Monday, August 29, 2011
Stacy is under attack from the "tolerant" left. Please go show her your support.
After Stacy at Accepting Abundance dared write a blog post re: her frustration about being unable to take her kids to the park without their being exposed to homosexuals' romantic displays, all hell broke loose on her.
Go to her post today for more, and please show her some support:
You Duped Me, O Lord
It's hard to wake up to over 32,000 hits from teenaged atheists who are full of hate, including death threats to Stacy and her young family.
Lord have mercy.
As Mark Shea is so fond of saying, the new mantra of the "gay community" is: "Tolerance is not enough. YOU MUST APPROVE!"
ReplyDeleteI also find it ironic how 99.9% of the commenters are hiding under the cloak of "Anonymous." If you're so proud of your beliefs and your words, why not identify yourself, if for no other reason than to facilitate conversation? I can only conclude that "Anonymous" commenters are so ashamed of their own words that they can't own them.
Professor J Budzieszewski discusses the "two scripts" of the "public relations of moral wrong". There is a happy, cheerful public script to make the populace see that everything they stand for is good and loving, and then there is the darker private one…. Being anonymous lets them speak what is truly in their hearts and let go of that false public display.
ReplyDeleteJoAnna, here is another great quote about tolerance:
ReplyDelete"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 itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil." - Archbishop Chaput
Thank you Leila and thank you JoAnna! I can't even keep up with those comments.
ReplyDeleteSomeone sent me this today. Really good!
http://blog.adw.org/2011/08/on-the-martyrdom-of-evangelization/
"Professor J Budzieszewski discusses the "two scripts" of the "public relations of moral wrong". There is a happy, cheerful public script to make the populace see that everything they stand for is good and loving, and then there is the darker private one…. Being anonymous lets them speak what is truly in their hearts and let go of that false public display."
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's interesting to see what the "shock troops" of a movement have to say, even when they're acting anonymously. Dr J was discussing this script-dualism prior to the advent of blog comboxes (and to some extent even forums), since it seems to me that his point was that the message for the "shock troops" was never meant to be heard by the general public. That, or the strategy has changed to simply browbeating their opponents (we already knew that they would do that), but in the most shocking, vitriolic, and uncharitable manner possible in the hopes of simply breaking us down. Aren't these the same people who were gung-ho on that whole anti-bullying campaign?
Just left a comment for Stacy now, Leila. I'm surprised at how few supporters there are speaking up for her.
ReplyDeleteI posted anonymously, because I don't want those crazy people linking back to my blog and filling it with the same hate. My blog is mostly for my family and they would be really offended to see those comments.
I'm going to go say a rosary for Stacy now--and all those people who hate us Catholics so much.
This is EXACTLY why Oblate Sisters of Mary Magdalene pray for the Sacramental Vocation of Marriage & preservation of the family. Stacy will be rewarded in heaven ten fold!
ReplyDeleteI sent Stacy an email with my support. Both the post from the other day and her post from today are just too crammed full for me to hope she'd catch my support there. But I fully intend to post on this.
ReplyDelete"Blessed are those who are persecuted for my sake."
ReplyDeletePeople with that much hatred and anger scare me. Disgusting.
ReplyDeleteAnd we were having such an interesting discussion before the (literal) hell fire broke out...
ReplyDeleteIt's a fallen world and our world seems to have lost it's moral compass. We seem to have crossed that line. Sadly I don't think there's any turning back. I don't say that in despair, I just think it's gone too far. As I've said before Leila, these people have paved the way for more madness yet to come.
ReplyDeleteIt's like we need a cleansing, a sign from God to let us know how much we're hurting Him. But it doesn't matter because even if He gave us that sign, people wouldn't listen. They never do.
I for one don't even want affection displayed in front of me from heterosexual people. It's uncomfortable, ya ever hear the phrase, "Get a room". It' been said since I was a teen and a couple started to kiss. It means we, the people around, feel uncomfortable with too much couple affection.
Sorry you have to go through this Stacy. I get a stomach ache reading about this, much less having to actually see it.
Blessings.
So basically, Stacy, this mother who "can't go to the park" (i.e. refuses to go to the park because technically she can go) and also Leila are, instead of loving thy neighbor and accepting everyone for how God made them, are instead spewing hate, judgment, homophobia, and also teaching their children how to hate. I find this way of thinking very sad but quiet frankly if Stacy wants to sequester herself in her house simply because she is so closed minded then society won't miss her.
ReplyDeleteHi Stacy,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, good for you! You said something that needed to be said about our rather loose society. I personally don't like to be exposed to public displays of lust, heterosexual or homosexual. I think making out in a park, on a bench, at the movies (any public gathering) is a sign of immaturity and raging arrogance. It shows a lack of dignity and a greater lack of respect for others.
As far as response to what you blogged, did you really not consider the consequences? "What they have done to me, they will do to you..." There are watchdogs out there on both sides of morality and they know when to attack. I have been to some "Catholic / Christian" sites where the responses can be just as virulent, numerous and in the name of anonymous. There are imbalanced people wherever you turn. We created this society... they are a product of our creation. My point being, we don't live in a bubble, Catholic or otherwise. Blogs and the internet are likewise unable to exist within a bubble, Catholic or otherwise. Once you say something, it's out there, for all to see, and for all to comment. We live in the world. We don't have to be of it but we have to live in it. We should always remember that our times aren't any different or more immoral than any of the times of any of the saints before us. They came into the same world at points in history when a dark society needed them most. They lived and spoke as directed by the Spirit and often times suffered nasty consequences from society and even at the hands of their own Church.
All I can offer you is a hearty "hang in there girl", and prayers. What I have, I give to you.
Leila, I love that quote! I sit here now debating on putting it up on facebook because I fear the retribution of of some of my facebook "friends". I commend your courage and hope that I can learn from it!
ReplyDelete@JSteele Let's see... if one doesn't agree with you they are some sort of maniacal bigot. The intolerant haters are people like you who feel that those of us who live our values are here to be berated by people of your ilk. It's a FREE country and she is entitled to her opinion just like you. I'm African American, but I don't waste my time judging people who display the Stars & Bars. That is their heritage that they have a right to, regardless of how I feel.
ReplyDeleteGet a grip!
J. Steele,
ReplyDeleteSo basically, Stacy, this mother who "can't go to the park" (i.e. refuses to go to the park because technically she can go)
Read the post in context, please.
and also Leila are, instead of loving thy neighbor and accepting everyone for how God made them, are instead spewing hate, judgment, homophobia, and also teaching their children how to hate.
Evidence of this, please?
I find this way of thinking very sad but quiet frankly if Stacy wants to sequester herself in her house simply because she is so closed minded then society won't miss her.
That's the thing, Stacy doesn't want to sequester herself but feels she has to given that she can't bring her children out in public without viewing displays of immorality at a place that's supposed to be safe for children.
J. Steele, we just had a debate on the last post about "homophobia". Can you tell me how it manifests itself? Because some of my regular atheist readers assured me it only means "beating gay people up and doing violence". In other words, the extreme. I questioned them on it (because I think they know it means more than that) and said that I have been called homophobic, as has the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteCan you clarify? How does homophobia manifest?
Thanks!
Well, it's certainly quieter in here than in Stacy's blog. Maybe there's room in here to have a civil conversation instead of having comments lost in a whirlwind of e-flames.
ReplyDeleteI'm an atheist, formerly practicing roman catholic. I work with a buddhist and 2 muslims. The rest of my coworkers are christian and atheist as well. Everyone gets along. There is no disrespect. The muslims are allowed to pray twice a day and leave early during the ramadan. Conversely, noone takes offense when I chomp down on beef or pork.
I don't think adults should kiss in a park when children are around. People are offended because homosexuals were targeted. Would it be ok for straight couples to kiss in front of Stacy's children? This is an important point.
I do get offended when people are discriminated against. Your theology might tell you that homosexuality is "the devil's temptation". Just as we know how the tides go in and out, we know that homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and that these relationships are no different than heterosexual ones. It's a fact that you need to accept.
Conversely, atheists are being flagged as evil teenagers. Some atheists did say nasty/unacceptable things but that goes both ways.
Anyway, I hope this doesn't turn into a war. I came here hoping the exact opposite.
I'd just like to get a straight answer from you catholic folk. Given that the bible can't be taken literally, why do you dislike homosexuals?
Welcome Sterling!
ReplyDeleteYou said:
we know that homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and that these relationships are no different than heterosexual ones. It's a fact that you need to accept.
Actually, no. We don't need to accept that homosexuality is normal. It's in reality a disorder, much like pica is on the food-eating plane. If homosexual attractions are ordered, then pedophilia is, too, and pica, and alcoholism.
As for being a former practicing Roman Catholic, you are aware, then, that we are not sola scriptura Christians?
Also, this statement makes no sense:
"Given that the bible can't be taken literally, why do you dislike homosexuals?"
a) Many parts of the Bible are to be taken literally.
b) We don't "dislike homosexuals".
So, I can't give you an answer to such a question. Can you rephrase it?
Thanks!
PS: I am not offended by two heterosexual "sweethearts" showing mild (very mild!) displays of eros affection (quick peck on the lips, hand holding, some goo-goo eyes). I would not care if my children were exposed to some very sweet and mild romance.
ReplyDeleteAny display of homosexual eros is not something I would ever want my children to see. (Two men giving each other a peck on the lips? No… I don't want my children to know about homosexuality when they are small and innocent.)
Just as we know how the tides go in and out, we know that homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and that these relationships are no different than heterosexual ones. It's a fact that you need to accept.
ReplyDeleteA fact is something that can be proven with empirical evidence.
Given the FACT that biology has a male and
female of the species and that the reproductive systems of the male and female are "united" in order to procreate, then your statement is only true if one can separate the biology of sexual intercourse (to in fact have children and propagate the species) and the unity needed between the male and female of the species in order to achieve the biological purpose. But of course that would negate the original FACT, so it cannot be true.
