Sexual Immorality, Charity and Tolerance
A 23 year old practicing Catholic college graduate student sent me an email because he was having trouble posting a comment. It would have been lost so here it is in a post. This explanation provides clarity and encouragement. This young adult explains why the Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is immoral and what it means to be tolerant even when we are internally uncomfortable. Comments are monitored.
It’s very easy to hate and fear what you do not understand.
Religion is not something simple. To disregard it as idiocy reveals a lack of understanding. So, I’d like to briefly confer to the best of my ability why Christian’s cannot accept homosexual partnerships as marriage and why they can vote for legislators who will pass laws in accordance with their moral foundation.
Believers hold themselves by an act of their own will and by the aid of grace to an objective moral code that they receive from scripture and the teachings of the Church. I am speaking of the Ten Commandments which are fulfilled by the Beatitudes in the New Testament as well as their interpretation conducted by the Magisterium of the Church.
We are called by Christ to show love, but this does not mean we accept immorality and vice as if it were virtue. This is why homosexuality is immoral according to Christian teaching:
We believe the sexual act is reserved for both the union of the two involved and for the procreation that results from it. Only in this openness to the procreative dimension, under the dimension of commitment in marriage, does the sexual act retain its dignity. Note that this allows for using the natural cycles of fertility to avoid conception, since doing so is still open to the possibility of conception and not completely closed off. The love of the two partners brings them together to produce a new being from their united flesh. The profound capacity to wed the passions of true sincere love (defined below), the physical reality of unity provided by nature, and the bringing into being a new life are astounding. These are the qualities necessary to the sexual act that consummates and makes a marriage eternal.
So, the pleasure of the sexual faculties is experienced with this openness to bringing new life into the world and this sole commitment to one spouse. It really is beautiful when you ponder it.
Also, this does not mean that “straight” couples (or singles) somehow have it easy and that their “lusts” happen to be in-line with moral teaching of the Church.
Lust has been and always will be a sin. Period. In the Old Testament, Tobias said he wanted to be with Sarah not out of lust, but out of sincerity of heart (Tob 8:4-9). Having accepted the life-long commitment to one another, desire for sexual intercourse becomes a right that each spouse may exact from the other. For they no longer belong to themselves alone, but to one another. This does not mean that all bedroom behavior is allowed, or that one may be unduly subjected to the other. The Church has always held that even in marriage, unbridled lust can be sinful.
But back to the openness to the procreative dimension that gives the act its beauty and grandeur. This dimension has and always will be lacking in a homosexual encounter. It doesn’t require a great imagination to conceive why the actions involved in such an encounter negate all possibility of procreation. This is why sexual expression of love between two persons of the same gender is understood to be intrinsically disordered (CCC 2357) and cannot therefore be accepted the Church as the consummation of a marriage.
Please note the distinction of “sexual love.” Our modern culture uses the words love and sex interchangeably. They have become synonymous. But to understand Christ’s love you have to realize that He demanded both the keeping of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) and the new law of the beatitudes (the New Testament). The spouses are ordered to help one another in their following of these codes of conduct so that they may attain spiritual purity and reach Heaven. For many of the upset responders, that would be a good assignment for you to accomplish: get a good grip on Christian theology in regards to charity, which is the Christian term for love.
So can a man show love (show true charity) to another man? Yes, of course: he can he show him hospitality, kindness, help in a time of need, and above all forgiveness. Can women do the same with one another? By all means. But can a man have sexual relations with another man or a woman have sexual relations with another woman as an expression of his or her love? According to the charity Christ demands, no, they cannot, because that act will be intrinsically limited; it will be incapable and closed off to the bearing of fruit in the form of a new person, who is considered a gift.
As regards children, parents assume responsibility for the formation of their child’s conscience. If and when I have them, I will do everything in my power to ensure that they understand their moral positions so that they can make a free and deliberate choice. We don’t have much to fear as long as children are well read and understand the positions they hold. Once they’re off and have left the nest, they are the captains of their own vessels and parents are simply there to offer guidance when it is requested. This is anything but instilling bigotry in children.
Also, many of the comments classified us as “haters.” This class would seem most appropriately ascribed to someone with virulent disgust for another group of people and who would wish their pain or destruction (one need only visit the comments on this blog for a good example). Further, “intolerance” would be a class that would seem to disallow displays of affection that point towards a sexual relationship between same-sex couples. We do not fall into this category either, or else we would curb children away from same-gender couples with children, or make a scene when we encounter them. No one is promoting that.
No sensible person can compare the physical publicity of public displays of homosexual affection in areas like public pools or parks with a written blog post about discomfort at homosexual PDoA accessible only through an Internet connection and a computer. If expressions of discomfort so dismays you, then don’t read them; that is a good deal easier than telling someone to become a hermit and to shut oneself away from the outside world. Or, at the very least, show decency as we show you. That is in accordance with the capital tenet: do to others as you would have them do to you. As citizens we are abiding within the laws promulgated by the state, and we may also implicitly reveal on our personal sites that we would vote in favor of a candidate whose position for making moral judgments is more in-line with our own. And by the principles this nation is founded upon, we have that right.
So, lastly, I must make a distinction between interior discomfort and external intolerance. The Christian faith does not allow for us to accept homosexuality as a valid and dignified form of sexual love. Consequently, external displays that point towards that type of love are met with interior discomfort.* Note that this does not mean we should be externally intolerant; rather, this means we can and should love homosexuals in the true charitable sense mentioned above – that we can offer a thirsting homosexual man or woman drink, or a famished homosexual man or woman food. Christ demands that of us. But if these homosexual men and women are thirsting or famished for us to cast aside our faith and moral foundation and embrace their ideology, then they will inevitably be disappointed.
For we can love you, but we cannot love your behavior.
*Of course it goes without saying that public displays of lust even between heterosexual couples among children is shunned.
Category: Marriage, Moral, Social Issues, Theology
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
What a thoughtful and well-written response! Bravo to the young college student! Not everyone is lucky enough to have a strong and well-formed conscience at that age!!!
Well-said! I hope my children have this kind of level head on their shoulders as they brave their way through college!
I don't think it's idiotic to be religious, but I think trying to explain your faith logically is a loser's game. Citing ancient mythology won't persuade this rational thinker.
You've done a great job describing why YOU shouldn't have a homosexual marriage, and why you shouldn't be able to marry again after menopause if you unfortunately become widowed (after all, you won't be able to procreate). Also, I say “widowed” because that's the only way you will be able to remarry. Jesus makes his stance on divorce very clear (he never said anything about homosexuality).
However, you have done nothing to explain why your personal religious beliefs should be codified into law.
Back to the Jesus on divorce – his view of divorce (unlike homosexuality) was made very clear in the Gospels. Seeing that divorce is the number one threat to marriage, I can only assume you're trying to make it illegal as well? Just curious.
To the writer of the email posted here:
Something else you may want to consider, in addition to your statements above, is the objective nature of the moral code we as Catholics choose to follow and believe to be true.
I agree with everything you say above. And you are correct when you say:
“Believers hold themselves by an act of their own will and by the aid of grace to an objective moral code that they receive from scripture and the teachings of the Church”
But something you have not included here is that if our moral code is truly an objective code created by the creator of this existence, then all other moral codes contrary to ours are wrong. We believe that the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth. We are either right or we are wrong in this belief.
If that was not the case, and the Catholic Church's moral code is correct for us and some other moral code is correct for some other group, then there is no objective nature to our moral code and we should not define it as such.
As a physicist by education, an engineer by profession and a philosopher at heart, I can not fathom how there can be such a thing as subjective truth. 2+2=4 there is no way around that. Therefore, there has to be objective truth in this existence.
Furthermore, objective truth is instilled by the creator of this existence. And since that creator is the author of this existence then it can not be wrong, because it is defined as it was created to be defined.
The fact of the matter is that whether or not young adults abstain from sexual intercourse, they have no control over their hormones and desires. As an atheist I obviously don't live according to biblical 'standards' (or rather, limitations), but I'd like to point out that no matter what your religious denomination may be, it doesn't change your biological functions. It doesn't make you unlustful.
In this respect, religious beliefs merely serve to inhibit acting upon those feelings, and unfortunatly, the only conditions that will remove those contraints are defined by that religion, and not by you, the actual person.
Not only does this severely limit your personal freedom, and infringe upon your privacy, it also forces you to suppress basic feelings and needs.
This is one of the reasons why I have huge problems with the idea that only after marriage, one may engage in sexual relationships. It goes against our nature. It's so unnecessary. Especially nowadays when it takes virtually no effort to use contraception.
On a final note, I'd like to point out that sex definitely plays a (rather huge)role in any healthy marriage, and not having sex before marriage can obviously lead to unexpected and otherwise avoidable situations and insecurities.
Anonymous, Jesus said divorce could only be allowed in cases of adultery. In an unfaithful marriage, the Catholic Church does recognize that this marriage can be considered invalid, but the Church takes marriage and divorce very seriously and married persons are expected to do the same.
As far as Jesus not saying anything about homosexuality, it's called fornication. Gay marriage was non-existent so homosexual behavior during the time of Jesus was considered fornication, and sexual impurity. You can also read Romans 1 for a detailed and undeniable argument that homosexual behavior was/is considered sinful.
“its very easy to hate and fear what you do not understand”
Turn that around, you do not understand what it is like to be a homosexual, and because you are “religious' you negate it. Have you ever asked a homosexual how they feel, how they became? I'd bet no because your church teaching tells you we are wrong, disordered or unnatural (look again, many animals have sex with same sex)so you look no further. I was born and raised Catholic and while I applaud blind faith (there is no actual proof god exists, thats why it is called faith) I don't see how it should control my life. I do not ask you to accept gay marriage (although should you look at my marriage I don't think you would find it much different than yours), you still have the freedom to practice, and yes teach your children what you believe. But while teaching your children what you believe you should also let them know that others live their lives differently and they should be allowed to do so. Only god can judge us, so you should teach them not to judge.
Now of course the question is if you want to be able to go to the park and not see gays touching how would you stop it? And fyi implying that gay men cannot touch with out being effiminate is just silly. I touch my husband in public, I love him and I have no problem with being affectionate, however I am not really what one would call effiminate.
If you really don't want people giving you a hard time about your beliefs then perhaps you should stop wanting to give others a hard time about theirs.
I remain anonomous not because I am in fear but becuase I don't have any way to be anyother on here. But should you care my name is Alan and I would be more than happy to have a converstion with you about why words can be offensive even if the intent was to show love, and I can talk to you about my journey to self acceptance.
Joe K,
Curious how you can say that Catholics have an Objective Moral Truth ie 2+2=4 and you can't change that, even though that moral truth
1) changes over time (your Catholicism is different than your grandfather's was and that your grand-kids' will be)
It used to believe those who translated the Bible into English should be killed, but doesn't think this any more.
It used to believe unbaptised babies go to hell, or limbo, but doesn't think this any more.
It used to believe atheists and heretics should be executed, but doesn't think this any more.
It used to support slavery, but doesn't any more.
It used to believe priests could marry, but doesn't think this any more.
It used to believe the sun goes round the earth, but doesn't think this any more.
It used to believe the world is a few thousand years old, but doesn't think this any more.
It used to believe humans have no animal ancestry, but doesn't think this any more.
It used to believe in the blood libel against the Jews, and it even canonised “saints” who were supposed victims of “ritual murder” by the Jews, but apparently it doesn't believe this any more.
Like the rest of us, the church does need to adapt in order to survive.
2) Differs between Catholics (http://www.rcrc.org/perspectives/catholic.cfm)
Nothing about this suggests objectivity here. I actually do believe in objective truth, but it certainly can't be found and agreed on based on contradictory and outdated (slavery, stoning, etc..) texts
Anonymous, do you realize that railing against things the Church does not teach (e.g., that post-menopausal widows can't remarry — which is false) just makes you look foolish?
If you're going to argue against Catholic belief, have the intelligence to argue against what Catholics ACTUALLY believe instead of what you THINK we believe.
OP – great article, but the grammar nerd in me must point out one small error: “That is in accordance with the capital tenant” should be “That is in accordance with the capital tenet“.
Rational Answers,
Young adults have indirect control over their hormones. So to say they have no control would be incorrect. However, I see your point about the “raging” hormones. However, that does not create lust. Lust is an emotion that is created by thoughts of sexual actions. Just because someone have sexual urges does not result in lust.
Religious beliefs do not serve to inhibit or cause actions. They are merely codes to follow; they don't in actuality DO anything. They are used in the discernment process someone goes through before taking an action. Some actions may require more discernment then others. So there are no constraints to be removed by changing a religious belief.
Further, religious beliefs in no way limit one's personal freedom. They merely provide a person with concepts to be able to discern an act. Because my religious beliefs tell me I shouldn't steal $20 from my parents do no in any way inhibit me from doing that. And it in no way invades my privacy.
One may engage in sexual relationships prior to marriage. It doesn't mean however that it is right.
How is waiting until after marriage going against our nature?
Finally, regarding avoidable situations and insecurities, having sex before marriage creates otherwise avoidable insecurities and situations. If two people have never had sex before there is no asking, “Do I make you sexually happier then the other XXX people you had sex with?” The answer to that question is non existent. “Do you have an STD?” Another non existent question. Not sure I see what situations and insecurities you are talking about.
Stacy's original post complained that two men had the gall to look/smile at each other at the pool and two women who put their arms around one another had their child with them at the park.
There was no sexual display. Stacy was offended that she, as a taxpayer, should have the right to not have to see people she suspects of being homosexual together in public. Not only does she feel it is wrong for them to get married but it is also wrong for them to be allowed to take their children to public places because her children might ask why a baby has two mommies.
Do you see how this kind of thinking may scare the rest of us? When some religious-minded people feel that others are a blight upon their world and shouldn't be allowed outside unless they are behaving like chaste robots? (And don't say you never said that, because you expressly stated that two members of the same sex looking at one another or putting an arm around the other is immoral and shouldn't be tolerated in public.)
What if the two women are good Catholics? What if they received guardianship over the child because their parents died in an auto accident? What if they never engage in sexual activity and bear their cross like good Catholics? Would you then still deny an arm around the shoulder or a hug?
You don't even know what is going on in their bedrooms, yet you have judged them unfit to be in public around your children.
THAT is what offends the “liberals” and “freethinkers” who, as your LW suggests, you should find out more about each of their philosophies before you carpet bomb them with blanket statements.
Hallowed be the Ori.
Joe K said… “Lust is an emotion that is created by thoughts of sexual actions.”
Joe, it's obvious that you believe this, but how do you know it's true, and how can you accept this from a man in a robe who once thought the earth rotate around the sun? Don't you have any questions or curiosity to know if this is true?
Scientific thinkers see Lust as a feeling that is natural and necessary for reproduction – for all animals and plants. For life. All kinds of chemicals are at work that make your palms sweat, you can't sleep, you get nervous. It it wrong for me to lust after my spouse? If I never did would we procreate.
Bonnie F,
On some of your points in #1 you should check your facts. I reccomend http://www.google.com but check the validity and agenda of the sources you find. The internet is full of shisters and hucks.
In others there is a difference between moral teaching and what is learning. Calculus wasn't invented until Newton came along does that mean the Church was wrong because it didn't know about it? We have tools to know certain things, as knowledge progresses we increase that knowledge bank.
Regarding #2
I am stealing the concept here but I don't recall where I read it….
If I and a friend decide to form a “newspaper” and we decide to call it the New York Times, we could right a couple articles, print them on paper and title the paper the New York Times.
Does that make our paper the New York Times? Nope. So to say that your link in #2 has anything to do with the Catholic Church is incorrect.
I have traveled to Asian countries (India, Nepal) where it is perfectly normal for boys and grown men to hold hands and be affectionate toward each other, and it doesn't have a gay connotation at all. (Hard to believe but true)…
Would this display disgust you because of the thoughts created by your imagination?
Sorry about the moderation. Comments are open again on this thread.
Anonymous, no I don't think so.
Anonymous. I think there is a difference in our definitions of lust. What you speak of is arousal. That is natural. Lust is a negativly orders emotion that eminates from arousal.
Dictionary.com
Lust – uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
Anonymous, when I wrote that first post I was writing to a small readership – a Catholic to Catholics – about what I've watched happen in this liberal state. I moved here 7 years ago. I've watch liberal policies fail. The same-sex marriage debate was intense then and homosexual behavior in this state is rather shoved in our faces. We are intimidated to silence. That is what frustrated me. So I came home and vented to like-minded internet friends. The angry people on the internet just proved the point.
If an atheist saw one of us praying in public and went home and wrote frustration about it on an atheist blog to an atheist audience, I can promise you that no one here would be offended or try to silence them. None of us would have sent hoards of raging people to leave hateful comments on the atheist blog. People who do that are just looking for fights.
RationalAnswers: You posit abstaining from pre-marital sexual intercourse “forces you to suppress basic feelings and needs.” Given that a person can live a couple of minutes without oxygen, some days without water, and several weeks without food, how long would it be before a person died from not acting on their “their hormones and desires”?
Tolerance means to endure, and 'put up with'. You've openly admitted that you don't like these people, their behaviour, who they are, who they associate with, and so on. You TOLERATE it, but that isn't true acceptance. Think about that word “tolerate” when you use it, and realize that all it means is that you're putting up with them, and not truly trying to understand them and accept them for who they are.
Anonymous @ 12:50 PM: In the Western world when a person self-identifies as “gay” they are not declaring that they hold deep affection for another. Rather they are declaring, publically, that they are erotically attracted – to the point of action – to another who is of the same sex. It is absurd to interject a non-erotic hypothesis at this point in time as the homosexual advocacy in the past 40 years has made it clear: gay is erotic. It is also absurd for anyone to lambast Stacy Trasancos for an erotic interpretation of her observations as vociferous advocacy has removed all other options.
But I am not talking about what people said to you on the internet. I am saying that you were upset over two men looking at each other or two women taking their child to the park.
You said that as a taxpayer you should have some say in regards to the “morality” of your neighborhood.
Besides the fact that gays and libs pay their taxes too, you were complaining about homosexuals existing in public. Neither couple was out of line, or engaging in lewd conduct. There was not even a peck on the cheek.
I am asking you if you understand why you have frightened or offended people. Marriage is one thing, but you seem to believe they do not have the right to look at each other in a public place. Or take their child to a park to play. Or put an arm around one another, regardless of what actually goes on in their bedroom.
You fight so they can't get married, okay. But to imply that their very existence, even in the most innocuous or benign way is something you shouldn't have to tolerate when you step outside is downright frightening to the rest of us.
SteveP: Prayer isn't a requirement to live either, so it must not be very important.
Hallowed be the Ori.
Stacy, here's why this matters: this isn't about your religion telling you that bigotry and intolerance are okay. It's about your religion motivating you to act on that bigotry and intolerance.
While there are a tiny handful of comments about homosexuality in the Bible, the book is riddled with attacks on the wealthy, and yet, I don't see you complaining about the fact that rich people are walking around in your park. Why so selective?
It's the dishonesty that bothers people. That, combined with your attempts to make your religious views the law of the land, over people who do not share your religion that is so offensive.
Here's the thing with bigotry – it's only the fringe extremists who wear it openly and proudly. And by being so big and open about it, they allow the mainstream bigots – that is, people like you – to tell themselves they have loving hearts, and what they're saying isn't bigotry.
Lastly, you hide behind the fact that this is a blog for people who share your views. The true test of character, Stacy, is what you do when no one's looking. What you post here is hateful bigotry, plain and simple. Doesn't matter if you write it in the New York Times or on the walls of your outhouse. You're promoting intolerance and bigotry, and I'm sad to hear you're passing it on to your children.
Not particularly interested in arguing, but it is important that you understand that you are not what you tell yourself you are.
By the way, as the mother of seven children, you must know it's extremely likely that one of your kids is gay. And if you're any kind of parent, you probably have a clue as to which one (or ones) it is already.
Best,
Josh
Stacy I realize this is your blog, however when you state things like “homosexual behavior is rather shoved in our face” what do you expect people to think? Yes it bothers you, and from your original post it makes it seem like you just wish you could vote us away. Doing away with gay marriage will not do away with homosexuality. You do know this right?
So maybe as I suggested earlier you should spend some time talking to gays rather than condemning us as immoral. As far as people on not raging against aetheist and not silencing them why do you seem to think it acceptable to silence homosexuals? You don't want to see us (at least not showing any kind of affection for each other in public) or really listen to any of the non hateful responses here. Your mind is set against us, can you not just be straight forward in your desire that we just go back to being in the closet?
I was upset by erotic display of affection between same sex people.
As a taxpayer I absolutely DO have some say in my community and I have a right to vote and support whomever I chose. I never said homosexual people and atheists do not. Not once. I never said they had no “right” to exist. If you would read instead of emotionally over-reacting, you might understand a little better what is actually written.
JoeK: I can assure you that there are very few living people on this planet over the age of 12 that do not very often have lustful thoughts. Which shouldn't be a surprize to anyone when you realize that procreation is nature's number one priority, and has been for billions of years.
Religious beliefs DO indirectly inhibit and cause a person to act. You are trying to paint them off as a set of guidelines, but when you truly believe that you will be punished in the afterlife for any sins committed, then it's no longer a set of guidelines but strong coercion. I find this to be one of the most dispicable and highly immoral aspects of Christianity, and Catholicism in particular.
It should be obvious why those religious beliefs limit your personal freedom. If you are truly convinced that you are being judged some day, then you are likely do adjust your actions accordingly. You will be punished for stealing those $20, so you choose to refrain from stealing them.
