible with the sources can have authority.

  • Elaine: I was not there. I will try to find the text. My point is that God is there. Your post on “free market” is excellent.

  • Bonchamps

    I mentioned the Corpus Juris of the Catholic emperor Justinian, because it has been treated by theologians and canonists as an authoritative (but no infallible) source of Natural Law reasoning.

    As for the Magisterium, the best interpretation of earlier encyclicals is the light cast on their teaching by later ones and we should read Rerum Novarum in a way that is compatible with Populorum Progressio.

    Now, Section 23 gives a clear rôle to the civil authority, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” Here the Pope is quoting from the Letter to the 52nd Social Week at Brest, in L’homme et la révolution urbaine, Lyon: Chronique sociale (1965), 8-9.

    He then proceeds to give the example I have already cited, “If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.” I call it an example, for it is difficult to suppose that one régime applies to immoveable property and another to movables or to intellectual property, or that one is liable to expropriation and the other is not. Certainly, there is nothing in the encyclical to suggest this

    The balance to be struck is set out in Section 33, “Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

    It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man’s basic human rights.”

  • Michael,

    “As for the Magisterium, the best interpretation of earlier encyclicals is the light cast on their teaching by later ones and we should read Rerum Novarum in a way that is compatible with Populorum Progressio.”

    If you want to do that, be my guest. I cannot overlook what is a clear conflict of fundamental assumptions about the origin of private property. I also can’t overlook Montini’s left-wing sympathies, including his meetings with Saul Alinsky.

    “Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. ”

    This is faulty logic, commonly found among left-liberals and socialists. The “interplay of competition” increases everyone’s wealth – it is not a zero-sum game in which some people grow rich at the cost of other people’s poverty.

    Finally, the idea that you can have “public authorities” establishing goals, plans, and methods – and then graciously allowing private property owners to participate in them – while avoiding a planned economy is rather spurious. The best “plan” is to allow people to make rational economic decisions within a legal framework that protects private property rights.

  • “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich,”
    “My kingdom is not of this world” The principle of separation of church and state. “You would not have power if it had not been given to you from above.” Caesar belongs to God. In the Old Testament, the Israelites acknowledged God. Every seventh year was a Jubilee Year. The land reverted back to God, its Creator. After the Jubilee year, the land, according to its legal demarcations, usually reverted to its original owners. During the Jubilee year, the soil was left fallow. The soil was left to rest, untilled and the people ate of the aftergrowth.
    The Popes’ encyclicals speak to the sovereign individual person, to the soul of each and every one, literally, to their conscience. Read from this perspective, the Popes’ encyclicals encourage perfect charity and conscientious stewardship. If one has more than one can handle, one probably has more than he needs and ought to share for the sake of the land, if not for brotherhood, knowing full well that if he falls into need, his fellow brethren will share with him, and even in their need. The Popes’ encyclicals are a call to serve God righteously…in one nation under God.
    Proper government seeks to serve, to establish Justice and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity for the common good in good will. Government exists at the will of the people, for the people and by the people.
    Communism denies that it is a creature of the people, existing at the will of the people. Communism is the imposition of unauthorized, usurped power over the people, as in the HHS mandate. Communism is evil because it denies the Creator, the nature of the human being, as a sovereign person, composed of body and immortal soul, redefines the laws of nature to accommodate its evil agenda, and usurps the unalienable rights endowed by “their Creator”.
    Obama’s regime demands good will towards its evil agenda. Hitler made the slaves sing and smile on their way to the work camps… or death. Hitler demanded that Hitler be their “pursuit of Happiness”.

  • The New Mexico case is a decision of an intermediate appellate court dealing with state law. I do not know the laws of New Mexico, all the facts of the case, or whether the case will be appealed. But I suspect this article is not telling the whole story.

    As for the Canadian cases, Canada is not the United States. Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.

  • Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.

    Constitutional provisions will be ignored when the collective culture of the Bar changes. Our appellate judiciary is not overly endowed with integrity. When the wind shifts, constitutional protections for the spoken and written world will matter no more than freedom of contract amongst local businesses.

  • Art Deco is correct: “Constitutional provisions will be ignored when the collective culture of the Bar changes. Our appellate judiciary is not overly endowed with integrity. When the wind shifts, constitutional protections for the spoken and written world will matter no more than freedom of contract amongst local businesses.”

    The Constitution means nothing to these collectivists except as it exists to block their schemes. It like manner the Declaration of Independence means nothing. Nor coincidentally do Holy Writ, the Magisterium or Sacred Tradition.

    Their god is themselves. Their religion is hedonistic libertinism. Their goal is the destruction of anything sacred, including but not limited to God. They had their chance and succeeded with murdering God on the Cross, and that proved to be not their victory but their defeat.

    They may ignore or void the Constitution. They may ignore or void the Declaration of Independence. But one day every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that HE is Lord of all to the glory of God the Father. Obama and his minions from hell shall NOT escape. Hallelujah!

  • Jim,

    “The New Mexico case is a decision of an intermediate appellate court dealing with state law. I do not know the laws of New Mexico, all the facts of the case, or whether the case will be appealed. But I suspect this article is not telling the whole story.”

    Well, when you discover what part of the story it is I’m not telling through your own diligent research, please share with us all.

    “As for the Canadian cases, Canada is not the United States. Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.”

    No one said it “had bearing on US law.” The point is to highlight the aggressive and totalitarian impulse of the gay movement.

  • It is amazing that some people assert that 2 men deserve the same “rights” as a married man and woman, 2 men by natural law cannot procreate we know this whereas a married man and woman can and so a married man and woman deserve to be recognised as more in accordance with god than 2 men trying and failing to reach the same position as the married couple.

  • “The point is to highlight the aggressive and totalitarian impulse of the gay movement”

    If a man or woman does not love enough to sublimate their sexual impulses, they do not love at all. Homosexual behavior is not only not marriage, homosexual behavior is not love. The gay-movement seeks to codify the vice of lust as the virtue of Love. The gay-movement seeks to impose corruption and abolish the duty of the state to protect virginity, innocence and the freedom of the people to protect their virginity and innocence. The gay-movement seeks to impose their phallic idolatry on America’s founding principles as an unalienable right endowed by “their Creator”. The gay-movement is not an individual, a unique person created by God. The gay-movement is actually demanding to be recognized as a legal corporation enjoying the freedom of a legal corporation as an artificial person and they are demanding birth as an artificial person from every sovereign citizen. A normal gay-person lives his private life, privately and does not demand that any other person recognize him as an establishment anti-thetical to culture, family and the founding principles. Only individual persons are created equal, with unalienable rights, not so of legal entities or artificial corporations whose so -called “rights” are inscribed by their founders at will, to be imposed by their founders, upon the will of the people.

  • Valentin wrote

    “It is amazing that some people assert that 2 men deserve the same “rights” as a married man and woman, 2 men by natural law cannot procreate we know this whereas a married man and woman can”

    Absolutely. It is very noticeable that, whilst the civil codes of various countries rarely define marriage, they all contain the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father and many jurists have seen filiation as the primary purpose of civil marriage

    It was this consideration that led the highest courts in a country so wedded to the principle of laïcité as France to reject same-sex marriage on equality grounds, as not so much immoral as illogical.

  • Roe v. Wade created an artificial community of individuals who could legally separate the human body from the human soul, literally dismember the soul from the body, and thereby end the begotten humanity yet to be born. The community of Roe v. Wade was superimposed upon our founding principles enumerated in The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Roe was to have been tried under Freedom of Religion as humanity is a gift from God. Another illegally contrived, superimposed community opposed to God is a different religion. Roe establishes atheism. The Right to Choose community chooses between the Person of God, their Creator and endower of unalienable right to Life, the Giver of Life and the taker of Life, the abortionist.

    Atheism, tried under the penumbra of Freedom of Religion at least acknowledged God and the fact that now, the Person of God was being dispossessed under the artificial legal person contrived called penumbra, a lie and perjury in a court of law.

    Gay-marriage agenda, another artificial illegal community intends to supplant matrimony as the proper relationship between one man’s soul and another woman’s soul in covenant. Matrimony is a covenant between two persons, body and immortal soul, ordained by God. The gay-marriage agenda too, must be tried under Freedom of Religion, since it too, judges what is God’s and what is man’s. God is the source of authority in civil marriages.

    “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” has been used against every virtue and all that is Holy. “Or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” is being used as license by every vice against every virtue. These illegal constructs must be tried under the penumbra of TRUTH, God is TRUTH, Freedom of Religion and the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a single virtue of peaceable assembly to speak, and pray about ‘their Creator”, in public and in private, as all persons are joint and common tenants of the public square.

    The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights declares that all inalienable human rights are derived from the people to whom a person is born, but it does not tell of the Freedom of God WHO endows the people with their freedom and inalienable human rights. Kind of like Human Rights and FREEDOM evolve from America. The evolution of inalienable human rights from other people is another false construct that must be tried under the First Amendment’s Freedom of God and man’s response to the gift of Faith from God, man’s Religion.

    One world government under the bank did not work in the European Union why would it work in America?

Need Reader Input: Who Are The Top 10 Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops?

Sunday, June 3, AD 2012

 I would like some help in identifying the most active, passionate, orthodox American Catholic Bishops currently serving. It is a cultural thing that we seem to love rating everything- not a bad thing- and I have a personal interest in this topic because I want to offer my services to a Bishop who needs someone who gets the following Big Three Realities that I have been focusing on in my last three postings here at American Catholic.

 

1. The Obama Administration is threat #1 to the continuance of our Hierarchical Catholic Church- here in America and since we are a Superpower in worldly terms this could damage a big chunk of Christendom. I do not speak as an Obama-basher with Republican talking point tie-ins- I was a lifelong Democrat who only recently gave it up to become an Independent, not Republican. My realization about the Obama threat emerged slowly after being absorbed in a national Catholic Democrats listserve with some of the real heavyweights- like FOB (Friend of Barack) Vicki Kennedy. It was clear to me that Kennedy with her fellow travelers in Catholic universities, and liberal Catholic political organizations, have been intent on much much more than just getting more traction in American policies and legislation for a few political issues often neglected by the conservative-Right. There is blood in the water for the Church Hierarchy due to the notorious Minor Abuse Scandals. These prominent Catholic Dems seem intent on using whatever power they can muster to force changes in the Church to cut the Hierarchydown to size- replace the Teaching Authority with liberal Catholic college professors and liberal political activists who will “save” the Church from irrelevance among the youth. We have seen that President Obama has been systematically assisting in this process- not openly- but consider his choice of Joe Biden as VP with his pro-choice, pro-gay marriage beliefs, and Kathleen Sebelius as HHS Secretary who is pushing contraceptives down everyone’s throats, and I suspect we’ll see that Justice Sotomayor is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage eventually. The threat to religious liberties will hit the Catholic Church Hierarchy first, with the contraceptives mandates and then gay marriage will turn the Catholic Church Catechism into Hate Literature and every orthodox Catholic into a bigot along the lines of the old school racists back in the 60’s. No one wants to be a racist- so I’m sure that Vicki Kennedy et al are counting on most American Catholics to simply abandon their Bishops’ leadership and embrace her brand of progressive Catholicism which is Obama-cool. So- me thinks the Bishops need a few folks around who see this danger and are willing to stand with the Bishops and the Catechism. I’m here to help.  Here’s a link to my piece on the Catholic Dems/Obama “conspiracy”-  http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/05/31/obama-working-willfully-to-undermine-hierarchical-catholic-church/

