Thanks be to God that there are people out there who actually tell the truth and aren’t afraid!  I always think about the phrase, “No matter what you think, the truth is still the truth and nothing will change the truth” and no one can make the truth a lie! It is right in the Bible that a man shall leave his woman and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one - not man and man or woman and woman - Keep up the great and truly essential work!!

Oh brother talk about self aggrandizement! Bigotry repackaged as truth! The Church got it wrong on the rights of women, of Jews and now has it wrong on gays. Doesn’t it EVER learn? What IS it about religious fanaticism that breeds such contempt for learning from one’s mistakes? We are living in a time of economic collapse, when US SCOTUS Catholic justices hand our society over to the rich and powerful (The “Citizens United” decision), and yet you guys worry about GAYS?? Get a freakin’ LIFE!

Not MY bishop!  And they’re coming late to the parade.

Hi Bob,

Would you mind elaborating on your statements about the Church “getting it wrong” on the rights of women & the rights of Jews, possibly citing some examples?  Thank you kindly.

WRT Jews, try the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 for starters or Edgardo Mortara more recently. Regarding the rights of women, the Church opposed the right of women to vote in western societies. Of course, the Church robustly approved of slavery as well. I’m not sure why it invests so much capital in being on the wrong side of human rights, but it’s got quite a track record. And its errors are quite horrific. Truly terrible.

Bob,
Does the church “have it wrong” on the issue of abortion? 

What other groups are standing up for the rights of unborn babies?

Bob,

It’s pretty obvious that you don’t know your history very well at all.  Perhaps you should go take a couple of history courses and read a bit and then come back to the table to discuss.  You are way off base in your ‘facts’.

It doesn’t matter what arguments are developed, and how many votes are cast.  3 men named bob in black robes are going to tell us what we need to think and how we are to act.

However, Mr. Adkin’s use of very many really short and direct to the point paragraphs displays how the development of authentic Catholic doctrine on this issue has advanced.  It’s no longer about fluffy discursive “feeling” argumentation - it’s about cold hard fact.

“We have been told; we’ve seen his face; and heard his voice alive in our hearts.  Spirit of God, come give us the mind of Jesus.  Teach us the wisdom of God.”

As a resident of MN, I cheer this.  I wrote privately to the editor of my local paper (not the Trib) that the anti-Catholic rhetoric was getting really ugly on this issue, and asked him to be careful in his editorializing (he’s against the amendment and clearly ticked at the Catholic outcry on this).  I’ll give him credit that he said he would try not to go over the line, but most journalists in this state seem not to get it—that they can oppose the marriage amendment, but calling for the disenfranchising of Catholics is another thing altogether.  I’m not sure our bishops are handling this issue brilliantly, but they’ve done nothing to deserve this tar and feathering….

Ignore bob, he is an intentional distraction. They hate us, so they assume we all hate. The familiar canard of; there are so many problems in the world and you choose this one? Meaning the one that he thinks is insignificant. Most people are capable of entertaining more than one thought in their heads at a time.

Many can read history and come to the wrong conclusion.  Many read the bible and come to the wrong conclusion as well. Look how the protestant reformers got it wrong and now we have thousands of denominations that the main thing that unites them is being anti-Catholic.

Bending to authority is not easy, especially for Americans.

If I throw out an accusation such as; sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, bigot, then I don’t have to engage you in a discussion because you are a hater.

Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell teaches to ask the question; Then what?

What will marriage look like in the years to come when leftist continue to push the envelope? I am sure there are a few men in Utah prisons right now that will love for marriage to be redefined so they can include and legitimize their polygamist marriages in this redefinition. What about two brothers marrying for economic reasons or two sisters for that matter? At what point will the leftist’s say that even they are unwilling to redefine marriage?

Living in sin does not free us, it enslaves us. We speak out because we love.

bob, just judging from the accusatory tone of your rant, I’m guessing you would have been the most anti-semitic, wife-beating slaveowner on your block, had the caprice of history placed you “back in the day.”

My proof?  Your vicious and vile assaults on Rome and religion.  It’s always the bully who beats a dog when it’s down.

Ever thought of Islam as a career choice?  I hear they’re still sanctioning capital punishment for “apostasy,” gay sex and adulterous heterosexual behavior.  You might even achieve “mullah” status and qualify for bonus wives of your own.  Then you could ennoble them with equal rights as you saw fit.  Every man an imam in his own caliphate!

Some two decades ago when my wife was confirmed an Episcopalian, the kindly retired, now deceased, prelate informed me in a very polite, but ever so “authoritative” manner,(much like so many professors and other assorted enlightened ones in our heavily academic/“liberal”/impacted area are prone to pull) that “... With all due respects, your (Roman) Catholic Church will have to change, it’s losing so many thousands of people and your pope’s policies are turning so many people off.”
  I wasn’t about to get into any debate with a bishop, especially “in his house,” after all, being a betting man, you learn real fast that it never pays to attempt beating the house. Notwithstanding the fact his decks of cards always included the jokers, i.e., notions that we’d HAVE to accept married priests (no, not the ones who left his church to become Catholics) but our regular supply of Baptized “cradle Catholic” boyos, who increased the Church’s membership rolls, and in some cases, our seminaries, the more old fashioned route: their parents.) The other joker would be the “fact” that we HAVE to accept “today’s views” towards the then decidedly more controversial topics of female ordination (at any and all levels, maybe the papacy excluded out of polite respect for antiquity)and of course, homosexuality within and without the clerical ranks.
  I smiled and thanked him for his interesting insight and went off to take in more free coffee and munchies. There was also sherry offered as well, but not being a drinking man, though (sorely)certainly tempted after that discussion, or “friendly authoritative ... exchange and not so-mutually equal dialogue” ... I held off knowing full well what a disadvantage my Gaelic temperament fueled by hearing such “authoritative insights” might alter my compusure and behavior, which wouldn’t have earned me any points with the missus.
  When we got into the car, well, I exchanged my take on her prelate’s ecclessiastical prognistications. Naturally, I won my wife over. Yeah, right. LOL! That was then.
  Funny how time flies and I think back on what that bishop, holding all the card in his house and what he was saying and I got to thinking, maybe if there was ever a calling to be an ecclessiastical bookie, I should’ve answered it and bet our rent, our savings, our car title, life policies, you name it ... I would’ve cleaned up given the course of history between the “American Catholic Church,” (yes, that was another term he used, as if there is or ever was an official “American Catholic Church”) and the Catholic Church.
  Seems like the Catholic Church, which technically isn’t even Roman since it’s official top “chancery” is in Citte d’ Vaticano, outside of Rome, is doing quite fine; whereas the unofficial, American catholic church, aka Episcopal Church of the United States, is crumbling and falling apart faster than its (replacement) London Bridge located right next to its “mother church,” i.e., the Church of England’s Lambeth Palace.
  Anybody wanna start a new “order,” a very unofficial order of bookies? You get to put OB at the end of your name, so as to not get you confused with the far holier OSB. You can bet the Benedictines won’t like that.
  But think of the fun you can have in cleaning up the mess left behind so many of our doomsaying critics in that other, i.e., more “American” and small-c, catholic denomination.

We speak out because we love…..  That is very good.  Harder to put into practice.  I find Bob’s comments ‘ruffling’ too but I think we need to pick a new ‘goat’ and move this discusson along.  I see Bishop Dolan is heading up a new committee to address this (and more) in congress.  He also delivered a talk to a batch of new decons about the new attacks that the religous and liety will be subject to because of the changing atmosphere of our country and the world. I think I am going to study up on how to handle this myself…

It is interesting how the homosexuals want marriage to cover unions that don’t create human life, and the heterosexuals who don’t want marriage, but shack up, have kids, and then the majority of them splitting up.  Nobody is thinking of the kids.

Too bad marriage can’t be promoted more above the din…

How about the Catholics now taking the offensive promoting marriage as the permanent relationship to bring children into the world to be family, and grow up to be law abiding, productive citizens?

I have to admit that your intro paragraph made me chortle out loud, but Jason’s letter actually was, as you say, perfect.

Not “Sue” above but the “elderly Sue” who is glad she grew up with one Mom and one Dad….married a Protestant who along with me was COMMITTED to our marriage and brought up our children that way.  It is so sad today that so many children do not even know one of their parents or even both.  As we used to say, “first comes marriage, then children”. Marriage is not always easy, but if you are COMMITTED to it, you can survive and in the end, be fulfilled. As to gay marriage…there are gays in my family, both sides, and how they live is their business, I don’t judge other people, that is up to God, BUT I truly believe that marriage is between male and female as God intended.

That was a fantastic letter. Kudos to Jason.

Once again, bob shows his complete and utter indoctrination into the cult of anti-Catholicism. It’s really too bad he’s unable to think for himself. Luckily, it’s easy to do the necessary research and prove his claims utterly and completely false.

Very nice Jason, thank you.  The Star Tribune is as Christophobic as it has always been and does its little task of spreading hatred against anything that hasn’t been embraced by its leftist supporters.
It should give all Christians something to think about though. They sit back and let all these issues pass them by and they change to fit the world and yet somehow believe they have the truth of Jesus Christ in their religious beliefs. Do they not see that no one is attacking Episcopalians or Lutherans or any of the other 30,000 religious sects? No one cares if they continue because they can’t agree within their own houses on anything and will bend to whatever society wants them to. The Catholic Church will always be persecuted and hated, just as Jesus Christ said it would, because he is the head and the world hated him. The Catholic Church stays strong in the teachings of Christ and the enemy attacks only those things he fears.  The more we are attacked, the more we know we are doing what is righteous.  Let all know however, as this country tries to beat religion into hiding, it will eventually enact laws to punish all believers, not just Catholics.

Bob, you may as well just strap a neon sign to your head that says, “I am ignorant.”  Nuff said.

You know, what gets lost in all of this debate is the fact that homosexuals live rather short, troubled lives.  Emotional problems, suicide, and substance abuse are common even when they live in communities that openly accept their life style.  There are some studies showing their avergae life expectancy to be only 38 years!!!  And, we have “do gooders” out there who want to encourage this self destructive life style by providing government sanctioning of their acts.  Does anyone care that people are being encouraged, on whatever level, to live a lifestyle that cuts short their lives so drastically.  We should be encouraging them to pray and restrain themselves from the damaging acts they are engaging in.

It’s all going to be OK - we know Who wins in the end.  Remember - The gates of hell (current society, maybe?) can not prevail against the Catholic Church.
Give it a generation or two - just like Europe - and all of the anti-family folks will have died off, leaving the spoils to the pro-lifers who raised their children to love and serve God!
Eat your heart out, Bob - or you could join us.

Sue,

So if I get your post correct, If I live my life stealing from older married women or widows, you would not judge my actions as wrong? After all that is how I may choose to live my life. Remember, as I walk off with your TV, and drive your car away, don’t judge that I stole from you!

I think you need to revisit St. Paul, and the Gospels, and church teaching on the topic of judging. I don’t place people in hell, but I can sure judge that an action is wrong.

Okay, he made me look, since I never heard of Edgardo Mortara. Even Wikipedia shows the nuanced issues of law and state power and personal testimony that came into play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara

While I appreciate the articulate discourse Jason puts forth on behalf of the Church, it will simply fall on deaf ears.  The left, homosexual activists included, have no tolerance for any other point of view. The word “left” simply replaced the word “communist” or “fascist”.  All of which oppose the Church. We need to get back to the truth and call it what it is.  We know it’s not about “gay rights”, it’s about supporting and uplifting a “culture of death”.  Look at the abortion issue.  Abortion is simply murder.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It’s not a right, or privilege, or entitlement.  We Catholics need to start calling these groups what they are, and not fall for their rhetoric.  The “gay rights” agenda is a well funded group that seeks to advance an immoral and hateful lifestyle.  The majority of their funds come from the government, not individuals.  That’s where you want to attack them.  File a lawsuit to reveal their revenue stream and all of this will come crashing in on itself.  They’ll be revealed for who they are by the politicians that support them.  Politicians like that Catholic fraud, Nancy Pelosi. We need to stop focusing on cutting off the tail of the snake and go straight for the head.  If we keep battling them with stones, while they use modern weapons, we’re going to lose.  We’re so far behind the 8 ball, we won’t see our demise before it’s too late.

