My Dear, Kindly Get Your Ovaries Off My Rosary
Oh my dear! How many times we have heard you exclaim that us tres terrible praying Catholics should get our “Rosaries off your ovaries”? You seem to imply that our prayers are going to take away your freedom to indulge in recreational sex, and so, like tyrannical children, you have decided that if you can force us to pay for your pills, devices, cannulas and scalpels, you will somehow become powerful unto yourselves. Do you honestly think that if we provide you with the ability to poison yourselves and kill your children, you will have suddenly merited dignity?
Honey, dignity can’t be co-opted, and we can’t buy it for you. You have to earn it for yourself.
Now we could play your way and just say, “Keep your bodies off our laws!” or “Keep your biology off our theology!” or “Don’t like Rosaries? Then don’t pray one!”
But come here and sit down, let’s talk…
[button link="http://www.catholicsistas.com/2012/03/27/my-dear-would-you-kindly-get-your-ovaries-off-my-rosary/" type="big" color="red"] Read the rest at Catholic Sistas here![/button]
Category: Abortion, Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (235)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- A Time Out | Accepting Abundance | March 30, 2012
Stacy,
Interesting article. Do you mind if I point out one major inconsistency?
First you write:
“The very First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, states that “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The Constitution was written to protect our rights, those endowed, unalienable rights most fundamentally put forth in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are good things.”
While at the end of your article you say:
“We are no man’s slave – for we belong to God.”
Which one is it? Either you accept the laws of man (like the Bill of Rights) and the rights you gain by it or you don’t. But if you do accept the Bill of Rights while this was written by man you should also accept things like abortion and birth control, for whatever purpose used, is legal by the same laws of man. You don’t want people to limit your freedom of religion and free speech but that means you also have to respect other people’s rights to chose how to live their lives, the rights to do with their bodies as they please and their freedom of speech.
If you don’t want other people to dictate your life you should not try to do the same with others. If you feel it’s your right to try and persuade people to your point of view, don’t be annoyed if they do the same. If you feel the law should be changed in order to prevent people from undergoing abortions or using birth control don’t feel indignant if atheist are to change the law to limit your choices and freedom. If you feel it’s alright to protest in front of abortion clinics or to limit the funds from organisations like Planned Parenthood don’t be suprised if people start protesting in front of Catholic churches against the sexual abuse scandal or limit the tax-exempt for religious institutions.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. Either you accept other people have exactly the same rights you have or you accept other people will try to limit your rights just as much as you try to limit theirs. After all, even the First Amendment can be amended.
Edward, you are making one huge mistake. The “Bill of Rights” is not necessarily the laws of man – they are rights we are acknowledged to have been born with, rights that the government exists to protect. After all, the Declaration of Independence does state the following:
“We hold these truths self-evident, that all Men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…”
I’d recommend reading all of it, and the Constitution in its entirety.
You are also operating on the assumption that we Catholics want to limit pro-abortion people’s freedom – I don’t know about Stacy, but I haven’t attempted to get birth control pills, other forms of contraception, recreational sex or even abortion banned. I, and many other Catholics simply don’t want to pay for anybody else’s abortion or contraception. Forcing us to do so violates our conscience and denies us our freedom to practice our religion.
Going to the Constitution and the first amendment, this is what the contracpetion mandate denies Catholics:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Basically, the contraception mandate prohibits Catholics from freely exercising their religion. Your whole argument is utterly ludicrous, but that’s no surprise to me, since you liberals are ludicrous in every respect.
Not only that, you’re a hypocrite. Working from your demonstrably false assumption that Catholics want to curtail anyone’s freedom, you think it’s okay for our freedom to be curtailed. It’s not right either way.
As for the child sex abuse scandal – want to talk about the rampant sex abuse in our public schools? We can talk about that all day long. Or we can also talk about the rampant sex abuse in Hollywood. Or we can even have a lengthy discussion about the sex abuse and injustices foisted upon women in the Middle East. Of course, a hateful cretin like you just HAD to bring that up, didn’t you? As if I were in any way shape or form responsible for what happened.
Oh, and we Catholics pay taxes. You nor anyone else have absolutely no right to tell us what laws we can and cannot embrace when a great deal of us are bankrolling your socialist state. Stop raping our incomes via income tax, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes and then we can talk about whether or not we should be following “man’s laws” when even the founding fathers acknowledged (well John Adams at least) that this was a country and government founded for a religious and moral people.
I bet that little tidbit was missing from Howard Zinn’s book of historical falsehoods.
Actually Amalia, this country was founded to escape religious persecution.
And in no way shape or form is your right to practice your religion infringed by birth control, whether free or discounted. No one is forcing you to take it. You still have all your rights in tact. Your rights do not have anything to do with others rights.
If you really really really want to stop having any of your taxes funding birth control well then be careful what you wish for. Many of us don’t want to subsidize your church (and lets not pretend it isn’t subsidized by the government through non payment of taxes) so what if we decide to do something about that?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn’t that leave a lot open?
The reason people keep bringing up the church sex abuse scandal are few. 1. It still continues. 2. So many did so much to hide it. 3. Once brought to light still little was done about it, or even acknowledged. Yeah you can deny all of it, heck you can even all say “I never saw anything” or “I never knew anything” but when I came out to my Dad as gay one of his first questions was “was he molested by a priest” and this was before the scandal broke. So yeah I think many people had many suspicions, but because you hold priests in such high regards you did nothing. Yes there is sex abuse in public schools (probably all schools, but that is a different topic all together). Not sure about sex abuse in Hollywood (are you meaning that too much sex in movies or that women are forced to do sexual things to get jobs?)
As for abuse of women in the middle east, isn’t most of that religious driven? Thusly how god tells them women should be treated?
Stacy,
Your blog makes it very evident that you are opposed to not just paying for others contraception, but that you are against contraception in any case. Am I over reading this?
Guess what, it’s none of yours or anyone else’s business if someone wants to take contraception. It does not make them a slave to a man’s sexual desires. It is the woman’s choice to take it, to have sex when and with whom they want.
Like Amalia you seem to have forgotten why the original settlers came to America. And while they may have believed in god, they were trying to escape a tyranical church. So before you continue with calling others tyrannical and say they are whining, perhaps stopping and rereading some (ok most) of your blog posts to see who really is being tyrannical and whiny.
But thanks for attempting to make the waters less muddy on your desires re birth control. I still think you are not coming out and saying exactly what you want, but thats just me.
Amalia,
First, the Bill of RIghts and the Declaration of Independance aren’t the same document. They weren’t written at the same time or by the same people and while the writers of the Decleration were in agreement on the entire document the Bill of Rights caused a huge rift between those who were elected to lead the young US. Also, history is quite clear on the Bill of Rights: it was a small group of men who decided which rights were and were not written down in the first ten amendments. Men, not god(s).
You aren’t forced to pay for other people’s abortions or birth control. You are forced, by law, to pay taxes and it’s up to the (federal) government what to do with that money. Like I mentioned in a previous thread: paying for our military violates my conscience so I’m glad I’m not. I pay taxes and it’s up to my government what to do with it. If you want that destination changed, run for office. Otherwise be quiet about it.
As long as the Federal government doesn’t close your church or forbids you to be Catholic the First Amendment doesn’t apply. The tax laws of the US don’t violate your freedom of religion just because federal funds go to projects you don’t like. If the Federal government would force you to undergo an abortion or take birth control or be sterilized you’d have a point. Now, you don’t.
If you ever suspected sexual abuse and stayed quiet about it, you ARE responsible. Don’t flatter yourself. Every time you felt something was off and decided to look away, you carried part of the responsibility of another young person being brutalized and scarred for life. Unless you can swear to your God you never knew or suspected anything from any priest or another member of the clergy YOU are in no position to tell anyone how to live their lives. That’s one right you lost when you looked away to protect your church.
Amalia, just so you know, Edward is in the Netherlands.
Alan – “Guess what, it’s none of yours or anyone else’s business if someone wants to take contraception.”
I agree!
“It does not make them a slave to a man’s sexual desires.”
What? A drug designed to make women sexually available to men 24/7 does not, in fact, make women sexually available to men 24/7? Can you elaborate?
“It is the woman’s choice to take it, to have sex when and with whom they want.”
Sure. But why should Catholics be forced to pay for any of it?
“You aren’t forced to pay for other people’s abortions or birth control. You are forced, by law, to pay taxes and it’s up to the (federal) government what to do with that money.”
Edward, perhaps you are unaware of the HHS Mandate, which does, in fact, force Catholics to pay for birth control and abortifacient drugs?
“As long as the Federal government doesn’t close your church or forbids you to be Catholic the First Amendment doesn’t apply.”
This is incorrect. Like Obama, you are confusing “freedom of religion” with “freedom of worship.” Freedom of religion means the FREE EXERCISE of religion, or the ability to practice and live out our faith via our actions in the public square. Read the works of the writers of the Constitution, Edward. They did not intend freedom of worship; they intended freedom of religion.
Right now, the Obama administration wishes to force Catholics to commit sin. That is a violation of our free exercise of religion.
Edward, I understand you are angry about the sexual abuse of children, especially in the context of clergy abuse. (Interestingly, it shows that you do know, deep down, that sexual abuse is even worse when committed by clergy, since clergy are representatives of Christ on earth.) But as the epidemic of sexual abuse in public schools (100 times worse than abuse in the Catholic Church) shows, this is a human nature problem, not a Catholic problem — and the problem is no worse in Catholic circles than any where else in society. It’s just better publicized because of people like you, who buy newspapers when a priest is accused of sexual misconduct but shrug and say “meh” when a soccer coach has sex with a fourteen-year-old student.
Joanna,
thanks for agreeing to something, I can’t say I have gotten many to agree with anything I have said. But as we agree you should also not make judgments about them (ie the alluding to them as being immoral, non virtuous and without dignity).
Do women have minds of their own?
Do they make their own decisions?
Do you enjoy sex when you want it?
Birth control changes none of that. Women who take birth control are making themselves sexually available. Yes to men, but not for men, but rather for themselves. Does a woman throw away all free will when she starts taking contraception.
Should you be forced to pay for it? Again not certain how YOU pay for it. But that being said, as stated many times before, we all help to pay for things that we may not agree with. Unless you want to do away with all taxes I am not sure how to avoid this. You do realize that the church is a “charity” and as such pays no taxes, which means that I indeed pay for your church. Do I want to do that?
But as we agree you should also not make judgments about them (ie the alluding to them as being immoral, non virtuous and without dignity).
Actually, I reserve the right to make judgements about anyone or anything I please. It’s unjust judgements that are sinful.
Women who take birth control are making themselves sexually available. Yes to men, but not for men, but rather for themselves.
Oh really? And if a woman informed her husband/boyfriend/whoever that she intended to throw away her birth control pills, how well do you think that would go over?
Does a woman throw away all free will when she starts taking contraception.
Absolutely not. Free will means the freedom to make good choices and bad choices.
Again not certain how YOU pay for it.
Um, hello, the HHS mandate? I tithe to my church, which DOES pay taxes (they pay income taxes and employee taxes just like any other entity). Now, the federal government is saying that my Church has to pay for its employees’ contraception. If I, as a Catholic woman, choose to open my own business and employ others, then I am forced to pay for their contraception. Private Catholic universities and organizations such as EWTN and Priests for Life — none of which are churches, but all of which have received donations from me — will be forced to pay for their employees’ contraception, too.
Also, being exempt from property and sales taxes is not a generous gift to a non-profit from a benevolent government. It’s an acknowledgement from the government that the entity in question is providing a benefit to society that the government itself cannot provide efficiently. It’s a red herring to claim that being exempt from federal taxes means you must lube up and bend over whenever the government wants to ram unconstitutional mandates up you-know-where.
I also pay for the upkeep of your roads, Alan, as well as your garbage removal. Could you kindly stop using those services so I don’t have to continue doing so? In return, you don’t have to “pay for my church.” Thanks.
JoAnna,
“Edward, I understand you are angry about the sexual abuse of children, especially in the context of clergy abuse. (Interestingly, it shows that you do know, deep down, that sexual abuse is even worse when committed by clergy, since clergy are representatives of Christ on earth.)”
I’m afraid you mistake my anger for something it’s not (or you do understand what I mean but chose to pretend you don’t). Yes, I do find the sexual abuse by the clergy even more sickening than the sexual abuse by a football coach. Not because the damage is worse if the clergy abuses a child but because they somehow think they have the right to tell other people how to live their lives while committing one of the worst crimes ever! The crimes from the football coach aren’t less severe but the football coach never condemned people for not living their lives the way he wanted like the clergy does.
And I don’t just shrug when a football coach is caught for molesting children. I just get so much angrier when a priest, who is supposed to lead an exemplary life, is caught with his hands down a child’s pants.
“Now, the federal government is saying that my Church has to pay for its employees’ contraception. If I, as a Catholic woman, choose to open my own business and employ others, then I am forced to pay for their contraception. Private Catholic universities and organizations such as EWTN and Priests for Life — none of which are churches, but all of which have received donations from me — will be forced to pay for their employees’ contraception, too”
Yes, as employers you are required to pay for your employees health care, whether you are Catholic and a religious organisation or an atheistic insurance company. It might come as a shock to you, but in the eyes of the law all are equal, meaning you have the same obligations as an employer and anyone else. Don’t like that? Don’t become an employer! Problem solved.
Edward, is it your belief that only perfect people can tell other people how to live?
If so, then you must also require your elected officials to be perfect people, correct? Do you hold them to that same standard?
“And I don’t just shrug when a football coach is caught for molesting children.”
Oh, you go on the blogs of public school teachers and vent bile about sexual abuse cover-ups in public schools, too? Can you provide a link? I’d like to see evidence of your equal-opportunity outrage.
“Yes, as employers you are required to pay for your employees health care”
Contraception is not health care. Health care is intended restore health to a body that is damaged or malfunctioning. Contraception takes a system that is functioning perfectly and damages it. The purpose of contraception is so that men and women can have recreational sex without consequences, not to restore health.
In the extremely rare cases where a woman may need hormonal therapy to treat the symptoms of a medical condition (hormonal birth control never cures any medical condition, but only treats the symptoms, which is a HUGE disservice to women’s health – why not treat the actual condition instead of just the symptoms?!), the Church and affiliated employers already do cover it in their health care plans.
I also find it appalling that you believe Catholics should not be allowed to be business owners. I’m sorry the Netherlands is still so backward and bigoted in that regard.
Edward,
“Interesting article. Do you mind if I point out one major inconsistency?”
Never.
“Which one is it? Either you accept the laws of man (like the Bill of Rights) and the rights you gain by it or you don’t.”
You have to understand the origin of our laws. This is one thing the American experiment got right. Our laws are based on natural law, the laws of God about how to live justly in society. The rights our Constitution protects are the rights that come from God. Do our legislators, judges and executive leaders always get it right? No, but the foundation of our rights are of God, not of man. Laws (in good societies) are really man’s feeble attempt to put into words right and wrong.
“But if you do accept the Bill of Rights while this was written by man you should also accept things like abortion and birth control, for whatever purpose used, is legal by the same laws of man. You don’t want people to limit your freedom of religion and free speech but that means you also have to respect other people’s rights to chose how to live their lives, the rights to do with their bodies as they please and their freedom of speech.”
If everyone laid down and stopped speaking up for what is right, eventually they would be ruled, not governed. They become slaves, not willing participants with a voice.
“If you don’t want other people to dictate your life you should not try to do the same with others.”
It depends on what is being dictated.
“If you feel it’s your right to try and persuade people to your point of view, don’t be annoyed if they do the same.”
I’m not. Not really.
“If you feel the law should be changed in order to prevent people from undergoing abortions or using birth control don’t feel indignant if atheist are to change the law to limit your choices and freedom.”
Yeah, but the thing is, I hear that all the time from people, and honestly, I thought about it. Threats like that just sound childish to me. It sounds like you are more interested in spite than justice and freedom.
“If you feel it’s alright to protest in front of abortion clinics or to limit the funds from organisations like Planned Parenthood don’t be suprised if people start protesting in front of Catholic churches against the sexual abuse scandal or limit the tax-exempt for religious institutions.”
I pretty much ignore you “SEX SCANDAL!” comments, Edward. You’ve shown already that you aren’t so much interested in *what* happened, but anything, any-thing at all, to verbally spit at the Church.
400 castrated boys, victims of the Netherland politicians and medical society! Oh, crickets are chirping. But a reporter tells a reporter about an alleged castration of possibly 10 boys, with no sources cited, and you scream, “AH I HATE CATHOLICS!” Unimpressive. Droll.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it. Either you accept other people have exactly the same rights you have or you accept other people will try to limit your rights just as much as you try to limit theirs. After all, even the First Amendment can be amended.”
Which is why you may lay down and shut up, but I and my friends won’t. Even moreso, we pray and try in spite of ourselves, to live virtuous lives.
JoAnna,
Exactly!
Joanna,
Of course you reserve the right to judge. Heck we all do. And what is unjust to you might just be just to me and the reverse. Sad little circle.
And I am glad to know that the catholic church no longer qualifies for tax free exemption (501(c)3 non-profit corporation)from the IRS. It was not easy to tell that from the IRS website.
“Women who take birth control are making themselves sexually available. Yes to men, but not for men, but rather for themselves.
Oh really? And if a woman informed her husband/boyfriend/whoever that she intended to throw away her birth control pills, how well do you think that would go over?”
I imagine that would depend on the people in the relationship. Some would not like it, some would have no issues with it. There are other forms of birth control available. So I think it would go over with mixed results. Are you suggesting that every man (or even the majority) would force the women to stay on birth control?
And from my understanding (and clearly I have not done the research on it you have) that business owners are required to offer their employees insurance, and insurance companies will be required to offer contraception. So you feel you are paying for it. But again you are contributing to it, not paying. But that is a small point of contention. I thought they took religious institutions off the block for this. Now sorry but not sure I agree with religious owners of business attempting to avoid it the grounds of practicing their religion. I do see why you think that, just don’t really agree.
And Joanna I didn’t realize you didn’t utilize roads and garbage. Bear in mind unless you live in my town you are not paying for my garbage removal, but I digress. The point I keep trying to make is that we ALL pay for things with our taxes that we don’t agree with and may not use. I don’t really see a way for that to change and still keep America as free as it is (and should be).
And if I may interject on your convo with Edward, what benefit to society does the church offer?
Alan, if I may interject:
“what benefit to society does the church offer?”
Let’s see: feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, healing the sick, visiting the imprisoned, and educating the people…with no consideration given to race, creed, age, sex, etc…
All done much more efficiently than the government could, more than making up for any revenue not taken in from property and sales taxes.
Also, just to be clear, the HHS mandate is not a tax, it is a regulation requiring employers to purchase very specific goods and services. I think we agree that taxes go to various things most of us disagree with: unjust wars, prisoner executions, torture, etc… But, these taxes are a just burden on society intended for the common good (nation defending is not immoral in principle, law enforcement and prisons are not immoral in principle, actually execution of criminals is not immoral in principle either, but almost always in practice). Anyway, that’s the difference as I see it.
LJP
Thanks for answering the question.
Are there no government allocations for those things as well?
How about all those people who are not religiously affiliated who do these good deeds? So I guess my question is what does the church offer that no one else offers that benefits society?
I understood that the HHS mandate is not a tax. Others mentioned their taxes going towards these things, so I merely stated that we all pay for things we don’t agree with in our taxes. I do appreciate your pointing the difference out to me though. Did they not remove religious institutions from having to provide these insurances or am I misunderstanding this?
Alan,
Well, there’s Medicaid, food stamps, public schools…not sure I’ve heard of public homeless shelters, I guess there is public housing and HUD, but I don’t believe those are free.
I’m sure there are non-religious groups providing these services. I would also assume they would be non-profits and also exempt from sales and property taxes.
“So I guess my question is what does the church offer that no one else offers that benefits society?”
How about the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? That benefits millions in our human society every day. No? Not going for it? Oh well, thought I’d give it a shot.
As for your HHS question, I’ll give this quote from the US Bishops’ website:
Claim: “Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.”
Response: This is not entirely true. To be eligible, even churches and houses of worship must show the government that they hire and serve primarily people of their own faith and have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose. Some churches may have service to the broader community as a major focus, for example, by providing direct service to the poor regardless of faith. Such churches would be denied an exemption
precisely because their service to the common good is so great. More importantly, the vast array of other religious organizations – schools, hospitals, universities, charitable institutions – will clearly not be exempt.
So, to be exempt, Catholic schools, hospitals, universities, and charitable institutions would have to enact a policy of checking one’s baptismal certificate at the door before providing their service…quite antithetical to the Christian mission.
JoAnna,
“If so, then you must also require your elected officials to be perfect people, correct? Do you hold them to that same standard?”
Yes, I do, which is why our elected officials and me hardly ever agree on anything.
“Contraception is not health care.”
Really? Than why is it you can’t get birth control pills from the local drug store but you need a prescription for them?
“Health care is intended restore health to a body that is damaged or malfunctioning.”
Not quite. Health care also includes giving profylaxis against unwanted medical conditions, like vaccinations against infectious diseases or birth control pills against unwanted pregnancies.
“why not treat the actual condition instead of just the symptoms?!”
Maybe because sometimes we can’t?
“I also find it appalling that you believe Catholics should not be allowed to be business owners.”
Not if that means they demand special treatment. Either take your full responsibility as an employer and provide health care coverage without questions asked (especially questions that are none of your business to begin with) or don’t hire people to work for you. You may find my oppinion appalling and I find your idea you even have any kind of say in the private affairs of your employees even worse.
“I’m sorry the Netherlands is still so backward and bigoted in that regard.”
Well, should we ever read a story like this in the paper no Dutch would ever wonder in what country it happened. Whenever we hear or read a completely rediculous kind of news we automatically say: “Only in America ….” and we are hardly ever wrong.
If you would try something like this in the Netherlands first people would die laughing and those who survive would sue your ass everyday till Sunday. You would be ordered by a judge to pay full health care coverage (including birth control) or your business would be fined into oblivion.
Stacy,
“but the foundation of our rights are of God, not of man.”
You have quite the way with words but in essence you only have the rights your fellow men will allow you to have. How long will it take people to remove your rights from you if they wanted to? And what do you think your god would be able to do about it? I appreciate the sentiment but you’re an intelligent woman. You know as well as I do your god had and has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or with any other law in the US.
“It depends on what is being dictated.”
Really? So you actually think whatever you would dictate is good and what other would dictate is not? Arrogant much?
“Yeah, but the thing is, I hear that all the time from people, and honestly, I thought about it. Threats like that just sound childish to me. It sounds like you are more interested in spite than justice and freedom.”
Personally I’m more than happy to leave every religious person alone to live their lives as they see fit. Trouble is, however, they aren’t satisfied with leaving me alone (and with “me” I mean everyone who doesn’t fit in their perfect picture). I would love for peace (well, a cease fire; there can never be total peace between religion and me anymore, not after what I lost thanks to religion) but I’m not willing to sacrifice (part of) myself to achieve that. If I have to chose between peace while losing parts of myself or open warfare with me complete I’ll pick warfare every day.
“400 castrated boys, victims of the Netherland politicians and medical society!”
400? Apparently you know more than anyone in our country. Just a few days ago there were 10 known cases and now already 400?
1. Those 10 were castrated by Catholic institutions, without knowledge from the courts or the medical society, for the sole reason they were gay.
2. Some more cases have been revealed but those were dealing with convicted rapists and sex murderers who had proven to be incurable. Their mutilation was ordered by the courts. Yes, a terrible thing and something that shouldn’t have happened. However, the current medication we have to treat these type of offenders with didn’t exist back than. But no gay man has been castrated by a court order for the sole reason he was gay in the Netherlands. The Catholic institutions where this was performed acted alone, without any sanction from any lawful institute in our country. You may think that’s not that serious but I do.
“Which is why you may lay down and shut up, but I and my friends won’t. Even moreso, we pray and try in spite of ourselves, to live virtuous lives.”
Your choice, your right and, in the end, your waste of time.