 

2. Having this information about the Obama-Catholic Dem elite battleplan is useful- but I am also interested in assisting a good Bishop at the parish level with practical steps- all perfectly legal- for assisting the process of cultivating a new breed of orthodox Catholic political leaders. Pope B teaches us to free ourselves from ideologies in his last encyclical- the social doctrine of the Church is the stuff we need more of in America- the reason we keep swinging wildly from Republican to Democrat in the races for political power is that at the gut level most people get that each Party has got some things right and some things wrong. There is no Party of God- even if right now the mainstream Democratic Party represents the greater threat to the Church/Christ- we are still talking about lesser evils. The Catholic social doctrine is about building civilizations of love- this is the positive vision that is the corrective of narrow ideologies which feed on anger for the most part. The way to bring Christ’s Way into the marketplace of ideas in American political thought and debate is for more fully informed and inspired Catholic voices to emerge and assume the responsibilities of leadership at every level of our society. There is so much that we could do in every parish and school-  here is my POA (Plan of Action) which I would love to bring into a parish in a diocese where the Bishop is aware and involved to guide the development- I’m not interested in being a lone ranger or riding against the wishes of the local Bishop.  Here’s the Plan-  http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/05/10/wanted-orthodox-catholic-political-leaders-time-to-get-serious/

 

3.  Finally, my long experience in the trenches of Catholic high schools has left me with many thoughts on how to inculcate a genuine Catholic identity which has a chance of being transmitted to our very distracted youth. I would love to be part of an orthodox Bishop’s team to help select passionately orthodox Catholic administrators/teachers/staff to be in place to give life witness, along with instructional guidance, to budding disciples of Christ. You can’t give what you don’t have- so if we want Catholic students to come out the other side in love, or more in love with Christ and His Church- then you don’t load up the schools with adults who are full of dissenting views from the Catechetical teachings of the Church. I’m not saying everyone has to be some kind of a stepford-wife cheerleader type of Catholic- we all have our personalities- but if you are an adult working in a Catholic school you should be someone who is thirsty to know what the Church teaches and why- especially if it pertains to your particular discipline or area of responsibility. I get into a lot more detail beyond just the staffing issue in my article below.  I am open to returning to the teaching field or entering new territory in administration under the right Bishop in a diocese that really wants to play it straight-up as a passionately Catholic institution -without being satisfied with a PR-level Catholic Identity which produces nice dog and pony shows for visiting bishops and parents- but scratch the surface and where is the love for the Church? If you fall in love with the Church you will just want to know more and more and to share more and more with the youth and everyone you meet- am I right?  Here’s the last link-  http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/16/a-vision-of-catholic-education-from-the-front-lines/

 

OK- if you are still with me- here is how you can help- write out up to 10 names(and email addresses if you have them!) of Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops here in America- with the name of their Diocese.  You can order them according to your own rating system. I want to follow the science here and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line- I want to begin a new mission in using whatever talents I possess for the sake of Christ and His Church- I have tried to use these talents to produce something helpful to preserve and protect the Hierarchical nature of our Catholic Church- If Christ didn’t desire a Hierarchy why bother with Apostles- He could have just had disciples with no leadership inherent in the Church- but He didn’t- evidence from Scripture, history and logic all persuaded me in my Truth Quest. I don’t want to just apply for jobs blind to the leadership in a given Diocese. Leadership matters, that’s why leaders get targeted all the time, and why assassinations are so unfortunately common throughout human history. I want a meaningful mission within the Church and short of that I will do whatever I can do to provide for my wife and four young children- this is my story and why I need our Reader’s Input. Brother (Sister) can you spare a moment and share what you know? God Bless you.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Need Reader Input: Who Are The Top 10 Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops?

  • Perhaps we should remember the wise words of Abbé Henri Brémond, whose life (1865-1933) spanned the Jules Ferry laws of 1882 and 1886 laicising public education, the law of 1901 suppressing many religious orders and the law of 1905 on the separation of Church and State, which vested all church buildings and other property in the nation.

    “No law can affect those who believe, those who pray; prayer is silent, prayer offends no one, prayer attacks no one.” – [La prière est silencieuse, la prière n’offense personne, la prière n’agresse personne]

    His response to the Anti-Clericalism of his time were his essays, “Prière et Poésie”[ Prayer and Poetry] and “Introduction a la Philosophie de la Prière”[Introduction to the Philosophy of Prayer] His monumental work “Histoire litteraire du sentiment religieux en France depuis la fin des guerres de religion jusqu’a nos jours” [A Literary History of Religious Sentiment in France from the end of the Wars of Rekigion to our own day] published between 1913 and 1936 in 11 volumes, was based on his unrivalled knowledge of mystical writings and devotional works. His writings on poetry, symbolism and romanticism earned him election to the Académie française in 1923 and a eulogy from the French Symbolist poet, Paul Valéry.

    His influence was incalculable.

  • The current head of the USCCB, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of NY and his I-95 brother (my Archbishop) in Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles J Chaput. (Lori of Baltimore and Aquila of Denver deserve mention as well in my VERY short list.)

  • My only input is cautionary; the plan of action is a good idea, BUT I’d give it about a week before it’s taken over by the same folks who use “social justice” to promote abortion, theft, etc. At the absolute least, it would claim binding teachings where they don’t exist. (I recall one discussion I was having with another Catholic, who pulled the death penalty vs abortion thing– even offering a letter from the man who would become Pope saying there was a valid variety of views didn’t sway him.)

    I do love the idea of equipping people to find out what the Church teaches for themselves, and enthusiastically endorse the answer-religious-questions-kids-as/thirsty-for-theology thing. That would have made my youth a lot more interesting, and might have kept several friends from falling away from the Church. (it would also have meant I could find a babysitter from the Parish– but that’s another rant!)

    If there was a group for something like “Catholic Q&A- Last Wednesday Of The Month Snack and Chat” I’d do it. If I thought I could pull it off, I’d start one myself. (Wed because it’s the middle of the week; schedule it about 6pm. It would have to be sort of small to start with, and a computer with one of those books-on-CD collection EWTN sells would be wise; has soup to nuts of decrees, etc.)

    … Dang it, now I’ve got a post bubbling in my head for designing theology groups. Thank you.

  • Bishop Ronald Gainer of Lexington KY: not as high profile as Dolan etc, but methodically rebuilding an orthodox and dynamic diocese. Yesterday ordained 23 deacons: 3 transtional and 20 permanent.

  • Bruskewitz, Finn, Olmstead, Morlino, Aquila, Sample, Cordlione, Nienstadt, Slattery, Chaput

  • My only input is cautionary; the plan of action is a good idea, BUT I’d give it about a week before it’s taken over by the same folks who use “social justice” to promote abortion, theft, etc. At the absolute least, it would claim binding teachings where they don’t exist.

    I would go a step further Foxfier – or backward actually. I think the other side has already been doing this for many decades. The chanceries and USCCB were chock full dissenting activists with a socialist agenda who were either supported or tolerated by their bishop. I would venture to guess that even with ascension of a large number of orthodox bishops, there are still a large number of these folks in important and influential positions. Even when an orthodox bishop takes over a troubled see, he doesn’t do a housecleaning so to speak. He pushes his agenda of reform with the people he has and tries to lead the chancery operatives to fulfill his mission. The bishops have to lead, but that doesn’t mean all will follow – and many of those people still have power and influence enough to do damage.

  • Sounds good, Tim. I would echo both MichaelP71’s and Jim’s lists, adding only three more solid bishops with whom I’ve had contact: 1) Bishop Robert Vasa of Santa Rosa, CA (and formerly of Baker, Oregon); 2) Bishop Kevin Vann of Ft. Worth, TX; and 3) Arch-bishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta. There are undoubtedly many other good, solid bishops and auxiliaries around in the US, but they simply don’t have as high of a public profile as do these aforementioned bishops.

  • Oops! One glaring omission did just come to mind (how could we forget?) Cardinal George of Chicago, of course!

  • First of all I think Masculinity has been beat down passive aggressively both in the American Church as well as society, so if we are not willing to reject bad laws and smash the Serpents head to mush than we are bound to lose with the communist attitudes of Obama and other democratic leaders.

  • The dioceses of Wilmington Delaware seam to be getting somewhat more Orthodox but still need improving and the general public of Delaware seems very secular and the cops tend to act like gangsters in their attitudes.

  • By lose I meant lose temporarily.

  • Possibly the most important philosophical law is that because God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good we should take what he tells us seriously rather than throwing his words around like protestants who use his words to justify whatever they fancy.

  • If worst comes to worst there is just war but it would be much better if it did not have to come down to that.

  • One. I’m curious, why did it have to come to your being a Democrat “insider” before you realized your choice of political party clashed with your Catholic religion? I knew it for me when the Democrat Party officially supported and acted to make abortion-on-demand the law-of-the-land.

    Two. When are people like you going to start showing some “love” your talking about to those of us who have been battling people you have been electing to keep abortion-on-demand the law-of-the-land? And, now, thanks to Catholics like you, we have to fight to keep marriage the institution it has always been since God enacted it at the beginning of man-kind. And thanks to the 54% of Catholics like you, the U.S. bishops (equally responsible for what has continued for almost 4 decades) have to sue the President and his Administration they helped put in office just to keep our First Amendment Rights. How about showing some love to Catholics like me for realizing straight on that any organization that supports and defends the murder of innocent human beings, especially infants in the protection of their mother’s womb, could never be serious about “caring for others,” especially the “little guy?”

    Three. How about finding out why almost all the U.S. bishops adopted Cardinal Bernardin’s proposal to change the definition of “prolife,” a word coined by prolifers to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves “pro-choice?” And then, contacting those bishops still alive who voted against that change, to get their recommendations on who should be on that list of bishops you want to put together. While doing that, you ought to read the 1989 favorable biography called “Cardinal Bernardin – Easing conflicts -and battling for the soul of American Catholicism” by the cardinal’s long time friend (30 years) Eugene Kennedy. You’ll learn that that name change was a lot more political than it was spiritual. This is a quote of Bernardin’s motivation for expanding the definition to include prudential judgment issues so-call “social justice.” Page 243,244: “Not only would this move gain greater support from Catholics and others but it would keep the prolife movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming it dominant sponsors.” How about that?! I don’t know where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church the “good” cardinal found that some how being a “right wing conservative” was evil. Maybe you know where that is?

    Anyway – how about showing some “love” for the millions of us who have removed ourselves from the sin of being in the Democrat Party, the main organization responsible for denying the right to life of God’s greatest creation – a human right by the way; and maybe perhaps an apology as well for making people like us have to fight people like you for so long?

  • Stilbelieve:

    Hold on, friend. There’s a parable about that. “Take what is yours, and go your way: I will also give to this last even as to you.” (Mt 20:14)

  • Stilbelieve:

    I’m with you!

    Nd, those people need to stop employing presumed moral superiority to advance evil and to start supporting Church teachings.