Given that the bible can't be taken literally, why do you dislike homosexuals?
Aside from those who do actually dislike and hate homosexuals (and the funny thing is that same group of people usually hate Catholics too), what makes you say we dislike homosexuals. I loved my father-in-law, but the fact that he was an alcoholic and drove my future husband home from a friend's house drunk at one point means that I dislike very much the actions of the choices he made. It doesn't mean I loved him any less, rather I loved him enough to know that he shouldn't have been making choices like that.
Now of course the argument will become, am I really comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. That's another topic altogether and maybe one I'll address on my own blog at some point.
But the point was, that people can make choices that are immoral, sinful, and just plain bad both immediately and in the long-term for them. We love them anyway, but we will not love or accept their choices or their behaviors and what we dislike is being told that we are bigots, intolerant, homophobes, or whatever other name one can come up with because we don't accept their choices and behaviors with love.
And BTW: We don't take the Bible literally. We never have.
Does that make sense?
And yes, I'm still here, contracting and stalling, and contracting and stalling, and contracting and stalling.
Still contracting and stalling??? That baby is a funny little joker!! :)
ReplyDeleteWell the kids have been on a knock-knock joke kick lately. Maybe the baby just knocking and then forgetting the punch-line...
ReplyDelete:)
My sympathies, Bethany; I had a month of prodromal labor with my youngest daughter (she ended up arriving 3 days late, after several false alarms).
ReplyDeleteThanks to all for the support and prayers, every single one. I know it's crazy over there, but something is telling me to let it run its course and see what happens. After you read so many "oh your poor children" comments, it all runs together anyway.
ReplyDeleteStacy, your children are so blessed. :)
ReplyDeleteGood on you Stacy. I said my two cents under a different name and left it at that because they brought up so many strawmen arguments, that it was hard to know what to answer. I just don't have the temper or patience to address that angry mob.
ReplyDeleteJust to give you an idea of how wrathful that community can get, my very liberal sister complained how gay people were doing more than just mild pda. They were engaging in intercourse behind the bushes at a park where bird watchers like herself like to go. She complained that she couldn't bring her daughter. Some bird watchers complained and they got the same kind of wrath that you are getting. Mind you, my sister is for gay rights and all and even she was offended and couldn't believe the gall coming from the gay community. I think we have to remind ourselves that we're fighting against more than just a group of people. Our battle is against the evil one and we have to pray fervently for this angry bunch that has cluttered your combox. They have so much hurt and anger and are obviously not at peace.
I'll keep her and her family in my prayers. Thank you for sharing this.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify the following:
ReplyDeleteAnd BTW: We don't take the Bible literally. We never have.
When I say "literally" I'm referring to the Fundamentalist Interpretation approach as outlined in the
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
which can be found here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm
It is the last method listed in Part I: Methods And Approaches For Interpretation, it is letter F.
If anyone is so interested in discovering how Catholics interpret the Bible, I encourage you to read the report.
Hope that helps clarify things.
Leila, I read some of the comments on Stacy's blog and quite honestly, the cast not your pearls before swine scripture comes to mind. I don't see how anything fruitful will come from continuing to respond to them, and I think she should regain her sanity through prayer and move on. It is only going to get worse for Catholics and our arguments will not make sense to those who have conformed to today's worldly ideals and standards. Stacy, thank you for speaking your mind as I think at this point we still have freedom of speech. His grace is sufficient for you.
ReplyDeleteWords of consolation from Jesus Himself
ReplyDeleteMt 5:10-12 Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.
Lk 6:22-23 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.
Jn 13:16 no slave is greater than his master…
Jn 14:1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled.
Jn 14:19-20 "If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you, 'No slave is greater than his master. ' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
But
Lk 6:27-28 love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
Stacy- you're awesome. That garbage flowing in your comment boxes is nothing but a pathetic display. Keep on.
ReplyDeleteWow. Upsetting the Reddit beast is only for the brave. I've seen this happen elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteBTW, there are a lot of advantages to using the anonymous tag. It's quicker, and it leaves your idea to stand on it's own. And you know, sometimes that's important.
BTW, I know we've talked biology here before. Lots of different animals have a LOT of different sexual behaviors that look NOTHING like sexual behavior in our culture. When I say that, everyone says "But do you expect us to act like animals?". No, just don't cite biology because it's never that simple. Everyone makes the man:woman pairing sound like it's a natural fact that's absolutely pervasive when it's not.
Leila, there are folks who do not have a blog or an account in places, and it may help them to have anonymous posting options. Furthermore, it may allow someone shy to ask questions honestly without retribution. At least consider reintroducing it... it's important.
No, just don't cite biology because it's never that simple. Everyone makes the man:woman pairing sound like it's a natural fact that's absolutely pervasive when it's not.
ReplyDeleteI'm really confused by this. By specifying, as I did, the species (homosapien) then why isn't the biology, not that simple. Because another member of the animal kingdom doesn't necessarily follow the same biology. I never claimed it was supposed to. But biologically speaking, the species homosapiens does indeed rely on a male/female pairing for procreative purposes.
Bethany,
ReplyDeleteRight. To reproduce. That's it. Biologically, all that's required for future generations is reproduction. Evolutionary biology has very little to offer you beyond that.
Unless you consider other ideas. Such as the fraternal birth order effect, possibly influenced by a different womb environment as a mother has more kids.
Or places where cultural anthropology has acknowledged [Queer] individuals playing an important role in raising children in the community.
There are a lot of things that affect human development. It is not as a simple as "you need a man and a woman" to explain the "morality" of heterosexuality.
Cultural anthropology and birth order can do zero to influence or drive or indicate a moral or immoral reality.
ReplyDeleteThat which does sexually happen, can happen, might happen, and should happen between a man and a woman has everything to with morality or immorality and biology to boot.
"That which does sexually happen, can happen, might happen, and should happen between a man and a woman has everything to with morality or immorality and biology to boot."
ReplyDeleteNubby, if you derive your complete moral set from an ancient book filled with long lists of rules and the weirdest stories, then that's probably correct.
Oops! I meant to quote this part: Cultural anthropology and birth order can do zero to influence or drive or indicate a moral or immoral reality.
ReplyDeleteinstead. My bad.
Hi Stacey, a good article of Msgr. Charles Pope to console you and a few suggestions when being scorned:
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.adw.org/2011/08/on-the-martyrdom-of-evangelization/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=on-the-martyrdom-of-evangelization
Shall I derive it from a threesome fish egg/sperm swap,assume said fish must be gay, and therefore negate all the ancient, true, historical, and upheld beliefs of that book called God's word?
ReplyDeleteZach, you know, you never touched the last thread's questions to you about your idea that we should abolish marriage. I sure wish you would, including Chesterton's point about removing a fence before you know why it was put up. It sounds like you are saying that everything that has come before, regarding morality (esp. sexual morality) should be jettisoned. Is that simply to accommodate your sexual attractions?
ReplyDeleteAnd, if we must go with our sexual attractions (and not natural law and/or revealed morality), I still want to know how dare you tell a man attracted to children that he should fight what he was made to do?
How can you hold both positions at once?
Zach, I would love to go back to anonymous comments. When Paul Rimmer, the creepy, obsessed stalker, can promise never to darken the door of this blog again, I will do so. But he has promised before and he has been proven a liar. Very sad.
ReplyDeleteAnd, if anyone wants to post an anonymous comment, they are free to email me (or anyone) and have it posted for them.
ReplyDeleteWow. Upsetting the Reddit beast is only for the brave. I've seen this happen elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of your fellow atheists, Zach? I find them vulgar and disgusting when they think they are alone and in their element. Sick. And the videos they make with the F-bomb and boys kissing, etc. Do you excuse this crap? It's like being in hell when I see and read that crap. Sorry, but their mommies never taught them any manners, or else they are the types who hate their mommies anyway. If they were my kids, I'd wash all their mouths out with soap, but good.
Are you comfortable around that type of ugliness?
Nubby, if you derive your complete moral set from an ancient book filled with long lists of rules and the weirdest stories, then that's probably correct.
ReplyDeleteOnce more, everybody, with feeling!
Catholics are not sola scriptura Christians.
We derive our moral code from the Catholic Church, which predates the Bible. Please, Zach, try to remember that you're not dialoguing with Baptist fundamentalists here.
I went to her site and read 2 or 3 comments and had enough. I added my own comment which stated that I appreciated her stand and, in the end, God will have the final say-so and sort everything out. In the meantime, we must take care not to fall for any of the Evil One's lies. I pray for all Catholics who stand up for what is right. Peace and God bless.
ReplyDeleteI support you 100% Stacy. Be strong and wait for the Lord! (Today's Mass ready.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless you and your family
Steve
I just want to say Leila and JoAnna, you guys are awesome. Way to jump into the fray and defend Stacy from their attacks taking on every bully who dared throw a punch. I wish you guys had gone to high school with me.
ReplyDeleteBarbara
Barbara, thank you! I just can't get over their intolerance. And yet you know they fancy themselves the most tolerant of all. Ummm, yeah.
ReplyDeleteSterling and J. Steele, where'd ya go?
And Luis, what a beautiful reminder!
Paul, does your wife know you are harassing a woman on her blog when she has asked repeatedly and forcefully and even privately for you to STAY AWAY? You have promised to leave (after your sickness and insults and stalking), and yet you keep coming back. Does your wife condone your harassment? Or do you keep this from her? Is this part of your private fun?
ReplyDeleteAnd does she know about your aliases (five that I can count, including impersonating a Frenchman)? Paul, you may need therapy. I have alerted my police friends about who you are. If anything happens to me or my family, they know exactly where to look. Now, please go and harass other women, if you have to fulfill some sick need.
ReplyDeleteBlogger won't allow me to block individuals, Paul. If I could, I would have done so long ago. You are a creep and there is something very wrong with you. A real man would have never stayed to make a woman feel uncomfortable. Why you would stalk a woman when she has asked you to stop is beyond me. Tell your wife, Paul.
