As Catholic Americans we should observe this month by helping our fellow citizens understand the truth and dignity of the human person, made in the image of God, and of Christian marriage, called to be a sign of the mystical unity of Christ and His Church.

Elsewhere in the Proclamation he writes, “As we honor the LGBT Americans who have given so much to our Nation, let us remember that if one of us is unable to realize full equality, we all fall short of our founding principles.” I ask, how many millions of pre-born Americans have been unable to realize their full equality as human beings?

I am saddened once again that our President is choosing to reach out to a small number of people to gain their support and vote while ignoring the wishes and hopes of the majority of Americans who have shown repeatedly their support of the Marriage Act.

I think….he really doesn’t want to get re-elected.

Kind of ironic, coming from a man whose second in command proclaimed they were AGAINST gay marriage. (anyone remember Biden saying that in the debate with Palin, or did America collectively block that out?)

Most of America DOESN’T support gay marriage or gay issues.  Look at California - this is a HUGE liberal state and most of them voted for this man, but voted against gay marriage for the second time.  In fact, now it’s a California Constitutional Amendment against, and they will NOT win if it gets back on the ballot. 

For the record, I support gay marriage AND I’m a Republican.  I wish Obama would focus on more important issues like the tanking economy and that massive oil spill that he’s doing NOTHING to fix.

I’m not really a super emotional kind of guy, but hearing this makes me want to cry.  I have to echo a previous comment in saying that pre-born Americans’ rights should be considered over sexual deviance.

Hmmm. Obama says that LGBT people serve at all levels of his administration. All levels would include the presidency and the vice-presidency. I wonder which category he and Biden fit into.

June is the month dedicated to the Sacred Heart. I suggest we all pray that this propaganda for deviancy is not successful. We must pray especially that the children of the nation are not further corrupted by the full blown attack by this administration on the values derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Great! Then let’s also recognize these groups similarly:

“I also do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Child Abusers, Drug Users, Rapists, and Perverts Pride Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.”

I am disappointed in Obama and I voted for him. I feel like I have been deceived.

And this from someone who had to be forced to honor National Prayer Day.

I’m as hetrosexual as they come.  I want nothing to do with LBGT and their filthy ways.

Mr. Obama’s entire goal is the complete restructuring of the American way of life.  He has set about his work with great speed and talent enabled by everyone who voted for him.  This action along with the National Day of Prayer sham are simply indicators of his lack of belief in any power highewr than B. Hussein Obama.  Unfortunately, his opposition is not a whole helluva lot more principled.

LizMac, you “feel like you have been deceived”. You weren’t deceived, you just didn’t pay attention. Obama’s views were there for all to see but a majority (including youself) chose to ignore them for whatever reason and voted for him anyway. I believe this would be a “you reap what you sow” thing.

I think the reason they are having this month is to stop the comments that are on this page. Don’t call them perverts or filthy.  When judgment day comes you are not the judge and jury.  Be more like Christ and have an open and accepting heart and trust in Him.

At this rate it may not be far away when the President of America sanctions the marriage between human and animal as well as incest relationships. People are there who believe in the anctity of marriage which is a relationship of one man with one woman This madness of America and the West will end in chaos, !@#$% and illness of body and soul

Invincible Ignorance saves the President, but is his ignorance invincible or vincible?

I’ll “celebrate” it by praying for all who suffer from same-sex atttactions - that they may find the strength and courage to follow Christ in all things.

I wish he’d work a little harder with our military on winning the war instead of ending “don’t ask/don’t tell.”

We knew where Obama stood when well over half the Catholic vote went to him in 2008. This proclamation is an insult to all faithful Christians, Jews, and Muslims, since homosexuality is clearly deemed sinful, abhorrent, and not to be condoned by all of these religions. Next will be “Women’s Reproductive Freedom” Month.

Obama is the most pro-abortion, pro-homosexual president we have ever had, and ignorant or wayward Catholics are responsible for getting him elected. How about this: Don’t ask Obama to change his views. Repent of your own feckless political choices in the past, fearlessly affirm the Church’s teaching, love the sinner not the sin, and boot this man out of Washington in 2012.

I’m thankful that it wasn’t during the school year, although his “we must create safer schools” comment said in this context does not provide much relief.  Sounds like more indoctrination is on its way.

His comments are innapropriate.

There, I’ve said it - the dreaded ‘i’ word. This is the word that ends all words and must be respected at all costs.

If something is not illegal, wrong, immoral, unethical but they don’t like it, then they just use the ‘i’ word and it’s all over. Therefore it must be all over now.

Are we going to enshrine the sacred ‘i’ word in a constitutional amendment now?

JohnE, don’t know where you live but here in suburban DC school lasts another 2 weeks.

If any RC or Prot-Indie Christian votes for any liberal progressive socialist pacifist Dem in Nov . and or in 2012, they should be boiled in BP’s oil! The evil of this Admin. in every social, cultural, economic and military effort has made America a sewer for the amoral and immoral to crow about the end of American superiority. Catholics and Prots better wake up to this horror at election time or they will not only face history’s condemnation but God’s.

- I think…he really doesn’t want to get re-elected.

I agree

Hmmm, what other be proud of your mortal sin months are to come?  Pro-abortion pride month?  Pedophilia pride month?  Euthanasia pride month?  The month of June is dedicated by Our Church to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in response to the man who holds the highest office in the land proposing a LGBT pride month, our best response is to step it up a bit in prayer, penance, repentance and love and consolation to Our Lord who is so deeply offended by the sins of humanity.

Does anyone else think it’s ridiculous for him to tout the Ryan White CARE act as being part of the pro-homosexual month? I mean, the act was named for a KID who got HIV because he was a hemophiliac who got contaminated blood. I know that most people who get HIV/AIDS now get it because of unsafe sexual practices (and gay men being the number one patient), but that is not why this act was named for Ryan White. Of course, the rest of it is equally ridiculous, but for some reason this part stood out for me.

Wow!
All these emails are from people who supposedly are followers of Christ?
A-mazing!
Didn’t Christ “hang-out” with people like Mary Magdaline?
And what was she, exactly?  Anita Bryant?
No..
but most all of YOU people who have been posting all of this hateful and prejudicial blogshots ARE!

Hey!
May the peace and love of Christ be with ALL of you!
And I’m VERY sincere when I say that—- you all NEED it very much!

I feel ashamed of the standard of morality in the thinking of Americans.  Is this gay lesbian issue that important   more than the oil spill ? When the sacredness of traditional marriage is thrown to the dust by the government, all ills will follow. There will be increase in the number of !@#$%, ills, infidelity, divorces, sexual perversions, children involving in sexual activities and ultimate destruction of civilization.  Obama may be inaugarating the same.

To Donny and all those who believe that we who oppose homosexual behavior are hateful and prejudicial and remind us to be more like our Lord, I must remind them that when Jesus saved the woman who had been caught in an adulterous act and was about to be stoned, he did not condemn the woman but he did tell her to go and to sin no more.  He did not tell her to be more discreet or that he approved of whatever she did in private with another consulting adult.  He called her behavior a sin and told her not to do it.  We are acting like our Lord when we do not condemn the sinner but do not condone their sinful actions.  It is our obligation to our brothers and sisters to help them see that what they are doing is wrong.

Well said Marie.

I think Marie stated the Christian position very clearly.  It is easy to lump us in with those who hate.  A Christian is called at all times to be motivated by love. 

If you ever find yourself hating people, you are on the wrong path.  We need to love everyone and because of that love we need to hate the sin that is killing them.

Why is everyone so judgemental? I can’t believe people would stoop so low as to compare the LBGT community to rapists, killers, and thieves! Pure ignorance. I am a proud supporter of the GLGT community. Half of you probably work or are real close to someone who fits into this “category”. Open your eyes, its 2010! The GLBT community isn’t looking to date you so let them live their lives as they let you live yours! It saddens me that everyone who is quick to judge someone else is usually the first to be mad when someone judges them. Get over it, the GLBT community is alive and strong and they aren’t going anywhere! Like it or not!

Donny: I look over these comments and for the life of me I don’t find any hate and prejudice. I do see thoughtful Catholics deploring their government’s endorsement of immoral and sinful behavior. Not that government-sponsored evil is anything shocking or new—the U.S. has been doing it in one form or another since 1973 at least. Another thing I’ve noticed is that when people want to justify sin or deny Church teaching, they will inevitably accuse other people of intolerance, bigotry, or judgmentalism. With lots of CAPS and exclamation marks!!! Wow!!! Amazing!! Next stop: repeated references to the spirit of Vatican II.

962 Days, 19 Hours, 18 Minutes, 38 Seconds…37….36….35…

http://tizona.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/obama_countdown_clock/

And note the hubris of BLT above. Open your eyes! Get over it! We’re here, we’re queer…you know the rest. You’re so judgmental!

Listen, no one is judging anyone else. We are making the clear observation that homosexual behavior is sinful. Christianity has taught this truth since it began. This is God’s law. A country that embraces depravity and holds that what is immoral is good and moral is doomed. As faithful Catholics, we must show love and tolerance to all sinners; we must never embrace sin.

What Mr. Obama fails to realize, as he invokes Ryan White, is that Ryan White died of AIDS because he got AIDS infected blood from a transfusion.  And who does Mr. Hussein Obama think Ryan got that from?  A married, normal,white married female with 4 kids?  Barry, you’re the man!  Lead on, Brother, and they shall follow.  I, unfortunately, won’t because I think you’re a loony tune.

Okay…
I’ve listened to your comments on homosexuality AND family values and the fact that Christians are full of love.
So WHY is it that whenever I talk to Christians about Israel…
well, they LOVE Israel….but finally always admit to me that all the Jews who live there..are going to Hell because they have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.
Strange, when one thinks of it, because (and correct me if I’m wrong here), but wasn’t Jesus himself a Jew? 
Somehow I don’t think remember that in his final moments, he (all of a sudden) recanted his faith.
You’ve simply re-named him as the standard for “Christianity”....
but he was STILL a Jew when he was crusified.
Does ANYONE here find this a bit ODD….besides ME?
And then WHAT exactly do Christians call their idea that Jews go to Hell because of THEIR religious beliefs….and still call their philosphy one of “love”?
And don’t EVEN get me started on all the deaths caused in Iraq and Afghanistan in our “war on terror”!
Does the commandment “THOU SHALT NOT KILL” apply HERE…..
or, once again….is it just ME that’s crazy….and not all of you?

I will keep the month by praying for organizations like Courage, which help people with SSA live chaste lives

June is the month dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, all the more reason everyone reading this should do the Sacred Heart Novena in reparation for sins offending our beloved Christ. “And a sword will pierce your own soul too”. He allows for us to share in His suffering when we are saddend to hear such news as this.

I agree w/Fr. Deacon Daniel….the countdown to the next election. Unless the freedom to vote is also taken away by by 2012.  These issues are very important to the moral lifestyle of American.  Our Lord was never light on sin only the sinner.  The reason this man was voted in by so many Catholics is because they did not listen to his words and wanted to hear only what they wanted to hear. The suffering for our country due to our immorality, apathy and refusal to stand for Life is only beginning.

Donielle,

An excellent reminder!

While we do not have the Sacred Heart devotion per se, Christ is honored by the title “The Lover of Mankind” in the East. Here is a Byzantine Prayer service known as a “Moleben” dedicated to Christ by that title:

http://www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/MolebenJesusLoverOfMankind.pdf

Enjoy!

Donny,

“So WHY is it that whenever I talk to Christians about Israel…
well, they LOVE Israel….but finally always admit to me that all the Jews who live there..are going to Hell “

Well, you probably speak to confused Christians.  There seem to be as many of them as there are confused atheists, Muslims, agnostics (who are by definition confused), etc.

Christ is the only way to salvation.  You aren’t going to get to Heaven by any other path.  That being said, there will be people who love Christ without knowing His name.  There is sufficient grace in every man’s life for him to attain salvation.  If he cooperates with that grace, he will be loving Christ. 

The CCC says:

“”“839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.”“”

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

The confusion lies in how we get to heaven.  No man earns his way there.  Following the Torah is not, and never was, sufficient.  Salvation is only attainable through the infinite merits of Christ on the cross.

As for being a religion of love, we are.  We practitioners just fail again and again.  We are called to love every man, no matter how much of a monster he makes himself into.  That includes Osama bin Ladin. 

It is, however, important to note that saying that people will go to hell for sinning, is not a sign of a lack of love.  Sin is objectively an offense against Christ.  If a relationship with Christ is the only means of salvation, sin is a cancer.  If I love you, I must hate your sickness.

Well said, Red_Beard. It’s too bad many people who consider themselves Christians have been poorly formed and have decided to reject the teachings of the same Church they profess to be a part of. It’s like someone who wants to play in the NFL but has decided that there is no out of bounds and would prefer to run down the field in the opposite direction.

How can Catholics (the cream of pedophilia molestation) possibly hate homosexuals? I myself am not a homosexual fan, BUT I do believe they have the same fundamental rights we all have. In fact they are guaranteed them in our constitution. (That is unless you are UNAmerican).
You aren’t are you?

David Evoman,

We don’t hate homosexuals. Many have posted earlier saying the same thing. Our faith teaches us that the immoral act of homosexuality is gravely sinful just as it is to cheat on my wife. Red_Beard made a great point. Yes, Jesus reached out to the sinners and loved them. He also told them to sin no more.

You are right. As human beings we are all entitled to the same fundamental rights, but a right does not include license to act immorally. Constitution or not, I have no right to murder, have an affair, or take part in homosexual activity. I love this country and the Christian roots it has unfortunately strayed from, but I am a follower of Christ before I am a citizen of this or any country. I will give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and I will give to God what belongs to God.

Okay…
I’ve listened to your comments on homosexuality AND family values and the fact that Christians are full of love.
So WHY is it that whenever I talk to Christians about Israel…
well, they LOVE Israel….but finally always admit to me that all the Jews who live there..are going to Hell because they have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.
Strange, when one thinks of it, because (and correct me if I’m wrong here), but wasn’t Jesus himself a Jew?
Somehow I don’t think remember that in his final moments, he (all of a sudden) recanted his faith.
You’ve simply re-named him as the standard for “Christianity”....
but he was STILL a Jew when he was crusified.
Does ANYONE here find this a bit ODD….besides ME?
And then WHAT exactly do Christians call their idea that Jews go to Hell because of THEIR religious beliefs….and still call their philosphy one of “love”?
And don’t EVEN get me started on all the deaths caused in Iraq and Afghanistan in our “war on terror”!
Does the commandment “THOU SHALT NOT KILL” apply HERE…..
or, once again….is it just ME that’s crazy….and not all of you?

Donny Spunkmeister

You’ve probably been talking to a lot of Protestants. Catholic views, the Catholic Church being the only Church instituted by Christ with Apostolic authority correctly teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation. Anyone who knows that the Catholic Church is the true Church will go to hell. But there are many that do not know this or have not been properly shown why the Catholic faith is the true faith. But if they are sincere people who seek God then they are spiritually united with the Catholic Church. This extends to people of all faiths. Ultimately this is something only God will know when He judges them. But they are not saved because of their false faiths. They are saved by Christ despite their false faiths. And they will be saved because they truly desire to know God and the true faith and follow God’s law and His will whatever it may be. Thus at the moment of death they may be given the Baptism of desire by God’s grace and thus be united to the Catholic Church and thus saved. Only the Catholic Church and Christianity offers the assurance of salvation and the sacraments to acquire them. No other religion does.

Also your understanding of Christian theology is poor. Christ did no recant his faith. He is God and He fulfilled the promises of Judaism. Christ Himself established Apostles and sent them the Holy Spirit and commanded them to convert all before and after His Resurrection. Their mission was to convert the entire world to Christianity.

And the Bible’s commandment of “Thou shalt not Kill” is more accurately “Thou shalt not commit murder.” Military excursions are not murder and wars and military campaigns can be justified. For example, would you say it was wrong of the allies to fight against Nazi Germany and Hitler to stop them? The Church promotes peace but does not follow blind Pacifism. And there is nothing wrong with conducting wars against countries who acknowledging harbor terrorists and support terrorism. Whatever your issues with the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have nothing to do with Christian principles and unbiased history in the future will inevitably decide whether those wars are justified or not. I don’t know, but you’re pretty ignorant to blame the current wars on Christians.

“How can Catholics (the cream of pedophilia molestation) possibly hate homosexuals? I myself am not a homosexual fan, BUT I do believe they have the same fundamental rights we all have. In fact they are guaranteed them in our constitution. (That is unless you are UNAmerican).
You aren’t are you?”

David Evoman

First off Catholics are not the cream of pedophilia molestation. Protestants, and especially Public Schools, goverment officials and other institutions are guilty on a far larger scale of molestation, child abuse and other crimes, for which the current Catholic sex abuse scandal is only a drop in an ocean. Why aren’t you out there fighting against them, or are you a hypocrite?
Also the sex abuse crisis in the Church is not pedophilia (though there are indeed cases of pedophilia) but Ephebophilia, which is largely same sex attraction to post-pubescent and young men in their early-late teens, make up the vast majority of the cases, hence there are far more homosexual predators in the Church Scandal than heterosexual ones.
Homosexuals in society already HAVE all the same rights as everyone else. They are guaranteed to them in the US constitution and they have already had all of them. What they want now is to force a change in definition to marriage, and to create entirely new rights which NEVER existed before, and to force those who are opposed to homosexuality to accept them to the point where those who do not are openly persecuted. What happened to those people’s rights? Or are you advocating persecuting everyone who doesn’t support homosexuality for the sake of creating entire new non-existent rights and forcing your opinion on them and their children through indoctrination?

“Why is everyone so judgemental? I can’t believe people would stoop so low as to compare the LBGT community to rapists, killers, and thieves! Pure ignorance. I am a proud supporter of the GLGT community. Half of you probably work or are real close to someone who fits into this “category”. Open your eyes, its 2010! The GLBT community isn’t looking to date you so let them live their lives as they let you live yours! It saddens me that everyone who is quick to judge someone else is usually the first to be mad when someone judges them. Get over it, the GLBT community is alive and strong and they aren’t going anywhere! Like it or not!”

Supporter of the GLBT Community & Soldier in the U

God Himself, who created the world and gave us the moral law and defined marriage has judged homosexuality to be immoral and an abomination and for good logical reasons which the Catholic Church continues to teach to this day. Who are you to question this? When people make comparisons here to other crimes, it is to illustrate that President Obama is openly advocating a month to promote immorality. And if Obama is willing to contradict God on this issue, then why not the rest if he wants to be consistent? Whether we know someone close to us, and many of us do, even in our own families, is even mroe cause fo concern because we do not want these people to slip into further sin through homosexuality and because they are so attached to their sexual deviancy that they will reject God’s salvation and go to hell simply because it isn’t agreeable to their limited and sinful minds. You too will be judged by God for promoting homosexuality and sin, and when those people suffer for their sins they will stand before God and accuse you for encouraging them. Are you willing to take responsibility for your actions?

Here’s the social context of the “propaganda”, as stated by Obama.  Let me try to add italics for emphasis on key passages.

“We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are—whether it’s here in the United States or ... more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.”

Yes, there are people who target homosexual persons with demeaning stereotypes at best and physical assaults at worst.  Uganda is the elephant in the room. 

Oh, and please stop implying that Obama has a seething hatred for God.  And when did Obama ever indicate that he intends to take away the right to vote?

So, because we are in agreement that people with same-sex attraction should not be “targeted”, the argument goes that we must approve of their cancer, teach our children that sickness and depravity are good, and stand up in pride about this sexual deviancy?

This is a blatantly false dichotomy.  There are more than two choices.  It isn’t “beat, revile, and hate sexual deviants” vs. “celebrate deviancy, defend deviancy, and have the state indoctrinate our children that deviancy is good.” 

Personally, I will maintain that right is right and what is wrong is wrong no matter what the government says. 

I will teach my children the difference between the two. 

I will try (and probably repeatedly fail) to do what is right and to avoid what is wrong. 

I will respect those I love (hopefully everyone) enough to not lie to them by encouraging them in their sin.  If I love them, I must hate the cancer that is killing them.

All men sin.  All have a predisposition to sin.  What we must never have is an acceptance of sin.

We are called to persevere in our attempt to follow Christ, no matter how often we fall.

so this means that at least 50% of american catholics (CINOs) and Jesuit universities will be goose-stepping with their commander’s order.

Jimmy Akin wrote: “So there you have it. President Obama taking credit for all he has done to normalize the open practice of sexual deviancy in our society.”  Is that really Jimmy’s most charitable interpretation of President Obama’s remarks?  Imagine reading Jimmy’s own summary and concluding that (1) Jimmy Akin supports “crimes based on gender identity or sexual orientation”; (2) Jimmy Akin opposes “life saving medical services and support to Americans living with HIV/AIDS”; (3) Jimmy Akin opposes “hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds to give LGBT patients the compassion and security they deserve in their time of need”; (4) Jimmy Akin supports federal housing discrimination based on sexual orientation; (5) Jimmy Akin opposes “safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment”; and that (6)Jimmy Akin equates “sexual orientation” with “open practice of sexual deviancy”—and then declaring “So there you have it.”

I found the proclamation’s reference to HIV/AIDS interesting as well: for years we’ve been told it is a heterosexual disease and here it is in reference to the queer crowd.  Odd indeed but no odder than believing that political action is really an action.

“Jimmy Akin equates “sexual orientation” with “open practice of sexual deviancy””
—So there you have it

So you mean to say that all homosexuals vow to live chaste lives? Granted, there are heterosexuals who choose to live celibate lives (priests and consecrated singles), but isn’t the whole point of a person “discovering” their homosexuality and seeking social acceptance for this orientation come with the intent to engage in the act of homosexuality?

To answer your question: The problem of unjust discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation applies even to homosexual persons whose intent and efforts are to follow Church teaching.  People tend to judge other people by appearances and not justly.  God alone judges people justly.

it should be obvious to the most casual observer, that diest religion is under attack from many quarters. in egypt, the coptic church is being forced to undermine its religious beliefs to accept homosexuality and abortion under government decree: our president forces the government to intrude into the lives oa catholics, protestants and jews recognizing homosexual relationships and intruducing “hate” leglislation to be used against those whom don’t ascribe to this behavior. the bible, old and new testaments teach this behavior is condemned in the eyes of god. thisl means that the bible now becomes “hate speech.”
it looks like it soon will be time to return to the catacombs. (ali)

So will July be declared “Pro-pornography awareness month”?

“Posted by So there you have it on Thursday, Jun 3, 2010 8:09 PM (EST):
To answer your question: The problem of unjust discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation applies even to homosexual persons whose intent and efforts are to follow Church teaching.  People tend to judge other people by appearances and not justly.  God alone judges people justly.”

I totally agree with you. It is unjust to discriminate without just cause, but that has nothing to do with my question. I completely commend homosexuals that strive to follow Church teaching. Jimmy was not asserting that homosexual orientation absolutely means “open practice of sexual deviancy”. What he is saying is that with Obama proclaiming June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender “PRIDE” Month and saying that “we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple” is a full on endorsement to (now using Jimmy’s words) “normalize the open practice of sexual deviancy in our society.

Let me rephrase my question: By celebrating LGBT with “pride” are you assuming that committed gay couples are intending to follow Church teaching? It’s like declaring March as “Have-an-Affair” month and hoping no one cheats on their spouse.

Please don’t get trapped by the political rhetoric about fighting prejudice and discrimination. We already know that is wrong. We also objectively know that homosexual behavior is wrong.

You’re right, people can sometimes judge unjustly. Does that mean we stop judging immoral behavior? Should we just close all the courthouses? Yes, God is the just judge and He mercifully forgives those who are repentant. And our faith compels us out of charity to ask our brothers and sisters to repent of their homosexuality, not celebrate it with pride and encourage gay couples. I hope this makes sense to you. You’re in my prayers.

No, what you described about marriage falls separately under Jimmy’s “measures [Obama would] like to take in the future”.  I did not address that.  My post focused on what Jimmy described as “all [Obama] has done” in the past.  In that regard, your and Jimmy’s characterization of Obama’s words (“we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple”) as a “full on endorsement” to “normalize the open practice of sexual deviancy in our society” is another issue which I also question whether it’s the most charitable interpretation available. I say that because I’m not convinced President Obama equates civil marriage with a sex act, deviant or otherwise. I don’t know of any state which has legalized same-sex marriage that requires that the two people engage in any sex act, deviant or otherwise, or that the two persons even be sexually attracted to one another or to anyone at all for that matter. Last I heard, the law considers what someone does or doesn’t do in their bedroom to be a private matter and not an “open practice”. It’s surely not defined or required by a civil marriage license nor does anyone need a civil marriage license to engage in any sexual act.