  • My own Bishop Leonard P. Blair of Toledo should be on that list. He is the bishop who conducted the recent investigation of the women religious. He is an outstanding and holy and orthodox bishop, and I am shocked, frankly, that he hasn’t been picked in the last few years to lead a higher-profile diocese. The fact that he was chosen to lead the investigation of the women religious indicates that he is at least on someone’s radar in the Vatican.

    Were it not for the fact that Bishop Blair was the Bishop of Toledo, I doubt I would have moved my family to this part of Ohio almost 7 years ago.

  • @Escolonn

    “Hold on, friend. There’s a parable about that. ‘Take what is yours, and go your way: I will also give to this last even as to you.’ (Mt 20:14)” The text in bible has the last sentence of 20:14 reading: “What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?”

    First of all, I’m not looking for “reward.” I’m looking for evidence that this author has obtained wisdom from his experience to be of help to any bishop. The question was raised in my mind soon into reading his article. He says this in the 4th sentence:
    “I do not speak as an Obama-basher with Republican talking point tie-ins- I was a lifelong Democrat who only recently gave it up to become an Independent, not Republican.”

    Talking in a dismissive way about the only major organization that has been trying to save the babies, protect our country militarily and economically, fight for our right to pick our own doctors and make our own decisions on our medical care, defend marriage as God created it, and now have to save our First Amendment Rights to freedom of religion isn’t being a “Obama-baser” using “Republican talking point tie-ins.” It’s being an American who has “eyes to see and ears to here.”

    Second, you would think that someone who contributed with their decision-making and votes all this time to prolonging the evil of abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land, and to these newer attacks on our safety and freedoms, would be a little more contrite and humble towards those who were wise enough to see the sin of remaining in the Democrat Party much sooner in their lives then he did.

    Third, I think the verse you chose is a parable better suited for the rights of ownership to do with one’s property as one chooses and pay the wages as agreed. Verse 15 completes that thought saying: “[Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money?”

  • Jay, it just so happens that my own bishop, Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield, Ill. is assisting with that investigation as well. He too is known for his orthodoxy and has been on the Vatican-watchers’ radar for some time, so he probably won’t be here forever!

  • Stillbelieve- I can defend my previous Democratic party membership on the grounds that I was quite active as a pro-life candidate and leader in Dems for Life- the fact is that until the 80’s the Dems were more pro-life than the Repubs- I was a Democrat long before I was Catholic- being drawn into politics at the age of 13 by the first Jimmy Carter campaign- and then basically became a believing secular liberal in my 20’s. My introduction and conversion to Catholicism came as I neared 30- in becoming Catholic I gave up previous beliefs on abortion et al- but there has always been two thoughts in my mind- first- the Republican establishment has always been like shifting sand on the issue of abortion since Reagan – lukewarm belief is never attractive as Jesus indicated in Revelation- and second- there has long been the hope that Catholic pro-life Democrats could lead the charge within the Democratic party to restore traditional moral beliefs on social issues- I took up that challenge since I figured I was well-placed as a lifelong Dem who became a Catholic convert- but identified more or less along the FDR-Democratic coalition lines- recall that American Catholics as a community tended the Democratic party way before social issues and the sexual revolution began destroying the Dems from within. Reagan was an FDR Democrat but said that the party moved away from him not the other way around.

    So- in any case- I never publicly supported any pro-choice candidates- and typically voted for third party/populist no-bodies to get around my conscience- and our hierarchy instructed us that we could not vote for a candidate because of his/her pro-choice position on abortion- but it was left open to conscience if there were other compelling reasons to vote for someone who was unfortunately pro-choice- since we are not to be single-issue voters. So- if one supposed that voting for a Republican candidate would bring on potentially nation-ending war or economic ruin and thus render the legal abortion question (in effect) moot in such an environment since no movement focused on a social issue would gain any traction during crisis times- well that would be a paradigm of thought whereupon someone with a Catholic conscience may have voted for a Democrat in some paticular national office like president.

    My own experience with being exposed to the really influential Catholic Democrats was one where I tried my best to evangelize for the orthodox teachings of the Church- to follow the Magisterium and the Bishops on all fronts and not to continue in a heterodox direction- but alas I was confronted by the truly powerful forces that drive those who have actual weight in Democratic party power politics these days- and I was asked to depart from my place of opinion sharing- and at that stage I openly left the Party and my role as a leader for florida Dems for Life- and became a NPA- non-party-affiliation- as Archbishop Chaput did according to what I read in his great book- Render Unto Caesar. So- stillbelieve- I don’t know what to apologize to you about- I think my personal history explains why I chose the paths I took- if the Church had clearly indicated that working from within the Democratic party to try to reform the party on social issues was an immoral choice- then I would have abandoned the effort years ago- I have given up on that front- but I have many good Catholic and Christian friends who are still battling from within and taking the abuse from the dominant sexual revolutionaries – I’m not of a mind to join you in heaping more abuse their way- but if this is how you interpret WWJD in your time on stage blogging then it is something that Jesus Christ will have to determine at the time of our personal judgments- and I look forward to my time with Him so that I can see where I missed His cues and promptings, or just was blind- so that I can apologize to anyone or any group of persons that I did wrong by. I am trying to “live clean” and I have been trying to follow the orthodox directives from Christ’s Church- my wish now is that the American Bishops will now make perfectly clear to all of us that taking public positions opposed to granting the right to life for the unborn, and protecting traditional marriage definitions, and respecting religious liberties- all make any candidate unfit for any Catholic to vote for or support in any capacity- and political leaders who call themselves Catholics who vote for any of the Big Three will have to forego reception of Holy Communion due to the scandal they are producing among law-abiding American citizens. That, I think, would clear up any confusion about the morality of our political choices- given the unusual extremity of our times. I still hope to be of service to our Church and to serve a strong Bishop and take guidance from him- but if you are correct and the Holy Spirit agrees then I will accept another role in my life’s work- at the end of the day I just want to be one of those ‘unprofitable servants’ in the eyes of the Lord- if digging ditches is my true talent then so be it- I will carry a shovel for Christ- that’s my heart-that is something I can know even if many who know little about me doubt it- those in my home know me and from them I draw the human consolation that helps keep one’s spirit from being taken away by the naysayers always to be found.

  • It is important to realise that, for professional politicians, party labels are largely a sham.

    In any democracy, they inevitably group themselves into two parties (or coalitions), the friends of corruption and the sowers of sedition; those who seek to profit from existing abuses and those who seek to profit from the disaffection those abuses naturally produce.

    The policies either faction espouses, primarily to attract funding, but also as a sop to the rabble, is a matter of chance and circumstance.

  • I don’t have much experience with bishops, but I would suggest two: Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, CO and Archbishop Charles Chaput, currently Archbishop of Philadelphia (formerly of Denver, CO). Both have been a strong voice for authentic Catholic teaching and activism.

Obama Working Willfully To Undermine Hierarchical Catholic Church

Thursday, May 31, AD 2012

A few years ago I would have thought the title of my piece was too extreme- I bought into the charisma of Barack Obama- never publicly supported him- but I thought he was someone who could bridge some of the serious difficulties that pro-life Democrats faced within my political party. I read his books, I thought he respected the Catholic Church as much as a secular political liberal could be expected to. Around that time I was trying to work from the inside of the Democratic party- running for Florida State House as a pro-life Democrat, and later serving as Vice President for the Florida Democats for Life organization. This was also the time period where I was invited to become part of a national Catholic Democrats listserve which included such notaries as : Vicki Kennedy, Lisa Sowle Cahill of Boston College, Rev. William D’Antonio and Rev. Anthony Pogorel of the Catholic University of America, Peggy Steinfels of Fordham University, Rev. Thomas Reese of Georgetown, Vincent Miller of Georgetown/U. of Dayton, Dan Maguire of Marquette, Doug Kmeic of Pepperdine, Suzanne Morse of NCR, Chris Korzen of Catholics United, Alexia Kelly of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Steve Callahan of the AFL-CIO, and others (Eric LeCompte, Nicholas Carfardi, James Salt, Morna Murray, Fred Rotondaro, Kari Lundgren). I never agreed to keep all that passed before my eyes confidential, but I never publicly revealed the basic content until now.

 
My reason for going public now is due to the recent event where the Worcester Bishop Robert McManus weighed in to prevent Vicki Kennedy from speaking at the Anna Maria College commencement. The press I read portrayed the Bishop as being overly vindictive and Kennedy milked the rejection, playing innocent, as though she is doing nothing to try to upend the Catholic Church as we know it- as a Hierarchical Institution. It was my experience on the Catholic Dem listserve that Vicki Kennedy was essentially my nemesis. I defended the Church as a Hierarchy, and the official teachings on abortion et al, and she took me to task almost every time I wrote pro-orthodox Catholic commentary- with plenty of Amens from her fellow travelers on the listserve. I did receive a few positive private emails from some on the listserve, but on the whole it was a very discouraging experience trying to defend the Church as a convert, who would be at a total loss if the Catholic Church put no stock in the teaching authority of the Pope and the Bishops, and taught that contraceptives, legal abortion, and gay marriage were just fine and dandy things. So Soon after posting this on the listserve-

 
“It is deeply troubling to me that this Catholic Democrats listserve membership seems more intent on finding reasons to pull some kind of palace coup against the Catholic Church Magisterium and Hierarchy in general, than to address specific issues related to the Catholic interests in American politics. I am a convert to Catholicism, I knew what I was signing up for in becoming a Catholic, I accepted the teachings and authority lines as prescribed by the latest Catechism. I simply cannot understand why those who seem to relish openly trashing the Apostolic successors retain membership in the Church- that is something that I can only address as an appeal to someone else’s good conscience. Most of my family is of the Protestant variety, I understand that thinking and worldview but reject it, but they are acting in good conscience- they don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches about her role, so they don’t invest in the Catholic narrative and authority line. Maybe what I’m finding here at Catholic Democrats are many good protestants but not orthodox Catholics as I understand things?

You can remove me from your rolls if it displeases many here that I don’t conform to the groupthink on display here, otherwise I will continue to offer my two bits to challenge the establishment views of liberal, anti-Catholic Hierarchical voices which parallel the hard Catholic Right- in their wrongheadedness- in my humble opinion anyway. One is certainly free to criticize the clerical/Hierarchical handling of sexual abuse cases over the years- but how this all fits in with being a Democratic Party member is something I can’t fathom. Tim Shipe”

My offer to leave was accepted after Vicki Kennedy wrote a smack-down on me; and shortly thereafter I severed my own Democratic party membership and ended my leadership role with Florida Dems for Life- I took Archbishop Chaput route of becoming a political Independent and remain such today.