ReplyDelete@Paul Rimmer Okay, the next time my kids & I drive past a crack house, I will tell them that there are some people who love crack the way you & I like ice cream... Stacy should have every right to enjoy the park as anyone. It's not just gay/lesbian PDA that bugs me... its ANYONE'S PDA, gay or straight that very often leads to something inappropriate for a public place. I've found used condoms in my church parking lot & my liberal friends & family said, "Well, at least they used protection." WHAT THE...?! Then every so many years, our metro parks are the site of busts of gay men having promiscuous sex pick ups in the men's restrooms. I have told both of my girls that demonstrative affection has its place. I think that EVERYONE needs to remember that a public place is just that: PUBLIC. The sensibilities of all others should be considered.
ReplyDeletePaul, if you don't care about being blocked, then why comment at all?
ReplyDeleteWHOA. Okay, sorry. Life happened. I'm back. I guess I'll take a shot...
ReplyDeleteAlso, Paul. There are lots of people here representing a lot of sides. If you're only here to harass, then get out.
As to the "Reddit beast", as I usually refer to it. It's one thing for you guys, because you are all actually UNITED under an umbrella organization. Atheism... not so much. There are things you could call collectives, but I've never found myself very aligned with any of them (aside from Hemant Mehta's Friendly Atheist blog, even if PZ Myers is still my favorite place for reading).
The fact is that many Christians, and Catholics, say REALLY AWFUL things about atheists as well. We've been threatened, thrown in the ditch and the dirt and through the mud as well. We've been told to die and go to hell all the time on national television. These people exist.
I think a certain level of humor is tolerable in debate. I obviously use it, and Gwen is always plenty sarcastic. It can help people be more concise to use a universal language like sarcasm or irony.
As for the F*** H8 videos.. I don't even know what I think. There's a big disconnect between their ideology and yours, so it more just looks like screaming past each other than anything else...
@Nubby. I'm saying the biological facts of reproduction cannot be used to derive the morality of child rearing. These are separate events.
ReplyDeleteAs for the man who loves a child... The child cannot give consent. I'm not sure I can remember what the Catholic response to that explanation is.
As per "getting rid of marriage"... To a certain extent. To the extent that the government stops calling it marriage. Period. And it still recognizes the rights of couples for legal benefits. Presumably everyone here probably agrees that if I lay dying in the hospital, my life partner has every right to be there with me. THAT is what the government should be providing to couples regardless of their gender or creed.
I am not trying to make any accomodate me in the sense that I'm asking for "legal recognition". I'm asking that the government make it not impossible for me and my partner to live our lives simply. Getting rid of the word "marriage" in a secular-by-design government is something we should all agree to!
Do you get what I'm saying? The government should be endowing legal rights and protections, not a religious status symbol.
@Joanna,
ReplyDeleteOkay. Yes. Catholics have other sources of literature. Completely unsure what makes them perfect sources of morality just because some guy you "trust" speaks the words. I get that there's tradition and history and nuanced theology, but religion is a corrupt idea at the core. So when I refer to the Bible in that context, I'm referring to all religious texts.
And, I should clarify I mean "corrupt", as in it lacks basic intellectual rigor in failing to provide sustainable evidence, falsifiability, etc.
Zach - um, it's not just "some guy we trust." It's God Incarnate who founded the Church.
ReplyDeleteWhat's frustrating is that you seem to equate Catholic moral teaching -- which has been developed and promulgated by some of the finest intellects of the last two centuries (Augustine, Aquinas, etc) -- as equivalent with sola scriptura Protestantism when the two are very different. Catholics have three co-equal sources of authority - the Bible, the Magesterium, and Sacred Tradition. All three sources must be in agreement when it comes to defining doctrine. So you see, our teachings don't come from just one source, or even just a few sacred writings here and there, but rather a long, rigorous history of intellectual debate, discussion, analysis, and discernment.
The government should be endowing legal rights and protections, not a religious status symbol.
ReplyDeleteZach, how can something (marriage) that has been foundational to every society in every place and under any (or no) creed by every race and class be a "religious status symbol"?
As for consent of minors. You and I agree that minors cannot consent to sex with adults. But there are plenty of people who think children can consent and should be allowed that "freedom". Many, many on the left push an agenda of "children are sexual beings from birth" and simultaneously that "sex is purely for pleasure." Can you connect the dots? We may be in a messed-up place today which says that "consent is the sole criterion of the good", but the day is coming when society will increasingly question why "consent" is even an issue for children. Watch and wait.
If you want your partner to be with you at the hospital when you die, draw up some legal papers. Why mess with the enduring institution of marriage and change its definition to be unrecognizable?
As for the F***H8 video, I am going to get all maternal on you: Zach, for decent people on either side of the debate, this is not a hard question. It is disgusting, indecent, inappropriate, insulting and vulgar. Don't tell me no one every taught you manners, young man. Were you raised in a barn? C'mon now.
Just say, "those videos are filth". There, wasn't that easy? ;)
Zach, I also want to thank you for confronting Paul on his bad behavior. Sometimes it takes a man to force another man to treat women with respect. I think Paul is a misogynist, frankly. Anyway, I really do appreciate it. :)
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the "natural" state of homosexual behavior & the consistent theme that the sexes can exist just fine without each other, I have just one point & one question. It is my belief that same sex lifestyles are disorder. The majority of my reasoning isn't just because of my faith.
ReplyDeleteConsider the Neanderthal. This species of the Homo genus is part of the Pleistocene specimens of Northern Europe & Western & Central Asia is extinct & the only humanoid to have no direct descendants still alive. While many people today have only 1% inherited traits from this form of ancient humanoid species, because it is believed that as they died out a scant number of them mated with Homo sapiens.
One of the contributing factors of their extinction was the fact that while they did have the complex social structure unique to humans, the flaw in their societal structure was that the sexes didn't live together to form the family structure. Early in their young lives the male children were sent to live with the other males & boys were raised by men while girls were raised by women. Much of the evidence available showed that almost none of their mating was consensual, ergo the traditional caricature of the woman being hit over the head with a blunt object & being drug by her hair to the cave for sexual activity.
This is a thing that makes me go "Hmmm..." Put that in your pipe & smoke it. What does that say about "human nature"? Or as young people say, "...just sayin' " ;-)
Iris Marie. That's an interesting hypothesis. I've heard some others, but I've certainly never heard that one. Luckily we have science to wait on to always hear more on the topic!
ReplyDeleteAs for 1%... surely that's incorrect. After all, between 99%-100% of our DNA is similar to chimp, is it not?
Leila,
If it was as simple as drawing up some legal papers to deal with every legal right and protection offered currently by legal marriage, trust me, I'd do it. My "solution" to replace marriage with a pervasive civil unionship would not affect marriages role in (or not in) the foundation of society. People would, after all, still get married, through the government and/or in the church.
Were you raised in a barn? C'mon now.
ReplyDeleteI think that's funny, actually, because my hometown is extremely rural and saying you were raised in a barn is commonplace lingo!
But no. On a lake. Can't have farms there.
With the F*** H8 group. The style is about marketing. The core ideas are still more/less the same. I wouldn't call it filth, because I think there are far worse campaigns out there. But it's not how I would run my campaign.
You cannot separate them because without the first there is no second. In other words, no reproduction no chance for child rearing.
ReplyDeleteThat is simplistic to try and separate them. Doesn't address the whole.
The style is about marketing.
ReplyDeleteZach, you are savvy enough to know that one can market good things via filthy means or filthy things via good means.
Marketing styles should not include filth and you know it.
The very title of the campaign should lead you to condemn it. Decency requires it. You know that.
What kind of market analysis has been done? To whom are they marketing? And would your opinion of this style be applauded repulsive?
ReplyDelete* or repulsive?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, this type of junk isn't something one can merely shrug at like a harmless chocolate bar campaign. There's some serious moral character lacking. Agreed?
I don't know. F*** H8 sounds like a good idea? No? Hate is a bad thing, right? I mean, this is the lingo I hear everyday around campus. I'm used to it. So I guess that's why I more/less shrug it off.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's obviously targetting the younger hip population, a group that's notorious for not going to the polls. Thus the existence of this campaign.
And I get that the language isn't the best. I mostly think the two 12-year old boys pecking each other on the cheek or whatever is mostly harmless. You wouldn't bat an eye at a 12-year old boy doing that to a girl. And that's the point.
And, I guess if you haven't picked up on this, I don't really care about marketing style as much. When I watch those videos I'm listening for what ideas they're putting out. In general I don't applaud or get repulsed by marketing campaigns.
If I had to *pick*, I would reject it. Being that brash and that vulgar is only going to make more people wince that make them think. There's advantages to being brash, and this one steps over that line.
Zach, that is good to hear. You should tell that you your friends who think that vulgarity and mocking and shock value is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteWe can all agree that "hate" is a bad thing (unless what we hate is evil itself). But can you tell me, honestly, what those people mean when they refer to "H8"? They refer to people like me, right? I am a hater in their eyes. So in that context, do you agree that we should say things like F***H8? They are saying, to me and to my Church, F***You.
You know, when I was your age (yes, the mom coming out again), I used the F-bomb as punctuation. But even then, it would never occur to me to use it in connection with an ad campaign, or even to use it in front of normal adults, or in decent company, and definitely NEVER with children around. Never, ever. Why is your generation (or your group of associates) so different? Why don't they care about any boundaries with children or society? I'm seriously asking.
Personally, I think if one jettisons all sexual boundaries, then one will not respect any social boundaries at all. It's just a natural progression. Thoughts?
Most people don't bat any eye if a boy kisses a girl because it's natural for opposite sexes to flirt. However, I loathe marketing that exploits children in any demeaning or immoral fashion to sell their product. The junk Leila and you are referring to is beyond the limits of even anything natural or moral.