Then ask yourself, why would an atheist like myself not steal it? Guess what, I actually evaluate and think for myself about what would be the right thing to do. There's no God or higher authority telling me I can't do it. I'd rather be a moral person, because it makes me feel good about myself, and because I know society wouldn't function if we didn't think about how our actions affect other people. I don't need absolute morality to be a good person.
So, how is waiting with sex until after marriage going against nature? I'm sure you know the answer to that. In fact, I dare bet there's a good chance that you've gone against your own nature in that respect. Every time you pass up a chance of making love to someone you love. I know plenty of happy couples with a lovely family and household who never got married. Are they doing something wrong? I don't think so. In fact, I KNOW they're not.
Finally, having some experience before making the big leap that is marriage(for LIFE) is always a good thing.
SteveP: I can think of a dozen other things that would not turn out to be fatal, even in the long run. I'm not talking about primary needs. WHen I speak of basic feelings and needs in this context, I'm talking about things that contribute to a persons happiness and mental health. The ability to live a fulfilling live, and what a fulfilling life actually entails, should be decided by each person on their own, and should not be dictated by outdated, medieval scripture.
Alan, please quote where anyone, not just me but anyone, has silenced an atheist. Good grief. Read that last few days of comments. That's laughable – almost.
@Stacy Transancos:
You've mentioned multiple times that you vote and that you're a taxpayer.
In your ideal world what actions would the government take to prevent you from having to see homosexuals in public spaces? What, exactly, are you proposing to vote for as your ideal situation?
I totally agree that Homosexual behaviour is NOT normal and IS offensive to many people but in a Christian society it is tolerated. What the 'progressives' have done is take that tolerance and abuse it to the point that they are creating hate where is wasn't before. These people need to reign themselves in or it will get nasty in the end because when you consistently force people to accept what they know to be wrong it can only lead to conflict.
@Stacy Transancos:
I'd also like to know how you envision a society where you don't have to see homosexuals in public spaces. You've stated that you're not opposed to them existing, but that you're a taxpayer and have a say in the way your community is run. Would you have homosexuals arrested for holding hands?
To echo sotonohito's question: What exactly are you proposing as your ideal situation?
Maturecheese: We have seen time and againt that homosexuality is not tolerated in ANY Christian society. Not in the past, when societies used to be a lot more conservative, practising, and devout, and still not fully in the present. Only Islam takes the cake over Christianity in that respect.
Stacy, what is laughable is your ability to dodge my question and call me over-emotional. I am not emotional at all. I am not gay, nor atheist, nor liberal. (I'm a moderate) Your likes and dislikes do not affect me personally in any way.
All I can infer from what you say is that two people looking at one another or putting an arm around someone are erotic displays of affection. So if I am, say, to put my arm around my husband while we take our kids to the park, or pat him on the shoulder, we are in fact being erotic around the children.(an eroticism you approve of, but erotic nonetheless)
You implied members of the same sex should't have a right to look at each other in public. And that suspected homosexuals shouldn't have the right to put their arms around each other or give one another an elbow squeeze and that they shouldn't be able to take their kid to the pool lest your children ask you a question about them.
Again, do you see why this way of thinking frightens some people or not?
Hallowed be the Ori.
Stacy's earlier comment bears repeating:
“If an atheist saw one of us praying in public and went home and wrote frustration about it on an atheist blog to an atheist audience, I can promise you that no one here would be offended or try to silence them. None of us would have sent hoards of raging people to leave hateful comments on the atheist blog. People who do that are just looking for fights.”
For that matter, whenever P.Z. Myers spews his bigotry and intolerance toward Christians, hordes of Christians do not descend upon his blog with vituperative comments and denunciations. There's the lone wolf, of course, but by and large it's the Atheist Mutual Admiration Society.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that, for the most part, atheists (and others opposed to Catholic belief) can dish it out but they can't take it. Tolerance, indeed.
Anonymous, do you realize that railing against things the Church does not teach (e.g., that post-menopausal widows can't remarry — which is false) just makes you look foolish?
If you're going to argue against Catholic belief, have the intelligence to argue against what Catholics ACTUALLY believe instead of what you THINK we believe.
I never said the Catholic Church teaches that.
I was addressing the logical conclusion one would arrive at, when arguing against homosexual marriages, if they state: “the sexual act is reserved for both the union of the two involved and for the procreation that results from it. Only in this openness to the procreative dimension, under the dimension of commitment in marriage, does the sexual act retain its dignity.”
If procreation is the defining distinction, it therefore means all who can't procreate fall in the same category.
Sotonohito, None. As far as who I vote for, respectfully, please understand that right now I simply don't feel like defending it to you. It's my business. Worry about who you will vote for. Deal?
JMS, I don't envision such a society. To your question about arrest, seriously, don't be ridiculous. No one said anything about that but the raging liberal left who think everything has to be controlled by the government. Not everybody thinks that way, especially not people of faith.
Did you even read the post up top? Honest question. Did you?
Why do we have to accept it? If we feel it is sinful, I believe the most we can do morally is tolerate the behavior. As for the actual people, I know most people (me included) strive to accept the sinner but not the sin. Everyone falls short though. I'm sorry if it comes across as otherwise.
@Stacy Trasancos:
No, I don't believe you. You've said, multiple times that you're a taxpayer and you vote. You've said that, multiple times, in reference to being “forced” to see homosexuals.
The only reason for pairing those two is that you, as a taxpaying voter, want to see the state use its power to keep you from being “forced” to see homosexuals.
And, I also don't believe you for other reasons. In nations where Catholics hold a majority they **DO** force their views on the unwilling via the power of the state. Or have you forgotten the bans on contraception in the Philippines? The brutal and draconian anti-abortion laws in Nicaragua that are, to date, responsible for the deaths of an absolute minimum of 200 women?
I should simply trust you that, despite the track record your religion has for oppressing non-Catholics, and your own comments that as a taxpaying voter you have a right not to see homosexuals, you don't want to take legal action? I'm not that stupid, and I'm insulted that you'd think I am.
More generally, I'm a parent. I'd like to live in a world where my kid doesn't have to ask me why the man is being tortured on those disgusting billboards religious people put up ever single Easter. Heck, I'd like to live in a world where my kid never even learned about religion until he encountered it in history class as an example of the aberrations of people in the past.
But you know what?
I don't flip out and throw a fit because my kid sees people walking around wearing little torture dioramas on their necks and wonders why. I don't flip out because my kid asks me who Jesus is/was.
There's a reason for that, and I think it's very closely related to the reason why you DO flip out at the mere public existence of homosexuals.
The difference between you and I is that I am pretty confident that I'm right, and you know that you're wrong.
You know that your bigotry towards homosexuals is something that your kids and grandkids will look back on with the same sort of eye rolling embarrassment that you do when reminded of the racism that your grandparents & great grandparents almost certainly embraced [1].
You know that the only chance you have to infect your own children with the poisonous bigotry you've got is to prevent them from ever seeing homosexual people as people. If they know that Stacy down the street has two mommies, and that Mr. Thomson at school has a husband, then it's vastly more difficult for you to convince your kids that homosexuals are monsters of sin who must be kept legally down and prevented from having full citizenship.
Just as desegregation laws were viciously opposed by bigots who knew that if their kids actually interacted with black people they'd come to see them as people rather than The Other, you know that if homosexuality isn't officially condemned by the government your kids will be vastly less likely to see homosexuals as The Other.
Me?
I know that my views on religion, unlike your views on homoseuxals, are rooted in reality. So I don't worry about my kid learning about religion. I'm not pleased about having to explain the fetish you have for graphic depictions of torture, but I've never even griped about it, just rolled my eyes. I've certainly never made veiled threats that if I had political power I'd outlaw such things.
Because, unlike you, I know that my views aren't at odds with reality. So if my kid encounters your religion I'm not concerned in the slightest. But if your kid sees a homosexual you're terrified that they'll grow up without your bigotry. And rightly so, because they will.
[1] No disparagement on your grandparents intended, just statistical likelihoods, most people back in their day were racist. Two of my grandparents were deeply racist, one I'm not sure of, and one was quite unusually racially progressive.
Someone sent me a great quote. Catholics, tolerance, is not a virtue.
“We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it's never an end in itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.” – Archbishop Chaput
Oh, my poor, poor darling Stacy, I know that your heart is in the right place and that you mean well, and all, but it's not my fault that your Church Leadership is a hateful vile bunch of slimy degenerate corrupt and despicable creeps and that you were naive and gullible enough to be led astray by them.
Nope, I had nothing to do with that.
But what I can do is TELL YOU just how badly that they have infected your sweet and precious brain with their toxicity and made you Radioactive in Polite Company and Civil Society.
I'll be keeping it as simple as possible for you, by using small, non- multisyllabic, words so that it should not be difficult for you at all to follow.
If you have any questions for me about any of this, and how we can best go about Breaking The Church's Spell over you and De-Indoctrinating you, feel free to contact me at any time at either my email address NycLabrets@gmail.com, or you can phone me directly at my phone number 1-917-720-4276, and we can then discuss how best we can help you out of the Purgatory that you are foundering in like a poor little lost sheep.
M'kay?
And finally Break The Spell and Deindoctrinate you from the Mental Witchcraft performed on you and the Hypnosis you are under by the Warlocks of your Church.
If you won't do it for yourself, that's fine, sometimes it's best to remain Blissfully Ignorant, but, and now be honest with yourself, do you really think its good to further perpetrate this mental illness on your own children?
Please think of them, and what is best for them going forward.
They are likely far too young and defenseless to be protected against these evils, and you must do all that you can to protect them, given the track record the Predators of the Catholic Church have with Preying on the young and vulnerable.
20 years from now do you really want to read in the paper how one of your children was the recipient of yet another multi-billion dollar Settlement of the Church's that kept their people out of Court and out of Prison?
I think not.
Kindest Regards,
Nyc Labretš, HMFIC
Digital Komponents
http://digitalkomponents.com/
DE Büro +49 0176 624 68 677
NYC Büro: 1-917-720-4276
Facebook: Nyc Labrets
Twitter: NycLabretsDE
Why the Catholic Church HATES Gay Marriage Equality
Posted by Nyc Labretš
http://moronia.us/front/2011/06/why-the-catholic-church-HATES-gay-marriage-equality/
By Nyc Labrets (Moronia)
Everyone leaves out one very key element of what this fight is truly about.
It’s not about “Preserving The Sanctity Of Marriage. “
That’s total smokescreen, designed to obscure the REAL issue.
The opponents of Gay Marriage Equality, most notably the Catholic Church and the Catholic League’s adhoc hate monger in-chief, Bill Donohue, are fighting tooth and nail to protect their Authority To Sanctify Marriage.
It’s about Power.
It’s a Foundational Fight.
The entire underlying power structure of the Catholic Church is built on it.
Their authority to sanctify marriage is the true rock of their cornerstone, much more so than Jesus, or Saint Peter is.
Everything, and I mean everything, else that the Church is flows directly from that.
Gay Marriage will visit an Apocalypse on earth all right.
But the damage will be limited and isolated primarily to the Vatican and its worldwide empire of Dioceses.
So naturally, of course, they’re going to do battle with everything that they’ve got, which means that a rabid frothing and foaming at the mouth Bill Donohue gets let off of his leash with the full and unwavering support of the Hierarchy.
Our Institution of Modern Marriage, as it exists today, was completely invented out of thin air and whole cloth by the Catholics 500 years ago at their Council of Trent.
Prior to that, throughout all of our entire human history here in the West two people that loved each other were married…
When they said that they were married.
That was it.
There was no Central Mediating Authority to say whether it was a “Proper” Marriage or not.
Then the Church decreed that the Marriage would not, and could not, be a legitimate Marriage unless one of their priests Officiated at the Wedding, which had to be witnessed by at least two other people.
It’s where the phrases Illegitimate Marriage and Illegitimate Children come from —
As if a child could ever be illegitimate.
Never mind get to pick their parents.
This Decree was one of the biggest power grabs over people that has ever perpetrated in our entire 100,000 year history on Earth.
And the truly amazing thing is that they got us to go along with it.
By doing this they pretty much cornered the market on dictating whom people could, and could not, love.
All of this has a lot of bearing on the issue of Gay Marriage today, not just in the 50 United States, but worldwide.
To repeat, the reason that they’re so up in arms in the Fundamentalist Religious Camps about Gay Marriage is not because it:
“Undermines and threatens the Sanctity of Authorized Marriage”
But rather because it:
“Undermines and threatens their Authority to Sanctify Marriage.”
Don’t believe it?
Then why is it that every single wedding ceremony ends with the statement:
“By the Authority vested in me, I now pronounce you Man & Wife”?
Picking a mate that does not meet with their approval completely undermines their Authority, and that’s why they’re so entirely hostile to the idea.
Because if that gets taken away from them by we the people, then the question is what’s going to be the next thing to go?
If I were them I’d probably tried to hold on to a core asset like that myself, which is really the only thing I understand about them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O58gbZYVR4&hd=1
Stacy I can see why they are freaking out. Your original post indicated that how close two guys were sitting together and a woman putting her arm around another woman were the reason for your post. These are not erotic in nature. I understand why it made you uncomfortable but don't understand why the original post went into talking about being tax-paying, a voter, and influencing your community. It seems – just taking that post alone – that you would ban the above acts if you had the power. And that is extreme.
Stacy: Enjoy your new audience. I find it quite hilarious how this place went from a sort of 'preaching to the choir' type of blog to a political/religious discussion battlefield.
I'd actually love to see something like that happened to the likes of pharyngula, but I can't possibly imagine the man ever saying anything that would trigger such a response.
Oh yeah. Check out Conservapedia's wonderful articles on PZ and 'Atheism and Obesity' if you think conservatives own the moral high ground.
I have been reading this thread, and I have to say that my first instinct is to reply with some very uncharitable responses. After re-thinking my response, I have come up with the following:
If we are supposed to respond to our feelings of desire and lust … are we supposed to do the same with our feelings of hatred and resentment? Looking at this from an atheistic point of view … the only consequence to me killing another human being is being put in jail (assuming I get caught). The same would occur if I felt lust for a young lady (under the age of consent). There are people lobbying that we should be able to exert our sexual desires on anyone of any age. Why can’t we do the same with our feelings of anger?
We don’t go around killing people so that we can live together in a civilized manner. The same applies to our outward signs of Public Displays of Affection (PDA). If I were to go to certain parks after dark, I know that there will be people who might be selling drugs, making out (or worse), or other forms of activity. I do not find these activities acceptable, so I refrain from going to these locations after dark.
In a perfect world, I should be able to go to these parks at any time, and not have to subject myself to these situations. This isn’t a perfect world, so I just don’t go. However, as Stacy pointed out, we should be able to go to the park and not have other’s beliefs shoved down our throats.
Please notice that I did not talk about PDA with heterosexuals, gay, bisexual, or any other distinction. I was merely talking about how this is inappropriate.
Before you go on saying that I don’t know anything about homosexuals … I have several people whom I call friends who happen to be homosexual. I don’t agree with their philosophy, and they don’t agree with mine. We have discussed this matter on a few occasions. I love them like as if they were any other friend of mine.
Would it be appropriate for me to make out with a child in the park? I don’t think that is appropriate, and it has to do with many more aspects of life than the ‘restrictiveness’ of any religion.
Ummm. Wow. For the record? I'm not on Nyc Labretš' side. “Warlocks”? “Witches”? Cousin, that's just crazy talk.
Also his discussion of the history of marriage is so wrong that I don't really know where to begin.
@Stacy Trasancos
If you were honest and straightforward, and explained exactly what your position was then you wouldn't have so many people leaving vitriolic comments here. The 23-year old who left that post has not helped clarify your position whatsoever.
The question I asked about arrest is a legitimate one. Everything you've said has pointed to the fact that you want the government to have a role in protecting you and your children from being exposed to public displays of affection between same-sex couples (you seem to have no problem with public displays of heterosexual couples).
p.s. I did read the post up top, and I can't help but wonder if this “college graduate” is an alumni of Pat Robertson's law school. He babbles on about the Bible as if it has any bearing on the situation. In the United States there's something called separation of Church and State; something that this college graduate clearly has no concept of.
sotonohito,
“No, I don't believe you.”
How can I have a conversation with you then? And, you did kind of flip out there no less than I did on my original post. I didn't even use the word bigot. Can you really not see the difference?
Anyway, thanks for explaining. I agree with you about racism of the past. I grew up the South in the
Chirp,
I get that. I was writing on a Saturday to a small audience of Catholics who know me better than the multitudes of atheists you descended on my blog. Had I known that were going to happen I would have been clearer. Plus, I've explained over and over and over now what I meant. If people can't get past that, I don't know what else to do. I'm firm in my beliefs though.
@Nyc – Marriage is actually a sacrament that is technically officiated between the two participants. They are making the promises together, in front of God, and the priest or deacon is basically just leading them through it properly.
sotonohito,
“Ummm. Wow. For the record? I'm not on Nyc Labretš' side. “Warlocks”? “Witches”? Cousin, that's just crazy talk.”
OK.
@Chris (Longmont, CO) wrote “we should be able to go to the park and not have other’s beliefs shoved down our throats.”
No, we shouldn't. Free speech cousin. Or are you proposing to ban all religious speech? Back when my sister was younger she volunteered at Planned Parenthood, every time I went to pick her up there were Christians, often Catholics, shoving their religion down our throat with their protests and prayer. Should that be prohibited? I don't like them shoving their religion on the unwilling, but I don't think so.
Limited exceptions: they should be prohibited from blocking entrances, they should be prohibited from harassment and stalking, etc. But the right to protest is one I'll defend to the death, and I mean that quite literally. Should it be necessary I will, literally, fight and die for the right of the Knights of Columbus to protest Planned Parenthood.
I am staunchly in favor of people and groups I see as not merely wrong but harmful to speak. I'm married to a black woman and as you might imagine I'm not even remotely on the side of the KKK. But I'll defend the rights of evil groups like them, and the Roman Catholic Church, to speak.
@Stacy Trasancos: You didn't use the word bigot because nothing you were describing involved bigotry. I used the word because it accurately describes your attitude towards homosexuals. If you don't like the idea of being a bigot, and who does, then you'll need to change your behavior so you are no longer a bigot.
Interestingly, there are plenty of Catholics who are not bigoted towards homosexuals. It is not a reflection of your religion, but a reflection of your own mind that you've chosen to take a bigoted view towards homosexuals.
Chirp, under your explanation of marriage, it seems to me that there's no demand for a 1:1 gender split – two individuals are two individuals, which cannot be what God Our Lord and Savior intended. Also, I have a problem with that far too modern concept, as the Bible clearly lays out the approval Our Lord gives to poly marriages. I cannot agree with turning away from Our Lord's Word.
Stacy sweetie, you want us to read your words well, then please go reread mine. I said you want to silence homosexuals, but you said no one here would silence an aetheist. I am just trying to get you understand silencing anyone because of who they love or what they believe in is wrong as long as no one gets hurt. And you not being a homosexual cannot say that being one hurts them. You have no data, unless you are a recovering homosexual.
So again go back to the first words of this post, and although I understand you did not write them by publishing them you must agree with them. It's very easy to fear and hate what you do not understand.
But I will ask this. You plan to vote your conscience. Please elaborate on that. Do you want to get rid of gay marriage? Do you want to get rid of gays? Should we be arrested for showing affection in public? Please have the courage to answer. I am just not sure what your point is. I get you think it immoral and from the delightful quote you posted evil, but you still don't get to judge me, and by saying I am immoral, evil, disorderd and such you are judging. Agree or disagree but it's how I see it.
Finally if you would indulge, how were they erotically touching? Rubbing ones back or light touching is not erotic, it is affectionate.
@Chris (Longmont, CO) Actually, let's go back to that phrase “shoved down your throat”. You're using it to describe merely **SEEING** people who are not like you. As if somehow their very existence is an affront to you and an imposition on your assumed right to live without ever being exposed to viewpoints and people that are not like yours.
We live in a society filled with multiple people, groups, viewpoints, etc. You go outside, you encounter those viewpoints. I'm not seeing anything forced on you.
To the best of my knowledge there are no laws proposed that would either require you to be homosexual, or require you to personally think that homosexuality is good or even morally neutral. There are no laws proposed requiring any religion to perform marriages for homosexuals.
So all I'm seeing is you, and Stacy, describing the mere public existence of homosexuals as having it “shoved down your throats”.
That's a very, very, odd point of view.
In a perfect world, I should be able to go to these parks at any time, and not have to subject myself to these situations. This isn’t a perfect world, so I just don’t go. However, as Stacy pointed out, we should be able to go to the park and not have other’s beliefs shoved down our throats.
People minding their own business, paying you no attention, cannot shove a belief down your throat.
One more & I am done: What bothers me here isn't your religion or your beliefs about sexuality or marriage. What bothers me is your refusal to consider why your way of thinking may not be the way to go for everyone. You cannot live the way you see fit without trying to force the rest of us with you. I know you thought that only the “bubble bunch” would be reading, but the fact is you still feel that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to be, well – homosexual, in public places. These are your true feelings. They make homosexuals feel kind of afraid to be themselves because you are watching their every little elbow pinch and judging them. (But you don't want them to know that, otherwise you would have clarified)
None of you can understand that any reality exists outside your religious parameters. You will never say “I don't believe homosexuality is moral, but what Joe & Steve do across town is none of my business.” Just like Leila will never say “I don't agree with liberals, but they aren't just a bunch of socialist, moral relativist, culture of death fans. They are 3 dimensional and occasionally they might have a point.” Nor will JoAnna ever concede that although SHE may never get an abortion, even if carrying the fetus was threatening her life, there are instances where it happens. Not one of you can ever concede an inch or say “I get where you are coming from, but my religious beliefs prevent me from agreeing with you.” You have the gall to say Christians are always friendly and respectful, unlike all the hateful atheists. Well, sorry, but hateful Christians are on atheist websites as well.