You can’t turn back time; the genie won’t go back into the bottle and people will never relinquish the rights they have gained freely or without a fight. In the end you will only set yourself aside from society. Your loss, not mine.
LJP,
““what benefit to society does the church offer?”
Let’s see: feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, healing the sick, visiting the imprisoned, and educating the people.”
Interestingly enough all these things are mentioned in the Universal Decleration of Human Rights (which the US signed and ratified) as jobs the government should do. So either you need to re-educate your government about doing their job or have the church recognized as a government.
“the HHS mandate is not a tax, it is a regulation requiring employers to purchase very specific goods and services.”
Exactly, all employers, religious and non-religious alike. For once the government decided you wouldn’t get a special treatment and immediately you demand it as if it was your right to be treated with more privileges than others. And you find it strange why more and more people are done with religion?
LJP,
“So, to be exempt, Catholic schools, hospitals, universities, and charitable institutions would have to enact a policy of checking one’s baptismal certificate at the door before providing their service…quite antithetical to the Christian mission.”
How about illegal? Wouldn’t that give trouble with anti-discrimination kaws? I mean, I can’t imagine it would be ok in the eyes of the law to refuse students or patients based on their religion? In Europe you would be shut down for that, permanantly.
Edward,
“but the foundation of our rights are of God, not of man.”
This is the truth. Our laws are all based on natural rights, those recognized as being from God. It is enshrined in our law, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
“How long will it take people to remove your rights from you if they wanted to?”
You do not understand rights, Edward. I want you to though. Rights are abstractions, not things on paper or power of another man. If you kill me, you do NOT take away my right to life. You unjustly violate it. If you hold me physically bound or locked up, you do not imprison my soul. And no matter what you do to me – for you are external – you do not, and cannot take away my pursuit of happiness. These things are ours because we exist.
“And what do you think your god would be able to do about it?”
I have a pet-peeve for sloppy use of words, not that I’ve mastered articulation, but I try. If you want to discuss God with me, learn how Catholics define that word, and adhere to it, otherwise you just argue in ignorance. “Something than which a greater cannot be thought.”
“So you actually think whatever you would dictate is good and what other would dictate is not? Arrogant much?”
No, thoughtful. I imagine there is much that we both would agree should be dictated, and it is good. For instance, I would absolutely expect my society to dictate that grown men cannot walk down the street and rape women at will. I would hope we dictate that your property belongs to you and cannot be forcibly or unjustly taken. I would hope we dictate that the poor and sick among us should not be neglected.
“Trouble is, however, they aren’t satisfied with leaving me alone (and with “me” I mean everyone who doesn’t fit in their perfect picture).”
I leave you alone, except for when you post comments on my blog and I respond, something I don’t find disagreeable at all. It’s just that there are some things we disagree about that should exist in a just society. And so, I’m willing to discuss it with you and challenge you to systematically break it down into logical components, define them, and build the construct back up. I see flaws in your views. For instance, I would say that you would be a better doctor if you hadn’t euthanized that sick man, but instead had chosen to suffer a little along with him, to comfort him, to tell him he had worth because he did, to just be near him until he died.
I’ll deal with the castration issue later. I do note, though, that you did not respond to my last comment on this thread: http://www.acceptingabundance.com/news-flash-we-lost-our-religious-freedom-in-1970/
Nice try LJP on the body and blood of christ bit, I did laugh,something that happens to rarely here (well at least from humor)
It might surprise you to know I actually believe in god.
As far as exemptions I am not sure I disagree with them. But again that is just my opinion. People should have health care, it benefits all.
so Stacy are you saying that those that don’t believe in god are not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Guess what, my big gay marriage is my life, my liberty and my pursuit of happiness. How can you then turn and tell me it is wrong if I am indeed entitled and afforded them?
Because telling you something is wrong is not violating any of your rights.
I have said to you many times that you are free to call your relationship whatever you want to call it, but you will not make me call it marriage, nor will you make me teach my children to.
I can’t make you happy, Alan. That is up to you. I tolerate your free speech, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with you or accept it as true.
No ma’am telling me something is wrong doesn’t violate my rights. Other things you do actually do intefere with my rights, or at the very least attempt to, and that is where we are totally different. I don’t intend to interfere with your rights. You to me just really seem to think that maybe your rights are more far reaching than they are.
And you are correct you can’t make me happy. I am the only person that can make me happy, and I am a very happy guy with an amazing life. It’s why I can tolerate so many other people who really aren’t as happy.
It is kind of you to tolerate my free speech. I am not certain tolerate is the word I would use, but I’ll go with it. But why do you seem to think we all need to accept what you say as true? I really don’t understand.
Not jumping in the fray here, but as I read I just have to say that I am kissing the ground and thanking God with effusiveness that I do not live in the Netherlands!!
Of course, the sicker our nation gets, and the more amoral and conformist, and the stronger the dictates from Our Dear Leader and more powerful the central government, the more we inch closer to the unfortunate Dutch model.
Keep praying, guys! There’s still a chance we won’t become clones of the western European socialist nations!
I know Leila, I didn’t realize how far it had gone.
Alan, what do I do that interferes with your rights?
Please be specific, and reference one of the basic rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Edward,
“…all these things are mentioned in the Universal Decleration (sic) of Human Rights (which the US signed and ratified) as jobs the government should do. So either you need to re-educate your government about doing their job or have the church recognized as a government.”
“For once the government decided you wouldn’t get a special treatment and immediately you demand it as if it was your right to be treated with more privileges than others.”
From these statements, and others, it sounds as though you are very obedient to government. I suppose we all serve our chosen master, eh, Edward? Do you view the UN and the Dutch government as the ultimate arbiters of what is good and true?
How about illegal? Wouldn’t that give trouble with anti-discrimination kaws (sic)?
Interesting point. Of course, the Church would never stoop to that level, they would simply close their doors if forced. But doesn’t it seem odd that the state would define religious institutions in such a limited way, and then possibly hold them in violation of law for acting within that definition?
LJP,
“But doesn’t it seem odd that the state would define religious institutions in such a limited way, and then possibly hold them in violation of law for acting within that definition?”
Exactly. Edward, that is pretty much how you framed the situation.
Alan,
“It might surprise you to know I actually believe in god.”
No, not at all. That’s the default position for a person.
“People should have health care, it benefits all.”
Absolutely, agreed….except for when that ‘health care’ isn’t actually health care, neither correcting nor preventing diseases/disorders.
The previous comment is mine, guess I forgot to fill in a few fields.
LJP
I disagree with both statements.
Belief in god is not always the fall back. Many don’t believe, and I say with good reason.
And birth control whether you choose to accept it or not is health care. It is used for a multitude of reasons, one of which is to prevent pregnancy, which is a health issue, which is health care.
sorry default, not fall back.
Stacy,
“If you want to discuss God with me, learn how Catholics define that word, and adhere to it, otherwise you just argue in ignorance.”
If that means you expect me to spell god with a capital G I wouldn’t hold my breath. For me it’s just a word, nothing more. Or are you going to spell science with a capital S for me? Or atheism with a capital A?
“I leave you alone, except for when you post comments on my blog and I respond,”
I wasn’t talking about you personally or our discussions. I was talking about Christians in general like my upstairs neighbour, who tried to have my husband and me evicted from an apartment we own because he refuses to live in the same building as two fags; or one of our nurses who refuses to tend for one of our patients because he’s gay; or one of my classmates who disowned his sister for being a divorced mother.
For such a tolerant religion it certainly attracts a lot of intolerant people, don’t you think?
“For instance, I would say that you would be a better doctor if you hadn’t euthanized that sick man, but instead had chosen to suffer a little along with him, to comfort him, to tell him he had worth because he did, to just be near him until he died.”
Not really my decision but my patient’s. I don’t think my own personal feelings should be involved in such a case, even if I would be opposed euthanasia (which I’m not). I’m a doctor for my patients and if my personal feelings in that get in the way I should excuse myself and transfer my patient to a doctor who can keep his personal life personal.
“I have said to you many times that you are free to call your relationship whatever you want to call it, but you will not make me call it marriage, nor will you make me teach my children to.”
That’s an interesting point you have there and potentially dangerous one for your children as well.
Let’s say one of your children wants to be a lawyer and he/she needs to prosecute / defend a gay murderer. In the US a married partner can’t testify against his / her spouse. Massachusetts is one of the states where same sex marriages are legal and thus will same-sex couples enjoy the same protection.
If your child refuses to acknowledge the status of their marriage he/she will have very shaky cases and might be held into contempt of the court a couple of times. And all of that because you refuse to acknowledge not the church but the government defines the legal status of a marriage.
LJP,
“Do you view the UN and the Dutch government as the ultimate arbiters of what is good and true?”
No, I view people as the ultimate arbiters of good and true, just like a democracy is supposed to work. You can say whatever you want about the Dutch government and the UN but they are a lot more democratic and a lot more humane than the Catholic church.
“Of course, the Church would never stoop to that level, they would simply close their doors if forced.”
Interesting you would say such a thing. Last year a Catholic school in the Netherlands refused a muslim girl who was wearing a headscarf. The judge ordered the school to accept the girl as a student since discrimination based on religion is in violation of our constitution.
“But doesn’t it seem odd that the state would define religious institutions in such a limited way, and then possibly hold them in violation of law for acting within that definition?”
By now you should be aware the right not to be discriminated outweights all other rights in the Netherlands. No matter if you’re dealing with the freedom of speech, religion, press or whatever: as soon as your opinion is discriminatory, your religion violates equal rights or you want to print something that will discriminate people you are stopped by the courts. So no, it’s not strange.
““It might surprise you to know I actually believe in god.”
No, not at all. That’s the default position for a person.”
No, it’s not. It’s only the default position for people who do not know any better or people who decided to believe in a god. But for people who have never been taught to believe in a god will never be “natural” believers.
I have no time today, but I had to respond to this: “By now you should be aware the right not to be discriminated outweights all other rights in the Netherlands.”
Including the right to life? It’s legal in the Netherlands to kill someone if you feel they are discriminating against you? Are you serious?
We don’t need to learn how catholics view god to discuss god with you Stacy. You may want us to, but heck we are not your slaves. You can of course refuse to discuss god with us. But then again I don’t see much discussion of god going on here.
What rights are you attempting to infringe on? Marriage. Problem is you don’t see that as a right. Because god didn’t bestow it on us (us being the gays as clearly god did bestow the right of marriage unto you heterosexuals). But see to some of us (slaves as you call us) the government bestows rights on us. You keep mentioning your rights as bestowed in the constitution but doesn’t that actually make you a slave to the same government as us?
If your right to practice your religion is bestowed upon you by god, then guess what, practice your religion regardless. You will only have to deal with the rules of society, but that should be ok because you are only concerned with the rules of god. Seems to make sense to me. So you should not worry about what society says and dictates. Guess we solved that problem.
Edward,
“No, I view people as the ultimate arbiters of good and true, just like a democracy is supposed to work.”
Ok, so then you do view the Dutch government and the UN as the ultimate arbiters of what is true and good, insofar as they are democratic bodies? The true and the good are democratically defined, then? And you dogmatically follow the majority, no matter their decision?
JoAnna,
“Including the right to life? It’s legal in the Netherlands to kill someone if you feel they are discriminating against you? Are you serious?”
The right to live is not mentioned in our constitution, just like it isn’t in the American one. After all, if the right to live would be described in either of our constitutions executing people as capitol punishment would be unconstitutional, just like going to war would be.
And what is war besides having an extremely loud disagreement about other people’s opinions and rights?
LJP,
“The true and the good are democratically defined, then? And you dogmatically follow the majority, no matter their decision?”
I’ll take the bait an walk into your trap. Yes, I would be more inclined to follow the majority even if I had doubts than the minority I know is flawed, like Christians.
So, Edward… if you feel someone is discriminating against you, you have the right to kill them? Or, if I lived in the Netherlands, it would be just and acceptable for me to kill you if I felt I was being discriminated against? You really didn’t answer.
By the way, the right to life is acknowledged in the US Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Also, Edward, I invite you to read the following explanation of how the right to life is not infringed upon by the death penalty: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/01/abortion-and-death-penalty.html
Joanna that read is a very interesting piece on rationalizing things. Sorry no go for most of us. The very fact that EVEN ONE INNOCENT life could be taken by execution should be all you need to be against the death penalty if you are against abortion. So rationalize all you want, but realize it is not logical to be for one and against the other.
Alan, don’t you see the contradiction in your own beliefs? It’s morally reprehensible to kill a dangerous convicted criminal who has had due process of law, but it’s fine and dandy to kill an innocent child who is guilty of no crime? Sorry, it’s logically inconsistent. What would make it more fair is if unborn children were given due process of law prior to their executions.
I am generally opposed to the death penalty except in extreme cases where it may be necessary to protect society because jail isn’t adequate (examples: a Mafia boss who manages to order hits despite being incarcerated; a violent serial killer who has managed to escape incarceration before). But I recognize that the State has the authority to protect society by killing criminals as long as due process of law has been followed.
Edward, you asked, “Do you think it’s ok to stalk someone, to make his life a living hell, to destroy his property, his career and his self-esteem so the only escape he has is suicide? And all that just because that person is gay which conflicts with your religion? Do you think a practice like that falls within the freedom of religion?”
Absolutely not. I agree with this:
“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”
and this:
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
I’m very sorry about what happened to your former partner. It explains a lot of your anger and hatred. But just as I don’t judge the actions of all atheists or all Dutch people based on the horrible actions of a few, please don’t judge all Christians based on the horrible actions of a few.
JoAnna,
Sorry, but I’m not really interested in an explanation on why the death penalty is not unconstitutional. Apparently you don’t see the contradiction here, while first stating: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (especially “unalienable” is interesting in this) and stating only a little later the death penalty isn’t an infringement on that text.
Let me ask you another question, JoAnna. Do you think it’s ok to stalk someone, to make his life a living hell, to destroy his property, his career and his self-esteem so the only escape he has is suicide? And all that just because that person is gay which conflicts with your religion? Do you think a practice like that falls within the freedom of religion?
That’s what happened to my late partner by his family and former friends, lead by their reverend. So you might be able to answer your own question. Although I don’t condone murder I will never be put in that position ever again, even if that means putting aside my principles. In other words, I will kill to protect myself and my loved ones.
Also, Edward, I wanted to ask… you said earlier that you hold your elected officials to the standards of being perfect human beings. Do you refuse to follow the law, then, given that no human beings are perfect?
Joanna did I at any point state my beliefs on the death penalty? Have I stated my beliefs on abortion?
If so please show me what I said.
If you can’t find where I did that then please ask what my beliefs are before condemning me for them.
I merely pointed out that if someone opposed to abortion because it is the “killling of innocents” should follwo suit and be against the death penalty because it could end up in “the killing of innocents”. It is logical to expect that.
Alan,
Since you are against charities such as churches being tax exempt, perhaps you are also against universities being tax exempt? How about a charity such as The Trevor Project? Seems to me they are tax exempt as well.
Wow – when people aren’t willing to think for themselves, it is a sad world indeed – I guess there is no Hippocratic oath in the Netherlands is there?
And as far as following the laws or mob rule as Edward says…. I guess he would have been happy to send Jews to camps then…..
Where as the minority Christians and others fought back….
Mary,
I am not against charities being tax exempt.
I don’t necessarily view churches as charities. Yes they do good deeds, but is that their primary mission? You can say it is, but I think a good many would debate that.
Funny how you chose The Trevor project. Do you know anything about it?
My favorite charities to donate to are two small orphanages in Africa. If I could I would have brought several of those delightful children home with me. But we are pretty far reaching with out charity dollars.
AMC….I am confused. Are those of us who don’t follow god’s planned called “free thinkers” and now you are saying we can’t think for ourselves? Is that really what you mean?
And again with the Nazi’s? Hasn’t that been used as an analogy here enough?
JoAnna,
So basically you say I should be tolerated and pitied, simply for who and what I am. And you don’t consider that discriminatory? Not to mention patronizing?
Oh, and I don’t hate Christians in general. Only those who put me through all of that misery several years ago and those who show the potential to put me through that again.
Mary,
Nice try but only religious institutions are tax exempt. No other charity or institution is.
AMC,
When you ask about the Hippocratic oath, do you refer to the euthanasia?
The first thing the Hippocratic oath says is: “Do no harm”. Forcing a patient to suffer incredible pains and other discomforts is doing harm. In those cases euthanasia isn’t. If you’d check the original oath you would see Hippocrates already felt that way.
Interesting you’d compare me with nazi’s while it were people like me in the camps. And if they’d have their way people like Michelle Bachman, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum would gladly put people like me there again. All good Christians.
I don’t know where you get that, Edward, as neither the words “tolerate” or “pity/pitied” appeared in my post. Perhaps you should see an eye doctor, or read my posts more carefully?
I think you (and everyone) should be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that “every sign of unjust discrimination in [your] regard should be avoided.” I believe that “the intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”
You claim you don’t hate Christians in general, yet you show up at a Christian blog to spew venom and hate. I’d reexamine your motivations, if I were you.
Also, I don’t believe you ever provided me with a link to the public education blogs that you comment on, given your equal disgust with the rate of sexual abuse in public schools. Can you send me that link?
Alan, I don’t believe innocent people should ever be killed, whether they are born or unborn. However, convicted criminals who have received due process of law are considered guilty. It’s true that someone innocent is executed (and that’s a tragedy that should be prevented at all costs, but in our modern legal system that is extremely rare given the availability of DNA evidence and analysis. If you oppose the killing of innocent people via the death penalty, I would hope you also oppose the killing of innocent people via abortion.
Incidentally, speaking of charities, have you ever heard of Reece’s Rainbow?
JoAnna,
“What would make it more fair is if unborn children were given due process of law prior to their executions.”
Amen. I was going to say it but I knew you’d say it much better. Thank you!
Edward, did you seriously just say that tolerance is discriminatory???
JoAnna (and Stacy),
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
It’s this quote I have a problem with, and especially the following part: “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
Yes, in that quote I read I can hope for no more than tolerance and pity. And yes, I find this quote discriminatory since it’s hardly only the gays who face trials in life. Funny thing is, when I accepted my sexual orientation and stopped trying to be someone I’m not, my trail ended.
Oh, and JoAnna, I’m quite certain I don’t hate. Hate costs me too much energy and only brings me negative emotions. I already suffered enough of those to last me a lifetime.
So you think that your insurance costs will increase if women are allowed access to birth control? How about men and Viagra?
Maybe you should bring more of your godly hate on fat people for diabetes raising your insurance costs. Or horrible parents giving birth to too many children sucking at welfare money.
Because, you know, Jesus would be all in favor of uncontrolled population growth and untreated illnesses.
So Joanna you are saying it is ok if one innocent dies after they have been convicted by a jury of their peers? I just need to know where the lines are drawn. I think if you want to protect life you should protect life. Just the way I see it.
I don’t oppose the death penalty. It’s not a deterrent, so I am not really sure there is a reason for it except revenge.
Edward said, “Nice try but only religious institutions are tax exempt. No other charity or institution is.”
Ummmm…no. Princeton University does not pay property tax on many of its massive, extensive buildings. Likewise with other universities. Lots of charities do not pay taxes, property or otherwise. Read up.
The death penalty serves little to no function and it is immoral.
It distorts how juries convict and it is very costly and innocents are killed (however infrequently), and it DOES NOT serve as a deterrent. If it were “swift and predictable” perhaps it would fulfill the last requirement, but it cannot be so in a developed legal system.
You mean the fact that there is no palliative care in the Netherlands – to have guidelines for the euthanization of adults 16 and up for the sadness or loneliness? that which we call depression in the US and is treated…. do no harm in the eyes of whom…. oh yeah do no harm – such as killing (euthanizing) born children with spina bifida and down syndrome?
Really – looks more like Obama would like to start interrment camps for Christians – which you would go along with (especially if he can turn enough people against them – you know majority rules) – based on your hatred for them. You know payback – because you stereotype all Christians – with those that attacked your partner. There are plenty of people who aren’t “christian” – bust justify their actions hiding behind Christ – as it’s easier.
I compare the Netherlands – with Nazi Germany…. as that’s where it’s all headed eventually….. it’s just that they have no military to speak of…. and the rest of the EU keeps bringing them back (for now) as Belgium has also went the way of the Netherlands.
Edward,
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
What is it that bothers you about that statement?
The disordered part? The trial part?
I think sometimes people want to call man-man relationships marriage out of loneliness, as some way to try to feel normal. The thing is, it doesn’t seem like this “love” is the same love as a husband and wife have that allows them to build a family and a legacy that survives beyond them. I don’t recall ever seeing “gay marriage” 50 year anniversary celebrations where children and grandchildren are running all around.
It seems more like a brotherly love, or a friendly love, or, unfortunately, a relationship of convenience and lust.
You do seem to hate Christians, as JoAnna said, but if you say you don’t, then we’ll take your word. Maybe you just want someone to understand your pain. I know that feeling. The thing is — I finally realized Someone does.
Stacy
“I think sometimes people want to call man-man relationships marriage out of loneliness, as some way to try to feel normal. The thing is, it doesn’t seem like this “love” is the same love as a husband and wife have that allows them to build a family and a legacy that survives beyond them. I don’t recall ever seeing “gay marriage” 50 year anniversary celebrations where children and grandchildren are running all around.
It seems more like a brotherly love, or a friendly love, or, unfortunately, a relationship of convenience and lust.”
Your most important word usage is “seem”. You have no idea. I can tell you 100% you are wrong. I have 3 brothers and I love them. The love I feel for my husband is different than the love I feel for them. I did not marry out of loneliness. I married because I love him, and yes it is the same as you love your husband. We don’t want kids, that is just us, but I have many gay friends who do either want them or have them. And lets talk in 50 years to see if you can still say the same. Because I think you won’t be able to.
My husbands uncles were together 55 years before one passed away. His grief is the same as yours will be when your husband dies. 55 years together. Just each other. And you will deny that is the same love?
So yeah that is how it seems to you, but thats all it is, how it seems to you. Maybe you should open your mind and try to understand homosexuals a little better?
and I don’t think Edward hates christians, he has stated he doesn’t have energy for hate. His opinions are strong this is true. But I am sorry we got AMC comparing the Netherlands to Nazi Germany, Stacy has compared the gays to Nazi Germany, sorry where is the love in those comparisons?
Keep in mind that many view christians like Nazi’s.
Any time one group views another group as wanting all others to conform to their ideals there will be that comparison. I think we have all lost the bigger picture of what happened there.
Hopefully there will never be a group like the Nazi’s again, but I fail to see how the hateful comparisons serve any purpose but to anger.
So Joanna you are saying it is ok if one innocent dies after they have been convicted by a jury of their peers?
Alan, please read what I actually write. If you’re not going to read my comments I find no point in continuing to dialogue. I said, “It’s true that someone innocent is executed (and that’s a tragedy that should be prevented at all costs), but in our modern legal system that is extremely rare given the availability of DNA evidence and analysis. If you oppose the killing of innocent people via the death penalty, I would hope you also oppose the killing of innocent people via abortion.”
How does “a tragedy that should be prevented at all costs” translate to “ok”?
Here’s a question for you. My mother had an extramarital affair with the man who is now my stepfather. At the time their affair was ongoing, do you think that was a beautiful and true expression of their love, even though their respective spouses were being betrayed in the process?
Edward, you claim you don’t hate but your actions (trolling Christian blogs for the express purpose of insulting our faith) say otherwise. What public school blogs do you comment on, by the way?
AMC,
“You mean the fact that there is no palliative care in the Netherlands – to have guidelines for the euthanization of adults 16 and up for the sadness or loneliness? that which we call depression in the US and is treated…. do no harm in the eyes of whom…. oh yeah do no harm – such as killing (euthanizing) born children with spina bifida and down syndrome?”
Perhaps you should spend less time listening to Rick Santorum and his rants and more time checking your “facts”.
There is plliative care in the Netherlands. Something we offered my patient but he refused. He gave us two options: cure me or kill me. Since curing his wide spread cancer was impossible …..