You asked, “By celebrating LGBT with ‘pride’ are you assuming that committed gay couples are intending to follow Church teaching?” My answer is that what I know and don’t need to assume is that persons of the same sex, whether they’re “gay” or not, can be committed to one another and to Christ in keeping with Church teaching.  But no couple, whether same sex or opposite sex, is required by law to follow or intend to follow Church teaching. Thus, when it comes to assumptions, I don’t assume that same sex couples are going to follow Church teaching any better (or worse) than opposite sex couples, nor do I reduce a couple and their relationship (whether between themselves or to society) to nothing but a sex act.

Likewise, the word “pride” does not necessitate an evil interpretation or endorsement of deviant sexual acts and instead can and does mean that LGBT people don’t have to feel shame for their sexual orientation, which is not a sin. Such a message is/was important to many LGBT persons who by the time they became aware of their sexual orientation, they’d already been exposed to—and internalized—hostile, discriminatory, attitudes toward LGBT persons that are pervasive in society.

You talk about how you “already know that [unjust prejudice and discrimination] is wrong”, but talk is cheap. Until your every thought, word and action lives up to what you claim to know, you fall short. For example, one falls short when one, intentionally or not, equates gay people with immoral sexual acts. It’s as ridiculous as equating straight people with moral behavior.

I think that the US should have a national nutcase month too. Like, amnesia month or split-personality month, I’m not crazy… and I’m not either. We should celebrate all defects.

Regards, Bill Grouell

Dear So there you have it,
No state has to require two married people to engage in any sex act. It’s understood that it will most likely happen. Whether it does or not, we have a term in our faith called “the near occasion of sin”. Heterosexuals are not advised to live together even if the intention is to live chastely because it is a near occasion of sin and we all know that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. So in regards to gay couples, the same logic follows.
When you say “committed to one another” is that in the same fruitful manner that God intended where children will naturally be born out of them and whose right to a father and a mother will be honored? Because I can be committed to my dog insofar as I care for it and enjoy his company. It is true, there is no law requiring anyone to follow Church teaching. But why would someone want to be Catholic and not follow the teachings of the same Church they profess? It’s like wanting to be a citizen of the United States and only wanting to follow the laws that fit my fancy.
Granted there are many, many Catholic (in name only) heterosexual couples who could care less about Church teaching, but if they were validly married in the Church, their potential for sin is greatly reduced compared to a gay couple who says they intend to follow Church teaching because of the aforementioned near occasion of sin.
You’re right, marriage is more than conjugal love, but it is a necessary part for those who are able for we are called to be fruitful and open to bearing and bringing up children. Why? If you’re familiar with Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, we are made for love, spiritually and physically. How? As a reflection of the Holy Trinity. The love between the Father and the Son is so great that it is another Person, the Holy Spirit. That is the ultimate fruitful love that we are called to mirror in our lives. Physically we are built to reflect that. Yes, there are some that cannot bear children, but the human race would have become extinct if two opposite sex persons did not come together in the marital embrace revealing in a small way the fruitful love in the Holy Trinity.
I did not say that gay people must feel shame for their orientation. Obama’s use of pride in this case sends a message to everyone that if you are attracted to someone of the same sex, you should and ought to follow through with that feeling and not feel ashamed for doing so. If these same gay people are Catholic and want to follow the Church’s teachings then they would agree that dedicating a whole month to celebrate a way of life is not congruent with the faith at all. Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church loves homosexual people. So much so that she wants them to go to heaven. Paragraph 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says “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.” If anything we should be dedicating a month to chastity for gay and straight, single and married. It truly is the path the Christian perfection.
You’re right. Talk is cheap. However, knowledge of the truth is the first step towards conversion. We are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God, as St. Paul says. That’s why I’m Catholic. Forgiveness and healing await the moment I sin. And the wonderful Sacrament of Confession is such a blessing for a sinner like me. Oh, how I wish everyone would take advantage of this great gift of mercy. You see, by the mere fact that I am a sinner, and a grievous one at that, can I can boldly exhort all my fellow sinners gay and straight to repent and get right with God for I have experienced His healing mercy.

You wrote that “in regards to gay couples, the same logic follows [regarding the near occasion of sin]”.  Your logic is faulty.  Just because two men or two women live together doesn’t necessitate any likelihood of a near occasion of sin.  Not even if they’re gay.  That someone is homosexual doesn’t mean he/she is attracted to everyone of the same sex, not even to most people of the same sex, or even to the person with whom he/she lives.  For example, there are many gay couples who at some time in the past had been sexually attracted to one another but are no longer sexually attracted to one another and have no likelihood of a near occasion of sin. For many, their likelihood of sin could or would be greater if they weren’t living together as a couple.  Yes, there are also many same sex couples who live in near occasion of sin or who may sin, but much as some people like to pretend otherwise, that’s also true of married opposite sex couples, even in regard to sexual sins, not to mention all the other sins too.

And no, it’s NOT understood that “it will most likely happen” because of a civil marriage. What’s understood is that the civil marriage is legally valid without a sex act, and that people may legally engage in sexual acts with whomever they please, whether they’re civilly married to one another or not.  If “it” happens, it happens, but there is no understanding that it’s because of a civil marriage. You religion may add additional understandings and expectations concerning marriage, but that’s your religion and not the state or civil marriage.

You asked, “When you say ‘committed to one another’ is that in the same fruitful manner that God intended where children will naturally be born out of them and whose right to a father and a mother will be honored?” The Church does not teach that God intends that all who are committed to one another bear biological children. Of course, many who are in a committed same sex relationship do care for their biological children while the absent opposite sex parent may have abandoned them, be dead, etc.

You asked, “But why would someone want to be Catholic and not follow the teachings of the same Church they profess?”  As I said, I don’t assume that same sex couples are (not) going to follow Church teaching any better (or worse) than opposite sex couples.  Persons of the same sex, whether they’re “gay” or not, can be committed to one another and to Christ in keeping with Church teaching.

You wrote, “conjugal love… is a necessary part for those who are able for we are called to be fruitful and open to bearing and bringing up children.” Civil marriage is not the marriage you speak of.  Conjugal love is not a necessary part of civil marriage.  There is no threat of extinction because some people do not bear children.  Indeed, it can be advantageous that some do not bear children while others do.

You wrote, “Obama’s use of pride in this case sends a message to everyone that if you are attracted to someone of the same sex, you should and ought to follow through with that feeling and not feel ashamed for doing so.” You’re wrong.  It doesn’t send that message to everyone.  The message you describe comes from within you.  And if it’s your interpretation that Obama’s message is that everyone should have sex with whoever they’re attracted to, I don’t find that interpretation to be charitable or believable.

You speak of Obama “dedicating a whole month to celebrate a way of life” but the celebration in President Obama’s declaration was “This month… we recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans… LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.”  That’s the celebration he spoke of.

This is actually very instructive. Pay close attention to this colloquy between “So there you have it” and “YesOn8.” Almost a classic policy debate. But it is also very theological. One side trying through sophistry, misleading argument, and fallacy mixed with a measure of truth to deny that this proclamation endorses sin; the other showing patiently, point by point, that it is in fact inimical to Christian teaching. I can almost imagine a Pharisee debating Paul, or something. You can see how falsehood can be dressed up prettily to appear quite reasonable.

Don’t fall for it, folks.

Phil, Obama’s proclamation contains no express or literal endorsement of any sexual act, and beyond that, charity commands that I ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to his statement than to condemn it.  If you choose not to, that’s your choice.  I do not deny you your choice.

Spoken like an attorney. Sort of depends on what your definition of “charity” is, huh? Or “pride”?

You gotta be kidding me.

Did you know that the Japanese diplomatic message delivered in Washington on December 1941 did not contain any express or literal statement of bellicose intent? Charity demanded that we would give it a favorable interpretation and deem it not to be a declaration of war. Oops.

Sometimes the truth is right in front of your face; either you see it or you don’t. That’s your choice, So.

Dear Phil

I appreciate your keen observation of the exchange I’ve been having with “So there you have it”. “So” and I will have to agree to disagree. As you can see it is a matter of interpretation. It’s very similar to conversations with Protestant brothers and sisters. Not until a person is ready to see things with the eyes of faith and remove the blurry spectacles shrewdly placed on us by society, the media, and even our own government can authentic Catholicism make any sense. Just as Jesus said, this faith is a stumbling block and seen as folly to many. It’s interesting how our schools echo the rhetoric to “think for yourself” and “question authority” but they fail to mention that one can only do so with a firm foundation of truth (which can even be attained by non-believers and they will be a truth unto themselves as St. Paul said). The Obama campaign’s clarion call “Yes we can!” begs the question, “But ought we?”. The discarding of absolute truth has been the great undoing of our society where tolerance and political correctness have been elevated to virtues. To your WWII example, you can see that there are things that we absolutely cannot tolerate and intolerance would be the virtuous response. All I can do is plant the seeds of truth. It’s up to our Good Lord from there. Some will respond early in the morning and others in the last shift of the day, but all these will be given the same gift of saving grace.

Dear So There You Have It,

I thoroughly enjoyed our conversion, but as I mentioned we will have to agree to disagree. I can only encourage you to continue seeking out the truth. You’ve started in the right place here at the National Catholic Register. Jimmy Akin’s employer Catholic Answers is a great resource at www.catholic.com. Their Q&A shows are great. If you don’t have it already, get a copy of the Catechism of Catholic Church. There are also some Church documents on Catholic social teaching that can help with the topic at hand. Lastly, please pray for me as I will for you. Only by the grace of God have I been afforded the gift of truth. And as you said, living it out is then the greater challenge. God Bless.

Obama has not launched military invasions.  He hasn’t promoted an ethnic imperial agenda.  He is very much unlike Tojo.

Phil, you wrote that “Charity demanded that we would give it a favorable interpretation and deem it not to be a declaration of war. Oops. Sometimes the truth is right in front of your face; either you see it or you don’t. That’s your choice.”

That reminds of the teaching of St. Thomas:

“Objection 1. It would seem that doubts should not be interpreted for the best. Because we should judge from what happens for the most part. But it happens for the most part that evil is done… Therefore doubts should be interpreted for the worst rather than for the best.

Reply to Objection 1. He who interprets doubtful matters for the best, may happen to be deceived more often than not; yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man, because in the latter case an injury is inflicted, but not in the former.”

And that reminds of a woman with a life threatening pregnancy who might not choose to “interpret doubtful matters for the best” and instead chooses to abort “judging from what happens for the most part”.

I think what you’re saying is that Aquinas said to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt. That’s fine. Aquinas never said we should suspend critical thinking.

We may not know if Barack Obama regards homosexual behavior as sinful, as the Church teaches. We do know for certain that he believes homosexuality should be placed on an equal legal, moral, and ethical footing with heterosexuality. If that is not obvious to you from his statements, including this one, then even knowing the entire Summa by heart will not help you. Again I would stress the essence of the Christian message: love the sinner but hate the sin. Mercy to the individual, as God grants us mercy, and firm opposition to evil, as God judges us justly.

May God be with you.

Phil, Obama’s statement makes no mention of homosexual sex acts nor is any homosexual act required of anyone to honor his request “upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.”

Had he honored the contributions of obese Americans, would you claim he’s obviously endorsing gluttony?  Had he honored Jewish Americans, would you claim he’s obviously endorsing denial of Christ?  Had he honored immigrant Americans, would you claim he’s obviously endorsing illegal immigration?  Most every group of people has some negative association with wrongdoing.  Doesn’t mean LGBT Americans are any more evil than Catholic Americans.  As you said, love the sinner but hate the sin.  Obama can love LGBT people, “recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans” and that “LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life” and respect their equal dignity.  That doesn’t require that he endorse their sins or yours.

You write, “We do know for certain that he believes…”  No, “we” don’t know for certain what he believes.  I’m not even certain that he knows for certain what he believes.  Not from his short statement.

So,

Are you suggesting that Obama is only honoring homosexuals, bisexuals, and crossdressers who abstain from sexual acts?

Interesting that you compared homosexuals and other sexual orientations to obese people.

Are you implying that homosexual acts are disordere, as gluttony is disordered against nature?

that should be “disordered”

I am going to have to leave this discussion but let me just say this. There is no doubt whatsoever that President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to full normalization of homosexuality in American culture. The references to this in policy statements, platforms, legislation, executive orders, and proclamations such as this is incontrovertible. The same may be said of their commitment to abortion. The Church denounces both the practice of abortion and homosexual acts as contrary to God’s law.The Church also prays for those who engage in these activities, that they may recognize that what they are doing is wrong, repent and renounce depravity. We as Catholics must oppose any attempt to “mainstream” depravity. We tolerate it while we work to defeat it, in ourselves and in the society at large. Don’t bow to the spirit of the age; it is always perverted. Stand firm in your faith and fight evil wherever it surfaces. And yes, pray for the grace to love even your enemies.

So, you are defending the indefensible. You seem to be saying that Obama is simply inviting us to recognize and be proud of Americans who happen to be homosexual. You can’t be serious. The proclamation evokes pride for a particular identity—homosexuality—an identity that is condemned by all our moral and religious teaching. It is a statement of praise, support, and solidarity with that identity. It even uses the established acronyms, set phrasings, and policy points used by gay activists. If Obama wanted to, he could have made a statement in favor of tolerance and non-discrimination in general, or he could have said that while we find some behaviors repugnant we should be tolerant of differing lifestyles, etc.

If you have any doubt about this, just try this test: substitute “Pedophile” (the abhorrence du jour, Catholic-wise) for homosexual or BLT or whatever, and make the necessary changes in the boilerplate text as you could imagine them. Would you have any doubt that the statement endorses pedophilia or such practices? Would have any doubt that the office that issues it wants to see the practice normalized? Or would you continue to maintain that it’s all about agape and understanding, and can we all just move on? Here’s a choice for you: A Church that fights the good fight, challenges evil with the Gospel of Christ at all times, or a Church that sits on its duff, goes with the trendy flow, and dies a shabby death. Think I’m exagerrating? Check out the (former) Protestant mainline churches.

The President calls, “. . . upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.”  Why limit the requested behavior to this month?

The self proclaimed “king” of the United States has no authority, or right for that matter, to impose his so-called beliefs on others especially when he doesn’t practice what he preaches. Spending 20 years in a “church” that preaches hatred against whites does not demonstrate his tolerance toward people different than himself.

How about a Church that stands firmly for the Gospel—yet also reaches out to the Other, tries to understand the Other as human brethren, and invites the Other to the Gospel?  The “spirit of the age” does have redeeming qualities—e.g. opposition to exterminating entire blocs of the populace or turning them into subhuman slaves.  Most human beings are not evil.

I should have added that I won’t type more and risk turning into a bloviator.  I simply ask that all people try to go towards God together.

Liseux, you asked, “Are you suggesting that Obama is only honoring homosexuals, bisexuals, and crossdressers who abstain from sexual acts?”

If Obama were to honor any group of people, whether it’s LGBT Americans, Irish Americans, or scientists or whomever, I would seek to interpret it as his honoring them for what is honorable about them not their sins.  For example, if he were honoring American scientists, I wouldn’t expect that he’s only honoring sinless scientists but is honoring scientists in respect to their honorable achievements and contributions to America and as human beings, and that would indeed mean he was honoring scientists who have engaged in masturbation, fornication, adultery, contraception, homosexuality, heresy, calumny, skipping Mass, child molestation and a very long list of sins.  The same would apply to Obama honoring LGBT Americans.  Indeed, I can read Obama’s statement and find: “This month, as we recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans” and “LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.  From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline.”  Notably, I can also read Obama’s statement about LGBT Americans as honoring them as human beings, and hence he stated: “They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors.”

Whether it’s scientists, LGBT Americans or Irish Americans, they can all be honored without honoring a sex act.  There are many LGBT Americans who are married to someone of the opposite sex.  There are others who are virgins.  They are others who have sinned in the past but have repented.  There are LGBT Americans who are emotionally or romantically attracted to someone of the same sex but are not sexually attracted to them.  LGBT Americans is a diverse group.

You asked, “Interesting that you compared homosexuals and other sexual orientations to obese people. Are you implying that homosexual acts are disordere, as gluttony is disordered against nature?”

What I’m implying is that while many obese people may engage in gluttony, there are also many obese people who do not or who engage in it no more than someone who is skinny.  Likewise, there are many LGBT Americans who do not engage in homosexuality or who might engage in it no more than many non-LGBT Americans.  It would be sinful for me to equate obese people or LGBT people with a sinful act.

Phil, you wrote, “The proclamation evokes pride for a particular identity—homosexuality—an identity that is condemned by all our moral and religious teaching.”  If that’s what it evokes in you, that’s what it evokes in you, but homosexuality is not an “identity”.  Rather, it refers to particular sexual acts.  Meanwhile, the proclamation is in regard to LGBT Americans, which is not the same thing.  Church teaching does not condemn LGBT Americans.

You wrote, “If Obama wanted to, he could have made a statement in favor of tolerance and non-discrimination in general”.  Yes, he could have, but it wouldn’t specifically underscore the intolerance and discrimination society has long targeted LGBT Americans.  Discrimination is inherently non-general.  It’s targeted.

You wrote, “he could have said that while we find some behaviors repugnant we should be tolerant of differing lifestyles, etc.”  He could have said anything, but given your expressed contempt towards Obama and Demoncrats, what difference would it have made to you?

You wrote, “If you have any doubt about this, just try this test: substitute ‘Pedophile’... Would you have any doubt that the statement endorses pedophilia or such practices?  Would have any doubt that the office that issues it wants to see the practice normalized?”

A pedophile is not a practice.  A pedophile is a person who suffers from pedophilia, a diagnosed mental disorder involving non-consenting little children.  I actively support and honor pedophiles as human beings and the good they do.  I do not support or honor child molestation.  I’m opposed to any unjust discrimination towards pedophiles, such as that which may stem from a failure to distinguish between the pedophile as a person and the act of child molestation.  Perhaps Obama is too.

However, few pedophiles are “out” today, but perhaps someday that may be different.  Perhaps then, some president will declare, “Pedophile Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.  From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, pedophile individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline.  They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors.”

So,

No matter how fast you dance with your portrayals, the president is honoring homosexuals, bisexuals, crossdressers, and et. al.

For him to only honor homosexuals, et. al. who do not commit homosexual acts is silly.

So, carry on with your odd ignoring of what is obvious…..  I refuse to partake in your ridiculous word games.

That homosexual acts go against the natural law is obvious, because the parts don’t fit toghether- catch my drift?

When you break the natural law, it comes back to break you, and our President, Barack Hussein Obama, is planting the seeds for much destruction in this country.

“Whether it’s scientists, LGBT Americans or Irish Americans, they can all be honored without honoring a sex act.”

This is absolutely ridiculous.

A gay man, with no other information provided can be celebrated for being gay or celebrated for being a man.  Those are the only two details we have about him.

To celebrated LGBT Americans means to either celebrate Americans or to celebrate LGBT.  Based on the context, there is no rational way you can say that it is to celebrate Americans.  Please stop actively abusing the English language

The equivalent would be to say that “Black History Month” is just about history and nothing about blacks.  Such a statement is utterly irrational.  A little honesty would be very refreshing.

“If that’s what it evokes in you, that’s what it evokes in you, but homosexuality is not an “identity”.  Rather, it refers to particular sexual acts. “

Again, this is silly.  In Obama’s statements, he applies the terms as adjectives of people, not as adjectives of acts. 

Why is there so much dishonesty?

Obama made his position and intention entirely clear.  Those who twist the language to assuage their consciences do a discourtesy to him, those they debate, and even themselves.

Please stop twisting his very plain words.

Liseux, you wrote, “the president is honoring homosexuals, bisexuals, crossdressers, and et. al.”

Obviously, as he’s honoring LGBT people, that refers collectively to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.  They are LGBT people not because of their acts but because of their attractions.

You wrote, “For him to only honor homosexuals, et. al. who do not commit homosexual acts is silly.”

As I said, it would be like him only honoring those American scientists or those Irish Americans who’ve never committed a sin.  If he were to only honor people who’d never committed a sin, he could never honor any scientists or Irish people or Catholics.  Instead, as I said, as he said, he’s honoring a diverse group of Americans in respect to their honorable achievements and contributions to America and as human beings.  And he can rightly do that because LGBT Americans and sinful acts are not the same thing.

Again, LGBT Americans and sinful acts are not the same thing.  LGBT Americans are human beings, not sex acts.  LGBT Americans don’t have to sin to be LGBT Americans.  They are LGBT Americans not because of their acts but because of their attractions.  And no sex act, other than the one that led to someone’s birth, is required to be a LGBT American.

So there you have it,

You are not correct.  A gay man is a man who is defined, or rather has defined himself, by his sexual orientation.  A man with same sex attraction, who chooses to not define himself by his disordered passions would not be “gay” in the common sense.

  There is a difference between a man who lacks courage and a coward.  The former is a shortcoming, and all of us have similar shortcomings, but it includes the potential for striving to overcome it.  The later is an accepted and embraced identity.

Make no mistake, Gay pride month exists solely to celebrate the identity.

I agree, Red Beard, that Gay pride month exists to celebrate identity.

For Obama to proclaim Gay Pride month and not refer to or include those who are proud of having homosexual sex is bizarre, to say the least.

I shant participate in So There You Have It’s bizarre abuse of logic and common sense.

Red_Beard, you wrote, “A gay man, with no other information provided can be celebrated for being gay or celebrated for being a man.”

First of all, it is not “a” gay man that Obama’s declaration celebrates, but “LGBT Americans” collectively.  Second, it’s neither just because they’re LGBT or just because they’re Americans that he’s celebrating, but also because of their contributions to the nation and because they’re fellow human beings, and because/in light of the discrimination and prejudice.  Third, and similarly, he celebrates not just that they’re LGBT or just that they’re Americans, but with respect to their “immeasurable contributions” and how they’ve “enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life”, and that they’re human beings with equal dignity.

You wrote, “The equivalent would be to say that ‘Black History Month’ is just about history and nothing about blacks.”

That’s your strawman.  I’ve never said Obama’s declaration about LGBT Americans is just about Americans or just about gay/LGBT.

You wrote, “In Obama’s statements, he applies the terms as adjectives of people, not as adjectives of acts.”

Exactly, in Obama’s statement, the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender are used as adjectives of people, not as adjectives of sex acts.  Lesbian, gay and bisexual people are lesbian, gay and bisexual people because of their unchosen attractions, not because of their willed acts.  To compare, “homosexuality” is not an adjective; it is a noun referring to sex acts.  And Obama did not use that term, as his declaration is not about sex acts.

You wrote, “You are not correct.  A gay man is a man who is defined, or rather has defined himself, by his sexual orientation.”

If by “defined” you mean the term “gay man” has the common sense definition of a man who experiences a same-sex sexual orientation, then yes.  But, in the common sense definition of the term, he’s nonetheless gay whether or not he, as an act of his will, defines himself as such.  Rather, he’s gay because of his unchosen sexual orientation.  As such, “gay” is not his “identity” any more than tall, red haired or happy is his identity.  Accordingly, if a man happens to say “I’m gay” or “I’m a gay man”, I don’t assume anything more than that he’s saying he’s a man who, whether he likes it or not, experiences “an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men”, or in the words of the Church, a man “who experiences an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”.  Who wants to say all those words?  I don’t assume his words mean he’s claiming he’ll always be gay or that he’s chosen to be gay or that he likes it, just that’s what he experiences.

You wrote, “A man with same sex attraction, who chooses to not define himself by his disordered passions would not be ‘gay’ in the common sense.”

No, as I’ve shown, he’s gay in the common sense of the term because of his sexual orientation, i.e. his attraction(s) to the same sex, which is generally considered to be unchosen by him.

Ok, I know I should let this go as it won’t do any good to explain the same things over and over but I guess I am too stubborn for my own good.

“”“First of all, it is not “a” gay man that Obama’s declaration celebrates, but “LGBT Americans” collectively”””

That was a limited example to express the point.  Now that you understand my point, let’s apply it.  “LGBT Americans” can potentially be celebrated for being “LGBT,” or for being “Americans,” or of course, the correct intention in English, for being Americans who are LGBT.  If this part of the English language is too confusing,  then please don’t bother reading on. 

“”“Second, it’s neither just because they’re LGBT or just because they’re Americans that he’s celebrating, but also because of their contributions to the nation…”””

This isn’t “anti prejudice and discrimination month.”  It isn’t “Fellow Americans that contribute to the nation month.”  And it isn’t “Fellow human beings month.”  We can agree that these things are all good, just as we can agree that there is a lot of good in all men, no matter their confused identity, but they are filler points, not the main point.  This is “LGBT Pride month.”  Where you are called to have “pride” in “LGBT.”  Again, the language is plain. 

Your third point is a rewording of your second point.  We agree that “person” is worth taking pride in, but again, that isn’t the point that Obama is making.

“””I’ve never said Obama’s declaration about LGBT Americans is just about Americans or just about gay/LGBT.”””

No, but you are strenuously trying to argue that it really has nothing to do with LGBT and that therefore, we shouldn’t be worried about it.