 
To come up to speed- back a couple of years ago- I knew that the most powerful and connected Catholic Democrats in our country were interested in more than just getting more traction on Catholic social justice issues in our American political system- I would describe the agenda/mind-set of Vicki Kennedy et al for the most part as the following:

 1. Obama embodies the Catholic social tradition- he’s a better guide than the out-of-touch Pope/Bishops 2. Democrats for Life leaders were not welcome – despite my own inclusion for a time- Kennedy seemingly successfully squashed the idea of Kristen Day being invited to be part of the listserve 3. The Bishops who were outspoken for advocating the primacy of the right to life for the unborn were demonized, mocked, ridiculed, and at times the idea of trying to bring on an IRS investigation on these type of Bishops was being encouraged by some ( especially if they dared to consider withholding Communion from Pro-choice Dem leaders) 4. Bishops were described as “self-designated custodians of ‘the tradition’”. 5. Catholic Dems could aptly be self-described for the most part as “intra-Catholic warriors” 6. The Clergy Scandals were to be used to help bring the end of the Bishops line of authority- teaching and otherwise 7. This authority should pass to those who know best- the secular-minded Catholic professors and their liberal political activist friends- since there really can’t be such a thing as a Holy Spirit-guided Catholic Church with Popes and Bishops playing a key role- I suppose they could still hold onto ceremonial roles like the Kings in Europe.

 
I can see clearly now that President Obama has been very conscious of this war for control within the Church- and his choice of Vice President and HHS Secretary- Biden and Sebelius, respectively, was a conspicuous power move to set in place the acceptability of dissenting Catholic leaders and thought into the mainstream of American societal structures and popular imaginations. The fact that Obama “evolved” on Gay Marriage with help from his Catholic buddy Joe Biden, and his determination to mandate contraception as a must-have “medicine” through the offices of Catholic Kathleen Sebelius- all of this plays right into the larger goals of the Catholic Democratic party elite. There has been no such evolution in his comprehension and compassion for the thousands of unborn humans killed every day in abortions, and the threat to religious liberties is finely focused on the authority of Catholic Bishops and the official teachings of the Catholic Magisterium. I believe the Catholic Dems elite would like to re-make American Catholic Bishops in the image of the Anglican church in England- with Obama playing a kind of King Henry VIII role in forcing power transfers ( counting on public/Catholic lay apathy).

 
My conclusion is this- I am not in disagreement with the Catholic Dems elite on an across-the-board basis- I am not a conservative ideologue any more than I am a liberal one. There are political issues where I go left and others where I go right or down the middle- I make the honest effort to stay as close to the official social doctrine teachings of principles, and even the prudential judgment application of those principles as the Bishops and Vatican officials advise. I find that the same powers-that-be that are given Holy Spirit assistance to teach firm principles, are also pretty darn good at putting forth ideas for applying those principles into the real world of political legislation and the like- but I acknowledge it’s not an exact science with one formula fits all simplicities, however. That’s how I would describe my own efforts in being a wanna-be orthodox, faithful Catholic on matters of social doctrine. Others may disagree- I have no doubt that the Catholic Dem elites I list above are well-intentioned- but I believe they are threatening great harm to many souls and to the future of our Catholic Church as the Hierarchical Institution – founded by Jesus Christ. Reforms should be taken up in a spirit that respects the obedience of Faith. I don’t abide by clergy abuses and incompetent administrative decisions made by Catholic bishops- but you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater- just as you don’t kill babies in the womb to solve the problems of women and their mates.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Obama Working Willfully To Undermine Hierarchical Catholic Church

  • Bravo Tim! The Obama administration is clearly the most anti-Catholic administration in our nation’s history. Now Obama is attempting to play up his supposed ties to the Church:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/24/obama-the-born-again-catholic/

    The linked to story above requires a strong gag reflex.

  • N.B. The majority (votes democrat) of American Catholic clerics and laity are undermining the Church’s Mission: the salvation of souls.

  • Excellent statement – “…you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater- just as you don’t kill babies in the womb to solve the problems of women and their mates.”

  • Tim, this is a really good post. Thank you for writing it. I never understood the “agenda” of the elite Catholic Democrate. I never saw the big picture that you describe so well.

    I guess my main question regarding your post is in the last paragraph you said that liberal Dem Catholics are well-intentioned. It is really hard for me to believe that.
    In my mind good intentions would mean they are trying to positively change the Church for the salvation of souls, and I just don’t see that.

    Could you go into a little more detail that?

  • The unfortunate truth is that the attitudes you encountered and described are not just those of the Catholic Dem elite, but far too many of the Catholic rank and file.

  • C. Matt is right. I daily interface with many fine, upstanding and wonderful people who are everything a Catholic should be, except when it comes to contraception, abortion and homosexual marriage. The dissent is profound, widespread and almost un-eradical. I have written pages and pages of explanation on what the Bible says, what Humanae Vitae says and what the Catechism says. I have had many discussions with these persons. I even in certain cases went back to the real meaning of certain Greek words that St. Paul used in his Epistles in my verbal discussions and writings. Each one to a person fully acknowledged that I know more about Church teaching and what the Bible says than they do. But they insist on contraception as women’s health, abortion as a woman’s right to choose and homosexual marriage as a civil right. Nothing I have said or done makes even the slightest dent in their obstinacy. With such a sweet smile on their faces, they imply that I am the close-minded and intolerant one, though that’s not how they word their objections. Now they are entirely polite and diplomatic and respectful. And they do acknowledge WHAT the Church teaches with regard to these issues. But they won’t ACCEPT that teaching as applicable to themselves or anyone else who “by right of conscience” disagrees. They REFUSE the authority of both the Church and the Bible, and they do so in such a loving and kind and nice and tolerant and non-divisive way that I just want to scream.

  • chris- I do believe what these folks are doing is willful- but I don’t think anyone is motivated by a consciously-evil paradigm- these are intelligent people but I find that even the very intelligent get tripped up over the supposedly easy stuff. One connective tissue seems to be that general difference between converts to Catholicism and “birthright” Catholics- Mark Shea has written about how converts tend to see the doctrines as being absolutely essential to being a good Catholic- while cradle Catholics such as most of the people I encountered in Cath Dems – seemed proud of their rights of ownership as Catholics and fail to see through perhaps pride or habit- that they could be just re-making the Church in their own image- instead of being transformed they try do all the transforming- when they should be obedient reformer saints- they instead go the route of tearing down the authority lines within the Church and thus causing ruptures rather than repairing the damage of poor administration.

    So- I have to give people the benefit of the doubt in their intentions- even when they are flat out wrong in what they determine as beliefs and course of action- and of course you don’t allow people to do whatever they want based on good intentions- you have to put up resistance and try to convince them to reconsider- that is what I tried to do from the inside of the Democratic Party and within the CathDem listserve- but at a certain point you don’t just allow yourself to become a floor mat- you come to a point where you separate and kick the dirt off your sandals and move on..I reached that stage..and now I am hoping to do some damage control by alerting the Faithful of the real dangers to our Church by these Catholic intellectuals and activists who see themselves as great alternatives to the Pope and Bishops in leading the flock in terms of moral theology/social doctrine. What is the saying- the road to hell is paved with good intentions..

  • Very interesting post. Thanks for writing.

    As I look back in history and at current events, I see the Democrat party as anti-Catholic in principle (pro-slavery, anti-women suffrage, anti-civil rights, pro-abortion, anti-First Amendment, etc.) and in demonstration (KKK, HHS mandate, etc.). They are a party of hate and death.

  • In my reading about Cardinal Mindzenty I am learning how in Hungary, committed Communists divided Hungarian society into groups that could be pitted against each other, how a few so-called “progressive” Catholic priests and intelligentsia were duped into misleading their flock, how criminal anti-establishment types were used, how diminishing the unity of the Church weakened it’s resistance against the plans of the atheistic left, how government subsidies and so-called help kept various constituencies in line.
    Mindzenty: “Our psalm is the ‘De Profundis’, our prayer is the ‘Miserere’; our prophet is Jeremiah; our world is the Apocalypse”
    He knew the tactical cunning and deceit of the Communists and the reality that there must be no compromise.
    “The collaboration of leftist Catholics caused trouble immediately.” p 54

  • One more point to Chris- one thing that stood out for me was that vicki kennedy defended her brand of Catholicism when I made the above charge that this was really another form of protestantism- she claimed that she was upholding the manner in which she was brought up at home and in Catholic schools she attended. This would be a typical cause and effect which I have witnessed to in my previous posting on Education- the schools are often bastions for lukewarm and dissenting adult Catholics as administrators and teachers- and orthodox Catholic parents are few and far between- so with so much company in the ranks of the heterodox it is no wonder to me that various ideologies have become the replacement religion for many cradle Catholics. The biggest threat from the Cath Dems elite is that they have real access to real earthly power and they don’t just have some differences of opinion over some key political issues with the Catholic Hierarchy and Social Doctrine- they want to usurp proper authority within the Church and re-direct the moral authority unto themselves- this is what I am warning about and why I am trying to get a more organized response that goes beyond the partisan Republican-conservative v. Democratic-liberal battlelines. The Bishops themselves need to address this through the USCCB and through the parishes and schools- I would love to help since I am not a partisan- and thus tainted by ideological allegiances of my own.

  • Thanks again for the article, it is very informative. I often find myself in agreement with Democrates on most economic issues (current administration excluded) but am solidly Republican because of social issues.

    I will say you are much more charitable than me giving many of these Catholic Dems the benefit of the doubt. Something I need to work on I guess.

    RE Paul- I have written pages and pages of explanation on what the Bible says, what Humanae Vitae says and what the Catechism says

    Would appreciate any information you could pass along. Especially regarding homosexual marriage as this is a topic that comes up often within my sphere of influence

  • Completely messed up that last post, but didn’t mean to have that last sentence italicized. Guess that’s what happens when attempting to write a post as my two year old daughter is pulling on my shirt!

  • @ Chris,

    In answer to your request, here is the six page letter I wrote back in February to one of these “right to choose” Catholics. The person said that she read the first three pages and then stopped. All further conversation of a religious nature between us has likewise stopped at that point. There is nothing to be had in common with a liberal. We live on different worlds. What planet they come from I know not.

    Dear XXXXX,

    The following discusses the subject of the HHS mandate with which the Administration is compelling Catholic institutions to comply, and the background behind the teaching on homosexuality….The opinions expressed herein when Sacred Scripture or the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not referenced are my own. There is no obligation for you to agree or disagree with me outside of what Holy Mother Church teaches.

    The Church instructs us that abortion and contraception are intrinsic evils. The reason for this teaching is simple: life begins at conception and man does not have the authority to say when life may begin and when it may end. Three verses of Scripture bear upon this.

    1. First, Genesis 1:28 says, “And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’” It does NOT say, “Abort and contracept until you are ready to be fruitful and multiply.”
    2. Second, Jeremiah 1:5 states, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” This means that even from conception the embryo is a human being.
    3. Third, Deuteronomy 5:17 states, “You shall not kill.” Abortion kills a living being and is contrary to God’s law.

    Genesis chapter 3 records that in the Garden of Eden the serpent tempted Eve with the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and both Adam and Eve succumbed. They were then driven out of the Garden of Eden lest they also partake of the Tree of Life and live forever in a state of sin. Today, humankind has decided to partake of that Tree of Life and determine when life begins and when life ends. The Church teaches that this is evil.

    Now Kathleen Sebelius (who describes herself as a Catholic) has issued a regulation that requires Catholic hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, halfway houses, etc., to provide insurance coverage for drugs that act as contraceptives or abortifacients (i.e., drugs which dislodge the embryo from the uterine wall and cause its ejection from the body, which in turn results in the death of the embryo). President Obama offered a so-called compromise to Catholic institutions by saying that they themselves would not under the regulation be paying for contraceptive or abortifacient drugs. But this ignores the fact that Catholic institutions would still have to pay insurance premiums that cover the cost of these drugs, so the compromise is mere sophistry and changes nothing. The regulation forces Catholic institutions to either stop their social service work or to pay for insurance premiums that cover the provision of intrinsic evil.