Yes, untreatable depression also qualifies as inhuman and endless suffering. If someone feels like being trapped in a black hole everyday of his life, with not as much as a match to lighten things a little and with no chance of improving that, he can request euthanasie, yes. And than it’s up to his doctors and independent phycisians to determine whether his claim of inhuman, endless suffering is justified. We’re not talking about a teen in puberty who is feeling down and wants to end it. We’re talking about patients who have spent more time in psychiatric institutions than on the outside; who are incurable by any definition; who see their world become uglier and uglier by the minute.
We do not euthanize children with spina bifida or Down syndrome. We offer their parents a chance to abort the pregnancy before they are born, thus before they are children in the eyes of the law. A foetus has no rights. However, if the parents refuse to terminate the pregnancy we offer the children every ounce of care they need, with one exception: we will not treat them if born prematurely. Several reasons for that:
1. It;s hardly ever succesful, making treating them a medically futile act which is prohibited under both the Hippocratic oath and Dutch law.
2. Even if succesful the quality of life of both the child and the parents will be negligable.
3. (and it makes me want to hurl to say this) recources are limited and spending recources in such a futile manner makes we can’t treat a child who does have a chance for a future.
Stacy,
“I think sometimes people want to call man-man relationships marriage out of loneliness, as some way to try to feel normal. The thing is, it doesn’t seem like this “love” is the same love as a husband and wife have that allows them to build a family and a legacy that survives beyond them.”
Help me out here. My husband and me are a loving couple, married for almost 6 years now, with a lovely daughter, a loving family, great friends, a house, jobs and we would have had pets if my daughter wasn’t allergic and we’re thinking of entering the adoption procedure for a second child. Only differences between my husband and me and you and your husband is the fact we are two men and our legacy will be smaller in numbers. But of course you will never agree to that statement, even though deep down you know it’s true.
“I don’t recall ever seeing “gay marriage” 50 year anniversary celebrations where children and grandchildren are running all around.”
Of course not. And there are several reasons for that.
1. Gay marriage’wasn’t legal untill 10 years ago.
2. Until 25-30 years ago being gay was still something you didn’t admit. You kept in the shadows feeling miserable and guilty, just like the church wanted you to.
3. As a result of point 2 even the gays with loving relationships were forced to keep it hidden, ruining the relationship in the process.
4. Gay adoption wasn’t possible until after gay marriage was legal, although gay foster parents were quite normal so theere would be anniversaries with children and grandchildren around is you cared to look.
5. Which brings me to my final point: you don’t care to look because of you did you’d have to admit the church is wrong about gay relationships. It’s easier to deny loving, longterm gay relationships with children, grandchildren and the works exist because that fits the picture of the world your church painted for you.
“Maybe you just want someone to understand your pain. I know that feeling. The thing is — I finally realized Someone does.”
Well, once again, since it were your gods followers and servants that were responsible for that pain I don’t care if your god understands my pain. If he did he should have acted, in stead of allowing his people to harrass a beautiful innocent man to his grave. Knowing no intervention took place is enough proof to me there is no such thing as a loving god.
“It seems more like a brotherly love, or a friendly love, or, unfortunately, a relationship of convenience and lust.”
Even after knowing each other for 9 years and being married for 6 I can’t deny there’s still a lot of lust in our relationship, yes. Something most straight marriages can’t claim after such a time.
Alan,
“But I am sorry we got AMC comparing the Netherlands to Nazi Germany, Stacy has compared the gays to Nazi.”
Even worse, the nazi’s killed gay people, just like they did to jews, gypsies and others. However, they killed very little Christians, though.
Also, I never heard gay rights acitivists call for opening re-education camps for Christians while both Michelle Bachmann as Rick Santorum called they would do such a thing for gays, should they be elected president of the United States.
So I’m not sure who fits the description of “the next nazi” better.
Actually, Edward, the Nazis killed many Catholics, too — especially Catholics who fought against them. Examples:
http://www.amazon.com/Priestblock-25487-A-Memoir-Dachau/dp/0972598170
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein
Among others.
“If you oppose the killing of innocent people via the death penalty, I would hope you also oppose the killing of innocent people via abortion.”
Problem is, abortion is not killing a person. Not ethically, not legally, not biologically. A foetus is not a person, not an individual and, as a direct result, has no rights. I know you don’t agree with that but this is the way things are right now. Again, if you don’t like it, try running for office and change it. I wish you good luck in the process because, as said before, people (and especially women) will not surrender their rights to chose either willingly or without a fight.
“Here’s a question for you. My mother had an extramarital affair with the man who is now my stepfather. At the time their affair was ongoing, do you think that was a beautiful and true expression of their love, even though their respective spouses were being betrayed in the process?”
Of course you could also take the opposite view: their love for each other was so strong their respective marriages could not stop them from ending up together. But of course that’s not how you want to look at it. You want to see it in terms of pain, betrayal and sin but ask yourself the following question: when was your mother happier? In her marriage with your father or with your stepfather? Maybe her marriage to your father was a mistake from the beginning and should never have happened in the first place. Ever thought of that?
“Edward, you claim you don’t hate but your actions (trolling Christian blogs for the express purpose of insulting our faith) say otherwise.”
See, you learn something new every day. I never knew joining a discussion on an open website meant hating people. Just imagine the ammount of hate in the world with the launch of media like Twitter and Facebook.
Joanna
I did read your post. And I stand by what I said. However “prevented by all costs” should include abolishment of the death penalty should even ONE innocent person be put to death. I’m unsure how you don’t see that even ONE innocent death can be prevented by abolishment of the death penalty. So I stick with the if you are anti abortion I don’t see how you can be pro death penalty. So do you think the death penalty should be abolished?
Interesting segue from death penalty to extramarital affairs. But I’ll roll with it. Beautiful no, true, possibly. Do you hate your mother or your step father? Have you forgiven them? Has god forgiven them? Are they still together? Did they marry? So many questions.
Now mine, why did you ask that question? What were you hoping to learn from it?
Joanna please notice the subtle difference in killing those that oppose you and targeting specific groups of people. So rather than lead with Nazi’s killed christians you should say, Nazi’s also killed those who opposed them, some of whom were christians. They were killed for their opposition not religion. And what did the pope do?
Alan, again, how does “prevented at all costs” translate to “ok”?
Do you similarly believe that our entire legal and justice system should be abolished because innocent people have, on occasion, been convicted of a crime? Should we just cease enforcing laws altogether so we don’t accidentally convict an innocent person?
I agree that our system of capital punishment should have REFORM, in that no one should be executed who does not have 100% positive, ironclad, DNA evidence as part of their conviction. In fact, I think capital punishment should be so rare as to be non-existent. But I think it is the legitimate right of the government to put to death people who pose an extreme danger to the rest of society, if incarceration won’t stop their threat.
Alan, Hitler/the Nazis targeted many Catholics *in reprisal for* what the Pope did. See “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by Rabbi David Dalin. That was one of the reasons that the Pope had to work quietly and behind the scenes as opposed to opposing Hilter outright — had he done the latter, Hitler would have targeted Catholics for extermination just as he did Jews (and indeed made threats to that end). He would have burned the Vatican to the ground and prevented them from hiding Jews, issuing Jews fake baptismal certificates, etc.
If you can find a copy of “The Assisi Underground,” I highly recommend it – excellent read!
Although I am on the fence, and cannot seem to come to any further understanding of male homosexuality, which I believe evolved from a different mechanism from female homosexuality (this is a longer discussion), I will say that I believe Alan that, to him, his love can be just like my love for my husband.
If you read Steve Gershom’s blog (man with SSA who is Catholic and celibate) his descriptions of his interests and temptations sound IDENTICAL to the feelings I had when I was younger etc. I have other reasons to be reticent about male homosexual behavior, but I really do believe they can be in love the same way I can (heterosexual woman).
The thing is, is how do you decide if something is “disordered”? Without being crass, the sexual acts that homosexual males (and some heterosexual couples!) engage in are not using equipment in the way it was “designed” either by God or/and by evolution if you will. Any honest doctor can tell you this.
Also, exclusive homosexuality is a reproductive conundrum. Even the most left-leaning researchers concede this point. Given strong evolutionary pressures it should have never arisen. (I don’t intend that to be mean or make you feel bad…given your obvious intelligence Alan, I am sure you have been puzzled by this yourself at some point.) Therefore, I don’t find it insulting to gays or “off the table” to question (in respectful terms, as opposed to the way some far right-wingers word things) why exclusive homosexuality is not disordered in the way that true pedophila is disordered. Having sexual interest only in people with whom one cannot reproduce is a curious phenomenon, as sexuality is by it’s very definition about recombining DNA in novel ways to propagate your own.
One of the victims of nazi retaliation was Edith Stein, a Catholic convert from Judaism. Edith Stein was a major figure in philosophy, having served as a graduate assistant with Edmund Husserl.
I don’t have the biography with me, but my recollection is that Dutch bishops ordered letters to be read in all Catholic churches during mass — letters condemning the nazis.
Shortly after that Sunday, in retaliation, the gestapo hunted down Edith Stein and her sister who were in a convent & escorted them to a train to Auschwitz, where they perished.
I personally don’t agree with Edward on many things, but I don’t think he is trolling Christian websites to spew hate. I suspect he is trying figure out more about people who disagree with him, and possibly change their minds and/or learn something himself.
Joanna
I am sorry but everything in your statement says you think the death penalty is ok. If you think it is ok to kill someone who has been proven 100% guilty then you are ok with the death penalty. Unfortunately there is never 100% proof of guilt. An innoncent could still be put to death. Want to make sure an innocent never dies? Abolish the death penalty. That seems like a pretty simple way to make sure no innocents die.
I may try to read the book, as long as it is not too “preachy” I might be able to get through it.
Alan, if by “ok” you mean “a good and positive thing,” then I do not agree with that.
If by “ok” you mean “an unfortunate circumstance yet a legitimate right of the State that must, on very rare occasions, be put into use” then yes, that is my stance. I do think that capital punishment is largely unnecessary in the U.S. given our prison system, so I can’t say I’d be upset if it were abolished in our nation. But it is a legitimate right of the State to protect its citizens.
It’s like how I hate and abhor war, but I recognize that there are circumstances where our country must defend itself and others by waging war (e.g., WWII).
My analogy still stands. If you want to prevent an innocent man from being convicted of a crime (which happens far more often than innocent men being convicted AND executed), then you must therefore support the abolishment of our judicial and legal system, and the non-enforcement of all laws. Do you?
Rabbi Dalin’s book is excellent and his sources are very well documented. I think you’ll enjoy it (well, as much as a book about WWII and the Holocaust can be enjoyed, if you know what I mean).
Mary – of course homosexuals have the same desires as heterosexuals. My mother had the desire to sleep with a man who was not her husband. Doesn’t make it right.
As for how do we know what is disordered? Natural law. Common sense. Since two men nor two women can procreate, their sexual acts go against the natural order. Hence, disorder.
Mary,
Thanks for even attempting to understand.
I won’t argue that homosexuality is disordered towards procreation. That does not make homosexual acts themselves disordered. Not all sexual acts are ordered towards procreation. I believe that christians believe that the act needs to be finished in the vagina (I am sorry I really want to say the appropriate things here so I stuck with the medical terminolgy), but does that mean that any other sexual act is still disordered?
If someone cannot have babies they are disordered, yet their sexual acts are not. Is this true? All because it “leaves it open to life”. I know you all have known “miracles” where someone who is barren has a baby, but then guess what, they were never actually infertile.
I’m no longer engaging in the pedophile conversation so please don’t think I am ignoring it, I just have nothing to say on it. Unless we want to start comparing infertile folks to pedophiles.
You do know that the Dutch were well known for killing babies after they were born. The guidelines to “stop” this were put in place after the rest of the world had outrage at this practice. In fact it got so blase that they even televised a euthanasia…..
There is no slippery slope fallacy…..
Just a question – WHO determines whether or not a sexual act is disordered? The majority? It starts with the de-stigmatization of it via the MSM……
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1413686
or the courts
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/29/arkansas-high-court-overturns-teacher-sex-law/
or the government…..
http://www.rense.com/general71/legal.htm
Alan,
“I won’t argue that homosexuality is disordered towards procreation. That does not make homosexual acts themselves disordered.”
Sexual organs have a very specific purpose…sexual reproduction. To use them in a way contrary to this purpose is disordered.
“Not all sexual acts are ordered towards procreation.”
See above.
“I believe that christians believe that the act needs to be finished in the vagina…”
Correct.
“…but does that mean that any other sexual act is still disordered?”
I assume you are asking if any form of genital stimulation (as foreplay) are ordered. I’m not sure if there is any explicit Catholic stance on this, but kissing and touching are ordered forms on affection, and I believe those can be extended to the genitals to a certain extent. Perhaps someone else has more information on that.
“If someone cannot have babies they are disordered, yet their sexual acts are not. Is this true?”
No, not exactly. They, the person, is not disordered; they have a disorder, infertility. Coitus between man and wife, in principal, is never disordered. Disorder of the organs does not translate to disorder of the act.
Hope that helps.
LJP
Yes the sexual organs are used for procreation.
“Coitus between man and wife, in principal, is never disordered. Disorder of the organs does not translate to disorder of the act.”
But if sexual organs are for procreation then any use of said organs for non procreational acts should be disordered.
But that would make any effort to not get pregnant disordered no? You are not using the organ for it’s intended purpose.
Because it would ultimately using the organs for reasons other then they were created, even if open to life.
Alan,
I don’t think of it as “any act not ordered towards procreation being disordered”, but more as the sexual interest in persons with whom one cannot possibly reproduce as being odd. Now, being attracted to a sterile woman would also be odd, but presumably, from outward appearances, sterile women are impossible to visibly detect. Therefore, a man who was sexually attracted to a sterile, yet typically female-looking woman would not have an odd attraction. Remember the movie Harold and Maude? That movie made people squirm for a very good reason. We have an innate aversion to young males wanting to copulate with post menopausal women. (I realize the movie was about more than that) but you get the point. The fact that male primary and secondary sex characteristics would arouse sexual desire in an adult male is very curious to me. Same thing about anyone being sexually aroused by a pre-pubescent (sterile) child.
Can you see where my thoughts are? (This says nothing of brotherly love, or even romantic love or attachment between any persons).
Sorry Alan, “Name” was me…lazy today.
AMC,
“You do know that the Dutch were well known for killing babies after they were born. The guidelines to “stop” this were put in place after the rest of the world had outrage at this practice. In fact it got so blase that they even televised a euthanasia…..”
Maybe you should apply for a job on Santorum’s election campaign team. Compared to what you’re saying his statements about Dutch euthanasia laws are not even that stupid.
“Just a question – WHO determines whether or not a sexual act is disordered? The majority? It starts with the de-stigmatization of it via the MSM……”
In case of homosexuality the APA issued a nation wide communique, ordering all it’s members to stop treating homosexuality as a disease since there was no evidence it was nor had there ever been. The decision to treat homosexuality in the first place was a political one, not a medical. Three years later the WHO issued a new version of the DSM-classification for psychiatric illness in which homosexuality was removed as either a disease or a distortion. All psychiatrists and psychologists who are a member of a by the WHO approved union (like the APA, AMA or, in my case, the ISTH and the NVALT) are ordered to practice their profession by the DSM-classification or will be banned as a health care professional.
Now, pedophilia is quite something different, not in the least because sexual contact between children (especially pre-teens) and adults cause damage to the child, both physically and emotionally. No other sexual conduct has that problem (except for rape) and, as such, no other sexual conduct is considered an illness.
The link you found indeed tells about a political party which wanted to legalize pedophilia. What the article doesn’t say is that the party was dismantled in 2006, it never even entered the elections and two of it’s members were convicted of child pornography when they tried to register as members of a political party.
LJP,
“Sexual organs have a very specific purpose…sexual reproduction. To use them in a way contrary to this purpose is disordered.”
So oral sex, so enjoyed by pretty much all men and a lot of women, is distorded?
“They, the person, is not disordered; they have a disorder, infertility.”
So every woman above the age of forty has a disorder? Well, that should increase the costs of health care.
Alan and LJP,
“Perhaps someone else has more information on that.”
I like this: http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=297
Basically, if a husband and wife want to fully communicate body and soul, they don’t put plugs in their ears or gloves on their hands, etc. etc. Fr. Tad has some other great analogies.
Edward,
I would have to take issue with your comment that, “No other sexual conduct has that problem (except for rape) and, as such, no other sexual conduct is considered an illness.”
I am not a psychologist, but it seems to be that lots of types of fetishes, sex outside of committed relationships and some homosexual behaviors do indeed cause physical and psychological harm to the participants.
Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/apr/21/gayrights.comment This guy is gay and quotes lots of stats about the physical and emotional issues with an active homosexual lifestyle. Look at the syphilis rates alone.
Mary,
Are you now or have you ever been physically attracted to a female. And If you don’t feel attraction for the same sex then of course you might find it odd.
I mean physically attracted (ie wanting to have sex with them?)
If you don’t feel attraction for the same sex then of course you might find it odd.
I think it is important to realize that one is generally attracted to someone because they are fertile (as I believe that is an animalistic trait that humans do not have), because you can’t tell by looking. So we are attracted to what I call the candy coating.
I have never heard anyone say of someone they find attractive “man they look fertile”.
Do you find it odd when a beautiful woman falls for an unattractive man? Do you find it odd when a skinny guy falls for a chubby girl? There is so much about attraction that is not understood. So for me rather than try to figure out why we are attracted to whom we are I just go with it. I know why I am attracted to my hubby. You probably wouldn’t even look twice at him when he walked down the street, but to me he is the most adorable guy around. And then getting to know him was the chocolate center on his candy coating.
So I ask you this, how does my attraction to men affect you at all?
“I am not a psychologist, but it seems to be that lots of types of fetishes, sex outside of committed relationships and some homosexual behaviors do indeed cause physical and psychological harm to the participants.”
But in this gay men and women don’t differ from straight ones. There are also sex clubs for straight people (more than for gay ones, actually) and straight people cheat on their partners just as much (if not more) as gays do. And for straight couples the damage is far greater since they have the children to think about.
I personally know a woman who loves having sex with her husband in the morgue of our hospital. I think she’s nuts and her husband too but they love doing it. Whether it’s the idea of doing something so associated with life in a place where death rules or just the idea of getting caught (and losing her job in the process) I don’t know. All I know they do it while I think their behavior is quite dangerous.
And yes, there are men who are sleeping around without using condoms, catching all STD’s imaginable. There are even gays actively looking for “The Gift” (intentionally infecting / getting infected with HIV). If you call them insane I can only agree with you. But still, they don’t hurt anyone. They take their risks willingly and concensually, even those in the “The Gift” scene. The Dutch courts have stated they cannot stop people doing things like this as long as it is consensual. The president of the court added: “No matter how much this sickens me”. I agree with him but it’s their lives and they can do with it whatever they please.
Pedophilia, however, hurts others. Young children who cannot give their consent, can’t comprehend what they give their consent for or who do not have the emotional age yet to give their consent. Their youth and innocense is being taken from them, most of the time by force, leaving them broken and damaged for life, both physically and mentally. All because someone else’s needs and pleasure. That’s a big difference.
When I was younger, before I met my husband, I was quite the wild type and I did several things I wouldn’t do again. On more than one occasion I was high on drugs, liquor, hormones or all of the above, ending up with someone I really didn’t want. Do you know the movie “Coyote Ugly” with Piper Perabo, Adam Garcia and Maria Bello? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200550/)
It has a little dialogue in it:
“Girl: What does Coyote Ugly mean?”
“Lil: Did you ever wake up sober after a one night stand, and the person you’re next to is lying on your arm, and they’re so ugly, you’d rather chew off your arm then risk waking ‘em? That’s coyote ugly.”
That pretty much sums up more than one morning in my life. Did I damage myself? Let’s say I did some things my body sent me some reminders of during the days afterwards. Did I take risks? At that time I didn;t think I did but now when I look back I sometimes think I had more luck than brains in those days. Right now I try to keep my 16 yo cousin from making the same mistakes I did but at the same time I know I won’t be able to stop him. I told him my stories (made both of us redder than humanly possible) and I tried to warn him to stay away from certain clubs, baths and other places. But if he wants to go he’ll go. At least he knows his old cousin will be there to help him pick up the pieces, which is more than I had. I wasn’t out back then and if the sh*t would have hit the fan I would’ve been alone to clean up the mess.
Alan,
“I have never heard anyone say of someone they find attractive “man they look fertile”.”
I have, but most of the time that refered to a double-D cup size
Alan: “But that would make any effort to not get pregnant disordered no?”
If willful effort is made to prevent the natural end of any marital act, then yes, that would be disordered.
Edward: “So oral sex, so enjoyed by pretty much all men and a lot of women, is disorded?”
Oral sex, as an end in itself, is disordered, yes. Oral stimulation as part of the marital act, that’s a little more nuanced. A couple must be careful that this does not offend the chastity within the marriage, namely that it does not denigrate into using one’s spouse purely for sexual pleasure or as an object of lust. I think it would be correct to say that, as part of an overall procreative act, oral stimulation is morally licit.
Edward: “They, the person, is not disordered; they have a disorder, infertility.”
So every woman above the age of forty has a disorder? Well, that should increase the costs of health care.
I’ll assume this is hyperbole since it obviously isn’t true, I’ll also assume you are referring to menopause, the natural cessation of menstruation, typically occurring between the ages of 45-50. Natural cessation, not a disorder.
LJP, so that would mean having sex during your assumed non fertile times (because so many here have mentioned that women should know their bodies to know when they can and cannot get pregnant, heck one even says nfp is the only contraception that works for her) is disordered. I mean it is a willful act to not get pregnant (which is the natural end of the marital act). Yeah there still is the possibility, but if you know your body that well then you known you are safe. So what you are saying is that sex should ONLY be for procreation or else it is disordered.
No need to discuss further. Attempting to not get pregnant but still having sex is a willful effort to prevent the natural end of the marital act. Spin all you want but you wont get me to see it any other way
Alan,
“…so that would mean having sex during your assumed non fertile times …is disordered. I mean it is a willful act to not get pregnant”
Does a woman will her natural fertility? Does a woman will her eggs to descend from her ovaries, or will them to stop? If so, then you’ve got a point.
“So what you are saying is that sex should ONLY be for procreation or else it is disordered.”
Yes, sex should ONLY be between husband and wife and every act ALWAYS ordered toward procreation.
You will not be convinced, understood. But maybe there is someone else who will be. Thanks for the discussion though, you really made me think more deeply about some things.
LJP, I enjoy these discussions as it does cause me to think.
But no a woman does not will avocation, but it still stands if she knows her body, she knows her fertile time, she knows when she will get pregnant and she willfully engages in baby making processes knowing she won’t make a baby.
Small but significant point to me.
I’m not very good at ending discussions as you may be able to tell
LJP,
“I’ll also assume you are referring to menopause, the natural cessation of menstruation, typically occurring between the ages of 45-50. Natural cessation, not a disorder.”
Haven’t you heard? The average age of women entering menopauze (medically defined as the age at which the menstrual cycle begins to slow down in order to cease completely) lies between 35 and 40 nowadays, with almost 80% completely post-menopauzal at the age of 42. So far there is no explanation for this but one of the theories is the age puberty sets in also becomes younger, with and average for girls at the age of 9-10. There are already cases available about girls being fully developed at the age of 12 with fully functional reproductive cycles.
But please enlighten me. If sex should only be aimed at reproduction all sexual activity should end as soon as a woman is post-menopauzal, right? After all, when the menstrual cycle has come to a stop only a fool would argue the sex is still aimed at procreation. So still having sexual relations with your wife after she can’t get pregnant anymore would, by your own definition, be disordered. Still, I don’t think you’ll find many married couples giving up on sex just because she can no longer conceive, religious or otherwise.
“You will not be convinced, understood. But maybe there is someone else who will be.”
This is the 21st century. No one outside your own circle will be convinced of any of this. Pretty much the only thing you are convincing other people (especially the young ones among them) is that you’re a relic, willing to live in the past, following rules that have been considered outdated for decades, if not centuries.