“”“To compare, “homosexuality” is not an adjective; it is a noun referring to sex acts.”””

“Homosexuality” ends in “ity” and refers to a quality or a state of being.  It is an abuse of the language, although a more and more common one, to use it to refer to the acts.  This is a finer point, go ask an English teacher if you don’t get it.

“”“But, in the common sense definition of the term, he’s nonetheless gay whether or not he, as an act of his will, defines himself as such.”””

And this is the crux of your misunderstanding.  I think it is an honest one, but you are allowing it to twist everything else to cram this idea into your reading of Obama’s words.  As an adjective, it is true that there is a sense that anyone who suffers from a same sex attraction can be referred to as “gay.”  Another sense is an identity, not just an adjective, rather THE adjective that defines the person.  It is the only sense that can be applied to a community, and not just an individual.  It is also pretty much the only sense you will ever hear invoked by politicians or the media.  This is most evidently clear when you hear the term “the gay community.” 

The “gay man” who strives to live a Christian life, is not a part of “the gay community.”

If Obama had “coward pride month”  You would be standing up saying things that everyone should agree with: “cowards are people; cowards contribute to society; cowards have dignity and should be treated with respect;” etc.  We all agree!

The point is, that you don’t have the slightest idea of what “coward pride month” means.  We aren’t celebrating the good that the 1000 particular cowards do in our society.  We are celebrating the thing that cowards have that other Americans don’t.  We are putting cowardice itself forward as a thing to take pride in.  We are celebrating that which makes cowards cowards. 

What “coward pride month” most emphatically does NOT mean, is: “lets celebrate people who happen to be cowards, even through it may be bad to be a coward, but, hey, cowards are people and it’s ok to take pride in people month.”

The problem is that, although a coward has many things he can legitimately take pride in, cowardice itself is a fault, a flaw, a weakness, and a wound.  You don’t take pride in bad things!

Red_Beard, you wrote, “‘LGBT Americans’ can potentially be celebrated for being ‘LGBT,’ or for being ‘Americans,’ or of course, the correct intention in English, for being Americans who are LGBT.”

LGBT Americans are not being celebrated just for being Americans who are LGBT and/or just for being LGBT and/or just for being Americans.  Obama’s declaration also expressly celebrates them for their “immeasurable contributions” and how they “have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life” and for their “success and prominence in every discipline” and for their patriotism and more.

You wrote, “This isn’t ‘anti prejudice and discrimination month.’”

While the title of the month isn’t “anti prejudice and discrimination month”, the substance of the month includes as Obama expressly declared: “I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.”

You wrote, “It isn’t ‘Fellow Americans that contribute to the nation month.’

Again, despite the title, Obama’s declaration expressly states: “This month, as we recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans…”

You wrote, “anti prejudice and discrimination… are filler points, not the main point.”

They’re not filler.  It’s his central and final request.  Obama’s has TWO main points between “NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America” and “IN WITNESS THEREOF”.  Those two points are: (1) The title of the month: “hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month”; and (2) the request for the month: “I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.”

You wrote, “you are strenuously trying to argue that it really has nothing to do with LGBT and that therefore, we shouldn’t be worried about it.”

Wrong.  It has everything to do with respect for LGBT persons, from their contributions to the problem of prejudice and discrimination towards them specifically because they are LGBT.

You wrote, “It is an abuse of the language, although a more and more common one, to use [“homosexuality”] to refer to the acts.  This is a finer point, go ask an English teacher if you don’t get it.”

I did ask, and it was the English professors and linguists who told me that “homosexuality” has become the preferred term to use to refer to the sexual acts.  In addition, the Church herself teaches that “homosexuality refers to [sexual] relations…” which my handy dictionaries say means sexual activity.  And though you call it an abuse of the language, it is the language, whether you like it or not.

You wrote, “Another sense [of the word “gay”] is an identity… It is the only sense that can be applied to a community, and not just an individual.”

No, the people alleged to be in the so-called “community” are not there by choice of any kind.  It’s a fictional community in the mind of the person who uses the term, like a statistical pool of all people with diabetes.  No particular identity of any kind is required by the people with diabetes to be in the fictional “diabetes community”.  They themselves don’t even have to know they have “diabetes” per se, though they experience it, much less have chosen to adopt any “identity” over it.  That’s what the so-called “gay community” is like.  I can and do refer to the so-called “gay community” as referring to the set of all people who experience same-sex orientation—even if they “choose to not define themselves by their passions” or they deny it or are in the closet about it or whatever.  Likewise, if I were to recognize the “short person community” and yet some particular woman doesn’t personally choose to recognize herself as a short person for whatever ideological reasons she may have, that doesn’t mean I’m not recognizing her anyway.  Whom I recognize is up to the facts, not up to the choice of whomever I recognize.  In other words, I’m not identifying people who themselves have chosen to identity as LGBT people.  I’m the one identifying them and I’m doing so by the fact of their sexual orientation.  They are thus in my “community” whether they like it or not, and there’s no opt in and no opt out.  That’s the so-called “gay community”.  You can call it an abuse of the term “community”, but I tell you what: the “community” doesn’t care.

And I’ll add that the law also doesn’t care whether the person chooses a “gay identity”.  The anti-discrimination laws are written with the term “sexual orientation”.  For example, as Obama said, “HUD announced a series of proposals to ensure core housing programs are open to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.”  And so when Obama next said, “HUD also announced the first ever national study of discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the rental and sale of housing”, the reality is that the study is also actually about discrimination based on sexual orientation, and not limited to persons who’ve chosen “gay identity”.

You wrote, “The point is, that you don’t have the slightest idea of what ‘coward pride month’ means. We aren’t celebrating the good that the 1000 particular cowards do in our society.”

Nonsense.  Obama’s declaration expressly states that “this month we recognize” the contributions and that they’ve enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life, their success and prominence in every discipline, their patriotism and more.  Most people consider such things to be “goods”.

You wrote, “What ‘coward pride month’ most emphatically does NOT mean, is: ‘lets celebrate people who happen to be cowards, even through it may be bad to be a coward, but, hey, cowards are people and it’s ok to take pride in people month.”

No.  People indeed “happen” to be LGBT.  It is generally not considered a chosen thing, and that’s one of the core claims that’s been historically repeated in the political context of LGBT people and discrimination, particularly by liberal Democrats.  Also, Obama’s statement makes no mention of whether it’s good or bad to be LGBT, and he doesn’t just say LGBT Americans are wonderful simply because they’re people but shares his pride in the fact that they are contributors to us all in many ways.

So there you have it,

There have been a lot electrons tortured in this thread so far and you still won’t speak plainly about what you actually mean.

If I can just summarize your point, it would be that: “LGBT Pride month
doesn’t involve taking pride in LGBT” 

  Is that an accurate summary?

PS - why do you keep coming back to whether or not they choose it? 

You keep attacking a position I’m not taking.

Do you think most cowards say, “Hmm, cowardice is something I’d like to foster right now; I’ll pick that.”?

I agree, Red Beard rocks!

Touche, Red.

You are so correct and logical.

If one logically follows So’s thought, he argues that what Obama is asking us to celebrate is ANTI Gay Pride Month.  There would be no pride in the gay identity.  That’s a bummer for them!

Thus, So’s points actually do a discourtesy to Obama’s labor. (He’s trying to hard, that he’s actually making your point.)

Red_Beard, you asked, “f I can just summarize your point, it would be that: ‘LGBT Pride month doesn’t involve taking pride in LGBT’ Is that an accurate summary?”

As we’ve covered, “LGBT” is an adjective, and for example, “taking pride in gay” makes no particular sense.  If instead you mean “taking pride in LGBT Americans” and their contributions, I think one can reasonably and charitably interpret his declaration in that regard.  But as to saying that Obama’s “LGBT Pride Month” is taking pride in homosexual sex acts or pride in an inclination towards them, then no, I would need very clear and convincing proof of that.

You asked, “why do you keep coming back to whether or not they choose it?”

You had continued to raise your “identity” concern by which you previously claimed: “A man with same sex attraction, who chooses to not define himself by his disordered passions would not be ‘gay’ in the common sense.”

To remind, I do not define “gay” in that manner, nor is the common, everyday, ordinary meaning of “gay” defined in that manner.  Rather, it’s by the person’s sexual orientation regardless of what he chooses to define himself by.  And that remains the case even when a politician uses a collection of terms to perhaps get the fullness of his message across or to reach a fuller, broader audience.

“”“As we’ve covered, “LGBT” is an adjective, and for example, “taking pride in gay” makes no particular sense.”“”

Taking pride in “gayness” does make sense.  (it is a bad idea, but a reasonable concept)  Just as one can be proud of one’s blue eyes, one’s red hair, ones short temper, or any other charecteristic that can be described with an adjective.

“”“If instead you mean “taking pride in LGBT Americans” and their contributions, I think one can reasonably and charitably interpret his declaration in that regard.”“”

You say charitable, I say imprecise and inconsistent.  The only reason that the adjective is used is as a modifier; as a means of differentiation.  The only difference between “Americans” and “LGBT Americans” are the “LGBT-ness” or “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT.”  (I think the coward example above was particularly clear)

If you aren’t going to be differentiating between LGBT Americans and other Americans, then the modifier LGBT is superfluous.  It isn’t needed.  This means that “LGBT pride month” is “pride month.” 

Obama isn’t declaring “pride month.”  He clearly intends for the adjective LGBT to be applied (that is why he applied it).

This makes my best possible understanding of your position as: “a month to take pride in aspects of LGBT Americans personalities or the contributions that LGBT Americans make to our society just so long as you leave out anything that can honestly be qualified as LGBT about them.”

This isn’t a charitable reading of the term “LGBT pride month.”  It is an irrational reading.

Red_Beard, you wrote, “Taking pride in “gayness” does make sense.”

Could be, but you wrote “pride in gay” rather than “pride in gayness” (whatever that is).

You wrote, “The only difference between ‘Americans’ and ‘LGBT Americans’ are the ‘LGBT-ness’ or ‘that which makes these particular Americans LGBT.’”

That’s incorrect.  The mere fact that we’re dealing with two groups of people is a substantial difference between them, even if they were both or neither LGBT.  For example, what they do (e.g.their contributions) and how they’re treated are also different, as is how many there are, their ages, incomes, locations, education, families, genetics, environment, history, cultures, etc.  That’s not just their “LGBT-ness”.  It’s also their “non-LGBTness”.  In effect, it’s everything.

You wrote, “If you aren’t going to be differentiating between LGBT Americans and other Americans, then the modifier LGBT is superfluous.”

The modifier “LGBT” is not so much superfluous as it’s inadequate for the task you’re attempting.  What’s more, Obama’s LGBT Pride Month is not about a month spent differentiating between Americans and LGBT Americans so much as appreciating that that they are Americans.

You wrote, “just so long as you leave out anything that can honestly be qualified as LGBT about them.”

That’s your strawman.  But then, you don’t fully comprehend what you say, and so I do not expect that you comprehend what I say.

You wrote, “This makes my best possible understanding of your position as… It is an irrational reading.”

You limit yourself, and the result is your own irrationality.  You’ll have to overcome yourself to understand my position.

So wrote: “What’s more, Obama’s LGBT Pride Month is not about a month spent differentiating between Americans and LGBT Americans so much as appreciating that that they are Americans.”

Just the fact that you add LGBT in front of Americans marks the fact that YOU wish to distinguish their difference.

We appreciate the fact that they are Americans already. Pointing out their LGBT is unnecesarry, according to your logic.

“””Could be, but you wrote “pride in gay”“””

Ok, now you are making weird statements and then you are applying your statements to me.  Please reread this thread.  You are the only one who wrote “pride in gay.”  It is your weird term, not mine.

“”“The mere fact that we’re dealing with two groups of people is a substantial difference between them, even if they were both or neither LGBT. … In effect, it’s everything.”””

This is true but utterly irrelevant to the point at hand. 

Sue and Sam are different.  Sam has blue eyes, is male, and likes ice-cream.  Sue has brown eyes, is female, and doesn’t like ice-cream. 

If we talk about the differences between Sue and Sam as people, we can talk about all three.  All three are applicable to this universe of discourse.

If we talk about “Male pride” or “Female pride,” the only difference that is applicable is difference #2; their gender.  If we are talking about “ice cream lovers pride” the only difference that is applicable is #3.  If we start debating that blue eyes are better with a “blue eye pride month,” then the only difference that matters in that context is difference #1; their eye color.

My 4 year old understands this concept, you must be thinking too hard.

If you have two groups, say male persons and female persons, there is some discriminator that allows you to say that person “A” is in group 1 and not in group 2; in this example, gender.  “Female person pride” would be Sue taking pride in her femininity, not in her brown eyes or her dislike of ice-cream.  She may in fact be proud of both of those other facts, but the context limits the universe of discourse. 

“””The modifier “LGBT” is not so much superfluous as it’s inadequate for the task you’re attempting.”””

Wow, I have no idea what the task you assume I am attempting with this term.  Talking to you is a very interesting experience. 

“””What’s more, Obama’s LGBT Pride Month is not about a month spent differentiating between Americans and LGBT Americans so much as appreciating that that they are Americans.”””

If this is true, it is an abuse of the language.  (strained and beaten universe of discourse)  It is effectively stating:  “Let’s celebrate that which makes Group A different from Group B for the sole purpose of appreciating that Group A and Group B are not different, after all, we wouldn’t want to call to mind that which makes us different.”

I think I’ll keep going on similar abuses just for kicks.

“Mothers day isn’t about differentiating between mothers and non-mothers.  It’s about celebrating that mothers are people, and although mothers may not be worth celebrating, people sure are.”

“Presidents day isn’t about celebrating presidents.  It’s about celebrating people because people are awesome.”

“Garlic festivals aren’t about celebrating garlic, it is about realizing that garlic is a plant, and plants are worth celebrating.  It is a festival that exists for all plants and you should never dream of singling garlic out at the garlic festival, that clearly goes against the intent of the festival.”

“Gay pride parades have nothing to do with taking pride in anything that can be called gay.  They aren’t about the differentiating between gay people and non-gay people.  They are a celebration of all people and the gay modifier is there solely to confuse the feeble minded.”

“””But then, you don’t fully comprehend what you say, and so I do not expect that you comprehend what I say.”””

I must say, that there is one point on which we are very much agreed:  I do in fact find many of the things you say to be utterly incomprehensible.

“””You’ll have to overcome yourself to understand my position.”””

And here I had been hoping against hope that you could explain yourself in a sentence or two.  You must be too deep for me.  I am clearly my greatest limitation, though maybe there’s hope that I’ll overcome myself for talking to you is frequently like an out of body experience.

Hey, I did find a place where I said “pride in LGBT,” is that what you are referring to when you quote me as saying “pride in gay”? 

If it would smooth things over, I will gladly submit to the correction of “pride in LGBT-ness”

Red_Beard, you wrote, “This is true but utterly irrelevant to the point at hand” (in response to my stressing the importance of non-LGBTness in assessing the difference between LGBT Americans and Americans).

No, it’s utterly relevant to your claim that the “only difference between ‘Americans’ and ‘LGBT Americans’” is “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT”, because in fact the difference between the two groups “Americans” and “LGBT Americans” is everything EXCEPT “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT”.  Both groups each contain all the LGBT Americans and thus both groups each contain within them “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT,” i.e. LGBTness.  The difference between the two groups is non-LGBTness (i.e. NOT “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT”).  That means the difference between the groups includes everything under the sun such as group size, DNA, family histories, education, age, religion, etc. EXCEPT “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT.”

You wrote, “‘Female person pride’ would be Sue taking pride in her femininity, not in her brown eyes or her dislike of ice-cream.  She may in fact be proud of both of those other facts, but the context limits the universe of discourse.”

In the context of President Obama’s LGBT Pride Month proclamation, no LGBT American is taking pride in whatever makes them different.  For that matter, no LGBT American is taking pride in anything.  Rather, in Obama’s LGBT Pride Month proclamation, it is Obama and the nation which expressly celebrates LGBT Americans’ “immeasurable contributions” and that they’ve “enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life” and that they have “achieved success and prominence in every discipline” and that they are “our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors” and that they are “patriotic” and “have given so much to our Nation”.  That’s Obama’s “LGBT Pride” – a celebration by the nation of the contributions of LGBT Americans but NOT *all* that makes LGBT Americans different.

You wrote, “It is effectively stating: ‘Let’s celebrate that which makes Group A different from Group B”

As we established earlier,  that which makes the groups different is non-LGBTness.  So, according to you, his proclamation is effectively stating: “Let’s celebrate non-LGBTness”.

You wrote, “Mothers day isn’t about differentiating between mothers and non-mothers. It’s about celebrating that mothers are people, and although mothers may not be worth celebrating, people sure are.”

It is correct that Mother’s Day is not differentiating between mothers and non-mothers, in that mothers were differentiated as mothers when they became mothers.  Mother’s Day recognizes the contribution of mothers.  There are distinct differences between President Obama’s LGBT Pride Month proclamation and his Mother’s Day proclamation.  For example, his Mother’s Day proclamation makes no mention of equality as people, rights, prejudice or discrimination, and closes with: “Let us express our deepest love and thanks to our mothers and remember those who, though no longer with us, inspire us still.”  His LGBT Pride Month proclamation begins with “all people are created equal” and closes with: “I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.”

You wrote, “Gay pride parades have nothing to do with taking pride in anything that can be called gay…”

Everything can be called “gay”, but not everything called “gay” is the subject of President Obama’s LGBT Pride proclamation, just like his Mother’s Day proclamation isn’t about mothers committing adultery, murder, child abuse and all sorts of things that too many mothers have done.

“”“in fact the difference between the two groups “Americans” and “LGBT Americans” is everything EXCEPT “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT”.”“”

Just like the difference between males and females is everything EXCEPT gender and the difference between even and odd numbers is everything EXCEPT whether or not they are divisible by 2.

Basically, “the difference between A and B is everything EXCEPT that which is different between them.”  Or, the logically equivalent inverse of that statement: “The only difference between A and B are those things that they have in common.”

This is, quite literally nonsense.  There is no sense in it.

Just for reading pleasure, here are a few more of your quotes that I find remarkable:

“”“In the context of President Obama’s LGBT Pride Month proclamation, no LGBT American is taking pride in whatever makes them different.”“”

“”“It is correct that Mother’s Day is not differentiating between mothers and non-mothers”“”

Red Beard: Well done, but you’re just encouraging him.

So: Stop it. Please.

Everyone else: You know what you have to do, this November and in 2012. Do it, and let the angels in heaven rejoice.

Let there be a month for human -animal weddings Yes it will not be far off The world especially the WEST is going MADS

Phil is right: we must think toward this November and connect it to 2012.

Since we have five months to Election Day to inform candidates why a soon to be repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy is dangerous, spreading that understanding will greatly help reshape Congress. Good progress will come only if what we say explicitly calls for respect for God whom our country once highly honored. Do not be afraid to admit that the Founding process was imperfect, for such is the human condition!

The Senate will almost certainly vote to complete repeal, this week. Tragically for America the unwise cart-before-the-horse Review process underway does not seem to provide for repeal of a dumb repeal, at least not by *this* Congress. Hence the morale-degrading new conditions awaiting our soldiers must not be ignored.

Having always defended ordinary rights of gays, for me it is simply a factual matter that some LGBT lifestyles and advocacies are not at all in harmony with God’s inspiration of St. Paul’s teachings and so must not be allowed to hurt our military.

I respected the gays I personally knew and associated with because I believe in respecting others if it can be done without *also* having to disrespect God and society in order to respect them. And that is why President Obama and LBGT present a serious problem, for they are not above God nor can they act through “scholarly” surrogates as the source of truth on scripture interpretation.

Think about it. God inspired St. Paul to teach all humanity this truth in Roman 3:8: ‘do no evil that good may come of it’. But President Obama’s proclamation of LBGT Pride Month “for their honorable achievements and contributions to America and as human beings” also includes intentions to work hard against God on marriage and for adoption “rights” for the LBGT community, for example.

Hence self-professed Christian President Obama violates Romans 3:8. The evil in the Obama-LGBT plan to alter the holy meaning of marriage and to jeopardize Jesus’ little ones via certain adoptions is not justified by the good that President Obama claims for the celebratory nature of LBGT Pride Month. 

LBGT parades and some “Pride” celebrations encourage same-sex acts even though some LGBT-ers may try to be chaste. God is no fool for the LBGT community (Romans 1:32, they “give approval to those who practice them”.)  Believers not acknowledging God with respect means they can hardly expect respect from others. As for good human accomplishments in general, scripture teaches in Philippians 2:13—“For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work”.

Regarding President Obama, what follows is based on assuming he is not involuntarily ignorant of the morality involved. If he is thus-ignorant, the suggested prompt can change that status quickly. 

In his 2006 Call to Renewal speech, then Sen. Obama explicitly *chided* Christians for not reading their bible. In his campaigns since, and now in his presidency, bible-studious Obama, who we thus have right to expect has read St. John 1:3’s “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”, apparently decided that although ALL of God’s new human creatures are made through Jesus that he, Obama, will nevertheless honor abortion-seeking creatures *instead of God*, by being the most diligent *abortion-facilitating* president in our history—despite the Constitution NOT requiring such diligence from presidents!

*Idolatry of Ego* is the modern version of the mortal man-likeness cited in Romans1: 22-23. They “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man”.

However, what shockingly reveals the depth of Obama’s objective disrespect for God’s Rights is that he shows ZERO EMPATHY for His own savior Jesus (!) who must suffer to witness ~ 3,300 *Obama-facilitated* abortions—DAILY.  Of course, dissing God would make it easy for President Obama to then be cold to Jesus, cold to soldiers facing “conflicts of interest” the battlefields have never seen before and cold to God-respecting Americans who get in his way.

Barack Obama has long been the apostle for Empathy and wrote that he did not confirm John Roberts solely because Roberts lacked sufficient empathy. However, Democrat “pro-choice” Sen. Patrick Leahy voted FOR Roberts’ confirmation. We need not accuse Obama, for he furnishes the evidence via his records.

If President Obama has not read and pondered John 1:3, then do ask media to ask him to do that *before* the imminent Senate vote on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. If the man Barack Obama is then truly sorry for having grievously offended his Savior Jesus by facilitating abortions beyond what duty demands, he will also likely move more prudently on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, especially for the sake of our soldiers. Opposition to repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell need not and does not impugn the bravery and patriotism of LGBT members.

You remind me I need to call my two senators about this issue.

Thanks, WFF.

Red_Beard, you wrote in regard to the difference between the two groups “LGBT Americans” and “Americans” that it’s “Just like the difference between males and females is everything EXCEPT gender and the difference between even and odd numbers is everything EXCEPT whether or not they are divisible by 2.”

No, it’s NOT just like what you claim.  The two groups “LGBT Americans” and “Americans” are OVERLAPPING groups.  “LGBT Americans” is a SUBSET of “Americans”.  They are not like the groups “males” and “females” and the groups “even numbers” and “odd numbers” where no member of one group is also a member of the other group.  The difference between males and females IS gender, and the difference between even numbers and odd numbers IS whether they’re divisible by 2.  But the difference between “LGBT Americans” and “Americans” IS NOT whether they’re LGBT, as the difference is those people who are NOT LGBT.

You questioned the statement, “In the context of President Obama’s LGBT Pride Month proclamation, no LGBT American is taking pride in whatever makes them different.”

Nowhere in President Obama’s LGBT Pride Month proclamation does he speak of any LGBT American taking pride in “choosing” to be LGBT.  And nowhere in his proclamation does he speak of any LGBT American taking pride in his/her same-sex orientation, nor would it would be immoral even if one did in the “pride” sense of not being shamed by an unchosen condition.  As I said, the “LGBT pride” that Obama speaks of is his and the nation’s celebration of the contributions of LGBT Americans and of them as “our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors”, that they “have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life”, and that we should not shame/punish them because of their sexual orientation.

You also quoted “It is correct that Mother’s Day is not differentiating between mothers and non-mothers” but you omitted from your quote the important sense qualifier “in that mothers were differentiated as mothers when they became mothers”.  That was the qualifier I added in response to YOUR claim that “Mothers day isn’t about differentiating between mothers and non-mothers” so as to charitably find some truth in your statement, as I’m commanded to do, rather than condemn it.  I also noted, and which you omitted mention of, that “Mother’s Day recognizes the contribution of mothers”.  Recognition and use of language involves differentiation in different forms and kinds and at various levels, whether semantically or in practice.

But from his opening sentence to his final request, the main point and purpose of President Obama’s proclamation is calling for the end of some forms of differentiation: “I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.”  He calls upon us to view LGBT Americans not as non-Americans but as Americans.  Even the term “LGBT American” points that out.  He calls upon us to view LGBT Americans as people, “our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors”, as family, not as some evil “other”.  They may do good and bad just like Catholic Americans.