It is all one way, black-and-white, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Just like the folks who follow PZ Meyers.
Catholic, Atheist – you people are all the same. (for the record that means the good, the bad and the ugly.)
Hallowed be the Ori.
I for one refuse to discuss anything with anyone who 1) tells me they better than me what I think, and 2) calls me a bigot. It's a waste of time. I don't argue in vain.
@Stacy Regrettably I don't have that option. I must engage or bigots will win and my homosexual friends and family members will be oppressed.
Anon – While you are wrong about not being able to marry after menopause (being “open to life” does not mean you must be fertile) you are correct that Christians, Catholics in particular, believe “remarriage” after divorce is not an option unless the original marriage was declared null (as in, it was never a valid marriage to begin).
The legal process of divorce though, is not necessarily immoral (even if many abuse it) because there are cases where a valid marriage *needs* to be legally dissolved for the safety or sake of a spouse or children (such as in the case of violence). But many Catholics speak out against no-fault divorce (divorce that occurs with no stated “reason”) and even Reagan, who opened wide the doors of no-fault divorce, later said he regretted that decision.
As Catholics we do believe divorce is tragic for families and children, and we do believe that a (valid) marriage is for life (well aware of Jesus' teachings on the indissolubility of marriage).
Can lesbians have loving sex, as long as they use a syringe full of viable sperm?
@Stacy, sorry hit post meant preview.
I'd rather not argue with you, I'd like to have the luxury of ignoring bigots. But I don't. My own marriage only exists because people took on bigotry. How can I think of myself as a good person if I don't pay that favor forward?
Despite it leaving me feeling quite uncomfortable I read what you, and your fellow bigots, write and I reply. I do so in the hopes of eventually winning the same rights for my gay friends and family that I enjoy due to the tireless efforts of the people who fought racial bigotry before I was even born.
The object of bigotry changes, but bigotry itself remains the same. In you I see the same enemy that had to be defeated back in the 1960's to allow my marriage to stand.
If that makes you uncomfortable, and obviously it does, then you have a simple, if not easy, choice: abandon your bigotry and embrace liberty and justice for all.
This post has been removed by the author.
Anon – While you are wrong about not being able to marry after menopause (being “open to life” does not mean you must be fertile)
How so? They're infertile. No amount of sex will produce a child, so no amount of sex will result in procreation.
You “believe the sexual act is reserved for both the union of the two involved and for the procreation that results from it. Only in this openness to the procreative dimension, under the dimension of commitment in marriage, does the sexual act retain its dignity”
How can post-menopausal sex (or post-hysterectomy sex) retain its dignity with that belief?
“Think about that. Somehow you think other people’s happiness will cause your unhappiness and discomfort.”
Needs to be said again
Those who criticize homosexuality don’t quite understand what homosexuality really is.
First of all, being gay is not a choice. The same way straight people didn’t choose to be attracted to the opposite gender, gays didn’t choose to be attracted to equivalent gender.
As I know you’ve heard so many times (maybe not) if the homosexuals who live in countries where homosexuality is a crime punishable by death could choose not to be gay, don’t you think they wouldn’t do it in a heartbeat? I know – as being bisexual myself – would in order to save my life. But our sexual orientation is not something we can change.
Second: religious people critique homosexuality only in the sex department. Guess what? Homosexuality is not only about sex, is about love too and love is the most beautiful feeling in the whole world and say this feeling is “immoral” when it happens between two same sex people is just…mean and unjust. Besides, we know we don’t have sex for procreation (not even some straight couples have sex for procreation for that matter when they choose to use contraception methods in order not to have kids such as using condoms, taking birth control pills, doing a vasectomy, etc) but it doesn’t mean we can’t start a family with our partner. We can always turn to adoption and artificial insemination, you like it or not.
Third: You guys say same sex marriages are immoral because marriage is a religious institution and it’s only between a man and a woman. Guess what, again? Homosexuals are not forcing churches to marry them; all we want is to have the CIVIL UNION recognized by the state with the purpose of having rights guaranteed to us and our spouses and in case you don’t know civil union is way different from a religious wedding and it doesn’t need the religious ceremony in order to be valid.
Since I don’t have a religion, the religious ceremony has no value whatsoever for me, so you can be sure I have no intention to get married in a church, because what matters to me is the civil union.
Other thing about that: you say same sex marriages will ruin the institution of marriage. How? The fact same sex civil unions being recognized by your government somehow will make the rates of divorce in straight couples sky rocket? Does your husband is going to leave you and your children and file for divorce just because civil union of same sex couples was legalized in NY, for example? Think about that. Somehow you think other people’s happiness will cause your unhappiness and discomfort.
Forth: This “love the sinner, but don’t love the sin” or “For we can love you, but we cannot love your behavior” is bs. I don’t force anyone to accept my sexual orientation, but at least I wish to be respected and not suffer discrimination because I’m bisexual. By saying “we can love you, but we cannot love your behavior” you’re not respecting me let alone loving me, because deep down you want me to change by abandoning “my sinful ways”.
PS: I respect the right you have to believe in whatever you want and to follow the religion you seen fit, but I really don’t like your religion (or any other religion which dictates on how I should live my life for that matter)
sotonohito,
Please understand that when you are talking to someone whom you expect to take you seriously and in trust that you want to communicate, calling them names gets you nowhere. It shuts down communication.
Hmmm, if your sexual act has to be dignified I'm not sure if that's even possible. Every single sexual position I'm aware of looks pretty silly.
Good sex should be messy. And wild. And fun. And filled with passion. And uninhibited. And silly. And delightful. And exhausting. And sweaty. And loving. And breathless. And sweet. And joyful.
I don't think “dignified” is even on the list of adjectives you could use to describe good sex. Or any sex.
>then you have a simple, if not easy, choice:
Err, no. Not quite. She has another choice, and that is to simply engage moderation.
REGARDLESS of the topic, regardless of the subject matter her patience is quite astounding in letting all of you rant on HER blog. (LOL)
Although her allowance of some of the more vitriolic insults is certainly shrewd. Simply stand back and let those people paint themselves with their own brushes >>>> shrewd move.
@Stacy: If the term “bigot” were strictly pejorative than I'd agree. But it isn't. It is a descriptive term. It is a term that most accurately and succinctly describes your attitude towards homosexuals.
Just as “crazy” was the most accurate and succinct term to describe Nyc Labretš' unhinged ramblings.
If I'd used the word “papist” rather than “Catholic”, that would be an insult and I'd agree it should shut down a conversation. The term papist is strictly pejorative, it has no purpose beyond insult.
But there really isn't a polite or nice way to tell someone that they are behaving in a bigoted manner. You've expressed the opinion that you find the mere public existence of homosexuals to be deeply offensive and you've worried that their public existence will adversely affect your children. That's bigoted. There simply is not another word that can accurately describe your attitude.
If you don't like that you can change. It certainly won't be easy, but it is possible. Such a change wouldn't even require you to change or abandon your religion, there are many Catholics who are not bigoted against homosexuals. Not so many in the priesthood, but many in the laity.
Michelle: Are you unaware that humans can, have, and do love other humans without engaging in real or faux-copulation? I’m not really sure you understand what you are attempting to defend.
RationalAnswers: If I recall, the Freudian theory of repression is fairly well rejected as inaccurate at this point in time. However, my question still stands: what is the time period, on average, for a human to experience the negative effects of not breeding?
@ Michelle I think many Christians know that being gay is not a choice. However, they have the choice, as do us heterosexuals, not to act upon their inclinations. I always feel really bad for them because if they want to live a moral life (according to my and my church's definition) they will have to be celibate. However, I am 29 and still single…and have remained celibate. I discipline myself and it is a struggle, but it is worth it!
On your third point – many times these days homosexuals are pushing for marriage, not just civil unions.
As for your fourth point – we feel what you are doing is sinful and want to help you along the way to heaven. Therefore, the truly loving thing to do is to urge you to abandon your sinful ways. It would be easier and less uncomfortable to say nothing at all. However, that would be selfish of us not to try to help – even though I'm sure you think you don't need any help
.
I wonder if Stacy would feel more comfortable in a country where they stone homosexuals to death?
Probably not. I hope not. I imagine her compassion for people who are not like herself begins somewhere; somewhere between stoning and tolerance? It's a start.
Perhaps through these conversations she might realize the world is far more complicated than she initially bargained for. She might even wonder if the road she's chosen to go down (namely Catholicism) doesn't have all the answers tied up in a neat bowtie.
All this attention might be Gods way of reaching Stacy. It's a matter of her interpreting his message correctly.
Much love
I'm not at all sure why you are insisting intimate relationships should only occur for the purpose of procreation. I know of know verses in The Bible that say this so plainly. What verses led you to this belief?
Also no where in The Bible does it state that intimate homosexual relationships cannot be an expression of love within the institution of Christian marriage. In the Old Testament, homosexuality is only denounced in a list of other cultural taboo that includes eating pork or wearing clothes of different fabrics, or in contexts that any sexual relationship would be improper such as adultery. Jesus never mentions it in New Testament.
Throughout all of The Bible, homosexuality is mentioned six times (though some would argue even less). Compare this to the sins that are obviously evil and denounced. Sins such as lying, stealing, or adultery. These are denounced several dozen times over, yet homosexuality is mentioned around half a dozen times. If homosexuality was something evil and a true sin, it would have been denounced along with all of the other sins, but it wasn't. It was barely mentioned at all, and never in the context it's understood today.
Homosexuality is not truly a sin. It's as simple as that.
“Michelle I think many Christians know that being gay is not a choice. However, they have the choice, as do us heterosexuals, not to act upon their inclinations. I always feel really bad for them because if they want to live a moral life (according to my and my church's definition) they will have to be celibate.”
Isn't this putting undo burdens onto others that we are not truly willing to place upon ourselves, as Jesus warned us against in 23:4?
“They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” – Matthew 23:4, NIV
Isn't requiring homosexuals to remain celibate when we do not require it of ourselves tying up heavy loads onto their shoulders?
Stacey who is calling you names and thinks they are better than you. I don't think name calling is necessary (although immoral could be construed as a name I guess)
Chirp, you do of course understand that all states offer civil marriage, and unless you go through that civil marriage you are not legally married. That aspect has nothing at all to do with any church. This is what the homosexuals want.
Anonymous @ 3:37 PM: Being celibate may be a heavily burden when eroticism is the most valued thing in a culture. Of course one of the things Stacy T. is questioning is why an erotic encounter is considered the peak of human experience. Unfortunately she has not receiving many thoughtful answers.
“Anonymous @ 3:37 PM: Being celibate may be a heavily burden when eroticism is the most valued thing in a culture. Of course one of the things Stacy T. is questioning is why an erotic encounter is considered the peak of human experience. Unfortunately she has not receiving many thoughtful answers.”
Celibacy is heavy burden because sex and sexuality is a beautiful gift from God. To tell others that they should not be able to enjoy this gift God has given all of us in the context of a loving and Christian relationship is a burden we would not put upon ourselves. It is the kind of double standard that God warned us against.
SteveP, I think you fail to understand the point of marriage for homosexuals, well really anyone as it is no different. It is about love plain and simple. We have the same struggles that any marriage will have. I suggest that maybe you stop seeing women in erotic ways but start to see them in loving ways.
And celibacy is one thing but essentially you all are asking us to live a life without the kind of love that makes life worth living, one perso who knows you and still loves you faults and all, and will be with you regardless…..will you do that?
SteveP said…”Of course one of the things Stacy T. is questioning is why an erotic encounter is considered the peak of human experience. Unfortunately she has not receiving many thoughtful answers. “
God makes sex feel good so humans can procreate. If sex wasn't pleasurable, we would not go out of our way to do it, and therefore we would not survive as a species.
Anonymous @3:52: Yes, sexuality is a beautiful gift from God as God entrusts us to become co-creators.
Alan L: I have an intimate relationship with another whom I call a good friend. Are you saying that my friend does not love me and I do not love my friend as we have not had an erotic episode? Does that one not accept my faults unless we “do it”?
I wanted to post this on your blog entry about the park, but was unable to.
How dare you allow your children to be so rude as to bother other people at the pool? When they ask you (which they most certainly should!) if they can play with someone else's child, or look at their baby, you simply say, “No, you may not.” This is particularly important if you are morally opposed to the lifestyle those people are exhibiting. A good mother, and a strong mother, would never allow her children to interact with people she disapproves of or believes may pose a threat.
Furthermore, if your children ask why some child has two mommies or two daddies, you simply say, “I don't know,” or, “It's none of our business,” or “Because they are bad people who don't follow God's law.” There is no further explanation needed. As they learn about things like gay rights and homosexuality (which they will; I learned it because “lezzie” and “fag” were slurs among my age group in elementary school in the 70s), they will already know that such things are considered bad and wrong.
I was raised in a very strict Catholic household in an urban area; it was made abundantly clear to me at an early age not to talk to strangers under *any* circumstances. This was reinforced by the fact that my parents also never talked to strangers; this included people who lived in our neighborhood that we did not know. It would have been unthinkable for me to play with a random person's child and if I had done such a thing, I would have been corrected.
(I am certain you will send your children to Catholic school to ensure they aren't taught a secular view on such things as marriage and sexuality. It may require financial sacrifice, but it's necessary to protect your children from ideas you oppose.)
My mother also had no qualms about telling me that certain people and types of people are bad and we did not associate with them. This included adults and children I was in school with (which was Catholic school). Again, because I was raised in a strict household, it never even occurred to me to disobey. I believed my mother that certain people were not appropriate to associate with. This is all you need to do.
I am not suggesting that your children or you act rudely towards people. When one of my cousins was living with a man out of wedlock, my mother made it clear that she was a slut; however, we were still polite to her and her boyfriend at family gatherings and we never confronted her about the fact that she was a slut (although her parents or other family members may have). Nor did I ever feel the need to ask questions about what this cousin was doing or why my mother thought she was a slut because I had been raised from a young age to understand that it was a bad thing, and wrong, and against God.
Blogging about this situation and making it seem as if it's some kind of plight seems like a grab at attention on your part. For heaven's sake, before we could move to a better neighborhood, we didn't go to our park because it was simply too dangerous; my mother never complained about it. You should be a proper Catholic mother and discipline your children! If they speak to strangers and don't obey you when you tell them to stop, you simply take them home from the pool; they may be upset for a time, but they will learn their lesson. If they ask questions you are uncomfortable with, you tell them, “We don't talk about that.” Your word is law in your home and you don't need to justify or explain yourself to them.
” Anonymous @3:52: Yes, sexuality is a beautiful gift from God as God entrusts us to become co-creators.”
Except no where in The Bible does it say that sexuality must be connected with procreation, and I challenge you to point out a verse that says otherwise.
What about sex acts within a heterosexual marriage that are innately non-procreative? “Sodomy,” for example. Would OP consider this permissible?
…and likewise, what about married couples who have sex despite guaranteed infertility (whether wrought by illness or age)?
Anonymous @ 4:16 PM: You wrote “. . . no where in The Bible does it say that sexuality must be connected with procreation . . .” I am confident that our foremothers and forefathers in faith knew where babies come from; I’m not so sure you do. Or are you expecting “The eye is for seeing, the nose for smelling, etc.”?
Anonymous @ 4:16PM: “Except no where in The Bible does it say that sexuality must be connected with procreation, and I challenge you to point out a verse that says otherwise.
1. Would you care to point out to me where in the Bible it says that authentic Christian teachings are only found in Scripture?
2. Given the commands and negative references to sodomy, fornication, adultery and Onan's “[spilling] his seed on the ground” (Gen 38:2-10), if you can't intuit a procreative bias in Scripture, the problem's with you, not us.
Why do you people keep persecuting me. You labeled me as an Alcoholic, but I just like to drink. You keep putting undue burdens on me. If you aren't willing to abstain from drinking, why do you make me do it? I hate you and will petition the government to accept me for who I really am … then will force you to accept me as well!!!!
OK, Stacy, maybe you're right, 'Warlocks and Witches' MAY have been a little over the top…
But I wanted something with a little more PUNCH and OOMPH than just writing the OLD AND TIRED words:
CHILD RAPING and MOLESTING CATHOLIC PRIESTS who NEVER served a SINGLE DAY IN JAIL.
That's just such a WEAK thing to say and it's been PLAYED to DEATH, hasn't it?
I mean that's just a BORING thing to say, so I went with Warlocks and Witches instead.
Please do the Right Proper CHRISTIAN THING and please TURN THE OTHER CHEEK at my UNPARDONABLE SIN and FORGIVE ME.
I'm on MY KNEES here FOR YOU, m'kay?
Umm “sotonohito,” (if that *is* your REAL name), I know to have my facts straight BEFORE I open my stinking little Pie Hole and go uttering my utterly deep and PROFOUND IGNORANCE in Public in front of the ENTIRE WORLD.
In front of GOD AND EVERYBODY.
Do you?
Regarding your blistering comment, here.
http://bit.ly/nrDgo9
“Also his discussion of the history of marriage is so wrong that I don't really know where to begin…”
Goes…
Just because you say something it doesn't mean it is the least bit TRUE.
Or that you know THE FIRST thing about what you are talking about.
Does it, “sotonohito”?
Let me ENLIGHTEN you:
“In the decrees on marriage (twenty-fourth session) the excellence of the celibate state was reaffirmed (see also clerical celibacy), concubinage condemned and the validity of marriage made dependent upon its being performed before a priest and two witnesses—although the lack of a requirement for parental consent ended a debate that had proceeded from the 12th century.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#Canons_and_decrees
That's pretty clear isn't it “sotonohito”?
Or am I a MORAN?
I've read my Catholic Church History, have you?
FYI, #1 I'm a Priest myself in an Officially Recognized EU Church, in Maribor Slovenia.
For another, my Grandfather was a Minister who not only led his Churches for nearly 50 years, (I'll be at a Ceremony on September 11th, 2011, Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Founding of one of his Churches, this http://g.co/maps/2wmx is the Street View of another one that he led for almost 25 years, the Martin Luther Kirche http://www.mmlk.de/ of Dresden)…
But he was ALSO Søren Kierkegaard's Translator.
And I myself HAVE TRANSLATED THE BIBLE FROM THE KOINE GREEK.
What have you done, “sotonohito”, except to read Book, Chapter and Verse while moving your lips along with the words on the page?
Keep swinging for the fences though, who knows, “sotonohito”, someday you might actually connect the wood with the leather if you get lucky one day.
Kindest Regards,
Nyc
Nyc Labretš, HMFIC
Digital Komponents
http://digitalkomponents.com/
DE Büro +49 0176 624 68 677
NYC Büro: 1-917-720-4276
Facebook: Nyc Labrets
Twitter: NycLabretsDE
Given the commands and negative references to sodomy, fornication, adultery and Onan's “[spilling] his seed on the ground” (Gen 38:2-10), if you can't intuit a procreative bias in Scripture, the problem's with you, not us.
And women thinking they can go out in public when they're having a period? What's up with that?
@Chirp:
Some christians do believe being gay is a choice; I can’t even count how many times I’ve heard that from them.
Yes, we do have the choice not to act upon our inclinations, but what’s the point if we’re going to be miserable in the process? If you’re happy by being 29 year old single celibate woman, ok. I respect that and I’m not going to put the pressure on you to have pre-marital sex. However, I don’t have to deny my true nature just because some people think my sexual orientation is an immoral sin.
I know what’s like to struggle against your inclinations. I’ve realized I was bisexual when I was in high school when I fell in love with a girl in my school. You don’t imagine how confused I was. Before I got into high school I was bullied (not because of my sexual orientation) for years and it was the worst time in my life. Things were finally getting better for me in high school since no one there made fun of me because of my weight and liked me for who I was. So you can’t imagine how I felt when I realized I liked girls too. I knew what gay people went through (the discrimination, physical aggressions, etc) and I didn’t want to go through bullying again, so I tried for a year not to be bisexual. I was sad and miserable but I kept insisting on not act upon my inclinations. Do you know what my wake up call was? When one of my best friends (he was gay) shot himself in the head at age of 18 years old because he couldn’t take the pain of denying who he truly was. I suddenly realized that – if I kept going down that road – I could be next. So I decided to come out – to me at first – as bisexual and not care about what people would think of me. Since then I consider myself to be the happiest person alive. Besides, I’m not hurting anyone and I’m not doing anything illegal by being bisexual.
About religious marriages, I can’t speak for all homosexual couples. There are homosexual couples who are active followers in christian churches who want to have their union blessed by the god they believe in. However, the churches they attend to are not obligated to perform their marriage if the dogmas of their religion condemn homosexual relationships. But there are catholic priests and evangelical pastors who are more open minded and they perform religious marriages for same sex couples because – in their opinion – gay couples who are catholics or evangelicals should have their relationship blessed by god the same way straight couple have.
Speaking for myself – since I’m an atheist – religious marriages mean nothing and me getting married in a church (it doesn’t matter if it’s with a man or a woman) in order to be blessed by god it would have the same effect as being blessed by Tinkerbell.