Edward,
No, I hadn’t heard, thank you for the information. What was the extent of the population used for this study? I wonder what could be contributing to earlier onset of puberty.
Again, the marital act must always be ordered towards procreation. Whatever natural, artificially unimpeded, biological machinations occur within individuals to either prevent or promote fertilization is irrelevant.
Ordered towards: Husband and wife, coitus, no willful attempts to frustrate natural end of act. Fin.
I believe we have exhausted this particular topic, any further discussion will likely create much more heat than light. I’m spent. Thanks for the mental exercise, though.
LJP,
“What was the extent of the population used for this study? I wonder what could be contributing to earlier onset of puberty.”
These numbers have been reported by the Dutch Bureau of Statistics, a government organisation that records numbers on pretty much any subject.
There are doctors working on it but they think iy’s part of the “Use it or lose it” system. Because girls are riper at a younger age their bodies respond to that but because the number of pregnancies after becoming fully fertile is kept to a minimum the body shots these energy demanding but hardly used systems down. It’s the same for men: if a men denies his sexuality and does nothing with the complex hormones formed by the body the gonades stopped producing them, causing his sex drive to dissapear.
Oh, and just to be sure you understand: this is considered a medical disorder.
Edward, no LJP is not a relic living in the past. In my 30′s when I discovered the truths that the Catholic Church teaches about love and marriage, family and life, I realized that I had let secular culture lie to me for most of my adulthood. I tried the truths in my life and, guess what, I found them to be good, true and right. People discover these truths every day and lives are changed. Souls are redeemed.
Stacy,
“People discover these truths every day and lives are changed. Souls are redeemed.”
And even more people rejected those “truths” everyday or the Catholic church wouldn’t be shrinking. There are less Catholics in the world today than at anytime in history. The Catholic church sees it’s parishes all over the world get smaller and smaller to the point they have to combine several of them in order to make ends meet. The Catholic church is dying and they have only themselves to blame for it.
The Catholic church hasn’t evolved; it stands still. And a standing still means deterioration. That’s a universal truth. All of a sudden the Catholic church found itself a modern day Rip van Winkle, woken up in the 21st century while holding dear to values and truths of two millennia before, desperately wondering what happened to the world and it’s place in it. At that moment the Catholic church had two options: evolve and embrace the 21st century or remain living in the past. The Catholic church chose the latter and therefor loses more and more ground on a daily basis. Just take a look in the world.
Only 5 years ago it was unthinkable Italy would allow euthanasia. Now they passed a law doing just that.
10 years ago it would be impossible to get the Brasilian people to go against the church and now they voted to legalize same ssex marriages.
No more than 3 years ago Poland forbade all things gay related and now Poland has gay prides, registered unions for same sex couples and mandatory educational programs in school and for adults.
Catholics like you are fighting a lost fight. I know the Catholic church doesn’t plan years ahead but decades or even centuries but a long term plan is useless if you are defeated in the here and now. Catholics are losing influence right now and unless the Catholic church finds a way to turn things around it will simply cease to be. Not now and not tomorrow but sooner than anyone thinks. Writings from 2000 years ago just don’t have the same value now as they had some years ago.
Edward,
“There are less Catholics in the world today than at anytime in history.”
This statement is simply nonsense. At over 1 billion people, I’m certain the current Catholic population far exceeds total world populations for a large span of history.
Perhaps the Church is shrinking in much of the “post-Christian” world, but that certainly isn’t the case in Africa, Asia, and South America. Even if the Catholic Church were shrinking worldwide, that would be irrelevant. The fundamentals of human nature has not, does not, and will not change. People love, people hate; people help, people hinder; people lie, steal, cheat, and kill…always have, always will. But there is hope for us, every last one of us, the path has been prepared. Truth is unchanging, as is the human person, and that is beautiful.
Peace, Edward.
LJP,
I see you caught that. THANK YOU.
Edward,
I let a lot of things go that you say because it’s not worth arguing over and most of the time I’m just interested in trying to understand how you think. But this…
“There are less Catholics in the world today than at anytime in history.”
Yes, nonsense. Patently false.
LJP is right too, the Church is growing in other parts of the world. The Church is vibrant in the US. Yes it is shrinking in Europe, but look at what Europe is becoming!!! Honestly, Edward, the Netherlands you describe sounds like hell on earth. I would not want to live in the society you have described.
LJP and Stacy,
Really? The Catholic church is losing influence in Latin-America, the only place in the world where Catholicism was never questioned before. In Brasil, the largest Catholic country in the world the people went en mass against the Catholic church by allowing same sex marriage against orders from the local clergy. In Argentina the first non-Catholic president is ruling the country. In Columbia the Catholic church has lost from the FARC rebels years ago and in Peru Catholicism never really took hold.
In Africa there’s been a standstill between Catholicism and Islam for decades, causing people to turn away from both and rejoining the old religions. At least, those that aren’t forced to convert to Islam or die resisting.
In Europe you yourself already admitted is the Catholic church shrinking by the hour.
In Asia Catholicism is barely noticable. In India there are only a handful and most of them are European descendants. They are left alone as long as they keep themselves to the Hindu rules since Hinduism is still the largest religion in India, followed by Islam. In China the only form of Catholicism is the one the Chinese government allows, which has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. Indonesia is the largest muslim country in the world and a lot of other Asian countries are either muslim, communist or too busy to survive to be bothered one way of the other. After spending several weeks in Japan I didn’t see a single church on the entire island and according to the people at the hotel the only churches found are those in the larger cities like Tokyo, Kyoto and Osaka.
So that leaves North-America and we all know Catholicism never was the dominant religion in North-America.
Stacy,
“the Netherlands you describe sounds like hell on earth. I would not want to live in the society you have described.”
That’s ok. I don’t think you’d be able to find your way here, just like I wouldn’t want to live in a country where mad men like Romney or Santorum actually have a shot at the presidency. Should these men be elected the US will face a lot of opposition from the rest of the world.
Alan asked, “Are you now or have you ever been physically attracted to a female. And If you don’t feel attraction for the same sex then of course you might find it odd.”
NO, but I have been, ah…er…well, “interested” by a movie scene or two that involved a beautiful woman and a man that was rather steamy, and wondered about the mechanism of how that works visually for me. Two men would not have that effect, but the visual of the woman seems to have some effect, but I think it is because it is in the context of a love scene with a male. I think some studies have borne this out, that female erotic interest is more fluid, while for males it always follows orientation along hard lines. This says nothing about morality and the sinfulness of not controlling corporal desires.
I really cannot understand how a male could be sexually attracted to another male, but I can understand how one might be romantically infatuated with one I guess.
You said, “I have never heard anyone say of someone they find attractive “man they look fertile”.”
Now we are really getting somewhere. I have taught high school, and let me tell you that, from the vantage point of the instructor, the game of the birds and the bees is so intense and charged and ubiquitous that it fully “hits you over the head” with its pervasiveness and obviousness. I would wager a guess that I could do very well if assigned the task of guessing when female students are ovulating. They dress differently, act differently and probably even smell differently. They hold their necks at a different angle and all that. Males at that age react to a provocatively-dressed girl who flirts in predictable ways. They verbally or physically spar with one another for access to her. It is pretty much useless to try to teach them sometimes! They are literally driven mad. I can imagine being a person with SSA sitting in the midst of this would feel totally confused and left out. I feel for them.
Fast-forward to my age, and see men in their late thirties and forties react when one of them brings a much younger date to the dinner party. The males fidget and their voices get louder and even deeper. I noticed this about my own husband. They face her and stand up straighter. She is not even that stunning, just young (fertile). They don’t even know they are doing it. That is why anyone could have predicted the demise of poor Demi and Ashton. Men’s bodies are always always looking to make babies, even if they don’t “want” to make babies. For women it is more complex. They are looking to make a baby, but they are also looking for power, stability, protection. It is not PC to say that, but if you watch a high school class it is raging right in front of you.
Why don’t all females go for the Mad Max, super dominant types? I think it is because they have learned (through evolution) that those characteristics, driven by high testosterone, sometimes lead to too much violence, abuse, hot-hotheadedness and danger. That is why women can be interested in a wide range of male types. Men are interested in fertile women…period. They can have friendship and loyalty and love for a women who is not fertile, but I think it is pretty hard for them to be sexually interested in a woman who is past her child bearing years and has the obvious physical signs of it. Why else the crushing emphasis in the beauty industry for women to “look younger”? Are there elderly couples where the man stays with the woman? Yes., but I think their relationship changes into more of a platonic/romantic friendship that is comforting. Loyalty, and hopefully a reduced libido help this along. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what I see all around me. I just don’t believe the stories that men and women in their seventies are enjoying wild, crazy sex lives three times per week.
Name was Mary again…what is wrong with me? Sorry!
I wish it were easier to comment – sorry Mary. Try http://www.gravatar.com to get an account, all you need is an email address. That’ll get rid of the little monster avatar too!
Alan said, “So I ask you this, how does my attraction to men affect you at all?”
I’m not sure it does. I would restate that I (was raised Catholic, sometimes go to Mass, but now attend a Lutheran Church) find it very hard to feel moral about telling a gay couple that their love for one another is disordered. In the realm of “sins to focus on” I find it way way down on the list, if even on the list at all. But it would be disingenuous of me to tell you that I think same sex attraction is somehow “normal”, for many of the reasons I discussed above. (I feel bad using the word “normal” as i really don’t want to make you feel bad…but I mean it in a biologically normative way…I am a biologist).
One way that male homosexuality would affect me, is that from my experience (and I lived in San Francisco for a while) the gay male culture celebrates sexuality and promiscuity. Now this might be a subset of gay male culture to be sure, but it does drive the culture of San Fran. This, coupled with the power of the Pill and the Internet and the horrible, terrible invention called “No Fault Divorce”, has the effect of weakening the family.
Dan Savage started talking about “Monogamish” a while back, now many of the heterosexual couples I know are talking about it and flirting with the idea. Yeah men have been cheating on their wives for thousands of years, but they weren’t sanctioning it as moral. It was always a breach of the higher standard. Just because the standard is hard, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a standard. I feel like gay male culture seems to say, “life is better without this standard because the standard is to hard to live by.”
Mary,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comments about high school students and fertility. You hit the nail right on the head. Actually I enjoyed both of your comments.
You are so right, and thank you for not mincing words!
What you said about men being attracted to fertility would also explain why it’s so abnormal for men to be attracted to little girls too. Or even nursing mothers.
Alan,
I would say that your comments to LPJ regarding only having sexual intercourse during known infertile periods as being morally the same as having sexual intercourse and using contraception strike a chord with me. To me, the use of a barrier method WITHIN a marriage is really the same. I see the Pill as being very different though.
Mary,
“I would wager a guess that I could do very well if assigned the task of guessing when female students are ovulating. They dress differently, act differently and probably even smell differently. They hold their necks at a different angle and all that. Males at that age react to a provocatively-dressed girl who flirts in predictable ways. They verbally or physically spar with one another for access to her. It is pretty much useless to try to teach them sometimes! They are literally driven mad.”
Interesting. You describe the exact same courtship mechanisms as female birds and other female animals show during mating season and the reaction of the male of the species to that behavior. You even state they cannot be taught anything in those situations.
So clearly you must agree with me than humans are nothing more than animals and we revert to our primitive state in no time at all.
“One way that male homosexuality would affect me, is that from my experience (and I lived in San Francisco for a while) the gay male culture celebrates sexuality and promiscuity.”
That still wouldn’t affect you. You’re neither asked nor forced to participate. Yes, you can see it and I can imagine that’s annoying enough. I don’t want my daughter to go and see stuff like that either. Not because I think it’s a bad thing but because it’s something she’s not ready for. It’s the same with Stacy’s earlier blog “Can’t even go safely to the park”: if you don’t want to see it, don’t look.
“I feel like gay male culture seems to say, “life is better without this standard because the standard is to hard to live by.””
No, that’s not the reason. At least, not the whole reason. During the 60′s, after the Stonewall riots, the gay community started to resist the rest of society. Something like: “Fine! If you don’t want anything to do with us we don’t want anything to do with you”. Not unlike the Black Power movements from the 1960′s and 1970′s. With the rejection of the entire (straight) community the gay community also rejected all of the morals coming from society, including monogamy. Even though the gay community grew up a lot since the 1960′s (not in the least because of the AIDS epidemic) there are still a lot of gay men who refuse to live by the moral code set by a society dominated by straights. They still feel rejected (and most of them are) and still lash out. They still think because they are treated different they have the right to behave differently. Some might say it’s a bit childish but in fact it’s perfectly understandable. After all, why confirm to the morals from a society that denies you your basic human rights like marriage?
I can’t help but find a tremendous amount of gender bias here. Women are good, men bad. Sure you will never say so directly, but it is there.
Sure men have cheated on their wives for thousand of years. Hey guess what, women cheat to.
And use the word normal, I don’t care it doesnt bother me. I wont argue homosexuality is the norm, but that is completely different than disordered. If one views the norm as a majority, then yup it is abnormal.
I will also attempt to explain why one man may be attracted to another. You as a female are of course attracted to men right? Well then if you stop and think you should be able to see what we see. You are over thinking it because you want to. Maybe not intentionally, but I think it is there.
I wont argue with your fertility arguement, I see it differently, but not really worth arguing with.
Five seconds here… and I will respond to other points later. Thanks for your nicely-worded comments everyone.
Hi Alan. I really like men, and have a wonderful husband and do not think men are terrible. Women have many vices (envy, pride, wrath) that are horrid. And, although many fall victim to lust as well, I would ask you one question: “Why is it that men (throughout all of history and today) overwhelmingly are the ones who pay for sex (porn included) and women don’t?” Why don’t you see hordes of female politicians losing their careers a la ‘Arnold’ or Gary Hart, or Weiner, or Paterson?”
Sorry…I guess that was two questions.
Mary
This is quite the read (article AND comments).
I’m still trying to see ideas of how we can keep our religion from our politics as a society. Unfortunately birth control/abortion is the big topic these days.
As I see it, homosexuality and gay marriage is much less a hot topic, as it really affects no one monetarily like HHS mandate does in regards to birth control/abortion.
I find catholics to be VERY outspoken in their beliefs. They find abortion to be murder, and also believe that god’s word/declaration is the ultimate law. I am fine with this, however, if they/you/catholics feel this way why not let god had down judgement? If people believe in a god that ultimately control the world why not let him do his thing, let the non believers do their thing, and everything will be sorted out in the end? The most infuriating thing for me is to see the hypocrisy that “god will judge you but I’ll tell you how to live in the meantime”
Either way, I’ll commend all commenters here on the relative civility of this discourse. I personally can not always be so civil
Reasonable Gentleman (nice name!),
It all changed for me when I realized that I was personally responsible for the world I leave behind to my children.
You’re right though, it seems we could leave each to his own, and I think a lot of people try that. I did for a while. It’s just that humans are social animals and we really can’t live in societies where everyone can do whatever he or she wants to do. So we try to put into words what is right and just, feebly, but we try. We have to.
I understand wanting to leave your children something positive.
We are social and all have an effect on each other. However, how does abortion and gay marriage really effect your children? I can tell you are quite educate, articulate, and therefore will pass that onto your kids. They will likely not grow up gay, or having abortions. They may even by abstinent until marriage. If this is the case they will grow into adults that you are proud of. The people that did not grow up that way will be judged by god.
Therefore, why is all of this such a concern with people? You still have the ability to raise your kids as you see fit, and people can still engage in abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. I fail to see why people differing in these views can’t live in harmony. Don’t like abortions? Dont have one. Don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one, find condoms to be offensive? Don’t use them…..
I am still trying to see why people that think god is the ultimate judge/jury/executioner take it upon themselves to do his work.
Mary,
Interesting question. Are men the ones who pay for sex more? And who are they paying?
Two part answer on the second question. Who did they cheat with? (hint, most cheated with women). What is the percent of women in politics to men. What has the historical percentage of women to men?
I don’t think you hate men by any stretch of the imagination. It’s just there are alot here that point out how men behave while leading one to believe that women are so virtious. Is that because most commentators are women? But please read back and tell me you see the tremendous gender differences.
Stacy,
Maybe you should focus on leaving your children in a world where we all love and appreciate the differences in each other. Teach your children what you view as right, but show them that others see differently. I might get your fight on abortion, but really your fight against gay marriage I just don’t get. People willing to commit themselves to each other should always be a good thing.
Reasonable Gentleman, thank you but I have one issue with what you said. Stacy’s child could indeed grow up to be gay. I would feel horrible for that child because they would never be able to appreciate who they were. This is not meant as an insult to Stacy, but rather just a sad reality of life. Gay kids need family support.
Reasonable Gentleman,
“…how does abortion and gay marriage really effect your children?”
To whatever extent it affects societal standards, it affects all of us. My trigger was education.
“If this is the case they will grow into adults that you are proud of.”
I’ll love them no matter what. But have you ever heard of peer pressure?
“You still have the ability to raise your kids as you see fit, and people can still engage in abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. I fail to see why people differing in these views can’t live in harmony. Don’t like abortions? Dont have one. Don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one, find condoms to be offensive? Don’t use them….”
Does that mean you don’t think we should be forced to participate in those things against our conscience then?
“I am still trying to see why people that think god is the ultimate judge/jury/executioner take it upon themselves to do his work.”
Hmm? Not following. Could you give examples of what you mean?
Alan,
Thanks for the parenting advice, man, but we’re good!
Stacy,
Actually you keep telling me that there is no law that will make you recognize gay marriage, so you saying “To whatever extent it affects societal standards, it affects all of us. My trigger was education.” really means nothing. You refuse to let it affect you, so why worry about it?
And don’t you home school? Education taken care of.
And I don’t think it was parenting advice, but whatevs. Give me a call if you have a gay child. We will see just how good things are then.
RG said “They will likely not grow up gay, or having abortions”. Lots to say, but I grew up Catholic (not a perfect family, but a loving one) and even though I was taught it was a mortal sin, and believed it to be a terrible thing to do, I stood by and DID NOT TRY TO STOP OR HELP three people close to me who called to talk about their decision to have an abortion. For all three it was a terrible, horrible mistake (as if it could ever not be). I felt like, “Well, I would not do it, but it is OK for them…it is legal and all. I don’t want to upset them etc.” In one case, it was the only baby she would ever carry (got ovarian cancer early, and is barren), another is haunted 15 years later and spends money on counseling for it, the other really wasted many years of her life etc. etc. I deeply regret my inaction and cowardice. The legality of abortion allowed me to fool my conscience into thinking it was “no big deal”.
RG – “Don’t like abortions? Dont have one…”
To me, this is exactly the same as saying any of the following:
“Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave.”
“Don’t like child abuse? Don’t abuse a child.”
“Don’t like domestic violence? Don’t abuse your spouse.”
And so on.
Alan said, “People willing to commit themselves to each other should always be a good thing.” I agree with this Alan, and it is one reason I have trouble pushing back on gay marriage. But does “commit themselves” mean the same thing to two gay men as it does to a woman and a man getting married? It seems to me that it does not mean monogamy, children etc. I know it CAN, but from my personal, direct experience of living in San Fran and knowing some other active gay men it does not much of the time.
Now, Edward had some good points about the gay male identity still being in a reactive, rebellious state against social norms, and that this is the cause of what we see…but it should settle out, and gay sexual behavior and social behavior should eventually trend towards monogamous, settled relationships, akin to the heterosexual ideal (fully aware of the dismal divorce stats for heterosexuals!!!).
I really have to think more about this and see the research. Edward got me thinking.
(About gays having their own children: I should qualify that I am against In-vitro where extra embryos are created and discarded and where there are donor sperm or eggs…this applies to all heterosexual unions as well. I feel it is morally wrong to intentionally create a child that will not know its mother or father. The key word being “intentionally”. Many children are orphans and need to be adopted, and this is a good thing designed to help a wrong that occurred, but all children yearn to know their roots and we are now creating a whole generation of children who are intentionally deprived of this natural and normal situation.
I realize this a very hard thing to believe…I have friends who have done this and they do not really know how I feel, but if they asked me directly, I think I would, in good conscious, have to tell them I think it is wrong on some level. It would be very painful. I’m not sure I could do it.
In fact, I am going to a get-together soon, where one of the men told me nonchalantly that he wished to have more kids, but his wife would not oblige, so he was satisfied to know that he had sold his sperm throughout college and grad school, and now there were probably hundreds of his children running around the earth. I was totally horrified that someone would not care in the least that they would never be there to love and care for their own offspring. The need for a woman to birth her very own baby is a deep need, but it is a selfish one. In my opinion, that child has a right to know and love his biological father and mother if they are alive and able.
RG I second JoAnna on this one.
And Alan, I want to be frank (and you are a very courteous person with whom to dialogue and you are a good sport), but I find it totally, absolutely odd that a homosexual man would want to have his own child but find the act of creating that child repulsive (with a woman). How could that be? Sex evolved to propagate your genes (and reshuffle them along with someone elses…the reason we don’t multiply by binary fission or budding). Now, I realize why a gay man would want to have the experience of nurturing and teaching and caring for a child, but how in the world could his erotic desire have evolved if it works directly against the goal of sexually reproducing his genes? It is a total conundrum…completely puzzling to me.
Now,…I think gay women are different…because I think their homosexuality probably evolved in the cauldron of evolution framed by polygamous marital arrangements. They also had very little power and say in who they coupled with, so erotic attachments could crop up without being selected against. Also, everything i have ever read about gay women indicates that they are really more bisexual than anything and many of them are gay by choice (bad experience with a guy). This says nothing of the morality of the behavior, but it seems to explain to me how it might have evolved.
Blah..Name is Mary again…goin’ to bed! Goodnight!
I let loose with a lot of points in my last comment. So for brevity’s sake I’ll narrow it down.
“Don’t Like Gay Marriage? Don’t Have one”
This is not akin to spousal abuse, or owning slaves. Gay marriage does not infringe upon anyone’s enjoyment of life as slavery or assault does. I am not gay, and don’t really understand why sexual and romantic intimacy with another man is alluring to other men. However, it’s their business, not mine. Being gay and being married is not a threat to society. Just because 2 gay people can marry does not mean there will be more hay people, there will be more gay marriages, but that’s it. For what it’s worth I have 2 gay friends that have a kid, this kid is brilliant, like girls, is smart, articulate, a great athlete, etc…. He’s more loving and compassionate than many of my other friends kids in the local Catholic school. Another friend grew up with 2 lesbians as parents, guess what- again a very grounded gal, and she likes men…..
And for Stacy:
“Does that mean you don’t think we should be forced to participate in those things against our conscience then?
“I am still trying to see why people that think god is the ultimate judge/jury/executioner take it upon themselves to do his work.”
I don’t think you need to be forced into a gay marriage, or even forced to like it. What you need to do is accept it as someone’s choice and leave it at that. You can even make snide comments and condescending remarks, but ultimately it doesn’t affect you so let it be.
As for the judge/jury/executioner comment. I mean just that. You are a christian, you answer to god. God asked you to live morally and by his laws. Never did he say you had to force others to do the same. According to the bible you will be judged upon death by god. So will the sinners. Let them face their choices and you face yours. Fighting against the ‘sinners’ will not gain you points with the big guy.
Mary,
” But does “commit themselves” mean the same thing to two gay men as it does to a woman and a man getting married? It seems to me that it does not mean monogamy, children etc. I know it CAN, but from my personal, direct experience of living in San Fran and knowing some other active gay men it does not much of the time.”
I doubt most of the men you saw back in SF were interested in committing themselves to one another. All the gay men I know who are in a committed relationship are monogamous and some of them have children. So yes, it is exactly the same between gay men / women and straight couples when a committed relationship is concerned.
“and gay sexual behavior and social behavior should eventually trend towards monogamous, settled relationships,”
I doubt that will ever happen as long as gays do not have the exact same rights as straight couples. No matter how you want to look at it, there are still factions in both society as in politics willing to keep the gay community seperate from the straights, denying them certain rights under the law. If “mainstream” society keeps setting the gay community apart the gay community has no reason to settle down. After all, their relationships aren’t considered equal under the law so why pretend they are?