William, while it’s always possible and/or seemingly likely that “LBGT parades and some Pride celebrations encourage same-sex acts” among some people, it’s also possible that such demonstrations also discourage it or ultimately make no difference one way or the other.  Lots of people, many LGBT people included, are repulsed by such demonstrations or stay away or consider them like a form of bleeding that occurs to cleanse the wound or as a warning or whatever.  Still others view them as an invitation to love and a call to action in aid of our brothers and sisters in need.  As the Bible teaches, “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.”  And “everything” includes Pride parades, Mardi Gras, what people see on TV and in the movies, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, your posts and ours, and everything else.

:::shakes head and talks to himself—walk away Red, walk away.  He’s enjoying it, it won’t do any good, anyone who reads these in context already knows:::

Nope, you’re right, I’m my own worst enemy because I’m back again replying to you.  I really do need to overcome myself like you said.

For anyone keeping score, the context before the “overlapping groups” red herring was the claim So made that:

“”“the difference between the two groups “Americans” and “LGBT Americans” is everything EXCEPT “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT”.”“”

So, you are absolutely right when you say that the groups overlap.  In fact, through all of this conversation, I’d say about 90% of what you say is correct, just irrelevant.  Whether or not the groups overlap, the use of the word “difference” in this context would imply a differentiation.

When you say difference between “LGBT-Americans” and “Americans,” (that which differentiates between the two) I had taken it for granted that people who speak English would understand, especially in the context of the past 100 posts,  that they are being used as exclusive groups. (so that they could be differentiated between)  I apologize for this assumption.  You obviously speak a different language so I should have been more clear.

Let’s look at your quote again in light of this new misunderstanding.

“”“the difference between the two groups “Americans” and “LGBT Americans” is everything EXCEPT “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT”.”“”

Nope, it’s still as crazy as ever, even using the subset understanding. 

Do you know what the word “difference” means?

RB: If you say that A=A, he’ll be right back asserting the contrary. Don’t let him waste your time. The readers know the deal.

Dominus vobiscum.

So There (anywhere?) You Have It is awash in the sea of relativism, and he has reasoning has taken him to the Gulf of Meaninglessness. 

I agree with Phil. The readers know the deal, RB. Apply yourself to much more profitable things.

This practical method should head off future “mental-illusion” problems that developed here. It will facilitate my responding to “So” later today on main-topic matters. November is coming fast.
Drawing simple diagrams often helps because word sequences can be misunderstood in complex dialogue (recall Health Care bill language and “meanings”?). Different originators and receivers have different objectives, assumptions / presuppositions, etc., in their minds. 
Draw on paper a large circle and label the circle “Americans”. In it place EVERY American citizen and none other. ALL citizens must carry a “Tag” with a “citizen-number” stamped on one side and EITHER the combination label “non-LBGT / undecided LGBT” or the single “sure LGBT” label is stamped on the other side of the Tag (NOT advocating for tags!).
The “sure LGBT” folks can then be represented by an interior-circle and similarly for the “combination label” folks with their own circle inside the same larger “Americans” circle.
The *minimal difference* between the two subgroups is clearly what is opposite the “citizen-number” side of the Tag. That still leaves much else to *differentiate* the two subgroups in discussions, as Red_Beard indicates.  And it is also clear, if one now uses the term “Americans” in some discussions (which name applies to the whole outer Circle), one risks introducing confusion plus loss of dialogue-facilitation achieved via the two subgroups for the purpose of discussing *other factors* that *differentiate* one from the other on important matters such as adoption of children.
It happens elsewhere, too. The nun who sided with President Obama’s claim that the Health Care bill does not violate the spirit of the Hyde Amendment regarding use of taxpayer money would have found her error had she made some helpful flow diagrams.

Red_Beard, you wrote, “When you say difference between “LGBT-Americans” and “Americans,”... I had taken it for granted that people who speak English would understand… that they are being used as exclusive groups.”

In terms of Americans, THEY (“LGBT Americans” and “Americans”) are not exclusive groups.  The group “Americans” doesn’t exclude any Americans.  Only the group “LGBT Americans” excludes NON-LGBT Americans.

In terms of the world, they are both exclusive groups in that the group “Americans” excludes non-Americans, and the group “LGBT Americans” excludes non-Americans and NON-LGBT Americans.

Either way, the difference between the two groups is the NON-LGBT Americans.  The group “Americans” is just like “LGBT Americans” EXCEPT that it also contains NON-LGBT Americans.  The difference is thus the NON-LGBT Americans who exist in the “Americans” group.  They do not exist in the “LGBT Americans” group.

You asked, “Do you know what the word ‘difference’ means?”

The difference between 6 and 100 can be found by subtracting 6 from 100 which leaves 94, which is the difference.  Let me repeat that for you.  94 is the difference between 6 and 100, not 6.  Phil cites “A=A”.  If we subtract the members of group A from group A to find the difference, we find that there is no one left, i.e. no difference.  But if we subtract the members of the “LGBT Americans” group from the “Americans” group, it is the NON-LGBT Americans who are left.  They are the difference.  Not LGBT Americans.  The LGBT Americans are the sameness between the two groups.

Likewise, “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT”, i.e. the LGBT American’s attractions or whatever one calls it, are found in both groups in the common presence of “these particular Americans” (i.e. the LGBT Americans) in both groups.  As such, “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT” is not the difference between the two groups, for it is common to both groups.

Likewise, with respect to your stated position that “a gay man is a man who… has defined himself, by his sexual orientation”, then “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT” would be—according to you—“these particular Americans” (i.e. the LGBT Americans themselves), and they are common to both groups.  So yet again, “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT” is common to both groups and is thus not the difference between them.

See what I mean? Just let him have the last word. The only last word that counts will come in November 2012.

William, you wrote, “The *minimal difference* between the two subgroups… if one now uses the term “Americans” in some discussions… one risks introducing confusion plus loss of dialogue-facilitation achieved via the two subgroups…”

The two subgroups that you speak of are LGBT Americans and non-LGBT Americans.  However, the discussion between myself and Red_Beard has, from the beginning, not been about the difference between those two subgroups.  Rather, our discussion has been about the difference between LGBT Americans and Americans, as Red_Beard stated in his Sunday, Jun 6, 2010 6:56 PM (EST) post which began the discussion in which he wrote: “the only difference between ‘Americans’ and ‘LGBT Americans’ is…”.

Moreover, the context of President Obama’s proclamation is itself likewise in regard to the groups Americans and LGBT Americans, not between the two subgroups you speak of.  Nowhere in his proclamation does he ever speak of a non-LGBT subgroup.  His proclamation opens with the words “As Americans” and proceeds to speak of “our Nation”, and throughout he speaks of “we” and “our” in reference to the Nation as a whole, never to a subgroup of non-LGBT Americans.

I might also point out that the problem of discrimination and prejudice is not limited to an issue between the subgroups of non-LGBT Americans and LGBT Americans, for it is in fact also a problem within both subgroups.  Within the LGBT Americans subgroup, quite a number discriminate against one another.  And within the non-LGBT Americans subgroup, there exists the many issues whereby the discrimination against LGBT Americans is born, fostered and bred.  Thus, in regard to “one risks introducing confusion plus loss of dialogue-facilitation”, that also applies when the dialog is limited to being between the two subgroups you named.  Many of the problems relating to prejudice and discrimination against LGBT Americans have virtually nothing to do with LGBT per se but often are an expression of personal and cultural problems seeking a scapegoat to lash out against.  For example, anyone who appears “different” is often a target, especially if they’re a minority.

Again, you spoke of “if one NOW uses the term ‘Americans’ in some discussions”, but the term “Americans” began the discussion at hand, whether it’s the opening words of President Obama’s proclamation or when Red_Beard brought up the issue of difference between Americans and LGBT Americans.

Well there you go. 

Verbose and conclusive proof that, in the English language, the phrase “LGBT Pride month” is a month in which someone, -who knows who- takes pride in something, -who knows what- just so long as that something is not “LGBT” or “LGBT-ness.”

How could I have been so wrong?

Now I’m really confused about “Secretarys’ Day” and “Black History Month.”

One more time?

“”“the difference between the two groups “Americans” and “LGBT Americans” is everything EXCEPT “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT”.”“”

Nope, still crazy.

Red_Beard, I don’t claim “LGBT Pride” excludes taking pride in something that is “LGBT” or “LGBT-ness”.  As I already stated in my previous post to you, “the ‘LGBT pride’ that Obama speaks of is his and the nation’s celebration of the contributions of LGBT Americans and of them as ‘our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors’, that they ‘have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life’, and that we should not shame/punish them because of their sexual orientation.”

And one more time, the difference between Americans and LGBT Americans is NOT the LGBT Americans (even if you believe “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT” is the LGBT Americans themselves).  The LGBT Americans are what are common to both groups.

Dear “So there you have it”:
As stated earlier today [6/8 @ 1:07 PM (ET)], the diagram described there was made to head off unnecessary *future* dialogue problems. You’ve found nothing significantly wrong in it for such future discourse. The three main aspects of the diagram are labeled “Americans”, “non-LGBT/undecided-LGBT” and “sure-LGBT” to cover the necessary cases and to link properly to President Obama’s words in his relatively short proclamation.

The “undecided-LGBT” *component* represents people not sure where they fit or else have what the USCCB calls a “transitory” same-sex attraction plus those lacking a “deep-seated” inclination toward same-sex attraction. “sure-LGBT” covers all those Americans certain about themselves or certain within limits an LGBT board might somehow describe, thus yielding a group quite sure of being in a well defined LGBT community.

It doesn’t matter that President Obama doesn’t name, per se, the “non-LGBT/undecided-LGBT” subgroup; what matters is avoiding confusion among diverse participants, including new posters via new site-visitors. The President’s use of “As Americans”, “our Nation”, and “we” and “our”, referencing our Nation as a whole, ARE all accommodated in the diagram. For future topics a general forum-note could direct visitors to a helpful diagram, ground rule, guide or whatever the particular topic might need to get good discussions.
One can mentally use the “guide” on one’s own comment—before hitting the “submit” button. A responder can do the same and that way be pretty sure his/her response can be understood by the entire set of forum participants. The “much else” I referred to today at 1:07 PM obviously includes same-sex attractions, opposite-sex attractions, bi-sexual attractions, etc..
You might try the diagram on the problematic quote while putting aside the problem you had with that quote, in the starting discussions. If you wish, let me know if the diagram fails or succeeds. I’ll get back late tomorrow morning on the main topic.

So much intolerence, its pathetic. Your free to do whatever you want as long as you respect the right of others, thats all, like for freedom of religion. What if people would threathen to not vote for someone because he support the freedom of religion, or would tell you to stop practicing your religion because some religious authority told them so. And no, I dont like gayness.

William, I welcome your view that “what matters is avoiding confusion among diverse participants” but I also welcome other views, including those which may be to the contrary.  Likewise, your claim that I “found nothing significantly wrong in [your diagram] for such future discourse” may be your view, and I welcome it, but if I may draw your attention to my posts which precede the introduction of your diagram, I had already expressed a number of concerns with the groupings you proposed and some of the assumptions behind them.

For example, you speak of a “well-defined LGBT community” because you’ve apparently chosen to define it as such for the sake of your diagram, not because it’s that way in reality.  Likewise, President Obama never said he intended his term “LGBT” (as in his use of “LGBT Americans” or “LGBT community”) to be narrowly interpreted as only those persons who are “sure where they fit”.  Such a narrow view is contraindicated for a number of reasons, including by the fact that President Obama spoke against discrimination in regard to sexual orientation / LGBT community (with no particular distinction between them), and likewise the law not requiring that the person be at all certain whatsoever, or that he choose anything, or that he even have knowledge of such things, for even mere belief in the mind of the perpetrator alone can be sufficient basis for the issue of discrimination.

You also seem to suppose that your fictional “LGBT board” would agree with that narrow view and, despite all claims of supporting diversity, would bounce: (1) all those who are “not sure where they fit”, along with (2) all those without “deep-seated” tendencies, along with (3) all those with “transitory” attractions—even though no one can tell who they are and even though they may engage in homosexuality as much as anyone else, perhaps even more, and despite the fact that their so-called transition may last 40 years or longer (however long it takes to get past their “adolescent” mentality – maybe never).  Meanwhile, the seminaries don’t want (1) or (3) either, because the seminaries consider them to be homosexual.  So according to you, the LGBT community rejects homosexual people that the seminaries won’t accept.  That doesn’t describe any LGBT community I’ve ever seen or any that I think President Obama was speaking about.

Anyway, if I were drawing the diagram, I’d have President Obama’s “LGBT Americans” very liberally defined, not narrowly defined.  After all, the purpose of the proclamation was not requesting we label people and say “yes, he’s one but no, she’s not” but instead to request that we respect all people, including anyone “LGBT”, i.e. he is, thinks he is, suspects he is, wonders whether he is, doesn’t know, says he is, looks or acts like he is, is believed or suspected to be, was maybe last year but maybe not anymore, or whatever – in the spirit of anti-discrimination.  (And when I say “he”, I mean anyone whether male, female, or we don’t know.)  Probably just a big circle for all Americans and then sparkles for the LGBT people randomly distributed inside the circle but with no other circles for any other group because that would give a characterization of separation that Obama did not give in his proclamation.  Also, it would be, for the most part, left vague as to how many and who they are, just as it is in reality.

So,

 
I hate to say it, but after half a million posts you came up with a context in which your quote is rational.

“”“the difference between the two groups “Americans” and “LGBT Americans” is everything EXCEPT “that which makes these particular Americans LGBT”.”“”

It is true that in the incredibly limited context of strict Group Theory.  Assuming that Americans is every American (Group A), LGBT Americans are a strict subset of Americans (Group A1), when you use Group Theory to subtract A1 from A what you get is the group of Americans that don’t qualify as LGBT Americans (members of Group A that are not members of Group A1).  It still seems utterly ridiculous to me to apply that language to people without defining your terms.

I am sincerely thankful that you took the time to show that the particular way you are using the language is at least rational.

The above is technically correct in the sense you intended it.  I just don’t think that it is pertinent to the discussion at hand as I introduced the term “difference” and repeatedly defined it as the equivalent of “that which differentiates between the two.“  I even put multiple examples of the way I was using the term, which you never answered.  Those examples should have been more than adequate to clear up any ambiguity in terms.  What a waste of time.

You chose to read my terms with your definition even when I explicitly defined it.  That makes it ridiculously hard to communicate, and I consider it to be rather bad form.  In the future, please at least define the term if you are applying another definition.

You, speaking the language of a math major, went on a huge tangent and I followed assuming that we were speaking the same language. 

Fundamentally, it doesn’t have the slightest bearing on any of my arguments.  If you replace the phrase “Americans” with “Non-LGBT-Americans” in order to translate common English to language that holds up to Group Theory, all of my objections stand unanswered.  You constantly avoid the meat of the argument to chase one spurious detail, which I hope against hope is now clarified.

My original point was that I was tired of the abuse of language that was occurring in this thread.  I think this illustrates that, at the very least, you are speaking a very different language than most of the other posters.

“So”, thank you for examining and commenting on the diagram and for helping to return discussion to the LGBT Pride Month Proclamation and related matters.

I’ll first address your diagram-related concerns.  You wrote “you’ve apparently chosen to define [a “well-defined LGBT community”]… for the sake of your diagram, not because it’s that way in reality”. Not even close, about my reason for “defining”. I do not presume to define another’s community.

The “undecided” are not as sure about themselves as, say, are LBGT’s most ardent members; hence Christians can rightly have them *initially* graphically outside the definite “sure-LGBT” subgroup while fully realizing and anticipating some undecided will transfer to “sure-LGBT” — on an individual basis.  I understand that community and advocacy groups naturally desire to maximize their membership.

Even from your views expressed on “transitory” attractions and “deep seated tendencies”, you might see that Christians aware of God-inspired St. Paul’s teaching should be concerned that the “undecided” receive spiritual help. So my reason is for *their* sakes (the undecided) and not at all for the diagram beyond the benefit that having an “undecided” category (which is reality) helps the discussion to be more realistic.
Given that you don’t prefer my diagram over yours (fine) which shows One Big Circle (with no interior circles) with what one might call “full-range LGBT” types of people sprinkled throughout and you also show preference for ambiguity about their numbers and “sureness”, I don’t see the advantage in your diagram for *facilitating* discussion with minimal problems (such as we’ve seen here) nor do I see its allowing for the realism that people do change their minds (both ways). I do see your diagram’s value for promoting LGBT aims.

You so often cite President Obama and his Proclamation that it makes true Christians wonder why you who seem to know some Christian teachings hold someone up who professes to be Christian and shows no Empathy for his savior Jesus Christ. [my post June 7 @ 7:52 PM (EST)].

More directly regarding President Obama trying to unite the Big Circle of all us Americans, he implicitly is hostile to Catholics when in his Proclamation he states “I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.” Without doubt the Proclamation was “peer-reviewed” probably with LBGT help and every word examined.

So why did you who are able to examine words in detail not point out that President Obama, to be fair to American Catholics, OMITS the *crucial* qualifier “unjust” so that the Proclamation should read: “I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and *unjust* discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.”

Please clarify what you mean in your statement which also involved President Obama and his Proclamation:

“.. and likewise the law not requiring that the person be at all certain whatsoever, or that he choose anything, or that he even have knowledge of such things, for even mere belief in the mind of the perpetrator alone can be sufficient basis for the issue of discrimination”.

It sounds like it relates to hate-crime legislation which is good provided it does not try to crush Catholic thinking which is in harmony with the teaching magisterium.  Please give examples of what restrictions the law President Obama referred to places on Catholics, including whether LGBT’s position is that respectful, truthful preaching or writing in disagreement with LGBT can somehow be used against us.

I have never been disrespectful and will continue to be truthful. Thank you, “So”.

A note to K.C. Thomas on “human animal weddings”....

Wow! 
Hey pal…it’s REALLY time for a “check-up from the NECK UP” for you!
Seriously though…
You ARE Glen Beck, are you not??

William, my diagram and discussion aim at a “realistic” charitable interpretation of President Obama’s proclamation as he may have charitably intended it.  Meanwhile, you seem to be creating a diagram to represent your religious views without regard for President Obama’s intentions.  For example, you speak as if you’re not including many “unsure” people as LGBT Americans “for their sake”, while I may include many such people as LGBT Americans—in interpreting President Obama’s proclamation—because that is what I see President Obama as doing “for their sake” in his proclamation.  President Obama doesn’t want “undecided-LGBT” Americans to be persecuted.  By excluding people who are “not sure” from “LGBT Americans”, one excludes them from the umbrella of anti-discrimination that President Obama speaks of.

You speak of “facilitating discussion” “to be more realistic”, but if your diagram does not realistically represent what Obama is intending, your diagram does not demonstrate that you have heard his message.

You wrote, “I do see your diagram’s value for promoting LGBT aims,” but “LGBT aims” is a broad term with different meanings to different people.

You wrote, “nor do I see its allowing for the realism that people do change their minds”.

I invite you to look again and demonstrate the realism you claim whereby “people [yourself] do change their minds”.  Other than “Americans”, my diagram doesn’t define or dictate that anyone is in any subgroup whatsoever.  It shows all as Americans and some sparkles among them for the LGBT Americans, whoever they are—free to float about wherever they choose to go, or come and go as sparkles do.  As I said, it’s all “left vague as to how many and who they are, just as it is in reality”, with no intent to “label people and say ‘yes, he’s one but no, she’s not’”.  Anyone can change their mind at any time.  I didn’t want it to appear static and hence the sparkle.

You wrote, “You so often cite President Obama and his Proclamation that it makes true Christians wonder why you… hold someone up who professes to be Christian and shows no Empathy for his savior Jesus Christ.”

I respect and recognize President Obama for the good he does and seeks to do.  I encourage him to do more, but his empathy for Christ is not measured simply by what he has not done as you might seem to profess, for it is not only “what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me” but also “whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me”.  And that includes helping LGBT Americans.

You asked, “So why did you who are able to examine words in detail not point out that President Obama, to be fair to American Catholics, OMITS the *crucial* qualifier ‘unjust’ so that the Proclamation should read: ‘I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and *unjust* discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.’”

If I were an extremist, I might interpret it as calling for fist fights or calling for the absolute end of all discrimination in any form whatsoever, to go so far as people would not discriminate between broccoli and tomatoes or between themselves and their neighbor or between up and down.  Or I might ask you why you didn’t include the word “unjust” before “prejudice” as well, because, for example, many court cases are dismissed “with prejudice”.  But because I interpret it charitably, I don’t have to condemn it.

So again, the answer is because I interpret it charitably, and… because he says it himself in the very first paragraph of his proclamation: “This month… we renew our commitment… to ending prejudice and injustice wherever it exists.”

You asked, “Please clarify what you mean in your statement…”

I’m referring to evidence (relating to hate crime laws and sexual orientation laws) that President Obama’s use of the term “LGBT” is not limited to or directed by the “sureness” of those who may fall under its protections.

You asked, “Please give examples of what restrictions the law President Obama referred to places on Catholics, including whether LGBT’s position is that respectful, truthful preaching or writing in disagreement with LGBT can somehow be used against us.”

The laws are neither written by nor decided by “LGBT” people but by the legislatures and courts, to include if there’s a conflict with the First Amendment or not.  If there is a specific hate crime or sexual orientation discrimination case that has not been decided favorably for good Catholics after it has made its way all the way through the court system, you’re welcome to bring it up and I’ll pass it by the “LGBT board” and let you know what they say.

Charles Horse,

K.C. Thomas’s information is spot-on. Glenn Beck might be wacko on some things, but on this topic, he is correct:

“BHUBANESWAR: A woman, who claimed to have fallen in love with a snake got married to the reptile as per Hindu rituals at Atala village of Orissa’s Khurda district, 14 km from here.

The unusual marriage took place on Wednesday with over 2,000 people taking out a procession to celebrate the event.”

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1609295.cms

Regarding the alleged snake marriage, it’s reported that “An investigation by Harper’s magazine journalist Mischa Berlinski suggests that the snake may not even exist at all and that the incident may have been stage-managed as part of a local power struggle between Vaishnav religious leaders.” Mischa Berlinski, “Woman marries snake: A peculiar Indian love story”, Harper’s, Nov. 2007, pp 41–52.

Here’s another one:

“Brit Jew Marries Dolphin”

“Till death do us part? An unusual wedding ceremony was held in the southern resort town of Eilat on Wednesday, as Sharon Tendler, a 41-years-old Jewish millionaire from London married her beloved Cindy, a 35-years-old dolphin, Israel’s leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported Thursday.

The groom, a resident of the Eilat dolphin reef, met Tendler 15 years ago, when she first visited the resort. The British rock concert producer took a liking to the dolphin and has made a habit of traveling to Eilat two or three times a year and spending time with her underwater sweetheart.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3191923,00.html

If you think about it, having a man marry a man or a woman marry a woman removes boundaries, so we push them further and further. No person who is for homosexual “marriage” should object to polygamy, incest, or human-beast coupling in principle.

Debunk this one, So.

No problem.  The alleged dolphin marriage, painted romantically by the media, was in the woman’s own words just “a bit of fun” and “a fun thing for me and my friends” after one of them joked about her being single at the age of 41.  She further joked about the option of “marrying human”, but was strictly a “one dolphin woman”.  “It’s not a bad thing. It just something that we did because I love him, but not in the way that you love a man. It’s just a pure love that I have for this animal,” she said. “I hope he has a lot of baby dolphins with the other dolphins. The more dolphins the better.”

After three weeks of poor health, the dolphin died on June 18, 2006.

http://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/content/redbridge/recorder/news/story.aspx?brand=RECOnline&category=newsIlford&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsilford&itemid=WeED05 Jan 2006 12:19:50:420

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html

“I am not a pervert,” commented the Jewish lady who married the dolphin.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3191923,00.

Do you think she is a pervert, So, for marrying outside of her species?