Jason Adkins and Mark Shea are brave- I used to live in California and I’ve seen the “tolerance” of the homosexual activists. They have more money and free time than devout Catholics do (since most of us have large families), but they do not have the assistance of the Lord God. He may permit them to do as they will right now but if all of those who call themselves Christians immediatly pulled their children out of public schools and either enrolled them in private Catholic/Christian schools or home schooled them and we lived as we say we believe, then our nation would turn around within a very short time. By the grace of God righteousness will prevail.

Steven wrote, “when my wife was confirmed an Episcopalian, the kindly retired, now deceased, prelate informed me in a very polite, but ever so ‘authoritative’ manner, . . . that ‘with all due respect, your (Roman) Catholic Church will have to change, it’s losing so many thousands of people and your pope’s policies are turning so many people off.’”

What that “kindly”, “polite” prelate did was to break a cardinal rule of hospitality: that you don’t tax a guest under your roof upon vexed questions of religion or politics.

Had the late prelate been an actual *gentleman*, he would have made you feel welcome while a guest of his church by making polite conversation on general, non-controversial topics, and keeping his impertinent opinions to himself.

Bully and bounder that he was, he couldn’t resist inflicting his views on a captive audience - yourself, knowing that you would strictly limit your replies to him to the bounds of deference and courtesy.

Shameful!

Wow. I wish I could defend as well as that.

Hey Bob, I don’t appreciate you talking about my Mother like that. The Catholic Church is holy and perfect unlike you.

“Ignore bob, he is an intentional distraction.”

Amen.

We have heard the church is wrong about abortion and contraception, yet in our modern, advanced society, more and more women and children are living in poverty.  Birth control/abortion advocates told us that access to such would empower women, end prostitution, reduce poverty, and strengthen marriages.

40, 50 decades of this progressive social experiment has created a huge problem for women and children, yet some will argue that the church is wrong.

“Y’all ain’t a person with rights till gov’t (and the doc) say so.  Get over it.”

Yep. Precisely what the SCOTUS said at the time of the Dred Scott decision (19th cen). That African-Americans aren’t entitled to the same rights to life, liberty that white folks are. Thus the legal basis for slavery was continued here in the U.S.

Devout Quakers in England and in the U.S. worked hard to moblilize public support against slavery. And they prevailed. It took many, many years, but they finally prevailed.

Catholics and others have been working hard to mobilize public support against another legal human rights abuse - abortion. And we will prevail, as well.

Sooner or later, good always wins, and evil always loses.

“we atheists and humanists work for the day where there are NO Catholic schools, Catholic hospitals, and Catholic charities, nor any other religious anything.”

This doesn’t surprise or upset us. Atheists have for over years destroyed Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities. “The Vendee” is an interesting article to read in Wikipedia, that recounts what the “atheist, humanist” French Revolutionaries did to those who wanted to remain Catholic. And, the part I can’t get over is, did the atheists even have to destroy the *livestock*? Perfectly good farm animals. Unbelievable!

The “atheist, humanist” Chinese reeducation camps. Check. The “atheist humanist” Soviet gulags in Siberia. Check.

The lovely, lovely vision of atheist, humanism destroying and replacing the Catholic Church, as it has actually played out in the real world has actually netted tens of millions shot, bayonetted, or starved to death.

You can keep that vision. I don’t think you have anything to be proud of, either.

Mr. Marx, You were “not a person” once and yet your mother allowed you to stay in her body while she nurtured you and gave you the chance to live a life. But you’re OK with depriving others of that chance. I am dismayed by such a heartless and cold opinion. Look into history and you’ll see that scientists who discovered things such as the Big Bang Theory and genetics were Catholic priests. Easy and the lazy way out to call people dimwits and it is much harder to read and look at the real evidence. I used to believe as you do. I am glad I woke up to reality.I am not trying to be harsh here, but I have found a better and much happier way.

Mr. Marx is apparently okay with the fact that African slaves weren’t considered whole people because the law said so too, I guess. :-)  Or the Jews, since the Nazi government didn’t consider them to be people either, or at least not valuable enough of a person to keep alive.  Funny how some groups just gain personhood overnight when enough people stand up for them, isn’t it?  Who knew it was such a fickle thing?

From the article:

“The church only proposes; she imposes nothing.”

This is a bit disingenuous. In Minnesota church is exerting political muscle to keep its own doctrine on marriage as state law. When it lobbies to change laws on abortion, it’s trying to impose its own doctrine on abortion on non-Catholics through the state. This is actually how the Inquisition worked. Heretics were judged by the Church and then turned over to the state, which carried out the punishment. It was a partnership, and if the church were ever again to find itself in control of the state, I have no doubt that state laws would be based on Catholic doctrine. Of course that is not going to happen. However the church still has considerable influence in the U.S., and that influence consists of a lot more than openly making persuasive arguments in the public square.

Here is why the church’s activities in the political arena make some people uneasy and some people angry.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/rules-of-the-game/did-catholic-bishops-advocacy-cross-the-line—20091123
From the article at the link above:

“The furor over abortion and health care has brought fresh scrutiny to the nation’s Catholic bishops, who’ve emerged as formidable lobbyists but who face virtually none of the lobbying or disclosure rules that apply to the rest of Washington.

“That’s angered some on Capitol Hill, who argue the Catholic bishops have stepped over the line, and prompted calls for more transparency and better oversight of lobbying by religious organizations.

“The bishops’ direct role crafting the House health care bill’s abortion language raised eyebrows both on and off Capitol Hill.

“Lobbying laws specifically exempt churches from reporting requirements, and tax laws likewise require virtually no disclosure. Though all non-religious 501(c)3 charitable organizations must file IRS Form 990 reporting their basic finances, churches are, again, exempt. Tax laws do forbid churches and other charities from engaging in anything more than ‘insubstantial’ lobbying, but legal experts say that term is ill-defined.

“In this regulatory vacuum, the Catholic bishops have quietly built a sophisticated legal, public relations and lobbying team that’s waded aggressively into the health care fight. At the same time, the Roman Catholic Church, which operates health insurance plans and hospitals all over the country, has a substantial financial stake in the debate.”

So that’s why you’re seeing more than a bit of rancorous opposition to bishops lobbying against same sex marriage in Minnesota.

“In this regulatory vacuum, the Catholic bishops have quietly built a sophisticated legal, public relations and lobbying team that’s waded aggressively into the health care fight. At the same time, the Roman Catholic Church, which operates health insurance plans and hospitals all over the country, has a substantial financial stake in the debate.”

Thanks for pointing that abysmal state of affairs, cowalker.

My fellow Catholics, Catholic hospitals, which the Feds have been trying for years to compel by *force of law* to commit abortions and perform sterilizations against the dictates of their consciences, individual Catholic physicans, nurses, and health care professionals whom the Feds have been trying for years to compel by *force of law* to commit abortions in their practices, against the dictates of their consciences, and individual Catholic pharmacists whom the Feds have been trying to compel by *force of law* to dispense abortiafacient drugs against the dictates of the consciences, should hear this and hear it well:

“How dare you resist? It is unConstitutional that you should employ any lobbying efforts or money or influence to resist the federal government’s efforts to compel you to do what your Church forbids you to do! Shut up and take it! You are second-class citizens! You will do what you’re told by your betters, when you’re told, and when we tell you to jump, you will say, how high! And the sooner you understand that the better off you’ll be.

“Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated!”

And all Catholics everywhere, to be considered good and loyal Americans, must reply, “Please, sir, may I have another?”

See? That’s how that works.

So, learn that, and learn it well, my fellow Catholics. When the Feds in Washington decide to tell you not to do what your faith teaches, but to do what Obama commands, it is unAmerican to do anything but give the correct salute and obey your superiors in Washington.

So shut up. And roll over and play dead, while you’re at it.

Or just drop dead, better yet.

See? That’s what cowalker would really like for all who aren’t in lockstep with the Culture of Death to do.

Isn’t it a good thing we have friends like cowalker to sort things out for us?

“This is actually how the Inquisition worked. Heretics were judged by the Church and then turned over to the state, which carried out the punishment. It was a partnership, and if the church were ever again to find itself in control of the state, I have no doubt that state laws would be based on Catholic doctrine.”

Thanks for reminding us how the Inquistion - which you described as operating according to a balance of power between Church and state - worked. Now here’s how things worked in the officially atheist former Soviet Union, and how they work in officially atheist Communist China: The state decides you’re guilty. There is no Church.

There’s a trial.

The verdict is foreordained: You’re guilty.

Period.

Bang! You’re dead.

Folks, it’s about time we Catholics woke up to the fact that everyone’s life would be better, freer, fairer all around if we all just went with the Atheist Way of Doing Things. I mean, really.

Think about it.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Thursday, Oct 13, 2011 11:54 AM (EDT):
“How dare you resist? It is unConstitutional that you should employ any lobbying efforts or money or influence to resist the federal government’s efforts to compel you to do what your Church forbids you to do! Shut up and take it! You are second-class citizens!”

Actually the church is being given privileges above those of other citizens because:

“Lobbying laws specifically exempt churches from reporting requirements, and tax laws likewise require virtually no disclosure. Though all non-religious 501(c)3 charitable organizations must file IRS Form 990 reporting their basic finances, churches are, again, exempt. Tax laws do forbid churches and other charities from engaging in anything more than ‘insubstantial’ lobbying, but legal experts say that term is ill-defined.”

So the church is lobbying from a privileged position. It doesn’t make sense to say that the government is treating Catholics like second-class citizens. Requiring them to stop lobbying or to pay taxes or to report their financial information would merely be requiring the same thing as is required of other institutions.

As for regulating church-run medical care, most aspects of medical care are legally regulated. If the church does not wish to comply with legal requirements, it can get out of the business of medicine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses would not be allowed to run a hospital with an emergency room where blood transfusions were forbidden, even when a patient was dying from blood loss, no matter how sincere their belief is.

Marion, as every atheist scientist knows, “nature abhors a vacuum.”  When the sweet-smelling and overwhelming presence of God is unnaturally extricated, what takes its place?

A smiling, beneficent humanitarianism?  But that’s Buddhism.

A rigorous fanatical morally duplicitous asceticism?  Why that’s Islam.

A rolling weekend tailgate party?  That’s our hedonistic american agnosticism.

You can go on, but it’s clear that atheism is a hypothetical term, not found in real life.

It’s the 7 devils that take up residence in a man, “whose condition is worse than it was at first.”

“it’s clear that atheism is a hypothetical term, not found in real life.”

“Atheism” isn’t a hypothetical term to the millions of Chinese living under their atheistic Communist totalitarian regime, and who are denied the right to participate in authentically Catholic liturgical celebrations.

Nor was “atheism” a hypothetical term to the millions of Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, Czech, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, East German, and Slovenian Catholic and Orthodox believers who were arrested, imprisoned, shot, and/or starved to death by their atheistic Communist totalitarian regime, starting with the Bolshevik Revolution and lasting well into the 1980s.

There’s not much more un-hypothetical you can get that being turned into a cadaver.

That’s what history proves atheism excels at.

And they do it better and faster, and more of it, than anyone else on record. Their work in this area in unparalleled.

The work of offing people, just *because* . . . , I mean.

Any position that can only be defended by referring to Sacred Scripture should not be brought to the markeplace of ideas with the intent of having it implemented into law.