“In my opinion, that child has a right to know and love his biological father and mother if they are alive and able.”
How about willing?
And, in some cases, not knowing your parents can be preferable. Sometimes knowing your parents can cause quite an identity crisis in children.
When talking about “finding sex with a woman repulsive” I can only speak for myself. Yes, I don’t think sex with a woman as something to be desired. Far from it, actually. Unlike most gay men I know I have been with women in the past but it just never really worked sexually. Women don’t arouse me and I needed direct stimulation to get somewhat of an erection. As soon as intercourse commenced I would lose most of my erection, resulting in something that was not really pleasurable for either of us. With men I never had that problem.
So I’m not grossed out by thinking of sex with a woman; it just doesn’t do anything to me physically.
The desire to have children of your own while not wanting / being able to sleep with a woman has absolutely nothing to do with each other.
JoAnna,
All the examples you give are not only morally wrong but also felonies. Having an abortion is perfectly legal. So your examples mean very little.
Stacy,
“It’s just that humans are social animals and we really can’t live in societies where everyone can do whatever he or she wants to do. So we try to put into words what is right and just,”
That’s why we have laws. And most countries, like the US and the Netherlands, have decided religion should not play a role in the laws of the land.
Unless you want to live in a country like Saoudi-Arabia or Iran I guess there’s very little you can do about it. Like I said countless of times, people won’t give up their rights simply because you think they should. Enjoy your rights as they do theirs and if you don’t like the way other people live, just don’t look.
Alan,
“You refuse to let it affect you, so why worry about it?”
The former necessitates the latter.
Our kids are not homeschooled, but even so we take primary responsibility for their education.
Mary and JoAnna,
Thank you! I second/third what both of you said. Mary, regarding being uncomfortable talking about IVF, I’ve been there too.
Edward,
“That’s why we have laws. And most countries, like the US and the Netherlands, have decided religion should not play a role in the laws of the land.”
In the US we do not have freedom from religion, we have freedom “of” religion, and the state is not supposed to interfere with that.
Mary,
How many times do you assume your heterosexual friends are monongamous just because they are married? Have you asked them? If you have and they say yes do you believe them? Why on earth would someone tell you they were cheating on a spouse? All of my friends know if they are cheating not to tell me as I will inform their spouse. Does that give you a little tease about my view on marriage and monogamy?
My husband called me a republican the other day because many of my thoughts fall more into republican territory.
So yes many gay marriages are monogamous, and many are not. Guess what, many heterosexual marriages follow the same suit. And regardless of how anyone chooses to live their marriage it is none of our business.
I think you need to meet more lesbians. Not sure how you see it as more acceptable, but hey those are your opinions. But I can assure you most of the lesbians I know are indeed not bisexual and have not had bad experiences with men. Bear in mind it is easier for women to physically have sex with those to whom they are not attracted though.
I don’t find, nor would I teach my child (I have one god daughter whom I have helped to raise….guess what……she likes boys…..imagine that) that sex with the opposite sex is repulsive. Nor do I think it is. It just doesn’t do the same thing for me that a man does. I cannot change my attraction to men. I can choose not to act on them, but I deserve to be loved, and to love. So I really don’t care if you understand it or not, I am not asking you to. But because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it is wrong.
Joanna I don’t think slavery and abuse are exactly the same as abortion. I do differentiate between the born and the unborn, and as so find that your examples are greatly different. Just my opinion.
I did look at Reece’s rainbow. I think downs syndrome children are among the most perfect of children. All they want is love. Do you really think they would care that I was gay?
Stacy
As much as the state is not supposed to interfere with your freedom OF religion (which I am not really sure how it does) your freedom OF religion is not supposed to interefere with my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Alan,
Did you know that over 90% of Down’s Syndrome babies in the US are aborted, just for that reason? It is usually second term too, close to or after viability.
My freedom of religion doesn’t interfere with your rights Alan. It might interfere with what you think you are entitled to get, but entitlements are not rights.
Your idea of rights is asking other people to DO stuff for you. All Catholics are asking is to not be forced to do it when it violates our conscience.
Stacy, I did not know that. It is sad, but I still find it is the parents decision to do what they think is correct. Care to weigh in on whether or not they would care that I am gay?
Not going to argue rights versus entitlements. It would be like arguing that nfp isn’t contraception or natural law is not natural.
And you have no idea what my idea of rights are. And sorry, but catholics are not asking to not be forced to violate their conscience. If that was the case then you should have no issue with gay marrige. It forces nothing on you.
RG, I think the comparison I used was abortion. I didn’t mention gay marriage, but it’s still a valid analogy as I’ll elaborate more on below. However, I notice you chose to ignore the analogy in the context of abortion. Do you think it’s valid?
Alan, I doubt the orphans would really care where you choose to put your penis. They have more pressing concerns at the moment. However, they’ve already been deprived of a mother and father once; do you think it’s fair to deprive them of a mother and father again? I’d prefer that those orphans be given the best family they can get — which is a loving mother and father in a committed, lasting marriage that is ordered toward procreation and raising a stable family. Social statistics show that children do best in that environment.
I can’t believe you’d call children with down’s “perfect” and in the next breath say it’s perfectly okay for parents to kill children with down’s if they choose to do so.
Why do you differentiate between “born” and “unborn”? Why does the location of a child mean it’s all right to kill him/her? What magical properties does the birth canal possess that somehow bestows the right to life on an unborn child? I think my analogy is perfectly valid.
You claim that gay marriage forces “nothing” on us, but that’s patently false. Look at the example of Rose Belforti. Look at the laws recently passed in California, which require public schools and teachers in those schools to glorify active homosexuality above all else, and punishes those who object to that glorification. And finally, to see how redefining marriage harms society at large, I encourage you to read this series.
Joanna, if the orphans don’t care where I put my penis why should you? The rest is just your opinion. We all know there are studies that “prove” everything.
Also why can’t I say they are perfect and then state that the parents have the right to do what they think is best? It is not up to me to decide what those parents can or cannot handle. I am not them. Sorry, you can disbelieve all you want, but it is not likely you will get me to change my opinion on it.
Why do I differentiate is a very good question. I am not sure I can explain it to you in a way you will understand. And you don’t really want me to. You want me to explain so that you can then come down on me about how I am wrong, and maybe even try to be insulting. That being said, the magical property that the birth canal possesses is freedom. When the baby is born it is free of the mother, the mother free of it. That to me is what makes it a living human being. Anyone can now care for that child. That child now has rights as it is no longer dependent on one specific person. I don’t care if you agree or disagree, this is MY thoughth, MY opinion and MY belief.
As for Rose Belforti, she had a job to do and she didn’t do it. If her beliefs are so strong then she maybe should change jobs. A government job at that, a government that is for all citizens of the state. Even the gay ones who can now legally marry.
And for “glorification” can you please explain? I thought they had to teach gay history. Not sure how that glorifies anything.
And no, not going to read all those articles. One I don’t really have time and two, well that should just be blatantly obvious.
Now next time maybe we can do without the snide comments like them not caring where I put my penis? I think that was really kind of unnecessary. My husband and I would be in a tremendous situation to take one or more of those children as we have the finances and I could take the time to not work and devote full attention to them. Plus he is a doctor so medically they would get the best treatment due to him being respected and knowing a great many wonderful doctors. But sadly because one of us is missing lady parts you see us as ineffective at being to raise a child. Sad really.
Alan said, “Bear in mind it is easier for women to physically have sex with those to whom they are not attracted though. ” This is a very good point.
I didn’t mean to say lesbianism was more “acceptable”. I tried to put all morality aside. I was trying (not very well, sorry) to make you see how someone might understandably, from a biological point of view, not “get” male homosexuality, and see it more akin to forms of pedophilia (PLEASE>>>I AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT YOU…I realize it is a sore point, but try to intellectually think about it without emotion…kinda like when a man said to me many years ago, that women are worse at spatial tasks (on the whole) than men…I got all huffy, but it is a fact). Both are a sexual attraction to someone with whom you cannot actually have sex (you cannot reproduce your genes with). So it is strange. How did it arise? Again, worth considering.
It is considered deviant to be sexually attracted to your brother or your sister or your parent or a child because, in the first cases, sexual reproduction with those persons, though possible, has a high probability (due to consanguineous inbreeding issues) of producing “unfit”–in the biological sense– offspring. Copulating with a child or an animal of another species is absurd, as they cannot conceive, nor produce sperm (prepubescent children). It is a “waste” of energy from a biological perspective. This is why people develop all sorts of secondary sex characteristics (breasts, hair, hips, pheremones etc for girls, and a deep voice, strong jaw, facial hair, body hair and developed musculature) that give us clues that a person is now able to reproduce. These clues trigger sexual arousal.
Now, throughout history, these points have guided what people consider to be sexually deviant and a symptom of mental illness. Therefore, you can understand why homosexuality might make people scratch their head and pause.
Do we think it is moral for a thirty year old man to copulate with a sixteen-year old student? No. I would consider him to have moral, emotional maturity issues, and given our understanding of brain development, I would think the girl was not really able to give “consent”, but it is not sexually deviant for him to be attracted to her, and thus not the same thing at all as a person who is attracted to a five-year old. For the record, I think our country does a TERRIBLE job of distinguishing the two.
So two gay men, as I see it, is the opposite situation. They are adults and can absolutely give consent and all, but should I consider it sexually deviant? Why not?
I would end, by saying, that last night I lay awake and realize I did not (out of writing laziness) communicate to you how I deal with homosexuality in practice. My best friend’s brother is gay. I have known him since he was four and he is now 33. He is accepted happily by his family and all of us. He has had some wild years (and the diseases to prove it)…now he has a live-in partner (much, much younger) who is fun and nice, but still, the sister confides that they have a bit of a “monogamish” relationship.
I welcome these people to my home, I love them and I enjoy them. I try to encourage them to take care of themselves when they describe wild, alcohol infused clubbing. We don’t talk about if I “totally approve” of their relationship. The way I see it, is I am not really sure how to think about it…but I have reservations…so better to be kind and loving and all, and not worry too much about the other stuff. Better to focus on the wrath, greed, pride and envy that are consuming this world. Better to focus on child abuse, child neglect, loneliness, suffering, hunger. Better for me to focus on not being short with my mother, or being to harsh on my sister. Better to stop caring so much about my appearance. Better to work on my sloth….Better for me to stop regretting all the wasted years of my life and stop envying those women I see with six kids. Better to work on putting fear aside and finally take in a foster child (our current focus). Better to make myself more like Christ…an unattainable goal, but a lifetime project.
Alan,
You said, “That child now has rights as it is no longer dependent on one specific person.”
The thing is, that we have now pushed viability back to 28 weeks, and even just before 24 weeks in some cases! There is a little girl in my son’s class who was born at around 26 weeks and she is quite a force of nature! It is legal in this country to kill such babies up until birth if you jump through the right hoops…even healthy babies if the birth will hurt the “mental health” of the mother.
So those babies are not tied to one, “specific” person. A hosptital full of nurses can care for them. So, that messes up your definition. It is totally absurd to say it is morally good to work hard and put all the resources of our modern medical establishment into saving the little girl who is in my son’s class, and morally good to kill such a child at 26 weeks if the mother wants to. One is killing a person and the other is not? Personhood does not depend on “wantedness”.
A more reasonable argument is to say that killing an unborn person is akin to killing a born person for the reason of “defence”. This unborn person is going to “mess up your life” just like an attacker is going to “mess up (or end) your life”. You are defending yourself against this person. But…nobody seems to make that argument. Why not?
I will admit that I am not sure that a blastocyst at the week stage is a “person”, but since I have no way of knowing when it becomes a person, I err on the side of life. Seems safer morally.
And…to debunk all the reasons you (probably) and I (used to) defend a woman’s right to “choose”, read Bernard Nathanson’s amazing, book. He was one of the reasons Roe v. Wade came into being, and he died one of her harshest critics.
Best,
Mary
Alan, this is why I care. Don’t ask me questions if you refuse to read my answers.
“Also why can’t I say they are perfect and then state that the parents have the right to do what they think is best?”
You think it is good and positive when parents kill their perfect offspring? I tend to oppose it when people destroy things that I consider to be perfect.
“When the baby is born it is free of the mother, the mother free of it.”
So, you think it’s okay for a baby to be murdered if it’s out of the birth canal, as long as it’s still connected via the umbilical cord and the placenta hasn’t yet been delivered? If a newborn was smothered at that point, it’d be okay with you?
Am I correct in assuming that you oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and you believe Scott Peterson was perfectly justified in killing his unborn son, since he was not yet “free” of his mother?
“As for Rose Belforti, she had a job to do and she didn’t do it.”
Interesting. So you belief that if your boss asks you to do something that you believe is intrinsically immoral, you should do it anyway? By that logic, none of Kermit Gosnell’s employees should be held accountable for their crimes, since they were just doing their jobs. Right?
Rose Belforti did do her job – she made sure that the customers in question were able to obtain their certificate – and was punished anyway. Do you think that’s fair?
Alan, I don’t think teachers should be forced to put a specific group’s bias on history (and be punished if they don’t). Moreover, I prefer that my kids learn actual historical facts as opposed to biased, slanted propaganda and rhetoric. That’s why it is glorification – it’s saying, “this person has worth as a historical figure only because of his/her sexual proclivities.” I don’t think anyone’s sexual proclivities are germane to the historical record or the teaching of same.
Mary, it can be argued that the age of viability is even earlier, given that babies born at 21 weeks have survived.
Mary you seem to keep pressing that lesbianism is more acceptable, and I just don’t see it that way. By saying you could see how people would see it as so just seems silly to me. Just like guys who get all turned on for two girls getting it on but think two guys is gross. Sorry but that to me is absurd. Gay is gay. That simple. Like or understand one you should like or understand the other.
As far as pedophelia, to me it is not acceptable to relate it to homosexuality because it cannot lead to procreation. That to me just borders on ingorant thinking, and I don’t think you are ignorant. Are orthodox catholics the same as Al Queda?
When you say “a more reasonable argument” I know you mean that for your understanding, not mine. I have defined before what I think, and have done so again. I am not interested in defending my opinion. And I don’t need to read a book to debunk a womans right to choose. I think she has that right and it should not be taken away.
I appreciate the attempts though Mary, you bring interesting points to the table that others have not brought.
Alan,
Don’t you think your opinion should be based on facts?
“As for Rose Belforti, she had a job to do and she didn’t do it.”
Also please explain how Rose Marie Belforti did not do her job? She posted a sign that said ALL people wanting a marriage license had to schedule an appointment to do so. Only one woman came to her office and she told her she had to make an appointment. She had no clue whether the partner was a male or female.
Please explain how that is discriminatory?
“If her beliefs are so strong then she maybe should change jobs.”
Should this Texas judge quit then?
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-02-23/news/31093093_1_marriage-equality-marriage-ceremonies-gay-judge
Joanna,
I can indeed refuse to read anything I want to. If you want to answer a question then answer it. Don’t point me in another direction. When is the last time I pointed elsewhere with my answer?
I read the one page though. So which part is it that you care about?
I think you don’t seem to be reading my answers. I never said I thought it was good or positive that someone abort a baby. I merely have stated it should remain their right.
No you are not correct in assuming that.
I believe there is a difference between illegal and immoral. I don’t know if Kermit Gosnell (I have no idea who he is) commited crimes. If they did then the courts should decide their punishment.
Rose’s job was to give out marriage licenses. If she did not do it, she did not do the specifics of her job. The govenrment does not have religious beliefs, should you work for the government then you may have to leave your religious beliefs at the door. That being said I don’t think anyone should sue her because of this, but I understand why they did. Guess they think if they pay their taxes that pay for her to be employed they should get what they want. But I do think Rose needs to find a new job.
But you think that god should be present in school? Specifically your god and your religion? Isn’t that a bias? I don’t think that schools should have to teach gay history, unless it is relevant to the situation. Perhaps though many of these people have worth in the historical world not because of their sexual leanings but because they changed things? Not sure how that is glorifying? Is Harvey Milk not a historical figure? Mayor Moscone? Do we ignore them because they the situation that brought them to the public in a big way dealt with homosexuality?
what opinion are you referring to specifically Stacy. Lets start with that. Oh yeah also how are we defining facts?
I found this quote from Rose Belforti
“”New York law protects my right to hold both my job and my beliefs. I’m not supposed to have to leave my beliefs at the door at my government job. For me to participate in the same-sex marriage application process I don’t feel is right. God doesn’t want me to do this, so I can’t do what God doesn’t want me to do, just like I can’t steal, or any of the other things that God doesn’t want me to do.” – Rose Belforti, town clerk in Ledyard, New York.”
Are you really telling me that all this uproar was because she merely told a woman she needed an appointment?
And is part of the judges job to perform marriage ceremonies? If so then yes the judge should find a new job. But if that is not part of the job description, but rather something they can do if they chose to, then no, it is the judges decision who to marry.
Alan,
I’m referring to your “opinion” that a child has rights once it no longer depends on anyone else. All children depend on someone to take care of them. That’s a fact.
“Are you really telling me that all this uproar was because she merely told a woman she needed an appointment?”
No, it is, but she didn’t start it. Now would you please answer the questions.
Please explain how Rose Marie Belforti did not do her job? She posted a sign that said ALL people wanting a marriage license had to schedule an appointment to do so. Only one woman came to her office and she told her she had to make an appointment. She had no clue whether the partner was a male or female.
Please explain how that is discriminatory?
“And is part of the judges job to perform marriage ceremonies?”
Yes.
Stacy, what facts are you looking for? There are no facts in whether abortion should be allowed or not. So I wont argue facts with you. And yes all babies are dependent, but if you would look to what I wrote you would see that I said “no longer dependent on one specific person”. The specific person to me is all the difference in the world. So that is where I draw my line.
I am still confused. Did or did not Rose refuse to sign a marriage license for two women?
No requiring all to have an appointment is not discriminatory. Yes refusing to sign a marriage license for a gay or lesbian couple is discriminatory.
Now you tell me, is the quote I provided wrong? Did she or did she not refuse to sign for this couple, or any gay couple, a marriage license?
Yes, if part of the judges job is to marry all who ask, then yes she should resign.
“So I wont argue facts with you.”
Got it.
Why is one specific person all the difference in the world? If it were your elderly mother who had no one to depend on but you, would it be OK to abort her? Yikes.
“Did or did not Rose refuse to sign a marriage license for two women?”
She did not. She told ONE woman at the counter that she needed to make an appointment as the rule is for anyone else, and she did not know who the partner was at all. It could have been a man for all she knew.
She had previously made it known that she could not sign the license in good conscience for homosexual couples when the law changed the duties of her job, and so she arranged within the boundaries of her duties for ALL couples to make an appointment for the next day so another appointed person could sign. Everybody’s happy. (or should have been)
Those two ladies don’t even reside in NY, it was a vacation home. They live in FL. The vacation home wasn’t even in the town where Rose Marie lived. They heard about her arrangement, sent one lady alone, and then sued her for not signing right there on the spot.
It’s stuff like this that make people like me doubt that all same-sex couples want is to be left alone. I know some do, but this is just dumb.
This is a retired couple in farmland just living a peaceful life, and a lawyer and film producer from NY go disturb a small town clerk. For what? It’s absolutely childish.
Regarding the judge in Texas, I don’t think she should resign. I think she should be accommodated within reason and that should be the end of it. There are no shortages of judges to civilly marry people. But notice — the difference in her and Rose Marie is that the TX judge did what she did FOR MEDIA ATTENTION. Rose Marie was just trying to live quietly in her community. The two adversarial women were the ones that made a hoopla out of it. And guess what? They didn’t even go get married, and all they had to do was go to the clerk in the town where their seasonal home was. Last I checked, they still hadn’t. Oh boy, true love huh?
Wow Stacy, guess you proved your point.
Few problems:
1. The town where Rose works does not require an appointment? If so, and Rose admits this freely, she will discriminate. Sorry, that is wrong. Time for a new job.
2. You love definitions. Look up abort. Can one really abort an elderly person?
3. My mother has been dead for just over 30 years (and no I didn’t abort her, but we did have a dnr order on her). Next example? However, as stated an embryo needs that SPECIFIC person. An elderly woman can be cared for by anyone. When my elderly father needs care that I cannot provide I will find him the right care. Should his quality of life lessen to a degree that he no longer wishes to be alive I will do what I can to LEGALLY help him.
4.She had previously made it known she would not sign licenses, her job. Sorry last I checked you refused to do your job you lost it.
5. I don’t know anything about these ladies. Perhaps they were just spoiling for a fight, who knows. Does that make it wrong? Not in my opinion, because Rose made it known she would discriminate.
6. I am glad you know the motives of a judge in Texas. But hey Rose made it known she would not sign same sex marriage licenses. I wonder why?
7. Yes maybe it is true love. Who are you to judge that based on this?
Regarding the Texas judge, the following article may help to clarify the issue: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Gay-Dallas-Judge-Wont-Perform-Marriages-140154903.html
Here’s a little clip from the link: “Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it.”
So I think there’s a feeling here that Rose should curtail her personal moral code for the sake of the collective.
May I transpose an argument and ask: what exactly are you personally being deprived of by letting Rose exercise her conscience?
Not “other people” but YOU. What is being deprived of YOU to allow this woman, Rose, freedom of conscience?
Alan said, “The specific person to me is all the difference in the world. So that is where I draw my line.” But you didn’t address my points about viability…or the absurdity that it is legal to terminate in the third trimester.
Aren’t you even the slightest bit curious about Dr. Nathanson?
Also…I thought I said repeatedly that I was not saying lesbianism was acceptable…just that one might explain how it arose given our polygynous past. I really think they are two separate animals. Why on earth should the mechanisms that cause a person to be a lesbian be the same as those that cause a person to be a homosexual male?
Also…I am not Orthodox Catholic…practicing Lutheran…but respect a lot about the Catholic Church.
MAry
Wow…I cannot even imagine the fortitude of trying to work on or treat a 22 week old baby. I am swooning just imagining the magnitude of the job those doctors are taking on. Wow…Just amazing!
Thanks JoAnna.
So again, the argument for abortion gets more absurd…a baby is a person and cannot be aborted at 24 weeks in Europe, where they have a good chance of survival outside the womb, but they are not a person and can be aborted in Malawi? Hard to figure.
Altitude also makes a large difference. A person at sea level (where viability is earlier) is not a person in Denver? Silly.
Mary, it seems so strange, but people determine what a ‘person’ is from a crude prototype of ‘person.’ For most of us, we mistake ‘person’ for ‘personality’ but this is a grave mistake. A person can be very quiet, & keep to themselves. But can still be a person. But for the common man, the blowhard, a person is a lively individual with a recognizable demeanor.
Humans make snap judgments from crude prototypes. And from these snap judgments they make bad law. So we kill people who don’t look like our drinking buddy because we can’t imagine they’re a ‘person’. What, a bundle of cells? Not like my drinking buddy. Therefore not a person.
God have mercy on us and our intellectual depravity.
Stacy,
“In the US we do not have freedom from religion, we have freedom “of” religion, and the state is not supposed to interfere with that.”
The freedom of religion IS the freedom from religion. That right grants you the freedom to believe in a god like Catholics see him while it also grants me the right to believe whatever I believe in, namely that there is no such thing as a (benevolent) god. Just like the state isn’t supposed to interfere with your right it’s also not supposed to interfere with my beliefs.
Jeff,
“So I think there’s a feeling here that Rose should curtail her personal moral code for the sake of the collective.
May I transpose an argument and ask: what exactly are you personally being deprived of by letting Rose exercise her conscience?
Not “other people” but YOU. What is being deprived of YOU to allow this woman, Rose, freedom of conscience?”
Let’s turn that around. What exactly are you, personally, being depreived of by forcing Rose to do her job? Not “other people”, not Rose, but YOU?
If you can answer that question you also know the answer to your question.
So Mary, you are saying that marrying folks is not part of the judges job, Stacy says it is. If it is not a specific job duty then she is allowed to say no to all until gay marriage is ok.
I will say that my beliefe is that once the changes are greater for survival outside the host body is when abortions should be stopped. Thats all I feel the need to say.