Dear “So there you have it”,
You offer President Obama as an important champion of what you write, the one who states in his Proclamation that “it is our *birthright* that all people are created equal and deserve the same rights, privileges, and opportunities”.
The president is that same person who claimed that it was above his pay-grade for him to know when a baby gets its rights from Creator God. God is not even mentioned in Obama’s Proclamation main text, though just above his signature some irony arises against his Proclamation by his choosing the “Year of our Lord” form of dating in which he includes the implied date of our 1776 Declaration, to buttress, he seems to think,  elements in his Proclamation.
Part of the irony is that President Obama thus spotlights what amounts to mockery of the Declaration and of God in at least two ways:
1) America’s Declaration respects God AND us by its dating our rights from His *creation* of us, not from our birth. By science, logic and continuity, our *rights from God* trace back to conception/fertilization and NOT a later “birthright” moment which Obama contrarily prefers. Unresolvable personhood arguments don’t even arise, for continuity is always necessary to continue to have meaningful rights, and creation is from the starting marker noted.
2)  Obama behavior disrespects God and God’s Son, Jesus. My Jun 7 post shows that President Obama shows Zero Empathy (!) for his professed Savior Jesus Christ, over his diligently facilitating abortions, hence mocking the Son of God on an *everyday* basis, his being keenly aware or not. Thus he easily can degrade to mocking America, selectively. Hence his support of LBGT presents serious problems; a few examples from your 8:08 PM Jun 9 post tell the story.
Regarding my *not* asking that the term “prejudice” be modified with the term *unjust*, it’s simply because “prejudice” represents an *already inherently unjust* disposition. In contrast, “discrimination” can be *just*—as well as *unjust*— and of course that bears on the marriage and adoption matters. Obama’s desire for “ending prejudice and injustice wherever *it* exists” can be agreed to *as to form* because in that particular sentence he calls “it” injustice (not discrimination) though we may not all agree on all the “its” he declares to be “injustices”. Unfortunately in his most seen & heard “I … do hereby proclaim…” sentence, he uses the problematic unqualified term “discrimination” which does need the modifier. The word *fighting* also precedes the phrase. Since Obama supports repealing DOMA and DADT, his word choice is hardly accidental.
Your learning about Obama showing no empathy to Jesus Himself (!!) (re Jesus’ new “womb babies” aborted) evoked only a side-stepping bible response via the couplet you offered in your Jun 9 8:08 PM post. Such response suggests you are not *relying* on the Bible though you probably know many verses. Dissing one’s savior is a Big Time objective sin and a major reason why God-respecting Americans cannot trust Barack Obama and his Proclamations even if somehow he does not realize the objectively grave wrong he is doing. You have White House contacts and can get the President’s attention. Charitably, I withhold judgment; but nothing coming from him requires the criticism.
Your references to Obama’s doings re your use of “charitable interpretation” and assigning “charitable intent” suggests you don’t really understand Catholicity. #1, “charity” includes fraternal admonition, to assist someone hurting themselves spiritually. #2, “intent”, whether described as charitable or not, is not the decisive determiner of the morality of an action as if one can purify an objective evil with good intent. You may be identifying with erring views some Catholics have and so you may not realize it.
Again, Catholicity explains the difference between the two “for their sakes” problem you seemed to see in your Jun 9 8:08 PM post. Eternity is forever and so it is prudent to keep “undecided-LBGT” in our hearts and diagrams. Anyone can shift to the other group. You can use your diagram; it’s not surprising that we think differently. In America,“persecution” isn’t going to be such an issue, with the new law, unless LGBT tries to persecute believers or hinder the free exercise of religion; even then, “persecution” could be the wrong descriptor; it could mainly be “repairs” of faulty laws by Congress.
As President Obama smilingly said, “elections have consequences”. And so God-respecting Americans need to get involved *now*.  November comes fast!
I’ll check the site but probably will not continue to participate in this particular article, given other duties arising. America and indeed the world can heal only by respecting God and His Natural Moral Law.
Peace to all

William, you wrote, “Regarding my *not* asking that the term ‘prejudice’ be modified with the term *unjust*, it’s simply because ‘prejudice’ represents an *already inherently unjust* disposition.”

For some senses of the word “prejudice”, that’s true, just as for some senses of the word “discrimination”, that’s true.  But it’s not true for all senses of those words as used in the English language.  When President Obama called for “ending prejudice and injustice wherever it exists”, he was not saying that absolutely all forms of “prejudice” are inherently unjust and must be ended but (1) was apparently distinguishing between prejudice and injustice by the fact that he named them separately and (2) for example, was, by reasonable interpretation, not calling for an end to the practice in our *justice* system whereby judges may justly dismiss “with prejudice” various lawsuits.  This is because an element of “prejudice” is part of our established *justice* system whereby a dismissal with prejudice is a judgment rendered in a lawsuit on its merits that prevents the plaintiff from bringing the same lawsuit against the same defendant in the future.  Indeed, it would be an injustice to the plaintiff and other parties if the plaintiff were allowed to do so, and so it is a matter of justice that various lawsuits may be dismissed “with prejudice”.

But like I said, if I were an extremist, I might interpret President Obama’s proclamation as calling for the absolute end of all prejudice in any form whatsoever, insisting that all prejudice is unjust.  In such an extremist view, judges couldn’t dismiss lawsuits “with prejudice” and court calenders would be even more congested.  And according to the dictionary, no one could have any “preconceived notion” or “preconceived preference” whatsoever, not even temporarily for the purpose of determining what is true and correct, thus ending any preconceived sexual preference for the opposite sex, or even for the same species, and we couldn’t experiment to find which foods or treatments were safe, because that would involve a preconceived notion that some might be unsafe or that it makes any difference or that what one learned in the past continues to have any relevance.  Indeed, according to the dictionary, “suspicion” would also be out and police could not entertain the idea of suspects in any case.  Are there other definitions of “prejudice” that aren’t so broad?  Yes, but the extremist would insist that the President called for the end of absolutely all prejudice claiming it’s all unjustified.

You wrote, “Your learning about Obama showing no empathy to Jesus Himself… evoked only a side-stepping bible response”.

Here’s another:  “To what shall I compare this generation? It is like children who sit in marketplaces and call to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn.’”

And another: “Rejoice always! Pray constantly. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.”

In this thread, you previously spoke in favor of “whatever the particular topic might need to get good discussions”, and to that end, may I ask, if you want to talk about President Obama and abortion, is there not perhaps another discussion thread more closely suited to that other particular topic?  Or are you proposing to include abortions as another bubble on your diagram.

You wrote, “Your references to Obama’s doings re your use of ‘charitable interpretation’ and assigning ‘charitable intent’ suggests you don’t really understand Catholicity.”

You see yourself.  That’s what I suggest.

You wrote, “#1, ‘charity’ includes fraternal admonition, to assist someone hurting themselves spiritually.”

If you don’t see yourself, have you taken the log out of your eye?

You wrote, “#2, ‘intent’, whether described as charitable or not, is not the decisive determiner of the morality of an action as if one can purify an objective evil with good intent.”

Nowhere have I said intent makes an objective evil not an objective evil.  Rather, I read President Obama’s LGBT Pride Month proclamation charitably before making any decision as to whether or not he’s promoting an objective evil.

You wrote, “You may be identifying with erring views some Catholics have and so you may not realize it.”

You might be!

You wrote, “Catholicity explains the difference between the two ‘for their sakes’ problem you seemed to see in your Jun 9 8:08 PM post. Eternity is forever and so it is prudent to keep ‘undecided-LBGT’ in our hearts and diagrams.”

Perhaps you don’t understand what I wrote in the sense that I wrote it.  I said it may be imprudent to separate “undecided-LGBT” Americans from the charitable protections/goals President Obama seeks, and likewise imprudent in regards to a diagram to reflect his message.  Indeed, someone who is “undecided” (which includes all sorts of confused and immature persons) can often need as much, if not more, protection than someone who is so-called “sure”.  The term “LGBT Americans” is not an eternal judgment, nor does President Obama call for people to pull out the labeling gun and say ‘yes, he’s one but no, she’s not’”.  Rather, it’s a broad term used in reference to a group of people who experience prejudice and discrimination for reasons far beyond whether they themselves are “sure” but instead because of appearances, ignorance, experiences, feelings, confusion, acts and more on the part of many people.

In terms of eternity, “their sake” and salvation is not decided by your diagram or the English language.  Faithful Christians headed to heaven can be reasonably described using terms like “LGBT” or “gay” or “homosexual” in any number of contexts, such as when referring to same-sex orientation or people with “tendencies”.  And that’s true whether or not the described persons are reasonably “sure” of it.  Indeed, the Church teaches that “Homosexual persons… can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”  I don’t believe the Church is not keeping them in her heart because she uses the term “homosexual persons”, and likewise, I do not judge that a person is not keeping them in his heart just because he might use the term “LGBT Americans”.

You wrote, “Anyone can shift to the other group.”

Prejudice and discrimination don’t ask a person to what group he considers himself to belong, nor would prejudice and discrimination understand or accept the answer.

Lisieux, you asked, “Do you think she is a pervert, So, for marrying outside of her species?”

In regard to the woman allegedly marrying a dolphin, she obviously didn’t “marry” or have a “marriage” in the sense of those words as used in Catholic teaching.  Instead, she, a rock concert producer, had a “marriage” in other senses of the word, such as “any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song”, or “a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture”, AND in the sense of staging a theatrical and linguistic parody (a humorous imitation as revealed by her words “a bit of fun”) of other senses of the word “marriage”.

Therefore, why should I think of her as a “pervert”?  Some may say she’s “perverting” the language or meaning of “marriage”, but if so, every time you refer to that woman or to any other as “marrying” a dolphin or a snake or whatever, you not only prove the fact that the word “marry” has more meanings in the English language than the limited sense of the word used in Catholic teaching, but you also reinforce that fact.

“Marriage”, as an English word, is a man-made word in the English language, invented a few centuries ago, meaning what people have chosen it to mean, like a tool being used for many things.  Similarly, the word “hammer” refers not only to a tool used to beat metal and drive nails, but also to a small bone in the middle ear somewhat shaped like the tool of the same name.  Injury, infection or disease can damage the hammer in one’s middle ear, but the hammer in my toolbox is not affected.

In your previous post, you also wrote that “No person who is for homosexual ‘marriage’ should object to polygamy, incest, or human-beast coupling in principle.”

In the U.S.A., of the four things you mentioned, only the legalization of bestiality and incest involve legalization of a sexual act.  Neither the legalization of polygamy nor the legalization of same-sex civil marriage would legalize (or necessitate) a sexual act.  The sexual acts of adultery, fornication and homosexuality are already legal with no license required.  And of course, divorce is legal too.

We also needn’t limit ourselves to looking only at the U.S.A.  There are many countries where polygamy is legal but not homosexual acts, and there are about 30 countries where both homosexual acts and same-sex marriage/civil unions/partnerships are legal but polygamy is not.  On top of that, homosexual acts are legal in yet another 150 or so countries.  And yet, despite homosexual acts being legal in 200 or so countries around the world, legalization of bestiality and incest is rather rare.  Likewise, among the many, many countries where homosexuality is legal, polygamy tends to be illegal.  And where polygamy is legal, homosexuality tends to be illegal.

Hello So,

Interestingly, your painting of broad brush stroaks as with the concept of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride month ends with the definition of marriage.

Interesting also that you are willing to attempt define for us what the Catholic meaning of marriage is.

Since when did your line of thinking find absolutes? When it comes to defining something which is beyond your level of tolerance, I’d say.

Catholic marriage or not, So, this woman mocks the institution of marriage, which is just what homosexual “marriage” does as well.

Start “marrying” same sex people, and any other combination can be proposed as well.

As for tying marriage to sex, you can do that or not, but I won’t play that game.

Marriage is also for the rearing of children, and children have the common right to a mother and a father, who can choose or not to continue to have sex…..

You wrote, “Interestingly, your painting of broad brush stroaks… ends with the definition of marriage. Interesting also that you are willing to attempt define for us what the Catholic meaning of marriage is.”

If that’s what you say, that’s what you say.  I said the English word “marriage” means what people mean it to mean.  I don’t attempt to define for anyone what “the Catholic meaning of marriage is”, but relay that the CCC says it involves, for example, the mutual consent of two human parties.  Does that match with the story about the woman, whom your story describes as Jewish, who said herself that she wasn’t “marrying human”?

You wrote, “Since when did your line of thinking find absolutes? When it comes to defining something which is beyond your level of tolerance, I’d say.”

What do you imagine that I don’t “tolerate”?

You wrote, “this woman mocks the institution of marriage, which is just what homosexual ‘marriage’ does as well.”

If that’s how you’ve painted her, that’s how you’ve painted her.  Perhaps some may paint her as joyfully giving homage to “the institution of marriage”, perhaps noting the saying that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

You wrote, “Start ‘marrying’ same sex people, and any other combination can be proposed as well.”

In terms of the different meanings of the word “marriage” that people might use, some might well say that persons of the same sex started “marrying” long ago, perhaps about the same time there were same sex persons on earth.  But in terms of a meaning of “marriage” which requires both a man and a woman, one might also say that there’s never been nor will there ever be a same sex marriage, and when you awaken from your nightmare, you can keep watch with me.

You wrote, “children have the common right to a mother and a father”.

Whatever “common right to a mother and a father” that a child may have, it does not bring dead people back from the grave or make a good father out of a bad or absent father, or mean that John Doe will substitute better than a loving woman with whom the child (and the mother) has already bonded, or mean that we can ignore all the many children raised now and in the future by same sex couples where in fact, in their circumstances, that may be the best available arrangement for them.  Of course, biologically or genealogically, every child living today has both a mother and a father, and there’s also the issue of a holy mother and father.  And if you don’t approve of IVF, that applies to anyone, whether they’re single, or an opposite sex couple or a same sex couple.

The issue for me here is that Obama has appointed many people who openly hate the Church, such as the man (forget name)in the Office of Faith based Initiatives, Keith Jennings of Office of safe and Drug Free Schools and the recent female appointee,Chai Feldblum, to the Equal Economic Opportunity Commission, who states that gay liberty legally trumps religious liberty (she also signed a petition saying that marriage should be all kinds of arrangements—multiple partners, etc.) These people all happen to be gay—but unfortunately i see considerable hatred toward Catholics and Catholicism, perhaps because of the Church’s stance on moral issues.

Hello So,

These bestial unions mock marriage- if they are sincere actions or not.

As for your seeming intolerance, I was surprised to see you so quickly discount the bestial couplings. You seem like an anything goes kind of person, at least from your postings. For some reason, you came to the defense of homosexual unions, but didn’t allow much for the sincerity of the intra-species couples.

Children do have the natural right to a father and a mother from the beginning of their conception. Death, divorce, and human frailty do mar the chances of some children having both role models.

Same-sex unions eliminate that right and from the beginning, even though they too will go on to die and divorce as well.

Liseux, your claim that I “came to the defense of homosexual unions, but didn’t allow much for the sincerity of the intra-species couples” is your interpretation.  May I ask you, how “sincere” is a snake or dolphin?  What I’ve said is that whether the woman and the dolphin, or the woman and the snake, or two persons of the same sex is or is not considered a “marriage” depends on the facts and circumstances, to include the particular meaning of the word “marriage” that one means, as the word “marriage” (or “union”, “couple”, “coupling”, “bestial”, “homosexual”, etc.) may have whatever meaning someone means it to mean.

And when you say “same-sex unions eliminate that right and from the beginning”, do you think that ALL children cared for by adults in “same-sex unions” have never had the care of both the natural mother and father?  And do you think that it’s necessarily the “same-sex union” which is always the cause rather than, for example, the child’s father may have died, deserted, was a rapist, etc?  Do you think it’s possible that some people might choose a same-sex legal arrangement because perhaps it provides for the child better than a single parent might be able to on his/her own?

Does this mean they will change some of our street names and freeways to things like Charles Nelson Reilly Blvd. or Tootsie Memorial Freeway? Let’s laugh a little before the reality sets in and we start to cry.

So, for some reason, your relativism about the world stops when it comes to viewing bestial couplings as marriages. You saw the “fun” in it, while I saw the woman defending herself from the press which was calling her a pervert.

If these bestial unions were sincere marriages or not, they still mock the institution of marriage, and that is how many see same-sex couplings.

We can look at all the hypothetical cases you could come up with for a week or two, and the bottom line is that Suzy doesn’t need two mommies or two daddies.

St. Thomas Aquinas said that an error in the beginning is an error indeed.
I’ll leave it at that….. as I have things to do.

Thank you for the conversation, So.  I wish you ABSOLUTELY well.

God bless.

Liseux, whatever you’ve called “your relativism” is yours.

I did not say that the English word “marriage” cannot be used to refer to “bestial couplings”.  Indeed, I specifically identified a number of senses of the word “marriage” that may be applied to such couplings.  Some senses of the word “marriage” in the English language include “a coupling”, “a union” and/or “a combination of two or more things”.

You wrote, “You saw the ‘fun’ in it, while I saw the woman defending herself from the press which was calling her a pervert.”

I see that the news stories reported that she herself described it as “fun” and that she herself said “I am not a pervert”, but that neither the ynet news story you posted nor the ones I posted have the press “calling her a pervert”.

You wrote, “If these bestial unions were sincere marriages or not, they still mock the institution of marriage, and that is how many see same-sex couplings.”

If that’s how you interpret it, then that’s you and your interpretation that are doing that.

You wrote, “We can look at all the hypothetical cases you could come up with for a week or two, and the bottom line is that Suzy doesn’t need two mommies or two daddies.”

The “bottom line” is that your interpretation is your interpretation, and your opinion of it is but you smelling your own breath.

You wrote, “Thank you for the conversation”.

Have you heard anyone but yourself?

Do you think I have….?

I really don’t understand the opposition to this proclamation.  The Church remains free to not recognize gay unions (as it doesn’t recognize other civil marriages that conflict with Church teachings).  I simply don’t see the threat to the Church.  It’s a civil legal issue.

The threat, kcpunky, is to the core of our civilization.  It’s not a threat to the Church.  It’s a threat to civilized value systems.

It is even moreso a threat to the natural law, and to the future of society as a whole.

my daughter is a lesbian and jesus loves her and he will be her judge. So put your rocks down.

Hello Sandra,

One can be homosexual tendencies and not act on them. This is not a sinful state.

I think most here would agree that Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, go and sin no more, and that this would apply to all those who are having sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Yes, the words of Jesus will judge us all. God bless you and your daughter.

I got to one comment and stoppedl s omething about Catholics being the cream of peodephiles.  I’m not crazy about the tone it sets. and I’m not going to spew a lot of invictive back….at anyone.  in my estimation;
Obama was right in asking that we respect those who are homosexual, however I do not condone marriage or physical relationships among homosexuals.

With that said; I didn’t vote for Obama and I am extremely upset he blew off National Prayer Day and also the fact that he doesn’t give his speeches at the WHite House in front of the American Flag.  I am not sure if he excludes it every time, but I have seen pictures of him at the podium and no flag in sight behind him…as previous presidents have always included.
t

Dear Liseux, I agree with you,and the Lord works in mysteries ways!!!!May the Lord keep us and bless us Thanks

Thank you, Sandra.

BTW, that should be “one can have homosexual tendencies.”

I could not read everything…but, Donny and anyone else who has problems with the Church. Please, please, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other primary documents (as opposed to secondary, because some may not be loyal to the Magisteriam,) before you rant against the Church. If you would do this instead of simply react to something you don’t even understand, you would save a lot of breath!
Blessings.

As is so often the case with religious groups with supposed “high moral standards”  we invariably treat anyone who does not conform to our own particular belief system with contempt – and usually hatred - and on this website I see an awful lot of contempt and hatred for President Obama.  So it is with Muslims who decide to change their faith and commit the evil sin of “apostasy”. For that the penalty is death.  Some tribes in Africa still believe in female genital mutilation, some religions believe in never eating pork – or cows,  or meat on Fridays.  Our own Old Testament appears to suggest (Lev 11:10) that eating seafood without fins or scales (lobsters, crabs, prawns etc.) is an “abomination” and that they should be classed with “homosexuals”.

So I like to ask myself the question, how would my fellow Christians treat someone, even if it is just one individual, who does not meet our particular criteria for what is “normal”. Take, for example, the “chimerics” of this world.  Karen Keegan and Lydia Fairchild would be two such examples. For anyone unfamiliar with chimerism it involves our fellow human beings who are born with two or more separate lines of DNA. These two ladies were featured in the documentary “I am my own twin” where the medical community initially believed they could not be the mothers of their own children.

Why raise the issue of chimerism?  Well, there have now been numerous cases of chimerism,  which may or may not be manifested as physical abnormalities.  One such case was discovered in 1998 when doctors at the University of Edinburgh examined a male who appeared to have an undescended left testicle, and they were shocked to find an ovary and a fallopian tube in this so-called male patient.  He/she was blessed with two sets of DNA, half male and half female. 

So is he/she male or female? Was this person born in the image of God?  Does he/she have human rights? Who will decide on which gender he/she should adopt? Should it be by some sort of religious committee?  Is he/she evil?  Is this some kind of punishment passed on by an angry God for sins committed by the parents? 

I suspect that our ancient ancestors never heard of chimerism and would have had no comprehension about what it could be, except for no doubt concluding that a child born with both male and female sexual organs was clearly an abomination caused by the evil sins of the parents under the influence of Satan.

Is it just possible that President Barack Obama is proclaiming that all of us, whatever race, creed, colour, sexual designation, should have equal human rights and not be subject to prejudice hatred and contempt.  This, to me, sounds an awful lot like my idea of what it means to be a true Christian.  I wonder what Jesus would say?  Would he just lump him/her in with all of the rest of the LGBT community as an evil abomination - just like those evil lobster eaters?  Personally, I believe that we should treat everyone with dignity and do what the President suggests - fight prejudice and discrimination wherever we find it because prejudice and discrimination is alive and well – even in our Christian churches as so clearly evidenced in these posts.

67, I am all for homosexuals, chimerics, et. al. to have equal human rights.

Who on Earth here has said anything different?

Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as Avila stated, because no on is calling for the removal of equal human rights for anyone.

Liseux,  you have GOT to be kidding.  Are you seriously suggesting that the chimeric discovered in Edinburgh has any chance of leading a normal life, and maybe even marrying if he/she can find a partner willing to love him/her just as he/she is.  Just read some of these posts and you will get the gist of why he/she has no hope of being considered anything but a pervert or an abomination.  The hatred and contempt of anyone not considered to be “normal” is palpable.

Members of the LGBT community should be treated with equal respect and dignity just as any other person should, until such time as any of us breaks the law of the land, but you and I both know that that will NEVER happen with the kind of attitudes displayed so openly on this and other so-called Christian websites.  I greatly admire President Obama for asking us to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in our own lives and everywhere it exists.  Now there is a true Christian and a true believer.  I see nothing, not one single sentence written by you which makes me believe that you are making any attempt to fight prejudice and discrimination.  I read nothing from you about the need to love and respect our fellow men and women - even those who are different from the rest of us.  Not a single word.

No, I’m not kidding at all.  I’m for equal rights of LGBT and chimerics too. I might not agree with some of their choices, but I do try to understand.

I could be wrong, but I see YOU painting a scenario for faithful Catholics “hating” homosexuals and chimerics and acting as this painting is real.  What’s “palpable” to you is nonexistent to others.

In otherwords, you’re creating quite a strawman and even getting worked up over your own strawman.

Have you read the CCC as regards those with homosexual tendencies?

67,you greatly admire Pres Obama for asking us to observe this month by fighting predjudice & discrimination in our own lives and everywhere he exists??  President Obama first needs to practice what he preaches and not discriminate against the pre-born.

Liseux,  perhaps you did not actually read my post.  In my first paragraph I made the point that I see an awful lot of “hatred and contempt” towards President Obama on this website.  I thought that Jimmy had written a reasoned argument putting paid to the ludicrous suggestion that President Obama is the “antichrist” but that does not appear to be your view. To quote your own words posted on 25 March referring to the President of the United States, ”If he’s not the anti-Christ, he sure works for him”. And on 27th March, “I pray for him (President Obama), but the guy brings evil to our country, period.  So to refer to him as the anti-Christ is well within reason.”  I think it is entirely reasonable to make the statement that there is hatred and contempt towards President Obama, and you are an active participant in that endeavour.

In raising the issue of chimerism and the medical fact that we have human beings in our midst who are born with both male and female genitalia, I asked a series of questions, none of which you chose to answer.  Just one of those questions was whether or not a chimeric inter-sex baby is born in God’s image and whether or not the Catholic church would lump chimerics in with all of our fellow human beings in the LGBT community. 

Now let’s have a brief look at some of the comments made about the LGBT community. William (1 June) refers to their “sexual deviance”.  (Are chimerics sexual deviants?) Kelly Wing (2 June) compares them with “Child Abusers, Drug Users, Rapists and Perverts (to the best of my knowledge the first three at least are crimes under the law and just may indicate that she has contempt for the whole LGBT community). LRoy (2 June) says, “I want nothing to do with LBGT and their filthy ways.”  (I wonder what he thinks about them having equal human rights!) K.C.Thomas ( Jun 2) says, “At this rate it may not be far away when the President of America sanctions the marriage between human and animal as well as incest relationships.” Glenn Koons ( Jun 2) says, “The evil of this Admin. in every social, cultural, economic and military effort has made America a sewer for the amoral and immoral to crow about the end of American superiority.” Phil (5 June) states, “We as Catholics must oppose any attempt to “mainstream” depravity. Stand firm in your faith and fight evil wherever it surfaces.” And your own quote (5 June) “the president is honoring homosexuals, bisexuals, crossdressers, and et. al.”