    What the US Council of Catholic Bishops has to say about the HSS mandate is available at the following web link:

    Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty
    http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-026.cfm

    The First Amendment to the Constitution states:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Note that the phrase “freedom of worship” is NOT used. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and is explicit in stating that Congress shall not make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means that the Catholic Church (or any religious community for that matter) cannot be boxed into the walls of its house of worship; rather, religious people are allowed to practice their religion in the public square. In the case of Christians – especially Catholics – this means that its institutions which heal the sick (hospitals), feed the poor (soup kitchens) and teach the young (schools) may refuse to provide insurance coverage for abortifacients and contraceptives without legal penalty. Indeed, the regulation from HHS against the same is blatantly unconstitutional.

    There is another point that bears on this. The normal functioning of a female body is to reproduce. To stop that functioning is unnatural and against the health of the woman. Therefore, to claim that the provision of abortifacients and contraceptives are in behalf of woman’s health is disingenuous at best and mendacious at worst.

    Now some will at this point declare that a woman has the right to determine what happens to her body without interference from any external agency. That is true. Yet we have to remember that it takes two people to cause conception (the Blessed Virgin Mary being the only exception). I must be perfectly plain here. If a man does not want a baby, then he should keep his pants zipped up. And if a woman does not want a baby, then she should keep her legs closed. Abstinence is 100% preventative 100% of the time. There are going to be no second Virgin Mary’s. Once a person has made a decision to engage in sexual intercourse, then that person has acted on the right to choose and a baby results. God created us in His likeness and image, and having given us sentience, He expects us to act like human beings and not like wild animals. That means that we need to exercise self-control and refrain from sexual activity outside of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman. No one has any right to commit fornication, adultery or homosexual intercourse (a topic which I will deal with later). Too many people nowadays claim to revere science, logic and reason, but when it comes to the titillation of their genitals, they are wholly given over to the lust of the flesh and for them sexual pleasure becomes an addiction no different in essential substance from addiction to heroin or cocaine. St. Paul explains this in Romans 7:15-25:

    15* I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22* For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23* but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. 24* Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

    There is a secondary argument that some people raise to justify abortion. They claim that abortion must always be available in cases such as rape or incest. This is illogical. Since when did committing a second crime right the wrong in the first crime? Why should the resultant baby be the victim of capital punishment for a crime that the father committed? The right solution is to make that father support mother and child for the next 18 years and nine months. Furthermore, the percentage of all cases of unwanted pregnancy being due to rape or incest is less than one per cent. The overwhelming majority of reasons given are similar to the following: “I wasn’t ready to have a baby.” The person making that declaration was, however, entirely ready to have sexual intercourse. Thus has abortion murdered 54 million unborn babies since the Roe v Wade decision by SCOTUS on January 23rd, 1973.

    Now a tertiary argument comes. Some claim that while they are personally opposed to abortion, they will vote for an abortionist politician because he claims that he will serve social justice and the common good. This argument is illogical. A man who will sacrifice an unborn baby’s life on the altar of political expediency for social justice and the common good serves neither social justice nor the common good. If he refuses to save the life of an unborn baby, then he will refuse the lives of the poor, the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, and the destitute.

    A fourth argument comes, namely that those who oppose abortion support capital punishment or war. Romans 13:1-4 bears on this:

    1* Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3* For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4* for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

    God gave the State the power to execute the wrongdoer and to defend the people. Yes, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does urge the State to forgo the use of capital punishment (and I agree with that). It also encourages the avoidance of recourse to war (and I agree with that also). But there is no comparison between these and the murder of 54 million innocent babies since 1973. Abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, euthanasia and human cloning are intrinsic evils. Recourse to capital punishment and war, always to be avoided, are not intrinsic evils.

    One other thing needs to be explained here and that is the warning which Pope Paul VI gave regarding the contraceptive mentality in Humanae Vitae in 1968. The pertinent paragraphs are contained in section 17 of this encyclical and they essentially explain that (1) the contraceptive mentality causes the man to disrespect the women into being a mere sex object, and (2) that same mentality renders unto the State the power to mandate the use of contraceptives contrary to religious conscience. Both of those things are happening today. We see women paraded around as mere sex objects on the television and across the internet, and now our own government is trying to force Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients on the specious pretext of women’s health care. The actual statements made by Pope Paul VI are given below:

    Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

    Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

    Let us now discuss homosexuality. Paragraphs 2357 through 2359 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church best explain this.

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    Now 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 is quite clear. Because many modern translations incorrectly translate these verses of Sacred Scripture, I will start with the original Greek:

    9 ? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ???????????????; ?? ????????: ???? ?????? ???? ???????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ???????????? 10 ???? ??????? ???? ??????????, ?? ???????, ?? ????????, ??? ??????? ????????? ???? ???????????????.

    In typical translations into the English, these verses are rendered as following:

    9 Have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? Be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.

    The word ??????? in the Greek was used to designate the male who acted as receptor in the act of homosexual intercourse, hence its translation as “effeminate.” The word ???????????? in the Greek was used to designate the penetrator in the act of homosexual intercourse, hence its translation as “sodomite.”

    However, knowing what we now know, we see that these verses actually state:

    9 Have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? Be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexual receptors, nor homosexual penetrators, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.

    We modern people get a sanitized version of what St. Paul was writing to the Church at Corinth, yet what he actually wrote was anything but sanitized. Sacred Scripture is clear with regard to homosexual intercourse. Now yes, one may be a homosexual (that is to say, afflicted with same sex attraction). Such persons are never to be discriminated against merely because of a predisposition. Indeed, I have a predisposition to drinking alcohol alcoholically. Being an alcoholic will not send me to hell. Giving in to my alcoholism will, however, send me to hell. The applicable word that St. Paul uses for people like me in the aforementioned verses is ??????? which means “drunken or intoxicated.” Thus, just as I am to remain abstinent of alcohol because of my disease of alcoholism, so also is the homosexual person to remain abstinent of homosexual intercourse. Sacred Scripture cannot be annulled. Romans 1:18-32 states:

    18* For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

    People at this point may cry that it is unfair that a homosexual person be denied the pleasure of sexual satisfaction. This is a false cry. Homosexuals are subject to the same rules that any heterosexual person is subject to: no sexual intercourse outside of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman. God does not play favorites. But God does allow us to bear our crosses. In my case, the cross may be alcoholism. In the homosexual’s case, it may be same sex attraction. Romans 8:18 states:

    For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory about to be revealed in us.

    And Colossians 1:24 states:

    I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body…

    We are called, whether single mother or father, alcoholic, homosexual or whatever, to unite our suffering with those of Christ on the Cross. As the old adage goes, no Cross, no Crown. The Gospel is not about social justice and the common good (though those are important). As Jesus in John 6:26-27 told the crowd who followed Him about after the feeding of the 5000 with loaves of bread and fishes:

    …Verily, verily, I say to you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were satisfied; work not for the food that is perishing, but for the food that is remaining to life age-during, which the Son of Man will give to you, for him did the Father seal — [even] God.

    When politicians promise social justice and the common good, we should remember the example of Judas Iscariot in John 12:1-7

    1* Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. 4* But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii * and given to the poor?” 6* This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it. 7* Jesus said, “Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. 8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

    Too many politicians are lying thieves in the tradition of Judas Iscariot. When we look to the State to provide what we need, even what we want, then we render unto the State to take away from us everything we have: house, wife, husband, child, mother, and father. It happened under Maximillien Robespierre in France during the 1790s. In the name of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” he murdered tens of thousands of Catholic clerics and laity using Dr. Guillotine’s “merciful instrument” of euthanasia. Like many in our government today, he was rabidly atheist, and his spiritual descendants today do to unborn babies what he did to the born a little more than two centuries ago. Thus does Jesus declare to Pontius Pilate in John 18:36:

    My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.

    Anyone who thinks (like Robespierre) that he can create a kingdom of Heaven on Earth is guilty of the worst sort of hubris, and that is the exact reason why adultery, fornication and homosexuality run rampant today. 2nd Chronicles 7:14 states:

    If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

    Matthew 6:33 is consistent with this:

    But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.

    Conversion and repentance come before, not after social justice and the common good. Sadly, Robespierre had to die by his own guillotine because he refused to learn that lesson.

    Again, you are under no obligation to agree with me. And if you have questions on these matters, then you should give this letter to [ your priests ] to ask them to explain the truth. I am only a lay person and I do not speak for the Church. I can only tell you what Sacred Scripture and the Catechism state [and perhaps give a lesson in Koine Greek every once in a while! 😉 ]

  • Thank you for that link Robert Klein Engler. Please, every American Catholic read it.

  • @Robert, The author seems to say the Church has been willing to cooperate with those in power looking to cheat on the field as long as it advances the ball. And now, it has reached a point where it can continue to look the other way and play both parties or take a stand and become martrys. I can agree to a point, but I think some are taking advantage of this situation by going too far in its accussations against the hiearchy.

    An example is Paul’s Richochet article where it accuses the bishops of giving an endorsement of Obamacare. They never did. The lack of pro-life protections was always a road block to endorsement. While they did not endorse it, they also didn’t reject it. I had problems with the latter, but a lack of rejection does not equal an endorsement. I don’t recall a pro-Obamacare campaign by the bishops, which Paul claims.

    American Thinker article does ask an interesting question. How far will the bishops and the flock go to stand by their principles? Got the guts to take it all the way?

  • “An example is Paul’s Richochet article where it accuses the bishops of giving an endorsement of Obamacare. They never did. The lack of pro-life protections was always a road block to endorsement.”

    Though it was almost endorsed. The Bishops wanted conscience protections and coverage for illegal immigrants. If they got that then Obamacare would be fine. Cardinal George was actively lobbying Republicans not to vote against the Stupak Ammendment (in order to spike the Bill). This in the hope that the bill would ultimately pass.

    http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m711.htm

  • Richochet, “A Pact With the Devil” was good grist… I think the Bishops led by Card. Dolan are taking this kind of goad seriously and instead of looking back, are doing their best to make good decisions now. The need is for unity, clarity and shared effort.

  • Thank you Paul, once I get through all of this material know that it will someday go to good use. I do not have to “re-invent” the wheel so to speak and thank you for the readily availible info to use

    RE: Tim

    Regarding Catholic schools, unfortunatly what you say is very true. I am sure some excellent ones exists, but I have several real horror stories myself regarding Catholic schools. It’s one of the reason why I currently struggle with the idea of sending my son to one. I want to give him every opportunity to learn about our faith. Ultimately he learns the faith at home. It’s sad to say but I am worried about more harm than good being done to him.

  • I’ve seen it on the bumpers of cars in the parish parking lot before Mass: the Obama bumper sticker. It astounds me that any faithful Catholic can even consider voting for a Democrat…even a pro-life Democrat, let alone someone as effectively pro-abortion as Obama. And yet, there they are – my fellow parishoners; some of whom I know from personal experience to have a deep love of Our Lord and his Holy Church. Though I guess its wrong, I do envy them their faith being, at least as I can perceive it, deeper than mine.