I don’t feel like changing who I am; if I deny who I am just because you and some religious people think I’m living in sin by being bisexual it would literally kill me and I really don’t want to go through all that again and wind up dying by suicide or depression; I’m 28 years old and I have the whole life ahead of me, besides life is too short and being always miserable is a waste of time.
Besides, I don’t try to push my sexual orientation and my life style on you or on anyone else and I don’t demand you and the other christians to accept my sexual orientation if it goes against the dogmas of your religion, so I would appreciate if religious people not to push their religious moral standards on me telling how I should live my life.
Stacy
If you see a straight couple holding hands, or with their arms around each other, do you think they're behaving “erotically?”
Anon@5:16pm, please read this article (written by a gay Catholic man): http://courageman.blogspot.com/2009/03/god-hates-shrimp-fallacy.html
Simply put, “Christian teaching on homosexuality has never rested on proof-texting Leviticus 18:22.”
RationalAnswers – those articles you mention are the reason I abhor Conservapedia. However, I don't see hundreds of Christians flocking to PZ Myers' combox to post them in their entirety every time he bashes Christianity.
Michelle: “Yes, we do have the choice not to act upon our inclinations, but what’s the point if we’re going to be miserable in the process?”
If your life revolves around when, where, how, and with whom you get to have sex, the problem isn't your orientation; it goes deeper than that.
You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that Catholicism teaches that homosexual inclinations are a “choice.” She does not teach that, and the proof can easily be found in the Catechism: “2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained…”
Stacy -
I'm a gay atheist (reformed catholic), and I love you. I hate what you do and I cannot accept it and I will continue to fight tirelessly to erase your ideas from this planet, so that I can marry the man that I have been committed to for 10 years, and so that I, my neices and nephews and the rest of my family do not have to be subjected to this anymore. I hate everything you stand for, and all of your misguided, trite, and sometimes outright logic-defying ideals. But I still love you.
Stacey I want you to suck my cock big time, sweetie
You refuse to argue with anyone who thinks you're a bigot? Own it. Look it up. You'll see yourself waving from the dictionary definition.
When you poor, poor persecuted Catholic ladies come up with ONE example of someone beaten or killed or who has committed suicide because of “gay ideology” then we can talk.
Wait, your explanation is “I was only talking to my friends and didn't realize other people would read my blog?” Honey, this is the Internet; there is no privacy on public blogs. Keep it to email or require subscriptions if you don't want your words taken out of context by people outside your target audience.
Also, move the a less liberal state. You moved there, ergo you are willingly putting yourself in an uncomfortable situation; no one is forcing representations / public displays of their lifestyle on you if they were there first. You need to find a community you're comfortable with.
JoAnna:
“If your life revolves around when, where, how, and with whom you get to have sex, the problem isn't your orientation; it goes deeper than that.”
This is an offensive and (I'm guessing) disingenuous dismissal of a very real issue: the loneliness and heartbreak that can result if you're forced to go through life denying yourself any romantic partnership. JoAnna, if you were forced to divorce your husband tomorrow and cease contact with him, I doubt you'd shrug this off on the ground that your life fails to revolve around sex. Even if you could continue to have contact with your husband but were forced to keep things on platonic terms, don't pretend you wouldn't suffer under these conditions. I'm a Christian (Presbyterian). My husband and I have only been married for a few years. If this happened to me, it would be one of the most devastating blows imaginable. If I were told that my options were to either abandon my husband and live as a lesbian or go to Hell, I'm honestly not sure what I'd do.
Yes, some people are called to be priests or nuns or be celibate, but it's only fair to recognize that they're in the stark minority. For most people, a life devoid of romantic partnership is a crushingly bleak prospect.
I came here from reddit because I wanted to rebut the smug “new atheist” trolls, but your comment makes me ashamed that we're on the same side. The blogger is right that we owe homosexuals love and charity, mercy and compassion. If you want to be a true Christian, try demonstrating these.
Christina – A good Christian knows that suffering is the price to be paid. Life on Earth is merely a trial to prove ourselves so we can go to Heaven. Accepting your suffering meekly is the mark of a good Christian. That's what they taught me in Catholic school & church and that's how all good Christians should handle adversity, just like Job in the Bible. God never said we were going to be happy in a postlapsarian world.
@JoAnna
>> “If your life revolves around when, where, how, and with whom you get to have sex, the problem isn't your orientation; it goes deeper than that.”
So, if the problem isn’t my orientation and goes deeper that that, so what is it?
>> I never said in anywhere in my comments that Catholicism teaches homosexuality is a choice; I only mentioned Catholicism when talking about religious weddings of same sex couples.
I know the catholic church doesn’t consider homosexuality to be a choice, but this church doesn’t agree with homosexual relationships because – for obvious reasons – sex between same sex people is not made for procreation. Since the catholic church preaches that sex should be between a man and a woman after getting married and for procreation only therefore this church preaches that homosexuals should be celibate.
By the quote you gave me, the catholic church only comes down to sexual attraction when referring to homosexual relationships when – in fact – there is also love involved in some cases.
The same way a straight person can have sexual attraction and/or fall in love with the opposite sex, so can gay people have sexual attraction and/or fall in love with people with the same gender. A homosexual relationship is not all about sex like some people think it is. I’ll repeat what I said in my first comment: people who often criticize homosexuality don’t really understand what homosexuality really is.
From my personal experience, no catholic person ever said to me I was bisexual because I chose to be and if I really wanted I could change; but every time I heard that argument was from evangelical people, without exception.(ps: I’m not generalizing here, maybe there are evangelical people who don’t believe homosexuality is a choice, but I never met one who thinks that way yet)
Anonymous,
I'm not saying that living a celibate life as a homosexual entails suffering and therefore is not required. Indeed, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is immoral. To suffer in celibacy is a mantle of adversity that homosexuals must endure, no matter how “unfair” this seems, because it is part of God's plan, just like other forms of adversity such as cancer.
But the Bible is also clear that we as Christians must have compassion for homosexuals. We must love them. And it's not compassionate or loving to dismiss, disregard and mock homosexuals' suffering by pretending that their yearning for romantic partnership amounts to little more than an obsession with opportunistic lust fulfillment.
If a person with cancer told you that he wanted to reject God because the suffering he was enduring was unfair, you'd lovingly but steadfastly counsel him in as Christlike a manner as possible. You wouldn't shrug and snark: “well, if your life revolves around ensuring that your physical body is perfect and your cells never divide at irregular intervals, you have deeper problems than your so-called cancer.” If you did the latter, you would be a terrible Christian and a terrible person.
Christina: Compassion, yes. But no one ever said life was fair. I was taught that one should carry their suffering in silence because suffering is a fundamental fact of life. I was also taught that it was completely inappropriate to counsel anyone on matters of faith; only ordained priests can do that (certainly not lay people or so-called deacons). The proper response that I was taught was “No one ever said life was fair. You should speak with a priest.”
Anonymous,
You are either unforgivably hard-hearted or a troll. And if you truly believe non-priests are forbidden to opine and advise others on religious topics, you must disagree strongly with Stacy's decision to maintain this blog, and must additionally be quite conflicted about your own participation in our current discussion.
@JoAnna
The catholic church doesn’t teach post- menopausal widows can’t remarry.
But since the catholic church preaches that sex is between a man and a woman after getting married and for procreation purposes only, so we can assume that – according to the catholic church’s teachings – straight people who are infertile and a straight woman who had her menopause (regardless if she’s a widow or not) can’t get married and should be celibate because the sex between the spouses won’t be for procreation since one or maybe both of them are physically incapable of procreating, got it?
Or this teaching goes only for homosexuals?
Stacy,
The Lord be with you!
OK Stacy, I will ask direct questions and will see if you have the courage to answer. You will use your vote to say what you want in your community. How will you have homosexuals treated so that you don't have to see them behaving erotically in the park or pool? I really do not understand nor have you been clear about this. You have been clear about how uncomfortable this made you, and have said you have a right to determine what happens in your community, so I am asking directly what you would do given the opportunity, or what you would have you elected officials do to combat this.
And please dont assume that all here are aetheist because we don't agree with you. Some of us have yet to decide if there is a god, but being gay and being good with myself about it I can't believe in your god.
SteveP you and I are clearly on different planets. I guess you equate erotic with sex, which I do not. I see sex as a by product of that kind of love, it is sharing one of the most intimate things a person can share. I again am not sure what you mean by intimate in the thing you have with your good friend. Is it love? Do you want to marry this good friend? I need it explained in simple terms. But bear in mind that gay marriage as much as you may disagree is the same as any other marriage in all but the religious sense, and as I have stated before (as have others) very few of us care about the religious aspect of it, we are fighting for the legal aspect.
So Stacy, think you can answer my questions?
Michelle: You did it again just as in your first comment: you assert relationships do not revolve around sex and then declare your sexual orientation. Why is it that you combine “love” and “sex”? Further you make an incorrect assumption regarding infertility.
I'm not trying to be mean or hateful, and I appreciate that despite your opposition to homosexual couples you still recognize them as deserving kindness and respect, but I have to say that I disagree with you.
For one, I find some of the logic in your reasoning flawed. Like, what if a straight couple just didn't want to have kids? Wouldn't that, according to what you stated, be just as sinful? You say that it's okay because there's still the “possibility of conception”, but frankly that sounds like more of an excuse to me, either way the couples aren't wanting/planning to have kids, despite whether one may have the chance to accidentally be created. And what if that couple medically wasn't even capable to reproduce, despite being of opposite genders? Also, you keep referring to what God and Jesus want you to do rather than what you yourself see as being right. Is it fair to base all your principles around the fact that “Well so-and-so says that…”. I'm sorry if that sounds offensive and I understand that you believe what they say is right, but how can you -scratch that- why do you truly believe in something just because its “supposed” to be the right thing to do?
Also, I personally believe that lust and sex isn't that much of a sin in itself. Granted, I do think it should be treated carefully and is best reserved for someone truly special to you, but that bond and closeness should be able to be shared between anyone, despite gender. If a man falls in love(not lust, but honest love) with another man or a women with another women, they deserve the same rights and closeness as between a man and women in love. Besides, not that I think that it's necessary for all couples to have kids, but I think that bringing love and happiness to a life through adoption is as good as- if not sometimes better than- bringing another new one into the world.
Keep in mind that I respect that you have your own opinions and I am in no way trying to judge you for that, but I have my own morals and beliefs that I feel very strongly about and want others to consider just as I have yours. (by the way, I am not myself gay and do wish to have at least 1 blood child, so don't take this as being too biased)
Christina: Hopefully you do realize, in using the word “romantic,” you are invoking a tradition that specifically excluded erotic behavior. Originally a romantic relationship was one that was abstinent.
Steve, I am using “romantic” in its long-established modern connotation. As would you, I suspect, if you were describing your relationship with your wife, notwithstanding that this relationship might include erotic behavior.
AlanL: the definition of the word “intimate” is a good guide as is the definition of the word “erotic”.
Christina: There's a difference between discussing religious topics and counseling someone on their faith. I can speak to what I was taught is the proper way for a Catholic to behavior, including behavior towards others and how to bear suffering or show compassion. This is different from counseling someone on a matter of their own faith (whether or not to believe in God, the Trinity, Transubstantiation, etc.); only a priest can do that. I was raised in a very traditional Irish Catholic community that strongly disapproved of post-Vatican II changes (for instance, we are not permitted to read the Old Testament without the guidance of a priest; we only had the New Testament in the house). In the community I was raised in, it would be unthinkable for someone not ordained to try to convince someone the believe in God if they did not already or if they were losing faith.
Being taught to have compassion for people means not judging them, even when we know they're going to Hell. But there's a difference between compassion and counseling on matters of faith.
“Good Catholics should bear their suffering in silence” is different “This is what St. Paul meant in the second letter to the Corinthians.” Bearing suffering in silence is how you comport yourself; belief in God is a matter of theology that only priests are qualified to discuss.
Because lay people have not been through Seminary, they may make mistakes and unintentionally give incorrect information.
For those of you arguing against a post-menopausal woman marrying/ non-fertile man/woman marriage, this is a very good explanation of why the Church says these marriages are valid, and gay unions are not: http://youtu.be/KrD8zvCUtWc
Anonymous,
So if a loved one came to you wracked with despair because of a terminal disease and confessed that her situation was causing her to lose faith, you would limit your response to a statement like: “Life is unfair. Speak to a priest.”?
This just doesn't seem very compassionate. However, I'm not even Catholic, so we may simply differ for this reason.
But it seems to me that if your view would permit JoAnna to respond to a homosexual's complaint of misery by dismissing this misery as a mere craven preoccupation with sex, then your view would also permit me to respond to the same complaint by saying: “I understand that's hard. We all struggle with adversity. I empathize, and I love you.”
And it seems to me that the latter is the more Christian response.
Manda: But if the point of marriage is to reproduce, and a couple cannot reproduce, then they should not, according to that resoning, get married. The whole idea of labels and “principles” is silly. If they can't reproduce, they can't, sure they should still be able to be together, but that's regardless of what other members of their gender are capable of. The point is that they are having sex that doesn't lead to new life, and therefore should be unacceptable by the standards argued here.
Christina: Thank you for the response; to further clarify: if I had an adult daughter and took her to dinner and a movie – a date as it were – would you consider that a romantic day? If not, what would you call it?
Brenna: Your assumption is that the male or female knows they are infertile prior to the marriage. How would they know that if they have not engaged in sexual intercourse?
Brenna,
Procreation is still possible and anomalies do still occur between married couples who aren't “supposed” to be able to pro-create. I have 3 friends who were told they could not have children by their doctors…guess what. They have all since been impregnated by their husbands and have bore children. There are many others I know who got married in the hopes to have children and are having a very difficult time conceiving. So where pro-creation is possible, marriage is valid and relevant. With gay couples pro-creation is NEVER possible, and re-defining marriage to include arbitrary wills of individuals makes marriage irrelevant. This is Mr. Keyes' point.
Thanks for sharing this post Stacy. These views pretty much coincide with conservative baptist beliefs too. I agree with everything you posted. Thanks again.
The point of marriage is not only to reproduce, but to then raise those children up in a stable, well-balanced environment including the entire family unit: man, wife, and child(ren). This is the reason marriage has existed in the first place, and children who are brought up in this type of environment thrive and go on to be well-productive citizens in society- which is why the State has encouraged and supported marriage throughout history.
SteveP said…
Steve, you’re not getting the point.
What I said is that relationships – regardless if they are hetero or homosexual – have not only sex involved but also love. But some religious people only see the sexual part; for them (the religious people and the church they attend to) everything comes down only to sex and sexual attraction when they mention homosexuality. They seem to forget that homosexuality is not only about having sexual attraction for same sex people but also being in love, having serious and lasting relationships – and depending on the couple’s wishes – to start a family by adopting a child or having a biological one by artificial insemination.
However, sex is part of most serious relationships, both straight and homosexual ones. Sex is not only about procreation as the catholic church preaches; it’s about a moment of love and intimacy between two people who are in love with each other. Of course there is casual sex; but this kind of sex is not mutually exclusive for homosexuals. It happens between straight people too.
Besides, what is my sexual orientation has to do with relationships revolving around sex or not? I’ve had – both hetero and homosexual relationships – that revolved around love and sex in that particular order. The last girlfriend I had we didn’t have sex with each other for sexual pleasure only, it was also to show our love, intimacy and commitment to each other, that’s it.
SteveP and Manda:
Okay, I get your points, and, though I still don't even believe that having kids is even necessary, from that point of view I can understand what you mean. But, hypothetically, if a women, say, had your uterus removed for some medical reason before she got married, would it be okay for her to get married then?
Brenna, Yes. Because she is still a woman. This would go back to the apple and the worm analogy. The fact that her uterus was removed does not change the fact that she is still defined as a woman. In principle, marriage between a man and woman is always valid because of the possibility for pro-creation despite individual circumstances.
@Manda
You mean that Allen Keyes who has a lesbian daughter?
Manda: Children can have a happy and stable life without both a mother and father. As long as they have loving parents who care for them and provide the influence and guidance they will need to live their own lives, then two fathers or two mothers can be just as good as a father and a mother.
Christina: Ah, I should have been more clear. I was responding to your statement “JoAnna, if you were forced to divorce your husband tomorrow and cease contact with him, I doubt you'd shrug this off on the ground that your life fails to revolve around sex.” My intent was to explain that, based on what I was taught, I am sure JoAnna would bear her suffering in silence because that is the lot she was given by God; therefore it makes sense for her to expect that of homosexuals. To not bear her suffering in silence would be hypocritical. Again, this is only what I was taught and my understanding of Catholicism.
As for what I would do if someone came to me who was losing their faith, yes, I would recommend they see a priest (or the appropriate religious authority for their religion) as I am grossly unqualified for such a discussion. I would likely use less harsh words, such as “I'm so sorry to hear that. You should speak with a priest / minister / rabbi.” But in the family I was raised in, “No one ever said life is fair” is considered a very sympathetic response and is the equivalent of “I'm so sorry to hear that.”
Michelle: I do understand your point. My question is still hanging out there: if “sex is a part of most serious relationships” does that mean my most intimate friend is not really my most intimate friend?
Manda: I'm sorry, but that isn't a good enough explination for me. Gender is irrelivant. Sure there are generally common biological and sometimes psychological differences between the two, but just saying “because she's a women” or “because he's a man” isn't an argument, it's an excuse. Stick to your reasons and logic, not societal labels.
“Manda: Children can have a happy and stable life without both a mother and father.”
Just because they can doesn't mean they should. It's not ideal.
Brenna, now being called a man or a woman is a societal label? All this time I thought it was biological. Huh.
Steve,
I wouldn't call any parent-child interaction romantic. I might use words like “fond” or “affectionate” to characterize a father-daughter relationship; however, to me, “romantic” implies a sort of intimacy which, while not necessarily sexual, also fails to arise merely in the context of platonic or familial love. Instead, “romance” (as I'm using the term) applies to two people who are “in love.”
If sat down for a secluded candle-lit dinner with your wife, even if sex was not on your mind that evening, wouldn't this feel different than if you ate with your daughter? And this feeling, this special intimacy with your wife, wouldn't it leave a gaping hole in your life if it disappeared? Wouldn't you suffer in its absence? That's all I am trying to say. I believe that homosexuals fall in love, too, and to be morally precluded from pursuing this sort of love is a difficult burden to bear.
Yeh!! Dem hoomoosixuals… dey just is so bad1!!11!1 GUD JERB HATIN ON DEM FOR JEZIZ!U TRULY R INSIRATION AND MAE JEZIZ HELD U AS HIZ LOYAL MUDKIPZ 4 SUCH LONG TIEM.
!!! DIS GUD. me likey allot.
<333
PS. U shuld make yutoob chennel
Steve P
You do know that “being intimate with someone” have different meanings, right?
In case you don't know, in the case of your friend being intimate it doesn't mean “if you're not having sex with each other then you're not that intimate”; it means you and your friend are close friends.
You seem to be an intelligent person and I can't believe you made such a stupid and senseless remark.
Manda: Yes, it is biological, and that is my mistake. But my point was that the gender in itself doesn't really matter, it's what's about it that does, so it seems to me that right now you are saying “gender matters because it matters”. But, why does it still matter when the common traits of it don't apply to an individual? It doesn't make sense that a gender you happened to be born with should allow you to work around those rules.
Also, why can't two fathers or two mothers be ideal for raising a child?
I'm assuming by now that someone has already pointed out the fact that three paragraphs into your splendidly wordful bliss you regretfully allowed for an apostrophe to unnaturally penetrate the plural version of the word Christians, therefore turning it into an unnatural (and potentially gay) singular possessive. I think your own Holey Bibble would specify that this entire passage should therefore be burnt in a bush.
Also, just this:
“Believers hold themselves by an act of their own will and by the aid of grace to an objective moral code that they receive from scripture and the teachings of the Church. I am speaking of the Ten Commandments which are fulfilled by the Beatitudes in the New Testament as well as their interpretation conducted by the Magisterium of the Church.”
You sound like someone trying to explain Dungeons and Dragons to a deaf-mute. For all the sense that paragraph made to anyone outside your immediate peers you might as well have typed “Abra Cadabra lol”
YO Stacy what's going down honey. You see I have fetish fantasy I want to fulfill, just that I get a little red-faced when I have to make requests in public, but what that hell. Upps I said that forbidden word, ok let me rephrase that, what that planet Earth! That's right who cares about the hell that Christianity preaches about when you have people like you here on Earth, that sounds like a hell of a planet if you ask me. Well on to my humble request… could you bite my molars tooth?
Christine: Thank you again for the favor of a response. I disagree that homosexuals are morally precluded from romantic love. It seems that “love” always has a connotation of erotic facets and to that I object as I might love any number of persons but be celibate as well as chaste.
Michelle: You’re welcome.
Brenna,
I couldn't fully understand what you were asking in your first paragraph so forgive me if I teeter a little in my answer. I'm not saying, “gender matters because it matters”, I'm saying that marriage is an institution which was designed to fulfill the obligations behind pro-creation between a man and a woman.
Do you think 2 men or 2 women are the ideal set-up for raising children? First of all, by what means are they going to get said children, since they can't pro-create? Will these means be moral? Will children die in the process? We have already seen examples where surrogates are hired and then told to abort the babies for health/other reasons. And secondly, once they do get these children, how will they set the example and raise these children as well-rounded members of society? If two men adopt a little girl, who will this girl talk to about her first period? Breast changes, puberty, boy problems, etc. And the same goes for boys. Children grow up to learn by their parents' examples. If a child grows up in a household with 2 males or 2 females and this goes contrary to what they feel inside with their own attractions, how will they know whether what they're feeling is normal or not? I think it invites all kinds of unnecessary dysfunction in the child's world when these types of games are played. And for what? Not for the child's best interest, but for the adults who sought out these children unnaturally to fulfill their own desires and intentions. I think I've only touched the tip of the iceberg and we will see all kinds of sad consequences over the next few decades regarding these situations.