Believe it or not these and other comments on this website give the clear impression that there are persons on it who have complete contempt for homosexuals and for anyone in the LBGT community. So again I ask the question, how would the Catholic church view the chimeric who happens to be born with both male and female organs.

You say that you are for equal rights of LGBT and chimerics too although you might not agree with some of their choices, but you do try to understand. That is a laudable statement but when you call the President of the United States “evil” and you justify calling him the “anti-christ” as being entirely reasonable I begin to question whether you are sincere.  Many of the comments posted on this website display exactly the contempt and hatred for members of the LGBT community that you seem to think is non-existent.

Again, I ask about the chimeric in Edinburgh (and those elsewhere in the world):- Is he/she male or female? Was this person born in the image of God?  Does he/she have human rights? Who will decide on which gender he/she should adopt? Should it be by some sort of religious committee?  Is he/she evil?  Is this some kind of punishment passed on by an angry God for sins committed by the parents?  Does it help him/her to be called a “sexual deviant”, compare him/her with child abusers, drug users, rapists and perverts etc. etc.  Does this chimeric have any right to love and companionship?

I will conclude with a quote from Amanda (2 June)  “I think the reason they are having this month is to stop the comments that are on this page. Don’t call them perverts or filthy.” Amanda, you summed it up beautifully.

I read your posts quite well, 67.

You state: “The hatred and contempt of anyone not considered to be “normal” is palpable.”  You weren’t refering to Obama here, but LGBT, et. al. 

You are getting confused.

In the end I love them all, as they are my brothers and sisters.

As for my comments about Obama, I stand by every one of them. So far, I can still separate the sinner from the sin, and I hope you can as well. We prayed for him today.

Do you think he prays for me and my family?

As for the other comments, they can be defended as well. I don’t want anything to do with the aberrant ways of homosexuals either…. but I can separate the PEOPLE from their actions.

That’s why Jesus could sit down and eat with sinners, 67. The Bible never said he condoned their actions.

As for Amanda’s quote- if anyone called the people filthy, that is wrong. But calling their actions filthy and perverted, we are allowed to say that because they do go against the natural law which has its basis in the Nature of God.

Perhaps the statements could have been made in a gentler manner, but I think you would still object to the meaning- homosexual acts are unnatural to the body and to life no matter how one packages them verbally.

Reviewing this thread can be very instructive on how dissent on a clear doctrine is given legitimacy. The Church teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful, unnatural, aberrant, and depraved. Liberal Catholics don’t believe this. They don’t admit it, but they think the Church is wrong…sort of like with birth control, female clergy, etc. This is the “progressive” position, enthusiastically endorsed by the press, the educational establishment, and now the Obama Administration. But since they are Catholics, they have to finesse the issue here. For inexperienced debaters, it’s a bit shocking to be accused of being judgmental or lacking in caritas. But that is how the game is played, my friends.

I’ve read over the posts and just about everyone who is justifiably disgusted with this proclamation has made the essential distinction between rejection of the sin and love for the sinner. Remember that, when you are attacked for defending God’s law, it is the opposition that is in denial. Don’t give in to sophistry. Your opponents are defending the indefensible, just as the nation’s leaders do on a daily basis, while claiming to be faithful. Don’t fall for it, fellow Catholics. Pray for them and vote them out of office.

This is in answer to liseux and Phil, and hopefully will be seen as a plea to others to give equal respect and dignity to those of our fellow human beings who simply do not fit our version of what is “normal”.  First to Phil,  it appears you may consider me a Liberal Catholic. I am not. I am an Anglican, but I consider that all Christians should share God’s love – equally.  You clearly believe that “homosexual behaviour is sinful, unnatural, aberrant, and depraved,”  and you state that that is the teaching of the (Catholic Church).  I do not know whether you apply this description to anyone and everyone who does not fit the norm hence my reason for writing.

Liseux might wish to briefly read my post of 21st June where, in my opening paragraph I wrote, “ on this website I see an awful lot of contempt and hatred for President Obama”.  Far from being confused,  I quoted liseux’ comments in which he called the President of the United States “evil” and justifed calling him the “anti-christ” as being entirely reasonable. In my local community there are several Christian religious groups who describe the Pope as the “anti-christ”. I consider this to be both contemptible and hateful in just the same way. No ands no ifs or buts.

I note that neither liseux nor Phil have made ANY response to my series of questions about how do we treat our fellow human beings who happen to be chimeric (in the case quoted – having been born with both male and female sexual organs).  Yes, liseux states that he agrees with equal rights for chimerics and LGBT’s but he goes on to say that calling the actions of homosexuals filthy and perverted is allowed because they do “go against the natural law which has its basis in the Nature of God.”

Before outlining my position further I would like to just reiterate my first statement on these posts, that is, “As is so often the case with religious groups with supposed “high moral standards”  we invariably treat anyone who does not conform to our own particular belief system with contempt – and usually hatred.

My concern about the threads of these posts is that it appears that all of those people who are “different” or outside the norm are classed as sinful, unnatural, aberrant, and depraved etc to quote Phil’s words.  I understand that the Catholic Church considers homosexuality to be sinful, and homosexuals can therefore be described as “filthy” along with many other derogatory epithets.  But just how far does this extend when we start to castigate our fellow human beings -  ALL of whom are sinful.

Now what do I mean by “different” or “outside the norm”?  The initials LGBT are often thrown around, and as I understand the term this refers to our fellow human beings who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.  I also understand that it has been suggested that the term should really be LGBTI, with the “I” referring to those who are “intersexed”.

And what is the meaning of intersexed?  I will not attempt a complex scientific definition for this term, but I understand that it refers to those of our fellow human beings who are born with what is often called DSD (Disorders of Sex Development). Recent statistics indicate that approximately 1 in 2,000 are born with at least one of over 30 known intersex conditions, that is, they have both male and female organs, or unusual physical attributes, or the lack of them that makes it difficult to assign to them a gender.  The chimeric I quoted is but one example, that is,  having two sets of DNA, one of which was male and one female - and split right down the middle of his/her body.  I realize that this is a long post so I will close and complete this in a follow-up post.

In my last post I was briefly outlining the issue of persons who are born with what is called an intersex condition.  Some of your readers may be familiar (though probably not) with the “John/Joan Case” in which a male twin accidentally lost his penis when being circumcised.  The doctors involved decided to re-assign “John” as a female - “Joan” -  and she was raised as a girl.  Biologist Milton Diamond followed up on this case many years later and discovered that “Joan” never felt like a female (despite the doctors arbitrary decision) and she underwent a sex-change operation,  being re-assigned as “John” - a male.  Is he/she perverted, filthy, abhorrent, deviant?

For decades in the U.S and in the U.K. there have been hundreds of babies born with tiny penises, considered by medical experts to be just too small to be classed as penises, so they were often removed, then the babies underwent a surgical procedure to provide them with a “vagina”. Their parents were instructed to raise them as females, with often catastrophic results.  Many females born with unusual sexual organs simply had them removed, often with equally catastrophic effect on their lives.

So why raise these issues on this website.  Well, first of all it is my belief that in this 21st century we know far more than our ancient ancestors about chimerism, and about babies born with intersex conditions.  In fact our ancestors would have simply had no comprehension of such “deviants?”, except for no doubt concluding that a child born with both male and female sexual organs was clearly an abomination caused by the evil sins of the parents under the influence of Satan.  But we are still influenced by their writings from thousands of years ago, and we surely have to take into consideration the knowledge we now have when reviewing moral issues of the day.

I am extremely concerned that anyone who is “different” such as those with an intersex condition are automatically labeled as perverted, filthy, evil and so on.  The epithets are thrown at every single person in the LGBT or LGBTI community and I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone who happened to be chimeric or afflicted by an intersex condition would be included in that description.  It was Tim T who referred to “the whole alphabet soup of sexual deviants - “LGBT” and whatever “.  I see NOTHING on this website;  I see nothing in Catholic literature; that seeks to address the fact that many of our fellow human beings are born “different” from us.  Why, we have even decided to operate on them in an effort to make them confirm to OUR version of “normal”. 

I would humbly submit that far less than 1% of the readers of this website had ever even heard of chimerism or had ever given a single thought to the fact that there are people all over the globe who are not fortunate enough to be born “normal”. These people are our own brothers and sisters,  cousins, aunts and uncles, children and grandchildren. And they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.  I will conclude with just one more post.

In my last post I described several examples of persons born with an “intersex” or DSD condition.  I would urge those persons who have such contempt for those in the LGBT(I) community to think for a few moments about how you treat these, your fellow humans beings.  How do you know if they were operated on as babies because someone in the medical profession arbitrarily decided to change their gender, albeit based on what the doctors thought was best for them at the time!  How do you recognize who is a chimeric, blessed (or should I say cursed) with both male and female organs?  Quite frankly, the answer is that you would have no idea whatever unless the person happened to be a member of your own family, or a close friend.

As a young man in law enforcement I was once given excellent advice about the way I should treat people.  I was told that every time I dealt with a member of the public (usually people who I perceived to be breaking the law)  “just imagine that you have a real live judge looking over your shoulder watching what you say and do”.  I now use the same scenario but instead of a judge I imagine Jesus looking over my shoulder.  I imagine him watching carefully to see if I treat my fellow human beings with respect and dignity, because he is not looking over my shoulder to judge them, he is right there judging ME. 

I very much doubt that older persons, who are firmly set in their ways, will even think twice about the way they treat and often subconsciously have contempt and hatred for those amongst us who are different, but I just hope and pray that our children and young people will seriously question the way we revile our fellow human beings, often for no other reason than that they are “different” from us.  The real “evil” here is the blanket labeling of our fellow human beings as filthy, perverted, aberrant, deviant etc. without really knowing who they are.  And perhaps, most “evil” is labeling a fellow Christian,  President Barack Obama, or the Pope, as the anti-christ.  Shame on you liseux. But I will pray for you.

When you can’t convince them because your position is weak, overwhelm them with words. 67, you win the Barack Obama Prize for long-winded empty replies.

Love, love, love. God loves homosexuals, and so should we. We do not love homosexual behavior, and when you define a person by his behavior, as the Gay Pride Month proclamation does, we are put in the position of endorsing the sin. If you’re an Anglican, you are in a church being torn apart by this very question, and perhaps you are on the side that thinks homosexuality is just fine. There is no debate on this in the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics who think homosexual behavior is not a sin are dissenting from authoritative Church teaching. Some of them post here. Most do their blogging on liberal Catholic sites.

We (that is, informed, orthodox, faithful Catholics) do not vilify homosexuals. Being accused of that is the usual red herring tactic used a million times a day by those in the gay movement. We exercise a loving tolerance and stand ready to help homosexuals return to God and embrace the Truth. We do not, however, endorse, approve, or celebrate homosexual acts, which are morally illicit. I have been in hundreds of these debates, online and in person, and my opponents can’t seem to grasp how we can do this. They are so bound up in their sexuality that it not only constitutes their main source of identity, it seems for many almost to be a substitute religion. Not applauding them for their “sexual orientation” is almost as despicable as being a Republican in their eyes. For a Christian, on the other hand, hatred of sin is as much a part of faith as belief in God’s love. I know that this was generally taught in the Anglican Church until relatively recently when the Communion began to disintegrate over this very issue. 

Stop the chimeric stuff—it’s just a red herring. You know that. Get back on topic if you want to continue the debate. Is the proclamation abhorrent to Christians or not? I’ve read some ridiculous stuff on this thread trying to show that it’s a wonderful demostration of agape to praise and celebrate that which the Church teaches is depraved. Your tirade continues along those lines, and mirrors many of the empty talking points used by gay rights activists/apologists in debate with Christians. Here’s the essential question: Do you accept that homosexual behavior is a sin? If yes, then do you not believe that it is possible to oppose it and at the same time exercise Christian charity toward the sinner? If no, are you aware that you’ve just chucked out 2000 years of Christian teaching for…what?

Phil, Congratulations on completely avoiding the issue of how we should treat those amongst us who are not “normal” such as chimerics and those who are born intersexed - now estimated at approximately 1 in 2,000.  Unfortunately for them, they are either completely ignored or they are all bunched in with the dreaded homosexuals.  Maybe that’s an improvement on the traditional belief that the sins of the fathers are passed on to their sons.  You are right of course. We have been discriminating against homosexuals for 2,000 years of more and in order to keep the faith we must continue to focus on the one issue - homosexuality.  Any suggestion of a continuum, or exceptions to the usual laws of nature regarding the issue of sexuality and gender, must be avoided at all cost and be described as a “red herring”. Never let science get in the way of religious doctrine.

Congratulations also on attacking the Anglican Church - always a good defence.  The Catholic Church is, of course, beyond reproach although the Belgian authorities seem to have other ideas!

It appeared that “67” might be an under-informed Catholic. But clarifying that “he” is *not* Catholic explains a lot about the chimeric and “intersex” phenomena 67 suggests are an unsolvable dilemma for the Catholic Church’s teaching on Genesis 1:27-28 (“male and female he created them”) and even on classic homosexual immorality.  67 seems pleased to suggest science is increasingly ‘uncovering’ an extended range of sexual & identity anomalies that Church doctrine can’t handle and so the Church is being exposed by science as not at all having what the Church rightly asserts: the fullness of truth resides in her alone.

Had 67 been a magisterium-faithful Catholic, he could have properly informed readers on Genesis 1:27-28 and on the increasing range of sexual ambiguities being “uncovered” which range will here be assumed to be true, for purposes of discussion.

God’s Plan was for Paradise, a planet *free of disturbing flaws and dangers* such as the varieties we see in every area of life and living conditions on our *post-fall* planet which we “earned” via our fall in Eden. Hence, from the inorganic to the biologically organic features of the planet, including that marvelous creature “man”, all of Nature is subject to an incompletely known range of flaws and/or dangers we must cope with.

Chimerism & any other validly documented flaws relative to ideal human biology are typically consequences of mankind’s fall and not of some supposed generational curse; so, flaw-existence does not cancel Church teaching on being chaste. Instead, for flaws in general, how we spiritually deal with them constitutes part of our individual testing and response re “the lot you (God) has given to me”. The Catholic Church tells us that Christ’s grace is sufficient to overcome the stress and temptations if the individual cooperates with grace and that for many, the struggle will not be easy or quick.

People without such a difficult lot sin gravely if they disrespect or truly work against those affected. On the other hand, those who assert God “made them that way” and therefore He allows sex-practices forbidden to those not so-affected, or that God approves same-sex marriages and the rearing of children by ‘same-sex parents’ boldly attempt to “make themselves the source of truth”. That sin of attempting to displace God who is THE source of all truth is condemned.

God limits “flaw frequency” as in the severe sexual-flaws area so that, for example, ambiguous physical gender problems simply do not significantly interfere with His ongoing general Command to increase and multiply. 

As to being made in God’s Image, that reality is *spiritual*—our resemblance to God is mainly reflected in “the dominion God gives [man] over the rest of creation.” Hence difficult problems like having traditional homosexual inclinations or being “intersexed” does not cancel one’s dignity before God and other fellowmen.

Finally, were 67 a true Catholic he would have explained that severe local problems as in the Belgian Church at present are periodic in the Church on earth as part of its ongoing battles with Satan who God declares shall not *prevail*. *Not prevail* means he’ll temporarily win in some places. 67 cited the Belgian problem-area.

It is important to know that not even whole national Catholic Bishops Conferences (i.e., our own USCCB or Belgium’s) have a “mandate to teach” as do individual bishops. Hence Conferences can be in error and fail that way for some time (also lukewarm individual bishops) when not in active harmony with the full Magisterium.  The Holy Spirit’s design of the Magisterium makes it impossible to destroy it; local problem areas become known for their error and are typically gradually brought back, often by changes in key personnel at various levels. The sex-card Satan has been playing for decades is the last major trump available to him that builds on easily played human weakness. Whereas Martin Luther still has his erring “Reformation” ever splitting after 500 years, the sex-scandal will soon be history with checks put in place against *significant* later occurrence.

Obama shame on you we need to celebrate the day God created Man and womem because of man and women you have life we all have life Homosexuality can’t create life is nothing to celebrate.

My apologies for the delay in responding to William F. Folger.  Have been visiting Italy on a church tour (even Anglicans can be inspired by Catholic architecture), although it was rather disturbing to be regaled with the latest scandal concerning Italian Catholic priests frequenting homosexual bars.  Maybe they were carrying out research for the Church.

If I were to briefly summarize my views on the post from Mr. Folger,  I would describe it as a complete load of codswallop.  He fails miserably to address any of the issues I have raised with regard to the fact that here, in this 21st century,  we now know that many of our fellow human beings (all of whom, we are told, are made in God’s image) are born with genetic abnormalities including chimerism, and many are born with what is now called an “intersex” condition where their gender is difficult to establish.

It appears from Mr. Folger’s comments that we sinners are somehow to blame for these poor folks because their conditions are “typically consequences of mankind’s fall and not of some supposed generational curse”.  I guess all those 10,000 or more deformed babies born in the 1950’s and 1960’s have mankind’s fall from grace to blame rather than doctors prescribing the drug thalidomide to pregnant women.  Sounds like the old tired and worn belief that God punishes our children for the sins of their fathers, or batters us with hurricanes, tornados and psunamis if the locals are too promiscuous!  Whatever nonsensical pseudo religious notions are dreamt up to explain why, we now know that we have fellow human beings amongst us who are born partly male and partly female, or have major gender issues, and in some cases their sexuality is, or has been decided shortly after birth by a surgical team who have made an arbitrary decision in the mistaken belief that if “we decide this baby is a female because of a paucity of male genitalia” then all the parents have to do is raise the child as a female and all will be well!  Fortunately, this type of procedure is finally being recognized for what it is, and is rapidly being abandoned.

My concern is that these fellow human beings in our midst are entitled to the love, affection, and yes, sexuality,  that most of us are blessed with, (with perhaps the notable exception of Catholic priests.)  Tragically, the church’s obsession with the stamping out of homosexuality, which ain’t NEVER going to happen as long as the tide keeps rising and falling,  results in such ridiculous pronouncements as these folks just need to be “chaste”. In other words, if they don’t confirm to our image of being fully male or fully female so they can marry and beget children, then they have no right to affection, love,  or any kind of physical bonding with another human being because it would be considered sinful and evil. In the final analysis this a denial of their basic human rights, and hopefully we have a few enlightened people, such as President Barrack Obama, fighting to overcome this prejudice.  As stated earlier - Mr. Folger’s reply was a load of codswallop!

“67’s” central thesis is that God planned a *range* of human species, the vast majority being well-defined males and females. Yet that range, 67 indicates, also includes at much lower frequency *other natural categories*, e.g., those with ambiguously defined gender indicators as in the so-called “intersex” condition—in apparent conflict with Gen. 1:27’s exclusionary “male and female he created them”.
Especially such categories *require human rights protection*, 67 insists, including the right to physical bonding with another of choice—67 says—without their chosen sexual acts being branded by Catholicism as evil or sinful.
God’s “operation” on Adam to produce Eve obviously involved the first and only sex transformation needed for God’s “increase and multiply” plan & command. The “rib” is metaphoric for we can’t understand miracles but can appreciate the complementarity and “oneness” behind the biblical “two in one flesh” description for God-commanded reproduction.  After Eve came, male-female generation would grow world population according to God’s Original Plan. But consequences of their subsequent fall would remain since what God tested in Eden was our ONE human nature.
Anglican “67” does not seem to believe that Original Sin has *ongoing negative temporal consequences* even after baptism; for some Anglicans that can be normal belief.
Whatever the case, such a belief corresponds to 67’s mis-classification of the *thalidomide* disaster as being “like the old tired and worn belief that God punishes our children for the sins of their fathers” (apparent reference to non-applicable generational curses) when it is just one of literally millions of examples (in history) of the truth of *ongoing negative temporal consequences* of Original sin which reflects our common nature’s refusal to serve God *unconditionally*. 
The reason 67 must downplay that important truth is that it is THE decisive obstacle to his central thesis that God deliberately made some people neither male nor female – hence making what is taken as the “inspired bible” *wrong* and LGBT claims *right*.  67’s twice-emphasized theme that “we now know” would expose the historic Catholic Church as phony thus bringing full freedom to humanity in the 21st century.
However, with negative temporal consequences, indeed an “intersex” condition is *plausible*, given the extent of other more well-documented extreme gestational abnormalities allowed by God and perhaps governed by *post-fall* randomness effects allowed in Nature’s processes, including the gestation process.
Hence, a supposed “intersex” condition can easily be just one of myriad results fitting within the overall “flaw set” for non-Paradise conditions AFTER the fall – without having to conclude God *deliberately* made some quite small percent genetically neither male nor female as part of His *PRE-fall* Plan expressed in Genesis. AFTER mankind’s fall, things changed radically for mankind but not to the extent that it significantly altered “increase and multiply,” for one example. 
No matter how handicapped at birth, sexually or otherwise, all have equal dignity before God and mankind because their spiritual souls are made in the Image and likeness of God. And we know that marriages do not exist in heaven which will contain many married-on-earth, many singles-on-earth and many from post-fall categories departing from God’s Original Plan. They are all deserving of our caring love and respect which must not be compromised by disobedience to God’s Moral Laws.
Indeed, God does not suspend His Laws: men are given grace-opportunities to reject evil and to choose to honor God’s Moral Laws. Since history records millions of sexually normal people able to choose chastity to serve God in special ways, there is nothing inherent in Nature to prove chastity is an *impossible burden*.
Provided the burdened one is open to cooperating with God’s grace, the moral law can be obeyed though for some it is a very difficult trial, the Church teaches. Christ’s grace is sufficient per Jesus’ promise about confronting all temptations. Jesus’ promise of *sufficient grace* is NOT limited to those whose religious vows require celibacy.
Consider briefly the parallel-in-behavior in the formations of Islam and that of the modern LGBT movement. Islam started when Muhammad attempted to co-opt God-Man Jesus by making *Islam’s Jesus* mere prophet to him. Later, others would be coerced into giving in to this bold assertion – or else! Catholicism existed for ~ 600 years *before* Muhammad initiated Islam by his announcing the Catholic Church wrong about Jesus—and Muhammad right.
Catholicism existed for ~ 2,000 years *before* LGBT-type groups attempted to co-opt God’s Moral Authority by informing us that *they* are the “source of truth” on the bible and on the application of God’s Laws regarding sexual practices. Do document their growing coercions of Catholics and other faithful Christians. They say the Catholic Church is wrong—and “67” is right. 
67 makes a guess in his response; so allow me to guess that God is smart and efficient enough to have avoided *re-making* Nature all over again *after* Adam & Eve first sinned. Knowing the full “timeline” for mankind, God much more likely designed Nature – once—for the sure-to-come post-fall conditions. The Bible is fine when read in context: His message in Gen 1:27 is the perfect way God wanted but did not get due to our nature’s first crucial veto of God. His Original Plan did not need a “*range* of human species”.
All that was needed by Adam & Eve before their Test at the Tree of Knowledge was a relatively short period of immeasurable pleasantness in *local Paradise-like conditions*.  There is no real conflict with Catholic teaching re Gen 1:27 related to relatively new discoveries such as “intersex”, for the existence of “intersex” (it is not even well defined) would be but one manifestation of the “temporal consequences” of Original Sin which denied us the complete joy of living out God’s *Original* Plan without death.

I love it. More hocus pocus to let us know that anyone who doesn’t neatly fit our definition of being truly male or truly female, as designed by God,  MUST remain celibate and chaste for their entire lives.  Thanks William for being the judge and jury, or is it the Catholic Church comprised exclusively of males who swear to love only God and be “chaste” (with a few notable exceptions).  Equal rights be damned. If they don’t comply with OUR rules we’ll label them sinful or evil and send them all packing off to hell (a hell we have created for them right here on earth!)

I have never claimed a central thesis that “God planned a *range* of human species, the vast majority being well-defined males and females”. This is just more pseudo religious hogwash.

What I am saying is that in this 21st century we now know that there are hundreds of genetic conditions resulting in a range of “disorders” for want of a better word, that were simply beyond the understanding and comprehension of our ancestors who were not equipped to figure out the reasons for such conditions, although the vast majority of those poor unfortunates with genetic disorders and a host of diseases would invariably have died in infancy because they would have been untreatable.  A good Christian friend of ours, and his wife, were recently devastated by the news that their new born baby has Blackfin Diamond Aneamia Syndrome, a very rare genetic condition. I’m not sure that it would be a comfort if I told them that their baby’s condition is a result of the “*ongoing negative temporal consequences* of Original sin which reflects our common nature’s refusal to serve God *unconditionally*.”  What utter hogwash!

The Church has previously made pronouncements which, on reflection, have proved to be totally wrong in fact – not the least of which was the castigation of Galileo as a heretic because of his ridiculous assertion that the earth circled the sun, and not the other way around as allegedly stated quite clearly in the bible.  Admittedly our last Pope issued a formal apology but that was several centuries after Galileo had been punished for his sins.