ReplyDelete@Leila, the 1% is correct. I'm referring to specific genetic traits that are inherited, i.e. steatopygia found in women who are descendants of bush tribes in Africa. That number is that low & is the reason they refer to the Neanderthal to be extinct.
ReplyDeleteAnd, we aren't descendants of apes. Rather apes & people have a common ancestor, but at some point in time, the dna was divided into two distinct lines of species. There is, I believe a difference.
this should be fun
ReplyDeleteLeila are you kidding about not knowing how homophobia manifests?
Do you want to know how folks become homophobic? Or just how we see it in every day life?
How they become homophobic. Generally teachings of parents.
How we see it in everyday life. Kobe Bryant calling the ref a fag. Driving through my home town being called gay, homo, fag. Most people don't readily identify me as gay, but my husband is pretty much a billboard. People call us disordered, immoral and imply we are evil. People assume we are all pedophiles, or want to be. People say things like I can watch straight people be affectionate but not gays. Gays should stay in the closet.
Are you beginning to see and understand?
Generally society is starting to come around to the fact that gay is not wrong, bad, immoral or whatever you want to call it.
Have I explained it properly?
Now for the fhate group, you seem reasonably intelligent, do you really not see how gays can construe what the mormon church did in California as hateful towards us? Do you really not see how we could see catholics calling us disordered and immoral as hateful? The campaign is to try to get people to see this. Yeah you find it vulgar, sorry about that. And way to make it all about you and your church. You have missed the point completely. They are saying instead of deriding us give us the chance to have the happiness you have.
I am not an atheist, more agnostic. Although there is no proof of gods existance I do tend to believe there is a higher power. And I believe that higher power made me who I am. I don't steal, I don't covet and I try not to judge. I do love a man, and most who meet him love him too. He is truly amazing, brilliant and my life is more complete with him than it ever was without. So I married him, and all we ask is the legal recognition of that, which has nothing to do with religion or morality, but with rights and benefits.
You can have your beliefs, please teach your children them. But what we ask is when you are teaching them you also get them to understand that while you don't agree with it and we are surely going to hell that we are allowed to live as we see fit. Let god judge us.
Sr. Iris, that was Zach asking you, not me. :)
ReplyDeletealan, welcome. If you could, for my sake, just ask me one question at a time, or make one main point and then I will respond. Otherwise, we just multiply words. Thanks!
ReplyDeletealan, maybe we can start here: Marriage has a purpose in society. What do you understand is the purpose of marriage?
ReplyDeleteI thought my post was pretty much about homophobia manifesting which you had asked for a few times, but if you want to ignore it for now that is fine.
ReplyDeleteI was unaware that marriage had a purpose in society. For me marriage is the joining of two who love each other (and for the sake of argument can we agree that marriage is about romantic love and not confuse it as the love between a mother and son) to form a committed relationship.
It also creates a family. But my definition of family may be different than yours.
So what purpose does marriage serve for you?
Oh, I can tell this is going to go somewhere. So I'll put a few clarifications up and then step aside.
ReplyDeleteSr. Isis. I can't recall mentioning chimps as ancestors, so I'm worried you're posting these comments from just stock answers you have stored. I'm well aware chimps and humans share a common ancestor and would confuse that. I'm also uncertain you understand genomic science. What does specific genomic traits that are inherited refer to? The entire genome is inherited. I'm sure you referring to what some call "unique" DNA, and I've seen various studies, with the highest claiming a 8% similarity. The 1% figure is not fact but one that is supported by a specific set of data. In the end, Neanderthals and Sapiens shared very similar genomes in the first place, so it's hard to say what is "unique" Neanderthal DNA left in our genome. Are you another hobby scientist that is joining the ranks? I'm rarely offended, but correcting me on a point I didn't make does tweak me in a bad way.
Leila, I'm no sociologist. So I suppose I'll refer to only your last question. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home I have no control over. Frankly, extending legal rights to same sex couples through a civil partnership sponsored by the government is not "jettisoning sexual boundaries". I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. But I don't think permitting same sex civil unions will lead to a slippery slope at all.
Nubby, not everyone thinks two boys kissing is immoral. Sorry. I refuse to accept the idea that introducing innocent children to homosexuality taints them at all. There are folks who consider things the Catholic Church do as immoral. We have to accept that. We have to accept a legal system based on the health and general welfare of citizens. Exploiting children is bad news though, so you're right regardless.
To the percieved vulgarity of modern times: who knows. I try my best to be smiley and compassionate, and I hope and encourage others do the same.
And Alan, you've got to be kidding me. You're "more agnostic" than atheist, but you believe in a higher power??? This sounds like New Age spirituality nonsense that permits defining a God the way you want it to. Furthermore, in your first comment you defined a purpose for marriage ("rights and benefits"), but then you said in your second that society has no purpose for marriage. I'm a bit baffled.
Okay, maybe I'm not stepping aside at all. Oops! I always do this.
But can you tell me, honestly, what those people mean when they refer to "H8"? They refer to people like me, right?
ReplyDeleteYou can't address that, Zach?
And what I mean is, I think the hook-up culture (gay/straight, whatever) stands for the idea that sex is free and fun with no natural or other boundaries (save "consent" of course). So that culture might think nothing of making two boys kiss and then expose them to F-bombs and think it's cute and fun, plus give the rest of decent society the middle finger. I think maybe we have seen the coarsening of our culture. Ya think?
As a mother, I truly hate that you feed any part of that sickness of culture. The future does not look bright.
There are folks who consider things the Catholic Church do as immoral. We have to accept that.
ReplyDeleteAre we talking about the same Catholic church? The only one I know and live through is the very bastion if morality. She (the Church) is a mother, the only beacon of light as far as morals go in the twisted world, so anyone who thinks She's immoral or "does immoral things" as you declare here is either a fool who misunderstands her teachings completely, or is a bigot against her.
Hmm. Leila, not sure I follow your logic.
ReplyDeleteI CAN imagine how a society that accepts same sex couples as being capable of romantic love and living functional lives might be softened to the kids of two boys pecking cheeks. Right.
I am completely lost as to how the hook-up culture has to do with that. Or what the FH8 campaign has to do with the hook up culture, other than perceived correlation?
I'm simply saying homosexual relations are normal. No comment on whether sex is "free and fun with no natural or other boundaries".
For those of us who understand homosexual relationships as normal and functioning, and as a way to live a normal and happy and healthy life, preventing same-sex couples from access to basic legal rights looks petty and absurd. Note I'm not saying that's what I think, that's just how it is. "Hate" is an easy way to understand why people might do that. And it's a strong propaganda word. Some people definitely do hate homosexuals, and it's obvious in their political rhetoric.
So I'm not certain what part of what culture you think I'm feeding into.
And I say that with plain respect, as I was once a fool who misunderstood my Church. But that's a story in itself that I'll post on my own blog perhaps someday. It still stands that anything the Church teaches is never immoral.
ReplyDeleteFor those of us who understand homosexual relationships as normal and functioning, and as a way to live a normal and happy and healthy life
ReplyDeleteZach, there is nothing normal about gay relationships, and there is no normal function going on there. It is also not a healthy lifestyle at all.
Sorry, we completely disagree on that. And I will let the rest of what you said stand. I am actually too tired to debate about it right now, as I spent more time today on Stacy's blog, which has really opened my eyes further. I have one gay atheist who emailed me privately for the past two days, and his thought process is so incoherent that his trump card was to continually shout out "YOU LOSE, I WIN" and then tell me that "your god doesn't matter" "your bible doesn't matter", etc. and that I am a bigot who wants children and LGBT families (?) to suffer, so therefore I am "an evil person" who is also a "whore" (among other things). He said he is happy, but I tell you I have never encountered such a miserable, unhappy, bitter and confused person.
It's just such a different world from the one I live in, and I am so eternally grateful for that. I just need to lay off the debate for tonight and get down on my knees and thank God for His amazing grace, love and mercy.
Enough of being Alice down the rabbit hole for one night.
Blessings!
Nubby, you'd better get that blog started!! I will present you to the world!
ReplyDeleteUmm poet of singularity, new age nonsense is nonsense but Catholic dogma is sensical? That what you are saying. I was born and raised catholic. I still hold some of their beliefs (i.e. god exists with no factual data) but I don't hold on the notions of immoral and moral as that has been ever changing in the catholic church. Also I will admit people like Leila make me question the existence of god.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the purpose of marriage in society then to you poet?
Alan,
ReplyDeleteYou think I said Catholic dogma was sensical? Spend a little more time here. And you consider the morals of the Catholic Church to have been "ever changing"? Can you explain that more?
And you can call me Zach :)
I will admit people like Leila make me question the existence of god.
ReplyDeleteIt takes that little to make you doubt? Then it's not about me.
Zach, perhaps you are right about my take on the morals of the catholic church not changing. It is the fables in the bible and sequels that are changing. I keep mixing the two up, which as I have seen is not acceptable. But you read the book and you see all sorts of things that are abominations that no longer appear to be.
ReplyDeleteLeila, really that is what you respond to? I have attempted to have a dialog with you to little avail. I answered you question about homophobia, but you chose to ask what I thought the purpose of marriage was. I answered that to no avail as well. I realize this is your blog and you don't agree or even like my opinion, so if that is the case then please say so directly. And yes I am sorry but people like you (and yes it is you and them, in fact it is most religious folks who don't use their "free thinking" abilities to understand others) make me wonder about god with your views. I understand where they come from but I just have such a hard time understanding them.
ReplyDeleteClearly god did not make me gay, but according to some I have no choice in being gay, but I do have a choice to live a life without romantic love because god says so.
But really please before banishing me and continuing to ignore my questions without using religion explain how homosexuality "is not a healthy life style at all"?
Alan
ReplyDeleteZach is a gay atheistic college student. He's not a practicing Catholic.
Nubby, thanks for the knowledge, does it have a bearing on our interaction? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteI am getting confused on who I am posting to where. Believe it or not I enjoy the disenting opinons, but will admit I could do with out what appear to be condescdening responses. But if that is what I get I guess I signed up for them by posting.