Any idea, even one “Faith-inspired”, which could be accepted by anyone without requiring one to be a member of a particular religion in order to accept, is fair game to bring to the marketplace of ideas to be discussed and possibly enacted into law.

www.rpconradio.com

“Any position that can only be defended by referring to Sacred Scripture should not be brought to the markeplace of ideas with the intent of having it implemented into law.

Where in the Constitution does it say that, Dennis?

And I want chapter and verse.

.

.

I thought not.

Because that idea holds about as much water as an empty pack of Marlboros floating on the East River.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Thursday, Oct 13, 2011 1:37 PM (EDT):
“‘Any position that can only be defended by referring to Sacred Scripture should not be brought to the markeplace of ideas with the intent of having it implemented into law.’

“Where in the Constitution does it say that, Dennis?”

He said it SHOULD NOT be brought to the marketplace of ideas, not that it COULD NOT. His point is that if you can only defend a position by reference to scripture, it’s not going to go anywhere, so don’t waste everyone’s time and energy. An example would be an attempt to go back to Blue Laws, which forbade businesses to operate on Sunday in deference to Biblical admonitions that the seventh day should be a day of rest. In a diverse, secular community, you need arguments that are not founded on scripture.

Opponents of same sex marriage know better than to frame their arguments as scriptural. Instead they try to show that social damage will result. This is definitely the smart way to go. Personally, I don’t think they have succeeded in demonstrating that same sex marriage would change society for the worse. Increasing numbers of young people are agreeing with this position, so I think it’s only a matter of time.

The arguments back in the sixties against easy divorce were really better than the ones against same sex marriage. Certainly easy divorce appears to have led to more children being raised by single parents than might have been the case otherwise. Nevertheless, there is no general clamor to bring back the tough divorce laws. Americans seem to be willing to put up with more churn to achieve more personal freedom.

Arguments may be lost or won; elections will come and go. So do military battles.

Sooner or later, good always triumphs over evil.

The Culture of Life will triumph over the Culture of Death.

cowalker - All these secular arguments essentially assume an impotent and irrelevant God.  Or a God who’s so wishy-washy that butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. 

The proposition is: where is you God?  If he doesn’t approve of what we’re doing, so what?  He either doesn’t care, or can’t do anything about it, or doesn’t exist anyway.

What that sort of people don’t notice is that God is acting.  That his wrath is falling upon them even as they deny him.  That they are experiencing right now judgment in their bodies and in their souls.

They’re just too drunk and disoriented to realize it, or too ignorant and proud to acknowledge it.  But a crushing blow is impending, which they won’t be able to deny.  It’s going to happen so suddenly that heads will spin.  Jesus talked about a tower falling in Jerusalem and said “repent or the same thing will happen to you.”  And now we experience the same thing happening in NYC.  Could the message be any clearer?

You can say scripture is irrelevent, but you do so at your own peril.  You can deny that God is powerful to accomplish his ends, and you can insult him with impunity.  Time will tell, won’t it?

Posted by Matt B on Thursday, Oct 13, 2011 4:50 PM (EDT):
“You can say scripture is irrelevent, but you do so at your own peril.  You can deny that God is powerful to accomplish his ends, and you can insult him with impunity.  Time will tell, won’t it?”

You and Marion have resorted to the “‘somewhere out there’ Catholic doctrine will be proven true” assertion. Of course I can’t prove that what you assert will not happen at some unspecified future time way beyond the current timeline. Nor can I prove that the scientific method will be embraced by most nations as the most reliable way to determine the most effective political policies. We just don’t know, do we?

If you want to be painfully attentive to detail, you will re-read my post and see that I merely said that scriptural arguments will have little influence in our diverse, secular culture. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that American legislators will be swayed by scripture or Roman Catholic doctrine?

Cowalker- “somewhere out there” is here and now.  How many statistics do you need to prove that secular agnosticism has undermined and wrecked the very basis of society?

St. Paul said that sinners will impose the penalty on themselves.  Anyone whose cheating ways have destroyed a marriage; anyone who’s understood too late the disastrous consequences of aborting a child; the addict who pushes the plunger of a needle into his arm, all realize this only too well.

What I’m saying is that soon the Lord will lay it out in terms so plain that no one will be able to ignore it.  Will it be a natural disaster?  A plague?  So far these have proved ineffective.  Some speculate that an economic catastrophe is imminent - that would certainly hit atheists where it hurts.  They love money.

Jesus upbraided worldly people of his time by saying: “you read the signs of wind and rain, but you can’t read the signs of the times.”  Likewise, we can plan a picnic three weeks out, but we can’t understand how our deliberately selfish decisions and actions are wreaking destruction on our lives and on our world.

In answer to your question: our legislators are blind rats, who will sooner be eaten by a crocodile than recognize the truths of scripture and the faith.  They shun it like rats shun the light.  Look for the Lord to do a complete end-run around these opportunistic hangers-on.

It’s not about persuasion any more, it’s about power.

Unfortunately I can’t find any evidence to refute this: “In answer to your question: our legislators are blind rats . . . .” ;)

Of course there is nothing for me to reply to “The end times are upon us.” From my perspective there have always been natural disasters, economic catastrophes and diseases that took a huge toll on the population. But you see things differently. We must agree to disagree.

cowalker:

I know that harping on the abortion bomb can be monotonous, and induce a kind of stupor in the listener, but bear with me:

The number of aborted in the US has been bandied about at 50-55M in the US, since Roe.  Since China implemented their 1-boy policy, their death count has conservatively exceeded 1B.  These numbers stagger the imagination, and run to 20% of the worlds living population.

Besides this obvious genocide (following on a century of genocides), there is the plummetting fertility rate among “developed” countries.  It’s almost like a self-extinction.

I’m not even going to get into hysterical fabrications like “global warming” which threatens to inundate the globe in a way reminiscent of Noah’s Ark.  These amount to a symbolic overcompensation - a “curse the devil” response.

But just from shear magnitudes of death and human suffering, do you not agree that these times are singular in the recorded history of mankind?  Not since the Bubonic Plague that killed a quarter of the populatin of Europe has universal Death been so imminent and immediate.

If you add to this the concurrent moral decay, at least from the standpoint of traditional morality, can you agree that “the signs of the times” are definitely taking a short position on mankind.

Or look at the generation now coming up, your sons or your brothers.  They’ve grown up in a setting of moral depravity, greed and selfishness.  Half their generation has been “trimmed.”  And now they’re hoping, if they hope at all, to found families and start productive careers.  Meanwhile, the locusts have destroyed.  Do you see an apocolyptic element in this scenario?

You agreed to disagree with me.  I apologize for being so disagreeable.  Thanks for your patience.

Got slammed at work; missed this one from earlier:

“As for regulating church-run medical care, most aspects of medical care are legally regulated. If the church does not wish to comply with legal requirements, it can get out of the business of medicine.”

This formulation comes up often: If Catholics physicians and hospitals don’t wish to target the infant in the womb for annihilation, then they shouldn’t practice medicine.

Don’t you love it?

And 99.9% of abortions aren’t even done for medical reasons at all. But cowalker and his ilk would FORCE Catholic physicians and hospitals to commit them.

In the name of “freedom”.

1984, all over again.

Unbe-fricking-lievable.

Catholics, try this one, in the same vein, on for size:

“If Catholic military recruits can’t see their way to following an order to napalm civilians, then they should be court-martialed.”

Hey! Do what you are told! Follow orders, no matter what. That’s cowalker’s message to Catholics.

“If Catholic military officers don’t want to obey orders to torture and otherwise mistreat enemy combatant prisoners, then they shouldn’t be serving in the U.S. military.”

Right! Out we go, according to cowalker’s standards.

“If Catholic human resources managers don’t wish follow company policy to lie, cheat, and steal to bring in the cheapest best qualified workers, then they should resign their jobs.”

And so on, and so on.

See how that works? Catholics, my friends, should be reduced to delivering newspapers and selling apples on the street. We have no rights. In a free, progressive, and golden secular society, the consciences of Catholics are to be overridden at all times and everywhere.

Here’s what I have come up with in response:

Legislators and judges who insist on disturbing the consciences of faithful Catholics pursuing their careers in the medical profession, and others, as they have done in this country since Colonial times, are unfit for public office in our society, and should be turned out of office.

It is the secular totalitarians who are unfit to hold office, and should be moved to the margins.

Let’s make it so. Catholics vote.

Matt B on Oct 14 2011 5:15 PM
“But just from sheer magnitudes of death and human suffering, do you not agree that these times are singular in the recorded history of mankind?  Not since the Bubonic Plague that killed a quarter of the population of Europe has universal Death been so imminent and immediate.”

I believe recent estimates put the toll of the Black Death at one third the population of Europe. Do you think that universal Death is as immediate in the U.S. or Europe in any way to that degree right now? You are aware that perhaps 25% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions. Whether spontaneous or medically induced, such events do not have the same effect as the deaths of millions of visible people who are present in the lives of other people. You may not like this, but the psychological truth of it is that the loss of a fetus is simply not the same as the loss of a child who has been born and has taken on an identity as daughter, son, brother, sister, husband, wife, father, mother, friend, etc. It just isn’t the same, and this is reflected in most people’s attitudes toward abortion.

As for the imminence of Death, there are more human beings alive on earth today than ever before in the history of human beings. Most people are not feeling an acute lack of enough human beings. I can only speak from experience with my children and their friends, but they are not obsessing over potential members of their generation who were never born. They exist, and their friends exist, and they don’t think about members of their generation who were never born any more than they think about members of their generation who were never conceived. I wonder how much earlier generations obsessed over children who were never conceived because marriages had to be delayed for years until the men could provide for a family? Did they EVER think of it? I’ve never heard of it.

“We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect their parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently inhabit taverns and have no self-control.” That is an inscription from a 6000 year-old Egyptian tomb. It’s a truism that people tend to look back at some previous period as a golden age. The rising generation is always lacking in virtue and character. It’s a story as old as human beings.

I don’t think it’s disagreeable of you to have your own opinions, which are different from mine. I appreciate your courteous responses to my arguments. But I think we have reached an impasse where there is nothing new to say to each other. You have moved into an area where you assert the apocalypse is upon earth, but cannot provide hard evidence. I cannot respond to that. That is your belief.

I hope you will eventually come to a more hopeful frame of mind.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Saturday, Oct 15, 2011 10:42 AM
“And 99.9% of abortions aren’t even done for medical reasons at all. But cowalker and his ilk would FORCE Catholic physicians and hospitals to commit them.”

No, unlike Big Brother, we would be happy if Catholic physicians chose to be General Practitioners or chose specialities where obstetrical or gynecological services weren’t an issue. We would be happy if Catholic hospitals contracted out services they didn’t want to perform to non-Catholic doctors. But if Catholic hospitals don’t want to provide legal services such as elective sterilization and contraception through some means, they are free to invest in institutions other than hospitals. Or to limit their services to the 2% of Catholics who do not use contraceptives.

I am outraged at the idea that a female rape victim is treated in the emergency room of a Catholic hospital without being offered the option of taking the morning-after-pill. It angers me that a Catholic hospital receives government funding, such as Medicaid, and is not required to provide a range of contraceptive options, from NFP through elective sterilization. Unlike Big Brother, I do not want to torture Catholics into providing such services. I merely want to them to recuse themselves from obstetrical or gynecological medical care. If they won’t, I’d be OK with pulling their licenses. I would not be OK with letting starving rats eat their tongues or eyes.

If Catholic hospitals don’t want to be subject to government regulation, they should stop accepting government money.