You write “Why on earth should the mechanisms that cause a person to be a lesbian be the same as those that cause a person to be a homosexual male?” Why do you assume they would be different?
Also do you know anything about Malawi? I don’t think they can have an abortion in Malawi.
Jeff I am being deprived of nothing by Rose following her “freedom of conscience”?
Why are you asking me this?
Edward,
“The freedom of religion IS the freedom from religion.”
No it isn’t. Read our documents. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Congress, Edward. There is no federal religion.
There could be state level religion, not likely, but it wouldn’t be unconstitutional. There is no “freedom from religion.” No one is guaranteed constitutionally not to have to exist with it. The House still opens with daily prayer.
http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/index.html
Yes, I know, remembering that righteousness exalts a nation is just soooo darn insulting to the atheist mind set.
Alan and Edward,
Why don’t you just answer Jeff’s question.
You’ve asked us over and over how your choices will hurt us and we’ve explained our concerns. You’ve asked how a woman abortion her child will affect us, and we’ve explained.
Turn the tables.
How does this woman’s choice in her own town affect you at all?
Yet when this happens anywhere in the world, I want to weep.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=304273826304873&set=a.304273799638209.67575.157020314363559&type=1&theater
I know, I know…we’re such TERRIBLE people for thinking this is inhuman. So backwards are we.
To ask a question my friend Leila asks a lot and doesn’t get answered, did that child deserve to be loved? Edward? Alan? Did he?
Stacy,
“No one is guaranteed constitutionally not to have to exist with it.” While this is true we are also guarenteed to not have to believe, and to be free of the rules of religion.
I am not really certain you read my answer to Jeff. I would like to be surprised by this, but I am not. But please go read it again, and I will reiterate and expand on what I said.
Rose’s actions do not affect me personally. That is personally. Just like my marriage does not affect you personally, or does Sally’s abortion, Mildred using oral contraception and John cheating on his wife.
While not one of these things affect you personally you still have a lot to say about why they are wrong. Why is this?
Are you saying that if we are not personally deprived by the act of a person we are not allowed an opinion? I am confused the reasoning for the question.
Stacy, did you misrepresent facts to me about the judge? You told me marrying people was part of her job, someone else says it is not, but rather they can decide if they want to marry folks or not. But it is not something she is required to do in her job. I think the spinning and misrepresenting is ridiculous. I will believe it is unintentional, but it gets harder and harder to believe that.
About the picture, my first response to what you wrote “I know, I know…we’re such TERRIBLE people for thinking this is inhuman. So backwards are we.” is that you really need to grow up (a thought I have often here with responses on both sides of the argument, but as it is your blog I hold you to a higher standard. Will this get me blocked? I sure hope not, but hey what can I do).This is a childish comment and shows that you really aren’t paying attention to what most of us are saying.
Now when I looked at the picture of course I was disgusted. Again I have to believe it is a real picture, but yes disgust. We all deserve love, so yes that poor baby deserved love. Does that change my opinion? Not at all. I still believe it is a womans right to abort a child. Horrible senseless acts like this change nothing for me. But let me ask you what the story behind the picture is? Do you know it? Is this aborted baby, full term, still born, did some uneducated person do this, some teen? Exactly what point are you hoping to prove to us?
Alan,
“While not one of these things affect you personally you still have a lot to say about why they are wrong. Why is this?”
I have no problem saying actions are wrong. It’s a right.
“Are you saying that if we are not personally deprived by the act of a person we are not allowed an opinion? I am confused the reasoning for the question.”
No. I explained above. I have been told more times than I can count that I should not call something immoral unless it affects me personally.
“Stacy, did you misrepresent facts to me about the judge?”
The difficulty in discussing with you Alan is that you refuse to hold to consistent definitions and terms. “Part of the job?” Well, the town clerk was working within her acceptable boundaries of her job, approved by her superiors. So yes, she was doing her job. Her job allowed her to make the arrangements she made. Then we come to the judge and you say, “Well, she had the option so it wasn’t part of her job.” Which is it?
It necessarily must have been part of her job in the first sense or she wouldn’t be making Youtube videos telling people she wasn’t going to do that part of the job. Was she within her boundaries to refuse. It appears so. That makes her no different than Rose Marie.
I am disgusted by that picture too. Actually I want to hold that child and tell him I’m sorry the world was such a cruel place during his short life. We owe him better. The people who killed him and tossed him out like that are murderers and there is nothing at all that justifies such disregard for children.
“Horrible senseless acts like this change nothing for me.”
I don’t believe you, Alan.
Alan, I don’t understand your question directed at me about the judge. There are now two Marys. I am the one with the purple icon. I have not followed the judge issue.
At 24 weeks the viability is at 50%. It is better for girls and worse for boys. Black girls do best. So, can you see that deciding that a black girl is a person at this stage while a white boy is not is silly?
As the stats get better, and they probably will…I can only assume that you will revise your stance backwards in gestational age.
Again, are you not the slightest bit curious about Doctor Bernard Nathanson?
Stacy,
“No one is guaranteed constitutionally not to have to exist with it. The House still opens with daily prayer.”
Something I would refuse every single day. Worse, something I would try to disrupt and get abolished every single day. I would make it my life’s work to get that daily prayer removed forever. I would feel it as a violation of my right not to have a religion. Just as I would never say “One country under God” in the American oath to the flag. I would forbid my children to ever say it and I would challenge any and all who would try to make either me or my children to do it anyway in the courts even if it would cost me all I have.
And still, no matter what the First amendment says, Biblican laws play no role in the American laws. Even the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” plays no role in the American laws since there is still capitol punishment in the US.
“How does this woman’s choice in her own town affect you at all?”
Me, personally? Nothing at all. As long as I don’t try to get married in her town (which is pretty much impossible for me since I’m already married and neither me nor my husband are Americans). However, by your own account that doesn’t matter. Like Jeff says, most things you want to discuss and want to fight against don’t affect you personally either. Even if your children are affected you still are not. So maybe you should follow your own advice and only worry about things that affect YOU personally?
“To ask a question my friend Leila asks a lot and doesn’t get answered, did that child deserve to be loved? Edward? Alan? Did he?”
Again, I have to agree with Alan on this. You really do need to grow up and act your age. This photo, which is clearly photoshopped by the way (the feet are symmetrical, which means originally it was only one foot which has been mirrored digitally; the color or the head matches a healthy born infant while the body matches that of an infant several hours after death; the body is completely pale without discoloration known to happen after a heart stops beating), only strengthens me in my conviction abortion is a good thing when the child is unwanted. If the mother had been able to abort the pregnancy she would not have been forced to walk around with an unwanted pragnancy for 9 months and she wouldn’t have had to commit a felony to get rid of the child after birth (if that is what happened, which I doubt).
Stacy,
Why is it ok for you to say what is right and wrong but we are getting grief for an opinion on Rose because it does not affect us personally?
“The difficulty in discussing with you Alan is that you refuse to hold to consistent definitions and terms” Actually I think the difficulty for you comes from the fact that I don’t follow your definitions and terms.
Rose’s job included signing marriage certificates. Is this a factual statement? She spoke with her superiors and she was allowed to no longer do this? Rose no longer signs any marriage certificates?
The judge, well marrying folks is not a required part of her job like signing marriage licenses was for Rose. So there is a difference. Rose has made it known she will not sign, and if it is part of her job (which it was) she is discriminating. Sorry if you think that is me being difficult.
Yes that is a horrible picture. What was the purpose for showing us it?
Stacy,
“I have no problem saying actions are wrong. It’s a right.”
Than don’t try to deny us that right as well.
“I have been told more times than I can count that I should not call something immoral unless it affects me personally.”
And has that ever stopped you? No? So why should it stop us?
“Well, the town clerk was working within her acceptable boundaries of her job, approved by her superiors. So yes, she was doing her job. Her job allowed her to make the arrangements she made.”
Not exactly. Her superiors might have approved of this but that doesn’t matter. Her job description is part of the law of the State of New York and it’s not up to her superiors to change that, no matter if they could or could not live with those arrangements she made. The governor of the State of New York made it clear from day one he would not tolerate any infractions on the law and all government employees who refused to cooperate with the law making marriage legal for same sex couples would be relocated or, if not possible to find other work for them, fired but none would be allowed any attempt to bypass the law of the land.
The Texan judge, however, is allowed to perform marriages (which she has done in the past) but is not really a part of her job; she’s not required to perform marriages, unlike a town’s clerk in the State of New York. You may not agree with that, but, again, that’s the law of the land.
“We owe him better. The people who killed him and tossed him out like that are murderers”
That I agree with.
“there is nothing at all that justifies such disregard for children.”
That I don’t. We know nothing about the way she got pregnant in the first place. Maybe this baby is the product of years of sexual abuse by a relative? A rape? The father might have left her because he didn’t want to acknowledge the child as his, leaving her helpless? She could have lost everything she cared for because of this child, like her career or her family?
There are a lot of reasons thinkable that would lead to this kind of hatred against a small child. Reasons that may seem trivial to us may have been paramount for the mother. We simply don’t know.
Alan,
“Why is it ok for you to say what is right and wrong but we are getting grief for an opinion on Rose because it does not affect us personally?”
I’m not giving you grief. You brought it up, I answered your questions, then we wondered if you really do think it’s OK to call something wrong even if it doesn’t affect you personally. We agree there. It’s fine, and should be done. I’ve never implied otherwise.
“The judge, well marrying folks is not a required part of her job like signing marriage licenses was for Rose.”
If some part of a job can be omitted, then it is by definition, NOT a required part of the job.
Edward, {{shiver}}
That’s all I’m saying about it, for now – if I ignored something you wanted addressed, let me know. Have a nice day — gotta go watch some funny cat video the kids found while I was neglecting them. Sigh!
Edward,
This statement puzzles me(and I will get back to you on the Stonewall point, just still thinking it over): “Worse, something I would try to disrupt and get abolished every single day. I would make it my life’s work to get that daily prayer removed forever. I would feel it as a violation of my right not to have a religion. Just as I would never say “One country under God” in the American oath to the flag. I would forbid my children to ever say it and I would challenge any and all who would try to make either me or my children to do it anyway in the courts even if it would cost me all I have.” (forbid your children?)
Why in the world would someone who is an atheist to the degree that you describe, care one whit about such a prayer? You should find it amusing at worst. Most people believe in God. The founding fathers believed in God. Our entire country was based on being able to worship God in the way one saw fit. If you don’t believe then don’t say the prayer…but then you must think the prayer is evil?
Now, if they held you down and forced you to say the words of a prayer, I could understand your anger. Why do you care so much about the fact that most people believe in God? It’s like you think the very idea of God is evil. But you don’t believe in evil! So….you think people’s idea about the morality of homosexuality is dependent on God? If nobody believed in God then homosexuality would be accepted everywhere? Is that the cause for your fervent hatred of a country of people who believe in God?
This reminds me of Kenneth Miller (the brilliant and world-renowned biologist who also happens to be a Catholic) speaking about Richard Dawkins. Ken talks about Dawkins’ statement: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
To which Miller replies, “The irony of this is that I don’t know anyone who lives their live with more purpose than you do Richard!”
Makes you think. Reminds me of you.
Name is me again…Mary…I must have a disability!
I wish someone had answered my question, but to be honest, I understand why they didn’t.
You see, Stacy and I and many others here believe that there is an objective moral law that must not be violated. It matters not one whit whether I’m affected by someone’s violating it. The violation is objectively wrong. It would be wrong if I had never been born. An act doesn’t have to affect me in order for me to judge it wrong.
Those of you — and I thought you Edward, and you Alan, would fit this category — who say there is no objective moral law are in a much tougher position here. The moral principle is only as real as the harm it does to others. That’s simply not the case for Catholic morality. The moral principle is real, period.
I’ll anticipate a difficulty and head off a protracted discussion leading to an inevitable result.
The modern view of morality is that the Good is that which affords the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. You can analyze almost ANY discussion of morality these days and verify that this is the principle being applied by moderns.
Pleasure, displeasure, and bother are inherent in the modern liberal view of right and wrong.
Catholics absolutely reject this principle of utilitarianism.
That’s the unspoken premise in my argument. I just think its so flagrant in our society that I fail to make it explicit.
I am sorry, clearly I missed a question Jeff asked.
Please ask it again so I may attempt to answer it.
But Jeff, maybe we are not arguing against a objective moral law, however we disagree that the catholic objective moral law is the one that is to be followed. I think we all agree with it is not acceptable to murder (and for this I will ask that we not include abortion as murder for a point of understanding), it is not acceptable to physically harm another, it is not acceptable to take what is not yours. I am sure there are others but this is just what I can think of now.
But then there are “grey areas” where we might differ. Is cheating on ones spouse immoral? Is premarital sex immoral? Is having same sex relations immoral? These are not so clearly so.
So yeah, morals vary. Sorry it is just how it is. I can’t expect you to enter into a same sex marriage no more than you can expect me to follow the rules of your church. The question is how do we all learn to get along so that all can be satisfied?
Stacy, We see the Rose thing differently. Signing marriage licenses was part of her job. When gay marriage was legalized she asked if she could not sign marriage licenses. She made it known she would not sign licenses for gay folks. Was she still willing to sign for hetero’s? Does she? Do all persons seeking a license need to make an appointment or is it just the day’s that Rose is working?
Many jobs I have had there have been things I didn’t want to do in them. But they were part of the job. If I didn’t do them I was fired. Why is this different?
Jeff asked, “May I transpose an argument and ask: what exactly are you personally being deprived of by letting Rose exercise her conscience?
Not “other people” but YOU. What is being deprived of YOU to allow this woman, Rose, freedom of conscience?”
I suppose one could say that if Rose was the only clerk to register a marriage in the area then she was depriving the couple of their right. But she had made provisions for that. So they were not denied anything of substance. This seems to be the same thing as allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions because of their conscience.
also…Alan said, “Is cheating on ones spouse immoral?” and thought it was not “clearly so”. How is that? That seems clear to me.
Mary
If that was Jeff’s question then I suggest y’all learn how to read. I did indeed answer that long ago.
But asking how I am specifically affected by Rose’s decision to not do her job is irrelevant. Or more specifically it is as relevant as asking what exactly does my big gay marriage deprive you of. And I mean you personally.
The answer to that question is it doesn’t. It has nothing, repeat nothing.
Response?
Is cheating on a spouse immoral? I mean there is a victim in the cheated spouse. So I guess I could argue for it being immoral. But there also could be circumstances that I am not aware of. So gray area’s for me.
Alan,
Sorry, I did not read all of that exchange about Rose.
So you are saying that Rose’s behavior does not deprive you personally of anything and gay marriage does not deprive Stacy personally of anything. Is that what you were saying? Sorry, I just didn’t understand when you said ‘It has nothing, nothing’.
Mary,
“Why in the world would someone who is an atheist to the degree that you describe, care one whit about such a prayer? You should find it amusing at worst. Most people believe in God. The founding fathers believed in God. Our entire country was based on being able to worship God in the way one saw fit. If you don’t believe then don’t say the prayer…but then you must think the prayer is evil?”
I don’t believe the prayer is evil. I find it an insult to my intelligence, to me as a person, to my very believe there is no such thing as a benevolent and good god!
Look around you in the world! If any such thing as a benevolent god existed it should have intervened eons ago! And yet here we are, humanity, always on the brink of annihilating our planet and always searching for new ways to hate our fellow men! If there’s one thing humanity is great at it is in bringing harm to one another and killing each other more efficiently.
I don’t believe there is a god but if there was such a thing it cannot be a good, benevolent god but a spiteful, hateful being, enjoying seeing people get hurt and suffer. It would not be worth my prayer; it would be worth my contempt!
“Why do you care so much about the fact that most people believe in God?”
That statement is simply not true. According to UNESCO less than 2.7 billion people on our planet are religious, leaving 4.3 billion people who are not. That’s not a majority.
“If nobody believed in God then homosexuality would be accepted everywhere?”
No, I don’t think life is that easy. It would remove a large obstacle on the path towards acceptance, yes. Unfortunately there will always be idiotic, mindless bigots who either can’t or won’t think for themselves, believing anything someone else tells them.
Jeff,
“You see, Stacy and I and many others here believe that there is an objective moral law that must not be violated.”
That doesn’t matter, since that law you feel must not be violated doesn’t count in this world. It’s not the law judges and juries will convict you for. Refusing signing marriage certificates is. That’s violating a law which is going to cost dear Rose, her superiors and the town she’s working for millions of dollars because she refuses to do the job she was getting paid for.
If you want to live your life according to some “objective moral law”, go ahead. I don’t care. Your life, your choice. Just don’t think you can limit my rights based on your moral law, dictated to you by your god. I have seen and personally experienced just how far people are willing to go to force such a moral code upon you. 11 years ago I was neither ready nor willing to do what was necessary to protect someone I loved. Never again!
Mary,
“I suppose one could say that if Rose was the only clerk to register a marriage in the area then she was depriving the couple of their right. But she had made provisions for that. So they were not denied anything of substance.”
Why is it so hard to understand? This woman is paid by the government to perform a government job. Part of that job requires her to sign marriage licenses. Nowhere in the law of the State of New York does it say she has the authority to decide to sign only marriage licenses for straight couples because, like it or not, when it comes to marriage there is no longer a difference between straight and gay couples in the State of New York. So, according to the law, she has to sign marriage licenses, regardless of the sex of the partners wanting to get married. And if she can’t do that because of her personal believes she should resign her job and leave to someone who can and will.
Imagine what would have happened if dear Rose would have been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and said: “It’s my personal believe interracial coupling is wrong so I will not sign marriage certificates for interracial couples”. Than she wouldn’t be sued her pants of. She would’ve been lynched by an angry mob!
Alan,
“Is cheating on a spouse immoral? I mean there is a victim in the cheated spouse.”
I know a couple who are cheating on each other. The funny thing is they both think the other is unaware but they both know they both have an affair. And they don’t care since it’s just sex, nothing more. After an evening of no-strings-attached sex they both come home, satisfied and relaxed, and nine times out of ten they go at it again but with each other this time. And they are both convinced their marriage would have ended a long time ago if they did’n't have their fun outside of their marriage.
Oh, and I’m talking about a straight couple, by the way.
I guess that about sums it up Mary
Edward,
So you postulate Hume’s argument for why there is no God. A good argument, but for me, part of the answer as to why there is evil in the world is that free will would be totally impossible without evil.
Did God create evil? Hard to figure…but I see it like light…evil is the absence of good. Good becomes meaningless in a world without the dark. You are not free to choose if there is nothing to choose. Therefore, in your idea of a world with a benevolent, personal God, we would be automatons, devoid of free will. Our justice system would be pointless, as there would be no need.
Likewise, in a godless, purely material universe, our idea of “guilt” or “justice” is also meaningless. If everything is material, and based on a mathematically logical universe, then after the moment of your conception, your entire life, complete with all your actions is preordained. You obviously don’t live that way; you have volition and act to effect change. So where does that leave you?
I understand your anger at a spiteful, angry, violent world. But it seems to me, the Christian doctrines fully realize this. They describe in detail that every single person is born into original sin; they have the remnants of their animal nature and are prone to the seven deadly sins. But, we are not just our animal nature. We can rise above it.
I remember reading about Elizabeth Kubler Ross, and her encounter with a young woman who had endured the Nazi concentration camps. This girl told her she would not rest until she forgave the Nazis (can you imagine a more daunting task?). She said she realized that every single person has a little bit of Hitler in them, but, every single person has good in them. We must spend our life honing the good in us and in others and thwarting the rest.
I can see how you would not see the Christian prohibition (really the same for all major religions) against acting on homosexual urges, as relevant to developing the good within yourself. And many many thoughtful Christians and religious persons would agree with you, and I can tell you that I am far from certain about this. But as a biologist, I do not find it to be an easy thing to accept. I am not blindly parroting what I have been told. I have thought about this for some time. I have tried to elucidate that here.
Re: the marriage cert. issue. Your point about the parallels between her refusing to serve the gay couple and refusing to serve an interracial couple is, in my opinion, the best legal defense. Others would contend that discriminating based upon race is immoral because race is an entirely inherited trait, and not based on behavior at all. Sexual behavior is at least, partly governed by choice. It is an action, not a state of being. I am not sure I totally agree with that, but it is worth considering.
In the midst of your horrible, barbaric world, there are people like this http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/world/europe/13sendler.html
Why this topic has gotten quite heated I though I’d leave a little food for though. I’ve seen lots of reference to ‘A Christian nation’ and ‘moral law’
What if the US was actually a christian nation, not a nation full of christians, but with a Christian government?
What sect would be in charge? The Catholics? Mormons, Baptists, Evangelicals? This would be a nightmare! What if the Westboro Baptist Church came into power or the Mormons?
We can look at Islamic nations that have a Koran based system of laws. In Saudi Arabia women are treated poorly, and can be executed for being raped. I can’t think of a single country that is ruled with religious law that actually has a government that acts with compassion.
Christians may want to live in a Bible based country, but even Christians can’t agree on how to interpret the bible. Iraq is a great example, all Muslims, but 3 sects that murdered each other over small differences in their interpretations of the bible.
The Koran as it reads is no more violent than the bible….. Be careful what you ask for!
Mary (at least I think so),
“I understand your anger at a spiteful, angry, violent world. But it seems to me, the Christian doctrines fully realize this. They describe in detail that every single person is born into original sin; they have the remnants of their animal nature and are prone to the seven deadly sins. But, we are not just our animal nature. We can rise above it.”
You don’t understand anything at all. This very comment proves that. I’m not angry with the world. I understand greed, I know hatred. It takes me everything I have not to let my heart grow cold of hatred. And some days I’m more succesful than others but most of the time I can bypass my feelings of hate, to the point I can almost believe I’ve outgrown those feelings. And other days I want to lash out at everyone even remotely connected to the people who have hurt me, destroying everything they hold dear as they have done to me.
“I remember reading about Elizabeth Kubler Ross, and her encounter with a young woman who had endured the Nazi concentration camps. This girl told her she would not rest until she forgave the Nazis (can you imagine a more daunting task?).”
No, I can’t. Nor do I care. I have no forgiveness in me for the people who have hurt me. When they took the one I loved from me it was like they took my light, leaving me in eternal darkness. I lived on for two reasons:
1. The man I loved would never have allowed me to throw away my life like I wanted to;
2. One day I would have the pleasure of dancing on the graves of those who hurt me; of those who hurt my loved one. The only thing I would want more is to be present at their deaths, seeing the light in their eyes grow dim and to see the realisation in their eyes everything they believed was wrong and everything they did in their lives was in vain.
“Sexual behavior is at least, partly governed by choice.”
We’re not discussing sexual behaviour. We’re discussing sexual orientation, which is no choice. Yes, I could deny who and what I am, live my life in utmost misery. But why would I do that? So that you can sleep a little better at night, knowing a “great evil” is no more? That’s just as likely as you giving up your religion so I would know one more person on this planet is a little less ignorant.
Tracy asked some comments ago why gays don’t just live their lives and leave religious people alone with their believes. I think the comments since have shown us why. Because religious people won’t leave us alone. They will keep trying to limit our rights and our lives, whether by small incursions like Rose the town’s clerk, or by large attacks, like the state of Texas who is withholding federal funding to Planned Parenthood untill they stop performing abortions. History has taught is the best we can hope for when dealing with religions is an armed truce untill the attacks from religious factions start once again.
Except this time we won’t be waiting untill that attack comes. This time we believe in preemptive strike. This time it won’t be the religious factions deciding when and where the attacks are going to take place. This time the fights will be on our conditions and under circumstances of our chosing. This time we will keep in mind the best defense is a strong offense.
This time, if you want a fight, we’ll be ready.
Hi Edward,
I wanted to tell you I was moved by your response. I thought a lot about you. At the Good Friday service, you and your experience of loss kept popping into my head. I said prayer for you (not in a “God help Edward become a Christian way” but in this vein “God help Edward fulfill his potential and not be limited by anger.” )
I am not sure why you think I misunderstand your anger (“And other days I want to lash out at everyone even remotely connected to the people who have hurt me, destroying everything they hold dear as they have done to me.”)