Thought you might like to know that about Zach, since your last comment referenced that he reads the bible and sees abominations where you don't. Just wanted to clarify that Zach doesn't believe in those abominations as pertains to homosexual relations. And as to him reading the bible, he can tell you whether or not he has.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Leila has excellent posts on the dangers of homo sex, natural law, and marriage. I suggest perusing those as she's answered a lot of points you've brought up thus far.
Wait, now the stories in the bible are changing? And in the sequels? There's a sequel to the bible? How much of the bible have you read? There are abominations (I assume you refer to one of the Pentatuch books, like Leviticus), but aren't you aware at least of Jesus and the New Covenant?
ReplyDeleteI mean, I'm atheist, but I'm not following you at all.
And really, I'm confused how Leila's existence and her opinions would directly affect your own view of God.
Nubby,
ReplyDeleteI used to be a practicing Catholic, and I read the Bible and studied it fairly intensely (as much as one can in their free time in high school). Of course, that was a while ago, relatively.
alan, first, apologies. I did not see several of your comments. For some reason, none of your comments come to my email inbox, which is where I am alerted to new comments. Do you have any idea why everyone else's comments come through but not yours? Do you have different settings?
ReplyDeleteOkay, my comments about homophobia were because of a conversation I had with Miss Gwen (who teaches and uses the word, but says she doesn't discuss morality with her students; I called her on it, because using the term "homophobia" implies that my position is immoral). Zach talked of the manifestations of "homophobia" being things like violence and bullying, not things like what the Church teaches. However, I know better. We know how liberals use the term. I think the term is contrived and ridiculous. I am no more afraid of homosexuals than I am of adulterers. We don't say "adulterophobia" do we?
Anyway if marriage does not have a purpose save "love" (of any mix and match)… then what the heck has it been around for in every culture and time and place?
Right. So I was correct.
ReplyDeleteYou are not a practicing Catholic.
Zach
ReplyDelete1. Look up sarcasm. My comment about sequels was sarcastic. New Testament, Old Testament, it was meant to be a joke. I don't pretend to be a biblical scholar, or any other kind of scholar for that matter.
What I meant however is when I was a young catholic lad around the turn of the century (more sarcasm) the bible had all these great stories of what was good and bad. Now today some have been deemed unacceptable that were once acceptable in the bible. You know simple stuff like owning slaves, not wearing blended fabrics, that kind of stuff.
And really you cannot see why the views of the arduously religious (I will not say Leila because it is not her per se) would change my belief in god? I will try to explain. They represent god here on earth (if not then why do they care if I sin, and why would they be against gay marriage?). Their beliefs are counter to what I learned of god as a young catholic. And that may be moms fault, for a good a catholic as she was she lead me to see god's love. So often that message gets lost in many of the posts I have read here. So if they believe in their god and their god is counter to my god, should I not question gods existence.
It might be an example of hyperbole (golly I hope that is the right word, but if not I feel certain you will let me know it is not). I believe in god, but as you pointed out earlier perhaps it is a new age mumbo jumbo (ok not direct quote but I really have no desire to look for what you actually said) god.
Alan, please read this article (written by a gay Catholic) and perhaps it will help you better understand the difference between the Old Covenant (i.e., Old Testament) and New Covenant (i.e., New Testament) as they pertain to Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality.
ReplyDeletehttp://courageman.blogspot.com/2009/03/god-hates-shrimp-fallacy.html
JoAnna, thanks that link was helpful. However it did not change my mind about morals and such changing, as the article seems to say yes they have. It also says that it does not say that homosexuality is an abomination, but merely that it was intended to say that. The reader has to discern that. And as it says homosexuality is mentioned only about four times, not the six to ten that I have heard people here quote.
ReplyDeleteSo see like most articles and statistics I can read them and use them how I see fit. The I is the important word here. YOU read them and get what YOU want, I read them and get what I want.
But thanks.
for some reason my comments to Leila seem to end up in spam but my other comments seem to get through ok. Weird
ReplyDeleteLeila, I find that I think a great deal when I go to bed and when I wake up. I will admit that your Little Catholic Bubble has been on my mind a lot lately.
And this morning I was thinking about you and homophobia. I cannot agree that it is a contrived and ridiculous. As man has created all words all words are contrived. Ridiculous, while I get why you think that it is anything but true. But I will give you it may not be the best word for it, but it is as close currently as one can get.
I am sure you wonder why so I will try my best to explain.
You have stated you love the sinner but hate the sin. I think I can say that as fact. So you in fact do hate homosexuality. Hate can and often does lead to fear. Pretty quick road there.
Now when we say fear, well yeah you do fear it (and we all know Stacy does) because you dread going out because you may see gays acting erotically, which from what I gather means showing any sign of affection. You think it is your job, duty and right to correct our behavior and to even stop it altogether (all though asked Stacy still has yet to respond to how she would change seeing it in public, do you think you are up to the challenge?). Again some would call that hate, some fear.
As stated before some call us names, fag, queer, homo (and I have seen the term homo used here in many different contexts). You may think that is not bad, and while I don't let words hurt me I don't like they way they are spouted. I am sure you would not use those words, but rather use words like disordered and abomination. Not sure if you would say those words to us in public, but I gather that there are many posters who would have no issue coming to us and saying things like that to us or asking us to stop. And guess what, that is not love, but it is kinda hate.
I know this wont make any sense to you, and Zach may come along and tell me it doesn't make sense, Nubby may come along with her two cents, but I think if you read it and think about it maybe then you will start to see the point I am trying to get across.
LOL and Nubby, Leila, Zach and any others who mention the F*&^H8 ad campaign, if you were to really look you would see that the ad campaign is actually NOH8. The other campaign is an off shoot of that, and yes I agree it can be vulgar. The NOH8 is not, well not intended to, but as you see any kind of same sex affection (and trust there are plenty of heterosexuals involved in NOH8) to be vulgar but is intended to show that there is nothing wrong with being gay, being in love and being open.
ReplyDeleteNo I shall stop posting unless I see some response or something that raises my desire to do so.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteYour opinion is that there's nothing wrong with gay love or gay anything. However, you're on a Catholic blog, so at least read the Catholic angle as to why the Catholic faith goes hand in hand with natural law and then discussion can happen.
You don't agree that anything is disordered about two men/two women having gay relations. What is that based on? Your feelings? Where's your moral foundation or authority? Feelings? Emotions?
The Church doesn't run on emotions. The Church has teachings in place to guard it from emotional take-over. No matter the sinners that are members, the Church herself espouses Truth.
Someone can link you to all kinds of reading; I'm sure Leila can direct you to her own posts on such things as natural law, Church authority and the like.
Nubby
ReplyDeletewould love to answer your questions, and I will but first please define for me disordered.
Alan
ReplyDeleteDisordered, sexually speaking, is defined by the catholic church as that which is against the natural law. Ie, the law that is knowable to each person according to his faculties.
The Catechism describes homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered": "They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
I'll add to this
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies . . . must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
Paragraphs 2357 and 2358 in the catechism of the catholic church, I believe.
Alan
ReplyDeletePlease note the Catholic church does not teach or claim that people themselves are disordered. It's acts and desires in all of us that are on some level disordered. Not the human person in his or her integrity. Meaning that no matter the disordered desires, passions, vices, we are all children of God made in his image.
I say this because a huge misunderstanding that follows on the heels of a discussion on disordered passions and how the Church explains such things, is that the Church deems people as disordered or unworthy and that is absolutely not the case.
The crux for all of us who believe is to overcome ourselves and live for and through Jesus Christ.
Alan, your stuff isn't going to spam. It's just not coming to my email inbox, which is bizarre and has never happened before.
ReplyDeleteOkay, first. One can be against something, even find it sinful, and not fear it. So, you are wrong on that. If there were a campaign to call adultery a civil right which is good and true and ordered, and if I had to sanction it as a citizen, I would be against it, too. No fear, just opposition to the condoning of sin.
I wrote on ordered vs. disordered, here:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-about-ordered-vs-disordered.html
You think having gay sexual activity is "ordered" because you "feel like doing it". But having a feeling or an urge is not enough to make something ordered. A pedophile has "natural urges" and so does an alcoholic or even a serial rapist. I hope you would see that while those sins are very much based on what the person "wants to do" and even feels they were designed to do (as naturally as it comes to them), they are still disorders.
The Church has never taught something as innately moral and then reversed to teach it as moral. Protestantism? Yes, they have. They do not have the protection of the Holy Spirit since they left the Church centuries ago. That is why you will see their teachings on contraception, abortion, gay sex, etc., changing over time and with the spirit of the age.
The Church will never change her teachings on faith and morals. That is simply a fact and 20 centuries prove it. It really is extraordinary, but that is why the Church is trustworthy. One does not have to worry that doctrine will suddenly (or ever!) change. Jesus built His Church on a rock, not on shifting sand.
Blessings!
Nubby, thank you for that important clarification! It's true, we all have disordered passions and inclinations. All of us! And we are all worthy of redemption and the love of God.
ReplyDeleteAlan if you read this by a gay Catholic man, you might get more insight there:
http://www.stevegershom.com/2011/08/what-did-you-expect/
Thanks and blessings!
LOL Nubby
ReplyDeleteI asked for a definition of a word. I guess you answered it how you would answer everything, with the catholic definition.
So now I will answer your questions.
Clearly I don't see gays as disordered. But then I will go with the dictionarys definition of disordered. As well as medical thoughts that there is nothing wrong with gays.
I get that you are catholic and this is a catholic blog, but the point of my being here is to get you to see that although for you to think that way is fine, but it is not the only way to see things.
My morals, like my looks, come from my parents. They are/were amazing people. And yeah some of it comes from catholicism as that is how I was raised. But I guess Mom was one of those free thinkers (sorry but I do so love Leilas term for us) who could realize that she could still follow the catholic church while realizing that others could do as they saw fit, and essentially that only god could judge them. Dad was a protestant and non practicing at that, so religious teaching was not so strict in my house. But morals were. So that is where my moral foundation came from.