This is JoAnna — Google isn't letting me log in to Blogger for some reason.
Christina – did I say it would EASY? Of course not. Reread my post. But there are many, many instances in the lives of heterosexuals where this comes up as well. One example: two people who are married to others fall in love. The world would say that they shouldn't deny themselves the chance at a relationship, and that they should go ahead and destroy their current families in the name of love. Christ says otherwise.
Or, if someone is born with an inclination to pedophilia, he or she is expected to restrain and curb those emotions and temptations their entire lives, even if it means they never get to experience sexual love with the partner of their choice. Do you think this is grossly unfair? If not, why is it unfair to expect those with homosexual inclinations to do the same?
If you really want to follow Christ to the best of your ability, perhaps you should investigate why His church has spoken against homosexuality for over 2,000 years, and you should ponder the fact that love is not tolerance.
I know very well what it's like to love the sinner but hate the sin. That couple I mentioned above who fell in love with each other while married to other people, but decided to destroy their individual families so they wouldn't be deprived of the love they wanted? That was my mother and stepfather. I love them both very much, but I abhor what they did to their families, and I always will.
Michelle – are you really asking if there's more to life than sex? Yes, there is. If my husband got into an accident tomorrow and became a parapalegic, and we were unable to ever have sexual intercourse for the rest of our married lives, I wouldn't immediately divorce him so I could find someone to bang. I would accept the fact that our circumstances were such that we would need to be celibate for the remainder of our lives, and we'd continue building our relationship on trust, friendship, and service to each other and others.
Manda: For one, I meant through means such as adoption. And two, I'm sure most parents would be able to deal with it and educate themselves on how to help their kids through there problems. There may be issues at times, but no more so, I believe, than in “normal” family set ups. Also, I don't think the father and mother figures are as vital as you think, to those kids it's just normal and most of their doubts would come from people telling them that their family is wrong. There are many examples out there of people with gay parents who turned out happy and just fine. I know you may not agree, but I know plenty of gay people who would make better and more loving parents than some of the straight people I know.
Fucking bigot bitch, hope you burn in hell.
@JoAnna
>> Or, if someone is born with an inclination to pedophilia, he or she is expected to restrain and curb those emotions and temptations their entire lives, even if it means they never get to experience sexual love with the partner of their choice. Do you think this is grossly unfair? If not, why is it unfair to expect those with homosexual inclinations to do the same?
Joanna, there’s a difference here. You don’t quite understand what pedophilia is. A pedophile have sexual interest in pre pubescent children, not love (it’s love in the twisted mind of some pedophiles) but it’s not love like the one you have for your husband and the love I had for my last girlfriend. If a pedophile decides to follow his urges he will hurt – physically and psychologically – a child by sexually abusing her, obviously against the child’s will. Not too mention that what he’s doing is a crime.
As for homosexuals, they are not hurting anyone or doing anything illegal by having consenting same sex relationships.
I’m not hurting or doing anything illegal since I only have relationships – both romantic and sexual – with consenting adults. So why shouldn’t I follow my nature and be happy by having a serious relationship with the girl I love and who loves me back? Just because a religion I don’t follow says I can’t because they consider homosexuality to be a sinful behavior?
>> I know there’s more to life than sex. But that’s not what some christians and the religion they follow think when it comes to homosexuality. They think homosexuality is the sexual attraction between same sex people when in fact is much more than that because there’s also love involved.
You said would still continued to be married with husband even if it was impossible for you to have a sex life because your relationship is build on trust and friendship and it doesn’t need sex to last.
It’s the same way with homosexual relationships. We don’t have a serious relationship with someone just to have sex (nowadays nobody – regardless their sexual orientation – need to be in a serious relationship in order to have sex). When I fall in love with a girl and she falls in love with me we build our relationship on love, trust, friendship, caring and partnership. Even if it happened something that kept us from having sex with each other and if we really love each other our relationship would last even when facing a hardship and our love would grow stronger because of the trust, friendship, caring and partnership we have.
Rational Answers,
Machines are used, people are loved. Turning sex into a consumer product turns people into consumer products, since this involves a person.
Casual sex de-values both sex and people. It makes the personal, non-personal.
It turns sex away from being self-giving to be selfish. You don't love people when you are “thinking about hitting that thing”.
You just want to use them to get something out of them.
All good acts have an objective, order, and purpose.
Please tell me how pre-martial sex fulfills a good objective, order or purpose, without de-valuing people or using them?
Michele
I don't doubt that you can love another woman, because the only sexual orientation we have is human.
For Christians, Love is Christ crucified. It sends the individual out from ourselves. We are called into community with others.
This thinking colours the ethics of sexual activity.
We strive in all things. including sex to return to a state of innocence before God.
Catholicism does not forbid intense same-sex friendships, or even two people prudently living together (we see this with David Morrison, the former gay rights activist who is now a committed Catholic)
Sexual acts that fall short of that awe and innocence that cause human bodies to come together and spark are forbidden.
The irony is that the same people who say that what people do in private is their business are the same ones who want to legislate laws that bring these private things out into the public square, in schools, in governments etc.
Do these things serve the common good or do they hurt them?
Anonymous (September 1, 2011 1:39 AM)
Mentioning gof and Jesus and his sacrifice is not going to work with me because I'm an atheist, let alone what the catholic church forbids or not.
All homosexuals want is the same rights straight people have guaranteed since the day they were born; I just don't see how same sex civil unions being recognized by the state can harm what you call “the sanctity of marriage”. It's not like a huge gay mob will invade a church during a wedding in order to get married or make the divorce of straight couple sky rocket.
We just want the same rights straight people have to declare their sposue as dependant, to be able to adopt a child in the name of both spouses, being able to visit the spouse in the hospital when he or she gets sick, being able to put the name of the spouse in the will, having the same legal marital rights straight people have, no more no less.
Michelle:
You wonder what's the point of not giving in to our inclinations if it's only going to make us miserable. It's for our own good – there's immense value in it. That's what can be so frustrating in these discussions: no would would deny good physical health depends on food choices, amount of exercise, etc. Even 5 year olds know this. People also have a spiritual component, which also requires care. Many mistakenly think that Catholicism is stifling and oppressive, but it actually seeks to nurture our spiritual health. The Church is demanding – she demands excellence, which is achieved through discipline. If your doctor told you that you were morbidly obese and on track for heart disease or diabetes if you didn't soon put in some hard work and make some changes, would you be offended at her audacity? Would you think her bigoted and oppressive in her suggestions? She could coddle you and tell you any choices that you make are perfectly fine in the Spirit of Acceptance and (False!) Freedom, but the truth remains even if we don't like it or find it difficult. We don't buy our children every toy they want or feed them candy for breakfast just because they want it. Why is it, then, some of us don't understand that living our lives based solely on our wants and feelings can actually makes us miserable? (Not to mention bratty! Adult tantrums are disgraceful)
Dear Stacy,
Well, I would have loved to comment on your park story. Sadly, this opportunity was not open to me.
I am glad that you vote and make your voice heard in the community in which you live. However, other people make their voices heard as well. The people of Massachusetts voted and made their voices heard when they voted to legalize same-sex marriage.
Everyone has a voice, everyone has feelings. You have made it clear that you do not approve of the feelings of gay couples. People in the comments have made it clear that they do not approve of your disapproval (some were not very kind, and I am very sorry for that).
You say that they are bigots. They say that you are a bigot. I say you are all bigots, as am I. Humans all have tendencies to approve and disapprove of different things. Your creed mandates your disapproval, and, in the comments, those people have creeds they are sticking to as well.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but so are the people in these comments and in the park.
To sum this up: you seem to feel, (correct me if I misinterpreted) that your belief (and theological imperative) that homosexuals (or anyone, really) should be doing lustful things in public over-rules the homosexual people and their belief (and biological imperative) that what they are doing is okay. So,
Why do you think your opinion should take control of someone else's life and their ability to marry or show attraction?
I wish all of our discussions to be very civil and polite.
Best wishes,
Cretgren
“Yes, we do have the choice not to act upon our inclinations, but what's the point if we're going to be miserable in the process?”
So should pedophiles be given the legal right to act upon their inclinations so that they are not condemned to a lifetime of loneliness and misery?
Anonymous from 2.54 AM,
Usually, I draw the line at “does it hurt others?”. So, pedophiles, when hurting others, should NOT be given free reign. As such, when gays are hurting others, they shouldn't either.
I simply fail to see how being in a gay relationship hurts others.
Regards,
Cretgren
Cretgren, being in a gay relationship hurts others because…because…huh. I guess it doesn't.
JoAnna,
“did I say it would EASY? Of course not”
Not in so many words. But what you said — and I quote — was the following:
“If your life revolves around when, where, how, and with whom you get to have sex, the problem isn't your orientation; it goes deeper than that.”
This implies quite directly that if a homosexual person endures no great burden, and that if she suffers deeply, it's only because she has other emotional defects — a NORMAL person certainly would not suffer if denied something as trivial as romantic partnership.
Nowhere ITT have I denied that the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior, as it prohibits heterosexual behavior in many instances. But, again, my own life does not revolve around sex. Yet if I were forced to abandon my husband and live as a lesbian, I would experience profound distress. If Christ commanded it, I would do it, but if I expressed my sadness at this turn of events, I would hope that followers of Christ would not dismiss me as a whiny, petulant pervert, which is basically what you did to Michelle.
Uganda had it right. Homosexual sinners who flaunt their sin deserve death.
Pedophilia is a form of rape. If a heterosexual couple committed sexual sin (sex outside of marriage, for example), I doubt anyone would analogize rape. So why does the pedophilia comparison spring so easily from the tongues of anti-gay critics?
@Manda………wow, just wow.
What degrees do you hold in raising children? I just wonder what makes you qualified to say what is and isn't ideal? Why is a two parent household of same gendered people less ideal than two opposite gender? And really do you think a father or two are incapable of discussing a girls first period, breast changes and boy problems (I mean c'mon who is going to know more about boy problems than two dads?) and other things little girls might ask about? If you are raising your children right they should have comfort talking to parents about all things.
And for your following statement
“If a child grows up in a household with 2 males or 2 females and this goes contrary to what they feel inside with their own attractions, how will they know whether what they're feeling is normal or not? I think it invites all kinds of unnecessary dysfunction in the child's world when these types of games are played. And for what? Not for the child's best interest, but for the adults who sought out these children unnaturally to fulfill their own desires and intentions.”
1. Please define normal. If you admit even catholics do not see being homosexual as a choice then you should try to see that same sex attractions are normal to us. Are you referring to if they find animals attractive? Please elaborate. Last I checked many of us gay folks were raised in a home by two parents of opposite gender, and many will continue to be raised so. Does it matter of our confusion have straight parents which is counter to the attractions we feel?
2. When these types of games are played? Really so gays raising children is a game, but you raising them is not? I don't get that small minded statement at all.3.
In my opinion (which is after all what we are all offering here, and opinion) the childs best interest is to be raised in a loving, nonjudgmental and protected environment. Regardless of the gender of their parents.
Stacie, you are operating under two very large assumptions:
1. Your religion is true.
2. The tenets of your religion should be enforced in secular society.
If God is up there, he can enforce his own laws with no help from us. If he's not up there, then the Bible is a book of fairy tales and definitely not worthy of significant legal interpretation.
Finally, it is no one's responsibility but your own to explain how the world works to your children. Are you honestly suggesting that LGBT couples just stay inside so you don't have to explain them to your kids? You are trying to push something onto society that is your job.
Alan,
How many children do you have?
Do you actually believe that a child living in a stable environment his/her biological mother and father is not the ideal situation?
It doesn't take a degree in child-raising to figure that out, but I do have children. Do you? If not, I don't believe you're qualified to speak on what children do/don't need because there's A. Lot. You have not experienced when it comes to children.
Manda,
Few would dispute that “the ideal” environment for child-rearing is a stable, loving, intact nuclear family with both a mom and a dad.
But when we're considering whether the government should let gay couples adopt, it's irrelevant whether a gay home is the “ideal” home. Instead, the pertinent question should be: is a gay home better than no home at all?
If an adoption agency is attempting to place an orphan, and both a gay couple and a straight couple apply to adopt the orphan, the agency is free to choose the straight couple. But what if the only applicants are a gay couple? What if this child is an adolescent with special needs as opposed to, say, a cute, cuddly, perfectly healthy infant? Kids like this languish routinely in our foster care system with no hope of adoption. If a gay couple is willing to step up to the plate and rescue one of them from foster care hell, it seems inconceivable that the “loving,” “charitable,” “merciful” response would be to deny that child a home.
Throughout Western history, homosexuality has only been tolerated in the dying days of decadent empires. During the rise of the United States as a great power, the population was overwhelmingly devout Christian and completely intolerant of both race-mixing and homosexuality. The arrival of Jews marked the beginning of a long period of moral decline in America. The Jews settled first in New England, where there was plenty of wealth to steal. Ever since then, New England has been seen as much more liberal than the rest of America. It's not surprising that Massachusetts has passed a law not only tolerating homosexuality, but equating that abomination with traditional marriage. This marks an unparalleled low point in Western civilization. Our complete collapse as a civilized nation will not be far off.
Manda,
Does it matter if I have children? Sorry didn't realize that raising children makes you an expert. How many children do you have so I know if you have expert status?Do you have proof that you are doing it right?
But I will answer, I have no biological children. That being said I do have one child in my life who I have helped to raise, and let me tell you she is a great kid. I also consider myself to have a moral obligation to several other children in my life to make sure they are raised well.
The point I fear you are missing is that when it is gay couples having children they have to go to measures that can be quite difficult so them having a child is a gift of great love. I wish you could see that but you seem to be trapped by what someone has told you is normal. Gays having kids is not a game. Grow up about that.
And I don't generally deal in absolutes. I do think the best way to raise a child is in a home with love, discipline and tolerance. I don't think the makeup of that home is tremendously important as long as the child is taken care of.
Now Manda, I answered your question, please reread my last post and answer the questions you did not.
And of course reread your post about the
Manda,
I have my own biological children, and I also have a stepdaughter who is being raised by a lesbian mom – so I think this gives me some good insights on good environments for child-rearing. However, I do not presume to be an expert in child-rearing. Neither to I presume to be able to judge others' expertise in child-rearing based on the simple fact that they once had sex during their fertile period.
MaiZeke
Michele,
The question is where do these rights come from. People confuse equality in dignity with equality in function. We are all equal, married or single, gay or not, but we are not the same in function. We have different abilities.
Without a man and a woman to create a family, there will be no state, country, and no gays.
If women got pregnant without relations with men and the human young raised themselves, marriage itself would not exist.
I wish there was a way to separate property rights from all this.
Mike Dean,
Stacy suggested no such thing. You are reading more than what's been written.
@Anonymous (11:47 AM)
People confuse equality in dignity with equality in function.
I think the point is that legal rights should be based on the former principle and not the latter.
To create a biological family, you need a man and a woman, both fertile and of child-bearing age. But few would dispute that a family composed of an infertile couple and their adopted child is equal in dignity with that biological family, and ought to be equal under the law. So what of a family composed of a gay couple and their adopted child? Why shouldn't they be treated equally? If your legal rights were coextensive with your biological capabilities, handicapped people would not have nearly so many rights.
Two words
Gay Swans.
http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/gayswans.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7585978/Gay-swans-set-up-nest-at-worlds-only-swannery-in-Dorset.html
Now one may ask, what does gay swans have to do with anything? How can swans even be gay? Right here in Boston we have a gay swan couple.
Because it seems like the other swans don't make a fuss of two swans of the same sex getting together. Because it indicates that animals in nature are capible of forming loving attachments that are same sex.
You can't say they are just friends either when they make the loving bonded couple gestures swans are famous for.
I think the church's position about homosexuality is wrong. I think they focus more on this issue than other issue as a distraction from the bigger picture. Jesus himself never mentioned homosexuality, yet folks in this day and age harp on it constantly and go on about the evils of gay marriage.
But, what is so moral about objecting to a variation that isn't criminal? The kind of energy spent on gays and lesbians could be spent on stopping child abuse, stopping domestic abuse, challenging the things that really hurt families. Going on and on about gays only hurts and torments people who just want to live their lives.
Therefore, I state that one must deal with the gay swans and instead of being harsh towards gays and labelling it immoral when true immorality is going on all around us, one must focus on larger more important issues.
Also, how do you even KNOW those folks were gay? They could have just been good friends.
Alan,
It's just common sense.
I have no doubt that a gay couple can love a child, but why deny a child a mother and a father. Men and women parent differently, therefore there is much to learn from both a man and a woman.
You many not agree with this, but it's a fact that without a man and a woman to create a family, there will be no state, country, and no gays.
Not everybody is called to a parent.
Salima,
You said,
“So what of a family composed of a gay couple and their adopted child? Why shouldn't they be treated equally?
I never said they should not be treated equally as people. Just that the none of them would not exist without a man and a woman to begin with.
Why engage in social re-enginnering, by placing kids in casual relationships ? This is more about making these relationships the norm, than it is about children.
“If your legal rights were coextensive with your biological capabilities, handicapped people would not have nearly so many rights.”
Yes, I am aware of this. I have a disability myself, and there should be supports in place for people with disabilities, but when talking about marriage. adoptions etc, you have to take into consideration what makes a family, how it comes into existence, how and why does the state have an interest in regulating this.
It's called context.
The family exists prior to the state and therefore should not be defined by the state.
Anonymous (12:13 PM):
The family exists prior to the state and therefore should not be defined by the state.
But unless you want to repeal of all laws that take family into consideration, family must be defined by the state. For example, who has the right to make medical decisions or schooling decisions on behalf of minor children? Well, it should be parents…and in order to accord parents these rights, the state must define what it means to be a parent under the law.
Maybe you simply mean that the state should not define family in a manner inconsistent with biology? Okay — would you strip heterosexual adoptive parents of their rights, letting parental rights revert back to biological parents, even if the biological parents were grossly abusive or unfit?
I don't dispute that the world would be devoid of gay people (and straight people, and people in general) absent heterosexual reproduction. But unless legalizing gay marriage/adoption is going to discourage heterosexual reproduction and thereby lead to a detrimental population dip, I also don't see why this matters.
“Okay — would you strip heterosexual adoptive parents of their rights, letting parental rights revert back to biological parents, even if the biological parents were grossly abusive or unfit? “
No I would not. I do think there should a law that requires people to take care of the children they bring into the world.
The ideal would still be a man and a woman that can bring their complimentary natures to parenting.
“But unless legalizing gay marriage/adoption is going to discourage heterosexual reproduction and thereby lead to a detrimental population dip, I also don't see why this matters.”
There is social re-engineering taking place, for example sex is now divorced from procreation in culture at large, partly due to the acceptance of casual sex, concerns about over-population, the cult of individualism, placing technology before people etc.
We would not have come to this stage without this taking place first.
Ideas have consequences.
anonymous
I am sorry, what is just common sense?
Yes a man and a women are required to create a baby. Guess what, I a man, all I need is the women.
Marriage is a man made construct, where else in nature do you see it. Oh and guess what the only reason why animals become extinct is because of man. They procreate without the help of marriage. And don't even start about animals not being gay, do a little research and you will find many instances of same sex animals pairing up.
I am not denying any child a mother and a father, but to think that is the only way a child could be raised properly is extremely short sighted.
Anonymous @ 11:59: Did the swans self-identify as gay? If not, how does one know that an animal is gay? How does anyone know if the swans are mutually attracted to one another or one of them has been coerced? How does one know that the swans are capable of consent and have given consent? Finally, how did gay animals escape notice by every human from the beginning of time until 1969?
AlanL: Every child from the beginning of time until now has had a mother and a father. If what you say is true, why do we not see various forms of family in history? Certainly there has been enough time to prove what is “short sighted” . . .
Alan,
We are talking about human beings here. Yes, animals procreate without marriage, but there are also animals that eat their young and kill for their food.
They also have young that grow up in months.
To argue that it's short sighted for humans not to do this, is not a good argument.
It still remains at fact that what we call marriage would not exist if women did not get pregnant without men, and if the human young raised themselves.
You can pretend there are no differences between our species, but there just are.
Anonymous (12:38 PM),
The ideal would still be a man and a woman that can bring their complimentary natures to parenting.
I pretty much agree with you on this. But there are thousands of kids whose heterosexual parents have abandoned or abused them, and these kids frequently languish in horrendous conditions.
A safe, loving home with gay adoptive parents may not be the ideal, but isn't it better than being an orphan? Remember, we're not faced with a choice between placing a kid in a straight home versus a gay home. Instead, oftentimes, the choice is between a gay home and no home at all.
Separately, what's wrong with sex being divorced from procreation? It's not like we've got insufficient levels of procreation. I suppose that an excess of reckless, casual sex poses medical risks, but technology continues to increasingly defray those risks.
maybe the swan was very traumatized from all the abuse he endured as the ugly duckling
Anonymous (12:52),
I don't know anything about swans, but ever since scientists first began observing them, it's been obvious that our closest genetic relatives, bonobo chimps, engage in rampant homosexual sex that is quite clearly consensual. In fact, homosexuality has been observed in all great apes.
Yes, humans and animals are different, and the fact that animals do X does not mean we would wisely permit X in our society. However, it does undercut the argument that X is somehow “unnatural,” a product of a disordered culture, etc.