The bible is a wonderful book, but one has to be just a little skeptical of believing every single word literally.  For example, I do have a few concerns about our literal belief in the creation story.  I have never quite understood who it was who wrote down the story of Adam and Eve. Was it them?  Were they born literate? Was it God himself (maybe on a tablet of stone)? Or maybe their children, or their children’s children who were not actually eye-witnesses to the great event? Or was it our early ancestors who were trying as best they could to explain just where we came from?  Likewise, with the story of Noah’s ark.  I never met anyone yet who can actually argue cogently that every single species on earth (some of which have only recently been found for the first time) were rounded up and taken on board the ark, and fed and watered for months by Noah and his family before being packed off back to their habitats when the flood abated.  To be honest, I have real difficulty picturing Noah’s family setting off to South Africa to capture just one pair of rhinoceros.  In fact they would have had to capture at least 10 pairs – one of each species – if the theory of evolution is discounted!  It always appears so hard to capture them on Nat Geo (and that’s with rifles firing anaethetics!)  And of course, if there is no evolution then Noah and his band MUST have captured at least 2 of every creature on earth, including all the birds.  I did have one bright spark explain that Noah had to abandon the dinosaurs because of lack of space in the ark, hence the reason for their extinction.  Full marks for inventiveness.

But I stray from the subject at hand.  Neither William Folger, nor the Catholic Church, nor anyone else has the moral or legal authority to deny our fellow human beings their right to love and be loved, and to enjoy their God-given sexuality as long as they conform with the laws of our lands.  Yes, we have laws to protect children from pedophiles (please take note that it is NOT the Church’s responsibility to enforce those laws – but our legal system.) 

I realize that there is no way that it is possible to change the mind set of the William Folger’s of this world, but I pray that young people will question the issues of the day and not allow themselves to be blinded by ill-informed religious dogma of whatever faith.  Armed with the knowledge that modern science is providing us, we need to move forward with the kind of love and understanding for our fellow humans that our Lord Jesus so clearly demonstrated during his brief life on earth.

“67” is conveniently forgetful. In his June 21 6:01 PM post he reveals he knows about Genesis 1:27 by raising 67’s two questions: “So is he/she male or female? Was this person born in the image of God?“ Like many in history who try to radically change society in clever ways, 67 avoids the direct claim about his central thesis for that would be the end of it for thinking Christians.
Yet readers of 67’s posts can easily spot his central thesis since he’s always highlighting the relatively new “intersex” condition which does seem to put down Genesis 1:27 However, it does not actually do so, per my July 29 post and 67 is unhappy about that. 67 takes shots at Catholicism and champions love and respect as if Catholics lack these. 67 shows confidence in Jesus: “I wonder what Jesus would say?”, asks 67!
Check 67’s June 21 7:58 PM post wherein he shows quite great pride for President Obama thus: “Now there [President Obama] is a *true Christian* and a *true believer*”.
So, .let’s check whether Anglican 67 and President Obama believe in VITAL John 1:3 – “Through him *all* things were made; without him *nothing* was made that has been made.”
But first note what then Sen. Obama said in his Call to Renewal Speech in June 2006 as he prepared to go for the presidency:

“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. **Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.**”
Though one might discuss the O.T. citations in another forum in terms of God’s marking His people in various ways and acting in the Theocratic phase of our Redemption, the VITAL TEST today for President Obama involves Obama’s CHARGE that **Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.**!
Now the reader is invited to consider that President Obama is either ignorant of John 1:3 above or President Obama willingly shows ZERO EMPATHY for Jesus’ having to witness daily slaughtering of HIS (John 1:3) new children who are the most vulnerable innocent in the entire world-set of victims. Abortion-Facilitator and alleged “true Christian” Obama is OBLIGED to digest John 1:3 because the Constitution does not require any president to work so hard to advance a presumed abortion “right”. Obama’s *diligence* in that area convicts him once he takes the implicit advice in his charge: **Folks haven’t been reading their bibles** but then ignores Jesus’ enormous sorrow!
Does 67 have EMPATHY for Jesus?  Perhaps 67 will advise President Obama to read and ponder John 1:3.

Wow.  All that woffle, and William Folger also throws in yet another vicious attack on President Obama, who has at various times been described as the “anti-christ” on this website.  Perhaps Mr. Folger’s attack on President Obama is really intended to obfiscate the central issue of my own posts which basically point out that now, in this 21st century, we know, and can prove beyond any question of doubt, that many of our fellow human beings are actually born with an “intersex” condition, including some “chimerics”.  It’s fascinating to read William Folger referring to, in his own words,  “the relatively new ‘intersex’ condition”  -and that really hits the nail on the head with a sledgehammer. 

Just how does William Folger know that this is a “relatively new condition”?  He does NOT know this by any stretch of the imagination, or perhaps he can enlighten us with scientific proof of his assertion.  Yes, we have only recently discovered the true scientific facts due to the study of DNA, but chimeric and intersex babies have most likely been born for millennia, and chances are that they were either killed or rejected by their parents or societies through ignorance and superstition in the totally mistaken belief, for example, that the sins of the fathers are passed on through their children, and other similar pseudo-religious nonsensical beliefs.  And incidentally, that probably applies to every religion, not just Christianity.

I have a few really easy questions for anyone following these posts.  They are not intended for the likes of William Folger, because I would fully expect his answers to be brimming with more pseudo-religious babble.  No, these simple questions are for young people with open minds who care about their fellow human beings and are prepared to ask questions of themselves and society.

1.  Do you accept the fact that some children are born with a ‘chimeric’ condition, that is, with more than one set of DNA?  (if you are not familiar with the term please look it up on the internet in any of the respected scientific journals and judge for yourself).  I would not want you to accept my word, any more than I would ask you to accept the pronouncements of William Folger.
2.  Do you accept the fact that some children are born with an ‘intersex’ condition, that is, where their gender is difficult to ascertain, for a wide variety of reasons.  Again, look it up on the internet and see for yourself. Don’t just rely on one source, and whatever you do, don’t just rely on non-scientific pseudo-religious babble.
3.  Ask yourself, if a child is born with an “intersex” condition who is going to decide on his or her gender.  Should we have a committee of doctors, scientists, or church officials take a vote shortly after birth, or maybe at puberty, and make an “official”  decision as to whether they are male or female?  Would this decision be moral and ethical? And would it be irrevocable?  South African athlete, Caster Semenya, might be a good example!
4.  If there is any doubt about their gender should they be permitted to have a loving relationship and enter into any kind of partnership with another human being?  Who is going to make that decision? A Scientific Committee; a Church Committee (if so which Church?  The one true Church? And which Church is that?)
5.  If the answer to (4) is NO,  does this mean they must remain “chaste”  and “celibate” for the rest of their lives and never enjoy a loving, physical relationship, and share their God-given sexuality with any other human being?  I get the impression from William Folger that if there is any doubt about their gender,  he believes it would be evil for them to have any kind of physical relationship because of his interpretation of Genesis 1:27. I guess you gotta be one or the other!
6.  Should we brand the person with an “intersex” condition a sinner and evil if he or she, or he/she decides to enter into a loving physical relationship with another human being and actually enjoys their God-given sexuality? 

I often hear and read about people who ram their pseudo-religious dogma down other people’s throats, usually professing to be the true voice of Christ. But in fact that are far from it.  Those people who run around accusing people such as President Barrack Obama of being the “antichrist” are, in my humble view, the true voice of evil.

I have read with interest the “facts” quoted by William Folger about Adam and Eve,  and ask once again,  who was there to witness this momentous event?  Who wrote the story down in the bible?  How do we know the source?  When did it occur? Do we have to believe every single word in the bible literally (I earlier quoted some misgivings about the literal interpretation of the story of Noah’s Ark. )  I love the fact that the William Folger’s of this world will quote the story of Adam and Eve as “fact”, but will scoff at any questions born out by modern science, whether it be about the fact that we can now prove there are human beings born with “intersex” gender,  or that man has evolved over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years.  After watching 60 Minutes this evening I have to wonder if Australopithecus Sediba – the remains of a 9 year old boy found recently in South Africa and believed to be some 1.9 million years old, was born before or after the creation of Adam and Eve. 

Perhaps I can quote one last example of the Church being absolutely and totally wrong in a well established belief foisted on the public for several centuries based on a literal interpretation of the bible (no – not Galileo). This was the age of the earth as pronounced by Archbishop James Ussher who pronounced in the 17th century that the date of creation was the night preceding 23 October 4004 BC.  No ands, ifs or buts on that one! I was shocked just a few years ago to open a bible kindly provided in a New York hotel room by a Christian group,  which conveniently listed in the margins all of the dates ascribed by Bishop Ussher as though they were biblical “facts”.  With all due respect to Bishop Ussher,  who was considered one of the great scholars of his day,  he was quite a ways off!  Although having said that, there are still those who continue to believe that the earth is just a few thousand years old, and that evolution is merely a “theory”  (not sure where they stand on Einstein’s general “theory of relativity”!). Beware those who stand as judge and jury and decide what is evil and what is God’s truth.  They themselves will eventually be judged and may be found sorely wanting.

As a post-script I would like to add that before anyone, such as William Folger,  attacks me as some kind of perverted anti-catholic in league with the devil, I will mention just briefly that I am a very happily married man, still in love with my wife after more than 40 years, and still thoroughly enjoying a healthy sex life even though we are long past the age of procreation.  (Not sure if that is considered sinful.) We are blessed with happily married children, and lovely grandchildren.  To the best of my knowledge I have no homosexuals/lesbians in my family,  and I was raised in the Anglican church and conditioned to be totally homophobic just as my Catholic friends are raised. Yes, it was always a case of love the sinner but not the sin in my own Christian upbringing. 

However, during my career I have been involved in law enforcement and have witnessed first-hand the hatred and bigotry displayed by many so-called Christian or religious folks against anyone who does not conform with their notions of being “normal”.  Their hatred and contempt of anyone not considered to be “normal” is palpable and has often resulted in them committing criminal acts against innocent persons who happen to be different.  I have listened to confessions by so-called Christians who have patiently explained that their reasons for committing violent criminal acts against homosexuals was because their Pastor or Priest had made it clear that they (homosexuals) are cursed by God.  This hatred has resulted in violent criminal acts, and has even been the cause of vicious bullying by children in schools. I fear for the lives of the President Obama’s of this world when we have so-called Christians condemning them as the “anti-christ”.  If ever there was a call for violence and contempt for our fellow human beings that is a clarion call, and it is positively evil.

Over the years I have met wonderful people who happen to be, in some cases, homosexuals, and in some cases persons who have been unfortunate enough to be born with an “intersex” condition.  I am a firm believer in monogamous Christian marriage, but my own evolving religious beliefs have taught me to honour and respect these people and to treat them with respect and dignity because they are my fellow human beings.  If they are to be judged it will be by God, and God alone.

“67” seems to believe that his best defense is a hyped offense spinning as a “vicious attack” on the President my fair *Empathy* Question involving John 1:3 that I had asked of both him and President Obama: “Let’s check whether Anglican 67 and President Obama believe in VITAL John 1:3 – “Through him [Christ]*all* things were made [hence babies are *not excludable*]; without Him *nothing* was made that has been made.” [emphasis via *..*]
So, if Obama is a “true Christian” (67’s own description), a *truly* Christian President Obama who preached on the vital importance of Empathy in his 2008 campaign surely ought to wish to show empathy with Jesus Himself through whom each and every baby is created. Instead, Jesus must witness each day ~ 3,300 slaughters of His new children due to Obama’s constantly diligent *facilitation* of support for abortion-killings even though no president is obliged to be so diligent.
One has to wonder why Anglican 67 is unwilling to openly affirm that he does have deep EMPATHY with Jesus per what I described and why he appears unwilling to “advise President Obama to read and ponder John 1:3” as suggested. Until that is known, there is little incentive for continuing this forum topic with 67.
In the link just below, the reader will see that my alleged “attack” contains additional “mean” content like this question: “why wouldn’t Jesus feel even more strongly about HIS Personal Treasures – new human life?”  That question highlights why Obama is culpable: people in general *naturally* want their own personal treasures protected from harm. They need no special insight to feel that way. *Obama needs no special insight!*
.
http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/461/20807
.
President Obama convicted himself big time during the “Health”-Care fiasco: he had opportunity over & over again to put in straightforward language to block *any and all clever manipulations* to allow tax-related money to aid abortions directly or indirectly. President Obama again showed no Empathy with Jesus.
According to Obama’s 2008 campaign adviser on religious issues, Shaun Casey, Barack Obama years ago knelt before a Christian cross to make a *cerebral* decision: “I submitted myself to His will and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.”
As noted in my July 30 post above, in his 2006 Call to Renewal speech, *cerebral* Obama boldly chides Christians thus: **Folks haven’t been reading their bibles. ** That is extremely unfair from Obama who ignores VITAL John 1:3 (a life or death issue for Jesus’ babies).
The following three links need to be studied *right now* because Jesus’ new babies on Death-Roe are depending on TRUE Christians to help President Obama discover the Truth he said he is *dedicated* to discover. Critically analyze the three articles for clues to how Obama thinks or fails to think about Jesus, Christianity, the Declaration of Independence and our country. Only in that way can we have chance to succeed.
.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-historic-call-to-renewa.html
and
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/11/obamas_fascinat.html
Obama’s Fascinating Interview with Cathleen Falsani
and
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971/output/print
.
Excerpt: “I’m on my own faith journey and I’m searching,” [Obama] says. “I leave open the possibility that I’m *entirely* wrong.”  Thereby, President Obama suggested to American voters *before* the 2008 presidential election that they need not be surprised if later he completely changes religion.
67 wants youth and others to think that I only add to the wake of those “on this website” who described Obama as “the anti-Christ”. I did not so characterize President Obama and “67” knows that.

For readers seriously wishing to understand the difference between *the* anti-Christ and *former & current* (i.e., interim) anti-ChristS, use the link just below and go directly to the *1 John 2* commentary paragraph which starts with “2:18-21: This is the last hour of God’s dealings with our race”. Indeed, the whole New Testament period *still underway* IS the “last hour”. In like manner, the Old Testament is the “first hour” of God’s dealing with us.
.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/1EPISTJN.TXT
.
What is true of some interim anti-Christs is that they openly deny the divinity of Christ (as will THE anti-Christ of the future). Whether President Obama is an “interim” anti-Christ who denies or refuses to affirm he believes in Jesus’ divinity might well be determined in the coming months by how he responds to the salutary *Empathy Question* above.

Regarding the series of questions 67 asks of youths, I will only say that very complex moral questions are properly handled by the Catholic Magisterium. One must be careful not to opine that this or that *particular* case is immoral, regarding, say, “intersex” questions and any subsequent related marriage possibilities based on medical “fixes”. Some cases might not be impediments.

Youth are advised not to heed 67 at all if he can’t properly guide you on the far simpler Empathy Question and Jesus. Catholic youth are morally safe only with the Magisterium. In the relatively simpler case of impotence & suitability for marriage, for example, different lay Catholics might have strong opposing opinions. Hence specially educated Catholics are needed to discover, if possible, that despite “impotence”, marriage might still be possible—for example when the particular case indicates non-permanence.

Objective morality characterizes Catholicism, meaning some may have to lead chaste lives – depending on details. The Church is not fooled by medical constructs and subsequent claims that sexuality has been “transformed”, for sexuality is deeper than imposed medical/hormonal changes. Case by case consideration is necessary. The Catholic Church will not accommodate immoral aspects of LGBT agenda.

Had 67 not been so confident that Genesis 1:27 is discredited, he might have pondered more my July 30 post where I acknowledge “the relatively new “intersex” condition … *does* *seem* to put down Genesis 1:27”.

Since that acknowledgement is factual and does not depend at all on time since the fall in Eden, my use of “relatively new” refers to general public unawareness of the term “intersex” - not to any supposed newness of some phenomenon. My July 29 post notes that “intersex” conditions occur *after* the fall and so do not put down pre-fall Genesis 1:27.

Indeed it is well known by those using such terms that “intersex” is not currently a widely familiar term. “Intersex people” theoretically could go all the way back to Adam & Eve life-spans with no effect on Church teaching and Bible reliability, on faith and moral issues.

“67” has made too many wrong assumptions about me and some other posters. Since he post-scripted his “resume”, so do I. My postscript below may disappoint 67.

My Catholic Irish mother was friends with another mother who had a son with homosexual tendencies well before ‘outing’ became popular.  Mom knew little theology but rightly instructed us against prejudice towards homosexual persons and black people – folks quite different from us in some respects. Later in life I headed off proposed harassing of some homosexual guys by overly wary heterosexual acquaintances. 
As a “newspaper boy” I was harassed on my route by a handful of black kids from a neighboring area. But cerebral me said not to judge all blacks. Later as a home owner, I hand carried “open-housing” symbols to white neighbors—for blacks to live in our own almost-all-white town and authored support for open-housing in the town newspaper. It’s all consistent with what Catholicism teaches about respect & justice.
But there are moral limits to “helping” in cases of complex sexual abnormalities regarding assisting in marriage desires and answering sexual interaction questions—limits set by God’s laws. I posted on July 29 that those handicapped in diverse ways at birth (which would include any “intersex” condition) “are all deserving of our caring love and respect which must not be compromised by disobedience to God’s Moral Laws”.
They still retain full dignity as Images of God which is primarily spiritual. God does not test us beyond our strength to obey Him. The Catholic doctrine of the “communion of saints” is beautiful because through prayer we are able *to help one another* even across personal problems & death’s divide. The Church is thus organic not static.
I am in total agreement with 67 that judgment of other people is to be “by God, and God alone”.  A problem is that 67 admits he is evolving in his religious beliefs. But Jesus said “he who hears you hears me”, referring to God’s provision for a Magisterium, a necessary Holy Spirit guided teacher kept free from error on matters of faith & morals—to offset the “interim anti-Christs”, for example. Protestantism does not recognize “Magisterium” and so continues to fracture, often one doctrine at a time.

I am intrigued that Wiiliam Folger stays well clear of answering my very simple question with regard to the absolute accuracy of the bible.  Are we to accept every single word in the bible as inerrant?  Does he, for example believe that the story of Noah and his ark is factual in every way, which would, in effect mean that Noah and his small family went out, located and rounded up two of every single species on earth then stored them all and fed them in the ark while the great flood covered ALL the earth.  Of course that would have to include the 40 new species discovered recently by scientists exploring the Mount Bosavi crater in Papua, New Guinea. 

Why do I ask this question? Because William Folger wants us to interpret Genesis 1:27 completely literally, that is, that God created man and woman in his own image and, according to Mr. Folger, that apparently does not include any mistakes, which surely means that we must also interpret Genesis 9.29 literally and conclude that dear old Noah not only built his ark at the age of 600, but he went on to live to the ripe old age of 950 years.

Mr. Folger can wriggle as much as he likes, and stick to his literal interpretation of Genesis 1:27 (until “after the fall”), but the facts are that in this 21st century we know that babies are born with an intersex condition, and that some chimerics are born with both male and female genitalia.  Yes, one can go on to call these facts “medical constructs”  and pontificate about how these folks should remain “chaste”, but they remain indisputable facts.  What is also appears indisputable is that Mr. Folger sees this as a part of the “immoral aspects of the LGBT agenda”. In other words, no God-given sexuality for those who are “intersexed”  because that might also mean accepting homosexuals and lesbians and actually given them equal human rights. And that, of course, would be sinful and evil.

It was interesting how Mr. Folger explains that lay Catholics might have strong opposing views on whether in “relatively simple cases of impotence” they (couples) might be suitable candidates for marriage, hence the need for “specially educated Catholics” to discover, if possible, that despite “impotence”, marriage might still be possible—for example “when the particular case indicates non-permanence.” Sounds like more pure codswallop to me. Somehow, I don’t see the rest of society agreeing to have a committee of “specially educated Catholics”, presumably most, if not all of whom, are celibate, deciding whether or not intersexed human beings are candidates for marriage, with the only apparent qualification being that they must be impotent. 

Just a couple of points on the verbal attacks on President Obama, and such comments as to whether he is an “interim” anti-Christ (Mr. Folger’s words not mine) “might well be determined in the coming months”.  I note that the term “anti-christ” is an oft used phrase. It has been applied to any number of our leaders, including Presidents John F. Kennedy (our first and only Catholic President), Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and even the Pope.  Actually not just the present Pope, but most, if not all previous Popes.

I recently read one totally inane assertion that former Vice President Al Gore was an anti-christ, or an interim anti-christ, partly because of his stance on global warming.  Forget the fact that the vast majority of scientists agree that we are suffering from the effects of man-made global warming, it is apparently an affront because of Mr. Gore’s “lack of confidence in God”.  The logic seemed to be that we are in God’s hands, and to even suggest that we have somehow contributed to global warming is completely counter to God’s plan because God knows how to cycle things in nature and clearly would not make mistakes such as allowing men to make mistakes with pollution.  Not sure about that recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Was that a mistake?

So, just who is right about these anti-christs or interim anti-christs? Is it the Catholic Church, or is it those who oppose the Catholic Church and accuse the Pope of being the anti-christ?  Is it any crackpot who decides to attach this inane label to any of our leaders and then provide us with endless reams of their personal interpretations of God’s word. Personally, I think that it is both dangerous and a nonsense to brand our leaders as the anti-christ or as an “interim” anti-christ – although I’m sure that President Amadinijhad would wholeheartedly agree that ALL of the above are members of the Great Satan!

It is dangerous because simple-minded, gullible people read this nonsense and could then decide that it is their mission in life to destroy the anti-christs of this world in order to protect us from their evil.  History is replete with people who have either assassinated or attempted to assassinate our leaders because they have been influenced to believe that they are doing the world a big favour.  Discussion on this website as to the merits of whether or not President Obama is an “interim” anti-christ do a grave disservice to the Catholic Church.

Just a quick follow-up on William Folgers latest response when he says that the series of questions I asked of youths apparently deal with “very complex moral issues and are properly handled by the Catholic Magisterium”.

I asked a series of 6 fairly simple questions, the first two of which were based purely on scientific facts with either a “yes” or “no” answer.  How complex is that? Either there are babies born chimeric or there are not. Either there are babies born with an “intersex” condition or there are not. 

To imply that subsequent related marriage possibilities might be based on medical “fixes” is completely avoiding the central issue.  I have not suggested medical fixes, but that is a procedure that has been imposed on some unfortunate babies in the past, usually based on the mistaken belief that it will make them “normal”.  These babies grow up to be adults and as such they are our fellow human beings who should be given all of the love and affection and basic human rights as all of their fellow human beings, and that includes the right to enjoy their God-given sexuality without being branded as “evil” or sinners.  They may individually decide to remain “chaste” but that decision is theirs and theirs alone.  They should not be coerced into making a decision based on “guilt” inflicted upon them by anyone else – the Church included.

Young people do not need the Catholic Magisterium to answer questions 1 and 2.  That is absurd. And after reading Mr. Folger’s turgid explanation of the need for young people to do what I would describe, quite frankly, as “blindly follow the Catholic Magisterium”  I would submit that young people should never be satisfied with decisions based purely on religious dogma. They should be free to make their own decisions, and by all means listen to what their religious elders have to say, but in the final analyses, if they are not satisfied with the answers they should question, question, question. 