I get the catholic teachings will never allow you to agree with gay marriage. I will most fervently that you could understand that the love I feel for my husband is a tremendous thing, not one to mocked as has been done on certain postings, or to be treated with disdain. Again it is easy to fear what you do not understand, and you all have no idea or understanding of what it is like to be a homosexual.
I hope I answered what you wanted in a way that makes sense to you
Alan
ReplyDeleteI don't fear you. I just vehemently disagree. Please don't equae that to fear or fearing you.
By disagree I mean disagree with not calling sin a sin as put forth by Christ and his church. In other words, I won't endorse any behavior in myself or fellow man that goes against the faith or natural order. Or reason.
ReplyDeleteLeila,
ReplyDeleteFirst I am not wrong. Your opinion is that I am wrong, but your opinion is in no way fact. Do you disgree that Stacy fears going out and seeing PDA's by gays? Regardless of why she does. That is homophobia. But yes homophobia is not so much a fear as it is a hate. So in one sense my opinion is you are correct. But there are also many out there who fear it.
I cannot even argue with you about pedophelia, alcholism and serial rapist. If you cannot see the difference then I really really fear for you. Homosexuality harms no one. Period, that is not open for discussion. You have no authority to speak on it. But you comparing these as all the same is akin to me comparing and saying that protestant, catholic and muslims are all the same. You do worship the same god, so what is the difference?
I am sure you will have quite an opinion to the last statement, and that is great. People see things differently.
What I think I love a great deal about all this is the fact that sex and love are not treated as seperate entities. I am attracted to men. Yeah I have have genital play (another one of my favorites) with some. I am now married to one. It's how I am. Sorry kids.
I have to laugh at your "because I feel like doing it" as a detriment, but then turn around with I cannot get married legally because you said so (and yes god but currently you are gods mouthpeice)
You chose catholicism, I did not choose homosexuality. I spent a long time fighting it, but in the end it won. I am happy that Steve can live his life without know the true love of another. You will argue that he does, he knows gods love, and the love of his parents, siblings church, but I think that even you can acknowledge that the love of/for your husband is different than those.
As a final not to this, my 84 year old father has no issues with me or my gay brother. His opinoin is the only one I need.
Heaven awaits me like it does you, perhaps when we both get there we can have tea.
Alan, I would love to have tea with you in Heaven. I will count very much on God's mercy to get there.
ReplyDeleteOkay, you misunderstood my point about alcoholism and pedophilia, etc.
My point is in how we determine what is moral. We don't determine what is moral based on whether or not it "hurts" someone. That is so subjective anyway! Who defines what is hurting another? Or society? So subjective. A thief who steals a thousand dollars from a billionaire is still a thief, and stealing is still a sin, even though no one was "hurt" by his stealing.
If you are not arguing the morality of your acts on "what feels right" or "feels good", then on what basis are you arguing it? I'm not clear on that.
As for "true love"... Please tell me if you would think it moral for me to go and have an affair if the man I loved (the only one I truly loved) was the man who was not free to marry me. What if I had a husband at home and children who counted on me to be a good mother? What if my true love had a wife and children? What should I do? Forego "love" or go ahead and have the affair so that I could be "happy"? Let's say no one would ever find out. Would it then be moral?
You know, if my husband were injured and could no longer have sex, I would stay with him and live without sex. Because I love him and I love my own human dignity, and I love God too much to go find sex somewhere else. I don't need sex to live (no one does...it's not like food!), but I do need love. True love. You may love the man you are with, but if you truly love him, you would put the needs of his soul ahead of his desires for you and vice versa. It's difficult, yes! But virtue and truth and goodness is always difficult. But so worth it!
Alan, what is homosexual activity ordered toward?
ReplyDeleteAlan, please read Marie's story. She gave up her "true love" (with whom she shared an eros love) to find a higher love, agape love:
ReplyDeletehttp://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-awesome-gay-lifestyle-to-catholic.html
It was not easy, but God's love is so much higher than the love she shared with her girlfriend. I hope you will read and understand.
Leila,
ReplyDeleteI don't really like tea, so I hope they have beer.
While I understand this is a catholic blog and you are catholic my hope was a greater understanding on both parts. I by no means insult your faith, as stated before somewhere my mom was a woman of tremendous faith.
I simply don't view things as ordered. I can't remember the line exactly from a movie but it was something along the lines of life is messy (it might be from Parenthood). Life is not ordered, it just is.
I did read Maria's story and it made me sad. I know you don't get that, but I feel awful that she felt compelled to give up the love of her life (although not necessarily a concept I agree with) when that love is what so many wait their lives to find.
I think you think my marriage must be some kind of orgy or something. I am with my husband til death do us part. If he should be injured I will be there for him. I do not take a marriage vow lightly. I want that forever, and cannot imagine a life without him.
To imply that my husband and I are not virtuous is short sighted. I have never met a more giving person in my life. He spends countless hours trying to save children in third world countries, not by trying to save their souls, but their very lives. To imply he is not virtuous and good is an insult. Just because he loves a man.
sorry so many questions I could not remember them all.
Alan, there is good and bad in all of us. But to say that a sin is not a sin just because it's the sin you particularly like, well, that is not a valid argument for sin. I am sure you both possess many virtues. But virtue extends to the sexual faculties as well.
ReplyDeleteDon't be sad for Marie, as she is actually a very, very close friend of mine and she is an extremely joyful person! I hope you read the whole thing? She has found the "pearl of great price" and would not go back to her old life for anything.
You would be sexually chaste if your partner was incapacitated?
And when you say you don't view things as ordered, then there we part ways. Everything is ordered toward something. Everything is imbued with a meaning or a purpose. We are not animals, we are moral beings. The Fall of man has left our world fallen and broken (which makes life "messy" -- I love that line, too, by the way, and yes, it was from Parenthood!).
Our God is one who heals and puts things back in order again, if we follow him above our own base instincts (which are dark and clouded from sin).
I wrote about the basics of the Fall and the need for Christ, here:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-i-never-learned-part-i.html
Yes, I put it very simplistically, so forgive me for that. I want to reach everyone.
Alan, you seem like a nice guy. I don't doubt that. But we are made for higher things. I hope you put your mind and heart on those higher things, as Marie did and as Steve is doing. There is so much more truth, goodness and beauty waiting for you and all of us if we focus on God and His will, instead of ourselves and our own feelings. Reading the lives and writings of the saints is so edifying and even mind-boggling!
Blessings!
I know I am supposedly "on their side" but I hated the name calling myself, and had to stop reading the comments on Stacy's blog after ten.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was sad that they felt that they had to use such strong words.
Can't figure it out.
Leila,
ReplyDeleteI notice that you and Stacy both respond to only the things you choose. Kinda funny really, but then I remember where I am.
I notice you totally ignored the part about my husband.
And yes should my husband become incapacitated I would be chaste. I don't know why you continue to equate gay with sex. My love for him is greater than anything else. Notice I said nothing about you implying I was not good or virtuous because at the end of the day I don't really care what you think of me.
And for your possible infidelity, well that would be a puzzle for you to decide. I don't believe in cheating, but I would never put my morals against you. You would have to decide what is right for you.
"You would have to decide what is right for you."
ReplyDeleteWould that be true of all morality, Alan, or just sexual morality? I'm seriously asking.
And what are you talking about? What did you want me to say about the man you are with? Did you want me to say he is full of virtue? I have no idea who he is. I trust you when you say he does good things to help others. How does that have anything to do with the morality or immorality of his sexual activities? Totally confused on what you wanted me to say?
I don't equate gay with sex, you do. I have pointed you to gay folks who don't have sex and are committed to a virtuous life (including sexual virtue) and they are not seen as credible voices for how to live as a gay man or woman.
So, not sure what I didn't answer or what you think I am supposed to say?
Blessings!
Chelsea, to understand where the anger, rage and ugliness you saw comes from, I would love to put you on the list to get the book I recommended on the Natural Law:
ReplyDeletehttp://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-you-read-only-one-book-this-year.html
It will help you understand why they react that way. Let me know if you want me to put you on the list.
Thanks!
And for your possible infidelity, well that would be a puzzle for you to decide.
ReplyDeleteStill trying to get over this one, Alan. Because adultery isn't a puzzle for me. It's a sin.
I would love to get the book!
ReplyDeleteDo you need me to resend my address?
Chelsea, I think I've still got it! I'll put you on the list. :)
ReplyDeleteAll morality. Society as the whole will decide some morality, but at the end of the day only you can decide what is moral for you. (like murder, stealing etc. However society will change it's morals with the times, like allowing women to vote, blacks to have equality, that kind of stuff)
ReplyDeleteFunny how you have no idea who my husband is but you can imply that he is indeed not virtuous or good because he acts upon his gay feelings.
Go back and look at so many posts. I will say you are better at responding than Stacy, but you still have over looked some. It's ok, you are busy.
But I did list some facts that I am surprised not one catholic touched.
"I don't equate gay with sex, you do." The i'm rubber you are glue argument?
Sex is an aspect of being gay, yeah, but why did you feel it necessary to ask if my husband was incapacitated would I leave him? I think I have been up front about the seriousness I feel towards my marriage vows.
I have pointed you to gay folks who don't have sex and are committed to a virtuous life (including sexual virtue) and they are not seen as credible voices for how to live as a gay man or woman. See above. I assume you have sex with your husband, or have as you have 8 kids. It is part of marriage, which is a loving and committed relationship. You don't see that because you still think gay is sin. I get that, but you asked for my opinion, I gave it, it is counter to yours.
For adultery then you have your answer. You would not do it because it is a sin. But wait maybe you would because you are also human and humans are capable of making mistakes and not being virtuous. My point is my morals have no sway over what you do.