Just out of curiosity can someone tell me of:
1) a society in which homosexuality has been normalized in that same sex marriage/families were legal and considered normal.
2) A pre-contemporary religious group that accepted homosexuality as normal.
3) Any atheist society that has accepted homosexuality as normal.
Yes, I know animals engage in homosexual behavior but to use animal behavior to justify human behavior is ludicrous.
I also know that some of the classical Greek city states had a homosexual sub-culture but they also had slaves and other things we find unfortunate today. Men in those culture were also expected to marry women and father children.
Salima: A slight rephrase in answer: “What’s wrong with eating being divorced from nourishment? It’s not like we’ve got insufficient levels of nourishment. I suppose an excess of reckless, casual eating poses medical risks, but technology continues to increasingly defray those risks.”
Salima,
You said,
“Remember, we're not faced with a choice between placing a kid in a straight home versus a gay home. Instead, oftentimes, the choice is between a gay home and no home at all. “
This is not true. Catholic charities does not place children with adoptive parents who are single, for instance. Nobody complained about this and there is no shortage of a married man and woman adopting these kids, yet the state ruled it was discriminatory because gays were not allowed to adopt.
Like, I said this is more about imposing a political agenda, than about anything else.
“Separately, what's wrong with sex being divorced from procreation? It's not like we've got insufficient levels of procreation. I suppose that an excess of reckless, casual sex poses medical risks, but technology continues to increasingly defray those risks.”
Machines are used, people are loved. Turning sex into a consumer product, turns people into consumer products, since this involves a person.
Casual sex de-values both sex and people. It makes the personal, non-personal.
It turns sex away from being self-giving to be selfish. You don't love people when you are “thinking about hitting that thing”.
You just want to use them to get something out of them.
All good acts have an objective, order, and purpose.
Please tell me how causal sex fulfills a good objective, order or purpose, without de-valuing people or using them?
@ Anonymous (1:12 PM):
If the risk of obesity/diabetes from recreational overeating could be minimized to the same extent that a condom minimizes the risk of unwanted pregnancy/STDs, this would be a great innovation. Under these conditions, I'm not sure I'd see much wrong with your statement. Even traditionally, eating has been somewhat divorced from nourishment, as it's recognized to play an important role in social bonding: we all sit together for Family Dinner, even if we're not hungry; we oblige and have a bite of birthday cake for celebratory reasons, etc.
(Obviously, one catch with your analogy would be that we do have insufficient levels of nourishment — c.f. starving babies in Somalia, etc — but I think I see what you're getting at nonetheless).
anonymous, the point of showing that animals are capable of homosexual sex is to show that it is natural.
And wait, they don't need marriage to have a baby. Yeah you need a man and a women to have a baby, but marriage is not a necessary component of it.
So marriage is man made. Seems a simple logic to me.
as far as a society where homosexuality has been normalized, well don't you think that is what all this argument for gay marriage is about?
and wait, didn't the bible say it was ok to own slaves?
so much of what the bible states is no longer followed, even by the owner of this blog I would wager, so why on earth can religion determine who I marry?
Alan,
Why does the state have an interest in regulating marriage to begin with?
Something is not natural, because it exists in nature, but because of the end towards which it is directed that makes it natural or unnatural.
Chemically sterilized sex is not organic or natural. People bring up the infertility argument, but there is a difference between killing grandma and letting her die naturally.
Gender is not a social construct. It's real. Human biology as male and female is real.
It's those who argue otherwise are the ones trying to create an artificial world.
Why are you running away from reality?
Ah. Natural. Got it. Remember that lions will kill cubs to force lionesses into estrus; the next time you hear of a step-father killing his step-child you can rest assured that it is natural rather than the product of a disordered culture, etc.
@ Anonymous (1:15 PM),
Catholic charities does not place children with adoptive parents who are single, for instance.
I'm not familiar with this, but if I were in charge of an adoption charity, I'd consider that policy mistaken. I've done some charity work involving foster children in my city, and based on my experience, at least, I can tell you that foster-care conditions are so terrible that a stable single-parent home would be a far superior alternative. We had one seven-year-old show up for an event missing a thumb. He'd had both thumbs when we'd seen him one month prior, and naturally we were curious what had happened. We discovered that the child's foster father had slammed the his thumb in a car door, “by accident,” but also several times in succession, and perhaps in order “to teach [the child] a lesson.” [The content of the "lesson" was never specified]. The foster father did not admit to this at first, and the story we received repeatedly from both foster parents was that the thumb “just fell off.”
This was the child's second foster home. He'd been moved there after his former foster father had been caught sexually abusing several foster children.
You might say the solution is to weed out foster homes like these, but in my experience they are distressingly common. The foster care system is a mess, and not just in NYC, either.
If I'd the power to place this child in a single-parent home or a gay home headed by a financially and emotionally stable non-sociopath, I would have done it in a heartbeat.
Please tell me how causal sex fulfills a good objective, order or purpose, without de-valuing people or using them
Well, first of all, please tell me how non-procreative sex is innately casual. Yes, I agree that divorcing sex from procreation makes casual sex more possible, but this does not mean that sex divorced from procreation is innevitably or inherently casual, or commodified or mechanized. When an infertile married couple have sex, I doubt that they're viewing one another as objects or machines, notwithstanding the lack of a possible pregnancy. How is this different from a committed, loving couple using a condom, or engaging in some other non-procreative sex act? It's perfectly possible to kiss someone in a sexualized manner, yet the kiss has no procreative potential. Is the kiss wrong? Is it inherently casual? Is it destroying society?
As for good, non-selfish, constructive purposes promoted by non-procreative sex, I think this is fairly obvious. Sex within a committed relationship expresses a couple's affection for and commitment to one another and deepens their emotional bond. Isn't this something God wants, at least for married couples?
@ Anonymous (1:39 PM):
Remember that lions will kill cubs to force lionesses into estrus; the next time you hear of a step-father killing his step-child you can rest assured that it is natural rather than the product of a disordered culture, etc.
I more or less agree with this. But again, just because something is natural does not mean we should condone it. Instead, I think we should condone or condemn things based on criteria such as harm-minimization/empathy, fairness, etc.
anonymous, when did we start discussing artificial worlds?
How am I running away from reality?
guess I am not as educated as you because I really have no idea what most of your response means. Something is not natural because it exists in nature? Umm its nature dude, natural, nature….see the connection?
Chemically sterilized sex? Killing grandma…..umm when did we discuss this?Gender is not a social construct? Yeah so. No one is debating how babies are made, I think this is what you are alluding to.
And why is the state interested in regulating marriage?
Why do you want to get married, Alan? Can I marry my dog, then? Why not? If marriage is just man-made and it can be re-defined then I want to marry my dog. I love him and that's all that matters.
Anonymous 1:50 — You don't need to marry your dog. Based entirely on the fact that you own your dog, you already have most of the relevant legal rights that a marriage would afford. You can make medical decisions for your dog, inherit your dog's property and whatnot.
Salima: The unitive aspect of sexual intercourse is not in a mutual orgasm but in the potential that binary will become triune. The old-fashioned phrase for copulation was “making love”; a child is that love: a being capable of giving and receiving for years beyond the faded memory of her mother and father’s physical union. It seems the culture has made a fetish of the physical aspects of arousal and climax.
Salima,
“If I'd the power to place this child in a single-parent home or a gay home headed by a financially and emotionally stable non-sociopath, I would have done it in a heartbeat. “
This is not about lack of options in this case. it's just the fact that the gay lobby cannot tolerate disagreement.
” When an infertile married couple have sex, I doubt that they're viewing one another as objects or machines, notwithstanding the lack of a possible pregnancy. How is this different from a committed, loving couple using a condom, or engaging in some other non-procreative sex act? It's perfectly possible to kiss someone in a sexualized manner, yet the kiss has no procreative potential. Is the kiss wrong? Is it inherently casual? Is it destroying society? “
I just answered this in my response to Alan above. Sex is the whole person, including their make-up as male and female. Artificial sex leads to gender bending.
This is social engineering.
You're right, I could have a will and leave my property to my dog…or if I was a gay male I could have a will and leave everything to my lover. And it looks as though medical decisions can now be made by gay partners, as well. http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=104632
So…what rights are you not being afforded?
Anonymous 1:58,
But are you really suggesting that the unitive aspect disappears absent the procreative aspect? As a married person who has had sex under both procreative and nonprocreative conditions, I disagree. Also, studies have shown that oxytocin — a hormone that promotes trust, contentment, and a feeling of calmness/security around one's mate — increases simply as a result of sexual activity. Given what we know about oxytocin, it seems highly associated with the unitive aspect of sexual intercourse, and it is produced during sex whether or not birth control is used.
Salima: Sure oxytocin has a short-term effect – kind of like eating “bad” carbs: it’s filling and appeases the appetite but is far inferior to “good” carbs.
Salima,
Yes sex is unitive and procreative. Oxytocin is a bonding glue. Nobody is arguing that the unitive aspect of sex is not present.
But that unity also involves knowing the other person's body and how it works. Esp. for a man or a husband to know how his wife's body works. To learn to love and appreciate her as a woman and as a person.
There is more sexual communication.
it's a greater level of intimacy, that is cut off in artificial contraception.
Anonymous (1:59),
This is not about lack of options in this case. it's just the fact that the gay lobby cannot tolerate disagreement.
Okay, but a majority of states prohibit gay couples from adopting, and a majority of states also have unwanted kids languishing in foster care. Thus, it seems that there is indeed a lack of options — if legalizing gay adoption would prevent even a few children from enduring these horrors, isn't this something to consider? I'm not saying religious charities should be legally coerced to arrange gay adoptions, but what about adoptions arranged by state social services? If you were forced to give a baby up for adoption, and had to choose between (1) a 10% chance he'd be raised by a gay or lesbian couple or (2) a 1% chance he'd be raped or have his fingers amputated by abusive foster parents, which would you choose?
Sex is the whole person, including their make-up as male and female. Artificial sex leads to gender bending. This is social engineering.
If anyone was being forced or even incentivized to engage in homosexual sex, I'd agree with you on the “social engineering” point. But I don't see how legalizing sodomy, and/or civil unions, and/or gay marriage and/or gay adoption would cause people to engage in homosexual sex who otherwise lacked the proclivity therefor. It's not like you'd be taking straight people and urging them to become gay. You'd just be letting gay people make medical decisions for one another, etc.
Anonymouses (Anonymii?),
Regarding oxytocin and unitive sex, my main point is that even non-procreative sex can indeed serve a good, positive purpose: it can deepen a couple's trust in one another, their emotional bond, etc. So you can argue that procreative sex is even more unitive and is thereby superior, but that doesn't mean that non-procreative sex is inherently associated with objectification and commodification and can never be a good thing. And even if the effects of oxytocin fade, receiving repeated doses of this hormone when bonding with one's mate would still have a cumulative, long-term effect, just like repeatedly watching horror movies that gave you short-term shots of adrenaline would alter your long-term relationship with horror movies in general. Really, though, I'm not claiming oxytocin is the be-all and end-all of the unitive aspect of non-procreative sex. Instead, the oxytocin studies are just one piece of evidence, apart from anecdotal evidence, that non-procreative sex can have a unitive quality.
ok anonymous, now you are just being a fricking moron. Go ahead marry your dog, good luck getting him or her to sign the license. You use big words to make yourself feel better.
and why do you ask why I want to get married. I want to get married for the same reason as my heterosexual friends. Why do you think most people want to get married?
And yes I can get a will, I can get a medical proxy, but if I am married I do not have to get either. See how that works?
Now lets see if you can continue a discussion with out the idiocy of marrying your dog being the same as gay marriage.
Hi Stacy
I came accross your 'can't even go to the park' blog last night via a response on YouTube and have responded to it at length on my own blog, hopefully you'll take the time to read it.
It can be found at http://wp.me/p1Ivbx-U
Stephen
Stacie,
How something that is going to make me miserable it’s for my own good? Trust me Stacie, when I tried not to bisexual when I was a teenager in high school it didn’t make me any good because I was miserable.
I don’t know anything about your life, but maybe you don’t have any idea how emotionally and psychologically draining it is to try to be someone you are not and struggle every day trying “not to give in to your inclinations” as you say. If you’re happy by struggling not to give in to your inclinations because you believe you’re going to be rewarded after you die, ok…but don’t expect everyone will buy that. Some of us – me included – chooses to be happy in this life, because is the only one we have and it’s a waste of time and energy spending our whole life being miserable by trying not to be who we are.
I’ll quote here part of my response to Chirp for you to see how hard it was for me, ok (maybe you won’t understand, it’s ok. I’m not telling this for people to feel sorry for me since I’m a survivor, not a victim)
“I know what’s like to struggle against your inclinations. I’ve realized I was bisexual when I was in high school when I fell in love with a girl in my school. You don’t imagine how confused I was. Before I got into high school I was bullied (not because of my sexual orientation) for years and it was the worst time in my life. Things were finally getting better for me in high school since no one there made fun of me because of my weight and they liked me for who I was. So you can’t imagine how I felt when I realized I liked girls too. I knew what gay people went through (the discrimination, physical aggressions, etc) and I didn’t want to go through bullying again, so I tried for a year not to be bisexual. I was sad and miserable but I kept insisting on not act upon my inclinations. Do you know what my wake up call was? When one of my best friends (he was gay) shot himself in the head at age of 18 years old because he couldn’t take the pain of denying who he truly was. I suddenly realized that – if I kept going down that road – I could be next. So I decided to come out – to me at first – as bisexual and not care about what people would think of me. Since then I consider myself to be the happiest person alive. Besides, I’m not hurting anyone and I’m not doing anything illegal by being bisexual.”
Catholicism is indeed oppressive, especially towards the people who don’t live by the standards of what the church considers to be acceptable. But – seriously – I don’t care what the catholic church says, especially when is about on how I should live my life. That was precisely the reason why I decided not to be a catholic and enter with the apostasy request. If the church doesn’t accept me for who I am, fine. But I don’t accept the catholic church for what it is: an oppressive institution with outdated dogmas and with a lot of moral hypocrisy among its clergy.
Stacie, I’m not doing anything against the law and I’m not hurting anyone for being bisexual. I’m not going to fight against who I am just because a religion I don’t follow and a god I don’t believe (supposing he exists) says I’m have an immoral, sinful behavior. I have a clean conscience and I’m happy; that’s what matters to me. If some people feel uncomfortable with the fact I feel attracted – romantically and sexually – with men and women it’s their problem, not mine.
Salima,
I agree with your position if such a situation were to take place in an adoption setting, but you make it sound like there are simply no options, or a shortage of stable heterosexual couple.
“But I don't see how legalizing sodomy, and/or civil unions, and/or gay marriage and/or gay adoption would cause people to engage in homosexual sex who otherwise lacked the proclivity therefor. It's not like you'd be taking straight people and urging them to become gay. You'd just be letting gay people make medical decisions for one another, etc.”
It's social engineering when schools have to teach these things, and people are not allowed to disagree or offer alternative views, because it will be seen as hate.
Gays can still make medical decisions for one another.
“So you can argue that procreative sex is even more unitive and is thereby superior, but that doesn't mean that non-procreative sex is inherently associated with objectification and commodification and can never be a good thing. “
There's good and there's better. Some people do not want less than the best. If a person truly loves a another they why would he want to cut off a unique part of their make-up.
Stacy,
I’ve just read your article where you complain you can’t even go to the park because of the presence of homosexual couples in swimming pools and parks. I wanted to post a comment there, but it’s closed to new comments I’ll post here.
I wish I could sympathize with you, but I don't. You brought this on yourself; you and your religious beliefs are the ones responsible for your bigotry; not us the gay people.
We live our lives, we have jobs, we pay taxes, we vote, we raise our families and we take our kids to the park, to the swimming pool, to the shopping mall, etc, in order to have a good time with our kids and our spouses and we are not going to stop just because you – Mrs. Stacy – feels uncomfortable with our presence.
You like or not, we are everywhere. The only way of you not being in the same places gay people are in order to avoid your kids to see them – because you don’t want to talk with them about children being raised by gay couples – is you moving out with your kids and husband to some uninhabited planet of our solar system.
I bet those homosexual couples in the swimming pool having fun with their kids and the lesbian couple in the park didn't even notice you were there with your 7 children. Why? Because they were too busy being happy by living their lives instead of getting worried sick about how other people were living theirs.
Maybe you should try doing that some time.
Instead of keeping an eye on other people's lives – especially the ones you don't approve due your religious motivated intolerance – and bitching about “the public display of homosexual couples' immoral behavior of having fun with their kids in the swimming pool” you could start worrying about your own life and leave us alone to live ours.
Michele,
I have never felt oppressed. Self-loathing?
There's a difference between being attracted to someone and acting out sexually on an attraction.
Self-mastery is being a master of one's passions and not it's slave. Slaves are not free. Only those who can exercise rational control over their will power are free.
I have discovered there is more happiness in giving than in receiving. In being selfless, rather than self-absorbed.
you make it sound like there are simply no options, or a shortage of stable heterosexual couple.
It's not that there are no options. But for practical purposes, there are indeed a shortage of heterosexual couples — not couples looking for babies, necessarily, but couples willing to adopt other kids, especially older kids, special needs kids, and (awkward though this may be to admit) black kids. I'm glad we seem to agree that if a stable, loving gay household offered to adopt one of these kids, such an outcome would be preferable to letting the kid waste away in foster care.
It's social engineering when schools have to teach these things, and people are not allowed to disagree or offer alternative views, because it will be seen as hate.
But there are plenty of things that are already legal and aren't legitimized and praised in public school curricula. Kindergarten teachers don't talk about how strip clubs are fun places for daddies to hang out, or about how downloading japanese tentacle porn is a great hobby. Some states have legalized bestiality, but I guarantee you that's not part of any school curriculum. And then there's always the option of private school, which plenty of Catholics seem to already prefer.
I'll admit that when these things are legalized, social norms in general are pushed more in the general direction of acceptance. However, I think it's pretty easy to forbear from these practices yourself without being called a bigot or a hate-monger. If you want to only have procreative sex, only within marriage, etc., I don't think many “progressive” activists would stop you. Instead, the tension emerges when both sides try to engage in what *I'd* call “social engineering” — i.e., trying to get the state to promote one lifestyle versus another. If you try to get the legislature to prohibit homosexual sex, gay people will feel approximately the same way you'd feel if someone were lobbying for a law against heterosexual sex. It's against the backdrop of political battles like these that blog posts like Stacy's provoke such strong reactions.
Sorry, forgot to add:
If a person truly loves a another they why would he want to cut off a unique part of their make-up.
I think the main reason he would do so would be out of love and consideration for his potential child and their family. Let's say you have a husband and wife, and the wife is diagnosed with an illness which will cause any child conceived to be born with agonizing deformities and, ultimately, die soon after birth. The pregnancy would also be mortally dangerous for the woman. Once the woman's illness is treated, she can have babies as normal, but for now it is a bad idea for her to conceive.
The couple still love one another, though. They still have the natural, God-given urge to engage in sex, and they'll still derive unitive benefits from sex. Given all this, why shouldn't they use contraception?
A less extreme situation would be if the husband had recently lost his job, the couple's existing children were having problems in school, and the family was basically stressed to the limit. The couple could make do, if absolutely necessary, with another child, but the optimal situation for them and their family would involve unitive, non-procreative intimacy.
“But there are plenty of things that are already legal and aren't legitimized and praised in public school curricula.”
You have no idea how socialism works Salima. In Switzerland, public nurseries have sex toys for kids. The state assumes they know what's best for everybody, so parents have less rights over their own kids.
In Canada, where I live, for instance, private is tolerated but not without the state trying to get rid of a system that they say breeds inequality, since it does not have one law for all.
I don't want the law prohibiting sexual activity. What people do in private is their business. It's when it's legislated in the public square that it causes problems.
For example, in almost every country, where people were given the change to vote, they voted against gay marriage. This is why courts know want to impose these things, because they know it can't be done otherwise.
Salima,
The couples in the case you described can still use contraception or NFP or FAM's. It's artificial contraception that we are discussing here.
@Anonymous September 1, 2011 3:02 PM
Acting out sexually how? By touching elbows? By rubbing my hand in my girlfriend’s back, by touching her hair, by walking hand in had or just hugged, by giving a light, gentle kiss in her cheek or mouth? These are public displays of love and affection that most straight couples do all the time in public places and no one seems to mind or feels uncomfortable about it. What makes you people uncomfortable is the fact that is a gay couple showing in public their love affection towards each other. Then you have a fit, a tantrum like gay couples were having wild sex in the park for everyone to see.
That leads me to a question: if it was a straight couple in the swimming pool having fun with their kids and touching elbows and it was a straight couple in the park where the husband is gently rubbing his hand in his wife’s back while watching their kid play would you – or Stacy – feel uncomfortable and disgusted by these two scenes?
Besides, I’m not a slave of my sexual orientation. I was a slave to the imprisonment I imposed on myself when I was teenager by trying not to be bisexual. Once I accepted I was bisexual I was free; it was like a 10 ton weight was lift from my shoulders. I never felt happier before. If you meet me in person you will see a happy 28 year old woman living her life at its fullest without fear and worries about what other people might think by seeing my girlfriend and me walking hand in hand in the park.
I have discovered there is more sadness when you struggle to be someone you’re not. In my friend’s funeral I promised to myself and I swore in his name that I would never deny to myself who I was and that I would never be miserable again.