    Part of it has to be ancestral – my late father didn’t switch his voter registration from Democrat to Republican until 2008, and that was only about a year before he died. But he also warned me – they are coming after the Church. They want to make an “American Catholic Church” to stand in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church and bid for the support of American Catholics. Ultimately, there really is only the Church, and Her enemies. And the enemies of the Church know one thing for certain: the only thing on earth which stands in the way of their victory is the Church.

    And there’s the other part of it – people who are willing to remain Democrats while still trying to remain faithful Catholics. The trick can’t be done – no matter how solidly Catholic you are if you are also a Democrat then you are magnifying the power of those who wish to destroy the Church, even if (and especially) if the destroyers have found a Bishop who won’t refuse them communion and who continue to pretend to the Catholic faith.

    I understand, Mr. Shipe – you wanted to be a good liberal and a good Catholic. You look at the GOP and, correctly, see many glaring errors, not least of which is the rote defense of “capitalism” in spite of the clear need for an alternative (Distributive) economic system. You’ve now learned a hard lesson – the only thing liberal leaders will allow you to be is a good liberal and that means mindlessly following whatever the leadership dictates, and if you don’t you’ll find yourself attacked until you either knuckle under or depart.

    I’m not asking anyone to give up their political views – but political allegiances must conform to reality. Any Catholic simply must, for the time being, vote Republican – not because Republicans are all wonderful…but because only Republicans offer the chance for faithful people to affect government policy. We can look for a day – hopefully not too far distant – when wise liberals will break completely with their leaders and form a Christian Democrat party to scoop up all those who are not enamored of the GOP but who cannot be faithful Catholics – or, indeed, Christians or Jews – within the Democrat party. I’m a Republican – have been my whole life; but if ever I see the GOP become a party hostile to my faith, I’ll drop it like a bad habit. If our faith does not drive our political actions then what use is our faith?

  • “Regarding Catholic schools, unfortunatly what you say is very true. I am sure some excellent ones exists, but I have several real horror stories myself regarding Catholic schools. It’s one of the reason why I currently struggle with the idea of sending my son to one.”

    I have some real ones too. This because my wife taught in Catholic schools for years. The level of knowledge and/or practice of the Faith is limited among most teachers. Some co-habitating. Some with Gay “marriage” stickers on their cars. Most actively communicating this very “modern” life to students.

  • There are too many blank spaces in the Obamacare contract where Sebelius can write in a prison term as Hillary Clinton did in Hillarycare, criminalizing and penalizing the very act of healing and the practice of medicine. Hilliarycare criminalized the practice of medicine with a TWO year federal prison sentence for every doctor who treated a patient not in his group.
    Obamacare promises everything a person might need, if one does not mind waiting a year or more for an emergency. The only surgery that will be done is abortion because the baby grows and is born according to the nature of the human being. In Canada, socialized medicine brought many people to the United States for heart surgery because the wait in Canada was over two years. My friend’s brother moved to Texas where he had the heart surgery.
    It would be interesting If Obama was a doctor poised to go to Federal prison for as long as Sebelius sends him, otherwise, the blank contract without informed consent is entrapment of the taxpaying citizens and a violation of civil liberties. Not those civil liberties endowed by the American Civil Liberties Union or Obama, but of those First Amendment Freedoms guaranteed by our founding principles and endowed by God, our God Who has been removed from the public square. How convenient.
    How very convenient. In this instance, Obama is taking advantage of the devil’s evil genius.

  • Evil is as evil does. Intentions pave the road to Hell. It is good that some are crossing over into the light, but forces of Darkness are many. Giving them any credit at all only weakens our defenses and strengthens thier resolve.

    There can be no compromise.

  • Pingback: Need Reader Input: Who Are The Top 10 Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops? | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Sr. Margaret Farley Vatileaks NeoCatechumenal Way Dawn Eden | Big Pulpit
  • Prior to the 2008 election, many of us had serious problems with Obama’s voting record and his promises for the future. We were ridiculed and called racists and hard-hearted, among among other names not printable here.
    It does now seem like the incubation of time has proven the concerns of 2008 to be real as the plans of this administration move forward.
    Subtle evil is still as evil as openly displayed evil.
    We must not allow this administration to control the bishops – and thus the Catholic Churh – in this country.

  • In my opinion, these heretics have been tolerated for way too long. Everything about them is “un-Catholic.” They have interpreted Vatican II as a license to make up their own Magisterium if they don’t like the Church’s official one. They openly mock the Pope, the Bishops, the Church. To them, it is the “faithful” that determine the Catholic Magisterium, not the Holy Father in conjunction with the heirs of the apostles. They openly declare that the “patriarchal” heirarchy has lost its legitimacy and they see the doctrinal “retrenchment” of Blessed JP II and BXVI as perhaps the greatest tragedy to befall the Church since the Reformation. They believe the Pope and Bishops are dead wrong on abortion, contraception, gay marriage, women’s ordination, etc., etc. and that they are “destroying” the Church by holding fast to their positions on these issues. These heretics should be excommunicated, en masse, immediately. The situation has gotten so dire that, in my humble opinion, every Catholic should be required to pledge an oath of loyalty to the Pope, their local Bishop, and the Magisterium of the Church or face excommunication. The “Catholic” population of the United States would be cut in half almost immediately, but at least those who remained would be true Catholics. This would certainly mean closing many parishes, schools and hospitals. It would mean supposedly Catholic universities formally breaking from the Church. It would mean dramatic loss of political influence. But, it would rid the Barque of Peter of these servants of Satan who are intent on destroying it from within and re-molding it in their own image. We know what happens when the route of accomodation to popular culture that they propose is taken – just look at the rapidly approaching extinction of Mainline Protestantism.

  • Donald, I have to disagree with your statement the “Obama administration is clearly the most anti-Catholic administration in our nation’s history.” If you look back in our nation’s history, the Masonic influence and the nativist movement of the first half of the 19th Century was clearly more anti-Catholic than the Obama admistration.

  • Disagree Chuck. One of the friendliest of the Founding Fathers to Catholics was George Washington, a mason. The Know Nothing Party prior to the Civil War had some influence, but never succeeded in electing a President. No, when it comes to the White House, the Obama administration is clearly the most anti-Catholic administration by far.

  • Wow! Excellent article.
    Thank you for explaining to me what is really happening.
    It’s all clear now.

  • In the beginning of this article you talk about your piece being important are talking about your gun or was that a typo?

  • From my own experience I can tell you that you shouldn’t hang out with poisonous people especially if you are a convert.

  • valentine- the reference was to the title of the “piece”- not my gun or a typo!

    Maureen- thank you so much- I wrote this for those who have leaned Left or Independent- those who have long been on the Right were already on the attack of anything Obama. I wanted to believe that Catholic Democrats were more faithful, not less. I really tried to make a dent in what I found was an extreme belief that the Magisterium- the Pope and Bishops- really weren’t not the proper teaching authorities for the Church. That role apparently is to go to the majority of Catholics- or perhaps society- with the critical role of authority going to the academic and the politician- the professors and political activists are the ones who know and care the most- more than distant popes and bishops- so the thinking goes. The consequence of this twisting of Christ’s will is that we have Catholics supporting legal abortion, widespread contraception, anything goes marriage definitions, and who dare say that women and active homosexuals can’t be priests, bishops or even the pope?? So- I am one who is sounding the alarm- I think I have credibility because I entered into this debate with an open heart and mind- I really tried to find a way to influence the Dem Catholics- but now I see that they are dead-set on something much more than moving the country a bit to the Left on the economy and environment- they are palace revolutionaries in their willingness to use the powers of state to push through an agenda that goes decidedly against basic and obvious official Catholic teachings. We need to talk about this in circles larger than the die-hard Republican grouping. I want politically-independent orthodox Catholics to get more facts to use for their own understanding and to help move the national discussion/debate on religious liberty

  • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The public square, all public places belong to the people in joint and common tenancy. You own it all and I own it all. Government is called upon to keep the peace. Government may not usurp the public square that belongs to the people to be used by the people for any legitimate purpose, public prayer, public politicking, recreation, education, leisure, work, any good thing. To ban the Person of God and to ban the acknowledgement of the Person of God from the public square is unconstitutional. If persons desire to be acknowledged as persons, all persons must be acknowledged, beginning with the Person of our Creator. Now that the Person of God is banned, the people of God are being banned and soon all human life will be indicted as unfit to live.

What Radical Gays Really Want – And Will Never, Ever Have

Friday, May 18, AD 2012

Since “gay marriage” is all the rage, especially since Biden and Obama decided to make public statements on the matter, it is virtually all I have been hearing about in my own online networks. Debates are raging, friendships are being tested, hostility is everywhere. One thing emerges out of this chaos more clearly than anything else: the gay agenda, which I define as a radical political program with the aim of legitimizing homosexuality in all spheres of human existence, is based on the hysterical repetition of outrageous lies. It is not unlike  the completely fraudulent “war on women”, a war that was supposedly declared when a number of Americans publicly resisted the idea that they ought to pay for other women’s birth control.

In the case of “gay marriage”, the big lie is that there is some desire on the part of conservatives and Christians in this country to actually deny some right, some liberty, some freedom to people who identify themselves and live as homosexuals. As abhorrent, disordered and immoral as I find the “gay lifestyle” to be, the truth is that – and here I speak for virtually every conservative Christian I know or have read – we really are not the least bit interested in micro-managing the sex-lives of our fellow citizens. We have absolutely no desire to have uniformed gendarmes kick in your bedroom doors to make sure no acts of sodomy are taking place in the middle of the night. The only thing more repugnant to me than such acts would be the prospect of becoming comfortable with the sort of routine invasions of personal privacy that would be required to ensure that no one was living out their life as a homosexual.

 

To be even more specific, to the gay couple we say: we do not care if you visit one another in the hospital. We do not care if you grant one another medical power of attorney. We do not care if you jointly own property. We do not care if you leave property for each other inherit when one of you dies. We do not care if you own a home together and live in it. We do not care if you get dressed up, rent a local hall, stage whatever sort of ceremony you like, and even refer to yourselves as “married.”

We may object, on different grounds, some secular, some religious, to your adopting children. After all, there are now other human beings in the equation- and there seems to be at least some kind of moral consensus across political lines that the interests of children do sometimes take precedence over the rights and privileges of adults. In any case, its something we can safely set aside for the moment.

To reiterate, this time specifically to the radical homosexual: on all the  issues that concern the consenting adults only, we don’t care. Of course we care in the abstract that you are leading lives of grave sin in open defiance of God, but then so do millions of “heterosexuals” who fornicate, commit adultery, use artificial contraception, sterilize themselves, and so on. Not every sin can or should be a matter for the state to concern itself with, and we are content to let God judge in these matters; but no sin, and this brings us closer to the main point here, can ever be called a virtue, no evil can ever be called a good, by any Christian with a conscience, or by any citizen who cares about the integrity of society.