Are you trying to make adultery illegal?
The best part of this dialog is neither of us is right, neither of us is wrong. I figure you wont see that, but until death there really is no knowing. Unless you know someone who has come back?
I have been lurking on this thread for some time now. I just want to say, wow, Alan. Just wow.
ReplyDeleteYou are caught in a one answer loop & every time Leila answers one question, you come from behind, declare she ignored something & ask a semi-related question. Then you make a diatribe, disagreeing on several points. When she addresses those points, you come back again, with the second point retooled & ask about it again...Wow.
Where you got the notion that she implied negatively on your partner's character, AFTER you said she ignored him, but when she doesn't you... ah, Man, I'm dizzy...
I shall slink back into Lurkdome! :)
Yes, I do know someone who has come back: Jesus Christ. And he founded a Church which proclaims his truth (He is God).
ReplyDeletehttp://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-jesus-really-die-and-rise.html
Morality is not what you or I or even society says it is. It is revealed by God and also known through the natural law. You don't understand the source of morality. You are not the source, nor am I. It doesn't matter what opinion either one of us has, or what we do. Morality is not determined by either one of us.
As for sex, I will say delicately again that you cannot have sex with a man. Only women can have sex with men. It is anatomically impossible for you to have sexual intercourse with a man. That is just a biological fact. Marriage is intrinsically connected to sexual intercourse (consummation) and sexual intercourse is intrinsically ordered toward procreation. That is why the state has had a vested interest in marriage, as have societies for all of mankind. Because of the binds that tie a mom and dad together and to their offspring.
I am not trying to make sodomy illegal, by the way. I am trying to preserve the meaning and nature of marriage, defending it against redefinition and thus meaninglessness.
Don't be too hard on Stacy. I wouldn't have been able to handle that very nasty mob she encountered, either. Very sad.
Blessings!
thanks Sr.Iris Marie, oh wait you did not mean that as a compliment
ReplyDeletePlease reread. Plenty of missed questions by Leila.
Not really caught in any answer loop at all. See I am a freethinker. I don't believe in religious doctrine. So while you think she has me caught I don't see it that way.
But me thinks Leila's implication of my husbands virtuous comment was before I said she ignored my posting of how virtuous he is.
Not sure how you miss that many answers are the same as before, but again pretty much what I expect.
Leila has been polite and respectful as I think I have as well.
We have different ways of seeing things is all. Different beliefs. That is what makes the world great.
Leila, round and round we go.
ReplyDeleteI know we will never get the other to see things the others way, and I think that is great.
For me you on the sex you are disagreeing over the word. You can call it genital play, I will continue to call it sex. I know the difference between intercourse, sodomy and such. Kinda doesn't make sense to me to disagree.
I still don't see how it is marriage that ties a family together, because to me in the end it does not. The intent of the person is what times a family together. Marriage does not now, nor has it ever tied a parent to a child, a man to a woman. They have always been free to leave at any moment.
And as I have been told before that we gays can get legal protections to replicate those we will get by marriage, well the state can go after fathers who don't support their children for financial renumeration, but unfortunately no one can make a parent responsible for a child if they do not want to be.
Sr. Marie, this is the basis of my disagreement. Marriage does not hold families together, the people in that marriage do.
Again I hope that makes sense, even if you don't agree I do hope you follow my "logic"
Your welcome, Alan. Oh wait, you meant that as a gotcha at me... oh well. I meant that post to just be a bit of levity for this thread & my questionable memory is a well documented issue. :( I am sincere in my confusion over your arguments. Yes, you both have been basically respectful, I am just not understanding your perspective. Maybe it's my age, but I just don't get it.
ReplyDeleteFor someone who doesn't care about what many of us think, you have devoted a lot of energy in making your case. You have the right to do that, of course, along with a right to live the way you like. I'm sorry for the people who have used your sexual orientation as an excuse to be rude, disrespectful & mean, but I just don't think that people like Leila are a threat to anything you hold dear. The way I see it, life is too short. Like I said early on, as a black woman in America, I don't waste any time arguing or pleading my case to members of the KKK. They are entitled to their beliefs, regardless of how twisted I may perceive them. When I was younger & heard their hurtful remarks, I would feel just that: hurt. But now, with Christ in my heart & God in my life, I have a shield around me. One day, I pray I will see the Face of God & live in His Divine Glory along with those I love in this life. Nothing else really matters to me. So, I think I will unsub from this thread & get some rest for the rest of my weekend. I pray that you will have some of the same for your holiday weekend.
Alan, I cannot say your partner is or isn't virtuous, because how would I know? I trust that he does virtuous things (we all do, I pray). But does he practice the virtue of chastity? I don't think from what you say that he does. I think, from what you say, that he is engaged in homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are sinful in nature. They are disordered. You never talked about my discussion of the disorder of alcoholism, pedophilia, etc. Can things be disordered in your mind? Your attractions are disordered (but attractions are not sinful, only actions are).
ReplyDeleteI don't think we will get too far talking about what marriage is. If you don't understand that marriage is a social institution from all of history which is about the bonds of men, women, and the children they create, then I don't know what to say. Your relationship is not ordered toward life or procreation. You cannot have sex with him (sorry) and you cannot do what the body is supposed to do with those parts (what those parts were made for). Biologically or morally. If you want to expand the definition of marriage to mean any two people who want to make a commitment, then why can't everyone and anyone get married? Why only two, why only adults, why only humans?
Makes no sense to me.
If marriage means anything we "want" it to mean, or anything we "feel", then how can you deny it to anyone, at any time?
Again (did I ask you, or was it someone else? Sorry, it's been a long week), what is the purpose of marriage?
And what will you say or do now that pedophilia is being normalized in the same way gay sex was? Are you going to be able to have a philosophical or moral leg to stand on?
What is the source of your morality, if not God or natural law? Your feelings? Seems a flimsy place to stand.
Blessings!
PS: If I have missed a question, ask it again. I don't think I missed any?
ReplyDeleteAnd if you can number them, it would make it more clear to me. Thanks!
Sr. Iris Marie
ReplyDeleteI take most things with humor, it makes life more palatable.
i don't suspect you will ever understand my arguments as they are not based on catholicism. I think my points have been clear, but as they are counter to what you think you will never see that. I understand.
And I like the exchanges of ideas, which at heart is what this has been for me. At the end of the day I don't know any of you, and as I don't get my sense of self worth from strangers, your opinions do not matter. Not meant to be offensive, it just is what it is for me.
i am glad to see that you realize I have a right to live as I see fit. That is the crux of my argument.
What you fail to understand is Leila and her cohorts do threaten what I hold dear. You see they want to end my marriage (and whether you like it or not I am legally married). If Stacy's original post is read correctly, and what many catholics have reiterated, is that they want to do away with my right to be who I am in public. They do not want to see me be affectionate at all with my husband. See I love this man, disordered or not, so I don't see why my touching his arm or looking at him lovingly in public is a threat to anyone. So by them wanting me not to, and by Stacy's not so veiled threats to attempt to change that with her vote, so yes they are a threat to what I hold dear.
Again I hope this all makes sense.
Leila many questions have been missed, in many of the conversations I have had on both your blog and Stacy's. I am sure most have been unintentional (and I don't mean you personally, I mean all the posters in general) but I have no foolish notion that some aren't intentional.
ReplyDeleteI have no energy to go back and find what has not been answered for me.
And I understand that you don't understand what I am saying. If it is not catholic doctrine you don't see it.
I am not going to keep going into where my morals come from, I have explained this.
I have explained what I think the purpose of marriage is.
I have not gotten and answer from anyone on the question of whether or not it is understood that society does not need marriage for procreational purposes. Marriage does not hold a family together, the people in that marriage do. To me it's that simple.
I applaud that you have such strong convictions. My simple request is that you allow me the same. That is where the problem lays. You cannot do that. This is where I can say I do. You can practice your religion, you can classify me as a sinner, you can call me disordered (I am not), you can call me an abomination (I am not), you can teach your children all that I am all that I just mentioned, but as far as I am concerned you cannot dictate my public behavior. It just is nor your right.
But then again at the end of the day I have what I want. My marriage has all the legal protections allowed, and I pity the person who tries to take that away from me.
alan, that is clear enough, and I do love clarity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as you can see by my post below, your "rights" have now started to infringe on my right to practice my faith. This nation was founded on the principle of the government not infringing on my religious freedom and my conscience:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholics-your-misguided-compassion.html
It is very sad to me, and I can't take it lying down, of course.
I hope you would understand that I don't want my small children to retain their innocence (called their "latency period"). I don't teach kids about sex until they are mature enough to understand it (I don't believe in sexualizing children… kids should be kids), and I also do not want my small children to even know about something called homosexuality. Why should they be taught about it? Why should they see it? Why should they (as some liberals have forced) be taught about it in school, even as young as Kindergarten? I'm sorry, but that is not necessary and it is infringing upon my children's right to be innocent for as long as they should. I do resent that my children have to be exposed to such things when they are small and tender (whether it be sex or homosexuality). There is no reason, other than someone else's political agenda.
Marriage does not hold a family together, the people in that marriage do. To me it's that simple.
This is what cohabiting couples (and gay couples) used to say about "it's just a piece of paper and we don't need it to be committed!" Well, if that is so, why did you fight so hard for the right to "marry" as gay couples? Why can't you be like the cohabiters? What is the difference between living together and being married? And if you say it's the legal benefits, then I would ask if legal benefits were always the only difference between the married and the unmarried in all the societies in the history of mankind, in every culture? (Of course not.)
So, why has every culture done two things: Married and buried their dead? Why?
Other than that, I will let your comments stand and we will obviously continue to disagree. You have not answered many of my questions, but that's okay.
Blessings!
WHoops!!! I meant to say: "I hope you would understand that I want my small children to retain their innocence (called their "latency period")."
ReplyDeleteFirst I have tried to answer every question you have asked, but acknowledge that I have missed some. Some you seem to continually ask because you don't like my answer. That is ok as I am sure I do it to.