As for the military and corporate examples you suggest, they are not exclusive to Catholics. What do you think happens to the Southern Baptist who refuses to napalm civilians? What happens to the Jewish officers who refuse to torture someone to get information? What happens to the Muslim
human resources managers who don’t wish follow company policy to lie, cheat, and steal to bring in the cheapest best qualified workers? Their legal protections are no better and no worse than those afforded to Catholics. How on earth do you see these dilemmas as Catholic persecution? These problems are universal challenges to the person with a fully developed conscience who is trying to operate within an institution that does not fully accept his or her values. The problem is the same for Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and atheists. Do you become a whistleblower, do you quit or do you go along to get along? It’s a tough choice, but it really has nothing to do with one’s particular religion.

“No, unlike Big Brother, we would be happy if Catholic physicians chose to be General Practitioners or chose specialities where obstetrical or gynecological services weren’t an issue”

I’ll tell you what: We Catholics will run our hospitals our way, and since you have the arrogance to tell others what to do, I’ll return tht favor: Why don’t you and your fellow Travellers set up centers not far from these recalcitrant Catholic hospitals where you can deal death to defenseless infants to your hearts’ content? Dr. Josef Mengele, who worked for the Germans in WWII, set up a lot of those and performed many abortions in them - you could name them after him: The cowalker - Mengele Infant Slaughterhouse Center.

You like?

Good. Now go get started.

I know you will make the streets run red with babies’ blood, and will love every minute of it.

I take Marion and cowalker to be two straightforward representatives of the diverging points of view that have emerged in our society.  What this discussion shows me is that there is no middle ground - no point of contact.  That’s been apparent for a long time.

The left’s strategy has been to indoctrinate children into their smutty agenda through education and entertainment.  The religious right tried with Ronald Reagan and various successors to find a white knight.  Both these strategies have become completely see-through.  Talking about it is a waste of breath. 

There’s two ways I can see this playing out: a second civil war; or the second coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Anyone taking bets?

“. . . a second civil war . . .”

And why not?

The secular materialists massacred tens of thousands during the French Revolution; believers were their especial targets. During the Revolution of the atheistic Bolshevists in Russia, tens of millions were put to death, churches closed, and official atheism established throughout the Soviet empire; again, believers were especially targetted. It happened in Spain again during the 1930s, in Eastern Europe during the 1950s, and in China during the 1960s.

Why shouldn’t secular materialists one day attempt to take over the United States political system, and to marginalize - and ultimately persecute into extinction - people of faith?

They’ve done it in lots of other places, and have gotten pretty good at it, too.

Why should the U.S. be spared?

Marion (Mael Muire) =“Why shouldn’t secular materialists one day attempt to take over the United States political system, and to marginalize - and ultimately persecute into extinction - people of faith?”

Secularism is the position of not favoring atheism or theism in government. It would seem to me that “secular materialists” would be the first to defend you and your equal rights. Unless you are attempting impose a theocracy onto a country you have nothing to fear from secularist. Many religious followers are also secularist. Do you have some other definition of ‘secularism’ that the general public is unaware or are you simply trying to demonize the word ‘secular’ for propaganda’s sake?

Psy - it’s really hard for me to imagine that Marion’s examples don’t resonate with you.  Are you saying “It can’t happen here?”

As far as “secular” goes, to me this represents a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Especially the variety we’re discussing on this string.

Matt B =“As far as “secular” goes, to me this represents a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Especially the variety we’re discussing on this string.”

Then it is not ‘secularism’ that you are discussing.

Here in the U.S. until relatively recently, various forms of Judaeo-Christian religious faith formed, and were understood to form, the substratum - the foundation, the source, and the wellsprings - of our national legal philosophy, our foreign and public policy and our culture.

No one religious denomination or sect was to be enshrined as the national church as had been the case in so many European lands - Anglicanism in Britain, Lutheranism in the Scandinavian countries and many German states, Catholicism in Spain, Portugal, and Italy (at the time that this country was being established, the secular materialists in France were busy guillotining aristocrats and Catholic priests, so France hardly counts as an officially Catholic country from that time.)

However, religious feeling in general was accorded a special place of respect by government; it was government “hands off” when it came to people of faith practicing their faith, and religious institutions serving their community in legitimate ways according to the tenets of their religious faith.

In a secular system, we see that government views religion not as the bedrock and the wellspring from which a nation and its people draw their meaning and purpose in life, their character, and their laws and customs, but that the government sees religion as simply another corporate entity subservient to the state, to be regulated, legislated, and interfered with . . . and ultimately, if possible, to be done away with.

The national State is the Be-all and End-all. The State is the Ultimate Good. The State is the Source and Summit of meaning: Not God, not religion. People are to look to the national State for answers to their every need. The national State will take care of and manage every aspect of its people’s lives, and to do that successfully, it must manage, manipulate, and interfere with any pesky corporate entities that stand between it and the people it serves, whether that entity is the United Way, the Boys Scouts, the Presbyterian Church, the Catholic Church, Moose Lodge No. 1185, Steam and Pipefitters Local no. 54, and the National Association of Wedding Planners.

The trouble with the secular uber-State being the Be-all and End-all, and the answer to everything, is that the separation and balance of power is gone. King, God, and Family. State, and Church, and Home. These had been mankind’s loyalties for many generations. Now there is to be one loyalty: The uber-State. And the trouble with an entire nation having just one loyalty - the State - is that sooner or later, the totalitarian impulse, which is always present, will appear. And this time, there will be nothing to check it.

Or if anything tries to check it, it gets steamrollered to death by the uberState Juggernaut. That includes any religious entities that encounter the totalitarian impulse in the secular uberState.

French Revolution: Secular materialists guillotined, bayonetted, deported, exiled aristocrats and non-aritstocrat Catholics.

Russian Revolution: Catholics as well as Orthodox murdered by the tens of thousands.

Spanish Civil War: Partisans and Catholics murdered by the thousands, including priests, and cloistered nuns.

And more examples too sad and too tiresome to relate: Cuba, Hungary, East Germany, etc.

With the advent of a purely secular state, it’s always the same. The totalitarian impulse arises; Catholics and others resist; the secular state slaughters the Catholics and other resisters.

Gee! What’s not to like?

I think the Catholic Church is desperately afraid, and lashing out. For over 40 years now modern medicine and science have understood human sexuality in ways that simply dispel all the old misconceptions and fears around homosexuality. The Church does not like to admit mistakes, so years ago it chose to dig its heels in on homosexuality, only to lose that bet with not only continued mounting evidence to debunk it but also now popular opinion. This has led to extreme panic, and this shameful push shows that Catholic leadership will do anything - anything - to save face, even fight tooth and nail against happy, committed loving couples who simply want to purchase a civil marriage license. They aren’t even asking for the holy Catholic sacrament of matrimony! What they’re asking for has nothing to do with the church - any church! Civil license only, and our bishops still choose to spend church funds fighting love instead of on homeless, poor, sick, needy children, or any of the other myriad real causes. Shame on the Catholic Church!

FYI, here are some of the top American authorities uniformly concluding that there is nothing wrong or bad about being gay, that it’s a normal, natural, morally neutral variant in human sexuality:

American Medical Association
American Psychological Association
American Anthropological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
Child Welfare League of America
National Association of Social Workers
North American Council on Adoptable Children
American Psychoanalytic Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
Council on Child and Adolescent Health
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Counseling Association
American Sociological Association
American School Health Association
National Association of School Psychologists

I think the Catholic Church is desperately afraid, and lashing out. For over 40 years now modern medicine and science have understood human sexuality in ways that simply dispel all the old misconceptions and fears around homosexuality. The Church does not like to admit mistakes, so years ago it chose to dig its heels in on homosexuality, only to lose that bet with not only continued mounting evidence to debunk it but also now popular opinion. This has led to extreme panic, and this shameful push shows that Catholic leadership will do anything - anything - to save face, even fight tooth and nail against happy, committed loving couples who simply want to purchase a civil marriage license. They aren’t even asking for the holy Catholic sacrament of matrimony! What they’re asking for has nothing to do with the church - any church! Civil license only, and our bishops still choose to spend church funds fighting love instead of on homeless, poor, sick, needy children, or any of the other myriad real causes. Shame on the Catholic Church!

Tony - shame on you!

American Medical Association
American Psychological Association
American Anthropological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
Child Welfare League of America
National Association of Social Workers
North American Council on Adoptable Children
American Psychoanalytic Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
Council on Child and Adolescent Health
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Counseling Association
American Sociological Association
American School Health Association
and National Association of School Psychologists

can emit diktats and opinions on gayness or on any topic under the sun, until the cows come home . . .

. . . and within the next 125 years, every member of the Board as well of the general members of
American Medical Association
American Psychological Association
American Anthropological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
Child Welfare League of America
National Association of Social Workers
North American Council on Adoptable Children
American Psychoanalytic Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
Council on Child and Adolescent Health
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Counseling Association
American Sociological Association
American School Health Association
and National Association of School Psychologists

will be dead and buried, and their ashes dissolving into the Earth, their names forgotten, their work carried on by others, the property distributed among their heirs, and - like a puff of smoke - are they finished.

And you, too, Tony. By 2145, you will have died. And I, too. I will have died, and my body will be returning into dust.

But God’s holy word will endure forever.

God’s holy word can never die.

The cows can come home. God doesn’t change.

@Tony
Have you ever heard of the heavy lobby that was necessary to remove homosexuality from the DSM in the 1970s? It was absolutely not a neutral decision.

And, you should learn that science deals with empirical facts, while morality is not empirical. Science says nothing about rape being wrong, for example. Science can say nothing about the morality of homosexuality.

Please read a bit about what Science is.

it is just bizarre that some people think a psychologist can judge morality.
People should learn the difference between morality and empirical fact.

A psychologist can tell you that behavior X is addictive, or leads to depression, or whatever, but he cannot tell you that a behavior is immoral. Not even slavery can be judged by Science. A descent scientist does not even attempt to judge morality.

@cowalker
It is bizarre that you want all Hospitals to be forced to perform freaking abortions, and don’t see the Big Brotherish tune of your ideals. I just hope one day you will repent.

@ Marion (Mael Muire) - and that’s just the thing, God’s word never said it was a sin to be gay. There are 4 or 5 lines (out of 33,000+) that can be construed to mean that but they can just as easily be interpreted in a way that many find more consistent, more logical, and more compassionate. Do you even care?

Lev. 20:13 for example. Doesn’t that stuff about “man lying with man as he lies with woman” seem to indicate that the sin is having sex with the gender you are not attracted to? Basically, that sex should be an act of true love and not an act of anything else?

Lesbians “lay with” women out of true love, whereas they would only lay with men in a fake version of love, out of peer pressure to be something they are not. Doesn’t it make sense to you that God would admonish having shallow sexual relations for wrong reasons before He would inexplicably command people to have sex with a gender they are not even attracted to?

In pagan times certain ritualistic behavior sometimes included gay sex among heterosexuals. THAT was sinful, because it was not out of love and it was not natural.

Two thousand years later yes the words are the same and the meaning is the same, but mankind understands that in about 3% of us natural attraction is same gender, and rational people know it is irrational to believe God would condemn that 3% for a tiny facet of their identity they neither chose nor can change.

You seriously want to claim God commands those people to either fake it or stifle their capacity to love?

@ Nick - if you have evidence to prove the APA’s change in 1973 was the result of anything other than continued robust study, bring it on. I’ve heard that claim before and I think it is nonsense. 3% of the population cannot simply buy off America’s foremost authority in the field of psychology and keep them indefinitely in their pocket. Peer review alone would have dismantled that within a year.

Also, perhaps you could explain for us, mister expert on morality, exactly what is immoral about two people of the same gender living a loving, committed, monogamous, mutually supportive life together just as a married straight couple would? HOW is that supposedly immoral? I’ve asked that question a hundred times and only get the same hollow, glazed-eye response: ‘because God said so.’  No, God didn’t “say” any such thing and my point precisely is that people who think He did are mistaken. Hence the question.

@ Nick, science does not “judge morality” as you claim. That’s just a fake claim you fabricate so you can shoot it down to make your point appear stronger.