>> “Self-mastery is being a master of one's passions and not it's slave. Slaves are not free. Only those who can exercise rational control over their will power are free.”
You kind of sounded like Michele Bachmann when she said “If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” Oh, the horror…
You can believe whatever you wish. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to a gay person. Simple. Let me ask you, how does two gay people getting married by the STATE that does not act on behalf of The Almighty affect you, or your relationship to you particular God? In truth it doesn't, so give them the same rights you take for granted and move on. You don't have to endorse their marriage as a marriage under the eyes of your God, but you can't vote on their rights, as they are tax paying citizens, either. Shesh! We have bigger things to worry about than what goes on in someone's private home. Which is none of you business in the first place.
Michele,
I have nothing against the PDA's that you describe. We obviously disagree on what freedom means.
You don't have to to go to Bachmann, moderation of one's passions's has been common place in many cultures. Civilization is sublimated eros.
No libertine civilization lasted too long.
As early as the first century, Justin Martyr was describing how Christians had different sexual ethics from the Roman Empire.
The best man won.
Anon@4:12 p.m,
Things are not that simple. Nobody lives on an island. Public policies have an impact on all public institutions.
If gays can marry, then why can't bi-sexuals have a trio-marriage, by your definition we would have to stop discriminating against them as well.
Since, this a growth industry, where is the buck going to stop?
Psychology is a murky science. The only data that we have is that based on what individuals tell us.
And data does not tell us if something is good or bad. It's just tells us that something exists.
@ Anonymous (3:18),
You have no idea how socialism works Salima.
Perhaps that's true. My father is originally from Saudi Arabia, and I was brought up to deeply distrust any religious influence on government, but do not have much experience with socialist government. However, I do think the USA is very different from Switzerland or even Canada, particularly when it comes to the degree of government interference tolerated in the private sector, and particularly where religion is concerned. Where Swiss preschools have sex toys, many American public schools have banned the dictionary for containing sexual terms. Far from being required to teach a “gay” curriculum, our religious private schools are allowed to expel students merely for being perceived as LGBT — even if the student proclaims her heterosexuality and has not been accused of any homosexual behavior. I think private schools should have broad-to-unlimited leeway to enroll whom they choose, but I'm just saying that it seems highly unlikely the day would ever come when American parents who really wanted to enroll their kids in schools intolerant of homosexuality would be left without that option.
You have no idea how socialism works Salima.
Perhaps that's true. My father is originally from Saudi Arabia, and I was brought up to deeply distrust any religious influence on government, but do not have much experience with socialist government. However, I do think the USA is very different from Switzerland or even Canada, particularly when it comes to the degree of government interference tolerated in the private sector, and particularly where religion is concerned. Where Swiss preschools have sex toys, many American public schools have banned the dictionary for containing sexual terms. Far from being required to teach a “gay” curriculum, our religious private schools are allowed to expel students merely for being perceived as LGBT — even if the student proclaims her heterosexuality and has not been accused of any homosexual behavior. I think private schools should have broad-to-unlimited leeway in terms of whom they want to enroll, but I'm just saying that it seems highly unlikely the day would ever come when parents who really wanted to enroll their kids in schools intolerant of homosexuality would be left without that option.
[Sorry if this posts twice. I got an error message the first time]
Anonymous 4:52 PM,
If gays can marry, then why can't bi-sexuals have a trio-marriage, by your definition we would have to stop discriminating against them as well.
The argument could be made that marriages involving more than two people invite an unacceptable degree of bureaucratic complication and potential for abuse. How do you divide assets if a spouse divorces two partners but not her third partner? How do you prevent an immigrant from marrying his entire homeland village in order to help them get citizenship? Etc. Ultimately, though, I would not have a problem with legalized polygamy, so long as it were practiced among consenting adults. There are religious groups that consider plural marriage vital to their faith, and if no one is being harmed, why should the government interfere with free exercise of religion?
Anonymous 3:27 PM,
The couples in the case you described can still use contraception or NFP or FAM's. It's artificial contraception that we are discussing here.
I guess I just don't see the consequential difference. If we agree that the couples I've described would derive legitimate benefits even from deliberately non-procreative sex, why does it make a difference which method of family planning they use? (I know that Catholics object to some methods because those methods prevent zygote implanation, but let's assume we're just talking about methods that unambiguously don't cause abortions). Do you really think that sex involving the “pull-out” method can be unitive and loving, but as soon as you introduce a condom, sex becomes mechanistic, objectified, casual and worthless? If a doctor were to operate surgically on his wife, he might don a latex glove, not because he doesn't love her and therefore wants to close off natural parts of her but, rather, because allowing their respective natural fluids/tissues to mix would have undesirable consequences under the circumstances. I would think that the couple should choose whatever method of family planning they consider most reliable and convenient and, most importantly, least disruptive to the unitive aspect of their lovemaking. I understand we may differ on ths, though. I'm just curious.
There are two definitions of “marriage”: civil marriage, and sacrament marriage.
Sacrament marriage is defined differently by every church that recognizes it. A Catholic church might define sacrament marriage, for example, as a union wherein contraception is forbidden, and might prohibit preists from marrying. A Jewish temple or Protestant church might disagree. The purpose of sacrament marriage is to help structure families in accordance with the doctrine of a particular religion.
Civil marriage is defined by the state. The purpose of civil marriage is to structure legal rights and obligations in accordance with government interests and constitutional jurisprudence. If you believe in small government, then you believe the rules of civil marriage should be as unrestrictive and non-intrusive as possible. For example, the rules of civil marriage do not forbid contraception, because why should the government be involved with that?
The definition of civil marriage has, by necessity, evolved radically over time. Wives can now own property, seek redress for marital rape, marry without a dowry, etc. When you're staking out the most “extreme” parameters for what should be allowed to constitute a civil marriage, the only substantive consideration should be whether allowing the marriage would sanction a blatant infliction of some demonstrable harm. Allowing a parent to marry a minor child, for example, would equate to state bestowing its blessing on rape. Apart from this, civil marriage could be redefined even to include marriages between adult family members. This would be disturbing and taboo for most religious people — and even most secularists — but the government isn't in the business of deciding what's disturbing/taboo. They're in the business of deciding what's expedient, constitutional and fair.
Even when the government re-defines civil marriage, churches are not required to re-define sacrament marriage. For example, even after interracial marriage was legalized, the Mormon church believed interracial marriage was a sin, and chose not to recognize it. The government never forced the Mormon church to perform an interracial marriage. Likewise, the government permits interfaith marriages, but certainly cannot force churches to perform them.
Because civil marriage is a legal construct, there is no reason it should need to conform to what is “natural,” or traditional. We outlaw “natural” behavior all the time. Rape is “natural,” and indeed permitted by some religions. Fortunately, rape is illegal nonetheless.
Salima: I understand your point and do indeed welcome serious studies of human sexuality. The question nagging at me, regarding oxytocin, is why? Why does a female need to be self-drugged during and after sexual intercourse? While the most popular theory is bonding, as you relay, there is at least one other theory that deals with the biological cost of pregnancy. Maybe we’ll hear more data regarding that one. Thank you for the conversation.
Anon,
Thanks to you, too! I'm not a scientist and not extensively familiar with the oxytocin studies, but my personal intuition would be that it's probably a combination of bonding and the other issue you suggest — not just the biological cost of pregnancy, but the biological trauma of intercourse, particularly during early human evolution when intercourse might have been more frequent and less consensual. Also, while it is dispiriting to think of the female as being “drugged” by oxytocin, all our emotions really are the product of hormones — when we're happy and excited we are “drugged” by dopamine, for example.
Nice chatting with you!
@Anonymous (September 1, 2011 4:47 PM )
Here’s the thing about freedom. My freedom ends where your freedom begins and your freedom ends where mine begins.
Based on that, I’ll ask you some questions and I hope you answer them:
1 – My girlfriend and I are seated on a bench in a public park holding hands, touching each other’s hair, talking and laughing. Our PDA is keeping you from leaving your house, in order to do the things you usually do, for example jogging in the same park?
2 –Based on the article she wrote where she can’t even go to the park: does the lesbian couple in the park came at Stacy and her kids and told them to leave the park and never go back there again?
I’ll quote some parts of her article:
- “We haven't been back to the pool for a couple of weeks, except once but it rained. The truth is, now I don't really want to go back.”
- “I find myself unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying about what in tarnation we are going to encounter.”
- “Do you think knowing this happened about seven miles from my home makes me afraid to leave the house? You bet it does”
Now, based on what you read, who is the one that imposed on Stacy the will of not leaving her house? Those gay couples or her?
Gay couples are not guilty of taking Stacy’s freedom to go the park; she is. Stacy is the one taking her own freedom and the freedom of her children to go places. She’s the one who chose not to leave her house because she’s afraid of seeing gay people.
The lesbian couple in the park probably didn’t even notice Stacy was there with her kids because they were to busy taking care of their own lives.
That leads me to the third question: What do you think gay couples who live in the same town as Stacy should do? Do you think they should lock themselves at their homes and never go out to public places with their partners and kids in order to have a good time because Stacy feels uncomfortable and fears them? Do you think those gay couples should never leave their houses to do the things they usually do (like going to the grocery store or going to work) just because Stacy believes they are living in sin?
Stacy doesn’t have to agree with homosexuality and kids being raised by same sex couples. But she can’t blame us for a decision she took on her own about not leaving her house. Stacy brought that on herself; she and the religion she follows are the ones responsible for her prejudice and intolerance towards gay people.
For example: I’m an atheist (that’s true) and I simply feel really uncomfortable about religious people praying next to me (that’s not true; how am I supposed to be uncomfortable by something I don’t believe it works, right?). For the sake of argument, I’m in a public park, seated on the bench drinking coffee and reading a book when suddenly I see 30 people gathering and start praying aloud in front of me. I feel uncomfortable by it and I get angry. So I decide to leave and go home. Then – being angry as I am – I post an article on my blog complaining that I can’t even go to the park because there’s religious people there praying aloud like there’s no tomorrow and since they are everywhere in my town preaching on the streets I’m afraid of leaving my house; they are taking away my freedom of going places I like to go, etc.
Now who’s the one to blame: the religious people exercising the freedom they have to pray in public places or me – who decided on my own – not to leave my house anymore because I can’t stand their preaching and praying in public places? (btw, that’s the 4th question)
PS: I don’t care if religious people pray and preach their religion in public places; they have the freedom to do that the same way I have the freedom to ignore them. ok?
Stacy- God love you, lady.
I love this whole gay swan angle. Just like I love gay fish angle. Or the gay monkey angle. Really scientific.
Assuming said animals are gay doesn't mean humans derive their moral code from that assumption.
Biologically, we'd all die off if we were gay and faithful to one partner each.
I don't care how many times two male swans rub feathers or two male fish attract a female for her eggs. Without the biology of the opposite sex, they're dead and gone.
As for living like swans, fish, et al, well good luck with that.
Steady on, Stacy.
Anonymous, the point I raised is still the central issue here. Social conservatives don't just want to preach about issues like gay marriage, they want to legislate against them. The problem is, when you boil it down they don't really have a leg to stand on except the “moral authority” of a religion that not all Americans subscribe to. The law of the land is what truly matters in this debate.
I'll repeat my central point: God does not need our help to enforce his will. He can enforce it, or not enforce it, as he chooses. That's assuming he exists at all, and if he does exist, that's assuming he's the God you think he is. Those are very large assumptions and, in all honesty, an extremely shaky basis for real world policies or decisions of any kind.
Nubby
10% of the population is homosexual (at least that is the most quoted figure).
The swan/fish/gerbil/whatever animal you want is to witness that homosexuality occurs in nature. Now I get nature is not the same as natural law, but when one says something is unnatural it refers to in nature, not natural Law. I also get that mothers kill their young in nature (oh wait humans do that to) and there is murder in nature (oh wait humans do that too) so please spare me those correlations.
So now do you understand that not all of populations will be homosexual so it will not lead to the end of the species?
And before marriage did the species die off? I mean we can all agree that marriage has not always existed no? Males would impregnate multiple females to insure the species continued.
Now to the creepy stuff. You do of course realize that if we were all gay the species still would not die right? I mean if we still have males and females then procreation is still possible (and yes in the old fashion ways)
So marriage the man made concept, I have no idea where that came from. I don't necessarily view it from a moral standpoint. Your morals are yours, mine are mine. I don't suggest you run out and have a big gay wedding.
Response?
Nope, Alan.
The figure is not 10% gay, it's more like 5%. Maybe less. I'm too busy to cite it, it's there if you want it.
And nope again on your take of future generations springing from gay couples who are faithful to one partner. Did you not read that in my previous comment?
Two gay males, two gay females. No sexual infidelity. No other avenue to reproduce but two male parts or two female parts.
Let's see the reproductive capabilities of that.
Point is- it cannot be done; thus, it points to the natural purpose of male female necessity on biological merit alone.
Morally speaking, there's a lot more to look at. And I've hardly been impressed by the haters with the absolutely stupid slurs and half- baked understandings of the Catholic Church as they really are.
Nubby
Nope? Really Nope is your response? You do realize I am not one of your children right? The because I say so argument does not work with me.
I will go with your 5% though. So if 5% of population is gay then how on earth can the 95% not continue to populate society? So that reason against gay marriage is shot down.
But you are correct it would be difficult for two people who are gay to progreate with out being unfaithful. But thank fully that problem also has been solved by medical science. Oops now that reason against gay marriage does not work.
Yes it does take male and female biology to continue society. But take away the constraints of monogamy and you realize you still have fertile males and fertile females? So procreation is still possible. So take away that argument against gay marriage.
Point is can be done.
And morals are a tricky ground. Morals are not absolutes regardless of whom you ask.
I am not impressed with your attitude towards “haters” of which I don't think I am one, nor have I been impressed by the “stupid slurs” of certain things from the catholics on this blog.
Catholic Church, yeah you got me on that one. I don't really know the catholic church all that well. When I was being raised catholic we believed in the bible and it was how we were supposed to live. Guess that has changed too. But please keep in mind that while a good understanding of the catholic church might be helpful here it is not in the real world that we live in.
Alan,
The point is not five or ten %. I'm talking about if 100% of the world's population was monogamous, and gay, then we would become extinct. Thus it cannot be biologically or morally natural that gay genital play supports life.
And as for the words I use, “nope” is a casual word that isn't an offensive term. Is it offensive to you? Shall I instead say, “no”? Is there an inherent difference?
Also, I wasn't indicating that you were a hater, personally. I was referring to the slobbering idiocy in the previous comments on several posts on Stacy's blog.
As for living in the “real world” and being Catholic, Alan, it is a reality indeed if one strives for it.
Nubby
I guess I view Nope as dismissive. Sorry if it was not meant so.
And arguing that if 100% percent of the population was gay and monogamous is just plain silly. I wish you saw that. But again even if that were the case because of medical technology society will still continue.
But really lets leave 100% of the population being gay out of the argument as it does not hold water. If 100% of the population was catholic it would not be an issue, but see we do live in the real world where neither is true, so it really cannot be used as an affective argument agianst gay marriage.
Genital play? Now we can't call it sex?
Naturally moral? Really? Morals are not natural to the best of my knowledge.
Thanks for not lumping me with the haters, I guess it was just an unnecessary response to my post, but I understand that.
Now I am off to my real world to meet some friends and probably sin (and please see that in the humorous vein it was intended)
Alan,
If you don't want to argue hypotheticals, let's just argue facts (which us where I prefer to stay anyway). Fact is, gays cannot reproduce as a couple. Two guys cannot. Two women cannot.
Being that this is factual, it points to order in nature. You're lumping medical science as the remedy (I'm guessing you mean surrogate parenting?). Theta beside the point. Biologically, gay sex play could never bring a sperm to an egg to bring new life.
And morals are natural as far as the inherent wisdom we have from feeling guilty when we've wronged another person. The Church in her wisdom is the very guardian and teacher of the moral life, perhaps give some encyclicals a read.
As to the term “genital play”, it is accurate because gay sex is just play.
And I'm off as well to enjoy the company of loved ones and I hope that I don't sin or cause anyone else to, God willing.
This post has been removed by the author.
@Nubby,
>> “The Church in her wisdom is the very guardian and teacher of the moral life, perhaps give some encyclicals a read.”
The cases of pedophile priests sexually abusing children are increasing and your church is being connivent with this crime.
So much for the catholic church being the very guardian and teacher of the moral life, isn’t? SARCASM MODE:ON
wow you all can be amazing.
Yes Nubby fact two men cannot create a baby. So that is your only defense against gay marriage.
I have no idea what you mean by “order in nature”, sorry it is just babble.
Medical science is beyond the point? Really, thought catholics went to doctors, guess I was wrong on that one too.
Please again realize the catholic church is YOUR guardian and teacher of moral life, so that does not change the fact that morals are indeed not natural.
So I now have your argument against gay marriage.
1. The catholic church says homosexuality is a sin.
2. Marriage is for procreation.
Marriage has nothing to do with love.
that sum it up?
I just wish that you would acknowledge that society does not need marriage for the species to continue, and indeed society could continue to exist if everyone was gay because we could still reproduce.
Michelle,
Your sarcasm might be hilarious except that you miss my point entirely. If you and the cohorts on here bashing the Church actually understood in full the teachings of the Church, you'd note first of all that the Church doesn't teach abusing kids is morally correct.
What you fail to grasp, which is not too difficult, is that the Church is no different in its human members as is the rest of society. Shall I spell that out or do you now glean that where people are, sin is.
This has no bearing on the teachings of the Catholic faith, which is indeed the guardian and keeper of the full deposit of the faith. Try reading a bit and learning about the faith before displaying ignorance trotting out the tired old, “priests molest kids = false religion”. Try again and save the sarcasm for when you've actually proven a true point.
Alan,
I encourage you to read more on Leila's blog. She's got some good conversations there on several threads that I think would appeal to you and help shed light on your understanding as to how Catholics view marriage, the santity of it, and why.
If you're truly engaging with good will and for the purpose of discussing opposite sides in the spirit of honest debate, her blog is created for just that purpose. Several readers/commenters are very helpful and willing to discuss, even when we disagree vehemently.
Stacy's blog is excellent, but weeding through the inane comments of the ignorant people who totally misunderstand or misrepresent Church teaching gets tiresome. Stacy is generous to let these comments be and show the ignorance for which they stand.
This post has been removed by the author.
yet again another post from me goes walkabout
sad
Michelle,
Again -
Point one:
No decent person, Catholic or not, condones harming kids. Agreed?
Your line here:
The cases of pedophile priests sexually abusing children are increasing and your church is being connivent with this crime.
So much for the catholic church being the very guardian and teacher of the moral life,
with your cute little sarcasm notation afterward denotes that you still fail to separate the fact that sinners abound, whether inside the walls of the Church or not.
What you need to grasp, for intellectual honesty's sake, is that the Church herself does not teach, condone, nor foster this kind of immorality. Understood?
And so while you're in the business of using that argument, add some other secular/public school/protestant abuse cases to your repertoire. There's plenty to site, but I really don't feel the need. Google secular child abuse yourself. Google in in protestant churches, google it in boyscouts, hell, google it where atheists abound, if such a stat exists if you want to claim that you're playing by the 'all things being equal' rule.
Point two: The Catholic Church has had awful scandals, but that does not negate the Truth of her teachings. It demonstrates people's (priests') propensity toward sin. You do understand that, right? It doesn't excuse them, it doesn't mean what they did was right. It shows horrid behavior, it destroys people and families and trust. Hello. Who doesn't get that? I've never seen anyone defend Catholic priests who've molested people. In fact, it's a horrible blemish on our Church and it makes us angry. Savvy?
So, your logic in your diatribe against the Church was off. That was the point.
Nubby,
You didn’t understand at all what I said.
I never said that your church teaches that abusing children is morally correct.
What I meant to say was: the church you follow says homosexual behavior is immoral and yet your church is connivent with the crime of pedophilia by making monetary settlements with the victims’ families or by sending the priest accused of sexually abusing children to a new parish somewhere where he will probably make more victims instead of doing the right thing, which is: stop acting like their clergy is above human laws and start turning the priests accused of pedophilia to the proper authorities in order to have a proper investigation. But that doesn’t happen in most cases, does it? Which makes your church an accomplice with this hideous crime since they know what happens but they choose to turn a blind eye and pretend it doesn’t happen or – in the rare occasions they admit the existence of pedophile priests – they release a document blaming the 1960’s for it (even though there’s been discussions on how to deal with pedophile priests for over 1500 years!!)
By doing that your church is not exactly a bastion for morality, which makes them hypocrites. Your church is against contraceptive methods and condemns homosexual relationships, saying we are living in sin by being in a same sex relationship when in fact we are not committing any crime and we are not harming anyone while some of their priests are sexually abusing children – which is immoral by the standards of the society we live in and is also a hideous crime – and harming them and their families in ways you can’t possibly imagine, Nubby.
Besides, I didn’t even mention anything about your religion being false because there are pedophile priests in it. Yes, your religion is based on a Bronze Age mythology, but this has nothing to do with the actual discussion. I gave this example to show you the church you follow is a moral hypocrite.
Did you understand now what I said or do I have to draw it for you?
Michelle,
Again -
Point one:
No decent person, Catholic or not, condones harming kids. Agreed?
Which leads me to further question you, Michelle.
If you agree with me on the above, then how do you excuse organizations like NAMBLA?
Like the sweet little hate groups that use videos to show kids of the same sex kissing, encouraging them to hate whom they call bigots= religious people?
How do you excuse that? Or are you going to show some moral fortitude and decency and call it for the trash it is?