You can live as you want, engage in whatever sort of contracts you like, conduct any sort of ceremonies you please. But there is one thing you cannot have, and it is the one thing you seek through this radical political agenda, these hysterical protests and complaints about Christians: our approval. It cannot possibly be about anything else, because it is really the only thing you are missing. You want to live in a world in which everyone regards what you do and how you live not only as normal, but as a positive good. And your attempts to legalize “gay marriage” are about this and this alone. It is not about “equal rights” that you already possess, it is not about the freedom to openly identify as gay, which you already have. It is about using the power of the state to force society to recognize your living arrangements and lifestyle choices as legitimate. It is about policing the thoughts and opinions of the American people. It is about sharing prestige with properly and truly married couples. It is about envy and resentment, and a deep, abiding hatred of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Let me be blunt: your disordered lifestyles are not equal to the traditional marriage or the traditional family, which have served as the foundation of civilization since its very beginnings. You do not deserve equal prestige, and nor, for that matter, do “straight” couples who actively choose not to procreate. And you have no right to such things. You have no right to have the state give you extra benefits, tax breaks, or anything of the sort – you have no right to have your romantic choices ratified by society. You don’t have the right to go through life without being heckled or bullied, as you heckle and bully the Christians you hate, as you mock with the most disgusting outrages imaginable all that we hold sacred.

In the face of your tyranny, your bullying, your mockery, your boundless hate, we will continue to persevere.

Continue reading...

79 Responses to What Radical Gays Really Want – And Will Never, Ever Have

  • Well said, Bonchamps, well said indeed!

  • No elaboration necessary. Thanks.

  • You need to be more concise and make only the most sparing use of the first person pronouns.

  • “You need to be more concise and make only the most sparing use of the first person pronouns.”

    This was a really most excellent post. I don’t think any change is necessary. But we all opinions….we all know the saying. PS, I did not agree with Bonchamps’ post on Ron Paul that he wrote a while back, but in this post he is “right on the money” as it were.

  • Amen to all of it. Well done.

  • I like a lot of what you said here – pretty much every word of it. But near the end you said,

    “You don’t have the right to go through life without being heckled or bullied, as you heckle and bully the Christians you hate, as you mock with the most disgusting outrages imaginable all that we hold sacred.”

    I would hope for clarification on that. If you meant the following, then I’m fine with it:

    “You don’t have exemption from criticism, and you don’t have the right to mock Christianity with impunity.”

  • “We may object, on different grounds, some secular, some religious, to your adopting children…”

    I believe the issues of marriage, adoption and assisted reproduction cannot be so easily separated. After all, it is one thing to restrict adoption or assisted reproduction on the grounds of marital status, for marriage belongs to the public sphere of the state; it would be very different to do so, on the grounds of sexual orientation, which belongs to the private sphere of civil society.

  • And you really do not think what is wanted will come about?

    That, we will just have to see; those of us who are not eliminated
    to bring what is coming, about.

    Karl

  • My, that was well written. Even above Mr. Bonchamps usual level. (My opinion, of course)
    I don’t think I’d change a word.

  • Bonchamps: Took my breath away.
    Michael Paterson-Seymour “We may object, on different grounds, some secular, some religious, to your adopting children…”
    “I believe the issues of marriage, adoption and assisted reproduction cannot be so easily separated. After all, it is one thing to restrict adoption or assisted reproduction on the grounds of marital status, for marriage belongs to the public sphere of the state; it would be very different to do so, on the grounds of sexual orientation, which belongs to the private sphere of civil society.” Forgvie me, I am not sure about what you are saying. Once marriage equality is reached by the homosexual agenda, (here in Maryland January 2013) no holds barred. They will have legal right to adopt children, assisted reproduction, indoctrination of a captive audience of children in public schools and a captive population of citizens whose language and culture will be corrupted by calling the vice of lust, the virtue of love, a man who cannot be a wife, a wife, a husband who is a woman, and worst of all indoctrination of a captive audience of minor children in transgenderism; that the state will pay for sex change operations if you happen to be seduced into believeing that you do not like being who you have been created to be sexually. It will not end there either. The state will usurp the authority to outlaw any voice against its determined abuse of the human being: The Sacred Scripture, The Catholic Church, eventually to erase marriage itself but to deny the human being his soul, his freedom, his life. To codify a crime is a crime.

  • Nicely stated but there is a broader agenda which I recognize is not the topic of this post. The homosexual political agenda turns our founding principles, and the corresponding relationship of individual to state, upside down. The laws regarding homosexual behavior with “marriage” being just the emotional touchstone issue will flow from legalistic rights asserted by the state for its chosen people—whether that be the homosexualist, Planned Parenthood, Green Energy cronies, et al. Thus, what is ultimately being sought is a “transformation” of the relationship between individual and state. The homosexualist will seek the criminalization of speech critical to their lifestyle, the radical extinguishment of any natural understanding of a human family, lifestyle indoctrination in all schools, not just public schools, the unbridled suppression of religious values, and the destruction of civil society and civic association including such organizations as the Boy Scouts. I recall a case a few years back where the State of NJ ruled that the Boy Scouts were in essence a hate group having violated NJ law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals—the Boy Scouts thought it wrong to allow homosexual troop leaders to cavort with young adolescents in pup tents on camping trips. That case was narrowly overturned by the US Supreme Court, 5-4.

    Through sloppy thinking, shallow emotionalism or plain apathy, most people don’t understand the very real struggle taking place. It’s not about “marriage” except to get the camel’s nose under the tent.

  • To the radical gays: What do you offer to society in return? If you do not recognize your own soul how will you acknowledge my soul and the souls of others? If you dishonor your parents who brought you into the world, how do you demand honor from society? If you do not respect yourself, why do you expect respect from your neighbors?

  • Yeah, I don’t think they want your approval and what you want is the rest of society to not only share your disapproval but codify it into law.

    Sadly, not going to happen, people don’t hate the gays like they used to and each generation even less.

    I know, I know, that makes your god very angry and it’s going to a make us all pay!

  • Salvage,

    Did you even read the post? In any case, disapproval of gay marriage is inherent in any successful civilization. How could a civilization ever approve of a lifestyle that contributes no new members, unless it was suicidal? And ours may well be suicidal, I don’t doubt that possibility either.

    I don’t hate people who struggle with same-sex attraction. That said, I think what it means to be “gay” in this society is 90% socially constructed, a sub-culture shaped by radical political activists who want you all to think and act in specific ways, and not biology.

  • Bonchamps,

    Salvage is another internet atheist troll who can’t stand it that there are some quite rational and logical people who for very well thought out reasons simply don’t subscribe to his screed of secularism and antipathy against religion. He / she / it goes from Catholic blog to Catholic blog spewing forth the same old tired idiocies over and over again. This individual has been infecting the Curt Jester’s blog of late and has now found him / her / itself here.

  • Pinky,

    What I meant was what I wrote. I don’t advocate bullying anyone, but it will happen sometimes, and society cannot be restructured by draconian laws and reeducation programs (which we already have in public schools) to make everyone love and accept and never ever bully gays, which is what they seem to be demanding in my view.

  • Art,

    The day I take writing advice from you….

    🙂

  • Pingback: What Radical Gays Really Want…
  • “…it would be very different to do so, on the grounds of sexual orientation, which belongs to the private sphere of civil society.”

    It would seem sexual orientation doesn’t only apply to the private sphere if there is the demand for extension of “rights” that belong properly to married couples. Marriage of course being the union of one man and one woman.

  • The horror. Salvage will receive whatever he merits, as will all of us, when he assumes room temperature. The horror.

    That is the reason we are called to pray for the conversion of sinners and America.

  • Very well said.

    It’s like I tell my kids: When your friends are misbehaving – and they know they are misbehaving – they will want you to come along and do it too. Don’t do it. Don’t join them, don’t just go along.

  • T. Shaw, a BIG smile for your first paragraph and a big THANK YOU as an American sinner.

  • In the case of “gay marriage”, the big lie is that there is some desire on the part of conservatives and Christians in this country to actually deny some right, some liberty, some freedom to people who identify themselves and live as homosexuals.

    That would be easier to believe if Rick Santorum hadn’t specifically supported the Texas law struck down in 2002, and if the bishop of Denver hadn’t explicitly opposed the civil unions law in his home state. Obviously at least some self-described conservatives very much do want to deny gays those rights, and go on TV and talk about how important it is that those rights be denied.

  • From what I can tell, Santorum supported the rights of states to have or not have such laws. And so do I for that matter. But that’s a state’s rights issue. I can think that the state has a right to outlaw something without thinking that it would also be prudent for it to do so. Besides, anti-sodomy laws aren’t just about punishing people who want to live homosexual lifestyles; they can be used to add additional charges to people who prey upon children, rapists, etc. If anyone was suggesting the prosecution of consenting adults, I would be opposed to that and I’m fairly certain even Santorum would be.

    As for the “civil unions law”, no such law is required for people who want to live as homosexuals to do so. Anything such a law would grant could already be established through private contracts. What homosexuals want is the privilege of presumption, the prestige of marriage. They cannot have it. We will not give it.

  • “To reiterate, this time specifically to the radical homosexual: on all the issues that concern the consenting adults only, we don’t care. Of course we care in the abstract that you are leading lives of grave sin in open defiance of God, but then so do millions of ‘heterosexuals’ who fornicate, commit adultery, use artificial contraception, sterilize themselves, and so on.”

    Reminded me of something else I read today.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/why-i-dont-care.html
    I don’t think that sort of indifference is right or healthy.

  • The Texas GOP platform on which Rick Perry ran for governor includes in part: Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy. That is not about pedophiles or rapists: that’s about consenting adults. The Texas GOP does care. And if that’s not enough, you could visit the website of Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps and see if his views line up with the “I don’t care about consenting adults” perspective.

    At least some people really do care, and they make a big deal out of it.

    No matter who you are, some people on your side take your position over a cliff. Gay people who just want to have the usual legal protections have to deal with radical gay loons who damage churches and make them look bad. It’s not their fault, and we should be careful not to lump them all together, but those extremist gays do exist and just denying that they exist is not a valid strategy for homosexuals who don’t do such things. And in the same way, there are real anti-gay people who really do want to make homosexual activity in itself illegal. We may be of the “I don’t care just don’t expect my approval” line of thinking, but not everybody on “our side” takes that view, and just pretending they don’t exist isn’t a viable way for us to deal with them.

    The right way to deal with them is to condemn their extremist views and make clear we don’t share them. Pretending they don’t exist, or explaining away their statements to make it seem like they agree with us when they don’t, is an insult to those who listen and an offense against the truth. And it doesn’t work.

  • Rick Santorum did not support the Texas statute. As Bonchamps explained, he opposed the Supreme Court decision striking down the statute because the Court’s decision was a violation of states’ right and the law itself did not run afoul (contrary to the majority’s assertion) of any constitutional provision. Since the case, there has hardly been any serious kind of effort to bring back sodomy laws. Sure there are isolated individuals who hold these views, but don’t pretend that they represent a significant subset of the Catholic or general population.

  • The question isn’t whether they are significant or representative, it’s whether they exist at all, and whether it’s “a lie” that they exist, and whether gay people are just crazy to worry about them.

    They do exist, it is not “a lie” that they exist, and gay people may be overreacting to worry about them, but if so it generally doesn’t help a discussion to tell someone who’s overreacting that they are overreacting.