Certainly you have reason to be angry and resentful. It sounds like those folks were not really acting in a Christian way? Is that possible?
more later.
Mary
Edward: You wrote: Yes, I could deny who and what I am, live my life in utmost misery. But why would I do that? I’d say you’re pretty miserable right now. Do happy persons strike threatening poses towards others who happen to be an ocean away?
Revenge is for children and the emotionally retarded.
- Frank Herbert
Steve it’s kind of funny that you have decided Edward is miserable. Not sure why you think that. Yes he may be angry, and from reading with good reason. But that does not lead to him being miserable.
And does the good book say anything at all about revenge?
Mary,
The people were not necessarily acting christian, but they sure as hell were not acting human. I can act decently towards others and that has nothing to do with being christian. I treat people well because we are all human. I could care less about their religion. Does this make sense?
Edward said,
“We’re not discussing sexual behaviour. We’re discussing sexual orientation, which is no choice.” No…the last time I checked the Catholic Church considers the behavior to be sinful not the orientation.
Also, I know two women for whom it is, in part, a choice…by their own admission. This also seems to be the case for M. Selmys (see her blog at Sexual Authenticity). I understand it is not a choice for some, but it is totally wrong to say that it is not a choice.
Steve P. I will have to say that Edward’s description of his desire for revenge, strikes me as a stronger version of what I imagine we all go through in our own lives inside our own heads. I myself can easily slip into a mental pattern of imagining that those who I perceive to have slighted or hurt me intentionally will “come to see the error of their ways” and I will be vindicated as being “right” or “better”. It is a little fantasy that I (sadly) often finding myself slipping into, and I imagine others suffer from this as well.
So maybe “revenge” is not the right word, it would be better to describe Edward’s thinking as a desire for “vindication”. It is understandable, but still sub-optimal from a spiritual point of view.
Edward said, “They will keep trying to limit our rights and our lives, whether by small incursions like Rose the town’s clerk, or by large attacks, like the state of Texas who is withholding federal funding to Planned Parenthood untill they stop performing abortions. ”
Why on earth would gay people feel limited by people trying to limit or end the act of abortion? How is that effort an attack on gay people? I’m sorry but that is nonsensical. Gay people don’t have unintended pregnancies!
Catholics, and many other Christians (I am a Lutheran for Life) consider a fetus to be a person. Therefore they consider abortion the killing of an innocent person. The fact that they are fighting for this is not far away from fighting so that it is illegal to abuse or kill your infant. Also, there are many non religious people who consider abortion to be immoral.
I can understand how you would regard the push against gay marriage to be an intrusion. I also think it **might** be going too far. But then again, since the reason the state cares about marriage at all is to tie fathers to their children, in a world without surrogacy or in vitro, a gay man cannot father a child within a homosexual union. Then again, adoption is a real and good function for parents, so perhaps the state can see the good of sanctioning marriages between same sex partners. I do not consider the state to care at all about marriage if it is not about children.
Edward, I would ask you a sincere question (I am not baiting you, I really want to know how you think about it): “Why can’t five people get married under the purview of the state?” How is that wrong? Why can’t brothers and sisters get married to each other? Why is their love somehow less than or less equal than yours?
Alan said, “The people were not necessarily acting christian, but they sure as hell were not acting human. I can act decently towards others and that has nothing to do with being christian. I treat people well because we are all human. I could care less about their religion. Does this make sense?”
Yes, that is very true. It makes a great deal of sense…but Edward is not angry at all people, he is angry at Christianity and theism in general. He feels those who drove his former partner to suicide were acting from the perspective of Christian morality. It seems (and we don’t know the particulars) to be a perversion of Christian morality, although I totally agree that some people fixate on this particular tenant of Christian teaching and over-focus on it. For example, I like a lot of what Stacy posts, but her controversial post about the women in the park was (in my opinion) off-base.
I am far more offended by guys driving around in cars with little icons with their middle fingers sticking up, or by the very existence of a show called “The Bachelor”. If the two women were passionately making out, I would understand her point a little better. Sex, at the very least, should be an intimate, private thing. Our culture seems hell-bent on making it totally public.
I’ll agree Mary, Edward does seem to have anger towards religion, but keep in mind that so many of us gays do for the same reasons, although I think most are less extreme cases.
And I agree, sex should be a private intimate thing, but sadly as evidenced again this weekend on the train people seem to think it is ok to look at my husband and I if we even touch each other and to make comments. The young gentleman appeared to be about to make a statement to his friend about us until he saw I was looking at him. I hope my look conveyed the message that I was not about to tolerate any nasty comments. Now I ask you, is it ok to have to deal with that on a continual basis? Would you not get tired of it?
I must say that although I am not readily identifiable as gay there is little doubt in most peoples minds that my husband is. The way he carries himself is a dead giveaway.
Mary,
Google this “gay cruising spots Massachusetts” and you’ll understand a little better the reason for hyper-awareness of what parents with kids have to worry about finding in public places around here, especially parks and roadside rest stops.
And — the government told policemen not to arrest these men because they felt sorry for them being so stigmatized. It’s stupid.
Bottom line: A father at the park with his children could walk into a bathroom, see two men having sex and leave to go pee in the bushes to avoid having to witness that.
Guess which person would get arrested for indecent exposure? The father.
They put in the public’s face and dare you to say anything. Why? I don’t know, but I get tired of it.
We posted at the same time Alan – but what do you have to say about the “gay cruising” in public parks in MA? It’s not just this state, but the problem is notable in this state and CA both.
Mary,
“Certainly you have reason to be angry and resentful. It sounds like those folks were not really acting in a Christian way.”
Very much possible. However, since they were led by a Reverend at least their parish seemed to sanction their approach and actions, wouldn’t you agree? And isn’t the Catholic dogma based on Christ’s promise to Peter: “As you say it is on earth, so will I make it in Heaven”?
“the last time I checked the Catholic Church considers the behavior to be sinful not the orientation.”"
Last time I checked science didn’t accept the Church’s view to seperate orientation from behaviour and neither did the governments on the planet. Sorry, but that counts more for me than whatever position the Church takes in this, since I don’t consider myself a Christian anymore.
“So maybe “revenge” is not the right word, it would be better to describe Edward’s thinking as a desire for “vindication”. It is understandable, but still sub-optimal from a spiritual point of view.”
Interestingly in Dutch “revenge” and “vindication” have the same translation. We don’t see a difference between those words.
I’m not looking for revenge anymore. After my loss my life threatened to spiral out of control and it wasn’t untill I met my husband I was able to let go of (most of) my anger. My life got meaning again when I met him, when I married him and when we had our daughter. The thing I want most of all is religious people to leave us alone and let us live our lives. However, they (religious people in general) have the tendency not to allow us that. Somehow they see it as their right and duty to try and interfere in our personal lives. So far I was forced to start 4 lawsuits against religious people or organisations to get them to leave us alone:
1. My upstairs neighbour who wanted us evicted;
2. A nurse in my ward who refused to work with me;
3. A children’s rights organisation who tried to have out daughter removed from us.
4. A civil servant who refused to issue us passports stating we were married because her religion says we can’t be married, despite the law in our country.
Most of the time I have my anger under control but if someone tries to interfere with our private lives or attempts to hurt my husband or my daughter people find I have quite a different side than the friendly, laughing doctor. People don’t like my dark side.
“Why on earth would gay people feel limited by people trying to limit or end the act of abortion?”
Seriously? You really think I was refering to gay men and women only? How about taking a somewhat broader view so you might understand I was refering to everyone who does not share your morals?
“Catholics, and many other Christians (I am a Lutheran for Life) consider a fetus to be a person. Therefore they consider abortion the killing of an innocent person.”
Science, medicine and the law do not so no one is killing anyone.
“The fact that they are fighting for this is not far away from fighting so that it is illegal to abuse or kill your infant.”
The big difference is the legal status. Before birth a foetus is not a person; after birth a child is, with all rights the law grants to an individual. This is one of the reasons why doctors never agree with a potential mother when they tell them to do everything humanly possible to save their baby, even if that means killing the mother. The mother is an individual, a person. The foetus is not.
“Also, there are many non religious people who consider abortion to be immoral.”
And yet I have to encounter the first non-religious person in a pro-life demonstration. The only people there are always the religious nutcases who are so far removed from reality a psychiatrist would have a field day with them.
“But then again, since the reason the state cares about marriage at all is to tie fathers to their children, in a world without surrogacy or in vitro, a gay man cannot father a child within a homosexual union.”
This is simply not true. Most marriages, both in the (distant) past and present time, are for legal purposes. To protect the one you love legally should anything happen to you.
“Why can’t five people get married under the purview of the state? How is that wrong? Why can’t brothers and sisters get married to each other? Why is their love somehow less than or less equal than yours?”
It isn’t. And I don’t see why a union of 5 people (or more or less) wouldn’t be possible. When concerning a marriage between siblings there is the possibility of genetic damage and rare hereditary disease so if they want children I would suggest extensive genetic counseling. But otherwise I have no problem with any of it, as long as we’re talking about consensual relationships.
“Sex, at the very least, should be an intimate, private thing. Our culture seems hell-bent on making it totally public.”
In the days of Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome sex was a public thing. Nudity was a normal aspect of life and children were used to seeing their parents naked and, sometimes, sexually active. Children knew all about sexuality.
Then we witness the rising of the Catholic church and all of a sudden sex is some dark, dirty secret people should not talk about and should be kept hidden as much as possible. Children are confused when they notice the changes their bodies are going through and are afraid to talk to their parents or anyone about it because you’re not suposed to talk about “down there”. Ever seen the shower scene from “Stephen King’s Carrie”? A young girl experiences her first menstruation while in the showers at school and starts freaking out since her mother never explained the female biology to her. making her even more of an outcast than she already was because of her religious fanatic of a mother.
If anything, society is trying to undo some of the 2000 years of damage the Catholic church has caused. Answer this question: Do you think there would have been cases of sexual abuse by priests if children had known about sexuality?
SteveP,
“I’d say you’re pretty miserable right now.”
You might be suprised but most of the time I’m a happy guy, especially when not dealing with religion. So you can imagine with a Catholic church closeby Easter was not the best of days for me.
On those moments I am miserable there are one of two reasons in 99% of those moments: delivering bad news to a patient or his/her family or dealing with religion. I’m not trying to drive my point home. It’s a simple fact.
Alan,
The best reaction I had from my current senior physician: “Yes, that’s also a possibility, or course”. And, credit where credit’s due, the man is one of the most religious people I ever met.
“I must say that although I am not readily identifiable as gay there is little doubt in most peoples minds that my husband is. The way he carries himself is a dead giveaway.”
In the past I kept my sexual orientation a secret in front of new collaegues but I stopped doing that. I wear a wedding ring so one of the first things people ask me when I meet them is about my wife. So when that happens I correct them and tell them I have a husband and together we have am adoptive daughter. The shellshock look on their faces and their attempts to pull their foot out of their mouths is something that never gets old
Why can collaegues of mine have a photo of their family on their desks and I can’t? I think you already guessed; I, too, have a photo of my husband and our daughter on my desk. If people won’t grant me equal rights I will take those rights myself. I will not allow other people to dictate my life anymore. I am who and what I am and those who don’t like that, tough!
Stacy,
Do you think that problem only exists in the US and in current times? Cruising is as old as humanity but before the Catholic church became dominant in history people didn’t have to do it in secret. They weren’t forced to have sex in the bushes or in public bathrooms. They could meet out in the open and go and have sex in more appropriate places, although people didn’t care that much in ancient times to see two men, two women or a man and a woman having sex in a park or field. That came with the rise of the Catholic church.
I’m a gay man and even I refuse to enter the Vondelpark or Oosterpark in Amsterdam after dusk. Not because I find it disgusting but because I have no interest in hearing all the propositions I’d get.
No one in his or her right mind should enter a public restroom for hygiene issues alone. Everyone with half a brain knows what to expect when you go in one of those. Don’t condemn these men. Pity them for they live in conditions they cannot openly admit their sexuality, most of the time because of the religious environment they grew up / live in.
So Edward the Warrior, let me get this straight.
They have sex in public bathrooms because they cannot do it out in the open.
And it’s…
{drum roll}
The Catholic Church’s fault, so we should pity them.
I’ve heard it all now.
In many places in America public bathrooms are perfectly fine because people still live like people and not animals.
Stacy,
“They have sex in public bathrooms because they cannot do it out in the open.
And it’s…
{drum roll}
The Catholic Church’s fault, so we should pity them.
I’ve heard it all now.”
If that’s the conclusion you draw from my comment that’s fine with me. I think I was saying something completely different but ok. As long as you keep in mind the Catholic church is responsible for a lot of wrongs in the world, especially in the eyes of non-Catholics, my message is clear.
“In many places in America public bathrooms are perfectly fine because people still live like people and not animals.”
Interesting. I have visited Boston, New York, Washington DC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago and Miami and I don’t remember any clean public restrooms, not even in restaurants or hotels.
Edward said, “The only people there are always the religious nutcases who are so far removed from reality a psychiatrist would have a field day with them”
Not really. Are there extremists there? Sure, but most people I know who attend such events are reasonable, measured folks. I plan to attend one this year, and have given money in support of this cause. I don’t think a psychiatrist would have a field day with me…I have seen several during the times in my life when I was battling bulimia.
Stacy,
If you read what I wrote before about sex being private. I don’t cruise parks, or mens rooms and really I dislike that many do. I also dislike any adult who has sex in public places. Guess what, men and women do it to. Don’t assume if you find a condom in a park, or even a restroom it was two men using it.
But yes I would hate for a child to have to see any two adults having sex.
I think you did miss Edwards point when he said “Pity them for they live in conditions they cannot openly admit their sexuality, most of the time because of the religious environment they grew up / live in.” He is not referencing that they need to have sex in public places at all. What he is saying is that because they cannot admit to anyone who and what they are, they will sometimes feel forced to do this kind of behavior. If so many (and it does seem as though a majority are religious) had their way we would not be able to speak about whom we love. I know you all say you love us, but really not so deep down you just truly wish we would go away. It’s hard to live in a world where we are so often told how wrong we are. You should try it.
And I think it might suprise you to know that a great many of those men cruising parks and mens room go home to their wives after they are finished. Food for thought no?
Edward, I have been to a great many cities in the US and around the world, and I will not lie, the US has some of the cleanest bathrooms around. Never been to the Netherlands though. Maybe some day.
Mary,
“Are there extremists there? Sure, but most people I know who attend such events are reasonable, measured folks.”
Like I said, I’ve been to several of those demonstrations to demonstrate for the pro-choice faction and, later, to give first aid since most of these demonstrations turn into actual battle fields. I repeat my previous statement: I have never seen anyone in the pro-life group that wasn’t a total religious nutjob who could not give any other argument to why abortion should be illegal than: “Because God says so”. Not only am I vary wary of people who claim any god is speaking to them but I can’t remember the Bible saying anything about abortion.
“I don’t think a psychiatrist would have a field day with me…I have seen several during the times in my life when I was battling bulimia.”
Sorry to hear that. Bulemia is a terrible and incapacitating disease.
Alan,
“I don’t cruise parks, or mens rooms and really I dislike that many do. I also dislike any adult who has sex in public places. Guess what, men and women do it to.”
Well, I have, before I came out and trust me, it’s no picnic. In stead of having an intimate get together you constantly have to be on your guard for muggers, gay bashers and the police. Not much fun.
“It’s hard to live in a world where we are so often told how wrong we are. You should try it.”
Personally I think Stacy knows what it’s like. I think most Catholics nowadays do. I don’t know how things are in the US but in Europe people were already suspicious towards Catholics and since the abuse scandals Catholics are viewed as potential child abusers. And don’t forget the load of crap Stacy had to endure last year after her “Can’t even go to the park” blog. Which makes it even worse Stacy keeps trying to set people who do not agree with her away as “evil” and “wrong”. She knows the damage coming from that first hand.
“the US has some of the cleanest bathrooms around. Never been to the Netherlands though. Maybe some day.”
Wouldn’t do it for the public restrooms, though. They are definately not clean. Sometimes you’re ankle deep in urine or other bodily fluids.
Edward,
Obviously, you’ve never visited http://secularprolife.org
Abortion is a human rights issue, not a religious issue.
Alan,
I never once thought that you cruised parks. Never crossed my mind. I’m was pointing out that it is a concern. It rose to the level of a state issue.
“What he is saying is that because they cannot admit to anyone who and what they are, they will sometimes feel forced to do this kind of behavior.”
That is completely perverted. Putting a picture on your desk, OK, I get that, wouldn’t bother me or my husband as he’s worked with people that do that, but THAT in public — that’s something completely different. Doing it to be accepted? Perverted.
“I know you all say you love us, but really not so deep down you just truly wish we would go away. It’s hard to live in a world where we are so often told how wrong we are. You should try it.”
I know you don’t see the irony there, but I have said so many times now that no one wants you to go away that at this point it just seems like you are not happy unless you play the victim and blame people for your troubles. Edward too. I don’t want to be forced to approve or participate. Otherwise, I’m not bothering anyone. You? Well you are still welcome here even as you go on and on about how Catholics just want you to disappear. Edward, well he’s ready to go to war – but no one’s telling him to get lost! Quite the opposite.
“And I think it might suprise you to know that a great many of those men cruising parks and mens room go home to their wives after they are finished. Food for thought no?”
No thanks. I’d rather eat a terd. It’s disgusting to think about. Disordered.
Mary – thank you for the suggestion. Edward has posted here before touting his capacity for violence. It is boorish and juvenile.
Steve,
I just figured that out. I remember, I remember. Thank you. Yes, he was very vocal about violence before. That “going to war” post up there triggered my memory.
Edward said, “In the days of Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome sex was a public thing. Nudity was a normal aspect of life and children were used to seeing their parents naked and, sometimes, sexually active. Children knew all about sexuality.
Then we witness the rising of the Catholic church and all of a sudden sex is some dark, dirty secret people should not talk about and should be kept hidden as much as possible.”
This is just not true. Can you cite your source? I have some background in Latin and some Roman history, and in Rome, sex between a married man and his wife was private. Freeborn women were expected to be virgins upon marriage and remain faithful. Freeborn men were allowed more licence, but they could not couple with freeborn single women, men or children. Thus they only were allowed slaves and prostitutes. Slaves and prostitutes were considered somewhat subhuman, so it was not some great celebration of sex! I see this use and abuse of “lesser” people as the part of the underbelly of a culture that built a great empire while it tortured slaves to death in the Colosseum, accepted pederasty (to some degree) and allowed its freeborn men to molest underlings.
Atheist, Communist China is likewise, very modest.
So….seems like most cultures are…I think it is innate…just like the urge to be private when you defecate. I am certain this is innate…I have watched many children, including my own learn to master this bodily function, and they all run behind the couch.
So the Christians are the only ones to confine sex to marriage and insist that it is intimate? Tell that to the Ottomans or the Muslim Caliphates. How about ancient Judaism? I’ve been to Bhutan and although the place is rife with phallic statues, the behaviors and customs of the people are very, very modest. Same with Nepal. Neither of these cultures are Christian.
Your description of the Carrie scene is interesting. Do you think this is a common experience? My own devoutly Catholic (daily mass etc.) mother sat me down and drew me elaborate pictures and graphs when I was ten (about the “change of life”). None of my secular friends got such treatment. One got a book stuck in her bedside table…her mom was a….nurse!
Edward said, “Sorry to hear that. Bulemia is a terrible and incapacitating disease.” Thanks for your words…it was terrible. Years of it. I was that generation of women that came of age just as rice cakes and “no fat” was all the rage, and we didn’t realize we were starving our brains of fat and therefore going insane. I also have addictive genes on my father’s side, a tendency towards anxiety, and a nature that makes me sensitive to our toxic media. I’m tougher now…and my behaviors are normal and the “stinking thinking” was lifted. If you ever come across someone with this disorder…tell them full, total absolute recovery is possible. I doubted this for a long time, but it is real. It might give them hope.
Mary,
“I have watched many children, including my own learn to master this bodily function, and they all run behind the couch.”
We call that there thing — natural law! Haha! It’s funny to me because I’ve seen that too SOOO many times and called my husband at work to describe in detail how funny it was.
I also have had to remind myself 1,000 billion times that children eventually DO potty-train.
Alan said, ““And I think it might suprise you to know that a great many of those men cruising parks and mens room go home to their wives after they are finished. Food for thought no?”
Is this really true? I guess I am kinda sheltered.
I just cannot ever imagine doing this. My safety fears would overwhelm my desire. I can only imagine that something about the illicit nature of it is part of the draw.
Mary,
Thank you for your candidness on bulimia. I relate a lot. I started pulling out my eyelashes and eyebrows at a young age – anxiety – and I didn’t know why or what to do about it except live in shame and fear. I still struggle, but healing came from realizing I was not defined by the length of facial hair. I was suicidal before it got better, in therapy for years. (See my conversion story.)
Thank you for your message of hope. That is exactly what people need to hear. I thoroughly enjoy reading your comments. You are full of wisdom!
Stacy,
I am swooning just thinking about pulling out an eyelash…how painful! I am very glad you are recovering/recovered. I am trying to raise resilient kids…but I can already tell one has a very sensitive, intense nature.
Stacy,
“That is completely perverted. Putting a picture on your desk, OK, I get that, wouldn’t bother me or my husband as he’s worked with people that do that, but THAT in public — that’s something completely different. Doing it to be accepted? Perverted.”
Stacy, come on! You’re smarter than this! Of course not to be accepted but to satisfy a desire. To quench a very strong need. And you knew that before you posted this.
JoAnna,
“Abortion is a human rights issue, not a religious issue.”
And still the only ones who make an issue out of it are religious people, no matter how many nice websites you can link to. When looking at photo’s of the average protest all the signs show religious comments, refering to the Bible and your god.
Mary,
“in Rome, sex between a married man and his wife was private.”
Really? So that’s why the word “orgy” originated from Latin?
Christianity became the state religion in the Roman empire in 325 AD by decleration of emporer Constantine the Great. So I’m sure you’re right when you’re refering to the situation after 325 AD. However, since the Roman Empire was founded on the principles of Ancient Greece and sexuality was a common good in Greece with no modesty whatsoever ….. Check any (non-religious oriented) history book you can find.
“So the Christians are the only ones to confine sex to marriage and insist that it is intimate? Tell that to the Ottomans or the Muslim Caliphates. How about ancient Judaism?”
I was refering to the situation in Europe and, therefor, the US. I don’t know enough about the Ottoman Empire or Judaism. However, seeing how both Christianity and Islam are nothing more than branches from Judaism I’m not suprised to see the same stupidity about sexuality in those religions as we see in Christianity.
“Your description of the Carrie scene is interesting. Do you think this is a common experience? My own devoutly Catholic (daily mass etc.) mother sat me down and drew me elaborate pictures and graphs when I was ten (about the “change of life”). None of my secular friends got such treatment. One got a book stuck in her bedside table…her mom was a….nurse!”
I hope this is not common practice but I have seen it happen with friends of mine comming from Christian / Catholic families. One of my friends needed to get his entire sexual education from me since his parents refused to discuss anything dealing with sex. His father said sex was something you don’t get to talk about and once you’re married things will become clear to you.
I also see it in my own house. My daughter walked into the bathroom while I was taking a shower (something she knows she’s not allowed to do) so she saw I have a somewhat different equipment than she does. I have no problem explaining that to her, in a way a 4 year old understands without giving her too much information. My husband, however, (former Catholic priest) can’t get himself to discuss anything like that with our daughter which I found out last weekend when he was getting dressed and she walked into our bedroom. I swear, right now she has a tendency to do things she knows she can’t. Before Easter I stopped her just in time from walking in on our cousin who was in bed with his boyfriend.
“My safety fears would overwhelm my desire. I can only imagine that something about the illicit nature of it is part of the draw.”
Like I said, it’s no picnic. But after a while the need for sexual release gets higher than your need for self-preservation, so you take the risk. It releases the presure for a while but soon you feel the need rising again until you give in once more, and again and again and again ….