The APA for example does not judge homosexuality on any moral level. They simply conclude via decades of research that:

1. homosexuality occurs naturally
2. same sex attractions are not inherently unhealthy
3. sexual orientation can not be changed.

Those are data-based conclusions not moral judgments.

One last thing. The problem is that your side, which claims to be all about not changing definitions, misuses words like “defend” and “protect” to mean “prevent people from participating in.”

Marriage is about recognizing, supporting, formalizing, and cementing relationships. Civil marriage has no religious component and is a legal contract of marriage only. Allowing gay couples to do that the same as straight couples is very much supporting the institution. Gay people adore and cherish the institution of marriage which is why they want to be a part of it.

Let’s stop the deceitfulness of using words like “defend” and “protect” when there is no threat except the one we create in our minds.

@Tony Maciej
I’m at work and I don’t have the time to dig up the link on DSM & bullying now.

Regarding your other claims

> “science does not “judge morality” as you claim.”

I know it doesn’t. That is exactly my point. Science has nothing to do with morality, yet some people think a psychologist can declare certain behaviors to be moral!

You said yourself:

“here are some of the top American authorities uniformly concluding that there is nothing wrong or bad about being gay, that it’s a normal, natural, morally neutral variant in human sexuality”

Your claims about leviticus are simply bizarre; they defy language comprehension, and when language itself is challenged, there is nothing I can do to argue. I ask you though to read this

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

and this

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Those are very clear documents. They draw not only on the Bible and Tradition (in the light of which the Bible must be read), but also on Biology, Philosophy and Anthropology. They are worthy to be read.

Second, don’t claim that homosexuals “only want” civil licenses. They want MUCH else. Read this text by Justin Raymondo, an atheist homosexual:

http://frexpression.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/a-gay-man-decries-gay-rights/

For all of you that want to provide “scientific” data to support your positive views on homosexuality; thank you very much but I’ll just take my guidance from the Bible as in The Word of God Who condemns this behavior in no uncertain terms. And isn’t it interesting that so many people who are horrified at the downward trend in morality and ordaining openly gay clergy in some Protestant denominations are leaving Protestantism and joining the Catholic Church? I just read one of the most terrible stories in the news ever about what can happen in a Godless society such as China, where a toddler was run over by a van that once but twice, took off and left the bleeding child in the street while no one came to her assistance. This is what happens in a society that decides for itself that they are their own moral compass.

Nick, you are a deceitful person. Argue all you want, but none of the authorities I listed are making a moral claim. You are twisting this to make it seem so, with the express purpose of tearing it down (tearing down something that never was), and that is deceitful. It is called a “straw man fallacy” and it is a strategy of the weak, the deceitful, and those who have nothing else.

Thank you for confirming that you have no data to support your outrageous lie about the APA change in 1973. That falsehood has been floated and debunked many times, you’re hardly the first.

Any other lies you’d like to post about gay people?

In the meantime, look up “biological evidence for homosexuality” on the Internet and get a load of the mountain of evidence out there, then decide if you still choose to keep your head buried in the sand.

@Tony Maciej

Deceitful? Me?

It was YOU that said “here are some of the top American authorities uniformly concluding that there is nothing wrong or bad about being gay, that it’s a normal, natural, morally neutral variant in human sexuality”

I never said that decent scientists try to judge morality. I only said that many ignorant people think science can judge morality. And you above did that very explicitly. You explicitly used the words “normal” and “morally neutral”. Please read what you write!

And I didn’t say that I have no evidence for the bullying of the psychologists, I just said I don’t have time to dig the link right now.

Regarding “biological cause of homosexuality”, I know there is no scientific consensus right now. Then why would I waste my time with it? Let the scientists settle first.

Anyway, a supposed “gay gene” has nothing to do with morality.

If I was born with a “kleptomaniac gene” would that make stealing moral?

Everyone, please read this:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/therapists-apa-gay-marriage-declaration-based-on-politics-not-science/

Medical experts, psychology experts, lawyers, heads of universities, football coaches, supermarket managers, Wall Street executives, and music promoters may all agree and proclaim that homosexual acts, incest, and acts with animals are better for you than Vitamins B12, B15, C, D, E, and Folic Acid combined, better for you than sunshine, that if you engage in homosexual acts, incest, and acts with animals, doing so will help you regrow your hair, clear skin blemishes, reduce your bad (LDL) cholesterol, increase your brain capacity, help your stock portfolio go up, make you more fun at parties, assist you to spot a deal in the real estate market, and may facilitate the success of your campaign to run for public office.

All these people may say all these things.

If any of what they say contradicts God’s holy word, as interpreted for us by the Catholic Church, then what they say is for us - as Catholics - a mere pffffft!  A puff of air. A feather floating on the breeze. A milkweed sailing by on a summer’s day.

Their words are worth nothing.

Nought.

Zero. Zip. Nada.

I hear what they say. It’s as if I just sneezed. I dab my nose with a tissue and toss it in the trash.

It’s gone.

@Marion - I loved your post!!!!

@ Amy, you can believe whatever you want, but a large and growing number of people dismiss your anti-gay Bible beliefs as an archaic misinterpretation. But like I said, if it makes you happy you can believe it, just like you can believe the earth is flat, the universe is only 8,000 years old, money grows on trees, the moon is made from cheese, and that little green men live on Mars. Your beliefs are your business, and why you believe them is also your business. But your personal beliefs based on the Bible or anything else are not relevant to civil law. Do you understand that? I’m not trying to be flip, I really want to know whether you understand that.

@ Nick, you really have no business talking about morals when you can’t even describe how two women or men living a married life together is immoral. If your priest told you God says that blue eyes are immoral would you believe that too? At some point don’t you start to use the brain God lovingly endowed you with to ask a few simple questions in order to best serve Him? If He wanted mindless rule-following robots that’s what He would have created. Science is not your enemy, but arrogance is.

PS to Nick:  the article you cite from “LifeSiteNews” is a biased piece of trash. LSN is an anti-gay group so they can’t be seen as objective. Think about it. Your big conspiracy about the APA is magically only known by the same groups who happen to hate gay people? Good luck selling that to anyone rational. LOL

“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
—Anne Lamott

@ Marion (Mael Muire), why are you being so bizarrely irrational? Nobody says incest is good. How about you calm yourself down so you can discuss like an adult ok?

Sexual orientation is not determined by behavior. If it was, priests and nuns would have no sexual orientation. If it was, a straight person would not be straight until after they have sex. If it was, all Richard Simmons would have to do to become straight is have sex with women.

Sexual orientation is a factor of every person’s identity and the term refers specifically to which gender(s) they are naturally attracted to. Before a person has any sexual contact with anyone they are already either heterosexual (attracted to the opposite gender), homosexual (attracted to the same gender), or bisexual (attracted to both). The orientation remains the same for a person regardless of what their sexual behavior is.

A person is not a rapist unless he rapes someone. (Behavior.)
A person is not a pedophile unless he commits that act. (Behavior.)
A person is not a murderer unless he kills someone. (Behavior.)
but a person is gay or straight before they ever have any sexual contact with anyone. (Identity.)

While society may make laws to hold people accountable for their sexual BEHAVIOR (e.g., rape) and we might morally judge people for their sexual BEHAVIOR (adultery) we do not penalize or judge people for matters of their IDENTITY (eye color, skin color, nationality, sexual orientation, height, etc.) because it is cruel and unjust.

Now….what part of that don’t you understand? I promise I’ll try to help make it clearer.

Fellow Catholics, I read this article and would love for more Catholics to read it too:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2942868.html

It was written recently by an Australian legislator who is also Catholic. I consider a very thoughtful and poignant view about homosexuality and Catholic teaching.

Here is what God’s holy word forbids:

That a man should have intimate relations with his own mother, sister, aunt, niece, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law. This is incest. This is an abomination, and forbidden.

That a man should have intimate relations with another man. This is homosexual activity. This is an abomination, and forbidden.

That a man or a woman should give himself or herself in carnal relations with a beast of the field. This is bestiality. This is an abomination, and forbidden.

That a man or a woman who is married should have intimate relations with the spouse of another. This is adultery. This is forbidden.

That an unmarried man or a woman should have intimate relations with another unmarried member of the opposite sex. This is fornication. This is forbidden.

God made sex for making babies. God made sex for marriage. All other instances of sex taking place is out-of-line, forbidden, not permitted by God.

Catholics are to do what God commands, and to avoid doing what God forbids.

God forbids us to engage in sexual acts outside of the marital relationship and in a manner that is open to creating babies.

That’s what the Catholic Church believes. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches.

End of story, morning glory.

Phone rang. Sorry about the typo.

Meant to say: “God forbids us to engage in sexual acts outside of the marital relationship or to engage in marital relations in a manner that is intentionally hostile to the possibility - however slight - of creating babies.”

” . . . A person is gay or straight before they ever have any sexual contact with anyone. (Identity.)”

Catholics don’t believe that we are identified by the movements of our libidos, but by grace.

The man who makes his IDENTITY anything other than that of Christ, and Him crucified, is unworthy of the name Christian.

The woman who makes her IDENTITY anything other than that of Christ, and Him crucified, is unworthy of the name of Christian.

Unbelievers can make their identity about anything that they want. Or not, if they want.

Christians are members of Christ in whom all of us are one. As His members, we are called to one baptism, one Church, one gospel, one redemption, one eternal life in Heaven. There are not different Gospels and different teachings for Jew, Greek, male, female, gay, or straight.

They are one.

@Tony Maciej

I have already told you but you simply refuse to listen.

And “science is not your enemy”. That again? Have you NOT learned yet, after all, that science deals with empirical facts, and not with morality?

@Tony Maciej on Wednesday, Oct 19, 2011 1:33 PM (EDT):

> “While society may make laws to hold people accountable for their sexual BEHAVIOR (e.g., rape) and we might morally judge people for their sexual BEHAVIOR (adultery) we do not penalize or judge people for matters of their IDENTITY (eye color, skin color, nationality, sexual orientation, height, etc.) because it is cruel and unjust.”

Name one law that judges people for their sexual attractions.

No one proposes judging people by sexual attractions. Talk about straw man!

@Tony Maciej - “@ Amy, you can believe whatever you want, but a large and growing number of people dismiss your anti-gay Bible beliefs as an archaic misinterpretation.” Anyone who does not believe what God has to say on homosexuality just doesn’t want to hear the truth. God’s law does not become archaic or somehow invalid over time. What has been revealed to us by God is valid today as it was from the beginning of time. God’s law is Truth whether you choose to obey it or not.

This notion that somehow homosexuals are being denied their civil rights is not based upon the Natural Law. The Natural Law would render homosexual as unnatural. What we have today is many people choosing to live not under God’s laws or the Natural Law but under their own selfish, self-centered “laws” with moral relativism becoming the new “religion” of choice. Moral relativism has a tremendous impact on society. Because you or anyone else chooses to live a life that I find morally objectionable does not preclude me from speaking out against it or objecting to any proposed civil law that supports those beliefs.

@ Marion (Mael Muire, you can believe whatever you want. I have no interest in what your personal beliefs are. But when you support civil laws that in effect force people who don’t subscribe to your beliefs to live by them anyway, you are no better than a terrorist. Think whatever you want about gay people, and run your own life accordingly. Hats off to ya! But what does that have to do with others who believe differently? What gives you the arrogance to think your view is what every in the country must live by?

@Nick - I read the “testimony” on the link you provided. It is a very sad story of someone who failed to understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality despite her many years of Catholic education. The Church’s teachings are not based upon feelings but on revealed truths that appear in the Old Testament and the New Testament. St. Paul says very clearly in 1 Corinthians what God has to say about sexual immorality. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.w 26Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.x 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.  How is it possible for anyone to not understand this?
http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Romans&ch=1

@ Nick who said, “Name one law that judges people for their sexual attractions.” How about the marriage law in any state that prohibits gay couples from buying a marriage license?