  • I’ve known scores of LGBT people, most of whom were Catholics until they were chased out of the church by frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives. Begone with you mob-raising children of hell! These people need the church especially in their circumstances, and their souls are on your hands.

  • Fred Phelps is not a Christian. I don’t mean that in a No True Scotman sense. I mean Phelps denies being a Christian and calls himself a “Tachmonite” along with some gobbledegook about King David.

    He does, however, self-identify as a Democrat. 🙂 (True dish!)

  • I truly wonder how human beings can be so closed and so sure that their belief their God is right and would support a barely tolerated stance on homosexuals. You are no different than radical Muslims in your narrow minded beliefs. Do you think God would disapprove of a child who is coming from a horrible life and is adopted into a family that is gay and will give this child a healthy and educated safe life? Would you prefer to have a child who could be adopted by a same sex couple (Dare I say GAY?!) stay with a mother/father in an environment that offers no hope, nothing but disparity, poverty and no future?
    Step off your throne, religious zealots such as yourself and those who follow your every disgusting word is what is wrong with America. Your extremist political and religious positions are horrifying and mind boggling. No God would ever approve of such thought…I pity you.

  • And in the same way, there are real anti-gay people who really do want to make homosexual activity in itself illegal. We may be of the “I don’t care just don’t expect my approval” line of thinking, but not everybody on “our side” takes that view, and just pretending they don’t exist isn’t a viable way for us to deal with them. The right way to deal with them is to condemn their extremist views and make clear we don’t share them.

    In New York, consensual sodomy was a class b misdemeanor. It was seldom prosecuted for obvious reasons and the code provision was arbitrarily annulled by the state court of appeals in 1980. All throughout my father’s life, consensual sodomy was unlawful in New York. I cannot look at all the facets of the world he and his contemporaries built and conclude it was less just and less civilized than the one in which we live.

  • Noah & Nicole:

    Noah,

    “I’ve known scores of LGBT people, most of whom were Catholics until they were chased out of the church by frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives. Begone with you mob-raising children of hell! These people need the church especially in their circumstances, and their souls are on your hands.”

    I don’t consider people who believe that they can be Catholic while living in open defiance of Church teaching to be Catholics at all. For such people to no longer identify as Catholic is no loss. It is a gain for us. They have already bartered their souls away.

    If someone with same-sex attraction is truly struggling and told that they are evil simply because they have the attraction, this is wrong. I oppose this, and virtually everyone I know opposes this. I don’t know a man or woman in the Church who doesn’t struggle daily with some terrible temptation. The Church exists for sinners. It is a Church comprised of sinners. Even the saints are sinners.

    When they cross the line to struggling with an attraction to acting out on it and assuming that “God is fine with it” (a false assumption), then good riddance. We don’t need such people. We don’t want them. They corrupt and pollute the body with the obstinacy and perversion. And I say the same about those who openly condone and promote the use of artificial contraception, abortion, fornication, divorce – all of it. By taking such positions they make it clear that it is THEY who reject US, and not vice-versa. THEY REJECT US.

    Nicole,

    “I truly wonder how human beings can be so closed and so sure that their belief their God is right and would support a barely tolerated stance on homosexuals. ”

    How can supporting individual property rights possibly be “barely tolerated”? I don’t “barely” tolerate people with same-sex attraction; I tolerate them, period. In fact, I consider it none of my business what a person’s sexual temptations are.

    You’re the narrow-minded one, though, because you are incapable of seeing about how this isn’t about God or my belief in God. It is about resisting the attempts of a radical political movement to impose its views and beliefs on me and everyone else. They can already DO anything they want. What they now want is not the freedom to DO things, but the power to force me to approve of what they do.

    They will never have it!

    ” Do you think God would disapprove of a child who is coming from a horrible life and is adopted into a family that is gay and will give this child a healthy and educated safe life?”

    There are no families that are gay. Families have a mother and a father. Two people shacking up are not a family. And I don’t think it is what is best for any child, because it is simply a fact that gay relationships are unstable and short-lived, and that children turn out best psychologically and emotionally when raised by a MAN AND A WOMAN. When your entire life, your entire identity, is wrapped up in your sexual preferences, how could it be otherwise? Families are about more than sex and sexual preference.

    If gays want children, they can marry people of the opposite sex, conceive them, and have real families. They may not enjoy their sex lives, but all people eventually have to choose between sexual freedom and familial responsibilities. They aren’t biologically incapable of reproduction. It is a CHOICE, and society does NOT have to honor their choice to live in sterile relationships. It isn’t a right, and it isn’t even a privilege. It’s an absurdity.

    “Would you prefer to have a child who could be adopted by a same sex couple (Dare I say GAY?!) stay with a mother/father in an environment that offers no hope, nothing but disparity, poverty and no future?”

    I’m not sure what a state of “disparity” would be, but hey, I’m just an uneducated redneck Buy-Bull Be-Leavin’ hillbilly, so what do I know about language and meanings of words?

    In any case, yes, I would in fact prefer that a child be adopted by a man and woman, married and committed to one another, who were of lesser means (generally poor people can’t afford to adopt) than a wealthy pair of homosexuals, for reasons already mentioned. There’s nothing wrong with the relative poverty of the United States. If they’re living at the level of Mexican day-laborers in the United States they’re living better than well over half of the world’s inhabitants.

    “Step off your throne, religious zealots such as yourself and those who follow your every disgusting word is what is wrong with America.”

    I know you hate freedom of speech, hate the Constitution, hate everything this country stands for. But we’re not going anywhere. You’ll have to come kill me if you want me to be quiet.

    “Your extremist political and religious positions are horrifying and mind boggling. No God would ever approve of such thought…I pity you.”

    MY extremist positions? For thousands of years societies have banned homosexuality and stigmatized it, have rejected it as a social poison that leads to the collapse of civilizations. MY positions are nothing but the continuity of thousands of years of social, political and religious wisdom, without which we would have never even been able to have a civilization capable of even debating such questions in the first place. It is YOUR positions that are extreme, that want to turn over and uproot every social institution so that people can enjoy the mindless and reckless pursuit of personal pleasure. YOU are the extremist. YOU are the radical. YOUR views are destroying this country.

  • First I must address your claim that I hate freedom of speech, the Constitution and everything this country stands for. Not quite sure where you got that but I am the farthest from that, clearly we are engaging in freedom of speech in this forum are we not?

    Don’t worry I don’t want to kill you for you to be quiet, see I think you just missed one of our major freedoms and liberties our country was founded on, I don’t think I am the one who is extreme here.

    Anyway, yes, my whole goal here is to uproot every social institution, for only personal pleasure. I am actually a moderate not an extremist in any aspect by the normal social order. I just don’t keep my beliefs rooted in thousand year old dogma, it doesn’t apply to modern day society. If society kept the same mindset from thousands of years back I would have to say that evolution of man would never have occurred. I, unlike you am not threatened by your beliefs, I read them and move on. At the end of the day you won’t ruin my world.

    Ok so this is stated why? I’m not sure what a state of “disparity” would be, but hey, I’m just an uneducated redneck Buy-Bull Be-Leavin’ hillbilly, so what do I know about language and meanings of words? Feeling a bit insecure?

    In any case, yes, I would in fact prefer that a child be adopted by a man and woman, married and committed to one another, who were of lesser means (generally poor people can’t afford to adopt) than a wealthy pair of homosexuals, for reasons already mentioned. There’s nothing wrong with the relative poverty of the United States. If they’re living at the level of Mexican day-laborers in the United States they’re living better than well over half of the world’s inhabitants.

    I never stated the means of gay or straight, I am asking you if there was a child born into a drug filled violent male and female household wouldn’t you rather have that child be adopted by a gay couple if there was no one else to help the baby? Or perhaps your belief in your thousand year old dogma would prevent that?

    I am happy to hear you are such a man of the world and know what it is like to live as a Mexican day laborer.. I am sure you have traveled extensively in the world and seen so much even experienced poverty?
    |
    To sum it up we agree to disagree, our views yours nor mine are not going to destroy our society, and if you still believe that then I am sorry you are going to have alot of stress to deal with for the remainder of your life.

    Thanks for the interesting debate.

  • Nicole,

    “Not quite sure where you got that but I am the farthest from that”

    I get it from the fact that you think that me and people who think like me are the problem with America, and from the fact gay rights radicals have a long record of opposing free speech. When you talk like them, I group you with them.

    “Don’t worry I don’t want to kill you for you to be quiet, see I think you just missed one of our major freedoms and liberties our country was founded on, I don’t think I am the one who is extreme here.”

    No one is denying anyone freedom or liberty. I didn’t miss anything. I’m free to denounce homosexual behavior, and they’re free to enter into whatever contracts they like. But they are not “free” to force the rest of us into accepting their way of life as normal, good, or equal with the traditional family. That’s what’s at stake here. NOT their freedom, which they already have and which no one wants to take away.

    “Anyway, yes, my whole goal here is to uproot every social institution, for only personal pleasure.”

    If you support “gay marriage”, that is EXACTLY your goal, whether you realize it or not. That’s what you support.

    ” I just don’t keep my beliefs rooted in thousand year old dogma, it doesn’t apply to modern day society.”

    First of all, our Church is two thousand years old, and so are its teachings. Secondly, there are some truths that ALWAYS apply to ANY society. One of the Ten Commandments is “thou shalt not murder.” Do you believe that just because that commandment was given thousands of years ago that it is no longer good today? Of course not. In no society can we have people simply going around murdering one another. Some laws ARE timeless. Others can be changed. Wisdom consists of knowing the difference, and charity consists of actually caring about knowing the difference.

    Hysterical supporters of “gay marriage” are totally lacking in both.

    “If society kept the same mindset from thousands of years back I would have to say that evolution of man would never have occurred. ”

    If society changed as often as people like you would like to change everything, there would be no society at all. What you call “evolution” I call degeneracy.

    ” I, unlike you am not threatened by your beliefs, I read them and move on.”

    Do you? We’ll see.

    “Feeling a bit insecure?”

    It’s called sarcasm.

    “I never stated the means of gay or straight,”

    Yes you did. You mentioned poverty.

    “I am asking you if there was a child born into a drug filled violent male and female household wouldn’t you rather have that child be adopted by a gay couple if there was no one else to help the baby?”

    No. I’d rather the child be adopted by a truly married couple that couldn’t have children of their own. There are many of them on waiting lists already. And if such couples were not available, I would still say no. People can quit drugs.

    “Or perhaps your belief in your thousand year old dogma would prevent that?”

    My belief in the social harm caused by the legitimization of the homosexual lifestyle would prevent that.

    “I am happy to hear you are such a man of the world and know what it is like to live as a Mexican day laborer.. ”

    It’s just a fact that the poorest Americans are still wealthier than most of the rest of the world. You don’t have to go anywhere to know that. It’s the information age, my dear!

  • Dfp makes a valid point

    It is no coincidence that the three offences of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft were abolished (without a debate) by a single resolution of the National Assembly, on 25 September 1791. Even the Catholic members recognised the wisdom of the Roman maxim “deorum injuria diid curae” – Offences against the gods are the gods’ business.

  • And then the French Revolutionaries, as the rest of their bloody history well illustrates, disproved the truth of that maxim.