As a non-Catholic I accept that I am not familiar at all with the Catholic Magisterium as it relates to the questions I asked, but I rather suspect, based on Mr. Folgers responses, that it does not even begin to address specific issues relating to persons born “intersexed”.  That could so easily result in persons like Mr. Folger trying to impose their so-called moral values on others based on their own personal interpretation of the Catholic Magisterium.  I look forward to hearing a simple straightforward and rational explanation from Mr. Folger as to exactly what the Catholic Magisterium has to say about these issues.  So far, this has not been forthcoming

In this my last post on this particular forum-topic I offer interested readers and Anglican “67” some links regarding 67’s “simple” questions about “absolute (biblical) accuracy” and scripture interpretation.                                                                .
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html
THE TRUTH AND SALVIFIC PURPOSE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
ACCORDING TO DEI VERBUM, ARTICLE 11
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papad1.htm
Magisterium Exercises Authority In Christ’s Name                                            
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm
The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church                                     .                               
For 67 to point out on June 27 that “…far less than 1% of the readers of this website had ever even heard of chimerism…” and then on August 9 to say “I look forward to hearing a *simple* *straightforward* and *rational* explanation from Mr. Folger as to *exactly* what the Catholic Magisterium has to say about these issues. So far [he] has not been forthcoming.” – we must ask *why* 67 expected such explanation when he knows from the *absence* of any World-Headlines about resolving such *major* issues, that there was no such pronouncement?
If the Magisterium had resolved the complex issues, astute 67 would hear of it. Instead, 67 repeatedly engages in comments that suggest I may be imposing my own morals while I am actually reminding him of God’s and current Church laws, key ones of which he does not accept.
Re 67’s August 1 “simple questions” (his words) he serves two soft balls and then contradicts his “easy questions” description of the set of six. In #6 he loads the question thus: “Should we *brand* the person with an “intersex” condition a sinner and evil if he or she, or he/she decides to enter into a loving physical relationship with another human being and actually enjoys their God-given sexuality?”  67’s “barrage-dodge” seeks to avoid *my* July 30 question on John 1:3:
“So, let’s check whether Anglican 67 and President Obama believe in VITAL John 1:3 – “Through him *all* things were made; without him *nothing* was made that has been made.”” Womb-life is not excludable.
IF 67 posts a brief, focused and decisive refutation of what I say in my July 30 post about John 1:3 re empathy, President Obama and Jesus, without 67’s process violating Romans 3:8 (‘do no evil that good may come from it’), then in this very forum I’ll concede on what I say about Obama and John 1:3. My July 30 post ends with “Does 67 have EMPATHY for Jesus? Perhaps 67 will advise President Obama to read and ponder John 1:3”.
Indeed it was 67’s boasting about President Obama being *true Christian* and *true believer* that induced quite natural interest in *this question*: given President Obama shows zero empathy *even to His Jesus* (!!!!!), why, then, should we not expect Obama to disrespect True American Christians?
Look in Obama’s Proclamation (this forum’s topic!) for what he explicitly intends to do which CLEARLY disrespects Jesus and True Christians: repeal Defense of Marriage Act & secure gay-adoption “rights”. 
A separate earlier poster dodged the same question on lame grounds that lack of empathy for Jesus can be offset by helping other people. But in that case both Obama & 67 would be violating *crucial Romans 3:8* – ‘do no evil [Obama *dissing Jesus*, of all Persons!] so that [some other] good may come from it’! 
The above re President Obama is related to another poor inference by 67: that I am hinting President Obama is THE Antichrist (NOT true) or at least that he is an ordinary “interim” antichrist—something *plausibly* true pending examination—about whom St. John (1 John 2:18-19) states there are *many* (“interim”) antichrists with us who though they went out from us *are not in truth from us*!  Obama behavior toward Jesus, following his “becoming” Christian, seems to fit 1 John 2:19.
To head off any legitimate Christian evaluation of Obama, 67 suddenly gets kindly concerned for the Catholic Church if even “interim” antichrists are considered. Check out “Obama’s Fascinating Interview with Cathleen Falsani”:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/11/obamas_fascinat.html

Use word-finder to locate interview sections with terms like “Christian” and “sin”— to see that Obama says he is a Christian (then why *constantly* diss His Jesus to defer to others’ supposed “needs”?) and to *ponder* Obama’s rather subjective definition of sin. By all means read the entire article.
“67” asks on Aug. 8: “So, just who is right about these anti-Christs or “interim” anti-Christs?”  The answer:  that same St. John of “John 1:3”, THE verse 67 keeps avoiding, the same St. John of “1 John 2”  against which 67 apparently wants to extend the scope of “political correctness”.
The “no religious test” clause in Article VI of the Constitution does not prohibit religious inquiry once a candidate campaigns for or holds office. I credit 67 for at least not hiding my appropriate *inquiring use* of “whether”—regarding the “everyday” or “interim” level of antichrists. I even supplied a link to understanding “antichrists” and “last hour”. (See my August 4 post).
Then, abruptly, “67” drags in V.P. Al Gore, boasts a bit about him but never mentions that Al Gore also shows No Empathy for Jesus as when Gore defected to “pro-choice”.
As with the President, why should we citizens trust Mr. Gore & friends with doomsday predictions?  TRUST IS WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT. When leaders can’t be trusted for the most serious reasons noted yet want to compel the world to heed them, the world has the right to demand they join with their critics and completely share everything there is on “climate change”, including raw data and analysis techniques and to then *work together*. Egotists in science are *not rare*, as 67 knows.
Regarding 67’s August 9 post:
67 wrote “To imply that subsequent related marriage possibilities might be based on medical “fixes” is completely avoiding the central issue.” In that single sentence 67 reveals once again his low opinion of the Catholic Church and of me. 
For the record, while I do not advocate “fixes” early in a child’s life, 67 could have recognized that openness to perhaps later-in-life “fixes” which are compatible with God’s moral laws means the Church and I do have empathy for such afflicted people. However, 67 remains displeased because of his “own evolving religious beliefs” are so mismatched with Catholicism.
There is no amount of Catholic-licit empathy that satisfies “67” and THAT is the *underlying* central problem. So, having fewer moral constraints, 67 easily depicts himself as humanity’s best, most empathetic and tolerant friend.
“Fixes” legitimate under God’s and His Catholic Church’s law that could enable a one-man, one-woman marriage capable of fulfilling the marriage debt thus free of incurable impotence—are good. In the absence of such fixes, God, through His Church teaches that chastity must be followed and that God’s grace is not lacking.
One’s sexuality includes the biological, genetic and neurological in complex ways not yet understood by the theologians and other experts the Magisterium must consult before any final decisions involving physical nature.  As 67 and I agree, chimerism, including “intersex” has likely been around since the fall in Eden. So it is clear that one cannot simply demand an answer from the Magisterium while all are still in the early modern stages of discovery and hypothesizing.
Finally, many of the problems between 67 and faithful Catholics are explained by this, from 67 himself:
“And after reading Mr. Folger’s turgid explanation of the need for young people to do what I would describe, quite frankly, as “*blindly* follow the Catholic Magisterium”  I would submit that young people should never be satisfied with decisions based purely on religious dogma.”
Less biased readers appreciate complexities and more readily see that many biological, genetic and neurological combinations need examined by the Magisterium, each in light of its relationship to “dogma” so that truth can be found where possible. Therefore, such decisions are not based “purely on religious dogma” as 67 implies. Open minded youth appreciate *the value of process*, see why the Catholic Church is both reliable and stable over *millennia* and thank God for HIS Magisterium. The actual functioning of the Magisterium is indeed not known by 67. God bless ALL.
A very relevant read for all Catholics:
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=103126

Many thanks to William Folger for at least attempting to address some of the issues I raised in my last two posts.  I appreciate his frankness in admitting that the Catholic Magisterium has not addressed any of the “complex” issues relating to “chimerism” and “intersexed” babies etc.  Contrary to his comments I had no idea whether the Catholic Magisterium had addressed these issues in any way, or even how it operates.  Quite frankly, that is a major problem when religious dogma of any faith attempts to have a one rule fit all then discovers that science has moved forward and can sometimes make a mockery of perceived truth.  I guess the case of Galileo was a perfect example,  and maybe the pronouncements of Bishop Ussher setting the date of the creation at the specific time of 23rd October 4004BC.  I get the impression that these “facts” were accepted by the Catholic Church without question for the longest time, but now we simply laugh at the thought that the world was hoodwinked into believing that both were true because the former was denounced as being contrary to biblical teachings, and the latter was based entirely on a purely literal interpretation of the bible based on the facts as they were know at that time by one of the finest minds of the day.  I have no idea what, if any position the Catholic Magisterium might have taken in either of these cases.

On the issue of all these “anti-christs” I am still at a loss to figure out which ones to accept and which to reject.  It seems that just about all of our recent U.S.Presidents have been described as the “anti-christ” (and of course, at least one or more of our Vice Presidents as explained by Mr. Folger in his attack on Al Gore.)  Just who decides on who is the “anti-christ” or “an antichrist” or “an interim anti-christ”?  It all sounds rather judgmental and hateful to me, whether the alleged “antichrist” is President Obama or the present Pope.

I would like the opportunity to respond more fully to Mr. Folger’s post, and I too, will make it my last comment on this forum,  but I am travelling for several days without access to the internet so I would ask Jimmy to keep the forum open until I submit my last response.

In this my last post on the subject, I would like to address two issues, the first of which is the Catholic Magisterium and what it has to say, or does not have to say about issues such as “chimerism” and the “intersex” condition.  I fully appreciate what Mr. Folger says about the fact that the Magisterium presently does not begin to address these issues because they are only now being clearly understood with advances in modern science.  I can only assume that if the Magisterium does not provide specific judgement on these issues that does not mean that Catholics are not allowed to make their own judgement call in the meantime with regard to treating such persons with the utmost respect and dignity. It would worry me that it might take decades, or even longer, for the church to accept these scientific advances just as it appeared to take an inordinate amount of time to finally decide on the truth of Galileo’s observations and those of Charles Darwin.  Perhaps it is stretching it a bit but I will quote from Mario Gargantini who referred in his writings to the “unlawfulness of any kind of discrimination against people on the basis of any genetic defects they are discovered to have, either before or after birth” . Hopefully, Mr. Folger can fully agree with that point of view.

On the 2nd issue, Mr. Folger very kindly gave me several references to the Magisterium with reference to the other issue I raised with regard to whether we are to believe literally everything in the bible;  that the bible is inerrant. Readers may recall that Mr. Folger had quoted Genesis 1:27 and clearly wanted us to take it completely literally, that is, that God created man and woman in his own image and, according to Mr. Folger, that apparently does not include any “mistakes”  such as a chimeric, and/or intersexed child. I had pointed out that this would also surely mean that we must also interpret Genesis 9.29 literally and conclude that dear old Noah not only built his ark at the age of 600, but he went on to live to the ripe old age of 950 years.

I can assure you I have done my utmost to try to understand just what is, and is not accepted as inerrant, and from what I can see the Magisterium basically states that the whole bible, both the old and the new testaments are completely accurate and must be accepted in their entirety, including presumably the story of Noah and his Ark, and the story of Adam and Eve. 

Perhaps I can quote from two Catholic sources on the Magisterium,
(1) The first is from Ronald L. Conte Jr. “Therefore, if anyone believes or teaches that Sacred Scripture itself contains, to any extent whatsoever: error on any subject, or false assertions of any kind, or human error mixed with divinely-inspired truth, or falsehoods that proceed from the individual failings of particular authors, or falsehoods that proceed from the failings of a particular culture or society, or teachings on faith and morals that are no longer applicable, it is proof that he has gone astray from the true teachings of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium, which are truly the teachings of Jesus Christ, the one Word of God, and that he has fallen into abject heresy of the most abominable kind, and that he is condemned by God and by his own error.”

(2) I cannot recall who made the 2nd quote but it read, “The Catholic Church can be compared to Noah’s Ark. Not one person outside of the ark was saved…. and every living thing on the earth was wiped out, from man to beast, from reptile to bird of the air; they were wiped from the earth. Only Noah and those with him in the ark were saved.” Gen 7:23

I have to confess that I find this particular quote quite frightening.  It suggests to me as a non-catholic, that not only must we take every word in the bible absolutely literally, but all of us who are Christians, but not Catholic, are condemned to hell and will be wiped from the earth!

Maybe I got it wrong, but they seemed to be quite specific about the bible being inerrant.

I have been raised to believe that both the story of Noah and his Ark, and Adam and Eve, were wonderful illustrations or legends passed down through our ancient ancestors who sought to understand just where we came from.  I had no idea that a good Catholic HAS to believe they are the literal truth, even if modern science shows both stories to be patently absurd.  The very idea that Noah and a small band of his family could scour the entire globe and collect two of every single species on earth, feed them and care for them on one wooden ship, and then send them back from whence they came is as nonsensical as is the story of Santa Claus.  I may pluck up the courage to send a brief summary of why the story of Noah and his Ark is a little difficult to swallow!  And as for Adam and Eve,  just when did this event take place? Who named them Adam and Eve? And who first wrote it down? 

The point I am making here is that it is nonsensical to argue that Genesis 1:27 has to be accepted literally when we know in our hearts that other sections of the self same chapter in the Old Testament are ancient myths and legends.

It is time to move forward, for us to treat our fellow men and women with dignity – and that certainly includes ALL of God’s children, whether they are “chimeric”, “intersexed” “homosexual”, “asexual”, or “heterosexual”.  If these folks obey the laws of the land, then we should not discriminate against them or condemn them for being who they are.  They are all entitled to their God-given sexuality without being judged by pious pontificators.  It was comforting to read that Mr. Folger is in total agreement that judgment of other people is to be “by God, and God alone”.

On the issue of “anti-christs”  I find it chilling that so-called Christians can throw these words around about our leaders, whether they be Presidents or Popes.  It is downright un-Christian and should be condemned outright.

Here is a a simple analysis of the account of Noah’s Ark and the Great Flood and a few problems with this momentous event as described in Genesis, based on the assumption that it is literally true, and that evolution is, of course, false.
Problem 1 -  BUILDING THE ARK. Genesis 6.15 tells us the actual size of the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. I gather that a cubit was based on the length of the human forearm.  By my rather poor maths this gives us a measurement of roughly 168 meters long, 28 metres wide and 17 metres high. I recently read that the longest wooden ship ever built (i.e. historically verified) was the USS Wyoming. This vessel was 110 meters long, considerably shorter than Noah’s ark, and was so unstable it could only be used for short coastal hauls to avoid rough conditions further out at sea. Even then it’s huge size caused massive structural stresses and so much sagging and leakage that it had to be pumped out continuously to prevent it from sinking.  Noah’s generation simply did not have the technological knowledge to build an enormous wooden ship of that length.  But never let physics get in the way of a great story!
Problem 2 -  COLLECTING ALL THE ANIMALS.  We know that according to Genesis 7, Noah was required to store “two of every beast, and fowl, and everything that creepeth upon the earth, male and female”.  Actually this is confusing because Genesis 7 (2) says Noah had to take up seven of every clean beast, and two of every unclean beast, but he apparently just decided to take two of each - one male and one female.  Wow! Big job because the whole earth is about to be flooded so poor old Noah and his crew (was it just 8 people?) have to go out and locate, capture, and return to the ark with two of every creature on the face of the earth -  birds included.

It has been estimated that there are roughly 4,500 species of mammals, 6,000 species of reptiles, over 8,500 species of birds, and 3,000 species of amphibians.  This does not include over one million species of insects and 60,000 species of arachnids (spiders).  Let’s just forget about all those fresh water fish that can’t survive in salt water if the whole world is flooded and covered by the sea.  Noah’s hands are full without any further complications.

All of us who as children heard the story of Noah have that wonderful vision of him collecting, two cows, two camels, two sheep, two goats, two lions, two tigers etc. but it is just a little more complicated than that. For example, he had to collect not one pair of elephants, but three pairs of different elephant species,  two African, two Indian, and two from South Central Asia.  Remember that we’ve thrown the theory of evolution out the window so poor old Noah has to capture a pair of every single species on earth, otherwise they drown.  The same with giraffes -  three different species, Masai, Reticulated and Rothschild.  Rhinoceros’s were a major pain -  at least five species,  along with at least five species of lions, and a wide variety of big cats (nasty creatures to catch) such as panthers, pumas, cheetahs, jaguars, leopards and bobcats.  That is not to mention the countless varieties of apes, gorillas, monkeys, orangutans, bears, bison, camels, kangaroos, wild hogs and pigs, horses, zebra, hyenas, moose, reindeer, orangutans, all the varieties of alligators and those nasty poisonous snakes, birds ranging from ostriches to osprey, emus to eagles, cuckoos to cockatoos, and herons to humming birds. And while he’s at it Noah could not forget to throw in a pair of Komodo dragons,  and even a pair of giant tortoises from the Galapagos Islands. Do you get the picture? This is Job 1 and involves a quick visit to every part of the globe. It made Darwin’s voyage on the Beagle look like a weekend jaunt.  On second thoughts they could maybe miss out on polar bears and penguins because the flood waters might have frozen before reaching the polar icecaps, although Genesis seems quite specific - no exceptions! Perhaps we should also avoid any mention of all those creatures for whom you simply cannot collect one male and one female, such as bees, insects and flies.

Okay,  let’s give Noah and his family credit for rounding up the whole darned lot of ‘em.  Now I don’t want to sound skeptical at this stage but it seems that this rounding up was all done within 7 days according to Genesis. If it’s in the bible it must be true. Fed Ex had nothing on Noah and his crew and he did it all without planes, trucks, or even large carts.  It’s sort of the same as Santa Claus delivering gifts to every child on the planet on one night with just one team of reindeer - although Santa has the advantage of moving through the various times zones to meet his deadline.

Problem 3 – F EEDING THE ANIMALS.  Once packed on board, all these critters need feeding.  Hmmm.  Let’s consider this for a moment. All of the carnivores basically eat only meat.  Creatures such as the snakes, penguins and bats survive only when eating live food.  Maybe that’s why in Genesis 7 (2) Noah is ordered to take up seven of each creature -  so the other five can be eaten!  But then we have koala bears who only survive on eucalyptus leaves,  pandas on bamboo shoots and so on.  And just how much grass, grain, and other vegetation would be needed to feed all the other animals and where would it be stored?  Elephants alone are said to eat about 150 kgs of greenery each day.  Noah must have had a very successful harvest that year. And how about drinking water? Maybe they could drink lots of rain water, but are all these animals sent up to the top deck to catch rain drops with their mouths open!  And what about cleaning up their droppings.  Phew, what a job for a crew of eight.  Genesis doesn’t say so,  but did all these pairs of animals “abstain” while on board because if not they would have produced young – by the many thousands and more. – especially the rabbits and rats.

This also brings us back briefly to Problem 1.  Noah’s ark had to be constructed with all of the necessary cages,  partitions, passageways, sluices, feed storage bins and water storage containers to house, feed and water upwards of a million creatures.  Without separate cages these animals might resort to gobbling each other up if not fed regularly.

Problem 4 -  FEEDING AFTER THE FLOOD.  So! Noah and his crew got through the hard bit.  The flood is finally over and the waters recede.  Now he has another problem. First he has continue to feed them all, but all the grasses and trees and vegetation have been destroyed by the enormous weight and power of the flood which even covered the high hills and mountains. He’s got all those herbivores desperate for fresh greens. And how about the carnivores?  The only animals left to eat are those other poor critters coming out of the ark (a sceptic might call that “survival of the fittest!”).  Of course, God might have kept extra plants and creatures alive all around the globe by some miraculous means,  but if that is the case, then why on earth would he put 600 year old Noah through all that “two by two in the ark”  nonsense in the first place if he always intended to pull off a miracle. 

Problem 5 -  SENDING THE ANIMALS HOME.  I know this skepticism can get completely out of hand, but poor old Noah has got one final problem, and that is to deliver all the animals back to where they came from in the first place.  He can maybe dump all the African, Asian and European creatures off as soon as he lands, and let ‘em walk home,  but those marsupials have to be hauled back to Australia,  and all the creatures from far off continents such as South America, North America,  and the Antarctic,  need to get home.  Lemurs have to be shipped off to Madagascar, and so do all of those creatures from thousands of Islands with their own unique species such as the giant tortoises of the Galapagos Islands. It’s absolutely vital for Noah to put all the animals back exactly where he found them because there is no evolution to fall back on, and creatures like the koala will simply not survive without their eucalyptus leaves! Polar bears would have trouble trying to survive in the Middle East, and llamas would have yearned to get back to their beloved mountains in South America.

Now there might be those amongst us who might argue that the story of Noah and his ark is one of countless myths and legends that abound from the ancient world. Just about every culture is replete with such legends.  But believers cannot have it both ways.  If we have to actually believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis then it must be absolutely true, and cannot, and must not, be questioned – certainly not in any scientific way.  It would be downright irreligious to subject it to the same scorn constantly being thrown at the theory of evolution.

I’m astonished at the hate that I read above. Calling people filth and blaming for so much. Wanting to control and condemn? To see that the people who want to have the ability to tell me how to behave are acting in this way is horrifyingly Unchristian and Unamerican. Working that attitude into another’s personal life is unacceptable and this is exactly why we need the same rights spelled out and the rest of the constitution honored. There is really nothing in either the Bible or the Constitution to support the idea of working that kind of hate into others’ lives.

For a President to support the rights of the few is exactly what his job is, not looking at the “needs” of the “majority” to not be exposed to them.

Joseph, I agree that no one should be called “filth.”

Do you support the rights of the few polygamists and siblings who want to marry?  What about their “needs”? 

Redefining marriage is a problematic issue, because if you redraw the line, then you really just make an man-made, unnatural arbritrary line. 

I say nature has spoken. We shouldn’t tinker with marriage between a man and a woman.

““creat[ing] safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment.”

I think this sums up a lot, Catholics don’t want schools that are protective of all students. There are several instances of Catholic schools actively trying to avoid saying that presumed gay students do not deserve physical safety because it would mean that homosexuality is OK.

This is the kind of “nature” your church is upholding

“We shouldn’t tinker with marriage between a man and a woman”

but you’re not. Gays have been having relationships for centuries, in private and when they are not allowed they have very few choices. Then they get blamed for those choices.

My son is gay, regardless of what he does in bed, he’s my son and I’m still proud of him. Does being gay or even just homosexually inclined make him something to not be proud of? Is it not worth noting that he’s had to grow up being taunted in the closet pretending he’s ‘like you’ and endure the jokes and attitudes?

Yes, Stan, homosexuals have been having relationships for millenia. How wonderful that you love your son as you do. We are all called to love one another. No one in society should taunt him at all, and the Church teaches that homosexuals must be treated with dignity and respect.

Having said that, that doesn’t change nature.

Marriage between a man and a woman demonstrates the complementarity of the sexes, and the natural fruit of their union is a child.

I don’t see how marriage for homosexuals would change the unnaturalness of their actions, and I don’t believe it is correct for anyone to ask society to try recognize it so.

So I say we should not tinker with marriage between a man and a woman. But…. I still love and accept homosexuals, I just can’t accept a true any homosexual acts.

Freye, can you explain more on what you’re speaking of. I’m not quite sure of the details of the situation.

I wasn’t talking about his marriage, I was talking about the fact that he contributes to society, despite the hatred I see above. Do you not understand that? Instead attempting to understand that one simple human factor, you go on to call him unnatural and how he does not deserve the same rights and privileges as you.

This is exactly why catholics are perceived as attacking homosexuals needlessly. Look at the statements from the Vatican which say gays deserve respect.

Stan, I try to understand. How wonderful that he contributes to society, and I do understand that human factor.

I have four children, and each one of them, though flawed like me, contributes to society. While looking at the good, however, I cannot wink at sinful actions.

That’s why I cannot judge your son, or at least judge his final destination.

I did not say your son is unnatural. I said homosexual acts are unnatural. If you are honest with yourself, you know that too.

Your son has the same rights and privileges as I have- to marry a person of the opposite sex. 

Do you think that three men have the right to marry, or sibling couple?
Right now a German brother and sister couple are petitioning the German high court to marry. They have four children of their own, and they cite homosexual marriage as one reason they should be allowed to marry. Society has no boundaries nor sees anything as unnatural any more.

I would not discriminate against this couple any more than I would against your son by saying that they should not marry. Marriage has always been limited in scope- minors cannot marry either.

I love your son too. I love him so much that I cannot say that all that he does might be right and fine.

Sometimes loving someone means not accepting all their actions, Stan. Yet continuing to love them even though you disagree.

God bless,  Liseux

One person asked about catholic schools refusing to protect children perceived as homosexual.

Go ahead and google catholic schools homosexual bullying and you will find a number of articles about parents and clergy who say very clearly that if a student is being bullied when perceived as homosexual by their peers, the situation does not warrant support because that would mean that homosexuality is ok. Students attempted to put together a group to combat all bullying, including perceived homosexuality but they have been forbidden with the above rationale.

In one parent teachers meeting, both parents and teachers were jeering the school board when they said all children deserve a safe place.

Now we know why homosexuals feel the way they do about catholicism. And what is it that the vatican always falls back on? ‘Homosexuals deserve to be treated with respect’?

“Your son has the same rights and privileges as I have- to marry a person of the opposite sex.”

That a Christian institution would promote marrying someone one is not attracted to is abhorrent. To expect this to be some kind of appeasement is not looking at the reality of homosexuality. I think that if people really did look at these realities, they would not be forcing it on others.

This campaign that the church has taken has been turning off a lot of people to it. In prehistoric Israel it made a lot of sense to do and not do some of the things outlined in the bible, but in a modern society it just does not hold weight.

I look at some of this stuff, “filthy”, comparing us to pedophiles, calling us diseased and I just don’t know what more you could possibly ask for. You want to not only prohibit certain people from loving each other but you want those with the potential to listen to this and give up the third most power drive.

None of this is in any way Christian.

Mr. Yungk has something here, based in Christian philosophies and our Constitution, nobody deserves this.

Hey Neil; For me personally totally magnificent is looking at someone survive their dreams and survive large due to it. Congratulations!!! Tim mug up inside air and CHEERS for your requirements! I await the Canadian start to take a copy and I’ve got marked you as a favourite’ therefore i can stop by and catch high on your life. BRAVO! from someone in the small community with significant ideas on the low funds… Lori
   
easy feet review     
buy magic mesh   
contour belt   
subway coupons 
the ahh bra
ahh bra

Want to get extra links to your site ? Use Drupalicious Bot http://drupaliciousbot.com