Don’t even bother with the lame response that gay people are free to marry the opposite gender like straight people. That is as ridiculous as it would be if marriage were ONLY legal between two people of the same gender.

@Tony Maciej

Duh. The law on normal marriage does not judge people by attractions, but only declines to recognize in law a certain BEHAVIOR. When you try to pursue a marriage license, does the clerk investigate your life and mind to see if you have “unapproved attractions”? No. They only verify if your BEHAVIOR fits what is regulated. For example, if you try to marry a child, your sister, or a person of the same sex (all unrecognized BEHAVIORS), then you can’t marry.

Duh.

“What gives you the arrogance to think your view is what every in the country must live by?”

That persons who have devoted themselves to shameful and unnatural relationships and who desire to have those relationships sanctioned by the law, to be placed by law upon a co-equal footing with the institution of marriage that is formed between one and one woman, the institution which is the foundation and the bedrock upon which a healthy society is built? And which institution and which society, if they are to survive and thrive, should be treated with respect.

You mean, *that* arrogance?

You mean, like, how dare I have an opinion different *to your own*?

Gee. How arrogant is *that*? I don’t see things your way; that makes *me* arrogant.

Wowzers. Takes all kinds.

@Tony - The reason gay people cannot get a marriage license is because it is view by many people as an unnatural bond. We wouldn’t be involved in this “struggle” in the United States if it were not. Can’t you see that? Marriage is not just an emotional bond. Civil marriage was created for the good of society so that a man and woman become would become one and procreate and become a family which is for the good of society. Homosexuals are incapable of procreating with each other. You need to understand what marriage is and you simply do not.

@Tony Maciej

> “What gives you the arrogance to think your view is what every in the country must live by?”

If you want to be consistent, then you too must avoid trying to have everyone in the country live by your views. This means you will remove yourself from politics (won’t even vote) altogether.

Unless, of course, you are a hypocrite.

@ Amy - please get off your high horse. The sanctimony and arrogance dripping from your post sickens me. God did not “say” any such thing. You have your beliefs and that’s fine, but a huge and growing number of people (many of them Catholics and other Christians) believe there is another interpretation to those 4 or 5 lines of scripture (out of 33,000+ mind you), that is more logical, consistent, compassionate, and rational.

You reject that notion and try to make stubbornness into a virtue, and that’s your business too, but how dare you have the self righteous gall to expect others dumb themselves and their faith down to whatever level you demand. Arrogant!

There are dozens of lines in the Bible you yourself ignore or willfully disobey every day, yet you have the gall to wield a handful of others as your irrational weapon against gays, people who never wanted to be gay and can’t change it? And you think no one will notice? I’m curious, how do you justify ignoring:

Lev. 19:19
Lev. 19:27
Lev. 19:28
Lev. 20:9
Lev. 20:27
Exodus 35:2
Deut. 22:28-29

Lousy hypocrite. There is a name for people who try to align their cruel, irrational personal prejudices with God in order to justify cruelty toward other human beings: terrorist.

@ Amy, has it ever even occurred to you that gay men have no “natural relations with females”? Seriously, think about it for a minute. You are claiming that line applies equally to heterosexual men and homosexual men, even though one has “natural relations with females” and one doesn’t. If you can’t see the error in that faulty logic then you are beyond hope.

@Tony
> “people who never wanted to be gay and can’t change it?”

Of course people can change. Sodomy is a behavior and humans, being free-willed beings (that is what differentiates us from chimps), can abstain from immoral behaviors.

@Tony

And don’t even try to use a fundamentalist Bible interpretation to say “you are a hyprocrite for not following it”. This is beyond ridiculous. If we claimed to be fundamentalist, line-out-of-context Bible followers, but didn’t follow every line, we could be called hypocrites. But we instead read the Bible in its entirety. For example, we know that certain commandments were metaphorical; others were given only to the LEVITES (duh, freaking DUH), not to all people.

The commandments on homosexuality, on the other hand, are all over the Bible, in different contexts. When putting them all together, there is no way to deny: sodomy is unnatural.

Not that the Bible is needed, though. Natural law (which is a part of philosophy) suffices.

@ Nice, that doesn’t even make any sense. A clerk at city does not “investigate the behaviors” of those who apply for a marriage license. What have you been smoking? There are certain criteria, one of which (in most states) is that the two applicants must be of opposite gender. That particular criteria is being challenged as not advancing any legitimate state interest, and only serving to discriminate against gays.

If you can’t even state facts without making foolish misstatements and getting mouthy with them, how am I supposed to have an intelligent conversation with you?

@Tony

Moron, trying to marry a man is a different behavior to trying to marry a woman. This is what the clerk checks. Please think before writing!

@ Marion (Mael Muire) - yes honey, that is exactly the arrogance I’m talking about. You base your entire belief about gay people on your faith, but others don’t share your faith. Are you still going to tell me you think it’s ok for you to push your view onto people who choose not to subscribe to your faith?

@  Marion (Mael Muire) - I might also add that the fact that your opinion differs from mine has nothing to do with it. I rather like respectful disagreement because it often leads to me being a better person.

The problem is that while normal Americans will keep freedoms & rights broad , allowing all of us to live our own lives peacefully in our own way, you have the gall to expect others to live your way when they would never in a million years expect you you live their way against your will. Arrogant!

@Tony

“The problem is that while normal Americans will keep freedoms & rights broad , allowing all of us to live our own lives peacefully in our own way, you have the gall to expect others to live your way when they would never in a million years expect you you live their way against your will. Arrogant!”

That is deceitful. We are only ask the state to not recognize behaviors that harm society.

Tony wrote, “are you still going to tell me you think it’s ok for you to push your view onto people who choose not to subscribe to your faith?”

Sure. I support our laws defining marriage in a way that promotes the healthiest possible society, according to the definition of a healthy society that makes sense to me.

There are some ethnic groups who have a tradition of making their livings by dealing fast and loose with the public. Some people would call these tricksters and con artists. But that’s their tradition, and they feel they should be allowed to live by the traditions they’ve known and practiced for generations.

Well, I am in favor of not allowing them to live by their traditions. I guess they would call me “arrogant”, too.

I don’t mind being called “arrogant” by people who seem bent on doing things that would tend to be detrimental to society’s future, and call me names when I stand in their way.

It’s a hit I’m perfectly happy to take.

@ Amy who wrote, “The reason gay people cannot get a marriage license is because it is view by many people as an unnatural bond.”

FALSE.

Equality under the law is not up to “many people.” It doesn’t matter of 99% are against it and there’s only one gay couple, since it’s not illegal to be gay there is no legally sustainable justification to deny gay couples equal access to a civil marriage license. What part of that don’t you understand?

Also, any societal benefit you can name supporting marriage for heterosexual couples applies equally to gay couples. Before you start screaming and flailing your arms around, I’m aware that a gay couple can’t procreate without outside help. But biological procreation has never been a requirement for a civil marriage license. Sterile and post-menopausal couples are given marriage licenses every day. Many straight couples choose not to have children while many gay couples do raise children (via adoption, surrogacy, or in vitro fertilization, which by the way are methods also used by heterosexuals). With adoption gay couples are taking on the responsibility for innocent children tossed aside by irresponsible heterosexual unions. Ever think of that?

Name any other societal benefit to marriage and it applies equally to gay couples. What part of THAT don’t you understand?

@ Nick who wrote, “If you want to be consistent…”

That post is a LIE. My view is that all couples have the equal freedom to marry. Your view is that only some have equality. You simply cannot claim that I am proposing you live by my views unless I am proposing you be forced to marry another man. Stop being deceitful, God is watching.

@ Tony Maciej - They are not my words but God’s words.I demand nothing; God “demands” it. They appear in the New American Bible and I provided the link. The Catholic Church decided many years ago what books were divinely inspired by God.  You know nothing about me and yet you are the one who has the arrogance to preach to me about disobeying God’s law and calling me cruel, irrational, prejudiced and a terrorist. Just what gives you the right to speak to another human in such an arrogant manner; yes arrogant. I’m a person of God and I do not call anyone names. Any Christian Catholic who supports homosexuality is not Catholic. Any other Christian who supports homosexuality has denied the teachings of God and distorted it and is leading others astray.

@ Nick who wrote, “Of course people can change…”

We’ve been through this, aren’t you paying attention? Gay people are not gay based on behavior. It’s based on gender attraction. The only choice involved is whether to deal with reality honestly, or not.

No person in the history of the planet has ever “changed” which gender they are romantically aroused by. It’s a comical notion, and I suggest you try another tack because nobody is going to buy that nonsense.

Bisexuals might have a little bit of choice in the matter, I’m not sure you’d have to ask them. But gays and straight don’t.

If what you advocate is that gay people pretend to be straight then we’re at an impasse because my parents and my church have always taught me honesty.

@ Nick - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!  So applying common sense to properly interpret the Bible is ok when a person arrives at the same conclusions as you, but unacceptable and bad when someone arrives at any other conclusion. And you don’t even see the arrogance. I’ll pray for you.

@Tony
Are you deaf? I am not saying that people should change their attractions, I am saying they should change they behavior. The whole discussion is about behavior. Pretty much no one objects to people feeling attractions to people of the same sex; we object to sodomy. The Church explicitly says that attractions are not a sin. Don’t try to change the discussion to one of “gender identity”; that is simply changing the subject. It only shows that your side is wrong, and must resort to “change the subject” type of argumentation. And you do that - “change the subject” - all the time.

By the way, how old are you?

@Tony Maciej on Wednesday, Oct 19, 2011 4:01 PM (EDT):

“Nick - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!  So applying common sense to properly interpret the Bible is ok when a person arrives at the same conclusions as you, but unacceptable and bad when someone arrives at any other conclusion.”

I never said that. Please read again.

You behave very childishly. How old are you?

@ Nick who wrote, “...ehaviors that harm society.”

LIE.

Name one way that gay people buying marriage licenses “harms society.”

Think carefully, a crack team of legal hotshots already tried this in the Prop 8 case and fell flat on their faces, failing miserably. I seriously doubt you have data they somehow missed.

@Tony Maciej on Wednesday, Oct 19, 2011 4:05 PM (EDT):

>“Name one way that gay people buying marriage licenses “harms society.””

1.) Legally (and financially, through tax exemptions) incentive a behavior that diminishes life expectancy by 10 years.
2.) Allows children to be adopted by people who perform said behavior.

“Think carefully, a crack team of legal hotshots already tried this in the Prop 8 case and fell flat on their faces”

Trying to convince a homosexual judge that homosexuality is unhealthy. An herculean task.

@Tony Maciej: If you can’t change your attraction as you say you still have a choice if you want to be a follower of God. You live a chaste life.
People, however, do change. Many people involved in a group called “Courage” live their “behavior” by making the choice to be obedient to what God calls to. Those who refuse prefer to be ruled by their passions. Civil law is for the good of society as a whole not just one person. Do you think it’s healthy for a child to learn he or she was conceived not in an act of love by two people who are also his biological parents but by an egg donor, sperm donor, surrogate mother or in a petri dish. I don’t approve of this by the way for heterosexuals as well. How can any of this be good for the development of a child? It speaks only of selfishness. By the way, I don’t flail my arms around.

@ Marion (Mael Muire), you are free to have your opinion, but let’s be clear that not only is there no data to suggest that gay couples getting married makes a society less healthy, there is actually a plethora of data to the contrary.

For example, the executive board of the American Anthropological Association (founded in 1902) says that more than a century of research has shown “no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”

Btw, substitute a few words and your post could be exactly the view of a KKK member in the 1960s when interracial marriage was the subject. Congratulations on that.

@Tony

“For example, the executive board of the American Anthropological Association (founded in 1902) says that more than a century of research has shown “no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.”