Just gauging your propensity toward intellectual honesty and your ability to equally recognize and weight moral/immoral character, you get me.
Why are you re-posting to what I've already responded to, Michelle?
“By doing that your church is not exactly a bastion formorality, which makes them hypocrites. Your church is against contraceptive methods and condemns homosexual relationships, saying we are living in sin by being in a same sex relationship when in fact we are not committing any crime and we are not harming anyone while some of their priests are sexually abusing children –which is immoral by the standards of the society we live in and is also a hideous crime -and harming them and their families in ways you can’t possibly imagine, Nubby.”
Michelle
Do you realize where the moral code comes from in Catholicism and for that matter, western civilization as you and I know it?
Or do just attack first and ask questions later if you even get around to asking?
I wonder because I'm from the school of thought that says I should know the answer before asking. And if I don't fully understand then I ought to ask before ever attacking. And I mean ask someone who knows. Ask a catholic who knows her faith about catholicism. Ask someone about their faith before swinging at it.
Nubby,
Your church doesn’t teach or condone child sexual abuse it’s connivent with it since they prefer to ignore the problem, pretending it doesn’t happen and doing everything they can to cover it up instead of turning the pedophile priests to the authorities.
How am I – or any other decent person – should listen what your church has to say on the matters of what is moral or immoral according to their standards if one part of their clergy is raping children while the other part is covering up, pretending it doesn’t happen or sugarcoating this crime?
Since your church preaches you shouldn’t give in to our inclinations, so why those pedophile priests are giving in to their immoral and illegal inclinations by sexually abusing children? If they are – or at least should be – a role model for morality, they shouldn’t even be raping children in the first place and if they had a little bit of decency in them they would turn themselves to the police.
You asking me to Google about the boy scouts a clearly homophobe organization and the protestant churches which in my country are not exactly what we call righteous, since a considerable number of its pastors are constantly being accused of money laundry, fraud and embezzlement?
You never saw anyone that defends pedophile priests? You church does that every time by not turning those priests to the proper authorities and covering up their crimes, Nubby! What your catholic church does is disrespectful and an injustice to the victims and their families! Why don’t you get that?
If those priests have the propensity to sin and your church teaches its followers should not give in to their sinful behavior, so why those priests give in to a sin that is not only immoral but also a crime? They are not practicing what they preach, which also makes them hypocrites.
If it makes you angry the fact there are priests sexually abusing children why you and your catholic friends get together and do something about it? Protest, demands Ratzinger to do the right thing, to give justice to the victims and theirs families instead of making up lame excuses and sugarcoating those sexual abuses! I know I am – me, an atheist!
I never heard of NAMBLA.
Nubby,
I don't need to ask catholics about their faith because I was one for 20 years…I know what I'm talking about.
Michelle,
What don't you get about all I just said?
Where's the disagreement?
Do you understand I've already posted twice on the atrocious behavior of priests and denounced it?
As for accusing and assuming me and my friends of doing or not doing something about it I have one sweet question for you…how do you know we haven't?
If priests were living holy lives we wouldn't have the scandals. Correct?
I get that you are another bitter ex catholic. Maybe you never were properly catechized. Maybe you should delve into the faith because you clearly dont know it. I don't care how long you were Catholic. You've shown me in our short exchange that you don't know the doctrines or you don't accept them. Both?
Most people leave the Church for reasons having to do with unwillingness to submit to teachings on either A) homosexuality or B) contraception.
I was an ignorant catholic for a long time and wanted my own way, too.
I know elderly catholics who don't know their faith thoroughly but they remain. Good. But we should know our faith so that we have intelligent answers when people start lobbing misconceptions, agree?
By the way, Michelle, all the crap that has happened in the church, and may or may not happen in the church could never drive me out.
Do you know why?
Michelle
Google nambla. Then tell me your thoughts.
Nubby,
I was bitter when I was a catholic, trust me. I was properly catechized and by knowing the doctrines of the catholic church perfectly well that made me decide to abandon catholicism and asking for the apostasy. Like I said in one of my comments I don’t remember to who that if the catholic church don’t accept me for who I am, fine…I don’t accept the catholic church for what it is: an oppressive institution with outdated dogmas – and now I add – moral hypocrisy.
>> By the way, Michelle, all the crap that has happened in the church, and may or may not happen in the church could never drive me out. Do you know why?
Because you are gullible.
Incorrect answer.
Since you know your doctrines, tell me why I won't leave amid the stink and sin of man.
Again, Michelle, you fail to show your understanding of the Church.
It isn't in existence for you or me to remain in our sin or to spite us like a good old boys club. It certainly doesn't exist for the perfectly righteous. Michelle, it exists because Jesus Christ gives himself to us sinners at that altar, every day, so that we might overcome ourselves and start to be more like him and less like our impulses, vices, and sin. I'm as guilty as the next person and I give thanks to God that no matter what sin occurs, the Truth remains. He is at that altar in the appearance of bread and wine. The holy eucharist.
Nubby,
But that's the difference between you and me, Nubby. I don't believe we are sinners. Of course we make mistakes once in awhile, but those mistakes are not sin religiously speaking and I don't believe we are going to hell because of them because I don't believe hell exists.
About my sexual orientation I don’t see it as a vice or a sin; it’s just who I am; it’s part of my identity. I don’t care if your church believes I’m living in sin for having same sex relationships with women. I know the dogmas of your church are outdated, their morality is flawed and they are completely misinformed about almost everything. I don’t have to feel miserable all over again by denying who I am just because your church have a moral code based on societies who lived in the Bronze Age and based on a god I don’t even believe in.
I left the church for many reasons, but in a nutshell: I came to my senses and decided not to be a gullible sheep anymore.
Nubby,
Based on what I heard about NAMBLA it looks like a site enabling pedophilia (not homosexuality) and in no way I agree with that because pedophilia causes harm to the victims and their families not too mention it's a crime.
I also read a minister from the Brea Congretional Church and a priest were part of NAMBLA.
Yes, I hear. All emotion.
So you want me to buy that you've used your reason to leave the faith.
You want me to buy that you know the doctrines.
Anything more you're selling,Michelle?
Outdated and bronze age- that's the best you got?
Truth is, if you knew and understood what and Whom you've left, you might just find it imperative to give the Church a real close look this time around. As I did. When I did, there was no way I was saying no …
Michelle, I get your anger. I really do. But it's blind anger. There is a personal God who knows you and loves you. And he is knowable and lwants your soul with him hereafter.
Read Aquinas. Read Augustine. Read the Catechism. At understand who you are leaving.
At least understand whom you are leaving.
why do people keep mentioning NAMBLA?
They are disgusting. Children are children, they are not sexual beings or objects.
And Michelle I don't think any catholic condoned the abuse of children. That in and of itself should not be a reason to leave the church. Yes many of the heirarchy knew what was going on and ignored it. But i think the blame is only on them.
Now could we please stop mentioning them in comparison with homosexuality.
Are muslims and catholics the same?
This was a beautifully written and persuasively argued post. Bravo to the young Catholic who wrote it! Thank you for sharing, Stacy (and God bless you for remaining steadfast against such unbelievable ignorance and hostility).
AlanL,
The sexual abuse of children wasn't the reason why I left catholicism, but we can agree here that the church is connivent with this crime trying in anyway possible to cover it up; the blame is with the catholic church. Even Ratzinger knew what was going on and he didn't do the right thing.
I'm bisexual myself and I know pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing. But I'm using pedophilia as an example to show how hypocrite the catholic church really is by saying being gay is an immoral sin while there are real immorality happening under the catholic church's nose and they are doing nothing about that.
Nubby,
I’m not trying to buy you on anything, Nubby. The thing is you don’t accept the fact I left your church, I don’t regret for leaving it and that I’ll never come back.
Why should I belong to a certain group which I don’t agree with them and their rules anymore? Just because I was baptized and catechized in it? No way.
I’m the only one who really understands why I left, not you since you were not inside my head back then, the same way you’re not inside my head now. I could give all the reasons why decided not to be a catholic anymore and you still wouldn’t understand (besides I would have to stay here typing all day and I just don’t have the time).
Nubby, in case you didn’t notice yet, I’m an atheist. I lack belief in gods, including the god you believe in and I also don’t believe in an afterlife. Saying that a god I don’t believe in knows me and loves me and that he wants to my soul to be with him and all that religious preaching it’s useless; I’ve already read Aquinas and Augustine (for philosophical curiosity purpose only) and I’m still an ex-catholic and still an atheist. I don’t need to read the catechism all over again. Reading the catechism again is not going to make me change my mind, I still will be an ex-catholic and an atheist.
If you came back to catholicism and now you are active follower and you’re happy, ok. If you don’t agree with the fact I left your church, fine. But you can’t force me, convert me or expect me to come back to your church just because you don’t accept the fact I left catholicism for good.
I’m happy being who I am and the way I am, that’s what matters for me, besides having a good, happy and fulfilled life now, here on Earth because that’s the only life I have.
Yeah, Michelle.
I've no desire to get inside your head, you've shown me plenty in this exchange.
One thing is very apparent in your comments: you display zero peace or joy.
Common theme I'm noticing among gay atheists who have reared up on stacys blog and the like.
Too bad, to be so joyless and ticked off at religious people on blogs.
Keep up the great work, stacy!
Nubby,
I don’t need to believe in some god or have a religion to be a peaceful and happy person; if you don’t understand or accept that I simply don’t care since it’s your problem and your problem alone.
I’m a tolerant and peaceful person and I have nothing against religious people in general (just with the ones who hurt people in the name of their god and their religion or for whatever reason and with the ones who take advantage of gullible people for profit); my problem is with religions who preach intolerance, hate and prejudice against people who don’t live according to the standards of their old dogmas.
I’m going to say to you the same thing I said with every single religious person who tried to convert me: even though I don’t agree with your religion, I respect the right and freedom you have to believe in whatever god you want and to follow whatever religion you feel it’s the best one for you. You don’t have to agree with my atheism and you can criticize it all you want, I won’t feel personally offended because I know how to separate things. I just ask you one thing: respect the choices I’ve made in my life – since I’m the only person who knows what’s best for me – and don’t try to push your faith on me (you don’t see me doing the same to you, trying to convert you to atheism, telling you to read Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, Carl Sagan or Dawkins, do you?).
Now, this conversation is over since it got old and it’s not going anywhere.
Have a nice day and nice life xoxo
From a proud bisexual atheist
Michelle, again, it is not up to me to convert. It's only the work for the holy spirit. You should know that from all of your proper catechesis, right?
Maybe next time you pick fights with Catholics, you'll be able to converse correctly as pertains to church teaching and proper understanding.
Ta ta.
Michelle,
I wondered if you had been Catholic at one time. . .I can tell that you are an intelligent and thoughtful person, judging from all of your posts here and I would like to ask you a serious question. Can you really, really be sure that what led you to reject Catholicism and all religious belief (especially with regard to sin) is a falseness of the doctrine, or could it possibly be simply that you didn't LIKE what the Church teaches about moral standards? In other words, I wonder if you thought “I don't think this can possibly be true” or “This goes against the way I want to live, so I'm not going to follow it”?
Michelle, sorry I was not specific, Nubby mentioned NAMBLA not you, my comment was why do Nubby and the catholics keep mentioning them. It is the same thought process as the catholic who went on a tirade about all atheist's using some timothy quote to prove a point and how wrong it is.
Nubby
I don't think Michelle “picked a fight” with the catholics, but rather is showing catholics that in the secular world, the one ruled by our government and not god, that not all think just like you. She is presenting an dissenting opinion. So in the aspect there is no need to argue according to the catholic world. You wont hear, but thats ok because her point is still being made.
The net is open to the public, so she she has just as much right to be here as you. Same goes for the secular world. Stacy does not want that then she knows how to rectify it.
Finally why is it that you think she is not joyous or happy? People don't have to live like you, believe what you believe in order to be joyous and happy. They can offer an argument against what you believe in and still have a great life.
I have an amazing life, I am happy, joyous and fulfilled. Because it is contrary to what you think does not mean it is lesser.
Justine,
The matter of fact I was a catholic, I was born and raised in a catholic family, I was baptized in church, catechized, I had my first communion, the whole thing. I was a catholic for 20 years or so. I didn’t make the decision about abandoning catholicism overnight; it was something I thought about it for a considerable time weighting the pros and cons; until one day I decided not to be a catholic anymore. I even looked for some other religion but I started to question those religions too; I realized having a religion wasn’t for me anymore. You know, one thing led to another and I became an atheist.
There are a lot – and I mean a lot – of reasons why decided not to be a catholic anymore. In a nutshell, it was about having doubts about some things the catholic church believes is true even though there’s no concrete evidence to prove those things are true and also about if what the catholic church teaches goes against who I am so, why be part of it? I don’t want to participate and follow a religion who doesn’t accept and respect me for who I am.
For example, you – as a woman – would you be part of a misogynist institution that lessens you all the time because of your gender?
AlanL,
I’m the one who has to apologize. I thought you were talking to me, sorry again. : )
So the church hates women in your view, Michelle?
Wow. Your reasons for leaving the church are hardly accurate.
Do you realize that st Catherine and st therese are doctors of the church, to name a few?
Not to mention the plethora of women in powerful roles in the church body.
Sad and incorrect.
Full and Active Participation It is almost always assumed by advocates of women’s ordination that the “full and active participation” in the Church called for by the Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14) requires priestly ordination. The view that only priests are called to holiness or to important roles or to “full and active” participation in the Church is often called clericalism, an idea rejected by the Council. The lay person can participate actively and fully in the Church—as a lay person. The Spirit bestows different gifts on different people. As the first letter to the Corinthians indicates, just as the human body has different members and each member a different purpose, so, too, the various parts of the body of Christ—successors to the apostles, prophets, teachers, healers, helpers, administrators—are all essential, valuable, and vital (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4–30). The clericalist view implies that Mother Teresa, St. Thomas More, St. Francis of Assisi, and the Virgin Mary did not fully participate in the Church because they were not priests. Of course, the ordination question is much more complicated and involved. But having read the literature extensively, I know of no argument in any contemporary source defending the reservation of priestly ordination to men that invokes the idea that men are better, holier, smarter, more worthy, more pastorally sensitive, or superior in any talent to women. I have also never read a critique of the Church’s teaching that did not explicitly or implicitly rely on clericalist assumptions. The myth of Catholic misogyny is well addressed in terms of the practical care the Church offers to women (and men) throughout the world. Has any institution educated more women? Fed more women? Clothed more women? Rescued more female infants from death? Offered more assistance or medical care to mothers and their born and unborn children? Members of the Church have undoubtedly behaved badly, but no less have members of the Church undoubtedly behaved well, heroically well. When they have done so, they have been even more fully incorporated into the mystical body of Christ whose Head came to serve all, love all, and save all, and in whose image—as God—he created both male and female. article snippet from Christopher kaczor professor of philosophy at loyola marymount university.
Nubby,
Do you feign ignorance for a living? Where did I say – in my EXAMPLE – the catholic church is mysognist? Even though the catholic church is mysoginist by not letting women who want to become priests and perform masses for example to accomplish their dream but that's not what I said in that particular example.
I put “an institution” not “the institution” or “a religious institution” or “the catholic church”. So it could be any mysoginist institution, if there is any that I'm not aware of, entendeu?
Michelle,
I'm not the ignorant one in church matters.
You don't understand diddly on ordination.
Women cannot be priests anymore than a man can be a mother.
It's not the role of women in the church to celebrate mass. There are numerous other ways women are involved in the life of the church. Priesthood isnt one if them.
This doesn't mean women are oppressed as you wish to make it look. Swing and a miss. Yet. Again.
Get some facts behind your outrage.
Nubby,
There are women who wants to be priestesses and they can't because your church doesn't allow that.
I've already watched a mass being done by a priestess and it was way better than a priest; which it means they can do the job pretty well, so why not?
I don’t need to remind you that your bible says women are lesser beings who are the men’s property along with the house, the slaves, the ox, the donkey, etc, do I?
Michelle
You were fully implying to justine that the church treats women as lesser. Why else comment this unless you meant to imply such an erroneous point?
“I don’t want to participate and follow a religion who doesn’t accept and respect me for who I am. For example, you –as a woman -would you be part of a misogynist institution that lessens you all the time because of your gender?”
Shouldnt be so unclear if that's not what you meant. And to be intellectually honest, it is exactly what you meant since your immediate reply to me consisted of women's ordination.
Hello!
Good God. The bible teaches that, eh?
Foolish foolish horribly incorrect analysis. Should quit now since your credibility is zero.
Nubby
Darling, obviously we have different opinions. I won't change my opinions. So, I'm not going to answer you anymore because I don't like to waste my time with people like you.
Have a good day
Nubby, watch this one about womenpriest.
A Womanpriest Meets a Little Girl
Bingo. Stacy.
Well, Michelle. There's opinions based on truth and there's no harm in them. And then there's opinions like yours based on hate so deep and ignorance so far out there it is astounding.
Those are the ones I will fight against as far as my Church goes. You truly don't understand what the Church is, nor what she truly teaches and why. So please, get educated. Til then, you should remain silent. You look foolish. All due respect.
Well, Michelle. There's opinions based on truth and there's no harm in them. And then there's opinions like yours based on hate so deep and ignorance so far out there it is astounding.
Those are the ones I will fight against as far as my Church goes. You truly don't understand what the Church is, nor what she truly teaches and why. So please, get educated. Til then, you should remain silent. You look foolish. All due respect.
This post has been removed by the author.
Nubby,
Even though I don’t like your religion it doesn’t mean I hate you for being a catholic. We have different opinions on some matters and I’m ok with it, I don’t hate you for it…I don’t hate you at all, since I don’t even know you in person.
Each person has his own truth; I have mine, you have yours and they are opposites. Let’s leave it that, ok?
I’m not here to try to change your mind or keeping you from being a catholic. What you don’t seem to understand is that I left your church for reasons that are known only to me and me alone. If you don’t accept, I really don’t give a damn. I don’t have to prove myself to you, to Stacy or to anyone else since I’m an adult woman and I know what’s best for me. The best for me is not nullifying myself to please others, for a religion I don’t follow anymore and in the name of a god I don’t believe in. The best for me is to accept who I am, to live my life at its fullest and to be with the people I love and who love me back. That’s what gives my life meaning.
If you think that is hateful, fine. I’m not the one here who is bitter till the point of being intolerant towards those who don’t share your worldview and your religion.
Now, this conversation is over.
Goodbye and the force of Thor might be with you
Michelle posted a couple of scriptures on another post and was waaaay off on her interpretation of them.
I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic school, received the sacraments, the whole sha-bang, and guess what…when it came down to it I didn't know a thing about it.
I had to make my faith my own and start praying, studying, reading, researching, etc.
From what Michelle posted regarding scripture in the “Mommy, can I marry you” post, she hasn't done any of this. Just an observation.
Dear Mrs. Trasancos-
It's people like you that make me and my gay friends so suicidal. Words hurt. Please stop. You're killing us.
Love, a thirteen year old lesbian
PS- due to people like you, I've attempted suicide twice.
Liesel,
I am not your problem. You were hurt before you found me and if I agreed with everything you want me to agree with you about, you'd still be hurt.
And you'll never understand why you are hurt if you continue to find others to blame.
Are you getting help for your suicidal thoughts? I hope so. Please tell your parents.
The writings of a same-sex attracted man who has seen the light. He speaks with a balance of faith and reason (and FACT) – which is all the Church stands for anyway (most people hate the Church for what they THINK it stands for rather than what it really does).
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_catholics_against_gay_marriage.htm
I pray that he inspires many same-sex attracted people to embrace the true purpose of their sexuality – which will lead to true happiness.
My brothers and sisters, you are not alone in your struggle and you have my deepest respect and full support for your strength which comes from Christ in not believing the lies of the enemy, and instead embracing the truth of the perfect fruitful purposefulness of your body and the bodies of your brothers and sisters, which are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and deserve to be treated with the dignity equivalent to their worth as a most precious child of God.
Too many same-sex attracted people who fight the good fight against what they know to be sinful and disordered desires in pursuit of true fulfillment in Christ seem to lose their voice in this debate – rejected by the same-sex community, and often overlooked by those who support marriage for what it is, always has been, and always will be, no matter what secular law or popular opinion dictates.
So I stand for them. I am not same-sex attracted, but my sister is and I pray one day that the fullness of the truth will set her free. She is on her way back from the dark times though – praise God
Research and statistics all support the preservation of the Catholic insititution of marriage as a most sacred and awe-inspiring sacrament of mutual fruitful charitable love – so even without a religious agenda, why does the battle against reason endure?
Christians who disagree (though I can't think why as our God instituted this most holy, fruitful, and permanent sacrament) – you need to get into Theology of the Body and get to know why it is more loving to speak the unpopular truth than to condone that which will lead to the suffering of all – love the sinner, hate the sin. Humanity is not the enemy here. Holy Spirit, as You have promised – lead us into all truth. Through Christ, Amen.
Thank you for that link and for your thoughts. The link is wonderful! I'm bookmarking it.
Most welcome
Spread the word – perhaps if more people knew what was really going on their “support of equal rights” argument might be better informed and they too might see the fullness of the truth that we promote 
Here's another thing I found through discussions with a Catholic co-worker who supports same-sex marriage (he's actually a Church Historian who started out as an apologist and was a seminarian).
http://jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng59.html
“Gay” Priests spreading poisonous doubt
This is also interesting:
http://www.tldm.org/news7/homosexualitySaints.htm