Of course there are also men (and women) who go there for the thrill but those are far fewer than those who are either married to hide the fact their gay (in this group you find a lot of people from religious origin) or those who prove to be bisexual whos wives cannot deal with that. So, basically, very unhappy men.
Edward said, “Like I said, it’s no picnic. But after a while the need for sexual release gets higher than your need for self-preservation, so you take the risk. It releases the presure for a while but soon you feel the need rising again until you give in once more, and again and again and again ….”
How strange! Why not just self-stimulate if release is the main goal? (I don’t have a problem with this if it is not accompanied by pornography)…I realize this is not Catholic teaching. The drive MUST be for thrills and for intimacy or acceptance. In fact, it sounds compulsive.
Could you please point me to a text supporting your claims such as “sexuality was a common good in Greece with no modesty whatsoever”.
“However, seeing how both Christianity and Islam are nothing more than branches from Judaism I’m not suprised to see the same stupidity about sexuality in those religions as we see in Christianity.” It’s not stupidity, it is somewhat innate! It is also all about keeping the fidelity of the wife, because sex..(drum roll) produces children! Therefore, codes of behavior tend towards doing everything to control and contain female sexual behavior within marriage…habits of dress etc.
It’s like you don’t realize how everything in ancient history was oriented towards the family and having many children…because the chances offspring would live past the age of five was low.
Regarding your modesty and your daughter. I am laughing, because we have a curious one too, but the roles are reversed. I was raised Catholic and was always rather earthy and biologically curious. I have no problem telling my boys about the parts etc. We do it in a respectful way as I am sure you do. They are very interested in this from about three until six. My husband was not raised in any tradition and is more formal about things. It would be interesting to see how he handled a girl.
I am sorry, but I think the traditional religions have it right; constantly and openly flaunting sexuality is like lying. Women who run around in skimpy outfits are flaunting their ability to have babies…but without the intention to have the babies. Married women who constantly wear super sexy outfits in public(and I am talking extremes) seem to be saying “I want to copulate with someone other than my husband.” However, if you called them out they would look at you askance. Similarly, when parents allow their thirteen-year-old daughters to cavort in gold string bikinis, or their sons to wear pants that slide down and reveal half of their groin, they are basically advertising their fertility to every man on the planet. Why are they surprised and horrified when the men respond?
People are very sexual and sex is powerful…it produces children…therefore it makes sense to control it and mask sexual attributes when sexual arousal is not the goal of interactions. I do not wear a hijab, but in some ways, I think the hijab is more honest about the nature of male arousal than our dress codes. You seem to think life is better if many interactions were peppered with open sexuality as a public good. I think this belies a complete and utter misunderstanding of the power, evolved purpose and nature of sex.
Now male homosexuality gets around this problem. It does not produce children…so I can see how a freer sexuality would be more “honest” in this culture, since no offspring are produced. But what about disease? Seems better to harness sexuality and master it, rather than let it get you into hot water.
Edward, I wish you’d quit making claims you can’t substantiate. Here’s a picture of a non-religious sign at the 2012 West Coast March for Life: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/01/walk-for-life-west-coast-2012.html
I’ve been to many pro-life rallies — I’m willing to bet many more than you — and while there are some signs referencing religion, the vast majority do not. At the last one I was at, the vast majority of signs said something like, “We love you. Choose Life.”
Stacy I am not sure why you think we think or play that we are victims. Don’t you think you portray yourself as the victim? Your beliefs are tantamount to all others? You don’t want to be forced to approve and participate? No one is making you do either. But you see acceptance and changing of laws to include gay marriage as an infringement on your rights. So I ask who is playing the victim?
But I really don’t understand what you are saying. It is ok for me to have a picture of my husband on my desk, that you are ok with. But you are not ok with me having sex with him in public? So that makes sense to me. But now what about if I walk down the street holding hands with him. A quick kiss when we greet each other in a restaurant? Are you ok with these? I guess I want to know where the line is to be drawn by you.
But we agree, sex in public is wrong, regardless of the genders involved. But it is not done to be accepted. Many do it for many different reasons, but sadly for some it is the only outlet they will allow themselves because they cannot introduce homosexuality into their real lives. Usually it is because they feel the need to act straight to fit in. See because so many tell them they are wrong if they act on these urges they begin to believe it. But then the urges become stronger and harder to ignore. So perhaps if for so long we weren’t told that we are disordered (and rest assured you are saying our acts are disordered, not us, but the act is so closely related to the feelings, so whether you chose to acknowledge it or not when you say disordered it is taken as the person not the act) or immoral or just plain wrong then the “need” for cruising grounds would be less. Yes some would still partake, just like heterosexuals also partake in public sex.
Oh and I really do hope you will address what is and isn’t acceptable public behavior for homosexuals.
Mary
“Now male homosexuality gets around this problem. It does not produce children…so I can see how a freer sexuality would be more “honest” in this culture, since no offspring are produced. But what about disease? Seems better to harness sexuality and master it, rather than let it get you into hot water.”
And many of us do. We call it monogamy. Or heck even marriage. We all must learn to harness our sexuality and master it. But it does not give us the right to judge those who chose not to. Too much judging.
Edward I think Joanna is right here. There are many non religious pro lifers. Just like I am certain there are religious who are pro choice.
Edward,
“So I ask who is playing the victim?”
I don’t know. I certainly don’t feel like a victim, but if you think I think that I am, I really don’t know what to say. I’m pretty clear about where I draw the line when it comes to things that affect my family and society. Not everything that affects either directly infringe on my rights, but I also have the right to form my conscience and vote consistent with it. Which I do.
“It is ok for me to have a picture of my husband on my desk, that you are ok with.”
Yes, it’s none of my business who you have pictures of on your desk.
“But you are not ok with me having sex with him in public?”
Let me see if I can put this nicely. Hell no!
“But now what about if I walk down the street holding hands with him.”
No, I don’t want to see it, but I wouldn’t confront you either.
“A quick kiss when we greet each other in a restaurant? Are you ok with these?”
Honestly, I don’t want to see that either and I would just find another restaurant next time we went out. I wouldn’t stare. I wouldn’t say a word. I wouldn’t do anything except note it, and choose differently next time. This is a real scenario around here. We exist in relative peace, but no, I really don’t want to see that.
“I guess I want to know where the line is to be drawn by you.”
Hope I cleared it up.
“But we agree, sex in public is wrong, regardless of the genders involved.”
Yes.
“But it is not done to be accepted. Many do it for many different reasons, but sadly for some it is the only outlet they will allow themselves because they cannot introduce homosexuality into their real lives.”
I will take your word for it. Still doesn’t compute to me.
“Usually it is because they feel the need to act straight to fit in. See because so many tell them they are wrong if they act on these urges they begin to believe it. But then the urges become stronger and harder to ignore. So perhaps if for so long we weren’t told that we are disordered (and rest assured you are saying our acts are disordered, not us, but the act is so closely related to the feelings, so whether you chose to acknowledge it or not when you say disordered it is taken as the person not the act) or immoral or just plain wrong then the “need” for cruising grounds would be less. Yes some would still partake, just like heterosexuals also partake in public sex.”
I don’t get the public restroom thing. At all. Nor do I want to, so don’t feel compelled to explain it. I can be all done with that topic.
Stacy, fyi that was Alan not Edward.
Yes I do think you play the victim. And again my marriage doesn’t affect your family at all, and in my opinion only strenghtens society.
Now why would you change restaurants if you saw a man kiss a man? That to me is just foolish. But it of course goes towards proving my point that you just want us to disappear. You would have no issues with a man and a woman doing this. So you can say all you want you don’t want us to disappear, but I really don’t believe you.
And really excellent point on you not confronting me about holding hands with my husband in public. It really would be none of your business.
Alan, Stacy et. al,
For the record in many Arabic cultures men openly hold hands when they are just friends. So I don’t think holding hands is too out there. I hold hands with my mother and sometimes my Dad when we walk certain places. I think holding hands is non-sexual enough for anyone to do in public.
Alan, I would say that the word you might want to use instead of “judge” is “condemn”. It is a practical impossibility not to judge. For instance, right now I am judging that it is cool in the room and I need a sweater. Making value judgements is part of cognition. What you don’t want is for people to think “they must be depraved” or “that is more wrong than things I do” or perhaps you would want them to think “that is strange to me, and kinda creeps me out, but maybe there is something I don’t understand, and I need to look with a broader lens”.
Sorry, but it is a pet peeve of mine. I know people who are sooooo pc and always saying, “Christians are so judgemental”, but they themselves are quick to judge anyone who won’t party like a rock star or who makes a certain amount of money or who wanted a big family.
Mary
I remember my first trip to Africa I saw two men holding hands and looked at my husband. Now I knew being gay was illegal there so it didn’t make sense. It was indeed explained that it is how men show friendship. Thanks for the reminder.
I will take that critique and attempt to use condemn instead of judge.
)
I like condemn better anyway
I try not to judge, and usually when I do it is about things people can help themselves about.
Mary,
“How strange! Why not just self-stimulate if release is the main goal? (I don’t have a problem with this if it is not accompanied by pornography)…I realize this is not Catholic teaching. The drive MUST be for thrills and for intimacy or acceptance. In fact, it sounds compulsive.”
Because, although pleasurable, masturbation is no real substitute for physical intimacy with another person, even if it is in a park or public restroom. But you’re right. It IS compulsive. Sexual release always is. That’s the way nature made all animals.
“It’s like you don’t realize how everything in ancient history was oriented towards the family and having many children.”
That’s simply not true. Check any history textbook not published or edited by a religious organisation and it will be clear.
“Similarly, when parents allow their thirteen-year-old daughters to cavort in gold string bikinis, or their sons to wear pants that slide down and reveal half of their groin, they are basically advertising their fertility to every man on the planet. Why are they surprised and horrified when the men respond? ”
Ah, so rape victims brought it upon themselves, right? They shouldn’t have provoked their attackers?
You do know that theory was rejected about 35 years ago, right?
“You seem to think life is better if many interactions were peppered with open sexuality as a public good.”
I think the world would be a better place if people weren’t so uptight about sexuality, yes. Although I don’t think we should give children sex ed in junior high I do think discussing sexuality more openly would reduce the number of abuse cases because children would be more likely to come out in the open about possible abuse. I also think the number of teen pregnancies and STD’s will be decreased by being more open about sex at a younger age. If you consider the majority of teenagers in the US knows practically nothing about sex, safe sex or STD’s, not to mention the ways to get a girl pregnant. As long as there are guys who think the can get a girl pregnant from ejaculating in the pool or girls who think coitus interruptus is a safe way to prevent both pregnancy and STD I think we have a very long way to go before we can consider society being healthy when sexual education is considered.
“I think this belies a complete and utter misunderstanding of the power, evolved purpose and nature of sex”
Yes, ignoring and hiding it is such a better choice.
“But what about disease? Seems better to harness sexuality and master it, rather than let it get you into hot water.”
Ever heard of condoms?
“Alan, I would say that the word you might want to use instead of “judge” is “condemn”. It is a practical impossibility not to judge.”
But isn’t that exactly what your god tells you to? Doesn’t the Bible say you shouldn’t judge anyone? That it isn’t your place to judge anyone? So, if you’re a good Christian, why do you presume you can judge me (or anyone, for that matter)?
“I know people who are sooooo pc and always saying, “Christians are so judgemental”, but they themselves are quick to judge anyone who won’t party like a rock star or who makes a certain amount of money or who wanted a big family.”
True, but than again, we didn’t say we live as the Bible tells us to. We haven’t made a promise to not judge people
Stacy,
“Honestly, I don’t want to see that either and I would just find another restaurant next time we went out. I wouldn’t stare. I wouldn’t say a word. I wouldn’t do anything except note it, and choose differently next time. This is a real scenario around here. We exist in relative peace, but no, I really don’t want to see that”
I wouldn’t recommend you confronting me about it because that would most certainly cause a scene. And when the dust settled I can guarantee you would not come back to that restaurant ever again. You’d be too embarrassed. Wouldn’t be the first time someone would move off in total shame after trying to confront me about public displays of affection.
Edward, you write: I wouldn’t recommend you confronting me about it because that would most certainly cause a scene. And when the dust settled I can guarantee you would not come back to that restaurant ever again. You’d be too embarrassed. Wouldn’t be the first time someone would move off in total shame after trying to confront me about public displays of affection.
How incredibly trite – right from The Hulk: “You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”
Why is it that you need to bully Catholic women across the Atlantic? Why is it that you think your suffering is more special, deeper, and more poignant, than anyone else’s suffering? You’re making an ass of yourself . . . again.
Steve,
It may sound like a line from a bad movie (and let’s face it: The Hulk was a really bad movie) but that doesn’t make it less true. You really wouldn’t like me when I’m angry. And telling me I should hide my love for my husband would definately make me angry. Especially when considering the straight people who demand that from gay people have absolutely no problem with their own public displays of affection.
And I didn’t realize I was bullying anyone. I thought we were having a discussion. But if you consider this bullying, try to imagine what gay men and women have to endure on a daily basis.
Hmm, so the fact that you see two men kissing or holding hands is the same as having a bunch of Christians drive your loved one to his death? Or having to accept your children will be taught being gay is not something to be ashamed about is the same as being told on the day of your boyfriend’s funeral you should hurry taking your own life so you can be reunited in hell? Is it so difficult to imagine some people have experienced some actual suffering in their lives in stead of whining about things that either have no impact on your life or you no longer have any control over?
I’d rather make an ass of myself than allowing you to do so
Steve,
Thanks.
Gee I would have thought Edward was owed an apology for Steve saying Edward was making an ass out of himself. Guess if you agree with the opinion anything can be said.
But guess what Steve, Edward is not making an ass of himself. Sorry but no one has the right to confront two men who may hold hands or even kiss in public. Now of course you have the right to free speech, but guess what, so do we. So should you choose to confront said people be forewarned that they indeed have the right to respond. And you might not like it. Is that bullying? Is anything Edward has done bullying? No is the only answer you should have.
I am sure as a proud outloud catholic you might have been bullied. And you have bullied. You will tell me you have not, but I really really doubt that. As a matter of fact telling Edward he is making an ass of himself for defending himself, well that kind of makes you a bully.
Alan,
“Guess if you agree with the opinion anything can be said.”
I don’t agree I am making an ass out of myself but even if I was I’d rather be doing it myself than allowing someone else to do it.
Oh, this time “Name” is me
Alan,
Please quote where anyone (besides Edward) threatened to confront someone?
Please.
You ask direct questions. I answered them directly. I specifically said I would not confront anyone.
Edward flips out!
You flip out!
Over what? Nothing.
What are you defending yourself against? Me letting you post threatening things? Good grief. You both are acting like a couple of children. I have never censored a single comment from either of you. But this stops — and it stops now.
Edward:
The more desperately we seek to worship ourselves and to be good “individualists,” the more compelled we are to worship our rivals in a cult that turns to hatred. The conflicts resulting from this double idolatry of self and other are the principal source of human violence.
- René Girard
Edward! You must be young, because the Hulk was first a very bad, but “fun in a silly way” television drama! Hee hee!
Edward said, “Ah, so rape victims brought it upon themselves, right? They shouldn’t have provoked their attackers?”
I didn’t intend to say anything about rape with that last point. I’m talking about pure, consensual activity between young girls and older guys. I lived it Edward, as I had several friends who were sexually active very young with older guys…one even had a mother who bought her “cute” sexy undergarments at the age of fourteen. And, yes there was a bit of what people call “date rape” but I wouldn’t call it that most of the time. SO if you are fifteen, and hang out in a Brazilian bikini and get on a boat with a bunch of twenty-year-olds and get blasted on wine coolers and flirt like mad, you are not asking for it? I think you are in some way. You are not blameless. It is a crime to tell girls they can dress and act however they want and expect to be treated well. It is just false.
After the event, my friend was embarrassed and said that she was taken advantage of, but even then she had the good sense to realize it wasn’t “rape”. Fast forward to her therapist years later, who kept insisting that she had been raped. This woman recreated the whole narrative into one where she was blameless. It think this type of feminist thinking is both incorrect and harmful.
What about my teaching colleagues who are frustrated about how difficult it is to work on a lab or assist a student who is wearing the equivalent of a negligee to school? They cannot say anything and they are expected to be like stones. So you know what they do? They ignore these girls and give them quick, perfunctory words from a far distance. And the boys in the class! I have trouble working with these girls with their boobs hanging in my face and their thongs sticking out. It feels weird to me.
Edward….what is the objective of wearing obviously revealing clothes? It is to advertise your sexuality. Why advertise your sexuality if you do not intend to have sex?
I agree with you about better information about sex, but this is easy to do in a biology class in a clinical way. (and I do think we need some sex ed in jr. high) I do it. We haul out the charts and diagrams and answer all the questions about how it all works and such. And, I go through a little dramatic piece where I explain to the kids that all their desires and urges are really about their genes wanting to reproduce themselves….in the form of a baby. That really gets them…the boys usually gasp…
Doubtless you can see the issue arises. Obviously during my tenure I have had students who were SSA. How do I explain their drives to them? I try not to bring it up, but I also would never make someone feel terrible about their SSA…honestly no student ever asked….but I can imagine they are sitting there thinking “Well I have strong drives and interests which are not going to result in a baby. Why is that? What about my genes? Am I a genetic dead end?”
I explain clearly that the best, most reliable way to prevent STDs and pregnancy is to NOT HAVE SEX. We are required to talk about several other methods and I present them in a very clinical fashion. We also urge the kids about six hundred times to “talk this over with your parents or the guidance counselor”. But I tell them the best way not to have problems is to not put yourself in a situation where you will be tempted. We talk about how putting yourself in a tempting environment is just dumb. I talk at length about how alcohol lowers your inhibitions. But you see, in modern America the environment is more and more against you. Graphic scenes pour out from the television twenty-four hours per day. Porn is ubiquitous. Song lyrics promote it, the style of dress flaunts it. So really, you cannot keep out of the environment You would have to join the Amish. I think there is something insane about this. Now, I do not blame gay culture totally, as I think the heteros are fully participating in this movement, but urban gay culture, as I witnessed it in San Fran and in Provincetown, and as Simon Fanshawe experienced in London, is certainly part of the movement.
I live in Massachusetts…Most all the teens I have ever encountered are WELL VERSED in sex ed stuff by the time they are 15. But, I am sure there are places in this country that have students who are as sexually ignorant as the ones you describe.
About abuse….the Cub scouts does a great piece on abuse prevention for young kids without getting into anything graphic. Your privates are private…nobody gets to touch them. They have a book with several scenarios. The kids get it right away. I think we can prevent abuse without having a “sexually free” society without sexual things pushed down our throats.
sigh….Mary…again..sorry
Mary – LOL. Thanks for your comment.
I love this:
“I agree with you about better information about sex, but this is easy to do in a biology class in a clinical way. (and I do think we need some sex ed in jr. high) I do it. We haul out the charts and diagrams and answer all the questions about how it all works and such. And, I go through a little dramatic piece where I explain to the kids that all their desires and urges are really about their genes wanting to reproduce themselves….in the form of a baby. That really gets them…the boys usually gasp…”
In a biology class, human development should be taught. THAT is what kids need to know.
Stacy, go ahead and censor or block. Neither Edward nor I have been threatening in any way shape or form. Merely stating what would happen if you did confront is not a threat, it is not bullying.
Not sure how you see I am flipping out at all. Just merely commenting what could happen should you confront someone.
Stacy your bias against me (and so many who don’t agree with you) is quite obvious. You want so much to block me so just do it. Not sure what that will prove, but do it.
I have rarely been rude, except when someone has been rude to me. I don’t use bad language, so really the only reason you have to block me is a dislike for me.
I have seen time again people on your side who are rude, snide and offensive and you say nothing. NOTHING.
So perhaps it is YOU who is acting childish? Not even perhaps but definitely.
I shall be happy to be the first person expelled from here. I will also know that I was expelled because you didn’t like my dissenting opinion or me, not because of anything I have said.
Folks, as I see it, Edward was terribly wronged. For a person to say to him, at the funeral of a loved one that he should kill himself and go to hell, is terrible. How ugly. But where in Christian teaching does it condone such behavior? No place. The person was cloaking their need to feel superior and angry and blameless and cruel behind a Christian label; a terrible form of cowardice. But I would like Edward to acknowledge that such a person is more in the vein of those crazy Phelps followers than any real Christian, much less theists in general.
And, I would like him to acknowledge that it is not beyond the pale for a person to be curious or tentative about calling homosexual unions “equal” to heterosexual unions, given the biology of sex and the history.
One can question it and be respectful and decent. If some people use that as an excuse for hate, then I am sorry.
It has been shown that women do not do as well on certain spatial tests as men (statistically speaking). If some men want to use this information to tell women they are stupid and beat their wives, then I am sorry, but it does not make the information untrue.
Mary
Women should be able to dress how they want. It’s really not a debatable point.
Yes 15 year olds are well versed in sex ed. But thats all, so many don’t really understand it all. This is where we have failed. They understand so much about the mechanics, but so little about the results. Abstinance only does not change that. We need to educate better. I talked to my god daughter about sex when she was younger. I told her she needed to be old enough to understand all the repercussions and to protect herself. We had a good long discussion.
And fyi, before I get kicked off by Stacy, gays can still create children and many do. So we are not biological dead ends.
Mary,
It is hard to seperate the act from the christian. Please understand that. The christian, although supposed to be charitable is drawing their beliefs about homosexuality from religion more often than not. God says it is wrong, so it must be so.
So we can go on about how they are not being christian, but they are the ones who are saying they are.
And sorry, but marriage is not about the biology of sex to all. So many marry and never plan to have children. Yet most don’t condone their actions. Civil marriage is not about having children. I understand religious marriage is, and religous folks don’t give a hoot about civil marriage. But realize their is a difference please.
Thanks Mary,
“Folks, as I see it, Edward was terribly wronged.”
Everyone has unanimously agreed to this point. That is no excuse for him to take it out on others. No one condones the way he was treated by “other people.”
Alan, re: the biological dead end. Sorry if that came off as an insult, I didn’t meant that…but I can imagine that someone would think that about themselves, once they understand how sexual reproduction works and how all the cues and desires support it. Today you are correct in some way given in-vitro or surrogacy, but you cannot create a child that is the combination of the two of you, nor does the act of your union produce this child. So, from an evolutionary standpoint it is puzzling. Are you getting my drift here? I really don’t have the answers….just the questions.
Alan said, “Women should be able to dress how they want. It’s really not a debatable point.” I think it is. Well, yes, in a free society they can dress how they want, of course I support their liberty in theory, but it is the height of idiocy and misogyny to tell them they can dress however they want and expect to be treated well and taken seriously. Not true. Goes against reality. Goes against biology…it is a utopian ideal cooked up by people who do not understand how men (hetero) are.
Glad you took the time to talk to your God daughter. Hope the conversation included talking about abstinence as an option and about not putting yourself in tempting situations. I never said “abstinence only”…I try to give them correct info as it exists. BTW…the Pill has been proven to increase breast cancer rates for certain types of breast cancer…and condoms sometimes fail. We tell them that too.
Mary, I do not take what you say as an insult ever. You have been quite kind and respectful to me.
I do want you to realize the power words have though. You do see that “a biological dead end” can come off as insulting.
I don’t agree with “but it is the height of idiocy and misogyny to tell them they can dress however they want and expect to be treated well and taken seriously.” I don’t see how the way a woman dresses has anything to do with her being taken seriously. Yes there are certain ways to dress in certain places, but clothes do not make the woman. I did tell my god daughter if she was showing up top down below had to be covered and vice versa. Maybe not what you want to hear, but she always followed those rules.
And yes I did mention abstinance. I told her I would love for her to wait until she was married, but that as I didn’t I would rather she be smart than foolish.
When she would say horrible things about the “easy” girls in her class I would challenge her to get to know them to see why they were that way. I think that maybe was a greater lesson than any I could teach her.
She is a great kid, about to graduate high school and go off to do good things I hope.