And how did they define “humane”? This is a question of morality, on which they have no authority.

Amy, you are sick and judgmental (at least on this one issue, I have no idea how you are in the rest of your life) and I pray that God has mercy on your soul at judgment day. You commit one of the greatest sins of all, which is twisting His holy name to further your cruel personal prejudice against your fellow man here on earth. THAT is what puts you in league with terrorists.

You are a “cafeteria Catholic” clutching to Bible lines that are easy and (allegedly) support her prejudice, while gleefully dismissing others as not relevant. If you don’t have the strength of conscience to figure out why that is wrong, then I don’t think you have any idea what God even is.

@ Nick who writes, “I am not saying that people should change their attractions, I am saying they should change they behavior.”

So you’re saying gay people should pretend to be straight? Behave sexually by having sex with the opposite gender, the one they have no natural love attraction to? I fail to see the virtue in that.

@Tony Maciej

> “So you’re saying gay people should pretend to be straight?”

No, never said that.

> “Behave sexually by having sex with the opposite gender”

If they can change their attractions, that would be a great option. If they can’t, the moral options is to be chaste.

@Tony Maciej Please don’t worry about my soul but your own. You don’t even know what the term Cafeteria Catholic means. Let me enlighten you….it means someone who picks and chooses to believe what the Catholic Church teaches as truth so please do not toss around that phrase to fit in with your views. The Church teaches that homosexual relations are sinful; not that homosexuals are. I follow the teachings of the Church which come from God.If you want to live in your delusional world of who God is that is your choice. I’m pretty sure that what I believe in and follow is based upon what God expects.

1. Legally (and financially, through tax exemptions) incentive a behavior that diminishes life expectancy by 10 years.
2. Allows children to be adopted by people who perform said behavior.

#1 - no data to support the notion that which gender a person falls in love with has any bearing on their life expectancy, an absurd notion that doesn’t even make sense. Other deceitful devils like you have even claimed the CDC supports that lie, which they don’t.

#2 no data to suggest gay parents are any less capable that straight parents, or that which gender a person loves has any bearing on their parenting ability. Another lie, also recently debunked in a very public way when FOTF’s Tom Minnery tried to sell that lie in open court.

God is watching, Nick.

@Tony

> “No data to support the notion that which gender a person falls in love with has any bearing on their life expectancy”

I am not talking about “falling in love”, I am talking about sodomy. Which reduces life expectancy by 10-20 years.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

OK, now Tony is becoming abusive toward his interlocuters personally. Which I was expecting, sooner or later.

You can call us every name in the book from now until doomsday, yet we will still fight against legal recognition of same-sex “marriage.”

Good-bye, Tony. It’s been real.

@ Nick, as for your insinuation about Judge Walker, that claim already went before the court and was found to be without merit. The judged ruled, “The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief.”

Have you ever read Walker’s ruling? I’ll bet a thousand dollars you haven’t. It is 176 pages of glorious legal detail citing case after case of precedent in the most coherent and meticulous way, outlining exactly why Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and it is available online.

If you can find legal fault with the ruling, by all means bring it. If not you’re just pulling nonsense from your hind end again.

All right, I agree with Amy. It makes no sense to debate with Tony.

I assume there is a reason he fails to answer his age.
He must be an angry teenager, as his anger and vocabulary show.

Good bye.

@ Nick who says, “If they can change their attractions, that would be a great option. If they can’t, the moral options is to be chaste.”

No person can change which gender they are romantically aroused by. It’s a ridiculous notion.

So your solution is for all gay people to be celibate forever, your belief being that God would rather those 3% of the human population squander their capacity to love, a precious gift He endowed them with, just for funsies.

You can believe whatever you want, but if you don’t see the ridiculousness of this stuff we are again at an impasse. Good luck convincing rational people of that very irrational view.

Amy, I’m aware what the term means in traditional use. If you’re going to get snotty about how I use it then how about we change my post to “Cafeteria Christian” instead? What you do is just as weak and hypocritical no matter what it’s called.

@ Nick who writes “...which reduces life expectancy by 10-20 years.”

Liar, liar, liar. That link is about HIV. You might not be aware, but HIV is a disease. HIV and homosexuality are not interchangeable terms. If you take issue with people who have certain diseases, may we also assume you advocate against women’s rights since breast cancer is predominantly found in women? Or is consistency too much to expect from you, just like rationality?

Also, since residents of sub-Saharan Africa are (and always have been) the group with the highest instance of HIV/AIDS, and since lesbians are among the least affected of any demographic group, are we to conclude—based on your previous comments—that some of your most hated people are people living in sub-Saharan Africa and that you also have no issues at all with lesbians?

Tell me Nick, does want have to be ignorant to be a bigot? Or is that just a coincidence in you?

@ Tony - If you are homosexual and do not wish to change your sexual orientation then you are to remain chaste. An expression of love DOES NOT need to be demonstrated with sex. If you loved someone and they were incapable of sex would you stay with them or leave them? Mature love is based upon much more than the sexual act. You are reducing love to the level of lust and animal instinct. That is not what love is.

Nick, my age is neither relevant nor any of your business. Go on, run away. You can’t escape God though. He sees exactly how much of your motivation is good intentions, and how much is personal weakness.

@ Amy, first of all my life is none of your business so keep your self righteous sanctimony to yourself. Did I ever say love needed to be demonstrated with sex? No, sweetie, I didn’t.

Homosexual love is no more “based on sex” that heterosexual love. Why must you keep lobbing out ignorant falsehoods like that? A gay person is no more likely to be in a relationship only for sex than a straight person. You just make up this stupid nonsense, pin it all on gay people, then tear them apart for it. What kind of monster are you?

Tony, there’s been so much psychologizing on this issue, mostly in a pejorative way - one side against the other.  I don’t thing there is a middle ground, just compulsion on either side of the issue.

From a Catholic perspective there is just one question: is God pleased with this type of behavior, this “lifestyle choice” or not?  At first the “God” issue seemed clear from a plain reading of scripture (supplemented by a general disdain for sodomy).  But lately the gay exegetes have been cranking up alternative readings of scripture that allow for just about anything.  (Why not, it worked for the protestant “reformation.”)

My thing is: let’s go to Dad on this.  When children are caught in irreconcileable difference, they turn to their parents to sort things out.  (Or their parents wade in.)  Why should we suffer with so much specious persiflage when God, indeed, answers prayers?

I have my own opinions, and even a perspective on the “divine plan.”  But I’m willing to forego even common sense.  Only let the Master be heard.

Are you game, Tony?  Or are you so booked into your beef you presume your own righteousness before God?

@ Matt B - how dare you insinuate I would put myself above God! What I post stirs you up, and the best solution you can muster is to paint me as disrespecting God for my own personal benefit? That is an insult not only to me but to my wonderful parents who taught me far too well to ever do such a thing. Shame on you.

Not that it’s any of your business, but since you opened the door let me tell you a bit about myself that might help you grow a little.

We all have a period of sexual development. You know, boys generally going from the time they think girls are “yucky” to the point of wanting to impress them and date them and all the way to sexual curiosities.

When I first had any kind of that development I began to notice that my peers, others boys my age, started saying things and displaying feelings that I was not having. In fact, the closest thing I could understand was feelings that I had toward other boys, not girls. I filed that away in the “I don’t want to think about it” drawer.

Well, that continued despite my best efforts to will it away, pray my little heart out, wish on stars, you name it. I could tell you some crazy stories of what my young mind thought in order to try and make that not be the case. During that time I begged and pleaded with God many, many days and nights. “Please, God,” I prayed, “Please don’t make me be gay. Anything but that. I’ll do anything you ask.” To the extent I could, I pushed it away into that same drawer. I dated girls, went to dances with girls like my friends did, generally did what I saw all the other boys doing and what I thought the girls wanted.

But the thing is—none of it was true. It was like the whole thing was a game of “What do I have to do to fit in” because none of those things came naturally and I didn’t enjoy them. Kissing a girl was like…kissing my arm. Nothing. But nonetheless, I did it because that is what I was taught God would want.

I continued with the denying and praying and wishing. For years. You have no idea. The world had made it clear how bad and wrong and sinful it was to be gay, and I wanted no part of it! I prayed, pleaded, begged. “Please, God, give me the strength and show me a sign. Help me, God, please. I need your help.” I would have sold my grandma’s soul to un-do those feelings and feel the “right” things for girls, because I believed it was the only way I could be pleasing to God. That’s what I was taught.

Next I convinced myself that every boy feels that way, that it was part of the proces of growing up. One of these days, I told myself, I will wake up and the feelings toward girls will be real, not just pretend.

For a long time, nothing changed. I started to think God didn’t want me, or else he would help me. I thought I was faulty, defective, maybe even of the devil, because that’s what I was taught. Eventually I lost all hope. I had fallen in love with another boy and was tortured - absolutely tortured - by the impossible dilemma of that. With no change in my natural attractions despite years of pleas and prayers, and with taunting at school getting worse, I came to believe life only consisted of 70 more years of anguish, and I wasn’t willing to endure it. I was 100% certain that I would rather be dead than gay.  I tried to kill myself but thankfully didn’t succeed.

After that, as God is my witness right here and now, the answer came to me. After recovering physically I had turned back to prayer but with resigned defeat. I still only felt romantic feelings for men, had never felt them for women despite trying, but this time when I prayed I felt God rising up from inside me telling me two things: (1) NEVER ever would I try to harm myself again, absolutely not an option no matter what, and (2) there is no shame or problem in being gay. Those two things came to me straight from God. It doesn’t matter if you believe me or understand, because I know it as sure as I’m sitting here.

So….when I accepted my own homosexuality with God’s blessing, what else would you have me do? Listen to the physical world (which told me gay was bad) above God? No. It was a huge struggle, and very confusing to sort out, but in a way the choice came down to: do I listen to man’s earthly interpretation of His will as taught to me in this hometown church in 1970s America? Or do I listen to God himself speaking straight through me from my soul and through all eternity, when I had given my life to him and counted myself as worthless?

I don’t expect you to understand in the way you would if you lived it. But I need to share it when I hear you say things that so woefully mischaracterize what gay people go through. It’s not like you say it is.

@Tony - The fact is you choose to live as a pagan answerable to no one but yourself. You want society as a whole to accept your lifestyle but the simple fact is that it’s not going to happen ever. People who follow God in God’s truth and not some twisted view of God will never accept it. You are beating your head against a brick wall if you think any authentic Catholic on this blog is going to think otherwise. You must enjoy confrontation because why else would you be here. Or perhaps it gives you a sense of control or power to call someone a terrorist. You demand respect and yet you don’t give to others. It just doesn’t make any sense.

@ Amy, I don’t demand respect, and I don’t care whop accepts me (except God). You assign yourself too much importance. (Surprise) What I do demand is tolerance, and only because the US Constitution guarantees me equal civil status. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the way it is.

You are not God, you do not speak for God, and you are not the keeper of who is or isn’t an “authentic Catholic.” You make me sick. Your arrogance is just astounding. I pray that you find a little more decency, and a little more humility.

God: outsider in this discussion.

@Tony - God loves you Tony but he does not love the sin you are involved in. I don’t think I’m important Tony I’m just one person of many trying to do my best in the world. You have no right to demand anything and that includes anyone being tolerant of your views. You’re right I don’t speak for God. God has already spoken and I posted what God has said on the issue. The problem is you are so filled with pride you refuse to do it God’s way. Do you really pray Tony or do you spend your time thinking up condescending and patronizing comments? I’m all for humility and that goes both ways. Kvetching is really quite boring.

Let’s say we did decide to listen to God.  How would we hear him, or where would we find him?  I’m thinking just from the face value of your prior posts, Tony, where you cite extensively the following authorities:

American Medical Association
American Psychological Association
American Anthropological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
Child Welfare League of America
National Association of Social Workers
North American Council on Adoptable Children
American Psychoanalytic Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
Council on Child and Adolescent Health
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Counseling Association
American Sociological Association
American School Health Association
and National Association of School Psychologists

...you’re not really engaging the Almighty.  These sources are explicitly atheistic, or agnostic at best.