ReplyDeleteSo lets get what to what I agree with first.
Yes children should get to be innocent as long as possible.
I agree that homsexuality does not need to be taught in the schools. Nor does religion. They are public for all (unless you use private schools which I would wager a great many catholics use). That being said I don't think they necessarily have to be shielded from it either. But see again you have the perogative to send your child to a school where they don't learn about it.
Now sadly when you are in the public arena you don't really have so much of a choice what you children are exposed to (just like public schools). It is short sighted and slightly arrogant of you to feel that a light show of affection between two men or two women in public some how infringes on your rights to practice your religion. Stay away from the gay moms and dads to start with. Quick story, I have two christian male friends. They are huggers (I for the record am not a hugger). When they see me they hug me hello and goodbye. Doesn't matter if we are at their house or in public. Now your kids see that and ask "mommy why are those men hugging? How do you respond?
Now for what I said about marriage, I don't see how it could be more simplified. Society on the whole would not cease to exist without marriage. Yes of course marriage does hold some people together as couples,but since marriage began people have been able to get out of it if they wanted to. Some will tell you marriage started as a way to basically sell women to a man. Dowry's and all that fun stuff. And then it was to protect women. You know what I have not really done an amazing amoung of research on the subject. I have done enough to know 2 things.
1. It has changed over time.
2. Secular marriage and religious marriage are two different entities.
part 2 :-)
ReplyDeleteThe government was also created so that all people would receive equal treatment.
Now as I responded to another poster I too have not researched all cultures and all times, so I can indeed not tell you if marriage has always existed and in all cultures. I do know some researchers have suggested that the catholic church used to perform gay marriages, but I am not sure I buy that either.
I am also uncertain that all cultures buried their dead. Were there not some that burnt them on pyres? Sent them out to sea? Maybe that was in the Sinbad movies I used to watch.
As far as the difference between unmarried and married I am not sure how you want me to answer that. I find the question somewhat irrelevant, but I am sure there have been cohabitators through all of time, and yes they did not receive the benefit of legal marriage. I am also fairly certain that legal marriages has not always carried the benefits of tax breaks and inheritance and such. But see the thing is now it does, and we live in a far more enlightened age. And yes over time society will change. I am sure you church has changed some over the years.
So to recap my marriage does not infringe on your right to practice your religion. I am married and Stacy (because I know she lives in MA with me) still gets to practice her religion, still gets to teach her kids what she wants. No change to you.
It does not allow you to tell me I must live by your morals and by your churches teachings. So if that is what you mean by it infringes on your rights then I gotta start to wonder if you truly know what rights means. I am married, you still get to believe in your church. The two are not mutually exclusive.
So I hope that I responded to everything in your last post.
One final shot across the bow of your argument: "Society on the whole would not cease to exist without marriage." Well history tells us that that is just not true. Societies, all societies on the planet now, have marriage of some form. Native Americans had people pairing with a ritual long before Europeans started to take over this hemisphere. All of the tribes in Africa, Asia, etc. all had unions between a man & a woman, obviously families to perpetuate the species.
ReplyDeleteYou may have rejected my Neanderthal anecdote & analogy days ago. That is fair enough, but how about a more modern example: The Shakers. That was a sect or denomination that didn't believe in marriage. All of its members were celibate, there was no marriage & no births. While they did engage in good works, that group finally died out in this century. There are no more. There is a lot of beautiful craftsmanship left as a legacy, but no one to witness to the truth of its existence. THEIR SOCIETY DIED OUT. So, the idea of no problem with keeping a society alive without marriage between a man & a woman doesn't hold up. Remember, we are opposed to heterosexual couples "shacking up", for the same reason. Statistics don't lie & people who lived together before marriage have no better chance of lasting than those who don't. The whole, contemporary feeling about family is having a detrimental affect on the institution of marriage. Not just gay & lesbian relationships, but the whole "sex is just for making us feel good", "you don't need a piece of paper to solidify a relationship" & I could go on & on, is killing the family in our society & maybe the new millenium naysayers predicting the world's demise soon has some merit. I doubt we will blow up tomorrow, but maybe a few hundred years, in the history of the world, is a short time.
I think I will make myself a sandwich sign & haunt the downtown area....
LOL Sister Iris Marie (one of my best friends mom's name is Iris, but for some reason I always called her Isis, I now want to do that to you)
ReplyDeleteI am not sure but I kind of think that the whole Shaker denomination that disappeared because they did not have marriage may have disappeared not only becuase of that, but maybe more so because they were celibate. Now I don't know much (although I did marry a doctor) but I do know that for man kind to continue we cannot all be celibate. Maybe, just maybe not the best analogy to prove your point.
But now I need to ask, if the world is going to end soon then isn't really silly on both our behalfs to disagree?
No, The Shakers are the PERFECT analogy. Their reason for not having marriage was celibacy. Your reason for not having marriage between a man & a woman is your sexual orientation. This isn't silly, it's the other extreme on the same parallel line of this discussion. THE BOTTOM LINE, HUMANS WERE MADE OF TWO SEPARATE SEXES IN ORDER TO PERPETUATE THE SPECIES. You said that society didn't need marriage. The Shakers didn't have marriage, regardless of the reason, & they DIED OUT.
ReplyDeleteNot silly, just sayin'...
...oh & Isis was some sort of super hero on TV, I believe. I've been called Isis all of my life & I AM a superhero, so go ahead, call me that! ;-)
ReplyDeleteand all, looky looky what I found......read if you dare.
ReplyDeletehttp://silkrainmedia.com/kingdomofwomen/
and not a trick, I didn't see anything dirty on it
A matriarchy is nothing new. They are women as the dominant sex in a society. They aren't necessarily celibate or lesbian. So that slices & dices its proper fit in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteactually Sr. Iris Marie,
ReplyDeleteUmm the shakers died out because they did not have sex, not because they did not have marriage.
My sexual attractions do not contribute to the fact that we all acknowlede you indeed need a man and a woman to have a baby. That is a given, no one is arguing against that. What I am saying is a man and a women do not have to be married to have said baby. It's all I am saying. Biology plays a huge role in it, marriage, ehh not so much.
Off to enjoy what is left of this day with the delightful doctor husband. I hope you too will go enjoy the day.
Yes, I understand that, but take a good look at the history of humans on this planet & they all have NUCLEAR families. See, this is where semantics come in. Two of the same sex may have a union, but that isn't part of my definition of the word "marriage". That word has been defined the way I understand it for centuries. Now, just like the recent war in Iraq & Afghanistan changed the word "troop" to an individual, we now are redefining "marriage" to simply be the union between two. Or for Reactionary Mormons, a man & a herd of women. I don't accept either of the latter two definitions. Now, I'm not saying or making any judgment about its existence, rather it's just doesn't meet the criteria to fit it into my choice of the word's usage. Just like the Shamwow, we can't do this all day.... or, can we? :-D
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is a man and a women do not have to be married to have said baby.
ReplyDeleteThis is biologically true, and societally harmful. The biggest indicator of poverty in this nation is not race, but single motherhood.
Alan, do you think it's a good thing that children are born to unmarried women? That they do not know their fathers? That there is no stability for them anymore? Do you know what kind of sadness kids are growing up with today, in the culture of broken homes? You speak very flippantly about how society does not need marriage. Actually, civilization does. Or it dies.
Do you think a child has right to be born to a married mother and father? I do. When will adults stop being so selfish and think about what the child needs? Children need both their parents, in a stable married home! And they have a right to it. And we as a culture need to uphold that as the ideal and the norm. This is not a tough one.
BTW, every culture "buries" their dead implies that they have a solemn ritual which puts their dead to rest. That can include pyres, etc.
Just like there has always been marriage.
I do know some researchers have suggested that the catholic church used to perform gay marriages, but I am not sure I buy that either.
ReplyDeleteYou are wise not to buy that, because it is untrue.
The Church actually has never changed any of her teachings on faith or morals. Not one. Not in 20 centuries. She never will, either. She is supernaturally protected from doing so, by God Himself. You will not find this anywhere else on the face of the planet. Even Protestantism (only 500 years in) has changed moral teachings a thousand times. Not Catholics. Never have, never will. Even if the whole world says that good is now evil and evil is now good, the Church will never change. That is why she is a rock and all else is shifting sand. It's something you can hang your hat on in this crazy mixed up world.
I've been blogging about marriage for some time now, over at Opine Editorials. Marriage is obvious, check your DNA or create an anthropological family tree with maternal and paternal lines. Fathers matter, and too many do not live under the same roof with their children and have an unhealthy relationship with the mother. Marriage as one man and one woman in an exclusive and mutual relationship, serves the well being of the children. What else would it be. It makes good secular public policy. You hate Catholics, that is one thing, but to deny what marriage is beyond unreasonable for people who rely on science solely.
ReplyDeleteRenee Aste
Lowell Massachusetts.
Renee, thank you! I am going to start following your blog. You and Stacy are in the same state (home of my alma mater), and perhaps you can be a support to each other in this crazy, mixed up world!
ReplyDeleteI wasn't surprised at all, by the posts. There is one interesting study from the Somoa Islands last year, in which gays are acknowledged but in the evolutionary research it found unlike unmarried straight childless, gay uncles invest in their nieces and nephews more because how else do they pass their own genes? Gay people are children first, before they even become gay adults, they have a mom and a dad, even if they are non-religious. We are only acknowledging what is, we acknowledge and are called to love all. We can not deny how human life is created and support the obligations parents have mutually, through extended family, community, and public policy.
ReplyHow can anyone say we hate gay people, when thirty years ago the Church was there for the first victims of Aids? We have to say no to homosexual behavior, because we actually do care and love. Yes, it stinks to be mislabeled with a cheapshot and lazy thinking and be called a bigot.
Do people want truth and love or an easy way out by attacking those who speak up?
Peace,
Renee Aste
Lowell Massachusetts