But you tell me how you hear the voice of God.  I’m listening.

@Tony - Your story that you told to Matt B reveals a great deal of the pain and struggles you have endured. I can’t imagine what it was like for you but I do empathize. That being said, I am still compelled to tell the truth in charity to you and anyone else who says that homosexual activity is not sinful. God has said that it is. The thing is, all of us have to decide if we want to follow in God’s way or follow our own way. Love requires sacrifice whether it’s love of God or love of another. Sometimes the sacrifices that we are asked to make are great and very difficult but God can get us through the most difficult of circumstances. We just have to decide to make room for Him in our lives.

Mike, thanks for your response, which must have been undergoing moderation during the time I wrote my subsequent ones.

I haven’t read your response, on purpose.  Not that I don’t care what you wrote, I just wanted to continue with my proposal to you instead.

My basic premise is that it doesn’t matter what I say or what Marion says or even what Amy says.  None of us can convince you with mere argumentation.  Only God can convince you - through the working of the Holy Spirit in your life here and now.

Therefore I’m going to ask you to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit, not just in a general way, but as he speaks to you directly, in the depths of your soul.

Just tell me three ways you will listen to the Holy Spirit, three places you will go to meet God - concretely and within the next couple days.  Then, after God has spoken to you, just come back and tell me what he said.

I for my part will: attend a daily Mass, probably tomorrow; I will read and meditate on 3 scriptures chosen at random; and I will pray a rosary, probably with my wife.  I will do all these things for your intention.  And similarly, I will return upon completion to tell you what the Holy Spirit told me in your regard.

You up for it?

@ Amy who said, “You have no right to demand anything and that includes anyone being tolerant of your views.”

Ha ha, you smug thing you, yes I do have the right to demand tolerance. The US Constitution kinda guarantees that we each get to live our own lives as we see fit, and we each must be tolerant of each other as long as laws are not broken. So despite all your sanctimonious bluster and unsolicited self-righteous advice, you WILL be tolerant of LGBT Americans whether you like or not. No one is asking for your approval (why would they, Miss Arrogant?), so mind your own business. Most people can be reasoned with and act like civil, respectful adults who tolerate each other’s differences. You can’t. Your problem, honey, not mine.

@ Amy with her “God has said that it is” arrogance. You are not God, and you do not speak for God. How many time must you be reminded of that Miss Arrogant? You speak for nothing but your personal beliefs which you say you base on your personal faith. Great! Goody for you. Now dial back the arrogance and stop saying “God said such and such” because unless you have it on audio or video, God did not actually “say” any of the hateful garbage you spew. YOU accepted what you were taught, and you are not God. Are we clear on that yet?

@ Matt B with his uber arrogant “not really engaging the Almighty” claim. 

Oh really, Matt? And how would you know whether I am engaging God? Are you there? Are you God? Am I only engaging the Almighty if you approve? If you say I am? Or if where I arrive is where you arrive? Do you even hear yourself Matt? What kind of person judges another’s faith with such arrogance?

Since you asked (but I have to say I am getting tired of letting you put me on the defensive with your nonsensical, self-righteous attitude, and won’t allow it much longer) I cite the secular authorities for two reasons:

1. Using my God-given gift of reason I try to connect mankind’s modern knowledge with God’s timeless truth (our best understanding of it, that is), rather than irrationally pit God against science as is the practice of people who reject knowledge when it conflicts with their old personal beliefs.

2. There is a mountain of misinformation out there claiming all sorts of untruths about gay people, and when it’s not refuted all the same old bigoted people are that much more confident in their misinformation. I feel the least I can do on that front is dispel the untruths, such as that homosexuality is a mental issue etc.

Your post insinuates that BECAUSE secular authorities are in line with my relationship with God, my relationship with God must be false. That is the most arrogant, rotten attitude you could take. And yet you seem proud of it. Good luck explaining that to God on judgment day.

My relationship with God is not your concern, and I don’t answer to you, only to God. I have nothing to prove to you, and I reject your syrupy sanctimony.

@Tony - Thanks for all of the name calling it really does wonders for character assessment.  I said that homosexuality is an offense against God and I presented you with proof of that from the Bible. I believe it because I have read it. No one taught it to me. You, on the other hand prefer to reject what God has to say by making ridiculous comments about providing you a video or audio of what God has to say. Do you know how ridiculous you sound? GLBT do want acceptance from society and that is why you dialogue on blogs. Christians and Jews who take their religion seriously are not going to be providing it today or ever. By the way, you must really like calling women “honey” since you use it so much. Next thing I know you’ll be wanting to pat me on my head and tell me to be a good little girl and just go away.

@ Amy, more smug silliness from you. Let’s see if I have this right. You can rudely insult me & every gay human being on earth by saying we are more of a sinner than you by nature of who we are, yet even after you throw the first punch I am not allowed to defend myself without you getting snotty and indignant? Brilliant.

What a lowly creature you are.

Go get a dictionary from mommy and daddy and look up the word “proof.” What you cite from the Bible is not proof, dearie. It is your opinion, based on two thousand year old writings, written in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, many of them allegorical and/or context-specific in nature, translated dozens of times over, and interpreted in multiple ways. And you can’t even apply THAT consistently because you pick one line of Leviticus to clobber me over the head with and gleefully ignore and dismiss the next. Lousy hypocrite.

Now run along and try to behave like a good girl and just go away. LOL

You are hopeless, and I have no respect for someone who even when faced with a mountain of compelling, rational information to refute her prejudice STILL chooses to clutch to it in order to justify her rotten treatment of people she doesn’t like or understand. Just really…pitiful.

@ Tony - Who insulted you Tony? I certainly didn’t and I don’t think anyone else here did but you have spewed insult after insult. What compelling evidence have you provided? None! O.k. so now we’ve determined you don’t believe what’s in the Bible but you still claim that you pray. If you don’t believe in what the Bible says then you are not praying to the God of the Bible but your own version of who God is. Good luck with that one.

@ Amy - you don’t think you have insulted me???  Right, like the KKK never insulted black people, based on the fact that they never explicitly said, “We are intending to insult you now.” Geez, you are a piece of work lady.

Arrogant, judgmental, self-righteous, dripping with sanctimony, all cuddled up comfortably in the nest you built for yourself where anything you do, you get to absolve yourself of responsibility for, no matter how cruel and no matter how much it hurts other people, because after all your intentions were good and you’ve aligned yourself with God so you can’t be wrong. Is that about the gist of it?

Tell your parents they failed you. Mine taught me that even if I didn’t intend to harm someone, if that person is truly harmed it is my obligation to understand that harm, apologize and mean it, and seek their forgiveness and God’s. Because pain, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Your reckless, hateful attitude about gay people (remember, they are PEOPLE you know) is something you gleefully wear with pride because as long as you didn’t specifically intend for them to be hurt by it, it doesn’t count. That’s where you’re wrong and your parents failed you.

Read the last part of your last post back to yourself. You are not God. You do not speak for God. You are not the keeper of who is or isn’t a Christian or a Catholic, or who has a “real” relationship with God. I think you are borderline blasphemous for acting as though God can’t handle His job without benefit of your snotty little intervention against people like me. That you even write as though you have those powers is a sickening statement about the weakness inside your heart. Deal with it, lady. You’re a big girl now and it’s time to take a little responsibility! The days of you pumping up your self of worth by denigrating gay people are OVER.

@Tony - I insult you because I don’t believe living a homosexual life is o.k.? Understand one thing about me Tony. I hate no one and that includes homosexuals. There is a big difference between the above two statements. But you do hate. You hate anyone who doesn’t think as you do and somehow you think that it’s o.k. for you to be judgmental of me just because I disagree. That kind of thinking sounds just a bit convoluted. Just about everything that has come out of your mouth has been insulting, arrogant and down right disgusting. Actually I think that you are the one that needs to get over yourself and the hate that you carry around. That is not of God so please don’t preach to me.

Tony, as I promised, I have prayed and meditated on scripture.  I have not preselected any scriptures, but have asked the Holy Spirit to guide me in my reflections.

While praying the Rosary I saw two young boys in uniforms, playing soccer by a lawnmower.  The lawnmower was on, and one boy held the handlebars while pushing the other boy away.  The ball was ricocheting around.

Also while praying the Rosary with my wife, I received a message: Your saint is telling you to return to your mother, the Catholic Church.  You are presently in captivity to a woman who is not your mother, who cohabits with pigs, and makes her “children” eat pig swill.

Here are the readings I received at random from the Bible:

1-“Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.  I think that in view of the impending distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.  Are you bound to a wife?  Do not seek to be free.  Are you free from a wife?  Do not seek marriage…

“I want you to be free from anxieties.  The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how please his wife, and his interests are divided.  And the unmarried woman or virgin is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.  1Cor7,25-27;32-34

2-(About our Living Hope in Christ): In this you may rejoice, though now for a litte while you may have to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.  1Pet1,6-7

3-And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the deepest darkness until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.  Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.  Jude 6-8

This is what I got.  I need to tell you that Jude continues to describe how Michael did not pronounce a reviling judgment on Satan, but said “The Lord rebuke you.”  I pass these readings along in the same spirit.

Tomorrow I plan to attend daily Mass.  I will let you know how the prayers and readings confirm this prayerful reflection.

Are you too meeting God, in your own way?

Mike – I followed up with daily Mass.  My encounter with God came in 3 forms: the first reading, from Romans ch. 7, 13-25; the gospel, from Luke 12, 54-59; and Father’s sermon.

Romans: “For I do not do the good want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.  Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.  So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.  For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.  Wretched man that I am!  Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Luke 12 is about ignoring the signs of the times:  “You know the appearance of wind and weather, but you cannot read the signs of the times.”  It also talks about resolving your dispute with your neighbor quickly “lest he (she) drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison.”

Finally, the priest spoke explicitly about same-sex “marriage” saying that it has been presented as a “right,” but those who speak in this way are not seeing the damaging consequences about which God amply informs us.

I could expand on my understanding of what God told me last night and today, but I’d be very interested to know what was the result of your talking with God, before I start with interpretations.

@ Amy, you look down on an entire swath of the your fellow man based solely on an aspect of who they are. Yet you don’t even think that’s an insulting thing to do??? What a cruel, vicious, hard-hearted thing you are. If the way you feel about gay people is what you call love, nobody needs your love. Have a good life in your cozy nest of prejudice & good luck explaining yourself to God.

@ Matt B., not that it’s any of your business, and you need to know that I reject the notion I in any way need your approval, but yes I meet with God many times every day. You can give your “message” back to where it came from, which I suspect is your imagination. I think you’re a poser, and I am pretty sure you have nothing to offer me with regard to my faith. I also suspect the only benefit that would come from continuing an exchange between us would be to your own ego. Not interested. Peace to you on your own journey. May the grace and the love of our Lord Jesus Christ reach you in ways outside your current comfort zone.

@ Tony - What is it that you don’t understand or consistently misrepresent about what I post? I don’t look down on any human being but I can form an opinion based upon specific human behavior which is what I have consistently done. You don’t seem to be able to separate a person from the behavior of a person. They are not the same. I condemn homosexual behavior; not the homosexual. I have formed my conscience based upon the teachings of the Catholic Church as any committed Catholic would. Why you would think that someone posting on the National Catholic Register would think otherwise is mind boggling and just speaks to your need for confrontation and challenging people who are committed Catholics just so that you get on your soap box and preach to us about how prejudiced and evil we all are. We’re all free to make our own choices in life but acceptance for the homosexual lifestyle cannot be found here no matter how much vitriol you throw at us.

Tony, thanks for your consideration!